It is quite clear that Rugby League is not, in any way, inferior to it's Big Sister so why bother arguing that it is? Both codes have their...charms, and in the end opinion rules.
2006-10-26 02:16:18 · 12 answers · asked by lilly 2 in Sports ➔ Rugby
its not, its just the snobbery and public school attitude of a lot of unionist that perceive that.
in my opinion league is a more physical game whereas union is amore technical game.
i also think union is more "dirty" than league, stamping,biting,scratching,gouging etc is seen as acceptable in union whereas in league those kind of offences would result in a hefty fine and ban
2006-10-26 23:07:30 · answer #1 · answered by martin e 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You know, I'm a die hard Rugby League fan, all you need to do is ask a supporter of St Helens Rugby League club, like me, "Why do R.U fans think R.L is a "softer version" of their code?" I'll tell you why, its because they don't have a clue how the game is played. They've always thought that since League was formed it would never be sucsessful, well, they'll say anything to write off their Northern Neighbours game. he game is sucessful, we have the Tri-Nations, the Superleague, National Leagues, and State/County of Origin (Word depending if you live in Oz or the North Of England, and the Rugby League World Cup, (which doesn't just include Britain, Oz or New Zealand) Both games are popular, but what really annoys me, as a League person (I'm from St Helens, so I'm a natural League supporter) is when Union fans get on their soap-box, and look down their nose as League supporters, and say that Union is so much better. When we all know that both games are equal.
2006-10-26 07:03:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
League is more physical. Without question for the backs - onion backs don't really tackle as the ball either just gets passed along the line to the winger or kicked into the crowd (who seem to handle the ball more than the players).
In the forwards, the taking up the ball at speed and collision tackling is much harder than the little trots the union forwards manage followed by a 'pile on', then usually a penalty for an obscure offence.
Rugby League emphasises the exciting elements of the sport - running with the ball, exciting passing and tackling. All scrums and restarts happen very fast to get the ball into open play as quickly as possible.
Try watching both codes on telly without the sound, League is easy enough to follow, in union much harder as you have no idea what half the penalties are for.
Also the fights are much more exciting in League
2006-10-27 00:55:06 · answer #3 · answered by sid 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both codes of their pros and cons...
Union for example is a more technical game with contested scrums, line-outs, rucks and mauls. As such the play is slower than that of league. League is faster paced with the focus being on ball handling skills, the tackling style is different and being a good one on one tackler is vital.
As there is no set-piece play or breakdown play there are no specialist players in league and players transferinjg from league to union often struggle (there are exceptions to this i.e. Jason Robinson). On the otherhand when union was still amateur many union code players earned money playing league and were highly succesful.
As a union player I find that the pysical contest of going up against my opposite number a challenge of skill as well as physical prowess, however I enjoy watching the fast paced league games.
2006-10-26 11:40:14 · answer #4 · answered by mjen192000 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I was born in Sydney and for many years was a mad rugby league fan. However, I was converted to AFL for two reasons: First, Super League and I saw how the players treated their supporters with contempt. Second, my son decided to play AFL when he was 7 - he is 19 now and plays for Ainslie in the Canberra competition. Watching it over the years I have seen what a great game it is for young people. It teaches hand eye coordination and ball skills with a degree of tackling. In AFL there is a place for big men, small men, quick men. For young people Rugby League and Union is about size - and I have seen 100kg players in the U/14 competition. It's amazing more kids don't get hurt. It teaches them that Jonah will win every time.
2016-03-28 08:07:08 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that the perception is the stature of the players. If a man is bigger he is perceived as being more physical.
The men in RL seem to be built for running and therefore their tall slim stature is not perceived as physical. Whether they are less physical, I don't know because I have not played in a Rugby League Match.
But I am only American and what do I know!
2006-10-26 03:50:09 · answer #6 · answered by Keif 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am a fan of both codes where the game is played to a high standard but any union fan who thinks league is inferior should take a look at ''State of Origin'' games.For the life in me I cannot understand how they play at such pace for 80 minutes.
2006-10-26 05:12:36 · answer #7 · answered by pasky 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am a rugby union fan. I do not think League is a 'softer version'. Question answered.
Those that support one form of the game are generally going to side with the arguement that their particular sport is better (or 'tougher' for those with issues about the size of their genitalia). It is natural caveman behaviour
2006-10-26 04:21:14 · answer #8 · answered by Kiwi Chicken 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The breakdown in RL is usually the end of most contact. Whereas in RU the breakdown can often be the start of some heafty physical contact (for example the ruck or maul). Rucks and mauls do not exist in RL and it is therefore softer.
Rucks are particularly dangerous areas, where some heafty hits can occur at speed. Also if you lie on the wrong side of the ball in a ruck, god help you!
The lineout is another area where physical contact and confrontation exists in RU which does not exist in RL.
In the area of scrums, I do not know that RL actually have contested scrums. I thought they were not allowed to push, and they also had less men in a scrum (therefore less pushing power and pressure on the front row).
It seems completely obvious that RU is a tougher sport, and that it is little wonder that most RL is played in the north of England where they are all softies!
2006-10-26 02:29:02 · answer #9 · answered by James 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
i don't think RL is a softer version to RU. i am a hardcore union fan and never used to think they(league) played to their potential. but now i am a hardcore both codes rugby fan. i just hope in future that people will like league as much as union.
2006-10-26 16:20:56 · answer #10 · answered by sToRm_GuRl 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Union fans have obviously never played Rugby League or they would know RL is the harder more physical game.
2006-10-26 02:34:05 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋