Hindi, asked by 24090, 9 months ago

What are the differences and similarities between Touch Rugby and the Rugby Union?
(PE)

Answers

Answered by drsushmadevi
2

Answer:

Most rugby league people are familiar with rugby union to a certain extent. The opposite is not the case.

Twenty years ago, most rugby union people assumed that while rugby league was great for having strong athletes mindlessly bash each other, it was rugby union that had the clever tactics and nuance. Therefore, rugby union could take the rugby league athletes and mould them by teaching them the subtitles of the union game.

Except, that did not happen. It was not the league players, but the coaches who were the huge success in rugby union. In other words, union was not behind league in brawn, but in brain.

The idea that league is more brainless still survives, largely as it has a more working class player base. I am grateful for Duncan Wyeth’s experienced insight, but feel this feeds into has answer when he writes:

“League is about hard running and big hits. There is little creativity and even less room for the “odd shaped” player like me. They have taken away the ruck, the maul, the line out and the scrum. It just isn’t rugby”. I have only been a member of amateur rugby league and union clubs, but my experience is completely the opposite. There are several positions in union where you can manage with no creativity (I know, I was one of them), in rugby league you will have to read the game and makes calls on the hoof rather than relying on a couple of key players for calls (I struggled!).

As a modest amateur player, I had the brains to play at that level in union. But having to respond to calls and makes calls off the cuff was a challenge for me when playing league.

I must also disagree with the very eloquent Eashan Thatte when he writes “I also think that rugby union allows for smaller players to play more than rugby league does, which is an advantage for people like me, who are, let’s say, “Vertically challenged”.

Certainly at the top level, where it is easiest to compare, rugby union players are typically taller. Rob Burrow has enjoyed a full England and Super League career at 1,65 m, just over 5′5″. I am not sure there is a player at the top international level of such short stature in union. Rugby union has a great emphasis on the aerial game and size - no criticism of the game, but it does mean height is more desirable.

Rugby league is a much more flowing game that union. This is not apparent to many rugby union people, as they see the game as stopping with every tackle in league. To rugby league people, rugby union seems to stop into an unGodly mess in every tackle. Both miss the point of the ruck, which is key to understanding the game. Rugby league does have a greater emphasis on running and passing (we can see the gap in skill level in ball handling in English top level rugby union and league), which comes from the importance of these aspects of the game.

Tom Barrett’s post draws attention to how rugby league has changed. Rugby league used to have unlimited tackles, with the attack withdrawing five years. Now, there are limited tackles (six), with the defence having to retreat. This puts greater value on possession, as it is limited. While there was a dominant conservative style, we see Castleford Tigers and Ipswich Jets are leading the way in keeping possession and doing something with it.

Rugby union retains the unlimited tackle combined with the offense withdrawing. This puts greater emphasis on territory and thus kicking (so height is more important and passing slightly less so).

Explanation:hope it helps u

plzzz follow me and mark my answer as the brainliest

Similar questions