Talk:Rugby league/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Change please

Could we perhaps have a map of all the Rugby League nations with different colours Eg. Blue for Professional Set-up, Yellow for Semi-pro, Red for Armature ect...) It would also be good to have one with the RLIF status's too such as Official Observer Status and Full Member, test nations, second-tier member nations and RLIF affiliates... could anyone do this? perhaps the latter of the two could go nicely in the RLIF article too.

Thanks

Proposed Changes, October 11th

Discussion

  • Added an international feel to the history section, mentioning Aust, NZ and France slightly. Moved section on players to Playing rugby league and summerised. Restructured Competitions Slightly. POds 01:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Added an National Teams section. Atm it only tells of the most recent story, including some historical WC references. Tell me what you think. This is supposed to act as an interface for the <Country> national rugby league team articles. POds 03:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I think I'll make this a sub section under a new section titles "Nations", which will allow me to talk a little about the demographics of rugby league world wide, which will act as an interface to the Rugby league in <Areas> articles. But i've really gota do some Uni now. :( POds 04:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Changes for September 21, 2005

I was upset about the lack of flow in the rugby league article. I started about creating a section describing the basic play, which was planned to flow on to the tactic section that was currently there.

Three,four or five days later, the page had become large enough (31 kilobytes) for wikipedia to warn me about. I moved the newly creation section, 'Playing rugby league', which now included the tactics section to a new page Playing rugby league. I've summerised and linked it from the main rugby league page.

POds 04:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments, suggestions & complaints

  • I agree GordyB. I visited this article to find out the point scoring system for Rugby League and was amazed to find it completely missing from the article. Anyone able to add a section on scoring?
You are not agreeing with me because I replied to somebody who didn't sign their post, but the answer is the same. See the 'Playing rugby league' section.GordyB 21:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not an expert on rugby so I can't write the section but I was looking for some information on scoring in rugby. Perhaps it would be useful to add a section called 'scoring' to the article as it seems like a pretty important part of the game?
See the 'Playing rugby league' section.GordyB 19:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Well done POds, I like the changes. It gives a much clearer view of how rugby leauge is supposed to be played. It also allows the main rugby league topics, like competitions to be expanded. Well done! POds 04:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Talking to yourself pal? ;-) Actually I think the changes are good too. Grinner 09:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • ya mate, just giv'n me self some encouragement! Check out the bellow topic! Very important! POds 10:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • btw - I've suddenly realised that this change should have been discussed first, because it is a major edit. I hope I have not upset anyone, there was no intention too. The main modifications include text added, which explains the basics of rugby league and current text reformated and partitioned differently, including text moving from one page to another. POds 10:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that everything needs discussed all the time, in my opinion the wiki works best spontateoulsy. You're changes are fine, the system works! But that's not a dissussion for here. By the way do you mean the attempt to delete Cat:RL as the "important stuff below"? I see they got pretty short shrift, and neither of the people involved have come back on (I've been watching 'em). Grinner 10:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Yer, the newly created heading titled "Amazing attempts to delete RL from wikipedia", totaly freak'n amazing!!! I couldn't believe it! 203.214.23.167 aka POds 10:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Amazing attempts to delete rugby league from Wikipedia

  • This says it all - This also explains some of the comments I got on my user discussion page. POds 06:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


Even more bizarrely they are both from Yorkshire.GordyB 19:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

From the same people that where editing shit into these pages not long ago. Also, a guy who commented on my user discussion page voted for its deletion. Bunch of wankers... According to the Rugby league in England page, they may perhaps be from north yorkshire? :) POds 15:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
That was just plain strange... Rugby league is about 1000x bigger than union in Australia, which relies on "event" crowds as it only has about 10 or so matches per year. League has 24 matches for every team, and regularly averages nearly 20,000 per game. The grand final sold out weeks before people even knew the teams playing, and the remaining 7,000 tickets (reserved for when the teams are decided) sold out in 40 minutes. Just sounds like sour grapes from a union fan... AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 02:26, 29 September 2005
Thats exactly what it was. I was contacted by I think User:GeorgeWilliams via my talk page. He was asking if i was trying to replicate the 'worldy' approach soccer and apparantly RU already had on wikipedia for rugby league. He was also one who voted for the categories deletion. You can also find the following phrase one his user page:
I support the grand old sport of Rugby Football, that being "real" rugby with forwards and tackling, not the alternative.
So yes obvious just some guy who wants RL to disapear. He must be crying over the yards the ESL is making every year. He also mentions his idot buddy, User:BlackJack, who i believe did the nominating or at least voted for it. POds 17:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Well they showed their brilliant union-style cunning in the voting thread. Attempted to boost the "delete" number by both voting twice. And strangely enough, they were the only delete votes it got... haha AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 02:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Hehe... i noticed that too. Fools! BTW, havn't seen much action from you recently, if you've missed whats been going on, I've kept a list of new items on my user page. POds 04:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeh I've been a bit busy with uni, and the time I've been on here I've been working mainly on little things. In a couple of months I'll have plenty of time to help get all the league stuff done... AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 04:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Yer, I'm trying to concentrate on uni a bit more too, its hard though! Also, I'm currently awaiting information from my 'russian contacts'. I love saying that. Soon, the russian articles will complete what will be the number one English resorce for russian rugby league on the internet. Thats pretty special :). POds 07:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, so I've just read about these attempts at deleting RL articles... I've also just read the vandalism those two users carried out - is there nothing that can be done against them?? Did someone contact an Admin about their bad faith vandalism and attempts to have RL deleted? I'm tempted to post something on that BlackJack's talk page asking him to explain his actions and defend himself against the accusation of vandalism... looking at his contributions he's some pathetic tosser... User:CumberlandsAshes81 12:15PM, 27 January 2006

There is not a lot that can be done about it. All we can do is revert the pages. Some admins are very well aware of the lengths these people go to. They have already sinec made a name for themselves with their antics. Things have been quite for quite a while and most vandalism these days is via the odd borred kiddy. Dont waste your effort confronting them, they know how well feel. I've also encouraged Blackjacks friend to actualy write for the rugby league articles and help us provide an NPOV. I think we should all strive for this as some may see our pages as bias. POds 03:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if that is a good idea. He, for example, claims that there are many more RU clubs and players in Yorkshire than RL ones. I find that highly improbable and I come from a part of Yorkshire that has a RU team. Rugby union was always considered a 'southern sport'. Whilst some of what he says is true about attendence figures, there's a slight amount of spin present - the second, third, fourth and fifth rugby clubs by average attendence in the Northern Hemisphere are the Rhinos, Bulls, Hull and Saint Helens only Leicester Tigers get better figures. The reason why some teams get low figures is because they are very small towns - nobody would have heard of Widnes were it not for its rugby club. In any case attendence figures for union clubs outside the top flight are very similar.GordyB 22:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I saw your response to GeorgeWilliams, POds, on his user page. Very level-headed and conciliatory. I applaud you for that - he probably wasn't expecting a polite response to his moronic/inciteful actions. I agree, however, with GordyB, that we should avoid having him contribute (not that he'd want to in any meangingful way) - for example, his arguments in the deletion debate (as were BlackJack's) were not evidence-based and cringe-worthy. If there is any POV on these RL pages it won't be solved by the Stamp-collecting moron twins. For example, Jack's arguments for deletion of the West Indies RL article was based on one unnamed person's opinion (which was incorrect): "I have a Jamaican friend who says there is absolutely no way that RL is played in the West Indies..." Jack tried a similar argument for the United States ("I've also spoken to an American...") Then GeorgeWilliams attempted to reinterpret survey data on the popularity of RL in England using highly dubious methods, piling absurd unfounded speculation upon absurd unfounded speculation (I think the argument was that the same group of people were attending all the games on any given weekend?). For two retired school teachers who claim to be serious Wikipedia contributors this is really pretty lame. CumberlandsAshes81 1:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


I am new but I am looking for more links and spots to include in this page to news and media, I think the reference point that the media holds more sway on this sport than any other should be reason enough to make it important so I want to stop any chance of a deletion of new media linksChippo Raiders 09:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Screw the vote

===WTF - delete newly added rl stuff===
Ok vote: Who wants that triped deleted from the RL page?
  • support POds 10:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


P.S - i feel its good to vote on this because someone may actualy like it :/
====Discussion====
It seems like blatant .... something... Err POds 10:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


I deleted it. Maybe it belongs in Rugby football, but not rugby league. I think that bordered on vandalism to be quite honest! POds 10:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The controversial playball has been increasingly disparaged within and without the sport as a time-wasting anachronism. Haha, playball. This person obviously knows his or her rugby league. Almost worth keeping for a laugh --Paul 12:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

So i was right in deleting it? It just seem like some yobbo was having a go at our game!!! This is just another reason why i dont like comparisons of any kinda on the rugby league page. Its like going into the RU article and writing down how the sports split and created a better rugby -> rugby league.. lol 203.214.118.119 aka POds 06:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


Is this the stuff I have just deleted that we are talking about? Grinner 09:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
nope! I saw that though! Check the history 8-| POds 04:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Touch football (rugby league) Move/Rename

Vote Here. Reasons why are on discussion page for touch football (rugby league)

Miniproject

For the last week I've been keeping a small news list of things that have been getting done with the rugby league articles, such as creations, renamings etc if anyone is interested. POds 10:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The History Section

You may have noticed a little change. My reasons:

  1. previous section didn't mention or link to pre schism or association football
  2. previous section had too much of the reasons behind the schism, already explained else where
  3. England & Australia sections? - already explained else where

What I aimed to do, was get all of footballs history into a very neat package and give people the links to go and read further about, the early football history, association football, rugby league and rugby union. I believe this new section provides a clearer picture and wider picture. I also made sure not to mention times or specifics (or at least too many). This way, it should remain very much like all the other articles. It's like a summarised, abstract print.

Oh yer, I had this inspiration after reading all the discussion earlier this month on rugby football/league/union history.

Thoughts? POds 10:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I've edited it for style and spelling. I've removed some of your links and don't have time to put them back in right now, perhaps it is better if you did this.

The use of 'public school' is rather confusing as only English / Welsh people use the phrase to mean 'private school'. Other nationalities e.g. Americans quite sensibly think it means 'school open to the public'.

It's also not true that the first rugby league players were professional. This is a popular misconception. GordyB 21:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, yer i thought it was little weird since the article which i got this information from mentioned the pupils where middle -> upper class.
I didnt touch the amatureism stuff. Not even sure it should be there. Also, those who edit the RU page would know, do you think this would be a good template for that page, as when i was there last, the history section was quite large and I'm sure most of it would have already been said in the history of RU article.
POds 22:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC).
I resored the
Main article: History of rugby league
to the top of the section. Grinner 09:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
yer I saw that, good call. It should be there! POds 11:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

League & other football comparisons

I just want to know what peoples opinions are on the topic of, including comparisons of other football laws or other similarities in the text. I don't like it.

  1. distracts, clouds, overwhelms the reader
  2. not everyone has a knowledge of every type of game of football

Therefore, I propose that comparisons, or even mentioning other football codes, unless it doesn't require any extra knowledge of the reader, from the text. should be left out POds 15:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Best not on the main page. Specialist pages are a different matter.GordyB 18:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

yer! An example of what I'm talking about is something i recently removed... It was a comparison of the american football 4 down rule to the set-of-six rule in RL. I think!! I didnt think it had its place. But i've also had to stop myself from being a little too anal in this matter. I mean, we're not exactly writing instruction manuals, these are articles which are supposed to be informative and interesting. Maybe a list of comparisons should be kept in another page and links can be made to them in some form or another, for people who want that stuff? :/ But that may just be a lot of work. POds 10:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Agree totally. Grinner 10:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

New Naming Covention

I just started to rename a few (2-3) pages and I got to the articles like, Rugby league in Cook Islands and thought it should be The Cook Islands, but then I thought maybe The should be the. I checked naming conventions and the use of The is discouraged when used at the start of a title. Like, White House is preferred to The White House. But I thought its use was pretty similar in our case. Anyway, What about the renaming of articles to instead be:

  • Rugby league (Cook Islands)
  • Rugby league (Australia)
  • Rugby league (England) ... etc

Or is the current way better? I'm not sure if I have a preference. I'm certainly not attached to any one. So before I do any more, I'd like some opinions on this.

A down side of this is that it may make the articles such as, Australian Rugby League, and similar, seem confusing as the names become very similar. Where as with the way we have them now, the word in gives the reader a strong sense about what the article will be about. POds 23:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Gramatically 'Cook Islands' requires a 'the' just as the UK does. Don't much care whether it is capitalised or not.GordyB 09:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

it wouldnt require it if it was in brackets, would it? Anyway, I'm asking if people would prefer the articles to be "Rugby league in <The<country>>" or "Rugby League (<country>)". POds 13:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Definately prefer Rugby league in X (or Rugby league in the Xs) myself. Grinner 19:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
"Rugby league in <The<country>>", the other one just sounds ugly.GordyB
Ok thanx guys :) I'll forget i mentioned it and get on with the renaming! POds 23:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

oldish

The line 'matches between New South Wales and Queensland (Ausitralia's two most populous states)' is incorrect as Victoria's population is greter then Queenslands.

It's incorrect 'cos of my poor spelling too! I will re-write this sentence.Grinner 20:03, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)


Rugby league vs Rugby League

I have moved this across to Rugby league, in line with the non-capitalzing of pages like rugby union and History of rugby league. About half of the pages already link here, and there's still the re-direct.Grinner 09:11, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Could anyone add a brief summary of the differences between League and Union to the Rugby pages?

What, you mean like the 'Rules' paragraph in rugby football? Hig Hertenfleurst 10:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is there not already a page that would clearly set this out. Such as the rugby football page mentioned above, or the rules or the history etc. I think its time we consider how rugby league articles should be organised on wikipedia from now on. POds 04:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Edit RUGBY LEAGUE PLAYERS LIST

Feel free to add players to the rugby league players list the link for it is on the rugby league page

Capitals

I have been capitalising it as Rugby League as both words constitute a single proper noun. It is no more correct to say "Rugby league" than it is to say "New york" or "Mount isa". Maybe the "Rugby union" pages need to be fixed. :-)

I tend to prefer no capitals, afterall we don't capitalise cricket or tennis. But I'm not incredibly bothered if there is a concensus to change. It would mean changeing all the categories too - there should be consitent. Grinner 10:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I've got plans for the categories, its a bit of a mess at the moment. I've fixed a few articles the were in the same branch twice, but others are a little troubling. I decided to lay out the problems, then a strategy for tackling them, project style. When it's complete, I think we should all have a real big go all at once and get it done for the good of all. POds 07:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Hello Nameless, and welcome. I'm only new here myself. I've created a heap of Rugby League articles. However, If it was to ever come down to consistency, as Grinner is talking about, then I agree with him. Either Rugby League, or Rugby league, but it must be used like so throughout wikipedia. If it is decided, Rugby league wins, I'll change all my links on all my pages so no redirects have to be made. I can only assume redirects complicate wiki's! POds 11:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC);
Hmm, I think I've used all three variants, so I've done my bit to complicate it :) --Paul 12:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Just to add, it's either "rugby league" (no caps) or "Rugby League" (both caps), "Rugby league" is definatley wrong. Except when it is used to start a sentence of course......Grinner 12:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm leaning toward non-capitals, although just in the middle of an edit with the SCG article, I've used the term "League", a reasonably common way to refer to the game in Oz, which is hard not to capitalise - though I managed it --Paul 13:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Is this reaching a consensus? If so I'd like to begin moving the articles like Rugby League in England across to Rugby league in England. Grinner 09:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I say yes, I just made a change to this article to modify the only instance here, and I'll set about fixing any in my contributions for a start. --Paul 10:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Good call! I Think you sumed it up in you previous post Grinner. Give the word, and i'll change the template used in RL Main page to use 'l' and anywhere else i've put those links.. *thinks* Not a big job... for me :). now = sleep. POds 16:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC);
I think we should leave it with no capitals. See Water polo, figure skating, Ice skating, Beach volleyball, etc (those are the first two-worded sports i could think of). AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 13:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
i dont agree with those sports being fair comparisons, but i agree with your stance :). I havnt goten around to moving any pages yet, too busy making some big changes to a georgian page, the australian page and others. POds 14:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC);
Ok, well, these are canidates for speedy renameing I would assume. So I may start doing a few. POds 00:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
The 'Rugby' in rugby league should be capitalised because it is a proper noun; the name of Rugby School. This is the same as in Australian rules football. Cricket and water polo aren't proper nouns and so should not be capitalised. The league should only be capitalised in the case of the 'Rugby Football League' or the 'National Rugby League' as they are proper nouns. I will admit, though, that either all capitalised or all lower case looks better. --131.236.1.5 04:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
'Australian' isn't a proper noun, it's an adjective. 'Rugby football' is the same as 'Eton football' when discussing the sport played at Rugby school. When it comes to the sports of rugby union and rugby league, it's a slightly different matter. We don't capitalise 'hamburger' just because it is named after 'Hamburg'.GordyB 13:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'll have to concede this point. I seems, according the Oxford English Dictionary, that Rugby League and Rugby Union are generally capitalised, but not always. My previous argument falls down because if 'Rugby' is a proper noun, then so is 'League' from 'Rugby Football League' and both words should be capitalised. By the 'hamburger' argument, where 'Hamburger steak' becomes simply 'hamburger', rugby league could be lower case. It is also true that in the case of 'Australian rules football', 'Australian' is an adjective, but it is still capitalised. --131.236.1.5 07:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Going by this shouldn't Rugby League articles, particularly the main one be renamed? Bongomanrae 06:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess the reason this discussion has gone on so long is because rugby league is a unique kind of situation. Its capitalisation can't really be compared with the capitalisation conventions for other words (Australia is a country's name, whether in noun or adjective or whatever form, it will always start with a capital). Before the schism there was no league or union, only rugby. And the governing body was the Rugby Football Union. At that time (I can only speculate) if people were referring to the governing body or Rugby school I think they would have capitalised 'rugby', but if they were referring to the game, I daresay they wouldn't (and people generally don't today either). It gets complicated when the word 'league' is thrown in. It was first used when referring to rival rugby football governing bodies known as 'Rugby Football League's to differentiate themselves from the 'Rugby Football Unions'. At this stage the words 'union' and 'league' had roughly the same meaning: a group/body/organisation. An alternative to the word 'union' was needed so 'league' was used. Also at this time I think 'Rugby Football League' and 'Rugby Football Union' would have always been preceded by 'the' as they were referring to individual, countable nouns. Somewhere along the way, as rules were changed and rugby was split into two forms, rugby union and rugby league became the names of the sports, as continuing to call both of them 'rugby' would have gotten confusing. This sees a kind of transition from a countable noun into a non-countable noun. The words 'league' and 'union' no longer just referred to an organisation, but a type of sport (like tennis or cricket). My two cents: just as we don't capitalise 'rugby' in a sentence like "He played rugby on the weekend" (or for that matter "He played tennis/soccer/cricket/hockey on the weekend"), we shouldn't capitalise 'rugby league'. I feel it is the name of a sport like any other. But if referring to an organisation like the Australian Rugby League or the Queensland Rugby League, definitely capitalise. I don't feel terribly strongly about it either way though. Just adding my thoughts.--Jeff79 07:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Position Edits

Edited the position descriptions to give a much more relevent, accurate and detailed description of the postions and roles esp in relation to their attacking and defending duties of the more involved postions. Please discuss before reverting or reducing the detail as the previous decriptions weren't that helpful... --60.229.111.181 06:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Make sure that by editing the Players subsection, the main Positions article is now not out of sync. That is, if you make changes to the Players section, you must make changes to the original article. Lets try and keep the information consistint and for the main rugby league page refined. POds 09:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

"The Greatest Game of All"

It's a prevelent cultural descriptor for Rugby League, it was coined by a radio announcer decades ago, I'm not sure of the exact detail but perhaps somebody else can supply. An acceptable place/way to have it in the article? --60.229.111.181 06:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I dunno.. I never really liked that expression, it's a bit self-aggrandising. --Paul 06:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
If it's a "prevalent cultural descriptor for Rugby League," then say that it is the opinion of certain people within it that this coined phrase is true, but it is simply an opinion and the stuff of catalogs, but not an encyclopedia. Please take it out or I will keep reverting. --JHMM13 06:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of individual opinions the phrase has a prominant place it the game and hence in an encyclopedic article on it. As long as its provided in the specific context of who coined it, why and when I don't see how its a problem. If Soccer is "the Beautiful Game" and Rugby Union is the "Game They Play in Heavan" then Rugby League is "The Greatest Game of All". All of these phrases are important to the culture of their respective games and derserve their place in the articles on them, provided it is in context, and in the character of articles generally on wikipedia. --60.229.111.181 07:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The phrase "Rugby League, the greatest game of all" was coined by Queensland rugby league broadcaster Goerge Lovejoy. (This information was found in Adrian Macgregor's Wally Lewis: Forever the King).--dan, dan and dan 10:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The Greatest Game is the name of the Rugby League Supporters' Association's magazine in the UK. So the phrase has currency. Grinner 13:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I Agree with all the comments here. I'd strongly advise to follow what JHMM13 has softly laid down as the law. We certainly don't want personal opinions to creep into our pages. Also, I feel, if this particular phrase is important to the history of rugby league, it should be mentioned. Perhaps a relevant article to mention it would be in a biography article on the person who coined the term or in another relevant historical article. POds 14:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
If the union and soccer pages have their slogans, then league should have its too (and that is the slogan, you won't hear any others). But I don't see them included on the soccer and union pages, so I guess we should maintain consistency. Personally I think all codes' pages can include their slogans as long as its made clear that that is all they are. The more information on wikipedia the better.--Jeff79 21:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Tackle forces stoppage of play

Perhaps this is not the best way to say it, but for my mind it is correct, especial when you trying to explain the game to people who do not know it. A tackle forces a stoppage of play and must be restarted by the "play the ball". Seems correct to me. POds 04:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd define a stoppage as something initiated by an official. A player is tackled, immediately gets to his feet. Meanwhile the defensive line is reorganising - as is the attacking line. Penalties and errors can occur during this time as well - in short, this is all part of the play. Perhaps a different term is required? --Paul 06:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that is wrong to defin it as a stoppage. Grinner 13:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
It definitely isn't a stoppage of play. In a tackle/play the ball, the ball is still in play.--dan, dan and dan 19:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, then, if someone wants to fix it whilst keeping the following sentences in tact, have a go. I didn't think a deletion really helped it. Also, remember when something is changed on the main rugby league page, if that section as a Main Article: link, then remember to fix it in the main article if applicable. POds 01:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Here is my attempt. I have simplified the prose slightly, but I think that this accurately covers it. Comments welcome. If you think that I have butchered this, feel free to revert.
The attacking team has six chances to attempt to score. The defending team tries to stop the attacking team from scoring by tackling the player with the ball. When a player is tackled, the entire defending team, with the exception of two markers, must move back 10 metres towards their in-goal area. The tackled player must then play the ball.--dan, dan and dan 02:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Seems good to me. Grinner 11:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Sweet As! POds 15:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Licinius

I'm sure there must be some sensible people on WP who like RL and I would be interested to know if they agree with the childish antics of someone called Licinius who writes childish drivel such as "RL uber alles" on the home pages of rugby union fans? Although I did once try to have some articles about RL deleted because I thought they were spurious, WP decided in their favour and I accepted the decision. --GeorgeWilliams 20:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

George, if I may point out something quite important to you that you seem to fail to understand: your actions in attempting to have Rugby League effectively deleted from Wikipedia were highly provocative and have been widely considered to be in bad faith (by more than just RL fans, by the way) and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Can I also point out that you didn't just campaign for the deletion of some minor RL-playing country articles either. You, in fact, suggested that Rugby League had no right to have a category on Wikipedia at all (in your own words: "Main article Rugby league should be included in category:Rugby football. The sport is a minor variation of rugby with an insignificant global spread.") I am really sorry, like all Wikipedians would be, that you have had your talk page effectively 'vandalised' (the user responsible has a history of this if you view his user page). But you need to understand that what you and BlackJack have done (in posting anti-RL statements in RL articles and attempting to delete Rugby League from Wikipedia) has generated ill-will on Wikipedia between RU and RL fans and as a result you are now, regrettably, reaping what you have sown. If you are genuine in accepting the decision of Wikipedia then you will get on with your own interests and leave us to get on with ours. Goodbye. -- --User:CumberlandsAshes81 3:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you'll find that rugby union fans are just as likely to vandalise league pages or put them up for deletion for spurious reasons. If you didn't go around provoking people in such an unnecessary way, you probably wouldn't attract so much heat.GordyB 10:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I think i've replied to this several months ago on you talk page, but i feel you need a bit of support here :). I hope everything has been sorted out and trust me, just because the user who you mention, is a rugby league fan, doesnt mean we all agree with what he does and how he goes about it. I encourage you to continue to do what you believe is right for wikipedia, even if that is the deletion of rugby league articles, if we believe its is not justified, we'll always be here to vote "Keep" :). Through the voting process, the right decisions have been made and will continue to be made. I now hold no grudges and believe that you are doing what you believe is right for wikipedia. POds 03:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Football Needs You

Hello,

You don't know me but i'm a user formely known as User:Jebus Christ. I was blocked some time ago because wikipedia didn't like my username. I've only just now created my current username.

Some of you may be aware that the Football article has been overtaken by a fraternity of Australian Rules supporters. This fraternity includes at least one administrator that i'm aware of. His name is Snottygobble.

Regardless of what you may think of the current vote going on in that article, it is blatantly obvious that the article has a major overrepresentation from Australian Rules fans. The Football article needs more input from people with interests such as yours. This should even out the content a little resulting in an article written from a global perspective (as opposed to the southern australian perspective).

With regards to the current vote, whether you agree or not with the proposal, there are definitely some very twisted tactics being used. Currently, almost every person who has voted differently to that the AFL fraternity has been accused of being a sockpuppet of the person who initiated the vote. Through pure frustration, several users made the same accusation of some of the AFL fraternity. Immediately those people were blocked for 'making sockpuppet accursations in bad faith' by administrator and Aussie Rules fraternity member User:Snottygobble.

I'm not here asking anyone to partake in the vote. What i'd like to see though is more input from people outside of the Assie Rules Fraternity.

Thanks in advance,

Jimididit 13:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of discussion there, what is a quick summary of the sticking points? BTW, have to laugh at your former name being blocked, brings new meaning to the word 'petty' --Paul 14:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Paul. Yeah I thought it was pretty petty. Was just some admin flexing their ego.

Ok. Sticking points

  1. Users being accused of being sock puppets just for voting against the AFL Frat
  2. Users who accuse a member of the AFL frat of being a sockpuppet are immediately blocked by Snottygobble and accused of making the accusation in Bad Faith... so it's good enough for them but not for anyone else.
  3. The sheer number of Aussie rules supporters in comparison to supporters of other codes. Only one POV is coming accross.
  4. The fact that the AFL frat has so much power and a willingness to abuse that power in order to have their own way

Overall what I really want to see firstly is participation from people with knowledge of other football codes and for those people to participate in debates about the content of the article. A bit of power to fight back and stop the afl frat from constantly getting their own way. I think to have a truely NPOV article you need people from other backgrounds to pick out the existing POV. Jimididit 15:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Jimididit's allegations are false. User:Grant65 made good faith accusations of sockpuppetry against some other participants in the debate at Talk:Football. A checkuser has now confirmed that the accused users were sockpuppets, and they have been blocked. User:J is me responded to the (correct) allegations of sockpuppetry by repeatedly vandalising Grant65's user page with bad faith accusations of sockpuppetry. After many warnings I blocked the account indefinitely. I have never edited Football or Talk:Football so cannot be considered a stakeholder in the debate. User:Jimididit has zero contributions to the encyclopaedia, and appears to exist for the sole purpose of trolling. Unfortunately, Paul, you have fed the troll. Snottygobble 00:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The edits you refer to from J is Me come from two different countries. Why do you keep deleting the question when I ask you about it? Why is me asking this question to you on your talk page considered vandalism? Your suggestion that I had no edits prior to this is also false. As I have pointed out, I am User:Jebus Christ. Under that username I do have article edits. Until recently I was refusing to post because I didn't agree with the username ban. I have not completed any acts of trolling. I have tried to get my username back and have been disgusted at the conduct of certain editors and administrators.

Perhaps Grant65 had good reason to suspect Licinius and his sock puppets but he had no reason to suspect NSWelshman. That accusation was in bad faith. I've repeatedly asked him what evidence he had to suspect him. A question he cannot answer. Jimididit 12:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

So you're Jebus Christ are you? You mean the Jebus Christ who signed this edit, declaring your IP to be the very IP that executed the vandalism of which you speak? This rubbish has gone on long enough. You have been a troll, a vandal, and a sockpuppeteer for a long time, and your putrid behaviour has finally caught up with you. Snottygobble 02:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You can read all about my side of this here....

My Side of This NSWelshman 13:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes the second IP address was mine. That's partly why I know it wasn't J is Me but it also should have been blatantly obvious since they both come from different countries.

Backyard Rugby League

Have you ever played backyar Rugby League? i'm asking because the backyard cricket have so many fans...but i love to backyard playing Rugby League...some of you too? plz tell us about the way you played RL in your backyard, or in the park. -- Pablo

Dear Pablo, Backyard footy was rarely played. We played in the front yard and on the street. On small stretches of ground we would play a game called "drill the dill with the pill" as well. I am sure if there is a case for backyard cricket, there is also a case for backyard footy.

All the kids in my neighbourhood totally played backyard cricket in summer and backyard footy in winter.--Jeff79 00:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
My brother and I used to play one-on-one backyard footy and because I'm five years older he learned how to tackle and become a tough little bastard too! Soundabuser 15:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The Times Digital Archive

The times digital archive is available to the general public for the month of April. This allows wikipedia editors and researchers to source some fantastic information on the history of our topics. I have already found various articles of historical significance for rugby league and rugby union, but I suspect there are many more to be found.

I've found articles relating to:

  • The professionalism circular of the RU
  • Reports on the Resolutions of the RU pertaining to professionalism
  • The Banning of huddersfield clubs
  • The introduction/modification of rules to both RU and RL
  • Many Many Many Results (although I did not keep these, they are not my interest)
  • Reports of Rugby league in South Africa
  • A single report on the Rugby league in Italy

And much much more.

What you must do

  1. Go HERE.
  2. Click on the Thomson Gale Power Search
  3. Click on the "Times Digital Archive" Link under "Aditional Databases"

POds 05:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

France

This sentence needs re-writing: "Once a strong test playing nation,the game in France suffered after an assault by the Vichy government in the 1940's."

The French were great in the 1950s, their decline coming thereafter. While there is no doubt they suffered at the hands of the Vichy regime, this article should reflect the reasons for their post-50s decline.--dan, dan and dan 22:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of the measures had a delayed impact, the fifties weren't too long after the Vichy period and that generation of players had been playing league before any sanctions were put in place. The next generation was a different matter, a lot of the treizistes of the sixties would not have even been born before the end of WW2 and certainly had not been playing before that. In addition the anti-league rules didn't suddenly become repealed just because the Vichy republic disappeared. At one time (may even still be true) school sports teachers could not be rugby league specialists (though rugby union specialising teachers was permitted).GordyB 22:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rugby_league/Archive_1&oldid=499005465"