|
Welcome
To The Cross-Bar
Sean Fagan of RL1908.com
Why
do rugby league posts have a cross-bar? Why does
the ball have to be kicked over it?
An
initial reason brought up by some texts suggests
that the Rugby School rules in the early 1800s
introduced the concept of a 10 feet high crossbar
to overcome the "horde of boys standing in
the goal mouth".
Rugby
in England in the late 1800s
Cambridge University
|
By
having to kick the ball over the crossbar to score
a goal, it was reasoned, there was no longer any
need for crowding the area in front of the goal.
The argument seems to make some sense - until
you consider that the only kicks the boys could
stop were those within their reach. If goals weren't
being scored close to the posts anyway (because
of the defenders), how would a crossbar make longer
kicks any more or less difficult?
The
answer lies in looking at other football codes
and the introduction (or rejection) of the crossbar.
In the late 1850s soccer and Australian rules
had no crossbar.
The
laws of the schools/bodies central to the development
of soccer had no provision for a crossbar (initially
a rope) until 1866. Unlike in rugby though, it
was introduced to reduce the height of kicks.
It also led to more footwork skill being needed
to thread a goal past the keeper (who could defend
with his hands).
Interestingly,
in 1869 in South Australia, The Observer
reported that at a meeting of the Adelaide F.C.,
it was decided that "in future the ball be kicked
over instead of under the crossbar of the goal".
It suggests 'football' in that city evolved through
hybrid forms of soccer, to rugby, to Australian
(Victorian) rules.
Australian rules began in 1858, adopting the bulk
of rugby's rules - with the notable inclusion
of two soccer principles - no off-side and the
absence of the crossbar.
As noted earlier, soccer introduced a crossbar
in 1866, leaving Australian rules as the only
football code where there was an unrestricted/open
goal. As a result, by examining Australian rules
it is possible to see what soccer (a non-handling
game) and rugby (handling game) gained by using
a crossbar.
Long before tries were worth points, without a
crossbar, a rugby player could carry the ball
to the goal-mouth and dribble the ball across
for a goal. In soccer, without a crossbar, a goal
could be kicked from well inside a player's own
half, giving the defenders no hope of being able
to stop the ball in flight.
The crossbar was introduced in both codes to even
out the contest. So what is to be said of Australian
rules and the absence of a crossbar in that football
code?
A
Melbourne sports journalist for The Referee
in Sydney, filed an interesting report in 1910.
He suggested that rugby style posts should be
introduced into Australian rules.
"Often
a goal is scored within a foot or so of the goal
posts, and at other times the ball bounces or
dribbles through. The reward is ridiculously greater
than the effort, and the bar would make for better
and more scientific shooting at goal. Position
would be studied, and the haphazard pot-shot would
be a thing of the past."
Until
the 1930s, rugby league and Australian rules officials
talked of creating a hybrid football code. In
all the 'rules' created for this new code, there
was little argument from the Australian rules
side against adopting rugby-style H posts.
Indeed,
even without rugby league, in 1924 the Adelaide
Advertiser reported (re Australian rules)
a headline, "Improving Football - Players Favour
a Crossbar". It is also important to note that
'behinds' in Australian rules at the time were
not a sacred tradition that could not be done
away with - they had only been counted as a scoring
means since 1897.
The crossbar was introduced into rugby to eliminate
aspects of 'football' that still exist, and are
still criticised, in Australian rules today -
namely:
1. Scoring a goal from a lucky bounce and/or along
the ground.
2. A mass of players in front of the goal-mouth,
fighting and grasping with hands and feet for
the ball, and one fortuitously 'soccering' a lucky
goal through the posts.
|