THE RL1908 BLOG

News, Reviews & Opinion - Sean Fagan - RL1908.com

My writing forays into 1800s Australian rules and rugby union territory has ruffled the feathers of more than a few!
[Feel free to visit these pages on Big Footy* and The Roar]

I will concede that the unedited version of the 1858 and Australian rules piece used more colourful intent than I would normally write, but it was done with the objective of bringing attention to the issue (i.e. the lack of substantive evidence to support the often heard claim that the 1858 Scotch College game was the first game of Australian rules football) and generating debate.

I find it difficult to accept the use of events from 1859 onwards, as somehow being offered as proof for what is imagined to have happened in 1858.

On the plus side, it is great to see so many people now talking about the early history of the football codes.

Should it be a surprise to anyone that someone from outside "the family" of each code has come up with a unique perspective and alternative view?

If someone with a rugby history background has a look at the development of Australian rules in the 1800s, reads of the same events/reports and the same sources and rules that an Australian rules fan or historian reads, and yet comes up with an alternative interpretation and conclusions, is it surprising?

Is it simply wrong because it challenges accepted lore?

I've even been told by officials and others from another code "to keep out of our history"!

We will find the truth (or as close as we can to the truth) if we are open to all views and opinions. I too am open to reaching new conclusions - but only when I see the direct and documented evidence, rather than simply myopic conjecture of die-hard fans.

I have a strong interest in "football" in the 1800s and early 1900s. That no one in this country has ever bothered to seriously research and write in detail on the relationship between the football codes in that era makes my perspective unique.

Clearly, I am a supporter of rugby league. I'm not so pig-headed as to believe that the code and its administrators have never made mistakes, or that the code is infallible.

Nor does being a rugby league historian restrict me to writing on that code alone, or deny me the right to voice opinions and offer my findings on other codes. I welcome the feedback and the differing views.

And let's not lose perspective - we are just talking about footy!

__________________________________

* Re the criticism of the 1858 & Aust rules article: The article concerns the 1858 Scotch College match and a comparison with Rugby School rules at that time (first codified in 1845 - pdf version) - discussions of subsequent rule changes in the article need to be read within that context. It is my assessment that the first rules of the Melbourne FC (1859) were primarily based upon rugby, albeit it in a simplified form. I have not disputed that Australian rules football has evolved into a unique game.

My interpretations of the rules, match reports, and Blainey's A Game of Our Own, are based on having read them from a rugby perspective (particularly using the 1845 Rugby School rules and 1859 Melbourne FC rules).

The practise of haggling over rules before matches was a Rugby School tradition (even after the laws were first documented in 1845). Modifying, even simplifying/deleting rules, was within the traditions of Rugby School football for each year and/or each match. "Kick-to-kick" is a Rugby School custom, known as "punt-about".

The use of rectangular boundaries (even on oval fields) was the norm until the formation of the VFA in 1877 (it faded from use elsewhere in the 1880s) - refer to Blainey's A Game of Our Own, also confirmed with John Devaney http://www.fullpointsfooty.net/. The last application of restricted "off-side" remained in the game until the abolition of on-side centre-field kick-offs in 1891.

Further, Rule 9 from the Melb FC of 1859 - "IX. When the Ball goes out of bounds (the same being indicated by a row of posts) it shall be brought back to the point where it crossed the boundary line, and thrown in at right angles with that line." An oval boundary line couldn't fit under this rule - only a straight/rectangular boundary line could be "indicated by a row of posts", and the ball could not be "thrown in at right angles with that line" if the boundary was curved.

Two of Australian football's signature features - off-side play and the hand-pass (striking it on with the fist) - were strongly featured in rugby at the time the first "Melbourne rules" were written (1859). The other unique feature of Australian football - striking the ball on the ground when running with the ball - was introduced in 1866 to hinder players making unrestricted "William Webb Ellis" type rugby running.

Most Australian rules text or article on the subject of the game's birth and evolution point to its "unique feature of lacking the offside rule of rugby". Yet - that isn't true - and wouldn't be true in rugby until the 1862 rules of Rugby School. The concept of off-side players in rugby being "out of the game" was not a trait of rugby until after the first rules of the Melbourne FC were devised.

The first written rules of Rugby School (1845) did not prohibit off-side players - they did however restrict what off-side players could do - the fact these rules exist is evidence in itself that players were permitted to be continually "off-side" during rugby games in the 1850s (a trait adopted by the Melb FC laws of 1859 - who simplified the matter by placing no restrictions on off-side players).

A number of Australian football texts cite a quote from Tom Wills in the early 1860s as evidence of his preference to cast aside rugby rules: "I think the ground should be free to all, so that the captain of each side could dispose of his forces in any position he likes." Yet, this is exactly what a captain could do in rugby before 1866! Wills wasn't speaking out against rugby, he was speaking out against the growing calls to change rugby, turning into a game where the off-side player was "out of the game".

Rule 12 of Rugby (1845) permitted off-side players to take a fair catch (mark) - which entitled the player to either run or to make "a fair knock on" (defined as "striking the ball on with the arm or hand"). Off-side players could not kick the ball or run in a try, however, as with all players (off-side or not) they could knock the ball on or backwards (in the manner defined above - which clearly came to be a trait synonymous to Australian rules alone).

Throwing (or passing) the ball between team mates was not prohibited by Rugby laws, but it was against the spirit of the game. To pass/throw the ball away was seen to be too easy, unmanly, and akin to cheating. The Melb FC chose to specify throwing as an illegal act in its first rules (1859).

Rule 8 of the Melb FC (1859) The Ball shall be taken in hand only when caught from the foot, or on the hop. In no case shall it be lifted from the ground is the same as Rule 8 of Rugby School (1845) Running in is allowed to any player on his side, provided he does not take the ball off the ground, or take it through touch i.e. lifting the ball from the ground in rugby was not permitted until the mid-1860s / players in both codes could run with the ball if caught on the full or on the bounce (but not if on the ground). The only difference was that rugby permitted "running in" - what we call a "try". There was no Melb FC rule in 1859 which restricted running with the ball (the need to bounce the ball when running was adopted in 1866).

A conventional rugby ball (size & shape) was used by the VFL until the 1930s, a time when loose scrummaging and rucking in informal packs was still a major part of the game. There is nothing to suggest that Melbourne/Victorian rules may have influenced rugby and soccer in England in the 1880s.

According to a 2005 article by Gregory M de Moore (see link below), at the 1859 meeting to compose the first rules of the Melbourne FC, Tom Wills advocated adopting the rules of Rugby, a designated team place-kicker, and (in 1865) was still pushing for the use of a rugby cross-bar. Wills acted as umpire in the Scotch College match of 1858, a game that went for three days (another Rugby School trait - see Rule 20 of 1845).

Gregory M de Moore: "...distracts from the evidence that points to Rugby School football as the dominant influence in the game as conceived by Wills."....."The early descriptions of the Australian game, at least for the first two decades, which coincide with Wills' playing period, make it clear that the game was characterised by play that was for the most part, close to the ground. The play involved repeated scrimmages, and running by individuals with verve [i.e. daring] to break the monotony of a knot of players moving about the ground. The emphasis was on a bulk of players to move the ball forward. There are repeated references to this from papers of the time where the advantage was given to the team with the greatest mass. There are no references to high marking as a characteristic of the game on any kind of regular basis that suggests it was a key part of the early game." Source: http://www.aboriginalfootball.com.au/marngrook-no.html