Following on from the Baa-Baas match yesterday, and the inclusion of Tomkins from the rugby league code, I thought I would delve a little deeper into the two codes of rugby union and rugby league and find out why they exist, and perhaps why rugby union is still so jealous of it’s lower class brother.

To understand the two codes, I have gone right back to the beginning of time (obviously, life only began with the introduction of rugby union!) to see how they developed.

The formation of the FA (Football Association) as we know it, was formed on 26 October 1863. It had been decided to try and hammer out a common set of rules for the game, so as to end the confusion between the clubs where their own set of rules differed. Two of the most contentious rules essentially caused a rift at these early meetings, thus leading to the rugby union splitting away from the FA. These rules were part of the ‘Cambridge Rules of 1848’ and consisted of ‘running with the ball’, and ‘hacking’ – I quote these two rules in full:-

• IX. A player shall be entitled to run with the ball towards his adversaries’ goal if he makes a fair catch, or catches the ball on the first bound; but in case of a fair catch, if he makes his mark he shall not run.
• X. If any player shall run with the ball towards his adversaries’ goal, any player on the opposite side shall be at liberty to charge, hold, trip or hack him, or to wrest the ball from him, but no player shall be held and hacked at the same time.

The FA decided that these two rule should be removed from the new set of rules, which basically pissed off a number of clubs in attendance, saying that these were essential parts of the game, in fact going further, a certain Francis Maule Cambell went on to say that to eliminate hacking would ‘do away with all the courage and pluck from the game’. He then pulled his club, the Blackheath Club, from the newly formed FA – others followed, and in 1871 at a meeting between the dissidents at the Pall Mall Restaurant, the RFU (Rugby Football Union) was formed.

Most rugby in these early stages of the new code was played up North in Yorkshire and Lancashire, which meant that a lot of these clubs were made up of the working class. This differed from the ‘professional’ middle class, who plied their trades in the wealthier parts of the southeast. The poorer players up north found it difficult to play and practice as they had very little time off, having to work much longer hours so as to take home a decent wage. Union was strictly an amateur code of football, and it imposed bans and restrictions on players who were paid to play. This was adhered to until 1895, when, as is so often the case, and one we are seeing more and more in club rugby between local clubs and those wealthy clubs in Europe, money caused the next rift. A separate code was formed and called rugby league to separate it from ‘union’, and thus to allow the legal payment of players and administer it’s own set of rules, and thus allowing the better players to earn a wage from plying their trade. It is interesting to note that the game in Australia and New Zealand followed a similar path in 1908. Thus Rugby League was formed.

The popularity of the game up north, and the bigger audiences allowed league to grow and become much more profitable than that of it’s “big Brother” down south. It really was a class game – those that could afford to, played union, those who couldn’t and earned a living from it played league. Over time the split in codes brought about different rule changes, to the point where the different codes are today. When league first broke away, it took with it the union rules, and both were identical games until the league made its first real rule change in 1907 which included dropping the two flankers (thus 13 men aside), eliminating the lineout, and changing the scrum to ‘heeling the ball back’ after a tackle.

It wasn’t until 1995 that rugby union finally removed all restrictions on payments and benefits (although actually a farce, as the game was all but professional except in name, and players being paid in different ‘underhanded’ ways), and did so because of a committee conclusion that to do so was the only way to end the hypocrisy of shamateurism and to keep control of rugby union. By this stage, the threat of league, and the salaries it could offer to attract to union players had become too great, especially in Australia, and the professional era, coupled with the formation of SANZAR in the same year helped to stem the flow of players.

Since 1995, it has become the ‘mission’ of various rugby union boards to try to reverse the tables a bit, attract as many league players across to union, and in turn convert the supporters and followers. To this degree, it has been partially successful, and the invitation of Tomkins to play in yesterdays Baabaa’s match was one such ploy. Generally, within the areas where league is played, audiences still tend to be bigger than union – none more so than in Australia, but, there is globally a bigger following for union. This makes the job of the unions easier, as certain matches, e.g. the Barbarians matches attract much bigger global audiences, and are therefore able to highlight the fact that they are able to draw players across. With the inclusion of Tomkins the media boys in union were able to go into overdrive in the promotion of his inclusion in the game, and I bet you there were a few more boys in Huddersfield that got the pub landlords to change channels on the telly yesterday to watch ‘their’ boy in action.

How successful was this? Time, I suppose, will tell. To most union supporters, the inclusion of Tomkins was interesting at most. It was pretty obvious from the kick off, that he was totally at sea with the rules, and had a limited understanding of the game. It was really only his talent that saw him through. He constantly had to be told to drop back into the pocket, he was attacking in the wrong places, at the wrong times, defending the wrong lines. This said, he improved as the game went on. To the union supporter, his place would have been better filled with a union player who could have potentially shown the ‘Barbarian’ flair and magic. To the league supporter, it was a proud moment to see one of their own ‘helping’ out the ‘other side’, and the final try by Tomkins would have been exactly what those same media boys had been praying for as it sent the league supporters into rapturous bouts of ecstasy. Wow, what a way for the game to end – apart for the Baabaa’s losing, of course. Will league supporters switch allegiance? I don’t know, but imagine if Tomkins enjoyed the game so much, he decided to switch codes – the media wagon would go into overdrive, as the supporters followed suit. Will Union ever be able to attract its league supporting brothers in droves? I doubt it. Both codes are so deeply entrenched in their own divisions that I just can’t see it ever happening. Are the unions ever going to stop trying to pull one over on their ‘poorer’ brothers in arms? Again, I doubt it, the Field Marshals at Union HQ will never forgive the ‘cannon fodder’ for the uprising in 1895.

So the battle lines that were drawn so long ago will remain. The trenches will move forwards and backwards as forays are sent out and battles won and lost, but the war will never end. As for the supporters, I am yet to meet one that doesn’t follow one or the other codes to the hilt.

Two great games, two great codes, two great passions and two great rivalries battling it out to the end. The rich against the poor. The upper class against the lower class. The owners against the workers.  That is why I love this game so much, on Christmas day, we will all join hands, and, if only for a few hours, kick a ball around before battle commences again on Boxing Day. Long live the codes!