Talk:Touch football (rugby league)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See the Page Section #Requested move from Touch football (rugby league) to Touch rugby (FIT)

Contents 1 Moving from Touch football (rugby league) to Touch rugby 1.1 Poll 1.2 Discussion 1.3 @ Grunt 1.4 One page good. Two pages better 2 From In to touch website 3 First Part of the discution about Touch football and Touch Rugby 4 Google 5 All these rules are touch rugby rules 6 Email to the FIT 7 Requested move from Touch football (rugby league) to Touch rugby (FIT) 7.1 Poll 7.2 Discussion 7.3 Discision 8 A title we can all agree on (make suggestions) 8.1 Discussion 9 Proposed merge with Touch rugby Sep 2006

[edit] Moving from Touch football (rugby league) to Touch rugby

Previous touch rugby article was useless, content merged with touch football (rugby league). Touch football (rugby league) title is confusing and leads to other touch rugby articles describing the same sport or close variants that never deserve their own article due to little information. POds 07:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'm thinking about removing this notice now, as it looks as though we have no clear concensus and the amount of discussion in the last couple of days has reassured me we can work this out with out a move. Do we let this process take its course or can i manualy remove the notice from the notice page? POds 10:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Done.Philip Baird Shearer 17:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poll

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Don't Care - But if a change is made can't we just use Touch Rugby and redirect this age to Touch Rugby or visa versa?? --Rob 07:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support - This current title has lead people to start creating or writing article's of the same sport under the title "touch rugby" which is this sports most commonly used name. POds 07:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support - All the world use the term touch rugby except for the australia who invent that sport so majority wins Goldensun 08:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • see above Goldensun 13:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support - After which I will steer clear of the whole area..... Grinner 09:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Failed to steer clear, see above. Grinner 12:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose to this move because before the current messing around there were two articles. One about the game played under FIT and one for the less condefied versions played by both codes but particlularly union. Originally there was one article but it got overwritten in a slimilar way to that which is being done now. At 09:28, 17 May 2005 I moved the information which was specifically about the FIT game into Federation of International Touch (rugby) and left the rest of the article under Touch Rugby This remain largly in place until the 5th of September[1]. So your explanation only covers the state of the pages in the last few days. I don't think a merge is a good idea, for example the page you intend to move to Touch Rugby has at the begining of the history section "Touch started in Australia as a social park game and as a training technique" FIT did but touch rugby did not stat in Australia as a social park game. I think it cleaner to leave one article to cover FIT and another for the versious other versions. Where in the article that you are proposing to move are the mentions of the RFU and "its junior development program" which were in the article before? (If you wish to respond to this, please respond in the discussion section)Philip Baird Shearer 17:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • But if the name was to be moved to Touch rugby (league) or even better back to Federation of International Touch (rugby), I would support the move. Philip Baird Shearer 17:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC) on reflection I now lean to Grant65 position on this Philip Baird Shearer 13:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose I can understand the counter argument. People need to understand that "football" isn't just the kind of football that they are familiar with; the word means different things in different English-speaking countries (or even regions within countries, see football (word)). The game originated as a variant of rugby league football. I moved the page from Federation of International Touch (rugby), on the basis that the article was about a sport and not and organisation (analogous to combining soccer and Football Association on one page). I think "touch football (rugby league)" is the least ambiguous name, and touch rugby should be rewritten as a kind of extended disambiguation page, since it seems there are varieties of touch rugby which have nothing to do with rugby league. Grant65 (Talk) 03:43, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

POLL CLOSED There was no consensus to move Touch football (rugby league) to Touch rugby -- Philip Baird Shearer 17:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

Previously this page consisted of an article that tried to distinguish its self from touch football (rugby league). It did not do this, there was no distinction. No new information. No reason for an article. Touch rugby should be THE home of touch rugby, which clearly this sport is, as thousands of people around the world will testify.

Also, this page should not just try to document rules that are governed by the FIT. It should document the most common variants. Perhaps a specific FIT article could be written. However most information already here, including the rules is what people think of when they say or here "touch rugby". Thus that information is most relevant here.

touchrugby.com refers to the sport mentioned in touch football (rugby league). World wide use of the name Touch rugby is a very good reason to have this moved to Touch rugby. POds 07:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

From touchrugby.com "the game is similar to rugby but without the tackling, scrumming, rucking, mauling, lineouts and kicking." Rucking? mauling? lineouts? They are confused, this confusion is widespread it seems - the game has nothing to do with rugby, it's a league variant, therefore calling it rugby makes no sense. --Paul 12:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Well that is if you believe rugby league has no right to be called rugby, which it clearly is. As i said before and i believe it to be true. Rugby refers to the style of game of passing the ball backwards to move forward with the aim of scoring a touch down. Rugby union refers to one specific type of game, so does rugby league and so does touch rugby. You obviously dont share that opinion. Given rugby is most often used as the term to describe rugby union in Australia, but over sea's rugby is used as a term to describe both both rugby league and rugby union. At least I'm pretty damn sure it is!

From Rugby

Rugby may refer to:

• Rugby football
• Rugby league
• Rugby union
• Touch Rugby
• Tag Rugby
• Wheelchair Rugby

Also from rugby union

For clarity and convenience it became necessary to differentiate the two codes of rugby. The code played by those teams who remained in national organisations which made up the IRB became known as Rugby Union. The code played by those teams which played "open" rugby and allowed professionals became known as Rugby League.

POds 22:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] @ Grunt

I moved the page from Federation of International Touch (rugby), on the basis that the article was about a sport and not and organisation (analogous to combining soccer and Football Association on one page). I think "touch football (rugby league)" is the least ambiguous name, and touch rugby should be rewritten as a kind of extended disambiguation page,

I agree with you on the organisation vs sport/game. Having said that, perhaps the rules may need to be on a specific FIT page, if thats what everyone thinks best. A disambiguation page would be good and this is what i half had planned after the move albeit a weak disambiguation page. That is, touch rugby is mainly considered to be FIT, but obviously others know there may be varients and they either consider these varients touch rugby and the FIT not or they consider all of it touch rugby, which is the stance i take. So what i had planned was one article that gives the reader a good idea of the main form of touch rugby with descriptions of the varients. Only problem is, no one seems to know the varients, as was the case with the previous touch rugby article. No matter which way this move goes, I think we're gunna need your help to get it right. POds 16:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

---

A distinction needs to be made between actual Touch Football http://www.internationaltouch.com.au/ and what appears to be a muck around game "A common time for it to be played is as an end of training session on the day before an important rugby game, to reduce to a minimum the chances of an accidental injury"

Good on 131.244.3.45 for fixing this up.

I have moved this article from Touch Rugby to this name because for many people Touch rugby is what is described above. After the edits made by user:131.244.3.45 06:31, 9 Mar 2005 the article had become exclusivly about FIT so it is better that it has it's own article. Philip Baird Shearer 09:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Still not quite right - it's called Touch football (already taken) or just Touch. -- Paul 18:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gee i hate this touch football stuff. This article's title, should not have in brakets (rugby league). It should, as it does, mention that it was derived from rugby league. We dont put "rugby" or "rugby union" in brakets after the rugby league's title, so why here? Hmm.. I'm going to brain storm about this for a while i think.

It's to differentiate it from the American version of touch football. --Paul 12:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

yes i dont have a problem with that so much, but witht he problem of it being touch football (rugby league). It should be touch football (rugby). You've got people in Europe thinking their playing a special form for touch rugby union which just doesnt exist. They're playing the same game as everyone else as governed by the FIT, which is touch rugby, aka touch, aka touch football (in australia). I'ts never been known as touch football rugby league or touch rugby league. POds 05:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The league part of the title isn't meant to be its proper name, merely a disambiguation tag. As I said, if there was no such thing as american touch football, the article would merely be called "touch football". Also, the game has nothing do to with union, calling it touch rugby suggests that it has. It's non-contact LEAGUE--Paul 05:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Simply put, it's known as touch rugby right around the world. I propose touch football (rugby league) be moved to touch rugby. Then that one page can be used for all touch rugby, if indeed there is more the one kinda someone wishes to write about, which there appears not to be! POds 05:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

known touch rugby right around the world Except where it was invented, where its mostly played, and by its governing body. I'd say the reason why it started being called "rugby" is because league (remember, the game its based on) obviously has a lower profile than union in most parts, people probably thought they were playing a version of union. --Paul 06:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The previous touch rugby page had a pitiful example of an article. The person who created it or was editing it at the time thought what he played was different to touch football (rugby league) because it had a different name. This lead to an article trying to cover what this article already does. Thus, haveing the information that is currently on this page, anywhere else but touch rugby, is going to encourage more idiotic useless articles. The fact remains, this game is played right through out the world, including major universities, such as stanford and it is known as touch rugby. As i have indicated, it is not the only form of touch rugby but it is A form of touch rugby and the touch rugby article should make readers aware of this. I i have tried to do over the last couple of days with this particular page. Now i think its time to move it to touch rugby. POds 06:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Move it back to touch rugby (even though it has no connection with rugby, and is officially called Touch), the guy who originally mucked up the article by putting in what is now in the "touch rugby union" page - that stuff about it being non-codified and such - seems to have gone away. --Paul 06:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW - only the ATA calls its footy "touch football". Every other nation and its bodies associated with the FIT call it touch rugby. And this is why every body else calls it touch rugby. To me, Rugby is a game played on a retangular field, two teams, attacking and defending. The attacking try's to score a touch down by passing the ball back wards and running forwards towards the defence. This is rugby too me. There are 3 forms, Touch, Rugby union, Rugby league. This is how i think it should be thought of. Touch rugby is growing damn fast. Chances are if rugby league also continues to grow, this though of their being 3 forms for rugby will become more common.POds 07:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

lol, perhaps you should email the FIT and tell them they've got the name of their own sport wrong. As mentioned in the article the first associaton called it touch football, I guess "the rest of the world" were calling it touch rugby before it they knew about it. Though most here dont http://www.internationaltouch.com.au/pagesection.html?intid=0

PLEASE KEEP COOL all around the world(and France too) play the same sport according FIT rules so everybody call that sport touch rugby except australia so what we do??? "RULE 1 - DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY
Unless the contrary intention appears, the following definitions and terminology apply to the game of Touch: (see [2] Goldensun 08:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Your coming from the point of view that only rugby union should be allowed to call its self rugby. As if rugby union has the sole rights to use the word "rugby". That is, all rugby codes are different from rugby football as it was when the unions first formed or as it was played at rugby school, so i dont see any reason why all should not have equal rights to use the term "rugby" with out a trailing term to try to further define it. Infact, perhaps the only thing that has not change since the early days at rugby school is the standard play of passing the ball backwards, which i think defined "rugby" very well. Shall i remind people of why we're doing this again? The previous set up caused the duplication of an article or a poor attempt at it anyway. POds 16:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW, rugby = rugby union, league = rugby league, touch = touch football. --Paul 12:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Paul like me, your Australian or so you seem to be, but unlike me your looking at this from an Australian point of view. The rest of the world calls the FIT rules as touch rugby. And centainly most people in Australia call it touch rugby or touch. I never called it touch football for the 3 years that i played it and the contact i had with it at uni. Also, i dont ever remember anyone calling it that. POds 16:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

As I said I played in organised competitions for 20 years, only one person in the hundreds (possibly thousands) I played with/against called it "touch rugby". None of the Associations do either, so I'm not sure how you get "most" calling it rugby. However, I will partially agree - touch is the most common form (and its actual name). And again, rugby means union - I did some work on fixing links pointing to the rugby disambiguation page, in zero cases did the link to rugby mean league, one or two meant rugby-style games - pretty much all of them meant union, and none or few were of Australian subject matter. --Paul 09:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, it does seem that when people say rugby, it most always means rugby union. But in a lot of cases, many people may not know that another rugby exists. Certainly, the pages that i've been involved with, when linking from the word rugby, link to "rugby football". It is this that we consider what touch rugby refers to, otherwise we'd call it touch rugby league or touch rugby union. This is so because rugby league is a form of rugby football, thus anything derived from it is a form of rugby football. This is how the FIT game came to be called touch rugby. Or at least how I see. Thats my justification for calling it touch rugby, but it has little or no relevance. Umm... yer... I dont think we should make a habbit of labeling something incorrectly, even if it may make sense to us, because we're more educated, it doesnt make sense to the many more people out there, as we have seen examples of. But i've said this all before :). POds 17:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem is Paul, "football" only means league in NSW and Qld (and a minority of people in other Australian states and territories). To the rest of us heathens, league is one of two kinds of rugby. That is why it's called the National Rugby League. Likewise few people in Australia refer to "Australian rules football" (which is "football" in most parts of Australia) but that's what its called overseas.Grant65 (Talk) 13:23, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what you're tryng to say, there's association football, American football, Australian rules football etc. and touch football. I would rarely refer to league as "football", except in the most colloquial of circumstances, you'll find most of us leaguies don't --Paul 09:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Basically I'm saying that I agree with you that "touch rugby" is not good enough as a name. Judging by their website the Australian Touch Association alternates between "touch" and "touch football". However variations on "touch" as a name, may be confused with touch football (American) (etc). Thats's why I came up with "touch football (rugby league)" and why I'm in favour of keeping that name. (By the way, you might want to vote in the poll at the top of this page.) Grant65 (Talk) 10:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this whole to-ing and fro-ing merely seems to be to get the page called touch "rugby" - which a> isn't its name and b> tramples over Philip's work of the non-league derived/associated versions - rather than a proper description of the varieties... and on that, did I see a version that has one touch? I can't possibly imagine how that works..lots of 0-0 draws :) The primary tactic of touch is a succession of quick dumps to put pressure on the defensive line, without that you'd hardly run up a sweat, I still could be playing :p --Paul 15:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

1 Touch is South African as far as I can gather. If I wasn't Australia, I'd make some joke about them being in the Southern Hemisphere and everything being upside down and back to front. Anyway, that wont work, so I'll leave it there. Phil, the disagreement with the name is to do with "what people call it". The fact is, most people call it 'touch rugby', they don't make distinctions between different types, because quite frankly, the types are few and far between. The organisations around the world, involved with the FIT call the game touch rugby. Now I've gotten over the whole one article idea. But I feel as if this page should at least be titled correctly. Touch_rugby_(FIT) is a nice compromise. Clearly, there should be no confusion if references are made back to touch rugby and the touch rugby page clearly states what the FIT game is. Remember, this isnt the Australian Encyclopedia, its the world encyclopedia! POds 10:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Just wondering if anyone considered the FACT that touch football has nothing to do with rugby. How could you actually have a tag sport based on rugby? Rugby doesn't even have a tackle count. So what are you doing when you tag somebody? In Qld it is called touch football. That name offends ppl in europe because they think football is played with a round ball.

Problem is mate, in Europe rugby league is regarded as one of two kinds of rugby. Pretty much no one refers to league as "football" outside of NSW and Qld.Grant65 [[User talk: Grant65| (Talk)]] 01:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] One page good. Two pages better

I oppose this move because before the current messing around there were two articles. One about the game played under FIT and one for the less condefied versions played by both codes but particlularly union. Originally there was one article but it got overwritten in a slimilar way to that which is being done now. At 09:28, 17 May 2005 I moved the information which was specifically about the FIT game into Federation of International Touch (rugby) and left the rest of the article under Touch Rugby This remain largly in place until the 5th of September[3]. So your explanation only covers the state of the pages in the last few days. I don't think a merge is a good idea, for example the page you intend to move to Touch Rugby has at the begining of the history section "Touch started in Australia as a social park game and as a training technique" FIT did but touch rugby did not stat in Australia as a social park game. I think it cleaner to leave one article to cover fit and another for the versious other version. Where in the article that you are proposing to move are the mentions of the RFU and "its junior development program" which were in the article before? Philip Baird Shearer 17:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The history of the Federation of International Touch (rugby) page records: 13:16, 9 July 2005 Grant65 (Federation of International Touch (rugby) moved to Touch football (rugby league): Previous title referred only to the governing body.) I think this page should be moved to back to Federation of International Touch (rugby) or Federation of International Touch as it can then concentrate on the FIT game and not have to include stuff on other forms of touch rugby. Philip Baird Shearer 17:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

There may very well be two pages after the move. But the previous touch rugby page was not informative. It had nothing and it was confusing because it mentioned it was a derivitive of union, yet it did not mention any rules that set it apart from FIT and references to FIT were explicit. The fact remains, the FIT games are known as touch rugby. Thus Touch rugby should talk about the FIT game and Varients. I think touch rugby should model the rugby football page. You say that there is apparantly another history to touch rugby not associated with the FIT? Where was it then? In summary, this is just the start, there will need to be plenty of work after the move to get this page right. POds 01:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Touch Rugby has been played for generation of Rugby players (both codes) as a means of training without physical contact. That you do not know this is surprising. But just to prove the point see the mention of the RFU and the games they organised for their children's game. Philip Baird Shearer 08:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, RU players have been playing touch rugby under the FIT rules for many years, they may also play with modified rules as i think i have seen them do so on sports tonight. Why hasnt anyone writen about it here??!?! This is the problem. There was a really bad article there being filled up with whats already in this article. Thats the reason for all of this. The names of the titles are confusing people. Mostly people from europe.

Here is an example I found via Google which is a Union site which explicitly mentions a Touch Rugby competition with different rules from FIT: http://www.wru.co.uk/114_3798.php WRU. 12 players per team Philip Baird Shearer 08:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

That's fantastic!! Lets write about it, documented. But I still stand by the fact that this is touch rugby and so is the FIT stuff. Its all touch rugby. Just like rugby league and union are rugby. Keep it on the one page, explain that there are differences and if necessary create an FIT page to go further into what the FIT organisation tries to do and if necessary state its explicit rules on that site. But, the Touch rugby page should mention that the FIT games is the main form of touch rugby then it should summerise and link to the rules (if an FIT page where to be created) and then explain the main differences between other forms of touch rugby. This way, we're not creating a confusing article. We're explaining what the term "touch rugby" is. Its not one sport, its a collection of sports, derived from rugby football with the tackling replaced with "touching"! The previous touch rugby article did not do this. And just to make sure you know, having it any other way will lead there to being multiple articles trying to describe the FIT laws, as was the case previously. This can be seen in the french translation where touch rugby refers to strictly the FIT stuff and so on in german or something else I believe. Remember, we just dont want to make this site easy to understand in one language but make it consistint accross all the languages. POds 09:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW

The rules are very simple!

• 12 players per team - with at least four women per team
• All players must be over 16
• Touch rugby is non-contact
• No experience necessary

I think you'll find the WWRU play by the FIT rules, unless you can show me other wise.

POds 09:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Before the advent of slow motion video the best way to remove foul play from the professional sport of Rugby was to remove rucks and mauls. If it had not been for the magic of TV than when Rugby Union became a professional game they would have had to follow League in this area. In the same way if you are going to derive a game of Touch Rugby from Rugby then you are bound to end up with rules similar to FIT. But that does not mean that all touch Rugby is played under FIT rules, just that a none contact version of the sport is bound to end up with similar limitations. For example it is obvious that if one includes a number of restarts after a tag then league is the model to use for that part of the game. Where I played Rugby union we always played that the tag had to be below the waist (it was after all training for Rugby union) and because the forwards liked it (sigh!) we also often allowed a 3 man set scrum as well (like sevens) but with a different offside rule so that the opposing scrum half could not easily tag the other. Now I have no idea how widespread those rules were played, but this is the way it way played at both school and clubs I played in my area and at the time I was playing.

When we had one page all that happened was that some people edited the page to be only FIT. Compare Revision as of 09:29, 15 February 2005 with Revision as of 06:31, 9 March 2005 after "131.244.3.45 (Complete revision based on the aus.sport.touch newsgroup FAQ)" Which is why I split them. FIT is large enough to have an article in its own right while the other versions (such as they are) can be lumped together on an introduction page. I do not think they should be combined because experience suggests that it does not work and in fairness to FIT it does muddy up that article.

I do not think we should document the Welsh page I found. I only did that to show that there are other versions of Tag Rugby, but because it is uncodified any particular set of rules in ephemeral (hence the point about agreeing rules before play). FIT is very different because it is a formal body with fixed rules which can be read. This is just the same as sevens which started out as a muck about game (often if one team failed to turn up with 15 players as can happen in an armature game!) but it now has a formal set of rules and a governing body.

As you have seen, I have, over the last couple of days restored the Touch Rugby page and changed it so it is not a Rugby Union page. Which is clearly silly as the two codes play a very similar game of touch rugby. So we do not seem to be a million miles apart, if you wish to add a paragraph emphasising that FIT is the major version of the game which is growing in popularity I certainly would not object to that. But I do not want FIT to dominate the page as it has a page of its own and some people do not seem able to comprehend that Touch Rugby and FIT rules Touch Rugby Football are not exactly the same thing. As an example as I mentioned before: it is just nonsense to say all "Touch [Rugby] started in Australia as a social park game and as a training technique". Philip Baird Shearer 11:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanx mate this sounds good. It would be good if we could find out more about this, "1 Touch" they play in SA. I think it may be just FIT with only 1 touch per phase instead of 6. Not sure. Ill have a look at the touch rugby article in a couple of days. Right now, I'm a bit sick of it :) plus i've got shit loads of uni to do. Thanx for helping sort this/me out :). POds 06:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] From In to touch website

There are two variations of Touch Rugby that can be played “1 Touch” or “6 Down”.

1 Touch” is South Africa’s traditional form of Touch Rugby.

• It involves a single phase of possession/touch and can be played effectively with not too much practice.
• “1 Touch ” is played at leagues in Randburg, Bloemfontein, Centurion, Durban North, Parow and Hamiltons.
• This version caters only for men.
• There are only men divisions available.

6 Down” is the international version of the sport.

• It involves six phases, or touches, and is a more structured game than “1 Touch.”
• Mens, ladies and mixed teams can enter into the leagues.
• Players can achieve provincial and national representation selection.
• “6 Down” is played in leagues at Sandton, Bloemfontein, Harlequins, Edenvale, Villagers, Durban North and PArow.
• Team squads on each night consist of 12 players for 6 Down (6 on the field), in a mixed game a minimum of 3 ladies must be on the field at all times

[edit] First Part of the discution about Touch football and Touch Rugby

Talk:Touch rugby Goldensun 12:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Google

Before voting on the above. Why dont some people google for information. On to my 5th page and i've only found one touch rugby, the one played by most if not all of the world. Google Touch rugby. Every page that talks about touch rugby talks about the FIT rules. Simple... why cant people see this is called touch rugby right around the world. The game is touch rugby. POds 02:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Thre are several other searches which can be done

• ["Touch Rugby" Union]
• ["non tackle" Rugby]
• [non-contact/touch rugby]

Using "non-contact/touch rugby" which is a term used by the RFU it threw up amoung others Austin Youth Rugby Club Youth Rugby - Non Contact Touch Rugby with a link to the the USA Rugby - Youth Laws for 1997. Here is on for the RFU For season 2002/2003: see section NON-CONTACT MINI RUGBY UNDER 8. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes that's very good. I'm not disputing the fact there may or may not be other touch rugby's. I was trying show people that the term "touch rugby" is used to refer to the game played under the FIT game more so then any other form. You've only just proved my point further by acknowledging that other forms of touch rugby are only mentioned in greater frequencies when one makes additions to the search text "touch rugby". POds 15:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] All these rules are touch rugby rules

I translate myself from the french rules so why they stay here if this aticle still named Touch football (rugby league) and no FIT. I really don't understand you! Goldensun 10:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Email to the FIT

Hello i'm a french player, in my country our sport is calling touch rugby. I work on wikipedia did you know that encyclopedia. We have a problem to name our sport and of course to name the article: Touch rugby, touch football (rugby league).

The principal argument of the touch football (rugby league) is the sport created in australia and in australia you call that sport touch football

You can see the discution on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Touch_rugby for touch rugby http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Touch_football_%28rugby_league%29 for touch football (rugby league)

Can you help us please(sorry for my english) Quentin Goldensun 18:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move from Touch football (rugby league) to Touch rugby (FIT)

How about moving to touch rugby (FIT)? Just a thought..... Grinner 12:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

lol - did you read my discussion page? Or do great minds think a like? POds 15:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poll

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support if we can have a clear consensus no problem good idea Goldensun 12:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Simce 'twas my idea in the first place! Grinner 13:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Touch was invented in north-eastern Australia, which still has most of the players and followers. "Football" in those parts means rugby league. "Rugby" in those parts means rugby union. So we need the "(rugby league)" in the name to distinguish it from rugby union-based touch games and from touch football (American). Grant65 (Talk) 13:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support - its a good idea. Keeps the name that everyone knows, but makes it distinct from other forms of touch rugby. POds 15:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose (obviously) Here's yet another suggestion, even POds has conceded the usage of "Touch" (as used by the major associations, even some of the few places that actually include the word rugby, often use Touch [4] to describe the game... how about just Touch, with the tag (football) or (sport) or (game) for disambiguation purposes, leaving Touch rugby for the non-league/other versions? --Paul 16:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Why not touch(sport) i agree to this position Goldensun 11:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Touch was invented in north-eastern Australia, which still has most of the players and followers. "Football" in those parts means rugby league. "Rugby" in those parts means rugby union. So we need the "(rugby league)" in the name to distinguish it from rugby union-based touch games and from touch football (American). Grant65 (Talk) 13:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• • I understand your opposition but we can explain in the article this article doesn't talk about touch football (American) and the article Rugby make the distinction between all the sport Goldensun 13:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Well the article explains now that some call it touch rugby (even though it's not one of the rugby variants) --Paul 16:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck. Althought I fully understand Grant and Paul's argument, that Goldensun (a person for whom English is a second language) is so confused by the name suggests that others will be as well. Are many Australians likely to be confused if the page name contains "Touch Rugby" as part of the name? -- Philip Baird Shearer 17:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Phil, yes it will cause initial confusion upon being read, simply, NSW & QLD, may call it touch football, but Victoria, WA, SA, NT would call it touch rugby. Touch rugby is one of the most played team sports in Australian schools. It's promoted as touch rugby. If you added up all those people who played by the FIT games, in NZ, England, US, japan, Africa etc etc etc... I would have no doubt in my mind, it would be more then those that played it in NSW & QLD. POds 03:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

If there is "touch rugby" inside i will approuved if it's "touch (rugby league)" i approuved too Goldensun 11:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Grant that is by no means a valid argument. Touch rugby is one of the fastest growing sports in the world. It is THE most played sport amoung maori's in New Zealand. If you arguement was valid, then it would also hold true for the Touch rugby page, because the FIT game is the most played form of touch rugby in the world and then most touch rugby players would be in NSW & QLD. POds 03:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discision

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 01:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A title we can all agree on (make suggestions)

Make suggestions here so we can all have a look at the various options. In the discussion area, list the numbers which you like, including your own. Ohh yer, add your suggestions to the bottom to maintain the order!

POds 16:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Touch (rugby) POds 16:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Touch (football, rugby) POds 16:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Touch (rugby football) POds 16:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Touch (FIT) POds 16:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Touch (rugby, FIT) :POds 16:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Touch football (Australian) Goldensun 09:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

• I dont like the use of the world 'league' in the title. I think the use of "FIT" should be encouraged. I'm also warming to the use of the word 'Touch' in replacement of 'Touch rugby' as it seems to be the official name used by all organisations, even if they dont use it as such on websites when talking about the actual game. I like options 1, 4 & 5. POds 16:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I quite like Touch (FIT) myself. But I suspect that agreement will be nigh on impossible!Grinner 09:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I like the present name best ;-) Seriously, I think people objecting to it for different reasons, i.e. the RL people don't like the association with "rugby" and non-Australians find the reference to "football" confusing. Therefore, I doubt that we'll find a name which is agreeable to everyone (just as some people still think football (soccer) should be moved to football). The meaning of "touch football (rugby league)" is clear to followers of touch who surf into the article after Googling. For people who are not aware of the various usages of the word football, or the distinction between rugby league and union, let the separate "touch rugby" (disambiguation) page be the start of their education and this page be the rest of it. Cheers. Grant65 (Talk) 11:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Can I just say that as an RL person I do feel that rugby should be part of the name. In general I am very against the way union is attempting to claim ownership of "rugby". Not that that helps us move this forward mind! Grinner 11:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I like 1&4&5 Goldensun 19:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• 1 can't be take because it use Touch (rugby) Goldensun 09:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• I propose the 6 to clarify it like touch football (American) it's touch football (Australian) so I agree with 4 5 and 6(1 already take by another article)Goldensun 09:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• The problem with 6 is that it may be confused with non-contact versions of Australian rules football, which do exist. I still favour the present name, with redirects from some of the other alternatives. It is imperfect but it is less prone to confusion in the country in which the code started and is most popular. Grant65 [[User talk: Grant65| (Talk)]] 01:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • In fact I've now created touch football (Australian) . Sorry, but it was a necessary disambiguation. Perhaps it is now becoming clear how "political" use of the word football is in Australia, with no less than three different sports all claiming to be "football" ! Grant65 [[User talk: Grant65| (Talk)]] 01:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge with Touch rugby Sep 2006

Rather than having two discussions on this, as the merger templates point to two different talk pages, please place comments on this suggestion under Talk:Touch rugby#Proposed merge with Touch football (rugby league) --Philip Baird Shearer 16:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)