Jump to content

Talk:History of rugby union/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Shamaterism

revert - links to article on Shamaterism is thematically linked to paragraph plus the word 'openly' is important since abuses were widespread Taken from History of the article posted by User:GordyB 21:41, 16 May 2005 (UCT)

If it was "widespread" please provide credible sources. My major objection though is that the current format over-emphasise Shamaterism in Rugby Union. Were there any players before the game went professional who made a living from Rugby Union? The use of the word openly implies that the game was secretly professional which is was not. If it was then please provide a reputable source --Philip Baird Shearer
House of Commons, Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport: [1]. Some quotes:
"The absorption of professionalism into Rugby Union in the Northern Hemisphere was dictated by the reality of shamateurism at the highest levels of the game, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere, where the pretence of amateur status had become severely undermined and unsustainable."
"Although Rugby Union had been ostensibly amateur since its birth, the regulations prohibiting professionalism were not, in practice, enforced.[8] Governing bodies "turned a blind eye" to breaches of the regulations."
Grinner 09:36, May 17, 2005 (UTC)


6. The absorption of professionalism into Rugby Union in the Northern Hemisphere was dictated by the reality of shamateurism at the highest levels of the game, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere, where the pretence of amateur status had become severely undermined and unsustainable.


This report implies that the game had been largely amateur and had moved towards professionalism, not that it had always been that way. It also suggests that the process was further advanced in the Southern Hemisphere. I do not think that anyone would disagree that the changes were made because the internal as well as external pressure for change. However it is a long way from reporting on this state of affairs in last couple of decades of the 20th century and implying that shameterism was the usual position for the whole of the history of Rugby Union before the change to professionalism. The whole tenant of the article is that the change over from armature to professionalism happened quickly and that Rugby Union in the UK was not realy prepared for the change. If shameterism had been as widespread then the institutions would have adapted easily. Philip Baird Shearer 10:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Rugby Union has always had 'boot money' payments. If you read any player biographies from the amateur era e.g. Martin Johnson's or any history of rugby union book e.g. 'Rugby and all that' they will all say that it went on (without naming names or admiting anything). There was even a case of a New Zealand player who having suffered injury tried to sue for 'loss of earnings'. One of the reasons why Wales never went over to the league game was because a blind eye was turned to 'boot money'. This is not an anti-Union point as I am a fan of both games but we should be honest about the history of rugby union.GordyB 14:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Marting Johnson is hardly an historic figure. Seeing as he was one of the first professional players. I have personal memories of discussing payments to rugby union players in the 1970's and it revolved around discussions at the level of whether a student could claim more than the bus fare if he went to training sessions by car. I knew a couple of players who had to make a choice between making themselves available for Wales or England. As far as I know, financial considerations were not an issue when they made their Decisions. At least it never came up during some very drunken evenings when the subject was discussed. It was not about large payments of money which your highlighting of the issue implies. I think that the inclusion of the link to shamerteism in the professional section is a valuable addition to the article, but the issue was not so major that it needs a link in italics like that to rugby league. As I said before your use of the word adjective "openly" implies that it.
Before the advent of satellite TV channels in the1980s there was not a lot of cash slopping about Rugby Union. In England Rugby Union tended to be played by the professional classes. Before the 1960's the wages of football players were capped well below those which most professional people could earn. It is extremely unlikely that there was enough money in Rugby Union to make payments at anything like the level played in association football, which was not much more than pin money for a man in one of the professions. Why should such a man risk his reputation for pin money? Philip Baird Shearer 15:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Martin Johnson said that when he joined Leicester Tigers he was naive and bought his own kit. According to him most of the older players had sponsorship deals. He also said he believed that boot money payments were widespread in New Zealand and that a suspicious number of players moved to weaker clubs further away from their home base. Clive Woodward in his book Winning! admits to paying two Australian players from Manley from his own company. They were recruited to play for his club Henley on the basis on their rugby abilities and ended up getting paid for doing a job which they were given because they were rugby players. Supposedly amateur players were 'found' jobs which they were paid to do but they were not treated like normal employees. Tours in those days lasted a long time. A normal person would not have been given such generous time off and certainly would not have been paid to do so. Dallaglio claimed that Campese played his rugby in Italy because of the job that went with it and that he was frustrated with the low standard of play and refereeing. 'Rugby and all that' makes the claim that the French were kicked out of the 5N partly for running a professional league and were then readmitted after having made a half-hearted attempt to stamp it out. All of these books are written for a rugby union audience for a rugby union audience, they are not written with the intent to put rugby union down. We may not be talking about soccer style salaries but there was widespread abuse of supposedly amateur rules, that is why the word 'openly' is important because some players had always been making money out of the game on the sly.GordyB 22:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
The word "openly" is very important: at the moment that section reads as if there were no abuses of amatuerism, which is patently false. Grinner 09:04, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Using the adjective "openly" implies that before it was "secretly" professional. While most people would not deny that there was some abuse of the amateur code before it went professional, very few would claim that Rugby Union was professional before it turned professional. Philip Baird Shearer 13:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Instead of 'It would be a century before union became professional' we could have 'It would be a century before union legalised payments to players'. That way it does not imply that abuses did not happen nor that everybody was abusing the rules.GordyB 21:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer the original wording, but as you do not, your new wording is a good compromise. Philip Baird Shearer 08:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I am also happy with GordyB's new wording. Grinner 08:48, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

1947-1987

From reading this article it would seem that nothing happened in the game between these years. Does anyone know of some good sources on, for example, the Springbok tours in the seventies and the rebel tours in the eighties. Anything else we can add? Soundabuser 08:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Some random events:

  • 1949:ARU becomes total governing body in Aus.
  • 1959:William Webb Ellis' grave is located
  • 1971:First Scotland coach
  • 1975: USA Rugby formed due to rise in pop. over the past decade
  • 1983:Womens Rugby Football Union formed
  • 1984:Wallabies tour

Hmm...not sure if these are appropriate..but thats some general info. Cvene64 11:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I wrote some..but this article really needs work. We should nominate for the next COTF.Cvene64 11:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea.Soundabuser 14:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Referencing

How to

When adding information be sure to add a citation by adding this after it (using Wikipedia as an example:

<ref name="wiki1">{{cite web | publisher=wikipedia.org | title=Main page of Wikipedia | url=http://www.en.wikipedia.org/main| accessdate=1 April | accessyear=2006}}</ref>

  • Be sure to change all the names, publishers, titles, urls, and access dates to your specific reference.

-->If you are using the same source later, re-reference like this:

<ref name="wiki"/>

If you don't know how/don't have time

Just add the web address in as a link, by putting it in [http://www.wikipedia.org/] --[2] Another user will fix it for you, just be sure to add a link. Cvene64 11:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The lists at the bottom

What is everyones opinion of the lists at the bottom of the article? I think we should make an effort to de-list this article as much as possible, as lists, in general, are frowned upon, if they can be turned into paragraphs. What should we do?

I think we can probably remove the list of inaugural competitions, as they should really be mentioned in the general history. Things like list of memorable tours/games may not belong here, would anyone be opposed to starting List of notable rugby union matches or something like that? Also, I think we should move the IRB bullet points to the IRB page...Discuss..Cvene64 05:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you have said above. Definitely start a list of notable rugby union matches, however I think that if they do not have an article written on them then they shouldn't be included. Looks like there are not articles on those games so maybe move then to the talk page and people can create articles on them prior to creating a separate list. Same goes for the tours, although articles on them will most likely be easier to find. - Shudda talk 06:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Who is the "in general" you are referring to? Many articles which I have written for minor military historical figurers are turned from a CV style into paragraphs without any additional information being added, (I do not watch all the pages I have created) and when later I link to that article I find it very difficult to find the information for which I created the CV in the first place. A typical example is to show the links between several men who are later on the staff of a General, who were all at a military collage at the same time, because one has to take a paragraph, take look for a year add on two, because the paragraph now says two years later X was a Y staff collage. The in a second article on another man, look for a year and take off three, because it now says "three years earlier Z had been at Y staff collatge". So what was once an easy thing to show is now difficult.
So I think that the lists at the bottom of this article are useful and I will resist attempts to remove them. I am not against creating a list of notable rugby union matches (although I think it will be POV laden and will not get involved in it), but I think that the most notable half dozen or so should remain in this article. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
However because of size constraints on the article which are are now occuring, I would not object to the "Timeline of the foundation of national rugby unions/federations" and "The history of the International Rugby Board" being moved out to other articles. Only trouble is that in my experiance that removing lists like these from an article does not tend to free up much space. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
See the FAC. It is the goal of the rugby union COTF to get an article to FA status, any article with lists (especially with this many) will most likely get smoked at the FAC page. Also, any list of memorable games would not be any less POV in this article than it would be in its own. Cvene64 15:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, you should think about joining the Rugby union wikiproject. Cheers. Cvene64 15:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
There are in my opinion lots of things wrong with FAC criteria, which is why I do not get involved with them. I agree that any list of memorable games is a POV list, but one can probably get an interested group to agree on the best half dozen or so. Having been involved in lots of list articles involving pov all of them need a strong definition of what is to be included in the list otherwise they degenerate into a list which has no real use eg List of massacres (which is one I have walked away from because I do not see how to fix it). --Philip Baird Shearer 15:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that having the history of the IRB is a lot more relevant to the history of rugby union then any significant games or tours (except maybe where apartheid controversy was involved). As for the list of memorable games being POV, I think the fact they are memorable makes them less POV then other criteria. There are certainly games out there that few rugby commentators and players would argue should not be included, such as the 2000 Bledisloe game in Sydney and the All Blacks Barbarians game of 73. - Shudda talk 23:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Oops. I didnt see your comment Shudda, I just moved the IRB info to the IRB page. Do you want to bring it back?
I'm not to worried, but I think that the IRB info is more important then the memorable games/tours or even then foundation of different unions. See what other people think before deciding to bring it back. - Shudda talk 05:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Professionalism

I have added some info regarding the formation of SANZAR and the Super and Tri-Nations Series. Unfortunately most of the information came from one source (see footnotes) and I'm not too happy with that. If anyone out there has the book The Rugby War by Peter FitzSimons could they please read through what I've added and correct and add references as applicable. I would do it myself but am unable to locate a copy of the book. Thanks. - Shudda talk 05:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice work shudda. I don't have the text your after, but I'm sure someone will dig up additional references. Good on you for joining the wikiproject as well. Cvene64 05:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Shudda - I have toned down the events around the Springbok decision to sign with their Union. Whilst Ross Turnbull may have thought they reneged, they did not. The Springboks never handed over the signed contracts. They signed them and handed them over to Francois Pienaar for safekeeping. The WRC never got sight of these signed contracts. The Springboks voted on it and chose their Union. Conincidentally Francois Pienaar voted for the WRC but was overruled by his team. I will add the footnote soon. It is actually from Francois Pienaar's own book (the man that had the contracts)--Biscuit1018 (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, cool. As long as it's well referenced. I took all the info from that book, but if you can clarify things that would be great. - Shudde talk 22:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The professional era

The laws of the game paragraph needs updating See

-Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Emergence of Rugby in Southern France

Can anybody explain why Rugby emerged as a dominant sport in the Southern Region of France and not elsewhere in that country. Were there particular regional social cultural or other factors at work?

-- Gramscis cousin (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

From what I have read. The South of France had various "heresies" purged by the Catholic church over the years and in many towns and villages, there was an anti-Church feeling. The Catholic church disliked rugby, as it was violent, so various town mayors promoted rugby to annoy the church.GordyB (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Football; the Rugby union game (1892)

Football; the Rugby union game (1892) by Francis Marshall, may be a useful source for the early history of Rugby union. --PBS (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Careful, the Reverend Marshall was an extremely partisan figure and his opinions regarding professionalism and working class players in the North of England aren't likely to be remotely objective. It would be like using Stephen Jones as an authoritative source on modern rugby.GordyB (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Citations needed

This article needs many more inline citations as it is stuffed with facts for which there are no supporting citations. How can a person who is reading this article be reassured that it is accurate if there are no citations to back up the contents of the article? -- PBS (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The professional era

The threat to rugby union was especially large in countries where rugby league had a significant following. In particular, the Australian Super League competition was threatening to entice players to rugby league from rugby union (which was still amateur) with large salaries.

This is an opinion that is not born out by the facts. For example England has a significant rugby league following, but it was not a threat to union in England (where most union followers would not cross the road to watch it or play it). It was and always had been more of a threat in Wales that did not have a significant league following (but even there it was no more of a threat in 1995 than it had been in 1975). Australia was a country where it may have been a problem, but one can not generalise from one example. So I suggest that the sentence is changed to:

The threat to rugby union was especially large in Australia where, the Super League competition was threatening to entice players to rugby league from rugby union (which was still amateur) with large salaries.

In the Home Nations a much bigger threat was seen to be World Rugby Competition (WRC), funding union players to play in a break away union league (based in the southern hemisphere) because rugby union fans would pay to watch that on their and it would have split union apart with the danger from the officials point of view that they would in a short time be left with a rump of a game for a amateurs.

I do not think that the quote from Ian Thomsen is worth the disk storage, it is a biased one sided point of view from an article in the NYT which is not exactly known for its in-depth coverage of Rugby. It was inserted in this article by user:Jeff79 who states on his user page "mostly on the topic of the greatest game of all" that links to an Australian league article. -- PBS (talk) 04:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Globalisation

I have added the "globalize" tag to this. The article deals far too much with the so called Home Nations and White Commonwealth, and not enough with rugby playing nations outside this area, e.g. South America, Japan, Continental Europe etc. Something about the history and origins of FIRA should be mentioned - that organisation did more to make rugby an international sport than the IRFB did.--MacRusgail (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to add a globalise tag use the right one, not one that says the focus is entirely on Britain, which is obviously wrong - South Africa, NZ, Australia and France are well involved. Argentina's breakthrough in the last World Cup is also mentioned. It is inaccurate to say the article focusses too much on the Commonwealth countries because the sport is still played overwhelmingly in Commonwealth countries. The article must have a British focus in the beginning because the early history of the sport IS British. However it is accurate to say there are other areas without appropriate examination such as Italy, Japan, the Pacific Island countries and North America. Rather than unfairly label everything in the article as biased give me a day or so to add in some more regarding the history of the 4 nations tournament and the structure of the World Cup which mentions the development of other areas - which is something you could do yourself as well. I have always considerd it lazy to throw in a banner and then suggest other people do all the work to improve the article.Mdw0 (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The article is (or was, until I started adding stuff to it). The list of "notable tours" is mainly about the British Lions, and SANZAR tours to the British Isles. It's like that horrible phrase "traditional nations" or whatever it is. I have been researching some of the "non-trad" ones, and they have been playing the game for over a century in some cases, albeit at a low level.

"The article must have a British focus in the beginning because the early history of the sport IS British."

That's why the French set up FIRA, because the Brits only seemed much interested in competing with teams in the mostly white skinned parts of their Empire, i.e. ESWI & ANZ. (Or ones with apartheid - come to think of it, the apartheid controversy is barely mentioned in the article). It's also the element which voted down the RWC, and tried to scupper the IRFB, as it was then. France did a lot to spread the game to other parts of Europe, there's also the issue of success in South America, and failure in North America (in the wake of Gridiron), mixed success in East Asia etc

I've added a whole section on FIRA, start dates of the various continental competitions, and international debuts of tier 1 & 2 nations.

"Rather than unfairly label everything in the article as biased give me a day or so"

I'll remove it for two days. I hope something better can be done with it. It needs better pictures if nothing else.--MacRusgail (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Make sure you use the right banner next time. The Six Nations including France and Italy certainly needs better mention. Japan's strengthening should be added into the World Cup section, and there's also no mention of Sevens. Yes, it needs work. The stripping of international rugby from South Africa and its effects, although often overblown by some rugby historians certainly needs better coverage here. Yes, FIRA should be mentioned, but that was 80 years after the rules were first coded. All I'm saying is you cant expect a worldwide view in the initial decades because it didnt exist outside the British Isles. Mdw0 (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
NB - I made a brief mention of the origin of sevens, but it's just that, the very early history. Sevens is notable for becoming successful in areas where rugby has long been a minority sport, e.g. East Asia, and small island nations. The HK7s has to be one of the great success stories of pre-RWC RU... The Olympic and Commonwealth inclusion makes it notable as well, but there is an argument it is becoming a separate sport.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The improvement of this article would, I think, benefit from involving Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union in order to harness more resource and tap into the collaborative element of wikipedia and I will put in a call now. If this has already been done, then I apologise. I would suggest that if there are elements of the article that are incorrect or misleading then change them. If there are areas missing that contributors feel should be added, then add them. The use of the banner felt more akin to a demand than a request for collaboration.Kwib (talk) 09:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Rugby in England in the 1870s

Do any of our learned contributors have knowledge of the progress of Rugby in England in the 1870s? I suspect Association Football may have been struggling a little in England during that time, as the Scots were hammering the English in 'international' games, but I have no information to back this up (yet) Regards Peter Eedy (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Part of the reason for the Scots' success is that our population tends to be concentrated in the Central Belt. This meant players gained familiarity with one another, and worked better as a team due to a uniform style.
I think English sport history at this time is fairly well written up, but the same can't be said for other countries.--MacRusgail (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks MacRusgail - re the Scots' success at football in the 1870s and 80s, you may find the articles Combination Game and Scotch Professors interesting (if you haven't seen them before). These influences were what really appeared to differentiate Rugby and Association tactically (more so than the carrying v dribbling)
That aside, I am still interested to find out whether Rugby or Association was the dominant code in the South during the 1870s (maybe both were 'primitive' at the time?) Regards Peter Eedy (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Early use of the name 'Rugby Union'

I note that the lead in this article asserts:

"It was not until a schism in 1895, over the payment of players, which resulted in the formation of the separate code of rugby league, that the name "rugby union" was used to differentiate the original rugby code ..."

However, the following newspaper article from the Brisbane Courier (Australia) used the term in 1876:

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/1400663

BTW if you read the newspaper article, the club mentioned subsequently adopted Rugby rather than 'London Association' rules

I don't know a lot of Rugby history, so I'll leave this up to someone with more knowledge Regards Peter Eedy (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a double problem here, in that "league" and "union" have secondary meanings of "pool" and "organisation". I think this may be a reference to the RFU (the English national body)--MacRusgail (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Fair call - to put it another way, 'they adopted the rules of the Rugby (Football) Union' (rather than the rules of the 'London Association'). On reflection, they probably would have referred to the game as simply 'Rugby', with no reason to call it 'Rugby Union' (at least until 1895). Thanks for the explanation. Peter Eedy (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello again MacRusgail - I have now found a Brisbane newspaper report from 1884 which has an article with the heading 'Rugby Union'. At the time in Brisbane, Rugby and Melbourne Rules (sometimes also called Victorian Rules, now Australian Rules) were vying for supremacy. The Association game didn't start here until that year.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/3430891?
Perhaps it was a colonial usage only — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Eedy (talk • contribs) 01:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
PS You might find this excellent article re Rugby beginnings in Brisbane of interest (a real battle of the Codes in early 1880s)
http://rugbyaustralis.wordpress.com/states/qld-reds/ Regards Peter Eedy (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for digging these up. I think they will be of use in improving rugby union in Australia some time. As I understand it, in most parts of Australia, around the mid to late 19th century, the football (in the proper sense) was a mish-mash of various different codes. The codes were mixed up in single games, and there was no particular code loyalty as there is today. I suspect the schism between amateurs and professionals was a major cause of code loyalty later on in Australia.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, rugby was pretty much confined to Sydney early on and has never been much of a big sport in Victoria or South Australia. Victorian rules would have taken over all of Australia if it wasn't for inter-colonial matches (NSW vs NZ, NZ vs QLD and NSW vs QLD) and the adoption of Northern Union rulebook both for matchplay and for professionalism.GordyB (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be quite a lot of evidence of early rugby in Queensland as well. Not sure how early. Aussie Rules is at least partly influenced by early rugby as well, and that comes out of Victoria.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Aussie rules was seen as "football" just as rugby was seen as "football". Back in those days fixed rules were a rarity and it was common to negotiate the rules with your opponents before playing. Aussie rules is very much in this early British tradition and there was a strong rugby element in the rules that they adopted.
Early on only Sydney played rugby as the RFU defined it, everywhere else would have played either Victorian rules or a hodge-potch mis-mash (although Newcastle in NSW played soccer at this time). Queensland only adopted rugby because NSW agreed to underwrite the cost of their tour whereas the Victorians expected them to pay their own way. At the time I don't think rugby was played in Queensland at all (or very little) but after the tour, the sport flourished.
The switch from union to league happened because the RFU's laws on amateurism and spectator unfriendly rules meant that rugby was struggling to compete with Aussie rules which had begun to encroach on its heartlands. Switching to league enabled them to keep sporting and cultural ties with England, which was a major factor back then. Had league not been an English game, it is unlikely that the Aussies would have adopted it, they had showed no interest in North American derivatives of rugby.GordyB (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Notable Tours

It struck me too that the section has a lot to do with apartheid, and clearly the article needs a section about the relationship between apartheid and rugby union in the 1970s and 1980s but I haven't got enough detailed sources to be able to do it myself. Anyone want to pick it up?--Bcp67 (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Cambridge factor

You mention that the rules were first codified at Rugby School. Is it not true that they were codified by a couple of ex-Rugby boys who had gone up to Cambridge University? 86.176.178.94 (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Remove the section "Competition and influence on other football codes"

I think that this article should remain focused on Rugby Union. Wikipedia has a perfectly good article on Football so we do not need the section "Competition and influence on other football codes" in this article. There is mention of other codes in other sections where appropriate, and that is all that is needed in an article such as this, which is about the history of Rugby Union. -- PBS (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd support that, your reasoning there seems perfectly sensible - I took a look at the Football article and it covers the development of the codes and rugby's influence. Doesn't need more than a cursory mention here. --Bcp67 (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
In the past, rugby's rules have been changed and adapted to make new games. This is part of rugby's history, not just football's. The section is not excessive, so I think its fine as is. Mdw0 (talk) 11:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Rugby is a form of football, so I don't understand what you mean. If another form of football is derived from Rugby then that is something for the article on that form of football and/or the article on Football. -- PBS (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Notable tours

Some years ago the notable games section was growing with lots of editorial POV about which were the most notable games. Restricting it to games for which citations could be found stating that "[The] win remains the most famous upset in world rugby"[3], etc has kept the list small and useful. Unfortunately the section notable tours does not carry one citation. I suggest that in about a month from now all those entries without citations indicating that a tour was notable that the entry be removed and only put back if such a citation can be found (see WP:BURDEN). -- PBS (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Two years later there were no cations. So I have removed the section. -- PBS (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Antecedents of rugby union

I propose to delete the section "Antecedents of rugby union" it is not relevant to the "History of rugby union" and the information covered better in the article Football. -- PBS (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It could probably be trimmed down a bit, but I see no reason why, considering this article is on the history of rugby union, that it should be removed. It links to the main article Medieval football and could link to others if necessary. It's meant to be a summary, and so as long as it remains so, it shouldn't be removed. -- Shudde talk 04:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The sections on the early history in the Football article are lengthy (at around 3,000 words) so an overview of the relevant antecedent games is useful to the reader of an article on rugby union history. I'd think a summary around one tenth of that length is reasonable and the section as it stands is not far off that. -- Ham105 (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Not one of the paragraphs in the section carries citations that link the game described as precursors of Rugby Football. At the moment the whole section is nothing but original research. If sources are to be added then they must not be used to commit a WP:SYN "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
-- PBS (talk) 09:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of rugby union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on History of rugby union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of rugby union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on History of rugby union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on History of rugby union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Penalty Try

Is the seven points for a penalty try still being trialled or is it now permanent? Mobile mundo (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

A Match at Football: The Last Scrimmage’, from the Illustrated London News, November 25, 1871.

A picture being used in the article Edwin Buckman, ‘A Match at Football: The Last Scrimmage’, from the Illustrated London News, November 25, 1871. is actually an early form of Football (soccer). Wording in the article needs to be changed to suit or picture deleted. Broichmore (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_rugby_union/Archive_1&oldid=1136798275"