Dumb girl question: Why don't they combine league and union into one sport called rugby?

If you add the set pieces from Union and ditch the six tackles, wouldn't you just end up with Union?

There's no need to change. I'm sure the Leaguies are happy with their game and I'm happy with Union.

I take your point about 13 players. One former Irish international, Tony Ward, in a column in a newspaper, said that Union should consider switching to thirteen players as defences have come along a lot since he was playing and this is stifling attacking play and that by reducing the number of players, team will have more space in which to attack. So you're not the only one that's thinking it.

Personally I like the game as it is, but I know in Australia especially, where there is a lot of competition between sports, that ratings are down.

The fundamental problem League has is that it is already too fast. Union's biggest strength -- and the reason it remains far more popular than League -- is that amateurs can play and enjoy the game up into their fifties or even sixties so long as they stay reasonably fit. And that base of amateurs provides the fans for the professional Union clubs.

League can be entertaining (although I get bored with the constant rushes up the middle) and is fine for people who have enough skill that someone is willing to pay them to train full-time, but it is not friendly to those of us who have to work for a living. Every change which led League to diverge from Union -- uncontested scrums, the play-the-ball instead of the ruck -- all of it -- was done to speed the game up for fans. But it also made it pretty much impossible for a amateur to maintain the level of fitness required. It turned out to be a big mistake, for League, and I fail to see why Union would want to make the same mistake.

A bit of research will show that rugby league broke away from rugby in the late 19th century.

Rugby is an international sport but league is really only played in three countries. Why would rugby want to merge with league and go backwards.

Why? League and Union are both viable sports. Is there a rule that says that there can only be one rugby?

Why not amalgamate the CFL and the NFL? How about combining AFL and Gaelic Football? Tennis and Badmonton?

That would sort of be like combining union with American football. You'd be taking a sport that's played in only a few places in the world and combining it with one that's known everywhere. I don't think there would be much interest.

Ceratain people only like league and others only union.

and they wouldnt like it if you made union more like league of vice versa.

so at the moment they are satisfying both codes. if they were struggling to pull crowds or players i could see where you are coming from.

If you get rid of six tackles, and add breakdowns/ ball contesting it's union all over again.

for the same reason as they don't combine squash and tennis, they're two different sports with two different sets of fans and two different set of skills involved, although there is some overlap.

Heresy.

Union - a thugs game played by gentlemen.

League - a thugs game, no intelligence required.