Talk:Rugby union

Template:Releaseversion

Proposed Addition

I would like to propeose that information be added to the origins of the game, it is commonly known that the first rules were put into placeat rugby in england but it is also true that the game was initially introduced by scotttih students studying there i will try to find a reference before adding Duffin1989 18:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC) if any objections please tell me and give reason thank you.

Also information on first international game (Scotland v England) and other firsts. I will post here first

I have never heard this but if it is properly referenced then it should be included.GordyB 18:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

There used to be informatio on the SRU's website, i have not found it yet but will keep looking. Duffin1989 15:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Mechanics vs. Reasons

There are a few nuances between rugby and other sports of similar look or feel and just knowing the mechanical differences does not usually help you understand the reason why you would do it the way it is done in rugby. Reading this article before I started playing rugby help to a point, then I watched it played in real life and had questions about why players were doing things that seemed counter-intuitive. For example the ruck; it might look an Am. football fan like a fumble recovery. This article says that anyone can pick up the ball (might help to say that person MUST be on their feet) but that a ruck starts after an opponent contests the ball. I think it would be helpful to say why a ruck would ever start, why the ball wouldn't just be fought for like a fumble in Am. football. Also, why after a ruck is started why a team would stop pushing and step away and at other times would continue to push; when a team that seems to have "possession" could lose "possession" and why doesn't someone just jump in and pick it up. The video is more for players learning finer points rather than an outsider trying to understand the game.

Rucks are only one point that are explained how it works and not so much why. I have only played a few months and so I don't know a lot about the strategy, and as a back do not have much chance to be in the rucks other than curled up after a tackle, and I might try to clarify the "why" along the way where I think it might need it. Just understanding the rules does not always mean you understand the game and helping with the "why" should help a lot of fans understand the game better.Billy Nair 17:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The rugby league article has a playing rugby league article as a split off. I think that this might be a good idea for this article too. There is probably too much detail here for a main article already but not enough to fully explain the game.GordyB 17:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Billy Nair's points are all completely valid, but having to explain *all* those nuances in a general article would make it huge. -- GWO

Breaking ties

How does a tied knockout tournament match get decided if, after 80 minutes and extra time, there is no winner? I can vaguely remember the commentators talking about a very arcane system of penalties being taken during the 2003 World Cup final, but I don't know any of the details. Googling for variations of 'extra time' and 'rugby union' just gets a lot of references to Australia vs England and no helpful explanations of the procedure. Any help? 88.111.204.13 23:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the way it's determined is written in law. It may well be different for every tournament. This might be one reason why it's not included here. I would be very surprised if there is a standard method of determining a winner. - Shudda ^talk 01:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It varies from tournament to tournament, and is at the discretion of the tournament organisers. The only thing in Law is that players under 19 must not play extra time. In English lower-league competitions at least, the most common tie breakers appear to be

i) Team that scored the most tries wins then

ii) Team that scores the most goals from tries (i.e. converted tries) then

iii) Away side wins (obviously, something else for games at neutral grounds)

-- GWO

If scores are level at full time the match is decides by a seres of penalty kicks taken from various positions on the 22 meter line, with the same system as a penalty shoot out in soccer (best of 5 then sudden death), this is known as a kicking competition. The use of extra time is used at the discretion of the tournament organisers, at professional level it generally consists of 20 minutes extra time before the kicking competion is used, although some competitions, such as the world cup, may add another 10 minutes of extra time after this in which the first side to put points on the board (goal or try) is declared the winner (http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/EN/Home/Tournament+Rules/). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.140.14.54 (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

NB: The above is for the World Cup. It does not necessarily apply to any other competitions. -- GWO

Confusing article

Can anyone explain the rules in a better way? The video link helps though.Superplaya 08:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the laws are simply complex and difficult to pick up without actively studying them. Specifically which parts of the article could do with a re-write?GordyB 10:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell what needs re-write. It may be the best that can be explained but without the video it's hard to get. But what does it mean by The ball can be passed in-line or backwards, but cannot travel forward? How do you score if you can't take the ball forward?Superplaya 05:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Taking the ball forward and passing the ball forward are two different things.In american football you can do both but whereas in [[[rugby Union]] you can only pass the ball back --Cometstyles 08:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

In terms that someone more familiar with American football would understand, lateral passes are allowed but forward passes are never allowed. The ball can be carried forwards as in American football.GordyB 18:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

So to score you always have to run in it in the end zone? I get it now, but shouldn't the sentence be like the ball can be passed in line, backwards but not forward.Superplaya 04:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I checked the article, it does state that all passes should be backwards or lateral. To score, you need to actually touch the ball down (hence 'touchdown') rather than merely have the ball cross into the endzone. See Comparison of American football and rugby union.GordyB 20:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The ball cannot travel in a direct line (laterally) only backwards, and you score a try (not touchdown) when one part of the ball hits the ground on or over the tryline, and before the dead ball line (the end zone) Travsuth 06:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The term 'touchdown' is used in rugby to refer to the grounding of the ball, secondly you are wrong about lateral passes, they are 100% legal. The laws don't allow 'throw-forwards' (as defined by how the ball leaves the hands of the thrower), they don't say anything about 'flat passes' that are neither forwards nor backwards.GordyB11:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You're spot on about forward passes. However, the IRB and the Laws consistently use the word 'grounding', as opposed to 'touchdown', when talking about how to score tries. -- Captain Pedantic (aka GWO)

I was using terms that an American would find easy to understand 'touchdown' is used in American football as is 'lateral'. I don't think many rugby fans say 'lateral' either.GordyB 18:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Of Course he is spot on about the forward passes, everyone knows that. I aint ever heard anyone refer to a try as a touchdown, and I have been playiong Rugby for 15 years in South Africa and Australia, (I live in Australia) Travsuth 23:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Touchdown!=Try. Touchdown in rugby refers to the act of grounding the ball though it is not a term specifically referred to in the laws.GordyB15:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Touchdown!=Try" meaning "Touchdown does not equal try"? Yes in Rugby they do use the term "Touchdown" but it is more like an american football's touchback (I am thinking that is what you are saying grounding is in rugby, in amFootball grounding is the QB throwing the ball to avoid a sack), oh the horror of it all.Billy Nair 05:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Superplaya that from the perspective of someone unfamiliar with the game, the article does not do a good enough job of explaining how rugby is actually played. I'm not talking about the fine details of the rules. I mean that reading this article does not provide an adequate picture of what rugby actually looks like, although it certainly has improved.

Try to think of this from the perspective of someone who is not familiar with the sport. You scroll past the descriptions of the playing field, the position names, the attire, the officials, the coin toss, game length and scoring values. Then we get to the part called "The running game," which finally is to explain what actually happens when the ball is in play. The first two sentences are straightforward enough, but the text then starts talking about the "scrum," "knock-on," "ruck," "maul," etc., even though those terms aren't defined until later in the article.

What needs to be explained before any of this is that rugby consists mostly of teams trying to advance the ball toward the opponents' goal by running with the ball and by tossing it sideways and backwards to each other, as well as by punting it down the field. You need to explain right away that there is no interference blocking -- that is, that everyone on the team with the ball has to be behind the ball-carrier, or whatever the rule is. You need to explain whether this running and passing is scripted (as in American football) or spontaneous. Then you can get into the breakdown and discuss how the other team tries to tackle the ball-carrier.

This article has long lacked an adequate explanation of the strategy involved in the sport. Fortunately, a section has been put in about the kicking game, although it suffers from mentioning line-outs before line-outs have been defined. (At the very least, it should say "see below" after the mention of line-outs.) What it still doesn't say is why teams would ever attempt a penalty kick or drop goal when you only get 3 points compared to 5 for a try. I also don't understand how, with few stoppages of play, players communicate to each other what they are going to do next.

Some of the language is unclear to me. For example, I don't get the sentence, "If a kick goes directly into touch and the kicker is outside his own 22m line the throw-in occurs where the ball was kicked." By "directly into touch," does that mean on the fly (without bouncing)? And does "outside his own 22m line" mean between his own goal line and the 22 or between the 22 and the other team's goal? Even something as simple as the mention that line-outs are thrown in by "the team that did not play the ball into touch" can be confusing. I suppose this means that if team X is the last to touch the ball before it goes out of bounds, team Y gets the throw-in. (For one thing, no where in the article does it say definitively that "in touch" means "out of bounds.")

This article has come a long way but is still too hard to grasp. Perhaps you should try to attract North American rugby players -- who would know what it's like to have to learn the game from scratch -- to help make the article more accessible to readers from countries where the sport is rarely on TV. -- Mwalcoff 06:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs work. However I think making so many comparisons with American Football would be a complete mistake. Rugby is probably more widely played then American football, so for someone from, say Germany, making the comparison is of no value. As well, saying what rugby is not, should be avoided where possible. This is because it is not a lot of things; better to say exactly what it is. If that makes sense (probably not! ;) ). - Shudda ^talk 10:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If you understand American Football then you should look at this>>Comparison of American football and rugby union to better understand the differences between both the sports and in answering some of the questions above..the running and passing isnt scripted it is up to the players and sometimes its better to take the 3 points(Penalty Kick) on offer then to try to go for the try because sometimes the defense of the opposition is strong and its better to get some points for your team rather then pushing for a try which might not eventuate and regarding the sentence "If a kick goes directly into touch and the kicker is outside his own 22m line the throw-in occurs where the ball was kicked."simply means that the kicker should be inside the 22m mark be4 kicking and if he is outside the 22m and he kicks "on the full"(which means the ball doesnt bounce inside the field but goes into touch and as you said " fly (without bouncing)" into touch. and the 22m refers to his own goal line and the 22....--Cometstyles 12:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I was using American football references because that's where I'm coming from, but obviously the article should be written in a way that someone unfamiliar with both rugby and American football could understand it. It is likely, though, that many, if not most, of the people who come to the rugby union page on the English Wikipedia seeking to learn the basics of the sport will be from North America, so some American football comparisons would be worthwhile. By the way, if you add the populations of the UK, Ireland, France, Italy, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa together, you still have fewer people than live in the U.S. So it's not quite accurate to say rugby is more widely played than American football is. Not that that's really relevant to this discussion, but I like to point it out :) -- Mwalcoff 00:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, by widely played I did mean geographically. Although playing numbers may be closer then you think. The article certainly needs work, thats for sure. - Shudda ^talk 01:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if more people played rugby than American football, since organized American football requires hundreds of dollars of equipment and months or years of training. -- Mwalcoff 01:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

More people do play Rugby then American Football and the countries you have mentioned above is just some of the tier 1 nations but if you add the tier 2 and 3 nations as well it crosses well over 2 billion(people who enjoy rugby) and anywayz its only North America that plays American Football and recently it was reported that Rugby World Cup is the third biggest event in the world with a televison Audience of well over 3 billion in the 2003 world cup and is third only behind the Summer Olympics and the Soccer world cup and rugby is definetly a more tougher sport then American football because looking at the amount of armor worn by American Football Players I always wonder how they get hurt and Suffer concusions (pretty weak players I suppose..hehe) but any ways the only reason that American Footbal is regarded as a Superior sport than rugby(By Americans) is because of the amount of money paid to each players and they are paid millions whereas Rugby players are barely paid in thousands let alone 100's of thousands and I know of only about half a dozen players paid in millions and apart from soccer Rugby is the only other fastest growing sport in the world and the irony is that USA hold the gold medal in Rugby at the 1920s(not sure about the year) Olympic games which was the last time rugby was played at the Olympics...(weird heh)..--Cometstyles 02:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

One, I never said one sport is "superior" to another. Two, it's hardly worth counting "tier 2" countries as rugby countries; the U.S. is supposedly a "tier 2" country, according to the article on the International Rugby Board. Three, the 3.5 billion figure is a (very suspect) cumulative total for all 48 games of the RWC; this page says the RWC final had "only" 23 million viewers worldwide, or one-fourth the viewership of that year's Super Bowl. Four, anyone who visits this page is probably interested in and looking to know more about rugby; insulting their other favorite sports is hardly very welcoming. Five, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Six, I dare you to go up to Dick Butkus or Lawrence Taylor and tell him American football players are weak. And seven, see punctuation. -- Mwalcoff 03:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This is getting completely off topic. My point was that due to American Football being rarely played outside North America making too many comparisons between the two in the article will be of limited value. I'd prefer if we try to write it in a way that means no comparison is necessary. If you would like to read more about the Rugby World Cup do read it's article. It's FA at the moment (and should stay that way), and quite well done (I didn't write it, lol) - Shudda ^talk 03:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wat?? I neva said any thing about Superiority of one sport its you who said "By the way, if you add the populations of the UK, Ireland, France, Italy, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa together, you still have fewer people than live in the U.S. So it's not quite accurate to say rugby is more widely played than American football is." which form my POV meant that you were comparing the two sports and all I was saying was that Rugby is played in over 90 countries and American Football in only 1and secondly, tier 2 countries seem to be getting better by the Year and soon they might be in contention of winning the world Cup and thirdly, I meant the 3.5 Billion television viewers over the whole duration of the tournament and not only the Grand Final and fourthly, I neva insulted American Football all I said was the hype that comes with American Football is something which I dont get i.e the players are paid in millions of dollars and that USA has the best medical centres and companies in the world and they still cant design an armor which can withstand the tackles and I was just comparing because in Rugby Player hardly wear any form of armor and they go through rougher tackles and still manage to stay injury free which is uncommon in American Football with the amount of armor they wear and fifthly I was actually Complementing USA because they are the Last team 2 Ever win the Gold Medal in rugby at the Olympics which is Quite Amazing and lastly I'am not writing an Article, this is a talk page and punctuations arent compulsory and in reply to Shudda, I agree this is getting off topic and my style of describing something sometimes is not understood by others and I cant help it but its easier if we dont compare the 2 Sports because in their way they are completely Different and I actually forgot to write that American Football was actually derived from Rugby as well as Canadian Football, Aussie Rules, Rugby League and Sevens and if you want to better understand rugby You should watch Sevens Rugby because thats how I started and If you are able to understand Sevens rugby, you would easily understand XV's..Cheers(yikes I nearly wrote an article)--Cometstyles 03:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just trying to make a little joke. I shouldn't have gone there. -- Mwalcoff 00:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to know who removed some of the external links and why. One that I submitted was a link to a union in the United States. I would like to know why my link was removed, but an English club directory remains. Is this some sort of Euro snobbery? Why not create another subsection of external links dedicated to different unions and teams. I know that where some of you live it's easy to find a game, however in the United States it takes a bit more work, and finding links at the bottom of this article that might point folks in the right direction. Steamdonkey 23:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who removed the link. However links to individual clubs and unions is not something that should be included in the page. The reason is that the number is enormous, imagine if every club, or union had a link on the page. I think the reason the English clubs link is here is because it's a directory (rather then a link to one specific club). Although it should maybe be removed. I don't think you'll find there is much Euro-snobbery around, many of the contributors to this page are not European. - Shudda ^talk 23:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have moved it, I don't think country specific sites should be linked to from the main page.GordyB 15:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Rugby Union Stats - Highest Points List

Is there a Highest Points Scorers List on Wikipedia? I've had a look and dont seem to be able to find one - can anyone advise? If not, is there any chance of getting one compiled? Would be interesting to see, especially with World Cup coming up. Twintwenty 23:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)