Talk:Comparison of rugby league and rugby union

message: Obviously there is an immense chance that this page will generate ridiculous amounts of vandalism and edit wars but I felt that this is a subject more than worthy of an article.
Could contributors please read NPOV before editing and generally try to avoid slagging off the other code. You don't have to like 'kick and clap' or '5 hits and a kick' but try not to show that in your edits.
Please don't use the word 'rugby' without clarifying it as 'rugby union' or 'rugby league' as it will get very confusing.
-- GordyB 14:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, whoever edited this thing didn't even TRY to observe NPOV! Hey, I'm a Texan, I got absolutely NO dog in the hunt, as we say. Just watching the RWC and trying to figure out the rules. This article didn't help a bit! B. Polhemus (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism, NPOV etc

message: I think links to the other comparison articles should be restored. THe articles compares the six tackle rule to the downs system in American football, but there no longer is a link to the Comparison of American football and rugby league.GordyB 07:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: See also

message: I think an important aspect that warrants mentioning in this article is the difference in match duration between the two codes.  Whilst rugby league is strictly 80 minutes (unless golden point extra time is needed), union matches tend to be extended because of penalty/injury time or whatever.--Jeff79 01:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also true that the ball is in play much more of the time in league than in union. I think 60% of the time the ball is in the stands, in the scrum, at a line-out etc whilst it is about 20% for league. We'll need references though.GordyB 07:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you only need to reference things if they're likely to be disputed. We just need someone who knows enough about union. As long as it's accurate enough it should be alright. (Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_you_add_content)--Jeff79 20:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Match duration 

message: I agree that there probably are more tackles in league than union (if only because the ball is in play much more) but the cited numbers are unreferenced and in the case of rugby union almost certainly wrong. There are an awful lot more than 47 tackles per game. I will be removing the numbers unless a source can be found for them.GordyB (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of tackles

message: I have tagged the reference to Union scrums becoming like League scrums with dodgy feeds as Dubious.  I have seen no evidence whatsoever, in the media, or personally watching/refereeing games, where the ball is not placed in square (or almost square) AND it is not penalised.  This is a far cry from them becoming like League where the ball passes through the legs of the outermost attacker in the scrum to which the comment alludes.  GoonerW (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How often have you seen a scrum won against the head at international level? For "almost square" read "squarish". In league, the ball goes into the second row not to the loose forward.GordyB (talk) 08:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: More often than at the top level in League (i.e. often enough that it is a threat to the team with the feed).  Keep in mind that the team with the feed, know when the ball is going in and the Hooker is prepared for this.  That's the only advantage the attacking team has.  If the pack weights are against the feeder, more scrums will be lost against the feed.  Most NRL games I have seen in the last 10 years have the scrum feeder thread the ball between the legs of the closest player and almost pick it up in the same motion.  How often does the ball come out of a Union scrum almost immediately after it is fed in?  Not very often.   P.S.  Let's try to keep this discussion civil as I can see this one easily getting emotional and railroaded.  GoonerW (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

text:  Edit.  It would probably be better to keep the opinion of the Union scrum off the NPOV entry until someone can actually cite a source for the claim.  GoonerW (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: League doesn't claim to have competitive scrums although I have on occasion seen them lost. In union, the scrum still has some importance with the 2007 World Cup match between England and Australia being a good example but it is less than it used to be. I even have a Player's Guide to the laws of rugby which pours scorn on the idea that referees are enforcing the laws strictly reagrding the put-in.GordyB (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which book is this? (for reference purposes).  Looking at both codes' rule books gives a fair amount of perspective on the subject.  Both have rules requiring the feeder to put the ball directly into the tunnel where the Hookers can do their job, yet Union appears to be the only one that lists a penalty for the ball not going in straight.  For reference:  ARL Section 12.6(a) "The ball shall be put into the scrum from the Referee’s side by holding it in a horizontal position with a point in each hand and rolling it along the ground into the tunnel formed by the opposing front row forwards.".  IRB  20.6 (a)The scrum half must stand one metre from the mark on the middle line so that player’s head does not touch the scrum or go beyond the nearest front row player. (b)The scrum half must hold the ball with both hands, with its major axis parallel to the ground and to the touchline over the middle line between the front rows, mid-way between knee and ankle. (c) The scrum half must throw in the ball at a quick speed. The ball must be released from the scrum half’s hands from outside the tunnel. (d) The scrum half must throw in the ball straight along the middle line, so that it first touches the ground immediately beyond the width of the nearer prop’s shoulders.  The IRB laws tend to be a bit more verbose in each step and the ARL laws have a certain Monty Python-esqe feel to them. (e.g. Section 6.1 "A try shall count four points.".  The IRB laws also have the scrum-half in such a position that he/she can't feed the ball into the scrum the way League does (unless the SH is a master spinner like Warnie).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoonerW (talk • contribs) 22:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advancing the Ball 

message: The section entitled "Other minor differences in the rules" includes the following statement:
- A player tackled just short of the try-line in rugby union can legitimately reach across it and place the ball down for a try. This is unlikely in rugby league, but still possible.
However, my understanding is that, in rugby league, such a movement would be classed as a 'double movement', the try disallowed, and possession handed over. A player's correct response to a tackle completed 'just short' of the try line is to treat it as any other tackle, stand up, and play the ball to restart the play (frustrating as it may be!) Could someone with a more technical knowledge of the laws of rugby league confirm this? 82.153.203.241 (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're exactly right. In league no second effort can be made and momentum alone must carry the ball onto the line. Seems like it needs to be re-worded. Wouldn't have a clue about union.--Jeff79 (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In union once grounded, you have to immediately place the ball away from your body, you can do this forwards as well as backwards. This means that you can reach out and score a try as long as you do so immediately, if you pause and then do it then it is a double movement.GordyB (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In league you can reach and place the ball on/over the try-line provided that you still have momentum.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.3.58 (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double movement? 

message: Do people really think “In countries such as the United States, where neither code of rugby football is very well known, the two forms of the game are rarely distinguished between and 'rugby' could refer to either”? I’d think that, given USA Rugby and college rugby and all that, people mean “union” when they say rugby, if they even know there’s two kinds. Since the word mostly refers to domestic contests, that’s the only way I can remember hearing it used. —Wiki Wikardo 13:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name in the United States 

message: This article is so biased against Rugby union and pro rugby league it isn't funny, you can tell that the people behind it are leagueys because they use the old thing of taking contest of the breakdown out making it faster, yet don't focus on how contestng the ball is also very demanding of a player and results in more variable athletes playing rugby union.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatgreg (talk • contribs) 11:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree, everything in he first paragraph implies that the sport is much better for spectators, which is something that can't be substantiated in any way, shape or form. If anything, the stronger international presence in union adds weight to the notion that Union is a better spectator sport. Yes, league is faster and requires more physical fitness (at least aerobically), but the contests are what gives union it's appeal, something that the article completely fails to address. RatzaChewy (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias towards rugby league

message: In the section "Advancing the ball", there is this part:
(...)
Possession may change in different ways in both games:-
When the ball is kicked to the opposing team, this can be done at any time but it is normal to punt on the last tackle in rugby league.
Following an unsuccessful kick at goal.
When an opposing player intercepts a pass.
(...)
I think that its impossible to intercept a pass due the offside rule. I don't know if this rule applies to Rugby League too. Please check this point.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.15.18.231 (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not impossible in either game, it happens all the time.GordyB (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Interception

message: Thoose who wants more refs and suggests that the wrighter is not neutral, in this case, I find them to be in lack of knowlidge.
Americans perhaps ? Please do not continue to claim refs to thing that are very well known - at least in parts of the world.
Just by looking at the tables in a common newspaper shows that more points are scored in league, allthow a goal/try is given one point less. I'm not very familliar with any rugby (I'm danish) - but I've red this good article before. And I've learned from it.
And I've discussed League contra Union in England (Bradford and London). Do not over-reference wikipedia. It is enough with that a fact is well known in a country or a part of it. Please. This article is quite up to standard, and do describe both league and union play very well. As neutral that ever is possible. Besides webb-references are no guarantee for truth, but often the opposite. wiki-reader sometimes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.32.40 (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Concidering references and non-objective point of view

message: The quote in the intro violate WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD and should be removed . Gnevin (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are a nice quote that I think should be in the lead if that other one stays There's so much more of a tactical side, more that can happen in a game. It's much better  and I can find more I'm sure Gnevin (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

text: It's a quote from a player who has played both codes at a high level albeit his opinion but quote from the nyt is just an opinion also . So if one is in both should be in Gnevin (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

text: How about a section on World cups which the RL world cup is called a disappointment  to quote same article ? Gnevin (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutrality aside, quotes should not be in the lead. Leads are supposed to summarise an article, quotes are pretty much the opposite. AIRcorn (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the NYTimes quote doesn't belong in the lead - move it to an appropriate paragraph further down. Mattlore (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving it down will help but surely we are just going to end up with random quotes from different people who favour one code over the other ? Gnevin (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: True. It is probably best to keep opinions on which is the better game out of this. AIRcorn (talk) 09:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

text: And they have provided policy based reasons as to why. RFC it if you want, but so far the consensus here is pretty clear. AIRcorn (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll need to elaborate on these 'policy-based reasons' just as I have above.--Jeff79 (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead is a summary of an article, a quote is not even the summary of a source. Quotes bring problems when it comes to NPOV as they only take a small segment of the source and can be used completely out of context. They also give undue weight especially when presented like it was here. There are also particular problems with this quote. In 1995 rugby was just becoming professional so it is out of date, plus it is not the New York times saying this it is the author Ian Thomsen. AIRcorn (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll decline from sharing my opinion, but thanks anyway for sharing yours. The quality of the source, i.e. its neutrality and reputation, make it more valuable than others and precisely what Wikipedia needs more (not less) of. You can see for yourself that the quote used is an overview of precisely the topic of this article, making it perfectly suited to the lead. There is simply nowhere else (1 Names, 2 Pitch, 3 Possession, 4 Advancing the ball, 5 Tackling, 6 Scoring, 7 Other minor differences in the rules, 8 Players, 9 Cross-code games) in this article to put it. I would have been happy to include the quote in the relevant area of the article if it ran chronologically but it doesn't. Besides, the date appears alongside it. Readers should be aware that it's not still 1995.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead is not the place to put stuff that doesn't fit anywhere else. A section could possibly be made describing the relative merits of each sport from a supporters point of view. No idea what to call it (don't see any similar sections at :Category:Comparison of sports). Personally I would avoid it as it would be a magnet for POV edits. AIRcorn (talk) 10:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Okay then, lets get someone neutral. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Comparison of rugby league and rugby union. AIRcorn (talk) 08:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please stop edit warring Jeff Gnevin (talk) 08:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote in the intro

message: Is there an easy way to summarise where each form or rugby is played around the world. Is it the case that Rugby xxx is far more common that Rugby yyy in New Zealand or that Rugby xxx dominates in the south of England etc. If so then it would be helpful to provide a brief summary by country. PeterEastern (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You could use registered player numbers. The IRB publishes some for union, not sure where the league ones are. I would use seniors, juniors sometimes don't have a choice. AIRcorn (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographic coverage of each type 

message: Just seeking clarification about why rugby union's borrowing from rugby league is being singled out as an "opinion" that needs to be attributed but not the rest of the sources in the article.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is an opinion of the author and not a fact. What other sources are you talking about. AIRcorn (talk) 07:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: But why? Because it's in the book's preface as opposed to one of the chapters?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't help. However, just because something is written in a book does not necessarily mean it is not someones opinion. In these cases it is better to attribute them to the author and not say them with Wikipedias voice. AIRcorn (talk) 08:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my point. More than one book is used as a source in this article (and countless others).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but there is a difference between an opinion and a fact. Saying union turned profesional in 1995 is not an opiniona fact and does not need to be attributed. Saying that union has increasingly borrowed techniques and tactics from league is opinion and should be. AIRcorn (talk) 09:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So is it the use of adverbs and adjectives that makes it an opinion? Only sentences from books which include numbers don't need to be attributed? And what if the same book were to be referenced more than once in different parts of the article? Should it be repeatedly preceded with who said it and in which publication?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: An opinion is when someone makes takes a view or makes a judgement. This can be based on facts or just that persons beleifs. It doesn't matter where it comes from (book, newspaper, website, press release or other publication), if it gives an opinion it should be attributed. AIRcorn (talk) 09:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to pinpoint how you define the statement in question as an "opinion". If you can't, then I remain unconvinced that attributing it is neccessary.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For starters, like you have mentioned, it is in the preface (will add that into the article now). A preface is an introduction to the book and is usually written in a lot less formal style. The sentence sourced says "Amaturism, which the RFU once claimed was the very reason for the sports existence, has been abandoned, the game is now an unashamedly commercial specticle at the mercy of television schedules, and its tactics and techniques are increasinly borrowed from rugby league." Collins is making a judgemnt on rugby union. I am not sure how it can be read as anything but an opinion. AIRcorn (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You've a clear case of WP:OWN of this article and Rugby league can you please work with your fellow editors instead of pushing your own agenda Gnevin (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Same author same opinion Gnevin (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm aware of that. You haven't explained why you keep removing A Social History of English Rugby Union in favour of the other book's preface.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You realise the other reference is also an opinion. It is even labeled as such. Why don't you go to a noticeboard or initiate a rfc to find consensus if you can't find it here. If you want to attribute it to Collin's other book then do so, I don't care who it is attributed to, as long as it is attributed. At the moment I do not think you possess the ability to edit this article impartially. AIRcorn (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

text: I meant to add both Collins sources so we did not have to include the book in the attribution. I searched for Bret Harris and could find no information on him. Why is his opinion relevant? Especially when we already have Collins. AIRcorn (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: His observations are relevant because a) they agree with Collins' and b) they've been published by The Australian. Furthermore, their observations appear to agree with those of journalists for the The New Zealand Herald and Reuters. I think we only need to attribute views held solely by Collins to him.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those really support your case. One is a joke article and the other talks about things which could be adopted. You have a talent for finding news stories, maybe you could use that to help reference the etymology section. I have had no luck. AIRcorn (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am far more concerned with this article representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. So the Etymology section must take a distant back seat for now. You say "None of those really support your case". It's difficult to know what you mean here. My case is that Collins' observation matches the observations of a number of other sources (so attributing it solely to him is inaccurate). If, as you say, writers' names must always be mentioned, we should have something like: "British rugby historian Tony Collins, The Australian journalist Bret Harris, and The New Zealand Herald journalist Steve Deane have all written that since turning professional in the mid 1990s, rugby union has increasingly borrowed techniques and tactics from rugby league." That's just silly isn't it? That's the reason footnotes were invented. This discussion should have ended when A Social History of English Rugby Union was added as a reference, in which Collins' observation is presented through facts in the book's body (not as an opinion in the preface).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I said somewhere else that just because more than one person shares an opinion doesn't turn it into a fact. We both disagree and I don't see either of us changing the others mind. Why don't you look for a third opinion. AIRcorn (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attributing opinons 

message: I added two sentences today to the History section. Remember that this article is called -- "'Comparison of rugby league and rugby union".
The first sentence said "Comparing the international development of both codes, union has become the norm for events not promoted by the codes' governing bodies". 
The second sentence, running on from the first and justifying it, said  "Rugby union has been a medal sport at four Olympic games, in Paris (1900), London (1908), Antwerp (1920) and Paris (1924), and will return to the Olympics in 2016 and 2020  in the sevens form. Rugby union sevens is a core event at both the British Commonwealth Games and the Asian Games."
Aircorn removed the first sentence, with the edit summary "remove needless POV sentence". Is it consensus that it is POV when comparing the international development of the two codes in an article about the comparisons of the two codes? Moriori (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it as no comparison is made. The sentence is completely redundant as only rugby union is mentioned.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an effort to work in the international spread of union as compared to league, see the draft paragraphs (under show) above. The olympics, commenwealth and asian games could be worked in there quite easily (maybe split out into another paragraph). Feel free to edit it if you wish. However, I do think your first sentence is a bit ORish. I feel that just presenting the facts is the better option in most cases and then let the readers decide whether it is the norm or not. AIRcorn (talk) 09:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments please

message: While there is a bit of activity here maybe we can look into tidying this section up. I have been looking for references, and while I can find mentions or football, footy, rugby etc for almost either sport in any area I have yet to find a reference that justifies across the UK, rugby union is usually referred to simply as 'rugby' or the word 'rugby' could refer to either sport but usually means 'rugby league and so on. Has anyone come across a reference that specifically discusses the various names used in different geographic areas? AIRcorn (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: There is some disagreement over whether this sentence should appear twice in the article verbatim: The inherent similarities between rugby league and rugby union has at times led to the possibility of a merger being mooted and experimental hybrid games have been played that use a mix of the two sports' rules. Aircorn wants it to appear once in the lead section without references and a second time in the History section with references. I want it to appear once in the lead section (with references of course). This seems to better suit WP:LEAD as it is a precursor to the detailing of specific cross-code games later in the article. Furthermore, I would have the History section flow chronologically, and this sentence doesn't fit in at any particular point in time.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything in the lead should be covered in the body of the article. I personally think the history section flows quite well at the moment and would rather keep it grouped by theme more than chronology. AIRcorn (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No one disputes that "Everything in the lead should be covered in the body of the article". The question here is whether we should have the same identical sentence appear twice verbatim in two different sections of the article.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Then change the lead one. AIRcorn (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have an alternative wording to suggest. I do have an alternative to it appearing twice though, and that is appearing once.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it can't be in the lead as "everything in the lead should be covered in the body of the article". AIRcorn (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

text: At the moment my preference is for it to be mentioned once in the history section. I don't see any other section in the body where it will fit, but there may be a case for moving it. If you want it mentioned in the lead then go for it, I am not bothered either way. AIRcorn (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant that if you wanted to mention it in the lead as well as the body then I am not bothered. I did not mean I am not bothered if you move it to just the lead. Where else is that information to be presented? AIRcorn (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What 'information' specifically are you referring to?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "The inherent similarities between rugby league and rugby union has at times led to the possibility of a merger being mooted and experimental hybrid games have been played that use a mix of the two sports' rules." This only appears in the lead. It should also appear somewhere else (not necessarily in that form, but the article should say something about hybrid or merged games). AIRcorn (talk) 09:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wigan vs Bath is dealt with in the history section. Doesn't that qualify?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I created a specific section for it ("cross-code games"). What do you think? It could probably use a better heading. AIRcorn (talk) 06:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication of content 

message: There is some disagreement over the way the History section of this article is laid out. My preference is for it to simply flow chronologically, a method commonly employed for history sections across Wikipedia (that may be written into a guideline somewhere, I'm not sure). Aircorn appears to prefer a situation in which editors choose the order in which different historical 'themes' are detailed.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you creating a lot of short paragraphs? AIRcorn (talk) 09:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying my best to make things appear in chronological order. If that means some small paragraphs rather than material dealing with different decades scattered at random across the history section, I beleive that is the lesser of the two evils. Besides, the article is clearly undergoing some major expansion. Those paragraphs won't necessarily remain that short.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. In that case we may want to think about trimming or moving information out of the history section at some point so it doesn't overwhelm the article. I can specifically think of the cross-code players being moved to the players section and the rule changes to a newly created rules section. AIRcorn (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I've also been concerned for some time about the replication of content from History of rugby league, History of rugby union and Rugby football. Although that's understandable around 1895, it is not for the remainder of the section. We should try to restrict its content to direct comparisons and discourse regarding both codes rather than just one as much as possible. And yes, 'Players' as a subsection of 'Gameplay' seems out of place. Should be its own section.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a go at trimming the info and moving paragraphs around. AIRcorn (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: History section

message: I was a little surprised to find that the shoulder charge is still referenced in the article as being part of Rugby League since it has been banned internationally since February this year (2013). Well, I suppose someone has to make the change, so I am removing the references in the article.
See: http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/official_laws
and http://www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/27099/rfl-laws-committee-outlaws-shoulder
New Zealand and Australia had already banned the shoulder charge. Ecadre (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Shoulder charge

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Comparison of rugby league and 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:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5q61bxH6m?url=http://www.rfu.com/AboutTheRFU/History.aspx to http://www.rfu.com/AboutTheRFU/History.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/28/sports/28iht-rugby.t.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theroar.com.au/2007/06/18/black-and-white-and-grey/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rugbyleagueoralhistory.co.uk/subjects/view/rule-changes
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070829103027/http://arlra.org.au/pdf-files/International_Laws_2007.pdf to http://www.arlra.org.au/pdf-files/International_Laws_2007.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://sport.stv.tv/rugby/175081-its-le-crunch-for-magners-league/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/4773076/Talking-Rugby-No-code-like-the-old-code.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://rugbyreloaded.blogspot.com/2010/05/mythbusters-contest-for-possession.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130413022851/http://www.rfu.com/twickenhamstadium/worldrugbymuseum/rugbyhistory/amateurera to http://www.rfu.com/TwickenhamStadium/WorldRugbyMuseum/RugbyHistory/AmateurEra
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article is full of long paragraphs. It would be handy to have a two-column table, with items such as:
Number of players
Size of scrum
Points for a try
Points for a conversion
Points for a penalty
Points for a drop goal
Restart method after touchdown in own in-goal area
Etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtranslates (talk • contribs) 09:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to help make a table. I'd even like to add a column for American football -- which, as a born Yank, I simply call "football". The three games share the idea of a field goal (over the bar, between the posts) and a touchdown; all three involve tackling. I bet a lot of American readers would like to know how close football is to rugby. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Create a table

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Comparison of rugby league and 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091024111441/http://www.rugby.com.au/about_the_aru/history_of_the_aru/history_of_the_aru%2C183.html to http://www.rugby.com.au/about_the_aru/history_of_the_aru/history_of_the_aru%2C183.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: English language
And Samoa language
🖕🖕💋🤪 203.99.159.226 (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manu Samoa.💖😭❤️💝 

message: The section on the ball says rugby balls "do not have ties for grabbing" unlike American football. I didn't realise American footballs had ties either, there's nothing about it on Ball (gridiron football). Is somebody thinking about flag football? John Womble (talk) 12:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ball?