[...] the entire sub-culture of rugby union was very much the domain of the players [...]

Critics of contact sports, notably in the 1970s by neo-Marxists, such as Brohm, reinforced the view of rugby football as the most ‘uncivilized’ of football codes; ‘a perfect illustration of the fascistic delirium . . . a case book of the deliberate cultivation of brutality’.

The untamed, or so it was thought, mayhem of the ‘traditional’ rucks and mauls; the dangerous impacts of the unrestrained scrum contacts; lineouts that were viewed by critics as being nothing short of ‘dockyard brawls’; and the tolerance of the dispensing of swift, heavy and violent justice, meant the game still had a foot firmly planted in its mob-football origins.

Prior to its shift into the entertainment sector, the entire sub-culture of rugby union was very much the domain of the players; it was characterized as the players’ game.

Central to this was the fact that the vast majority of administrators, officials and coaches were predominantly ex-players. Management support thus came from those steeped in the culture of the game and tolerant of its uncompromising physical nature, largely manifested in tight-forward dominated and dour contests.

The spectators were an integral part of the game’s sub-culture. They came largely from the rugby community and the games were not, in essence, about entertainment but rather were about identity, loyalty and parochialism.

Peter Horton (2009): Rugby union football in Australian society: an unintended consequence of intended actions, Sport in Society: Cultures, Commerce, Media, Politics, 12:7, 967-985 (p. 972)

Courtesy of Bogdan Voicu, care mi-a atras atentia ca Routledge ofera in luna ianuarie liber la articolele despre rugby, in anticiparea inceperii Turneului celor 6 natiuni. Si din motive de marketing, evident :) .



.