Playing long balls into empty space since 2012.

Tuesday 21 May 2013

The Mav does Rugger Buggery

Paul Mavroudis


As a favour of sorts to Steve from Broady, who's been to several footy matches with me, even though he doesn't like the game - I think he mostly gets a kick out of watching me being sullen in a different context - I decided that it was time to make my debut at a rugby union match last Friday.

I bought my ticket from a scalper outside the gate. OK, he was probably just some guy with spare tickets, and honestly, I don't even know if I got a good deal or not, but man, did I feel like a badass by not buying a ticket at the gate.

Now I know the basic rules, some of the history, but otherwise don't give a toss about the game. I knew it was a Rebels' match I was going to, but I had no idea who their opponents were. Turned it was the Stormers from South Africa. I was hoping that it would have been one of the Kiwi teams, as that would have increased the Maori and Islander count a bit, but there were a few Saffas in the crowd at our end, including one who waved his flag around like nobody's business.

Otherwise, it was classic case of 'who are these people and why are they here?' Part of that answer was that a lot of them in our vicinity seemed to be from private schools. Marcellin was one of them (I have no idea who they are; their website seems to indicate they have a rugby program, but no soccer, even though I've read elsewhere that they have or had a soccer program). I could tell they were from Marcellin because it was written on their hoodies.

There were some others behind us in maroon tracksuits with blue and yellow trim, couldn't see what school they were from. And yes, there were blazers, and talk of whether one had ever been to Xavier or not. The rest of the crowd seemed to made up of a certain upper middle class type of person, in that they wore tasteful scarves, cheered and occasionally jeered at the appropriate moments and mostly kept to themselves. Pretty boring.

Every time there was a break in play, there was music. Not just for injuries, not just after tries, but even every time the ball went out of play. And I thought the AFL was bad in this department. There was scarcely a free moment to think, and considering the copious amount of time lost due to as far as I could tell, not much at all, it was bloody irritating. The Mexican style trumpet at the start of each also grated.

Though this was of course not a Wallabies game, it has always confused me as to why the upper classes, those descendants of the squattocracy, who watch this sport at a national level, have somehow chosen Waltzing Matilda as their song. It makes no sense. It's an anti-authoritarian song you goons. Anyway, the game of the upper class calling their Melbourne franchise the Rebels is also a bit of a laugh - more so when you see people displaying the Eureka flag as well. Jas H. Duke might have had something to say about that. Or perhaps not.

I used to think, perhaps in my own Victorian way, that the extra kicking in rugby union made the game more watchable than its league cousin. Seeing it in person made me realise how wrong I was. While I still think there's a place for kicking in rugby league - if they bring back unlimited tackles - the kicking in this match was terrible. More often than not, when the Rebels were resorting to kicking it was also unnecessary.

And the knock ons! So many knock ons! I suppose it was a combination of the quick play - somehow I had this idea that rugby union wasn't quite as fast as that - and the relative crappiness of the two teams on show. But back to the fast play for a moment. Rugby union on a pristine surface didn't make sense to me - shouldn't these matches be played on a mud pile? But there wasn't much time to ponder that because of the classic 'What was that for? Oh, you've got it on the screen' moments.

In soccer there seems to be a limited number of infractions, and thus you can pretty quickly get on with the game while abusing the referee for giving the opposite decision of what he should have awarded. In the footy, the umpires make it up as they go along, but at least provide clear signals most of the time as to what made up decision they actually decided on, and then we have the pantomime of everyone craning their necks towards the scoreboard for the replay to justify to ourselves that they got it wrong.

In rugby, it goes like this. Everyone gets in a big pile. At random moments during these piles - and not at every pile - the official in charge declares that some sort of infringement has happened. And apparently we look to the screen not for a replay, but for a text message telling us what it was for. Good luck to people like for whom every one of these piles looks exactly alike.

It may be due to my own petty Victorianism, but I could not this question out of my head. Why is this team in existence? Whose needs are they serving? Yes, I understand that as a city with a certain amount of people in it that we 'need' to have one of everything when it comes to sports franchises, but someone should have drawn the line here.

Finally, two things stood out above all else. Firstly, South needs to play at this stadium. Hurry up and make the grand final you clowns. And secondly, tries mean nothing to me. Seriously.

17 comments:

  1. Marcellin College is in soccer quite a bit. I went there while my son was playing a basketball match and it is interesting to read the Captains Board. Aussie rules mostly Irish Names. Soccer mostly Italian ones. As a lapsed Catholic myself I could see it.

    I am no fan of Rugby Union, but as a football code is second to soccer in its global popularity.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I probably should have looked closer at their webpage :P

    http://mconline.marcellin.vic.edu.au/soccer/

    ReplyDelete
  3. I've never understood what the ref means when he penalises people for having a "hand in the ruck." How is your hand supposed to be out of the ruck when your whole body is in it crushed under the heavy weight of ten guys?!

    Lawrie Daley: "rugby league is a simple game played by simple people. Rugby union is a complex game played by wankers."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rugby League is a very simple game indeed.... so simple its played in two Australian states, a couple of small English villages and the outer suburbs of Auckland.

    What is often overlooked is the IRB has about 100 members and is the only other football code that has any type of footprint internationally.

    Describing rugby as middle class is very similar as saying that soccer is ethnic.

    James H

    ReplyDelete
  5. James,


    Rugby is an upper middle class sport in Australia as far as I'm concerned. Apart from expatriate communities from New Zealand and the UK, and apparently some more well to do private schools, I'm not sure sure where else it has a foothold in Melbourne.

    Whether or not rugby has a global reach is irrelevant to me with regards to its merits as a sport, just as Aussie Rules being unable to get out of its limited reach is of little concern to me. I like to think I'm interested in the sports I like because of reasons other than their global popularity.

    I readily admit though that this is an unashamedly partisan piece. But that was part of the point. If it wasn't for the sake of television, I very much doubt that we would have either the Storm or the Rebels here.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Paul

    If it wasn't for television Melbourne wouldnt be part of a professional soccer league either.

    Based on your comment I presumne Australia only takes 'upper middle class' immigrants from New Zealand, South Africa, the Pacific Islands, Wales & parts of northern England.

    I reiterate that rugby is no more an elitist game than soccer is a an ethnic game.....

    James H

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would argue that Melbourne has already had representatives in a professional soccer league without television. Maybe the current representatives wouldn't be around, but their predecessors did exist in such environments - but perhaps your definition of 'professional' is tighter than mine.

      I'm not disputing that in some parts of the rugby world that the game has a more demotic reach, but it is not the perception that I have of the game as it is in this country, and the conversations I've had with people from New South Wales and Queensland on this matter usually reinforce that perception.

      Delete
    2. The NSL teams were semi-pro and in 1977 the league had a television deal. Has anybody ever examined the role of the Murdoch empire's role in increasing the interest in Soccer in Australia, such as the role of live Premier League telecasts and the competitions globalisation.

      Rugby is a game in a state of flux. Amateurism only formally ended in 1995 which opened up the game to the commercial realities of sport. The game is still in the process of devouring Rugby League - although unlikely in Australia it has succeeded to do so in France, New Zealand and Britain.

      In the Australian context the appearance of 'middle class' exists for the same reason soccer appears to be 'ethinic'. It is a large minority sport that is constantly battling against Rugby League and Australian football.

      Paul your a smart guy.... you know first impressions may last but they may not be accurate. Imagine Steve from Broady's perception of soccer if the first game he saw was of South Melbourne.

      Delete
    3. James, it's interesting, because again, it depends on what your definition of 'professional' is. Under the actual laws of the game as they are, there is no such thing as semi-pro. You either get paid to play, or you don't.

      Of course the reality is more complex than that, but there probably were soccer players in Australia, perhaps maybe even whole teams in the past, that did not require a day job, as their soccer career supplied enough of an income. And this would have existed without television rights.

      I absolutely agree that rugby is a game that is in a state of flux, and that finally being unshackled from amateurism has given it the impetus it needed to flex its muscle against its league sibling.

      I would dispute however your notion of rugby as a large minority sport in Australia - I think that perhaps gives it too much credit, though I'd like to hear Ian's thoughts on the matter. Again, that may be a Victorian point of view, where I think issues of class play out differently in Aussie rules than they do in the two rugby codes.

      Regarding first impressions, I think I imply that if it was a New Zealand team that was visiting, the make up of the crowd from a class perspective would have been different. I live in the western suburbs, and it's not uncommon to see Maoris and Islanders at the local market with Storm or Super Rugby affiliated merch (there's even a stall that sells some Super Rugby gear alongside the 'Proud to be Tongan' t-shirts).

      Steve from Broady is unfortunately not a fair example to use, as his appetite for sport is quite bizarre. And unlike a lot of people for whom there is the ideal of supporting a sporting franchise because it's from Melbourne - but only if they're successful - Steve actually goes to watch the Storm, the Rebels, the Vixens(!), every two bit Aussie tennis player at Kooyong and the Open, and watches matches featuring both the Heart and Victory without having allegiances to either. He is fiercely parochial to Melbourne sport, but lacks what some would consider the essential Melbourne parochialism of interest in Aussie rules.

      Delete
    4. And I think if we do use the word 'marginal', we have to define what that term means in the context it's being used here. And we might do that by saying that until recently, soccer was a marginal game culturally, even though it had healthy participation and spectator numbers, whereas it could perhaps be argued that rugby was a marginal game in terms of numbers, but one which was able to use its class associations to give itself a cultural legitimacy that soccer wasn't afforded.

      Delete
    5. I believe we are wasting too much time trying to fit recreational activities into systems, such as class systems, created by humans for the pupose of social science. All games are complex and those that seem socially excuslive contain outliers.

      JH

      Delete
  7. The NSL teams were semi-pro and in 1977 the league had a television deal. Has anybody ever examined the role of the Murdoch empire's role in increasing the interest in Soccer in Australia, such as the role of live Premier League telecasts and the competitions globalisation.

    Rugby is a game in a state of flux. Amateurism only formally ended in 1995 which opened up the game to the commercial realities of sport. The game is still in the process of devouring Rugby League - although unlikely in Australia it has succeeded to do so in France, New Zealand and Britain.

    In the Australian context the appearance of 'middle class' exists for the same reason soccer appears to be 'ethinic'. It is a large minority sport that is constantly battling against Rugby League and Australian football.

    Paul your a smart guy.... you know first impressions may last but they may not be accurate. Imagine Steve from Broady's perception of soccer if the first game he saw was of South Melbourne.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Such a fascinating argument that challenges some of my preconceptions. Can I say I agree with both positions? I've seen enough rugby union (Qld and NZ) to appreciate the 'outliers' that are involved. But I've also observed the tight private school ethos that attaches itself to rugby in Victoria. The migrant Polynesian community have obviously ruptured that nexus to some extent.

    Let me think on this...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dont forget the South African diaspora..... The current capatin of the Australian team is a farmer from Zimbabwe (Im not entering the sphere of African politics)

    I suggest picking up the newspaper and looking at the VAFA premiership tables and seeing how many collegian teams are propping up Australian football. Is this game also subject to the class divide?

    If University win a rugby premiership its a toffs game but this doesnt seem to apply if they win a football premiership.

    Using Mark Ella as a case study. I dont believe he was born with the silver spoon. He was just a talented sportsman who chose rugby, came through the Randwick system and is universially recognised as one of the greatest players of all times.

    JH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, there is a class element to Australian rules which is played out in the VAFA, there's no denying that, as well as when commentators like to mention that so and so played for this or that elite private school.

      And I've argued before that the VAFA's Old Boy connections contribute to it getting a disproportionate amount of column inches in Melbourne's weekend sports press, compared to soccer, who we've repeatedly been assured can't get space because 'there's just no interest/we don't do second tier sport/there's no space'.

      But no other Australian football code has the stigma, and I think it's a stigma that's been earned even if it's changing and even if there's efforts to change it, that rugby union does when it comes to class exclusivity.

      Delete
  10. Players are a different kettle of fish usually. They play a sport at school, are good, (I might add are often poached by elite private schools) and then make a career out of it. If the Ella brothers hadn't happened to be chucked into the union side at matraville in the eastern suburbs and then picked up by randwick - if they'd been from western sydney for example, where a lot less union is/was played - it might have been a different story. Having said even that, I'd be interested to see figures about players geographically in Australia.

    Followers and supporters of the game in Australia though, this is where class does have a context and there is a long history to back this up. Union was always the amateur game because the workers couldn't afford NOT to get paid. Union precluded the participation of workers, as simple as that. The private school system was the nursery of the players largely but also the supporters of the game. The end of amateurism, the glory years of the late 90s for the wallabies and the influx of unions followers from elsewhere might have changed this somewhat but the reality is that a crowd at any provincial rugby union game will be very very different to a crowd at any club league game or even football game. Yes it's anecdotal but it's still true. Why does the SMH provide much more rugby coverage than the Tele? Why does the promotional material just look different? Why does the crowd feel different? I appreciate that there are a lot of intangibles in the idea but you simply can't ignore that private schools play union and most state schools don't; that the popular club rugby sides are from more well-to-do areas; this creates the feeling of a difference in class.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The formation of rugby league was much more complex than a class split. You are forgetting the opportunism of various Sydney entrepreneurs.

    I can only use myself as an example: went to a state school yet played rugby.

    I am not disputing that private schools played an important role in Australian rugby... but guess what they also played an important role in the rugby league and australian football. Seconandary school competitions are dominated by private schools in all codes.


    ReplyDelete