In the soccer thread, I noticed I found myself hijacking it a bit, so I decided to open this up. Most people that I spoke to that have seen rugby say that it seems like a very interesting game but it’s very confusing (which I agree with…spent my first year running around like a chicken with its head cut off)…so that’s where I decided to assist. Any questions that you may have gathered while watching…please feel free to ask!!! I’ll try to answer them to the best of my ability (and if I can’t, there are several other ruggers on the boards to assist!)
Do you feel that an amalgamation between Rugby League and Rugby Union is the only viable option to ensure the future of rugby as a sport?
Are the Rugby League vs Rugby Union games worthwhile?
Do the British really want to go back to the old style? Even though they managed to do quite well with the new style.
Is the whole rugby world being dominated too much by the focus on the international side of it? Should Italy be allowed in?
Yes…what is “offside” exactly in rugby? I understand that the defense has to be behind the ball when it’s played out from a tackle, but if my side has the ball when a defensive player is offside, can’t I just run forward and immediately appeal for offside?
Also, when is “going over the top” during a tackle legal, and when is it illegal?
How in the ever-loving hell did the All Blacks lose to the bleedin’ Frogs?
Why are all backs such irritating little tits, while the real men play forward (especially 2d row!)?
If you want any help on the Rugby League front Duke I’ll be around 
OK casdave–how come a drop goal in RL is only worth 1 point? IMO drop goals require a heck of a lot more skill than a penalty kick (worth 2 points), and, even counting the need to penalise the opposing side for an infraction, a drop goal should be at least worth the same. Drop goals in RU are rare, but in RL are almost non-existent.
BTW RL is a cool sport. I think many Americans would actually prefer RL to RU, but that’s just a WAG.
Since I’m not too sure RugbyMan saw all of this match, I’ll answer for him…it was mainly because the French said amongst themselves, well, we can’t beat the All Black pack, and we’re not going to run right through them, so let’s try kicking the ball over their heads time and time again, and maybe we’ll be able to outrun them to the ball! Incredibly, it worked, although les Bleus had more than a few lucky bounces. After France had scored a couple of tries this way, the All Blacks just seemed too stunned to play their normal game and by the time they’d got themselves together it was too late to mount a comeback.
Can’t remember exactly when the rule was changed about points for a kick but once upon a time it was worth the same as a conversion - 2 points.
Trouble was that games became sterile with fewer and fewr tries per season.
It was reduced to one point to encourage try scoring, nowadays you only see the dropgoal attempt when teams are tied and the clock is running down, which acxtually adds to the tension and excitement.
My pet peeve Rugby League-wise that the scrum has no real meaning, its just a way to restart the game and tie up the forwards. It does give the backs a chance to open things up.
I would like to see scrums become improtant again.
Amen to that, Dinsdale, but I prefer to be called a lock over 2nd row. Makes it sound more important.
Well, most of the questions are debate questions, so since my time is limited (down at the library since a brownout blew the power supply in my computer 
), I’ll answer a couple of them.
Some cynics may say that the Australians have already amalgamated league and union, at least in their style of play. 
But I don’t really consider rugby league any threat to rugby union…other than Australia (and the ARU is catching up quite quickly!) and pockets in England and New Zealand, league isn’t spread out much. I’m sure this will start a nice flame war in this post!
Well, it’s not like comparing apples and oranges…but like comparing oranges and grapefruit! I think they provide a nice diversion every now and then but certainly no need to do them every day!
Go with what works…they’re out there to win games, not entertain the fans!!! England certainly have an exceptionally powerful pack and can clearly play a tight, up-front forward game, but I don’t know if their backs as a whole would be up to a Southern Hemisphere caliber. Perhaps they can throw the ball around like a hot potato when they play a lesser power, but can they really do the same against an Australia or New Zealand day in and day out? The nice thing about rugby is that there are multiple ways to win any game, and if a team has multiple ways to win and adjust (be it to the opposition game plan or weather conditions) they are certainly that much better off!!!
When France first entered the Five Nations in 1910, they didn’t win a game until after the championship resumed (after the war) in 1920…Italy won their first game…so they’ve already started better than the French did. Participation in the Six Nations can only help the game in Italy and their players can only get better and force the other nations to become better as a result. As for the international game, certainly the more games the second tier nations get against top opposition (the US’s fall games against Scotland and Wales where they certainly played bravely, but the amateur vs. professional divide finally showed through), the better the standard of the game worldwide and the more players will turn out. There are 100 nations that play rugby, with 80 or so attempting qualification for RWC 2003, so this should be encouraged to truly make rugby a global game!
Ohhh boy…this is certainly a difficult one because there are different offside laws for different situations (open play, tactical kicks, rucks, mauls, lineouts and scrums). The open play is easiest to understand and would best fit your example. A defensive player CANNOT be offside in open play, so your version of an offside trap wouldn’t work. Any offensive player must be behind the ball in order to be able to play it. This doesn’t mean that just because a player is in front of the ball that he is offside (if you look at a game, there is going to be several instances of players being in front of the ball), but if he attempts to enter play from this offside position then he will be whistled. In a kicking situation, once the ball is kicked, then all players in front of the kicker are offside until they either retreat behind the kicker or (more often) the kicker passes them by, which is why you see a kicker run up so quickly. The players must stay still until they have been put onside, otherwise they will be called for offside. Scrums, rucks and mauls are similar enough. The offside line for those not * firmly * bound into them is the last foot of the player on your side. This may be another instance of your example…if a ruck exists and a defensive player jumps offside, then the reason the play goes on is to allow a little bit of time to see if any advantage comes out of the situation…if it does then play goes on…if not, the play will be whistled dead for the penalty. Finally, in a lineout, those not in the lineout must be 10m back to allow some extra attacking space. There are some rather complex rules that may be the exception, but this is more or less the laws of offside.
One of the fundamentals principles behind rugby is keeping it a free-flowing and continuous game, and as such going over the top is an effort to slow that play. If you’re lucky, you’ll be penalized…otherwise, you are going to receive quite the booting! Perhaps if a ruck collapses then you may go over the top w/o penalty (but w/ booting!) but in a ruck you must make every single effort to stay on your feet.
Well, the French have always played on a razor’s edge…they can either be absolutely brilliant or else bomb miserably. Bernard Laporte has done an excellent job of creating a sense of discipline within the team (and they desperately needed it, considering the French reputation for dirty play…just ask Buck Shelford ) while not losing the sense of Gallic flair that makes them so special. And well…Duke answered the specific game quite well :).
Well, this is a question that will probably never be answered. Maybe it’s all that time they have standing around which they put to good use to groom themselves so they look pretty, while the forwards do good work. Yes, I prefer the term lock myself…as a fellow lock, does sound more important. Just remember, God created beer to prevent forwards from taking over the world .
I really want to discourage a raft of "ask the threads.
I’m not going to close this one or the football one, but Rugbyman, if you could keep the responses to factual stuff (rules, history, etc.), I’d certainly appreciate it.
Thanks.
I can see your point…these could get old rather quick!! I’ll keep it to more objective questions rather than opinions!!!
Good thing you stopped it, because the rugby union vs. rugby league thing is something bound for GD…a division more bitter than any election
Thanks for the answers, casdave and RugbyMan. One more question for RugbyMan: Is there anywhere (other than the Internet) where I can watch rugby coverage. I’d hate to miss Wales v England in the Six Nations.
Well, as your profile says that you are in Oxford (congrats on the varsity game win!), England games are exclusively carried on BSkyB…if you don’t have that then I’m sure it’s easy to find a pub that does carry it. In the US, rugby is carried on Fox Sports World (with one game a week rebroadcast on the other Fox Sports Net stations). Recently, they have been showing England games live (since the time differencial isn’t excessive and Rupert Murdoch owns both networks!), but as for Wales vs. England (with 6N games having mid-day kickoffs)…well, it could be same-day tape delayed, which if you don’t check news sites is as good as live :).
Well, as your profile says that you are in Oxford (congrats on the varsity game win!), England games are exclusively carried on BSkyB…if you don’t have that then I’m sure it’s easy to find a pub that does carry it. In the US, rugby is carried on Fox Sports World (with one game a week rebroadcast on the other Fox Sports Net stations). Recently, they have been showing England games live (since the time differencial isn’t excessive and Rupert Murdoch owns both networks!), but as for Wales vs. England (with 6N games having mid-day kickoffs)…well, it could be same-day tape delayed, which if you don’t check news sites is as good as live :).
Actually, the schedule is up at http://www.foxsportsworld.com/rugby … Wales vs. England is February 4, 2001 (12PM ET)
Surely manny is not suggesting that the above comments concerning the relative merits of forwards (esp “locks”, thank you) compared to backs were anything other than uncontravertable statements of objective fact!
Duke wrote:
When I first moved to the UK and started watching rugby, I found it easier to follow RL, but now I watch both. Rugby could be more popular in the US if there was more coverage. During the 1999 World Cup I searched all the US based sports sites (ESPN, Fox, etc) but found no coverage even though the US had a team in it! I asked a friend in the states to search, and he couldn’t find anything on the net, TV, or in print.
Ref merger between RU and RL
RU has a wide spread but frankly they are largely armchair supporters when it comes to their local clubs, internationals are a differant matter.
Go to the overwhelming majority of RU top division games and you will be lucky to see crowds of more than 2000 in the UK. There are exceptions, like Bath or Leicester, but such as Roundhay, Doncaster and the majority it is true.
RU has been very badly organised in terms of competition, it was only recently that they actually decided to have league tables with promotion and relegation.The big games were about trophies rather than titles.
With the reorganistion of RU along more competitive lines skills are improving but the be all and end all is still the international matches.
RU attracted plenty of sponsors at first but many have walked away when they realised just how small the attendance figures were for local clubs but of course the international game commands large tv rights and other revenues.
Contrast this with RL were the most important thing has always been the local team. It is not unusual to see crowds in excess of 10k for local games.Sponsors for clubs are not too difficult to find.
At the international level the situation is not quite reversed completely but there does seem to be less importance placed on it. The RL world cup did ok but nothing like the kind of numbers that RU gets.
Certainly a merger between the two codes would be useful as their strengths in support complement each other well but the two games are pretty differant despite ball carrying being the common feature.
I would love to see something worked out, I reckon that the Northern UK teams would probably dominate simply because they would attract more money than other teams in a merged code because of spectator support and would be able to pay more for their players.