Code rivalry
editRivalry among fans of different sports, for example basketball or football is common place. It is the same among the two different forms of rugby codes, rugby league and rugby union. The rivalry between the rugby codes in some ways is similar to any rivalry between competing sports. However many intune with either code know that there has been a long and at times uncomfortable relationship between the codes that has not only helped build the rivalry that is seen today but continues to inspire it.
The various schisms occuring in rugby through out the rugby nations were the first signs of rivalry hitting their peaks. The subsequent mass losses that occurred in England and other nations such as France, with respect to the rugby unions clubs and supporters would have given the union faithfuls much to be angry about. Likewise, the constant <interuptions> by the union in matters of the rugby league in securing sponsors, participants and fields to play on had also frustrated league officials at the time.
The deeds of the past further lenthened the gap between the two codes that was formed from the social divides from which the schisms first erupted. It is then through generation to generation that those opinions from those decades gone where passed on. Or it is simply through the teaching of one and lack of teaching of the other in families or other groups that has sustained the divide to this day.
Further more, the past still adds fire to any debate between the two codes. Rugby union fans may point to rugby league's buying of rugby union players as unethical or immoral. Conversly, rugby league fans may point to the rugby union using it's high government and other social contacts to discredit rugby league or hamper its development.
However, many fans of one rugby code either equally or slightly enjoy or the other code. This is mirrored in participation of the sports. In Australia, rugby participants of one code are more likely to be participants of the other rugby code when participating in more then one sport. Thus although many share an unfriendly rivalry with the other code many more are willing to give both codes a share of their time.
Although social barriers between the classes and the lines between the classes themselves have become blurred. Furthermore, the professionalism shown by both rugby league and more so rugby union has gone a long way to bridging the gap between the two codes. Both codes now share a small number of supporters from those classes that have been traditional supporters of the opposite.
Masculinity
editIn many sports, particularly football which is dominated by men, masculinity is a key feature of the game. This is especially true in rugby league which is a game dominated mainly by men with above average weight and height who possess a willingness to inflict pain among opponents and themselves as a means to an end. This should not be so unfamiliar with fans of other sports such as rugby union or American football.
In extreme cases, such as Papua New Guinea rugby league games resemble the more traditional community or district rugby league competitions of the past, fuled by passion of their district and hated of others. Papua New Guinean rugby league is said to resemble tribal ware fare, both from a spectator and players point of view. It is also common among New Zealanders to take a similar approach, especially those of Maori and/or Pacific Islander who are active participants in their culture.
Masculinity in rugby league stems from those times when death was a common aspect of the game; an era when women rarely involved themselves in sport, especialy of such a physical nature. The tackle, a common part of the modern game, still defines the strength and build needed for the average player. This makes mixed competitions almost impossible and women only competitions are rare; they are also discouraged by doctors and politics given women's sensitive areas such as the breasts and around the stomach.
The result is a culture created by men for men. This aspect of the game has been called into question especially with respect to those influenced by rugby league culture and their attitude towards women; this following various accusations, charges and questionable remarks by (some high profile) rugby league players and officials.
It is now commonly accepted in the media that the lack of female input into the culture of rugby league has segregated it from the rest of society and thus any significant changes. That is, 20th century culture has been largely influenced by women. If women have not had input in rugby league's culture then can those changes that have made society what it is today have been reciprocated through out rugby league's culture?
As it is commonly accepted in Australia, many will tell you it hasn't. It is now an issue for the games governing bodies, but specifically the competition and clubs, because they are the ones most likely to suffer.
This has seen a significant amount of work been put forward to restoring rugby league's identity within the community, especially with respect to women; including: charity dinners, events and collaborations with women's organisations. Considerable work is also being done to educate players; more so in Australia where the number of accusations have been founded, here the national competition endorsed a an independent review of the culture of rugby league of which several recommendations have been made and enforced.
Another common excuse or explanation for the sudden number of rugby league players behaving badly has been the fact that young men are now very rich men with perhaps too much time on their hands. This has been another area where education has been focussed, which advices players on how to manage their finances and more aptly fit in to club and community culture.
George Bennet became the first black player to appear for Great Britain in an international rugby league match where as it took soccer another 44 years to achieve a similar feat; Viv Anderson became the first black athlete to play for England.
By the 1960s black athletes where so common in rugby league that it had out grown its initial novelty and was no long a matter for comment.
Similarly to George Bennet, Clive Sullivan became the first black athlete to captain a Great Britain team in 1972, 21 years prior to Paul Ince becoming the first black player to captain England's soccer team.
Perhaps even more astounding is that no top flight soccer club is yet to appoint a black British person to manager/head-coach almost half a century after Roy Francis and many others in his wake achieved the same feat in rugby league.
Ellery Hanleys achievement of becoming the national coach of Great Britain's rugby league team in 1994 is the latest for black rugby league players yet to be emulated in other football codes.
Rugby union does not fair any better then soccer, when placed against its siblings achievements for black players. Aside from James Peters in 1906 no other black player had appeared in an England national rugby union side until Chris Oti in 1988. Similarly, despite many black Welsh athletes appearing in the Wales national rugby league team, no black Welsh player had been selected to play for the Wales national rugby union team until the 1980s.
It is thought, that perhaps because of the circumstances that lead to rugby league's formation that it has developed an ideology based on meritocracy, embracing change and opportunity for all. This ideology allowed rugby league to welcome black people into all levels of the sport when at the time rival sports where shutting their doors too them.