Nrl 3.8 Million & Afl 3.3 Million

[Ronin]

Ha ha. Very good with the Bathurst jibes. I'm actually not a local but am here for the year, so you are not really striking bone.

You are right however with relating the homo stuff to Aussie Rules as far as Bathurst goes...around here they call it the 'GayFL', which is fairly ironic coming from supporters of a league where a player got busted shoving his finger up people's arses. That's the thing about leaguies, they constantly live in denial about their sexuality. Outwardly hetero but get them in close proximity to another man they bar up and go for the rear portal as quick as they can.

I'll think you'll find Oxford Street is in Sydney...isn't that the home of your competition? The place where girls can't get a root because most of the blokes are ****s. As for the percentage that aren't, they play Aussie Rules.

Your league guernseys look like an entire Mardi Gras all wrapped up and represented in a single shirt; they scream out the fact your game involves shoving heads places where nature didn't intend them to be - I imagine those scrums you have in your game are pretty much what happens on Oxford 7 days a week.

There is an obvious rainbow effect at work in your club's outfits; no doubt a lot of work has gone into them from the best male designers and fashionistas. Perhaps that is why Hopa lost it and his opponents copped it...the look of them transported him back to the Rugby League Float he was on that was heading up to the Sleaze Ball and he just had to cop a feel. It would explain why he did it with 15 cameras trained on him and in full view of a stadium of like-minded homosexuals.

As for our guernsies, the ones from the foundation clubs have been around since the days men were men and women were happy they were...our colours bleed tradition as compared to the johnny-come-lately glitz and glamour or your faggy outfits. I would not be surprised if the first innovation that league ever comes up with is next season when the NRL mandates every club's jersey has to have sequins in them. Don't worry, that is one innovation we are sure to leave as yours and yours alone.

Don't forget to bendover next time Hopa's about.

Good luck, you'll ****ing well need it with all these viruses about.

So you are fitting right in then.

Spiffing.

 

[Ronin]

Or perhaps they'll find this photo of the Auckland Australian Football League's Eden Football Club (back-to-back premiers 1907/08) and conclude that, yes, kiwis did in fact play Aussie Rules back when rugby league was just a feotus ....

Why aren't they doing the haka?

 

[Ronin]

Well that's what calling them "conquistador" is doing, lauding them.



Errr.....there have never being indigenous "Indians" in the American continent, having lived there I'm pretty sure I never came across any.

So, I shouldn't call them Conquistadors, and they aren't Indigenous Indians, but they do play AFL.

Is that it Blainey?

 

[fishmonger]

Why aren't they doing the haka?

because they didn't back then.

In fact, even the rugby guys were still learning the ropes as late as the 1970s. Here is a video of the famed All-Blacks Haka you should check out.

[YOUTUBE]nZ96rNaHR_E[/YOUTUBE]

Pretty scary huh

looks more like an audition for "so you think you can dance"

 

[Happy Daze]

So you are fitting right in then.

Spiffing.

No, I think you are, and the word you are looking for is 'spoofing'.

 

[Ronin]

No, I think you are, and the word you are looking for is 'spoofing'.

No, I mean't to use the term 'Spiffing'.

The use of the other term would only be apt whilst one was wearing the described Sash jersey, sauntering provocatively down the backblocks of Darlinghurst. Not that there is anything wrong with that, it is just not my cup of tea old boy.

Cheers

 

[plugger47]

Carlton defeated Melbourne at the MCG in front of 7,000 fans under lights. The date: 13th August 1879. That's right - 1879, under lights.

Over a century later they would still draw about 7,000

 

[Happy Daze]

No, I mean't to use the term 'Spiffing'.

The use of the other term would only be apt whilst one was wearing the described Sash jersey, sauntering provocatively down the backblocks of Darlinghurst. Not that there is anything wrong with that, it is just not my cup of tea old boy.

Cheers

Where were you from again? Sydney?

 

[Hicham]

Or perhaps they'll find this photo of the Auckland Australian Football League's Eden Football Club (back-to-back premiers 1907/08) and conclude that, yes, kiwis did in fact play Aussie Rules back when rugby league was just a feotus ....

A feotus?

Rugby League began in August, 1895.

It is hardly a topic you should boast about though. In the 101 years that Rugby League has been played in NZ it has firmly established itself as one of the nation's foremost winter sports and, these days in particular, produces loads upon loads of the world's most talented Rugby League players.

Meanwhile, after 100+ years, all NZ AR has to show for their efforts are a bunch of amatuers playing in faux-world championships. And yes, they are faux-world championships. The number 1 nation is denied from participating because they as professionals will essentially be playing against glorified park-footballers.

 

[fishmonger]

A feotus?

Rugby League began in August, 1895.

Hardly

Both unions played rugby football under the same rules at first, until similar breakaway factions occurred from RFU-affiliated Rugby Unions in Australia and New Zealand in 1907 and 1908, and formed associations known as Rugby Football Leagues, introducing modified Northern Union rules to create a new form of rugby football

 

[fishmonger]

Meanwhile, after 100+ years, all NZ AR has to show for their efforts are a bunch of amatuers playing in faux-world championships. And yes, they are faux-world championships. The number 1 nation is denied from participating because they as professionals will essentially be playing against glorified park-footballers.

No more faux than it would be to do what your "legitimate" World Cup does and have Ron Barassi pull on an Italy jumper. Or some guy who isn't even a kiwi "top up" the national team.

The Daily Telegraph can also reveal Nathan Fien approached New Zealand coach Brian McClennan mid-year about the possibility of representing New Zealand.

McClennan told Fien he would have to show documents proving he was eligible.

Fien said his "nan" was a New Zealander.

He did not say his "nan" was his great-grandmother and not his grandmother.

New Zealand selector Darrell Williams hoped Fien would not deliberately lie about his relatives.

By the way, you may not know this, but my nan was born in Antarctica. I have the receipt from the crackerjack box to prove it. I feel like starting the Antarctive Penguins national side ....

Rugby League World Cup = TOTAL JOKE

 

[ringleader]

Hardly

http://www.rl1895.com/rugby-divide.htm

 

[fishmonger]

http://www.rl1895.com/rugby-divide.htm

I don't care for the history lesson. I know all about it. But your so called divide is almost identical to the VFA/VFL split in 1897.

Just because they were two competitions does not mean they were playing two different games.

Luckily the VFA and VFL leagues were able to solve their differences rather than tear the game apart.

Our game is better for it. Why would you want to split a sport down class lines ? Australian Rules Football is the game of the people.

 

[RandB]

http://www.rl1895.com/rugby-divide.htm

"On August 29, 1895 representatives of the northern clubs met in the George Hotel, Huddersfield to form the "Northern Rugby Football Union" (usually termed Northern Union or NU). The twenty-two clubs and their year of foundation were: Batley FC 1880, Bradford FC 1863, Brighouse Rangers FC 1878, Broughton Rangers FC 1877, Dewsbury FC 1875, Halifax FC 1873, Huddersfield FC 1864, Hull FC 1865, Hunslet FC 1883, Leeds FC 1864, Leigh FC 1877, Liversedge FC 1877, Manningham FC 1876, Oldham FC 1876, Rochdale Hornets FC 1871, St Helens FC 1873, Tyldesley FC 1879, Wakefield Trinity FC 1873, Warrington FC 1875, Widnes FC 1873, Wigan FC 1879.

The separate Lancashire and Yorkshire competitions of the NRFU merged in 1901, forming the Northern Rugby League, the first time the phrase rugby league was used officially" and this was only a name distinction. It wasn't until years later that they actually changed the rules that distinguished league from union.

The New South Wales Rugby Football League was responsible for the introduction of rugby league into Australia in 1907.
_____________________________________

Australian rules was first devised in 1858. Melbourne Football Club est 1858, Geelong Football Club est 1859.

The Victorian Football League, formerly known as the Victorian Football Association (VFA), and also known as the VFA/VFL, is the oldest Australian rules football league, formed in 1877.
_____________________________________

"The AFL is the most attended professional sporting league in the country. The previous three AFL Premiership Seasons have had a total regular season attendance of over six million and the average attendance of over 36,000 is the second highest of any professional sports league in the world."

 

[Hicham]

Rugby League began using the majority of "Rugby" rules and has gradually evolved ever since. The rules of the game have never remained constant, the game has always been about change. Rugby League is just evolved Rugby, and that won't stop happening until the ultimate form of Rugby is achieved.

Among the first changes were the introduction of the play-the-ball, the removal of the line-out and the reduction of player numbers on a team. Other major changes didn't occur for years, even decades later. Unlimited tackles removed, uncontested scrums/scum penalties, the introduction of the 10m rule, changes to the points value of tries and goals, changes to the field, among many others.

The game is completely different to the game that was played 20 or 30 years ago, let alone 110.

 

[Hicham]

Interesting, have a look at the heading of the initial history article on that website:

1895: The Birth of Rugby League

http://www.rl1908.com/History/1895.htm

It is widely known that the Rugby League's birth was in 1895 in Huddersfield. 1907 saw it indroduced in NZ and 1908 in Australia, hence the "Centenary of Australian Rugby League" celebrations for next year to coincide with the WC. Quite amusing to see Mexicans arguing against that when its a game you have little to do with or, in some cases, know anything about.

 

[RandB]

Rugby League began using the majority of "Rugby" rules and has gradually evolved ever since. The rules of the game have never remained constant, the game has always been about change. Rugby League is just evolved Rugby, and that won't stop happening until the ultimate form of Rugby is achieved.

Among the first changes were the introduction of the play-the-ball, the removal of the line-out and the reduction of player numbers on a team. Other major changes didn't occur for years, even decades later. Unlimited tackles removed, uncontested scrums/scum penalties, the introduction of the 10m rule, changes to the points value of tries and goals, changes to the field, among many others.

The game is completely different to the game that was played 20 or 30 years ago, let alone 110.

...and Aussie rules has evolved since 1858 but has always been its own code.

 

[ringleader]

Interesting, have a look at the heading of the initial history article on that website:



http://www.rl1908.com/History/1895.htm

It is widely known that the Rugby League's birth was in 1895 in Huddersfield.

Not according to this fishfool. He seems to think just because the ruls were the same that it never happened.

He/she/it clearly has no idea why the game was started or when despite having numerous articles on the history being shown to him.

 

[RandB]

Not according to this fishfool. He seems to think just because the ruls were the same that it never happened.

He/she/it clearly has no idea why the game was started or when despite having numerous articles on the history being shown to him.

"Birth"? In other words they were playing union still but decided to seperate themselves from the others due to social reasons. Thinking about it and actually implementing it are two different things. When did league first become a "code"?

See previous post: Term "League" not used untill 1901... and even then it still had the same rules as Union or non-league rugby.

 

[ringleader]

Rules are irrelevant. What were the rules of AFL when it started?

AFL rules seem to change every year so perhaps it's really only 1.

 

[RandB]

Rules are irrelevant. What were the rules of AFL when it started?

AFL rules seem to change every year so perhaps it's really only 1.

haha I knew you couldn't answer the question.

As I said previously Aussie Rules has always evolved but has always been it's own code.

So what you are saying is that rugby league is just rugby union with a different name? You are shooting yourself in the foot by comparing rule changes within one code to rule changes between codes because as a result you are proving that rugby league as a game is not that revolutionary at all.

How can Rugby League be "born" in 1895 when the clubs involved were still playing the actual code of rugby union and the term "league" was not used until 1901?

 

[Hicham]

Just back on topic for a second, i'd like to correct Queenslander on the thread title. It is slightly inaccurate, lol. Combined 5 City and Regional totals are in:

Cats v Power 3.333 Million

Storm v Sea Eagles 3.748 Million

http://www.thinktv.com.au/media/Media_Releases/Week_39_2007_-_Weekly_Ratings_Report.pdf
http://www.thinktv.com.au/media/Media_Releases/Week_40_2007_-_Weekly_Ratings_Report.pdf

Great audiences for both games

 

[ringleader]

How can Rugby League be "born" in 1895 when the clubs involved were still playing the actual code of rugby union and the term "league" was not used until 1901?

Because they were seperate competitions regarded as seperate codes. Even Union fans will tell you when League started.

It is laughable that AFL fans who know zero about either code profess to be experts in both.

 

[LebaneseForces]

...and Aussie rules has evolved since 1858 but has always been its own code.

NO ONE gives a **** about AFL!!!

 

[Sir_Adrian84]

Interesting, have a look at the heading of the initial history article on that website:



http://www.rl1908.com/History/1895.htm

It is widely known that the Rugby League's birth was in 1895 in Huddersfield. 1907 saw it indroduced in NZ and 1908 in Australia, hence the "Centenary of Australian Rugby League" celebrations for next year to coincide with the WC. Quite amusing to see Mexicans arguing against that when its a game you have little to do with or, in some cases, know anything about.

Who was/were the first club(s)?