Talk:Rugby union

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Rugby union has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
March 10, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
October 7, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Sports (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Rugby union (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rugby union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject New Zealand (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Rugby union:

Suggestions and tasks for the page to assist for the duration its COTF.

Please add to and edit this list, strike out completed tasks

Info to add/expand:

  • Field size/markings/grass type/stadiums?
  • Section on popularity?
  • Longer intro
  • Section on attire:jersey(see also: Rugby shirt)/equip(boots, use of gloves, kicking tees)
  • IRB's proposed law changes taking place in South Africa
  • Reduce size of overview.
  • Add a section on the Laws of the Game that summarises Playing rugby union, to briefly include info on:
  • Playing field
  • Players and officials
  • Equipment
  • Scoring
  • Running and kicking game
  • Set pieces
  • Add section on governing bodies
  • Add section on variations, especially rugby sevens

Images:

  • Create image of field w/ markings etc
  • Some more images of games?
  • The playing field.

References and verifiability:

  • References and footnotes where appropriate
  • Inline citations where needed

Resources

Rugby union known as Union?[edit]

The first cite that has been used recently to validate that rugby union is commonly known as union does not wash. The cite is weak and is a blog; it is not good enough and is one person's view point. The second cite only uses the term "union" to refer to rugby union on one occasion and that is a direct compare between Union and League. In which case you could say that 'when discussing both rugby league and rugby union, the shortened form of union and league are sometimes used to avoid confusion'. All other mentions of 'Union' on the page refer to the Union, which is a completely different thing as they are generally refering to the IRFU. FruitMonkey (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I've heard it referred to as such. The name "union" though in this context is nearly always to distinguish it from "league". --MacRusgail (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Ditch the Webb Ellis myth will you?[edit]

"The origin of rugby football is reputed to be an incident during a game of English school football at Rugby School in 1823 when William Webb-Ellis is said to have picked up the ball and run with it.[3] Although the evidence for the story is doubtful,[4] it was immortalised at the school with a plaque unveiled in 1895.[5] Despite the anecdotal nature of the sport's origin, the Rugby World Cup trophy is named after him. Rugby football stems from the form of game played at Rugby School, which former pupils then introduced to their subsequent university. Old Rugbeian Albert Pell, a student at Cambridge, is credited with having formed the first 'football' team.[6] During this early period different schools used different rules, with former pupils from Rugby and Eton attempting to carry their preferred rules through to their universities.[7]"

Erm no. Rugby School codified a pre-existing game that had been played throughout Europe. The Webb Ellis story is a total myth, why are we still propagating it? --MacRusgail (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't believe we are propagating it. We have stated it is very doubtful, but if we didn't mention him, it would be re-entered on a regular basis. With Rugby School, that is a certain. We have mentioned that there were variants of 'football' being played but the sport of rugby stems from the codified sport drawn up by Rugby School and then modified by the Universities. The 'codified' is the important bit, as it is their base rules that were then adopted. I'll link in 'English public school football games' if that adds clarity.FruitMonkey (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I think we should really be mentioning medieval football - albeit briefly. Since soccer claims football's pre-codification history as its own, why can't rugby? Rugby's far more similar to these football games than soccer ever was. We should reclaim this heritage - scrummages, carrying, rucks and all...--MacRusgail (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
That is a good point, 'football' was a term for all games played on foot, not with the foot as many now believe. A term used to differentiate between games played on horseback. You look back at all the medieval village sports and they are all about running with the ball in hand, mass scrummages, ripping the ball from hand and physical 'contact'. Far more linked to rugby than soccer. Maybe an opening sentence to the tradition of team sports in Europe whereby villages would compete in a running, combative ball game during festive periods. It does show that the game was born not of the universities, just organised buy them. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Definition of a maul.[edit]

The definition of a maul is wrong. The error comes from the reference source (ESPN's rugby glossary) rather than from whoever edited the Wikipedia page. According to ESPN, a maul can be formed by any combination of three players. However, the actual laws of the game (http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?law=17) define it as being formed by: 1. the ball carrier 2. at least one other player from his own team 3. at least one player from the opposition.

According to ESPN's definition, a full back and his two wingers could be hugging each other 100m away from the ball, and this would be a maul. This is plainly incorrect!

86.43.179.77 (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of referenced content[edit]

An anon User talk:2001:8003:4401:7F01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F insists on removing information on the influence of rugby union on Australian rules football from the article – despite the fact this material is well sourced. The section that keeps being removed is:

The primary influence on early Australian rules football was rugby football and other games originating in English public schools.[1][2] Tom Wills, who is recognised as one of the pioneers of Australian football, also attended Rugby School.[3]

Keep an eye on this. I'm not keen on engaging in an edit war, but if the anon continues to remove the information, they should be blocked, or the page semi-protected. – Shudde talk 10:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have delved into a lot of histories of Australian rules football through my research for the Tom Wills article, and I can say that it is beyond doubt among professional sports historians that rugby football was the main influence on Australian rules football. - HappyWaldo (talk) 10:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I know! It's not at all controversial to say that rugby was an influence on the sport. Another user reinserted the material, so if there are further reverts I suppose we go to the 3RR Noticeboard. Hopefully it stops though. – Shudde talk 10:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The anon has just posted on my Talk—with no heading and unsigned—so I removed it. I had already posted 3RR warning on their Talk. Indications are that this is a newcomer.
This is the anon's post copy 'n' pasted:
"Hi there are no facts in writing that prove Australian rules football has influences from Rugby football or any other sports, any writings on the matter are written as theories. Please write back so we can reach a mutual ground instead of just re adding the content."
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The sources support maintaining the material. That Australian rules has been influenced by other codes is pretty much beyond debate, and that rugby was one of the more influential isn't controversial. That AFL was just invented out of the ether is a myth, but it still persists. – Shudde talk 10:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

All of the sources on the matter are written as theories not as fact, there is no proof that Australian rules football was influenced by Rugby union or any other sport. The content shouldn't be in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:4401:7F01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

"All my research points to Tom Wills having been almost solely influenced by his experience at Rugby School, with two other factors having an effect—the physical environment of Melbourne's parklands and the rules of other English Public School football games". That is Tom's biographer, Greg de Moore (First Wild Man of Australian Sport, p. 323). Sounds pretty definitive to me. - HappyWaldo (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

That book isn't written by Tom Wills, it is written by someone else, all his information are theories. There are theories that say the sport had influences from other sports but they are just that theories and are written as such. Until someone can provide a reference that proves it was influenced, not a opinion written as a theory it shouldn't be in the article. 2001:8003:4401:7F01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Tom Wills and the other founders wrote quite a lot on what shaped their thinking, and the primary sources show that football at English public schools was their starting point. Two decades of thorough research by numerous academics lays this out. Sport is an evolutionary tree, and Australian rules football isn't a lone branch that grew out of thin air. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Still you have no proof, there isn't any because it isn't true, but until someone provides a reference that proves that claim, not theories written as such like there is now it shouldn't be in the article.2001:8003:4401:7F01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

We're after verifiability not truth. The material is well sourced. You've provided no evidence for your view and have demanded further evidence on top of that already provided (which is completely adequate) for the material you've unilaterally removed. A consensus has been reached and you've decided to edit war rather than accept it. Maybe you should instead try and discuss contentious edits before making them -- this is a collaborative project, it is not about winning. Sometimes you have to accept that most people disagree with you and move on to more productive things. -- Shudde talk 08:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

New IP, same problem 203.206.208.112 (talk · contribs). Please keep an eye out. -- Shudde talk 08:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

And 2001:8003:440F:9B01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is still at it. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
... and 2001:8003:441d:9701:223:32ff:fe9e:4b9f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is the latest on the list. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Europe NPOV section[edit]

The section on Europe is extremely NPOV and pushes an agenda of Anglo-sphere V Europe that doesn't exist.

  • The spread of rugby union in Europe has been sporadic.
The spread seems to be quite even , with German union forming before the French and Italian for example . The growth in players, clubs and playing standard outside the big 6 has been sporadic
  • Historically, due to the lack of international games between the British and Irish home teams
Internationals don't grow the domestic game
  • who were more interested in facing the Southern Hemisphere giants of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa
could be written as more interested in facing the Southern Hemisphere to whom they are on a par with than hammering the Dutch off the field by a record 200 points
  • the rest of Europe were forced to create a 'second tier' of international rugby matches
Who forced them and how , held at gun point?
  • France became the only European team from the top tier to regularly play the other European countries
Because playing against yourself gets a bit boring Gnevin (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Slapping an NPOV tag and then walking away (which you initially did) is not how to deal with these concerns. I also fail to see how an NPOV tag is even relevant here? You're accusing editors of "pushing an agenda" (your words), which is a pretty bad faith thing to say. So maybe a more detailed discussion here is warranted before we start adding distracting (and possibly misleading) tags all over the place. Some of your concerns are just odd. I'd also love to see some sources on this, you've provided none. "France became the only European team from the top tier to regularly play the other European countries" -- this isn't controversial, France were excluded from the Five Nations so played more against non-Home Union sides. They also founded the FIRA as an alternative to the IRFB (which only consisted of the four Home Unions). There was definitely a British Empire bias in the running of the international game. When talking about expanding the IRFB, South Africa "... feared that the inclusion of France would lead eventually to the inclusion of other countries that would undermine the imperial fabric of the game." Another quote from the same article "South Africa also viewed the prospect of an expanded IRFB as ‘very dangerous’ if it also opened the way for ‘continental’ representation. For them, and notwithstanding the increasing Afrikaner dominance of the game, rugby was British and imperial and not even a shared wartime sacrifice could allow for the inclusion of France." [1] There was definitely a British bias in the administration of the game. Regardless, if you think this section should be rewritten maybe propose an alternative, with references. I'm sure it could be improved, and would love to see some detailed suggestions. -- Shudde talk 03:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Made a few changes, hope it clears this up Gnevin (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Influences on Australian rules football[edit]

It states in the article that Rugby union and other English public school games had influence on Australian rules football. There are theories that this might of occurred but it has never been proved. And all of the references for it don't state how it is proved. Therefore it should be stated as there are theories for this case, or it shouldn't be stated at all.2001:8003:441D:9701:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You have been doing this for close to a year now without bringing forth any evidence to back up your view. How exactly do you think Australian rules football came into being? The evidence for rugby football's influence on the game is abundantly clear and the sources used are perfectly reliable. If you want direct quotes then here's one from T. S. Marshall, a pioneer who played in the first matches and was the inaugural president of the Victorian Football Association: "The present generation of footballers is doubtless unaware that we are entirely indebted to Rugby for the introduction of football to Victoria, and that although the two games are now widely divergent, it must be conceded that the matrix of the Victorian game was Rugby." ('Rise and Progress of the Australian Game', Sporting Globe, 21/8/1937) - HappyWaldo (talk) 07:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Where is the proof in that statement? That's just someone stating a opinion, no where in there does it state proof. And same goes for all the other references, no where does it state proof. You want proof? When Tom Willis the main inventor of Australian rules football and the other inventors were were writing the rules at one point nearly all of the other inventors decide that they should just play Rugby rules. Tom Wills then said and I quote No we shall have our own game, reference (100 years of Australian football Book) How did Australian rules football come into being? it was invented. Your opinion that Australian rules football was mainly influenced by Rugby, and the matrix of Australian rules football is Rugby is simply not true. There is not one aspect of Australian rules football that you could point to and say that came from Rugby, there completely different sports.2001:8003:441D:9701:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It is clear that no amount of evidence will satisfy you, so I really don't see the point in continuing. And it's spelt "Wills". - HappyWaldo (talk) 08:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It's clear that you couldn't answer my questions, and you know you are wrong.2001:8003:441D:9701:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Echoing Shudde's comment above from almost a year ago, this page should be semi-protected to prevent this guy from edit warring under his various IPs. - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree on semi protecting this however, after all this time I'm still shocked at any link between Aussie Rules and Rugby. If people are clearly disputing and link between the two there should be some consensus simply because the two relate.

  1. ^ Collins, Tony (2011). "Chapter 1: National Myths, Imperial Pasts and the Origins of Australian Rules Football". In Wagg, Stephen. Myths and Milestones in the History of Sport. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 8–31. ISBN 0-230-24125-5. 
  2. ^ Blainey, Geoffrey (2010). A Game of Our Own: The Origins of Australian Football. Black Inc. pp. 244–278. ISBN 1-86395-347-7. 
  3. ^ de Moore, Greg (2008). Tom Wills: His Spectacular Rise and Tragic Fall. Allen & Unwin. pp. 17–47. ISBN 978-1-74175-499-5.