By Pippinu -
June 18th 2009 @ 1:05am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...Related coverage
Geelong aren’t the second oldest club afterall
All Victorian school children are taught the more important aspects of their State’s history, in particular, the history of their very own game, AFL.
We are all taught about that first famous game in 1858, and about the first set of rules written in a pub in Richmond the following year.
We are all taught that Melbourne and Geelong footy clubs are amongst the oldest football clubs in the world: Melbourne being formed in May 1859 and Geelong in July 1859.
But in what may well have ramifications across the globe, it has recently been claimed that Geelong is not the second oldest football club in the land after all.
A local Castlemaine historian, engaged by the Castlemaine Football Club to research its history, has uncovered documentary evidence of the club being formed in June 1859 (reported in The Age, 17 June 2009).
The evidence was uncovered in an article from the local paper of the time, and refers to a meeting held in the Supreme Court Hotel on 15 June 1859 to establish the club, meaning that club has just celebrated its 150th birthday.
There are doubts about what happened next, as no evidence exists that the club did very much until 1871.
Get ready for a multitude of 150th birthdays over the next twelve to 24 months, with many country and city clubs having been formed during this period.
After Geelong, Ballarat will be celebrating its 150th birthday in the first half of next year, and plans are already afoot for celebrations that may even rope in the AFL.
In the 1870s, the Ballarat league was almost on an equal footing with the then VFA, and regular representative games took place between the two competitions.
This discovery means a rewrite of footballing history as we know it. And not just in local terms
The discovery has world wide consequences in terms of human history and understanding the human condition.
Get Australia's best AFL opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(202)
Art Sapphire said | June 18th 2009 @ 11:10am | Report comment
Pip – Serioulsly, The AFL need to make a movie epic based on the roots of the game.
They will get David Williamson to write a screenplay. Peter Weir to direct.
The who’s who of to star. Hunter, Thompson, Gibson, Wenham, Weaving, Gulpilil, etc
It will cost $100 million to make and will gross $1 million at the box office.
But in terms of understanding the human condition, it will be an unqualified triumph.
Pippinu said | June 18th 2009 @ 11:25am | Report comment
Art
I can’t argue with anything you’ve said – thanks for taking the time to put forward your thoughts!
(surely a $99 million shortfall is worth it if we come to a better understanding of the human condition??)
Captain Nemo said | June 18th 2009 @ 11:35am | Report comment
Pip says “But in what may well have ramifications across the globe” what????????
Pip says “The discovery has world wide consequences in terms of human history and understanding the human condition.”
This is the funniest thing I have read in ages. Please Pip, keep them coming.
onside said | June 18th 2009 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
Art Sapphire
I was speed reading your post.Got to ‘The who’s who to star’ and imagined an S between Hunter and Thompsom.
Quite an appropiate freudian slip on my part, as Hunter S Thompson wrote Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.Have
a word to Ben there’s a cameo role for him I am sure.
Pippinu said | June 18th 2009 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
Capt Nemo
I’m here to please.
macavity said | June 18th 2009 @ 12:29pm | Report comment
at any rate, why are AFL clubs celebrating playing Rugby?
http://www.rl1908.com/blog/afl-hoax.htm
Art Sapphire said | June 18th 2009 @ 12:33pm | Report comment
onside – If Hunter S. Thompson was alive today he would have been perfect to write an acid-tripped history of Australian Rules staring Bill Hunter and Jack Thompson.
In the pivotal scene both Hunter and Thompson are given a hallucinatory piece of bark to smoke by David Gulpilil.
They watch a game of the local grook game played by the indigenous folk and while still high on acid they come up with the idea of Aussie Rules.
This would have become the AFL official version of the origins of the game and schoolchildren across the land would all be the wiser for it.
Captain Nemo said | June 18th 2009 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
ah, here we go. can’t wait for MichealC’s response, it will surely involve % crowd numbers from the 1880’s
If anyone asks how North Korea brainwashed a nation into absolute unconditional control without question, they should take a look at Australia’s southern state first!!! 
Pippinu said | June 18th 2009 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
Macavity
This so-called “hoax” theory appears to do a good job of ignoring the documented of evidence, of which the originals exist to this day.
Brett McKay said | June 18th 2009 @ 12:44pm | Report comment
Art, I would have thought given the AFL’s convenient ignorance of indigenous games that may or may not have predated the alleged origin of the game, and with his curious depiction of WWII Australia, that Baz Lurhmann would have been the obvious choice to direct the footy epic!! Especially with the $100M cost and $1M grossing!!
Pippinu said | June 18th 2009 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
Just read that Kelli Underwood is about to make her debut calling an AFL game – congratulations to her.
Speaking of women in sport – I just saw a photo of our Minister for Sport, and let me tell you folks, she is an absolute picture of health, vitality and well being – a wonderful advertisement for both the Government and the Sports Ministry.
She has my vote for the Prime Ministership when she decides to run.
Lazza said | June 18th 2009 @ 12:51pm | Report comment
Funny, I have read all the British papers this morning and nothing about this anywhere?
Pips, I think you’ve got a World Scoop there mate.
Pippinu said | June 18th 2009 @ 12:53pm | Report comment
If our Minister for Sport dressed to the nines can’t persuade the men of the nation to get fit and healthy, absolutely nothing can.
Lazza said | June 18th 2009 @ 12:54pm | Report comment
“I just saw a photo of our Minister for Sport”
Yeah, she’s from Adelaide too mate. Doesn’t know the difference between Rugby Union and League so that should qualify her for the Ministry of Sport?
Art Sapphire said | June 18th 2009 @ 12:54pm | Report comment
Brett – I think we are onto a winner here.
After Baz’s epic triumph (cough, cough, splutter) with Australia comes the sequel – Australian Rules. It will be an all singing all dancing spectacular. Baz will cast Nicole Kidman as the aboriginal wife of David Gulpilil. She will be a shoo in for the Oscar.
Captain Nemo said | June 18th 2009 @ 12:56pm | Report comment
nice change of topic pip, what about further explaining this “The discovery has world wide consequences in terms of human history and understanding the human condition.”
I am all ears
I would really love to learn more here. Its great the sports minister is healthy etc but I am more interested in “world wide consequences” since us Sydneysiders are citizens of the planet
Pippinu said | June 18th 2009 @ 1:02pm | Report comment
Captain Nemo
I’m glad you asked.
1. Is the Roar about sport, or is it a testing ground for studying human behaviour?
2. Would it be an exaggeration to put this particular discovery on the same level as the discovery of a hobbit fossil on an Indonesian island?
So many questions, so few answers.
BigAl said | June 18th 2009 @ 1:02pm | Report comment
Art Saphire . . . Oh!, there’s no brainwashing involved ! – and David Williamson has already produced screenplays
on this subject.
. . . just thought I’d bring you up to speed on Australian culture.
Pippinu said | June 18th 2009 @ 1:09pm | Report comment
Big Al
I’m glad you mentioned David Williamson.
Throw in Martin Flanagan, Leunig and Paul Kelly, and one must conclude that it is impossible to separate Australian high culture, Australian Football, Australia’s place in the World, and the history of all three.
The jump to the history of mankind and the human condition is but a small one.
Pippinu said | June 18th 2009 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
Can we please return to discussing our Minister for Sport.
Pippinu said | June 18th 2009 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
Lazza
it’s good to know that someone as talented as our Minister for Sport can come out of Adelaide.
It’s about time Adelaide was known for something else apart from producing gruesome murders.
Michael C said | June 18th 2009 @ 1:19pm | Report comment
I officially start a petition for Kate Ellis to do a bikini photo shoot.
Heck – who cares if she doesn’t know the difference between Rugby League and Union (is there a difference???).
At least she understands that Australian Football is as much related to Rugby as it is to soccer – - and since it’s rule predate the other two (in moving OUT of the boundary fences of individual schools each with their ‘local’ rules and into the public domain of a common set of rules for a city) – - – then, what the F are Rugby sadists doing trying to lay claim to a sport they apparently loath??? Just sounds like a desperate ‘look at me’ (isn’t that how Robbos would put it?).
btw – Brett McKay -
what is the ‘convenient ignorance’ displayed by the AFL?
Captain Nemo said | June 18th 2009 @ 1:20pm | Report comment
There you go Pip, Adelaides murder rate, now that is something that may actually make BBC/CNN world news.
Pippinu said | June 18th 2009 @ 1:31pm | Report comment
Capt Nemo
do you attach a certain importance to the BBC and CNN?
macavity said | June 18th 2009 @ 1:39pm | Report comment
pip, you are the one ignoring the documented evidence, of which noted sports historian Sean Fagan (the author of the article and a few more on the subject) has produced plenty.
Lazza said | June 18th 2009 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
“It’s about time Adelaide was known for something else apart from producing gruesome murders.”
Any publicity is good publicity they say? I’m not sure they had this in mind though! I thought you were above taking cheap shots anyway? The Crows recent form must have you worried?
Captain Nemo said | June 18th 2009 @ 1:45pm | Report comment
Pip, To answer you question, yes I do
BBC because of its quality and its far reaching voice, CNN is in my opinion the best of the American networks. Because I spend alot of time away from home (21 day trip starting tommorrow), in my opinion, BBC radio is still the greatest source of news on the planet. to be in the middle of nowhere and be able to pick up BBC world radio and listen to an Ashes game live or to hear a fulltime wallabies score makes your day. Now, where were we, world changing events in Adelaide!!!!
Pippinu said | June 18th 2009 @ 1:53pm | Report comment
Macavity
so what are you trying to say?
That Tom Wills didn’t put an ad in the local paper in 1858 asking cricketers to form a football club?
That Tom Wills didn’t have some involvement in the match organised between Scotch College and Melbourne Grammar soon afterwards?
That the Melbourne Football club wasn’t formed in May 1859?
That the first set of rules were not written down a few days afterwards (also involving Wills)?
All the documentary evidence for these events exist.
What are you trying to say, that none of this actually happened? That it has all been made up??
Pippinu said | June 18th 2009 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
Capt Nemo
have a good trip – I too am a big fan of BBC radio (often listen to it late on a Sat night/Sunday morn to hear the latest EPL news).
But clearly I don’t go to it to hear the latest scores of any game involving the Western Bulldogs – so from my perspective, it has its obvious flaws.
Pippinu said | June 18th 2009 @ 1:57pm | Report comment
Lazza
me take a cheap shot at Adelaide?? heaven forbid!!
Captain Nemo said | June 18th 2009 @ 1:58pm | Report comment
Pip, regarding Macavity’s post and his link to the origins of Australian football, I tend to get the impression that yourself and many other Victorians want the game to have started a certain way so thats it!!!! Regardless of how or why it started, an edited version that suites the culture of today has been put forward and anyone with a different version of its history is attacking the game. Question, how do you want history to judge the origins of the game???? Would it affect your passion for the game if it evolved from Rugby?? I think Macivity posted a fair thread and after you making such bold statements about global ramifications etc then changing the topic to the Sports ministers healthy lifestyle, you have fallen short of the mark my friend (Hobbits in Irian Jaya don’t count either!!!
) cheers
Pippinu said | June 18th 2009 @ 2:09pm | Report comment
Capt Nemo
I certainly do not try and argue that Rugby wasn’t a major influence, on the contrary, it clearly was a big influence because Tom Wills actually attended rugby school – and there’s no doubt in my mind that the games played in 1858 would have resembled the game played at rugby school.
But how does that contradict all the documented evidence I quote above that puts the birth of Australian Football at least as far back as 1859, and perhaps even 1858?
It’s all part of the same story and history – I don’t see a contradiction between what you’ve just said and the official history.
Redb said | June 18th 2009 @ 2:16pm | Report comment
Captain Nemo,
It’s not relevant what a Rugby league historian says about Australian football. Rugby came from soccer, so what? Gridron a modifed from of rugby and therefore soccer.
It’s an argument that for some strange reason means a lot more to RL/rugby fans.
Would it effect our passion for the game due to links to rugby – of course not. Wills attended rugby school, but not even rugby was rugby back in those days.
After the ten basic rules of Aust football were established in 1859 in Melbourne (many of which were contrary to rugby rules of the day) the game took quite a diverse course from rugby and has for the better part of 150 years.
The better question is would it endear rugby fans more to Australian football knowing it’s partial rugby origins?
Redb
Michael C said | June 18th 2009 @ 2:20pm | Report comment
Pip – allow me
Macavity -
some of the points raised in the Fagan article are being rather greatly Rugby centric.
Fagan states What the “Australian rulers” don’t choose to mention is that it was played between school-boys (Scotch College and Melbourne Grammar) and they used rugby rules on a rectangular field.
Huh??? They didn’t use a single set of rules. Certainly not the Rugby School rule book of 30 plus rules including a dozen or so covering ‘off-side’.
The whole problem of the game was that it exposed the desperate need for a single set of rules – because, as was the norm at the time, the rules were pretty fluid (even a written set of 10-12 rules as the Melb and London football codes began with leaves MUCH area for interpretation) and much was to be ‘worked out’ as the game progressed. Even if Rugby rules were explicitly attempted – the game was such a success that it proved the need for a unique SET of rules that everybody could play together with.
Fagan states Many texts on Australian rules cite the “mark” rule of 1859 as the code’s first distinctive innovation, ignoring that the equivalent “fair catch” rule has existed in rugby since at least its first documented laws in 1845, and then continued in all the other football codes that evolved from rugby.
actually, a fair catch was in the 1863 Laws of Association Football too. Obviously soccer evolved from Rugby. Or, perhaps, just perhaps, the concept of a ‘fair catch’ was larger than the confines of the school of rugby – - in reality, cricketers are pretty aware of the notion of a ‘fair catch’. Fagan is being VERY narrow.
re off side Fagan puts it this way According to Geoffrey Blainey in A Game of Our Own, match reports in newspapers reveal that rugby’s “off-side” still existed in Australian rules. These rugby traditions were still so strong that there was no need to explain them in the written laws in Australian football.
WHere is he suggesting these ‘rugby traditons’ actually existed in Australia or Melbourne in the mid 1850s??? So strong that there ws no need to explain them???? Gawd what a crock!!!! Very few people in Australia at this time had played ‘well to do school’ football, let alone at the school of Rugby – -this was something that stood Tom Wills apart. (read a particularly good bio on him by Greg De Moore). At any rate – it is patently obvious that any off-side rule WOULD have to be explicit and would not be at all well known. Around this time in pop culture, it was Tom Brown’s school days book that told of playing football at the school of rugby that spread the idea of playing football (but not the specific rules).
Note however Blainey’s discussion of the off-side rule at pp. 63-4 and his proposition that the game began with a minor form of the offside rule, which was later dispensed with. Quite different to how Fagan puts it for his own purposes.
Fagan says The only connection that game has with Australian football is that it was played in Melbourne.
And played by Australians and was the point at which Australians – on this topic – decided that they weren’t going to rely on imported guidance from England – - but rather, would create a game of our own. They did have access to handbooks that included some school rules from England, and were able to pick and choose based on what they either knew of first hand, experienced in the matches attempted, or read and thought a good idea.
Macavity – I have no doubt you’ll take stuff all notice of this – - but, believe me, Sean Fagan is attempting to write a revisionist history of the world according to Rugby. He sees ONLY the rugby influence in the game. Yes – there was. Because, clearly, Tom Wills had been school there and played football there – although cricket was his higher calling whilst in Rugby.
Wills did suggest a few Rugby rules here and there, but, wasn’t overly fussed and was usually knocked back – including the cross bar (because, he WAS a prodigious kick, and a cross bar to kick OVER made it even harder to kick a goal and made his abilities all the more virtuous- – -note, that one was knocked back!!).
And Fagan states : To say that the 1858 match was the game now known as Australian rules is nonsense. To paraphrase Kipling, “rugby is rugby” – what came after doesn’t change what was played in 1858.
The 1858 match in question (over 3 weekends), along with other matches played and variously umpired by people including Dr.John MacAdam (as in the nuts, from Glasgow – taught at Scotch College) and Thomas Wills and others, were NOT codified Australian Rules matches – - but, clearly were NOT anything else. What were they?
No idea what an out of context Kipling quote has to do with anything??
Fagan REALLY is stretching on this one.
Pippinu said | June 18th 2009 @ 2:24pm | Report comment
Capt Nemo
just re-reading the Sean Fagan article, I’ll just say this:
1. At no stage does he say that the above events did not happen.
2. He assumes, on the basis of quite flimsy evidence, that those events did not in any way contribute to the formulation of a new game – which is absolutely impossible to conclude – anyone who knows the history of aussie rules well can pick plenty of holes in his argument.
For starters, one just has to read the original letter from Tom Wills – recalling that:
1. He indeed was from rugby school;
2. He was the only one of 4 or 5 prominent men involved in the early days, i.e. the others brought with them the rules of their own schools (and that’s why they needed a new set of rules); and
3. He did his utmost to introduce new rules from the word go – at no point did he ever suggest that they play rugby – this is the crucial thing that everyone putting forward a contrarty argument appears to be missing.
Fagan’s response is that – he didn’t have to say it straight out – eveyrone would have just know it was rugby – but sorry – that’s bull shit!
However, I agree that rugby was a big influence on the formulation of the Australian game – I would not dispute that at all (but it’s not necessarily a bigger influence than other football games of the time, all of which are related) – and any Melburnian who stumbles across their first game of rugby, as I did around the age of 19, is fascinated by the game (in a way that we are not by league – and I don’t intend any disrespect by that comment).
It’s worth recalling that all the early football games grappled with this idea of being a kicking game only (Association Football), and a running game only (rugby) – but most of the time were a mixture of both – that’s hardly a revelation.
In fact there is an account of a very early game whereby a player is questioned about running too far with the ball (recalling that the early rules were vague and in a state of flux).
I could go on and on and on….
Michael C said | June 18th 2009 @ 2:36pm | Report comment
note on Tom Wills -
Don’t focus TOO much on him. Cricket was more his game and far, far more important to his social standing was his association with the MCC in a cricket sense – where, even as an Amateur, he managed to get ‘employed’ – - titled as a cricket ‘Tutor’ and at times retained the ‘esquire’ title after his name.
He was just one of many who where moving towards football as an adult recreation let alone inter school matches. He was though one of the greatest sportsmen of the day. Don’t confuse that with being a great or influential administrator!!! (heck, he last 1 year as MCC secretary and I doubt the MCC would have lasted a 2nd!!!).
There’s not really any evidence to suggest that his ‘famous’ letter was all that important really – as, his letter goes on more about establishing a rifle club for defence of the colony. He tended to write a lot of letters – - hmm, today you’d probably find him on here (right, I’ll shut up now and do some work!!!)
- again – I recommend you to the “Tom Wills” biography by Greg De Moore (he’s actually from a Sri Lankan family, came to Australia and he lives and works in Sydney – - so, he’s not from an insulated Melbourne Football background).
Art Sapphire said | June 18th 2009 @ 2:48pm | Report comment
Big Al – I am very aware of the Williamson’s work.
The Club became on the greatest Australian films ever made. Rene Kink’s debut as a major motion picture star ranks as a highpoint in the history of Australian cinema.
But to make it onto the global scene and to make the Hollywood execs wet their pants, we need a big budget Aussie Rules Baz spectacular.
Here is another idea – Escape to Victory Aussie Rules style.
Russell Crowe teaches fellow POWs to play the greatest game of all.
Col. Klink and the Gestapo also fall in love with the game and decide to play the ultimate game.
It will either be freedom or death for our heroes.
You know it makes sense
Captain Nemo said | June 18th 2009 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
Russell Crowe would want the rabbitohs in there somewhere
Brett McKay said | June 18th 2009 @ 3:03pm | Report comment
Michael C – wasn’t it you that raised the existance of the indigenous ‘maarn grook’ game prior to 1858?? If it wasn’t you, then my humble apologies to you, but it has certainly been discussed at length on The Roar in the past..
Art, I do like the idea of “Australian Rules”, the sequel to (A Loose Interpretation of) Australia. In true Baz Luhrmann style, I would overlook the mere detail of accuracy and cast Nicole Kidman in the role of Kevin Sheedy, coach of the Castlemaine-Geelong Football Club…
BigAl said | June 18th 2009 @ 3:03pm | Report comment
Brett McKay . . . I also would like to know what is … the ‘convenient ignorance’ displayed by the AFL?
Lazza said | June 18th 2009 @ 3:05pm | Report comment
I always thought Aussie Rules was influenced by both Rugby and Cricket? An oval shaped ball in a sport that’s played on a Cricket oval? The game also has a lot in common with Gaelic Football – was there not a large Irish community in Melbourne at the time?
Why are these obvious influences always discounted in favour of Aboriginal creation myths?
Art Sapphire said | June 18th 2009 @ 3:06pm | Report comment
yes captain nemo – In Baz’s tribute to Bergman, a few rabbits will miraculously appear in the POW camp.
Russell Crowe will kill the critters with his bare hands and offer to them his men as the Last Supper before the big game.
The Jerries think they will have it easy against the half starved prisoners, but the rabbits have saved the day.
The symbolism is very powerful and will reduce grown RL supporters to tears.
BigAl said | June 18th 2009 @ 3:10pm | Report comment
Brett McKay – - I see you’ve just answered – somewhat disappointing !
Anyway, I’m sure that all involved with AFL football would just love to have as much as possible of the maarn grook legend/fact embedded into the annals of history of the game.
Brett McKay said | June 18th 2009 @ 3:16pm | Report comment
BigAl, I was debating whether to point you back up one reply, but figured you’d see it eventually. I don’t know the marn grook story at all, and perhaps in hindsight I should have said ‘possibly convenient ignorance’.
I just recall it being discussed on here at various points, and if you can’t trust what you read on a blog site, well….
Michael C said | June 18th 2009 @ 3:16pm | Report comment
Brett McKay -
KB goes on and on about Marn Grook.
There’s no proof of a connection with the game circa 1858 or the original set of rules.
There IS a definite connection that’s occurred however – and that is celebrated.
And there WAS a definite connection of Tom Wills and aboriginals both growing up before heading to Rugby for education, and upon his return with his heavy involvement in the aboriginal cricket team.
There’s a mythology. A romance. Nothing wrong with that.
Where are you placing this ‘ignorance’? And what are you labelling as ignorant?? So far, you’ve only mentioned that Marn Grook existed before 1858.
Shall we attack Rugby people for their ignorance in playing for the William Webb Ellis trophy at their World Cup??
Pippinu said | June 18th 2009 @ 3:17pm | Report comment
MC
the point remains that Wills was one of 4 or 5 key figures, all of whom attended different English schools and thus knew different English football games. The rugby influence has to be viewed in that context.
Lazza
Re the shape of the field, and the shape of the ball – in the early days any shaped ball was used, and the game was played wherever sufficient space was found – there were no rules about the shape of eiher the ball or the ground. From memory it was towards mid to late 1860s where moves were made to standardise that a bit more.
There’s certainly documented evidence of aboriginal football games (which did not have goals as such), but all we have is a lot of supposition as to that being a serious influence (Wills lived amongst aborigines, would have seen the games, etc).
Absolutely zero evidence has ever been found for an Irish influence on the Australian game.
The closest we have is that one of the 4 or 5 gentlemen who helped put the rules together attended a public school in Dublin – but all these blokes were wealthy gentlemen protestants, it’s not difficult to see why there is no Irish connection back then (only wealthy gentlemen had the leisure to actually play football as a past time).
The Gaelic game we all know today was codified in the 1880s.
Michael C said | June 18th 2009 @ 3:23pm | Report comment
Lazza -
the Irish weren’t the cricketers and well to do at the ‘proper’ schools in the early days. The complete absence of green and orange in club colours is evidence enough that they weren’t the leaders. The Scots on the other hand!!! Including Dr. John MacAdam from Glasgow via Scotch College, and early days the Caledonian Cup was played for.
The Gaelic game at any rate was codified much later.
In the early days – balls were what ever could be got. And often supplied by a well to do pub owner who would ensure the custom of the players after the game at his establishment should he supply the ball.
Brett McKay said | June 18th 2009 @ 3:40pm | Report comment
MC, right at this point I can really only label myself as ignorant, as far as the Marn Grrok story goes, as I mentioned I don’t really know the story at all, just that the story exists. Note also in my original post I did say “..convenient ignorance of indigenous games that may or may not have predated the alleged origin of the game.” As I said in reply to BigAl above, I probably should have said “possible ignorance”, though if the AFL do know that Marn Grook existed before 1858 (and I’m not syaing they do), then it would be a convenient ignorance.
‘Mythology’ is the perfect word, and it’s also often used to describe the Webb Ellis story too, another one that has been widely discussed on The Roar. The beauty of discussing events that may or may not have taken place 150 years ago is that we all rely on the generational flow of fact and information; none of us can really be sure..
Lazza said | June 18th 2009 @ 3:40pm | Report comment
I just find it difficult to believe that the Aboriginals played anything we would regard as modern Football? Even the old village Football that was played in the middle ages was nothing we would recognise. They just carried an object and tried to fight their way to the opposing village?
Modern Football of any code requires kicking, hence the name Football. This was not possible until the 19th century when synthesised rubber was invented and you could have a bladder that wouldn’t burst when kicked. That’s why the ancients never had anything resembling Football.
Michael C said | June 18th 2009 @ 3:42pm | Report comment
Pip –
Martin Flanagan quotes this:I once saw it written of the history of baseball that the game has “no single point of origin”. There is a grace in that phrase which is utterly absent from this account of the early history of Australian football.
(inclusive in an essay of response to Gillian Hibbins when she asserted that he was suggesting that Marn Grook influenced the first set of rules – as he puts it I know of no evidence that the Aboriginal game played any part in the discussions surrounding that event {the framing of the rules in 1859}. There is no scene in “The Call”, either the novel or the play, which suggests such a discussion took place. )
Anyway – there’s an interesting side story to one of Martin Flanagans experiences playing out this weekend.
Pippinu said | June 18th 2009 @ 3:47pm | Report comment
Lazza
the accounts of the time are that the aborigines would kick a possum skin stuffed with charcoal.
There were no goals in this game, but points would be awarded for kicking the ball high and for jumping high to catch it (and thus the possible link to aussie rules – but it remains speculative).
It sounds very much like a form of kick to kick!
Michael C said | June 18th 2009 @ 3:54pm | Report comment
Main things to understand re Tom Wills and his childhood -
Tom Wills grew up in Tjapwurrung country, his father being the first white settler in the Ararat area, arriving in 1838 when Tom was three. Tom interacted with the ‘natives’ as he grew up and he spoke Tjapwurrung. He knew an unspecified number of their songs.
It’s recorded that games of Aboriginal football, commonly called marn-grook, were played at the Victorian gatherings and that one of the groups which attended the meetings, or corroborees, were the Tjapwurrung.
It’s recorded that one of the big rivalries in Aboriginal football in western Victoria was between the black cockatoos and the white cockatoos. The Tjapwurrung around Moyston, where Wills lived, had as their two totems the black and white cockatoo.
Gillian Hibbins who attacks the Marn Grook myth – “The Aborigines, at the time the white man arrived, lived within quite clearly defined tribal areas, speaking a language different from those of other tribal areas. Aboriginal tribal strangers were regarded with suspicion and did not trespass without being killed. Bearing this in mind, were there any reports of Aboriginal football in the Western Districts where Wills lived?”
Flanagan points out:
This is as crude as arguing that because Australia has borders and arrests illegal immigrants it has no traffic in culture or ideas with other nations. Englishman Bruce Chatwin became internationally famous for his book “Songlines”. There are continuing controversies to do with that book, but no-one seems to challenge its central tenet that lines of cultural exchange ran the length and breadth of Aboriginal Australia. Clan gatherings were observed in colonial Victoria of the sort that still happen in northern Australia (at which, incidentally, games of football are played).
Lazza said | June 18th 2009 @ 3:57pm | Report comment
“the accounts of the time are that the aborigines would kick a possum skin stuffed with charcoal.”
Sounds like someone needs to experiment – wonder why it hasn’t been done already? Try and create one of these ‘footballs’ and see how well you can kick the thing?
Michael C said | June 18th 2009 @ 4:02pm | Report comment
Brett -
I’ve come to realise over time, that the Romance in soccer tends to be associated on the field. The Romance in Rugby tends to be associated off the field.
Aust Footy has it’s own romance and mythology – - and other Australians are welcome to share in it – - just as, 200 odd years of Euro habitation should prohibit Australians from learning of and sharing with 40,000 years of indigenous culture.
One thing that is apparent, a lot of people didn’t so much care – just accepted what was put forward. The fact that it took until the last couple of years for a decent biography on Thomas Wills just shows how little hope the average sports administrator has of getting it 100% right and therefore should absolve people of responsibility – or at least the implication of deliberate contrivance.
The irony is – such has been the lack of clear research and literature, that, until de Moores wonderfully researched Wills biography – perhaps the most referred to work was a ‘novel/stage play’ by Martin Flanagan……….which is seems was taken too literally by some as an asserted statement of fact (which it wasn’t).
Where’s the romance?!?!?
AndyS said | June 18th 2009 @ 4:03pm | Report comment
I don’t know about what the aborigines played with, but there are certainly plenty of medieval references to football and the kicking of the ball. It was even banned a few times by royal decree because of the hooliganism it caused – I guess the more things change…
But I wouldn’t say any of the games “came” from the others. They developed in parallel from a wide range of games generically called football, all basically played to local rules. A common ancestry at best.
Lazza said | June 18th 2009 @ 4:10pm | Report comment
“medieval references to football and the kicking of the ball”
Without a bladder all you could do was kick it along the ground, a form of primitive Soccer?
AndyS said | June 18th 2009 @ 4:18pm | Report comment
The original balls made for Rugby school were leather casings enclosing a pig bladder. I doubt there had been any great advances in tanning or stitching, so I don’t see any reason why the same couldn’t have been done in medieval times.
tifosi said | June 18th 2009 @ 4:26pm | Report comment
The History of football is a fascinating topic, Different university’s having their own rules, different towns having their own rules.
All of them are children of “mob football”
AFL could have been created from Sheffield Rules and the Cambridge rules.
this from Wikipedia about the Sheffield Rules:
There is circumstantial evidence that the rules also influenced Australian rules football conceived a couple of years later.
The two codes shared the unique feature of lacking the offside rule. There are also similarities in the laws for kicking off, kick outs, throw-ins and the fair catch.
Henry Creswick (possibly a relative of Nathaniel Creswick (the founder of sheffield rules)) was born in Sheffield but emigrated to Australia with his brother in 1840 (the town of Creswick is named after them). He moved to Melbourne in 1854 and became involved in the local cricket scene. He played first class cricket for Victoria during the 57–58 season alongside three of the founders of Melbourne Football Club including Tom Wills, the man credited with creating the original rules.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheffield_Rules
Lazza said | June 18th 2009 @ 4:26pm | Report comment
AndyS,
Try kicking a pigs bladder and see how long it lasts? It is no coincidence that all Football codes were codified in the 19th century after the invention of synthesised rubber.
AndyS said | June 18th 2009 @ 4:31pm | Report comment
And hence presumably the leather wrapping. It must have taken a reasonable pounding, as kicking the ball over the posts used to be the only way to score at Rugby.
Michael C said | June 18th 2009 @ 4:37pm | Report comment
Of interest – Greg De Moore was involved in a blog late in Dec 2008. He wrote:
The Tom Wills story transcends sport. Two features – his heroic egalitarianism and his links with aboriginal history – are the most important for me. It was unlikely that Tom ever considered the deeper social and political implications of his relationship with aborigines but I think we can read into his story a bigger story – of a nexus between black and white. The football speculation is but one of several strands that pass through Tom Wills linking these different cultures.
As I read about Baz Luhrmann and the film AUSTRALIA I keep thinking that if a film director wanted a story that encapsulated the Australian identity then Tom Wills should have been his man.
Lazza said | June 18th 2009 @ 4:39pm | Report comment
AndyS, the ancient Romans did something similar, a pigs bladder in leather wrapping. They could only throw the ball, kicking it would just burst the bladder. I’m a bit of a history buff and this was the explanation as to why they never developed Football.
Michael C said | June 18th 2009 @ 4:42pm | Report comment
IN that blog – De Moore was asked about Wills, and the Marn Grook debate etc :
the significance of Tom Wills in the origins of the game. “Well, for me, it is very clear. He was, without doubt, the most important of all the early influential men who shaped the game. Other men, particularly James Thompson, William Hammersley and James Bryant also had important roles. No one man ‘invented’ the game. There were almost certainly other important individuals but there is a patchiness of evidence that makes further assessment difficult.”
whether Tom Wills introduced aspects of aboriginal games into the early rules of Australian Rules football.
“As I looked at this over a period of 10 years it seemed that there were two main issues to sort out. The first was to try and establish if aboriginal football was played near Mount William in the Grampians where Tom lived as a boy.
The best contemporaneous evidence came from James Dawson, a settler in the Western District.
James Dawson was a man I came to admire. He was an advocate for aboriginal rights and he spoke with prickly fire and single-mindedness. He was also an assiduous collector of aboriginal vocabulary and listened to languages with sensitivity often neglected by other settlers. The name he recorded for aboriginal football played near Mt William was Min’gorm.
We know, from several sources, that Tom played games with aboriginal children in the Mount William district. As I conclude in the book it can be argued that Tom Wills either watched or played Min’gorm or a variant of this game. While there is no proof of this, it remains a reasonable speculation.
The next issue was to examine whether contemporaneous evidence indicated, or even hinted at, a connection between aboriginal games and the beginning of Australian Rules football. I found no suggestion of such a link. This was not for want of trying, as I spent hundreds of hours poring over material and interviewing dozens of descendants of numerous families.
Is it possible that I am wrong? That indeed Tom Wills did incorporate aspects of aboriginal games into early Australian Rules football. Well, of course, there may have been events that were not recorded. No one can say one way or the other. But what was recorded and survives all point to the importance of the games imported to the colony. These games came primarily from England and, of these, the most influential was the game Tom Wills played at Rugby School.”
Pippinu said | June 18th 2009 @ 4:45pm | Report comment
Tifosi
the similarities between the early Sheffield (and Cambridge) rules, and the first set of Australian rules in 1859 are very apparent. I’m pretty sure one of the 4 or 5 gentlemen who sat alongside Wills to draw up those rules had been to Cambridge.
AndyS said | June 18th 2009 @ 5:01pm | Report comment
Perhaps Lazza, but I’m just making the observation – they made the balls with leather and pigs’ bladders, and the only way to score was to kick them. How long they lasted, I don’t know, but obviously long enough.
Just a secondary thought – if they could only throw the ball, why would it become known as football rather than handball…?
Michael C said | June 18th 2009 @ 5:08pm | Report comment
A bit lengthy – but, it’s gotto be looked at all together to make any sense,
first, a look at the Melb Rules The bold entries are comparisons to the London RUles of 1863. (should we refer to Cambridge, and Eton, and Harrow etc etc)
Rules of the Melbourne Football Club, May 1859
1. The distance between the goals and the goal posts shall be decided upon by the captains of the sides playing.
see London FA rule 1 down at Melb rule 4
2. The captains on each side shall toss for choice of goal. The side losing the toss has the kick-off from the centre-point between the goals.
2. A toss for goals shall take place, and the game shall be commenced by a place kick from the centre of the ground by the side losing the toss for goals; the other side shall not approach within 10 yards (9.1 m) of the ball until it is kicked off.
3. A goal must be kicked fairly between the posts without touching either of them or a portion of the person of any player of either side.
4. A goal shall be won when the ball passes between the goal-posts or over the space between the goal-posts (at whatever height), not being thrown, knocked on, or carried.
4. The game shall be played within the space of not more than 200 yards wide, the same to be measured equally upon each side of the line drawn through the centre of the two goals and two posts to be called the kick-off posts shall be erected at a distance of 20 yards on each side of the goal posts at both ends and in a straight line with them.
1. The maximum length of the ground shall be 200 yards (180 m), the maximum breadth shall be 100 yards (91 m), the length and breadth shall be marked off with flags; and the goal shall be defined by two upright posts, eight yards (7 m) apart, without any tape or bar across them.
5. In case the ball is kicked behind the goals, anyone of the side behind whose goal it is kicked, may bring it 20 yards in front of any portion of the space between the kick-off posts and shall kick it as nearly as possible in the line of the opposite goal.
6. Any player catching the ball directly from the boot may call ‘mark’. He then has a free kick. No players from the opposite side being allowed to come into the spot marked.
8. If a player makes a fair catch, he shall be entitled to a free kick, providing he claims it by making a mark with his heel at once; and in order to take such kick he may go back as far as he pleases, and no player on the opposite side shall advance beyond his mark until he has kicked.
7. Tripping and pushing are both allowed but no hacking when any player is in rapid motion or in possession of the ball except for the case provided by rule 6.
10. Neither tripping nor hacking shall be allowed, and no player shall use his hands to hold or push his adversary.
8. The ball may be taken in hand only when caught from the boot or on the hop. In no case shall it be lifted from the ground.
12. No player shall be allowed to take the ball from the ground with his hands under any pretence whatever while it is in play.
9. When a 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.
5. When the ball is in touch, the first player who touches it shall throw it from the point on the boundary line where it left the ground in a direction at right angles with the boundary line, and the ball shall not be in play until it has touched the ground.
10. The ball while in play may under no circumstances be thrown.
11.A player shall not be allowed to throw the ball or pass it to another with his hands.
Signed by: Tom Wills, William Hammersley, J. Sewell, J. B. Thompson, Alex Bruce, T. Butterworth and Thomas Smith.
Differences between Rugby and Aussie Rules in the late 1850’s:
Rugby rules 5-9 inclusive deal with the matter of “offside”, whereas there was no reference to “offside” in Australian football.
Rugby refered to a “fair catch” (rule 3), Australian football refered to a “mark”(rule 6). For the rugby fair catch, the ball could come from the hand of an opposition player as well as from the boot, in Australian football it could only come from the boot.
In rugby throwing was permitted (rules 10 & 11), in Australian football it was banned (rule 10).
In rugby hacking of opposition players was allowed provided it is done between his knees and feet and he was not being held (rule 22-24) whereas in Australian football it was banned altogether (rule 7).
In rugby a goal could be attempted after a try (rules 26-31) or as a drop goal attempt (see para 1 pg 2). In Australian football, no try was necessary before attempting a shot at goals (rule 3) and no requirement for a drop-kick or place kick was used.
Similarities between Rugby and Aussie Rules in the late 1850’s:
Both rugby and Australian football in the 1850’s started with a kick-off.
Rules regarding picking the ball up were similar in rugby (rules 13 & 14) and Australian football (rule 7).
The rule for bringing the ball back into play from out-of-bounds in Rugby (rule 32) and in Australian football (rule 9) were similar.
The field shapes (rectangular) were similar though the dimensions were not given.
Seems to me, there’s plenty of scope to find similarities whereever you look. The differences are probably the key points.
Differences in terminology.
i.e. the ‘mark’ is given a focus, and the absence of terms like ‘touch’ or any reference to ‘on-side’ or ‘off-side’ are important.
also, the very distinct difference to Rugby – i.e. no throwing and goals scored directly from play rather than from the try.
It’s got to be remembered, the Rugby Mark was able to be taken after a ‘try’ was achieved where upon you could kick the ball back into play trying to have it marked and thus set up a shot on goal…………gawd……..how much more different does it have to be for the RUgby zealots to give up trying to take more credit than they should.
Michael C said | June 18th 2009 @ 5:11pm | Report comment
Pip -re cambridge :
William Josiah Hammersley (born September 25, 1826, Ash, Surrey, England – died 1886) was a prominent sports journalist for Bell’s Life in Victoria and later The Australasian (Victoria) was one of the four men credited with setting down the original rules of the Australian rules football.
He was a prominent cricketer, having played for Cambridge University Cricket Club, Surrey County Cricket Club and Marylebone Cricket Club.
Hammersley migrated to Melbourne and upon his arrival to Australia, he became a member of the Melbourne Cricket Club and worked as a sports journalist.
He captained the first Victorian XI to visit Sydney for an inter-colonial match in 1857 and was a right arm batter/bowler between 1847 and 1861.
He was a personal friend of fellow Cambridge cricketer Thomas Wentworth Wills and helped to give momentum to Wills calls to form a football club.
In 1959 he became a founding member of the Melbourne Football Club and involved in popularising the club’s football code.
Hammersley is also believed by some to have been instrumental in introducing Victorian Rules to Sydney and in the early formation of the New South Wales Football Association.
He died on November 15, 1886 in the Melbourne suburb of Fitzroy, Victoria.
Michael C said | June 18th 2009 @ 5:15pm | Report comment
Pip -
there’s a fellow called Graeme Atkinson, writing in Everything You Wanted Know About Australian Rules Football … who considers it likely that these Geelong rules were drawn up prior to the first rules of the Melbourne Football Club (and before Castlemaine??)
1. Distance between goals and the goal posts to be decided by captains.
2. Teams of 25 in grand matches, but up to 30 against odds.
3. Matches to be played in 2 halves of 50 minutes. At the end of first 50 teams may leave ground for 20 minutes for refreshments but must be ready to resume on time otherwise rival captain can call game off or (if his side has scored) claim it as a win.
4. Game played with 200 yard [sic.] [182.9 metre] space, same to be measured equally on each side of a line drawn through the centre of the two goals, and two posts to be called “kick off” posts shall be erected at a distance of 20 yards [1.83 metres] on each side of the goal posts at both ends and in a straight line between them.
5. When kicked behind goal, ball may be brought 20 yards in front of any portion of the space between the kick off and kicked as nearly as possibly [sic.] in line with opposite goal.
6. Ball must be bounced every 10 or 20 yards if carried.
7. Tripping, holding, hacking prohibited. Pushing with hands or body is allowed when any player is in rapid motion or in possession of ball, except in the case of a mark.
8. Mark is when a player catches the ball before it hits the ground and has been clearly kicked by another player.
9. Handball only allowed if ball held clearly in one hand and punched or hit out with other. If caught, no mark. Throwing prohibited.
10. Before game captains toss for ends.
11. In case of infringements, captain may claim free from where breach occurred. Except where umpires appointed, opposing captain to adjudicate.
12. In all grand matches two umpires – one from each side – will take up position as near as possible between the goal posts and centre. When breach is made appeal to go to nearest umpire.
Lazza said | June 18th 2009 @ 5:16pm | Report comment
AndyS, must of been a frustrating game if you had to change the ball so often? When did the term Football first appear? I don’t know, it may have originated in those old village games but they could only kick the ball along the ground.
The Romans were pretty clever so there must of been a reason why they didn’t develop Football as we know it. Interesting topic but I can only tell you what I’ve read.
Pippinu said | June 18th 2009 @ 5:17pm | Report comment
Andy S
Wikipedia mentions that the term “football” is a reference to a game played on feet rather than a game involved propelling objects by foot.
Lazza said | June 18th 2009 @ 5:24pm | Report comment
Most sports are played on feet Pippinu?
AndyS said | June 18th 2009 @ 5:31pm | Report comment
Indeed
.
Just looked at the wiki entry for football and the opening line was “Football is the word given to a number of similar team sports, all of which involve (to varying degrees) kicking a ball in an attempt to score a goal.”. An interesting read though.
Pippinu said | June 18th 2009 @ 5:32pm | Report comment
Lazza
Polo is the obvious exception (and the more recent inventions of water polo, ice hockey, etc) – I’m only mentioning what wikipedia says.
Dave said | June 18th 2009 @ 5:37pm | Report comment
macavity, Sean Hagan is rwong, there was no offside and you couldnt throw the ball. The rules were witten down.
It looks like South Australia invented the game though
http://www.sanfl.com.au/the_sanfl/history_of_the_sanfl/
“…Football in South Australia has a long and colourful history. The first official record of Australian Rules being played in SA dates back to 1843….”
Pippinu said | June 18th 2009 @ 5:38pm | Report comment
AndyS
Under Etymology, the same wikipedia article says the following:
While it is widely believed that the word “football” (or “foot ball”) originated in reference to the action of the foot kicking a ball, there is a rival explanation, which has it that football originally referred to a variety of games in medieval Europe, which were played on foot.[1] These games were usually played by peasants, as opposed to the horse-riding sports often played by aristocrats. While there is no conclusive evidence for this explanation, the word football has always implied a variety of games played on foot, not just those that involved kicking a ball. In some cases, the word football has even been applied to games which have specifically outlawed kicking the ball.
Col the Bear said | June 18th 2009 @ 5:39pm | Report comment
“Ballarat formed in 1870″… the interesting bit for me about this is that my great great ‘Irish ‘grandfather (John Egan) was a publican in Ballarat at the time with his brother (Patrick).. just wanted to share that with you all..But they were all Geelong supporters I believe..
I recall the Pub was known as “the Band of Hope No. 3″..
Lazza said | June 18th 2009 @ 5:53pm | Report comment
Pippinu,
So basically we don’t really know where the term football came from? Just some interesting theories?
Pippinu said | June 18th 2009 @ 5:57pm | Report comment
Lazza
lost in the mists of time, as they say.
As someone has mentioned, there are medieval references using the word (ye olde foote ball?)
Robbos said | June 18th 2009 @ 9:35pm | Report comment
One of the only times I visit a AFL blog, mainly due to lack of interest in the sport. I checked it out because my old mate Pip wrote the article & surprise, surprise, my name (look at me) appears in a AFL blog about 10 to 20 posts in. Thanks MC.
I am surprised to see that even in an AFL blog we are debating the name ‘Football’.
By the way Pip, Geelong is the Central Coast Mariners of the A-League, no-one outside of Victoria knows where it is. I know God did once reside there, the AFL God of course, not Robbie, the footballing God.
beaver fever said | June 18th 2009 @ 9:37pm | Report comment
This may explain where the australian football came from… the sherrin that is which may or may not interest people.
WA has the burley and SA has the Faulkner.
http://www.sherrin.com.au/history/index.html
Australain football in its infancy imported rugby balls from England, Tom sherrin who worked in a leather factory in Collingwood (collingwood was chock a block full of em.) reguarly fixed them The rugby ball was elongated, and used to wear heavily on the ends of the ball. Tom created a new shape and developed a pattern that made the ball rounder on the points. The ball was still oval in shape, which allowed the ball to bounce more evenly and easier to kick.
However, the fundamental design still created an air of mystery as to which way the ball bounced along the turf, which makes Australian Rules Football such a delight to play and watch. Tom experimented with his design in some of the local leagues, and realised very quickly that his design was accepted and hailed by all players who used the ball.
Tom scraped his pennies together and in 1879 built a small factory at 32 Wellington Street in Collingwood.
etc etc etc
macavity said | June 18th 2009 @ 10:07pm | Report comment
so the first game of “AFL” was a variation of rugby rules.
glad we cleared that up, 80 odd posts later….
FTR I trust the research of a noted historian over you mob.
beaver fever said | June 18th 2009 @ 10:19pm | Report comment
Everything must come from somewhere, but i think a variation is a bit to simple….. sure some rugby rules but plenty of new ones as well and depending on who you believe some aboriginal ones as well.
No offside was a pretty big one.
Sean Fagan said | June 19th 2009 @ 8:32am | Report comment
Great to see so many people wanting to talk about football history – the more of it the better! I think we could be here for weeks toing and froing about “1858 and all that”. All I’d like to add here is two key issues concerning playing rugby in the 1850s and 1860s that is invariably overlooked or not understood.
1. Playing “rugby” in the 1850s did not mean applying the entire rule book. Before each match, the captains/teams met and “What wil it be today?” was the opening statement. They would then decide what rules were in or out for the day. Maybe a streamlining of the rules, modifying them here and there, introducing something from another School…they were all part of the mix.
2. The Rugby laws of the 1850s had off-side clauses – no argument – but they were not restricting off-side play – they were saying/limiting what off-side players could do. Teams weren’t lined up like two “Western Front” armies in the way they are today in the rugby codes.
All I’ve been endeavouring to do via that article is change the accepted lore that Aust rules was born in 1858 in a blinding flash of Australian ingenuity, into a recognition that the predominant influence was rugby.
Clearly, no matter what I bring forward won’t change the views of some, particularly as I am speaking as an outsider (to Aust rules). I would ask those who won’t listen to me, to look at Greg de Moore’s book on Wills, especially:
page 82 (re the Sept 1858 match & earlier games): “The game played that day, as in the previous games, was close in style to Rugby School football.”
page 285- “Australian Rules football owes its defining features – emphasis on handling the ball, the importance of kicking, the shape of the ball, receiving a free kick after marking the ball and much more – to the Rugby School rules that Tom Wills brought”.
Also de Moore says: “That is precisely the case. What happened is that he came back to Melbourne at the end of 1856. In 1858 there are the first recorded games of what we now call Australian Rules Football but that football was more like Rugby School football than anything, and we have clear archival evidence that that is the game that he favoured most.”
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2008/s2326236.htm
All I’ve been pointing to is what Aust rules began with, not what it became – a uniquely Australian game.
cheers
–sf–
Pippinu said | June 19th 2009 @ 8:54am | Report comment
Macavity
For the most part, your “noted historian” is at complete odds to the dozens of tomes that have been printed on the subject (ncluding from historians who are far more noted and celebrated to the one you have put your faith in).
Honestly, so much in the way of documented evidence is available on the origins of Australian Football (when it started to become a distinct game in its own right), that I’m not sure why anyone would want to put out speculative, personal beliefs on the matter.
What is open to a little bit of debate is what actually happened in the so-called “first game” between Scotch College and Melbourne Grammar. I think it is fair to say that it represents more a symbolic first game than being a game of something that could truly be called Australian Football as we understand it now (but the same could be said of both rugby and Association Football of the era).
So this gives a bit of an opening for Fagan to speculate – but that’s all he’s doing – there is plenty of evidence to suggest that it was sufficiently different from rugby (as you might understand that term), while at the same time, being quite similar.
Why would it be similar?
Because most of the school boy football games of the era resembled each other – if not in the exact rules, most certainly in the manner in which the games panned out with dozens of participants on either side.
For instance, the so-called first game had something like 40 kids on either side, was played on a field 500 metres long, and went over three separate days until it was called off (with one side having scored one goal).
If I were to be a betting man – I would suggest to you that that particular game had elements of pretty much every football code going round at the time – including rugby – but most certainly not exclusively rugby.
If I were a betting man, I would say that it resembled the many forms of “folk football” that had existed in parts of England and on the continent (and other parts of the world) for centuries.
What we can say with absolute certainty is:
1. it occurred between two Melbourne schools;
2. one of the “umpires” was Tom Wills himself, who had played rugby at Rugby and who had put the ad in the paper about a month earlier encouraging cricketers to form a football club (it’s worth keeping in mind that the other organisers had not been schooled at Rugby);
3. it took place in open fields very close to where now stands one of the nation’s most famous cricket/football ground;
4. the game involved scoring goals (as in kicking the ball through goals);
5. it occurred on an immense playing field (500 metres), and to this day, Australian Football is played on the largest ground of all the football codes; and
6. the game was played over three days – and to this day, Australian Football has the longest playing time of all the football codes.
It’s a symbolic first game only – but it happened – it’s well documented, and most importantly, the first set of rules were codified some 8 months later (creating a game more akin to Sheffield/Cambridge rules than to rugby, but I have no doubt that rugby remained an influence).
Sean Fagan said | June 19th 2009 @ 9:15am | Report comment
There is nothing that suggest the school match was prompted by Wills letter to Bells Life. The letter was about forming a club for men, not proposing a game for schoolboys.
Again, de Moore in his book on Wills (page 81) re the School match: “…we know that it and the few games of football played that year were closer to the game played at Rugby School than any other kind of football.”
My 2007 article which cited the promince of rugby accords with de Moore’s 2008 exhaustive study – I’m happy to side with de Moore rather than the earlier “dozens of tomes that have been printed on the subject (ncluding from historians who are far more noted and celebrated to the one you have put your faith in).”
cheers
–sf–
Michael C said | June 19th 2009 @ 9:29am | Report comment
Macavity -
the first game of “AFL” was 2.10 pm, Saturday, March 31st, 1990. Actually there were 4 of them. Alas one of them saw North lose to Melbourne by 53 pts.
Michael C said | June 19th 2009 @ 10:30am | Report comment
Macavity -
in addition to what Pip said -
Fagan asserted These rugby traditions were still so strong that there was no need to explain them in the written laws in Australian football.
Yet, elsewhere on his website, he quotes a report in theAge by John Harms that quotes William Hammersley, a fellow member at the Melbourne FC rules meeting, recalled how the debate to the set the laws down began: “Tom Wills suggested the Rugby rules, but nobody understood them except himself.”
In fact, T.S.Marshall (a future secretary of the VFA) observed a game played the week before the ‘famous’ one (over 3 weeks), and observed that virtually every football code was played.
“The English players tried a version of Rugby, the Scotch played a game that defied description, the Irishmen yelled and punted the ball up in the air, and others played with no rules at all”.
William Hammersley – as referred above – recalled in later life :
“One day after a severe fight in the old Richmond Paddock when blood had been freely drawn and some smart raps exchanged and a leg broken, it occurred to some of us that if we had rules to play under it would be better”.
“Tom Wills suggested the Rugby rules, but no one understood them except himself, and the usual result was “adjourn to the Parade Hotel close by and think the matter over”. This we did, with the following results; several drinks and the formation of a committee consisting of Tom Wills, myself, J. B. Thompson and “Football” Smith, as he was termed, a Master in the Scotch College, a rattling fine player and a splendid kick, but of a very peppery nature”.
“We decided to draw up as simple a code of rules, and as few as possible, so that anyone could quickly understand them. We did so, and the result was that the rules under which the game is universally played in Victoria and most other parts of Australia. I feel sure that neither the Rugby or Association rules will ever supplant them.”
Sydney Mail, August 25, 1883
What you DO need to recall, the Melbourne Rules of 1858 are the Melbourne Football Club rules (as an adjunct to the MCC – it’s a very influential ‘institution’). Rules of the day of any match were still very fluid – - and subject to negotiation by the captains who also acted as ‘adjudicators’. For anyone to suggest that the Rugby Rules were the dominant or sole influence is ignoring the rich variety of backgrounds in place.
And – recall the reference by T.S.Marshall to the Scotch played a game that defied description – - and that Scotsman Dr.John MacAdam from Glasgow co-adjudicated that famous match of 1858 with Wills.
And again – - the outcome of all the attempts at playing was that it was obvious that some proper rules were called for.
(‘variation’ of Rugby, and of Eton field game, and of Gaelic principles – given no codified reference, and of Scottish principles – - if that’s possible – - etc etc etc)
Sean Fagan said | June 19th 2009 @ 12:00pm | Report comment
Michael C – you’re pulling out selective quotes from articles on my website and removing them from the context of the issues they were discussing. You have also not taken into account that both Hammersley and Marshall made those statements from recollection, decades after they happened, and each is summarising/merging various events and temporal contexts that occurred over months and years into a paragraph or two.
Fair enough if Aust rules fans want to criticise an outsider (me), but it is Interesting that when de Moore makes similar observations, there is just silence.
Interesting that if you look through Melbourne newspapers from the 1860s to the 1960s that there is open acknowledgement that Australian football came from rugby. It’s only the present generations of the code who have a problem admitting it.
Pippinu said | June 19th 2009 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
Sean
thanks for taking the time to clarify a few thoughts on this thread.
Some points of view we have in common:
1. the game of rugby had at least some influence (we would disagree on the extent of that influence)
2. the celebrated “first game” is as much symbolic as it is real (it would be a nonsense for anyone to claim that they were playing Australian football as we now understand it).
But in all this discussion, you do appear to ignore that:
1. at that time (the 1850s), there were a variety of football codes, most of which were closely related; and
2. the people involved in the early days of Australian Football (1858-59) all came from a variety of backgrounds and schools (meaning they had all played a variety of football games).
Wills was prominent, and he had a rugby background, so we should all readily admit that rugby was a big influence.
But it’s a stretch from that to then conclude that it was a “variation of rugby”.
I think that’s probably the crucial point of difference in our views – but personally, I would never disown the rugby influence – it’s definitely there.
macavity said | June 19th 2009 @ 12:48pm | Report comment
jolly good show old chaps.
(just keeping the rugby theme going…)
Michael C said | June 19th 2009 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
Sean Fagan -
Good afternoon again,
whenever we’re talking about a scant set of 10 or so rules – there’s a lot of guess work amongst it all.
de Moore certainly stresses that Wills was the most important figure. Wills though was far more prominent at Rugby School in the firxt XI cricket team than he was as a footballer. It was however, the first structured football (beyond perhaps indigenous) that he’d been exposed to. That he happily ‘retired’ to Geelong to play his football whilst seeking out to ensure he was required (and to be subsidised, or, later paid as a ‘Tutor’) by the MCC for the cricket season gives a pretty good indication that he was a little less concerned about the specific rules/evolution of the football of the colony than he was about maintaining his social standing via the MCC.
His experiences at Rugby School and his efforts on the cricket fields of London especially gave him a currency that he perhaps otherwise might not have warranted – off the field.
re the influence of Rugby (school or rules??) –
back in 1858 -
the match was advertised in the Herald at the time as having “No fixed rules”
It is curious that De Moore states that despite no description of the rules of the match and no rememberances of Wills – that he asserts these games were nearer to Rugby than any other football of the day.
And then quotes a participant -
“Our football game had no rules at all. Tripping, elbowing, tackling or anything else, was practised with impunity.”
The question I guess is this – without rules,
are we simply saying that ‘mob football’ was nearer to Rugby than anything else???
Without trys, and off-side and the like – - an anything goes style of game with tackling and handling and kicking and whatever – - is it simply that Rugby school football was the most prominent ‘handling’ game of the day – even if not well understood or known by those in Melbourne outside of T.W.Wills??
Because, de Moore comments a few times that he regards the games as being “..close in style to Rugby school”.
As de Moore comments a little later though :
“The Richmond paddock was a crucible of new life in the colony of Melbourne; new species, new ideas, new games were brought together to see what might survive and what might falter.
Of the rules gathered together in 1859 -
de Moore writes:
“The ten rules of the new Melbourne game were shaped by the football played at English public schools – Rugby, Harrow, Eton and Winchester. The four men made it clear that these English games were the starting point for their deliberations.”
Now – Tom pushed for elements of Rugby. That is certain – but, as he wrote to his brother Horace :
“Rugby was not a game for us, we wanted a winter pastime but men could be harmed if thrown on the ground so we thought differently.”
and when de Moore suggests some of the Rugby ‘rules’ or principles that Wills further tried (and failed) to introduce subsequently he reflects that the push for the cross bar and to allow a designated kicker (niether got through) – was no doubt related to that Wills himself had been the designated kicker at Evans House at Rugby and was the longest kick in the colony of Victoria. So, perhaps less to do with seeking to employ the rules for a sake of adherance to the school of Rugby game – but, perhaps more to do with best employing the talents of one T.W.Wills.
[so, is the game 'just a variation' of Rugby - - or, is it a unique game that borrows a few elements perhaps most specifically from Rugby whilst other elements where perhaps more widespread in other games and therefore less easily able to be identified with one game or another. I just reckon that Rugby is perhaps the most identifiable of it's relatives. I'm probably being a bit pedantic.]
Sean Fagan said | June 19th 2009 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
Pippinu – unfortunately because the 1858-59 period has so many different events happening, people tend to mix different elements/timing into their point and, equally, their understanding of someone else’s.
Rugby is more than an influence on the 1859 rules – it is a beginning. The aspects you are seeing as” not exclusively rugby” are still in rugby.
The problem is that most think in terms that the full Rugby rules of 1859 must be present/applied for Aust rules to be seen as beginning with rugby. Yet, as I wrote earlier, that is exactly what playing rugby was each Saturday – the use of the full Rugby School laws was the extreme end of the spectrum and only existed at the School – everywhere else, including some matches within the School itself, watered them down. The idea that the rules were optional was the Rugby ethos. The 10 rules of 1859 are just a stripped back form of rugby, made safer to play and simpler to understand.
That doesn’t deride or diminish what the Aust game evolved into over the past 150 years, it’s just about where it began.
40 players aside and matches over 3 days is straight out of Rugby School. The 1859 rules don’t refer to how to kick the ball, but we know they were doing drops and places.
All the English clubs who formed the RFU in 1871 had all been playing rugby through the 1860s, but none had the same rules as each other, and none were playing to Rugby School’s rules. But ask them what they were playing, and all would have said “rugby”.
AndyS said | June 19th 2009 @ 1:25pm | Report comment
I still think folk are too hung up on the names. When people say that footy came from, or was a variation on, rugby, it is meaningless with respect to the modern game. Soccer only started to codify in the 1860s, differentiating itself from the game that became rugby in the 1870s, so any game played in Australia in the 1850s by definition can’t have been influenced by the games we now recognise. Frankly, the games they codified back then would be difficult to recognise as the various codes played now. They would however share common features, and what became aussie rules may well have been infuenced by the football as played at the Rugby school (which itself would have differed significantly from the game eventually codified as “rugby”). Various changes would then occur in parallel, possibly prompted by similar issues with the rules at the time, but similarities could be the result of cross-pollination or coincidence.
Michael C said | June 19th 2009 @ 1:25pm | Report comment
SF -
the question really is – - how much credit for ‘handling’ style football does Rugby School have in the period 1845(??)-1858 – - including amongst those folk in the colonies of what was to become Australia.
Certainly there are the ‘rugby’ style games.
The Rugby school rules written down in1845 surely had become the basis of the game within the school.
For old boys of Rugby school, or those far removed but perhaps inspired by Tom Browns School Days, certainly – no argument that negotiation upon rules would be required.
For certain – in Melbourne, circa 1858 – the recognition is explicit that there were ‘no rules’, but, there was a variety of ’styles’ being attempted by the varied mix of participants. So – - whether rules negotiation might be considered a very ‘Rugbyesque’ thing to do – - surely, it’s hardly a damning proof that the games were effectively ‘Rugby’.
The 10 Rules of 1859 – - were explicitly pointed out as being derived from specific review of 4 schools rules (Rugby, Eton, Harrow and Winchester). The question is perhaps as to whether you wish to believe that T.W.Wills took charge and started with Rugby rules and they stripped away – - or, whether a blank sheet of paper was started with, to which they added rules 1 to 10 as they went.
I would suggest the latter.
Lazza said | June 19th 2009 @ 1:26pm | Report comment
“the first game of “AFL” was 2.10 pm, Saturday, March 31st, 1990″
That was about 60 years too late to try and expand the game. We should of put a team in Sydney in the 1930’s and then it would of been so much easier.
The arrogant Vics never had any foresight about the game though. They only starting thinking about a national comp to save those cash strapped clubs in Victoria. Our licence fees saved a few of them from going under. It would of been better if we Sth Australians were running the game.
BigAl said | June 19th 2009 @ 1:34pm | Report comment
Trying to be-little aussie rules by insisting that Rugby had an influence on its origins is about as pointless as trying to be-little it because it is not … international !
Both perspectives are irrelevant to what it is.
Michael C said | June 19th 2009 @ 1:35pm | Report comment
Andy S -
If we take London 1863 as the start of soccer – then, a soccer player from then would look at Australian Football and recognise goals without cross bars, kick off posts to the side, and a goal irrespective of height and also fair catches being paid.
A Rugby man from the 1870s would look at Rugby today and wonder why they get points full stop for a try – - let alone that try’s are worth so much more than a goal. He’d scratch his head and wonder that they hadn’t got ’soft’ on the skills of kicking – - especially that the no longer need have the ball ‘touch’ the ground, via using little plastic ‘tees’ to place kick from.
But – an Australian footballer from the late 1800s for example – would see 6 pt goals, 1 pt behinds, and perhaps think – yep, that makes sense given the 4 posts we had. But, back then, players tended to line up on opposing sides still, so, the full ground spread would look foreign.
I’ve often speculated that much of the ‘dash’ and ‘daring’ of Dally Messenger, when he took his skills of Australian football to Rugby League – - would struggle for a place today. Messenger was effectively playing RL as an Aust footballer would. 100 years on, which game would he be suited to with his long kicking and athleticism?
btw –
I’ve seen it suggested that the Eton field game became more distinct as a reaction to the public approval of the discipline and masculine christianity on display at Rugby school via that schools football/sports program. The Eton game, to be clearly distinct to a handling game – became a non-handling game. The 2 codes growing out of Rugby School and Eton have since worked their best to become more and more distinct. I reckon Aust Footy for a long time was more like the football of the day might have been. (which perhaps makes sense with the oft quoted line of ‘Aussie rules; what rules??’.
Sean Fagan said | June 19th 2009 @ 1:37pm | Report comment
“No fixed rules” doesn’t mean a mob “free for all” game – because even that didn’t exist. Even the mob form of football observed accepted conventions and self-regulation by the collective will.
All “No fixed rules” meant in schoolboys and club football is that you could play however you liked. However, if your actions led to a goal or a severe advantage, the opposing captain may well still object on the grounds of unfairness, and to resolve a dispute would often still invoke accepted convention (arbitrated by an umpire if there was any – and, in this case, Wills was one).
Lazza said | June 19th 2009 @ 1:37pm | Report comment
Aussie Rules is a free flowing game unlike the Rugby codes so where did that influence come from? Soccer, Gaelic Football perhaps or somewhere else?
Gaelic Football and Soccer are the two most open free flowing Football codes. Just watch those games and count the stoppages. Besides free kicks which all sports have those codes hardly ever stop the action. If you put it out of play you’re penalised.
Michael C said | June 19th 2009 @ 1:38pm | Report comment
Lazza -
what?? bring back Wayne Jackson??
or put Jars or Cornsey or KG on the Commission – - surely?
Pippinu said | June 19th 2009 @ 1:44pm | Report comment
Sean
are you saying that all the English public schools of the day were playing rugby or forms of rugby? (as opposed to paying different forms of football?)
Is this akin to saying there was just rugby, and variations of rugby, and that all variations of football, of that time, were simply variations of rugby?
Where do the Sheffield/Cambridge rules fit in to this sort of paradigm?
Also, when you use the term “hoax” in your essay (which is an extremely strong word for a historian to use), what are you referring to?
1. that those well known events in 1858-59 did not occur?
2. that the game between Scotch College and Melbourne Grammar in 1858 was pure rugby and should be acknowledged as such, meaning that
3. 1858 should not be seen as the birthyear of Australian Football (as is currently celebrated), meaning
4. the codification of the rules some 8 months later should be seen as the true birthday.
But is a gap of 8 months a sufficient difference to warrant the use of the word “hoax”?
Or are you arguing that the codifcation in 1859 was simply a rewrite of existing rugby school rules (which now appear to be extremely broad and can be applied to any form of football played), such that even that year cannot be used as the birthyear of Australian Football?
What exactly is the hoax?
And what do we make of the toing and froing between Wills (the only one who attended Rugby school), and the others who drafted the first set of rules, where as a group, they clearly charted a course that attempted to differentiate the new game from rugby.
Even if we are able to reach the conclusion that rugby is the starting point (which still looks like a bit of stretch to me), what exactly is the hoax? (which actually does sound like an attempt to deride the Aust game)
Sean Fagan said | June 19th 2009 @ 1:48pm | Report comment
Andy S & BigAl – no one is trying to belittle Australian football. It’s just an unoffensive discussion about its beginnings and how people portray it’s founding as either a game transported from England, a modified form of that, or a flash piece of Australian ingenuity to devise a new game for a new country. Raising the issue and debating it doesn’t belittle it. If anything, it helps Aust rules to focus on the real story, which is its evolution over the past 150 years.
Michael C said | June 19th 2009 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
Lazza -
the open style of play is the result of several factors -
A. large area available for playing field
B. attributes of influential players (i.e. athletic types, like Henry Colden Harrison) who could run like the wind,
C. what the spectators reacted best to and effectively force into the evolution of the code.
D. the prevailing climate
E. the fact the game was NOT a school boy game focussed on school boy disciplines/behaviours
F. the desire for the game to provide recreation/fitness
That’s what happens when you’re not beholden to anyone code as dictated by a school on the otherside of the world or a committee on the other side of the world.
Australian Football is the (a) Galapogas football of the world. It’s capacity to evolve independantly and as per local conditions and expectations is still seen today, and so, it seems people whinge more about rules being tweaked and the AFL being authoritarian etc. And yet, we see some fine examples of the good results of that localised flexibility (and some crap examples of the bad results too!!!).
Pippinu said | June 19th 2009 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
Sean
as I said earlier, the use of the word “hoax” is a very strong one to use for a historian.
Has anyone ever suggested that aussie rules arrived in one piece in a single flash of divinity?
I thought the celestial descriptors were reserved for another game?
Michael C said | June 19th 2009 @ 2:03pm | Report comment
SF -
it helps Aust rules to focus on the real story, which is its evolution over the past 150 years.
Totally agreed.
And, on this point – Rugby WAS the greatest influence. That’s undeniable. Because, Rugby was the competitor up in Sydney and Brisbane, and the establishment of the Rugby League finally in Australia in 1908 ensured that Aust Football would not be the professional code of Sydney.
However – that’s where ‘influence’ is taken not so much as giving credit to specific rules – but, rather, an influence upon the nature of the marketplace.
The thing I reckon is that that ‘friction’ of a relationship was fueled no end by the Sydney-Melbourne colonial rivalry and that just as Canberra is the sick joke that resulted – so too would have been ‘Australeague’, had it ever eventuated!!!!
(seriousy – I wonder how it played out as a game – - didn’t they attempt a couple of matches??)
BigAl said | June 19th 2009 @ 2:04pm | Report comment
I’d agree with all of that Sean.
My last post would be more in response to the points raised by Mccavity which appear to me to be repetitive & pointless
Michael C said | June 19th 2009 @ 2:14pm | Report comment
Pip -
the single point of origin search for truth is over rated – but, seemingly necessary for a ‘celebration’ year 100-150 years on.
Rugby League in Australia was guilty of that too – - given the NSWRFL was established in late 1907, for season kicking off 1908 which meant that season 2008 was the 101st rather than ‘centenary’ season. So, if it is a case of 8 months between the ’season of 1858′ and the resultant rule set drawn up in mid may 1859 – - then, it’s a minor point to squabble over.
I’ve pointed out all along that the VAFA have a right to share in the part to celebrate along with Old Scotch and Old Grammarians the match(es) of 1858.
- – - and, again, for a single point of origin – - for Association Football – that’s the 1870s at which point the Sheffield and London FA’s had aligned and the modern game had really taken shape.
If you applied that -for Australian football – you could argue to move out to 1897 for the more modern scoring regime to be in place??
The advantage in Australia of course is that we have a massive geographical separation from England – - so, without real rules to refer to – - any game of football in Australia was going to be a game of ‘localised’ rules/interpretations even if just that the 2 ‘captains/umpires’ managed to agree on a point – - – or, as happened at othertimes, a disputed goal would see the end of a game.
Sean Fagan said | June 19th 2009 @ 2:16pm | Report comment
Pippinu – the newspaper that published the article applied the heading with “hoax” – the word “hoax” isn’t in the article at all.
The article was primarily concerned with the 1858 schoolboys match and how many presume it was a game played under a uniquely devised set of newly written laws of football for Australia.
I’m happy to concede that it wasn’t “pure rugby” (as I said, not even at Rugby School was that alwasy in use) and that the reference to a rectangular ground shouldn’t have been there (though Aust rules was played on rectangular boundary lines until the late 1880s).
“Is this akin to saying there was just rugby, and variations of rugby, and that all variations of football, of that time, were simply variations of rugby?” Not inside the English public schools, but outside of it – yes – on the back of the mid/late 1850s phenomena that was Tom Brown’s Schooldays. Of course there were local variations, and even Sheffield rules is still a variant. But that was the Rugby ethos and everyone else’s ethos – change it to suit your own needs. (Whereas cricket didn’t have that ethos at all).
AndyS said | June 19th 2009 @ 2:20pm | Report comment
Sean,
Belittle away, as Rugby is my preferred code. I just think it is unrealistic to call “rugby” as the influence, as there was no such thing at the time. You could just as easily say it was the Cambridge rules of the time that were the influence, incorporated the game as played at Rugby and the various other schools. Those rules ultimately led to both soccer and rugby, so perhaps we could just add aussie rules to the list of offspring.
Sean Fagan said | June 19th 2009 @ 2:22pm | Report comment
Michael C – there was one trial game of the cross-code game in Sydney in 1933 behind closed gates.
http://www.RL1908.com/articles/australeague.htm & http://www.RL1908.com/articles/AFL.htm
As appealing as the thought is of Australia having one football code, I’m not thinking that “Australeague” is a game that would have won the hearts of the nation! Would have just made a 5th football code. (Gawd! Imagine that!).
Pippinu said | June 19th 2009 @ 2:28pm | Report comment
Sean
thanks for the explanation – here on the Roar we’re used to editors giving us a tag line whether we like it or not!
AndyS
in one sense – I am saying precisely what you just said then – that all the codes are closely related and that there is no single natural mother (recalling that forms of “folk football” are well documented going back centuries).
Michael C said | June 19th 2009 @ 2:31pm | Report comment
SF -
re Australeague –
and they could’ve based it in Canberra and then we’d all have every excuse to stay away.
Ironic of course now that we have the hybrid International Rules matches (but they serve a variety of purposes).
I do find though, the term ‘Rugby’ to be interesting. Of all the codes – Rugby is a school/town specific name. The game evolved from a single school sports fields. In respect to being a hybrid – - soccer most certainly is, Australian football most certainly is, Grid Iron is more a Rugby game that got whittled at and re-shaped. And Gaelic is a obviously far broader than a specific school yard.
I guess that’s the thing about the word ‘Rugby’ – that it can be used so broadly or very specifically. It constantly surprises me that ‘Rugby’ is permitted to be retained in the ‘League’ game. It’s wierd enough that people try to claim exclusivity for ‘football’ as a descriptor, but – ‘Rugby’ is far, far more narrow than ‘football’.
What I often wonder as we discuss what Australian (rules) Football might best be known as overseas especially – - what would Rugby Union and League be called if ‘Rugby’ where removed – - – because, after all — “Rugby is Rugby” could be used to assert that Rugby football is whats at Rugby School and all else should be a more generic ‘branding’. (rather like, soccer was not to be known as ‘Eton football’ or ‘Harrow football’ no matter how similar the ‘adult’ game to the schoolyard game).
Sean Fagan said | June 19th 2009 @ 2:34pm | Report comment
Pippinu & AndyS – that conclusion doesn’t sit well against Greg de Moore – it’s not just the individual ingredients, is the combination: “Australian Rules football owes its defining features – emphasis on handling the ball, the importance of kicking, the shape of the ball, receiving a free kick after marking the ball and much more – to the Rugby School rules that Tom Wills brought”.
Michael C said | June 19th 2009 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
SF -
the influence of Tom Browns Schools Days probably is too undervalued.
It WAS the Harry Potter of the day, (given that adults – my wife and I included – love the Harry Potter series and pre-ordered copies etc).
It WAS the pop culture, and in the absence of Internet, of TV, of Radio, – - this book was hugely popular and spread around the colonies – - and in part, explains why Rugby or Rugby like games had spread so well in the colonies prior to it being codified as anything in particular outside of the school,
and irrespective that the Londoners had devised their own set of Association Football rules in 1863 – - which were summarily rejected by many advocates of more Rugby like games (i.e. handling style games for want of a better term).
Why did not the game of soccer spread through the colonies otherwise? It was after all, based closely on the ‘Royal’ college of Eton’s field game. Surely that carried gravitas? But, apparently might have lacked a popularist representation via a popular novel. (or, maybe just time and place). The book was published around 1857 and widely distributed around the empire.
But, the sequal – Tom Brown at Oxford was not nearly as successful.
Whilst the book isn’t mentioned by the rule writers – one wonders if it help fuel the interest of the spectators? the players? the school masters? the men of the ‘cloth’? i.e. the people charged with establishing and maintaining ‘young’ colonial outposts of the Empire to whom especially ‘masculine christianity’ was a desirable virtue so far from the Imperial bosom.
Lazza said | June 19th 2009 @ 2:50pm | Report comment
“The advantage in Australia of course is that we have a massive geographical separation from England”
Quite a few nations outside of Europe do as well but they preferred Soccer and Rugby to a localised code? If we had to have our own version then an ‘Australeague’ where we all followed one code would of been preferable. Doesn’t mean we should ignore the others but having one Football code that we all followed would of been nice.
Sean Fagan said | June 19th 2009 @ 2:52pm | Report comment
Imagine the crowd “banter” at Collingwood Magpies v South Sydney Rabbitohs.
Pippinu said | June 19th 2009 @ 2:59pm | Report comment
Lazza
It’s a good question that you raise, but I think it’s easily explained.
There were some very unique things happening in the late 1850s in Melbourne/Victoria that contributed to the development of a local game:
1. lots of land
2. plenty of wealth derived from the gold rush
3. increased leisure, and not just from the landed gentry, some time afterwards, the normal working week went from 6 days to 5 and a half days, and this allowed working men to be able to play football on a Saturday afternoon.
These combination of things (amongst other things), allowed Australian Football to take hold in Melbourne far, far earlier than when other forms of football began colonising the world.
By the mid 1860s, footy games in Melbourne were already attracting 10,000 people. And thus has it remained. By about 1871, the game was already quite big in Adelaide, and crossed over to WA with other gold rushes.
By the time great clubs like Inter-Milan and Juventus were being formed close to the turn of the century, some Melbourne clubs had already been around for nearly 30 years.
Pippinu said | June 19th 2009 @ 3:10pm | Report comment
Sean
in once sense your account of de Moore’s theory is actually less controversial than the recent weaving in of the indigenous connection which has also attracted a fair bit of discussion one way or the other.
I’m happy to leave the possibility open, but it’s simply not backed up with any evidence of any kind apart from the fact that Wills grew up with aborigines in Western Victoria, could speak their language and there are accounts of forms of Marn Grook played in those districts going back to the time he lived there (but crucially, there does not appear to be any evidence of him mentioning that at all).
Sean Fagan said | June 19th 2009 @ 3:23pm | Report comment
Pippinu – can’t add any info re Marn Grook beyond what de Moore covered in his book on Wills.
Michael C – are you suggesting that Rugby (town and/or school) should do a “champagne” and reclaim the word?
There was a period of a decade or more after the RFU was founded where rugby under the RFU and rugby at the School were different games.
And in the few overseas mentions I’ve seen of 19th century / pre-WW1 Aust rules I’ve seen it called “Australian rugby” more than anything else. Then again, Canadian football was “Canadian rugby” while rugby in Canada was called “English rugby”, and across the border American football was “American rugby”.
So, yes, “rugby” was inter-changeable for “football” wherever there was an element of ball-carrying permitted.
Michael C said | June 19th 2009 @ 3:30pm | Report comment
AndyS -
the main argument for Rugby School influence in England is that it DID have an influence – i.e. nearby schools adopted Rugby School rules (or near to) and the Cambridge Rules included the fair catch and run rule :
re Running and fair catch,
IX.A player shall be entitled to run with the ball towards his adversaries’ goal if he makes a fair catch, or catches the ball on the first bound; but in case of a fair catch, if he makes his mark he shall not run.
The Cambridge Rules came about from a student ‘committee’ including young men from Rugby, Winchester, Eton, Harrow etc etc. Although, a ‘fair catch’ was reasonably common – the catch and run wasn’t.
I guess – at what point is it just a footballing principle that originated at the School of Rugby but is no longer specifically symbolic of a variation of Rugby – - given that the Cambridge Rules were effectively the blueprint for the London FA rules (including a fair catch – but, striking out the run with component).
But – Rugby School rules are considered a variation of ‘football’ that saw pretty well the standard style of play until WWE decided to go for a trot with ball in hand……so, Rugby didn’t lead to Cambridge which lead to Association Football. It was far broader than that.
Michael C said | June 19th 2009 @ 3:42pm | Report comment
Lazza -
re why what happened in Melbourne happened and not in other nations far flung from London.
Main reason is a fluke of timing.
Melb was established in the 1830s. It was just big enough, and wealthy enough due the gold rush to have the institutions that could support the establishment of it’s own code.
At the same time, the other forms of the game were not yet established outside of schools in any formal manner. 10-20 years later – - it wouldn’t be the case.
Melbourne grew sufficiently well – to become the largest and wealthiest city in the ‘nation’ (that wasn’t yet) – - to allow the game to grow sufficiently with it.
As it was, Sydney was the premier city of the premier colony (or so it thought). It was also culturally very different to Melbourne. Sydney was far more a colonial outpost, and a military and administrative centre of a colony built upon convicts and therefore England was far more influential.
Melbourne, was young, and built on independance, on enterprise, on a variety of people attracted there in search of fortune and a new life – - a far more likely environment to have the self confidence and even the stubborn desire to create something new and break the ’shackles’ of reliance upon mother England.
The game could only avoid being swallowed up by virtue that Melbourne and the game grew sufficiently large sufficiently rapidly to absorb further migration of peoples in later decades from either England with established Rugby and Soccer or the Euro migration as soccer got established on the continent.
Had Melbourne NOT have grown as it did, then, the local code most likely would have been overrun.
Melbourne Rules HAD done quite well early days in Brissie and had a reasonable foot print in Sydneys immature football market.
Alas, the loss of Sydney (to the more English games) made Brisbane impossible to sustain an influence over in those days of limited transport (especially across colonial borders!!! – - the whole shemozzle of the rail gauges is a nice example of the lack of desire for integration!!!
In other nations – - they had their established cultures, their established instituations – - and therefore didn’t have the same impetus as Melbourne to fill the void. Also, Melbourne had the cricketers and their fields and had the increasing numbers of migrants (of whatever type) from the homeland who HAD played some form of school or folk football.
So – along with the timing of the factors the Pip mentioned – - – it really was just a case of right place, right time, and right subsequent conditions (most of the time). Heck, had not the All Golds tour to England happened, then, perhaps, prior to WWI, Aust Footy might have become established in Sydney and it might have been a case of no turning back. Though, somehow I doubt their willingness to take command from Melbourne – - it was bad enough that the first 20 odd years of Parliament was sitting in Melbourne!!!
Sean Fagan said | June 19th 2009 @ 3:46pm | Report comment
Michael C – soccer didn’t get a hold in Aust & NZ as Aust rules and rugby were firmly in place well before the idea of international football tours began. Soccer has been here since the 1880s, but given the quality of the clubs, compounded by professionaiism in England, meant there was never any serious contemplation of a tour Down Under – the clubs would never release their players for such a long time away. RU benefitted from tours as it helped to popularise the already established code. Soccer in England by the end of the 19th century was looking more towards Europe, whereas Australia was seen as a backwater (if not worse). Soccer tours eventually came in the 1920s, and were very popular in Sydney (not sure about Melbourne), but didn’t cause any damage to RL, nor stop the post WW1 recovery of RU.
Michael C said | June 19th 2009 @ 3:47pm | Report comment
SF -
re ‘Rugby’ as with ‘Champagne’…….yup!!!, that about sums it up. It just confuses the issue in the early days – - especially as you point out that once the RFU got in on it, then, and as that ‘game’ developed and trys were awarded points and now a try is the primary goal of the game rather than a goal which is now just the icing on the top of the Try cake……..that would’ve never happened at the school!!!!! (or would it??)
AndyS said | June 19th 2009 @ 3:50pm | Report comment
De Moore may have attributed those elements (handling the ball, importance of kicking, ball shape, free kick etc) to Rugby school rules, but they were all in the Cambridge Rules in 1856:
- At the commencement of the play, the ball shall be kicked off from the middle of the ground: after every goal there shall be a kick-off in the same way.
- After a goal, the losing side shall kick off; the sides changing goals, unless a previous arrangement be made to the contrary.
- The ball is out when it has passed the line of the flag-posts on either side of the ground, in which case it shall be thrown in straight.
- The ball is behind when it has passed the goal on either side of it.
- When the ball is behind it shall be brought forward at the place where it left the ground, not more than ten paces, and kicked off.
- Goal is when the ball is kicked through the flag-posts and under the string.
- When a player catches the ball directly from the foot, he may kick it as he can without running with it. In no other case may the ball be touched with the hands, except to stop it.
- If the ball has passed a player, and has come from the direction of his own goal, he may not touch it till the other side have kicked it, unless there are more than three of the other side before him. No player is allowed to loiter between the ball and the adversaries’ goal.
- In no case is holding a player, pushing with the hands, or tripping up allowed. Any player may prevent another from getting to the ball by any means consistent with the above rules.
- Every match shall be decided by a majority of goals.
(Signed)
H. Snow, J.C. Harkness; Eton.
J. Hales, E. Smith; Rugby.
G Perry, F.G. Sykes; University.
W.H. Stone, W.J. Hope-Edwardes; Harrow.
E.L. Horner, H.M. Luckock; Shrewsbury
I’ve also often wondered how we wound up with the very specific “rugby” rather than something more generic…I’ve heard it said it was to do with the success of the Rugby school relative to the other sides, such that a number of other schools adopted their rule set, but who knows now.
Michael C said | June 19th 2009 @ 3:56pm | Report comment
SF -
yeah, I was intrigued to see some of the FinL’s books about All-Blacks tours or tours of NZ by visiting teams, played in a very similar manner to a cricket tour. Soccer became more a one off match situation pretty quickly.
I kinda like the ‘tour’ notion, and playing regional sides as they used to – -that was I guess a nice romantic era too.
AndyS -
exactly, the Cambridge rules, even if some were suggested by Rugby Old Boys – - show that the rules had outgrown simply being proof of a Rugby (type) game. At a certain point – rule is less a rule and more a ‘concept’. i.e. a rule relates to a specific application, a concept is far less specific.
Lazza said | June 19th 2009 @ 4:35pm | Report comment
The irony of course is that we love to beat the Mother country in sport? The Mother country only really cares about Soccer.
Rugby and Cricket were always upper class minority sports. Our sporting cultures are very different and neither seems to know the other. Most Poms think Cricket and Rugby are the two biggest sports here because of their international dimension?
Besides the language, parliament, the law and unimaginative food we really don’t have that much in common.
Michael C said | June 19th 2009 @ 5:01pm | Report comment
Lazza -
and that’s where the story of T.W.Wills was so interesting – especially with regards to Cricket.
AFter all, he was a convicts grandson, went back to England to be educated at Rugby school – -was academically average and unmotivated and became a star sportsman – rubbed shoulders with the English nobility via the upper class game of cricket especially – -
- – and on return to Australia he failed in law, he failed in ‘business’ – including the family business after his father was killed by aborigines – - and yet, he was for a long time a gentleman ‘amateur’ cricketer (esquire!). However, his attitude was egalitarian, he was star with the ball as well as the bat, perhaps more so. In these early days, he seemed to be perched upon the fence, sitting comfortably niether with the gentlemen amateurs nor comfortably with the ‘lowly’ professionals. The irony was that he just seemed open to everyone, and perhaps this was due to his upbringing in the company of the indigenous fellows of western Victoria.
And that again, became the common trait of Melbourne football especially – - that it wasn’t class structured. Whereas cricket retained pomp and ceremony, the very nature of the local football was to avoid that, it was and still is the peoples game (less idealistically now though!!). And that again, illustrates a fundamental difference b/w Melb and Syd on sport. (as Eddie McGuire says – - Sydney isn’t just a different city……….it’s a different ‘world’ - – - and, in a sense he’s quite right).
Captain Nemo said | June 19th 2009 @ 11:52pm | Report comment
Back to the original article PIP. Why if Geelong are not the 2nd oldest “football” club in the world this story “may well have ramifications across the globe” ????
Pippinu said | June 20th 2009 @ 8:03am | Report comment
Captain Nemo
are you gracing us with your company from some hot spot far away?
I trust you had a good trip wherever you may be.
Right across the world (but particularly in England and Australia), much bragging rights attach to who can come up with historical evidence of the very earliest “organised” football clubs.
Many stories, myths and legends abound, but very few of these have hard evidence attached to their claims.
In the Australian examples of Melbourne, Castlemaine and Geelong, the documentary evidence is there.
Not only that, but both Melbourne and Geelong have played continuously in the upper echelons of their sport since that earlierst time.
It’s significant in footballing history – in world terms, not just in Australia.
Just as Rugby school has a very special place in the history of football (in world terms), so too do clubs such as Melbourne and Geelong.
Afterall, who would dare seperate out football from life – and who would ever dare that bragging rights are of little importance??
Dave said | June 21st 2009 @ 2:03pm | Report comment
Robbos, no-one outside of Victoria may know where it is but everybody has heard of it which is pretty good considering its only the 12th biggest city in Australia.
Dave said | June 21st 2009 @ 2:08pm | Report comment
Michael C, it never became truly the AFL till the Adelaide Crows played their first game 22 March, 1991.
Dave said | June 21st 2009 @ 2:20pm | Report comment
Michael C, Irish were cricketers. Both Tom Horan and Thomas Kelly were born in Ireland and played test cricket for Australia n the 1870’s.
Dave said | June 21st 2009 @ 2:31pm | Report comment
The thing is in 1895 and 1908 the first rugby league game were played in England and Australia. The players all probably thought they were playing rugby but they became the first league games. In 1859 when the rules for AFL were written down the people writing them may have thought they were writing the rules of Rugby down but they they were the origins of AFL. Meaning AFL is at least 150 years old.
Michael C said | June 21st 2009 @ 9:21pm | Report comment
Dave -
re the Irish as cricketers – - more with respect to the main ‘players’ in/around the MCC around that mid/late 1850s – - – granted of course that Tom Smith was involved and had grown up in Ireland (with writing the rules) – and was the Classics master at Scotch – - not sure that he had any cricket involvement at any rate – let alone with the MCC at the time.
Dave -
in effect, AFL has as much reason to celebrate the William Webb Ellis myth (or reality) as the Rugby folk (and obviously, the League fellows as well ought to be). If we’re saying that the complicated off-side and try requirement aren’t ‘R.U.G.B.Y.’ – - but, that RUGBY is more describing a vague ‘handling’ game – - – then, certainly, ………..I guess at least, we have big R Rugby, small r rugby and just ‘Rugbyesque’ regarding style………and most US based dictionaries still describe Australian Football as Rugby like. (do they describe Grid Iron as Rugby like??)
Sean Fagan said | June 22nd 2009 @ 8:29am | Report comment
“do they describe Grid Iron as Rugby like?” – No, but they do acknowledge it came from rugby. It was called in its early decades “American rugby”, and they openly state that the first College football rules of 1875 were the RFU’s laws (the same happened in Canada where “rugby clubs” were formed, but the game became “Canadian rugby” and now “Canadian football”). The Americans set about evolving a game of their own, hastened along by the 1876 Centennial celebrations.
Sean Fagan said | June 22nd 2009 @ 8:41am | Report comment
“If we’re saying that the complicated off-side and try requirement aren’t ‘R.U.G.B.Y.’” – in rugby of the 1850s these were very minor aspects of the game – you were allowed to be off-side (there were just some restrictions on what you could do, or not do, as an off-side player), “tries” were still a rarity, as was passing the football – all these aspects were easily dropped from the rules by those playing the game outside of the Rugby School.
A Canberra Times article in 2003: “Perhaps the rugby World Cup should be played for the Tom Wills Trophy.” http://www.rl1908.com/Rugby-League-News/AFL-history.htm
Robbos said | June 22nd 2009 @ 9:00am | Report comment
Dave,
The Central Coast is the 9th biggest urban centre of Australia.
It’s abit of dig at Pip, who once told me no-one in outside NSW knew where the Central Coast was.
I know Pip was playing on words, ‘the central coast’ of where?
Sorry no slight against Geelong.
Pippinu said | June 22nd 2009 @ 9:09am | Report comment
Robbos
you’re right I was mucking around a bit (and true to form, I’ve used the same line ever since!! I particularly like it given that CCM has been relatively successful in the A-League!)
If you enjoy some success – you can always expect a bit of a dig from rival fans.
Redb said | June 22nd 2009 @ 9:10am | Report comment
Sean Fagan,
Your wrote further up that it was the newspaper who used the term ‘hoax’ to describe your article about the first game of Australian Rules.
yet on your website the URL is:
http://www.rl1908.com/blog/afl-hoax.htm
Disingenous is they only way to describe why a rugby league historian on a site called RL1908 would write a blog on Australian Rules origins.
It’s good to see your willing to debate the issues and I hope you realise that however much angst you think you’ve caused Aussie Rules fans it was more the annoyance that anyone would blantantly attempt to rain on the AFL’s parade last year than any serious sleight on the origins of our great game.
The first game in 1858 was symbolic – the game had to start somewhere and has been well documented that it went for 3 days with 40 players aside. It in no way resembles the modern game of Australian Rules football anymore than the first computer which was the size fo the house compared to the modern day PC.
Redb
Pippinu said | June 22nd 2009 @ 9:25am | Report comment
Sean
I can recall reading Robert Messenger’s article when it was first published in the Canberra Times. I always enjoy his articles, and we have occasionally exchanged emails on pop music trivia. Regarding football history (in its widest sense) he writes it without having a particular barrow to push, and that’s always refreshing.
When you know a bit about the development of the football codes, it’s easy to come to the conclusion that the Ellis story can in no way be based on actual events (but it makes a wonderful fable about the very earliest forms of modern football, and it reminds us that the tension between kicking games and running games was there from the earliest days).
However, when he writes that Wills introduced Rugby to Australia, I can’t help thinking that that is bordering a bit on speculative.
Are there truly grounds to make such a bold claim? Are we arriving at that conclusion simply because we know him to have played rugby at Rugby – that would seem insufficient grounds to support the claim.
Sean Fagan said | June 22nd 2009 @ 9:52am | Report comment
Pippinu – Robert (and I, as well as Greg de Moore) are all speaking a broad sense of the game of rugby.
I keep saying it, but to resolve this debate, is to stop looking for a football game in 1858 played entirely per the full laws of Rugby School. You won’t find such a game.
BUT you will find rugby played with simplified/varied rules. It’s the same everywhere else when rugby was first played – in Sydney and Brisbane in the 1860s they played rugby, but not to the full laws. The same in the USA & Canada in the 1870s.
Devolving rules to play rugby was part of playing the rugby game. Kids still do this today when they decide to play their footy in the park or in the backyard – they decide what rules are in, what are out – but they still say (and are) playing the football code, just a simplified/varied form of it.
The Melb FC rules of 1859 are, in a broad sense, a simplified form of rugby. That means it is BOTH rugby AND the beginning of a new game. At some point in the past 150 years (as with American & Canadian football), Australian football was no longer rugby, but a unique game.
Sean Fagan said | June 22nd 2009 @ 9:56am | Report comment
Pippinu – re “Are there truly grounds to make such a bold claim? Are we arriving at that conclusion simply because we know him to have played rugby at Rugby – that would seem insufficient grounds to support the claim.” Yes, there is enough documented evidence to support that a form of rugby was being played in 1858 in Melb. Greg de Moore’s recent book is one that demonstrates this.
Pippinu said | June 22nd 2009 @ 10:04am | Report comment
Sean
this gets me back to an earlier question of mine – the argument appears to be based on the premise that all forms of football of the 1850s were in fact forms of rugby (so broad was the interpretation of what rugby is, that it takes in every form of football that we might know about).
Were the Sheffield/Cambridge rules just other forms of rugby?
Was the earliest form of Association Football (circa 1863), just another form of rugby? (recalling that it too allowed for some ball handling in the earliers years, of which the goalkeeper remains a vestige)
In fact, I would think that there would have been very little difference between the Australian Football of 1863 and the Association Football of 1863.
In fact, to the casual observer of the time – they all would have looked like one another (groups of bearded men chasing a pig skin around the park).
Sean Fagan said | June 22nd 2009 @ 10:22am | Report comment
You’re right – to our eyes they would have all have looked the same, centred around a large scrimmage all chasing the ball (as we see today in the youngest junior teams). It’s an overstatement to say all forms of mid-1800s football = rugby. The distinctive element of Rugby School football was the ball handling/carrying element combined with running with the ball. The rugby clubs were part of the meetings that produced the 1863 FA rules, but they dropped out at the final meeting. The 1863 FA rules didn’t allow running with the ball, whereas Aust football has always allowed it (albeit with a bounce).
Redb said | June 22nd 2009 @ 10:31am | Report comment
Sean Fagan,
You said: :”The Melb FC rules of 1859 are, in a broad sense, a simplified form of rugby. That means it is BOTH rugby AND the beginning of a new game”
No the first game was a variation of football not rugby, or at least a variation of football which at the time included various football codes played by various schools in England including rugby school and with a local variation of 10 main rules. The Melbourne Football Club was created, not the Melbourne rugby club.
Redb
Michael C said | June 22nd 2009 @ 10:54am | Report comment
Personally – I like to leave the ‘Rugby’ term – prior to the formation of the RFU – to describe the game played at the school of Rugby. After all – that was the point of reference for Tom Wills.
When he thought about introducing the game of ‘Rugby Football’ – - his ONLY solid reference would have been the game as played at the school.
For most the peoples of Melbourne at the time – - their exposure to England in the more recent times was limited – and so too therefore their exposure to what might be considered the ‘varied forms of Rugby (school football)’ that had been seen at nearby schools and via old boys of Rugby (and these other) school(s).
The main point of Wills was that he stressed that Rugby (school rules) wasn’t suitable, but that he sought for certain elements to be included. For me that’s a clear distinction in ALL these discussions of the move from a school based game suitable for boys under the direction of a school master – compared to an adult regularly played recreational game (as clearly distinct to the once a year folk games/festivals.
If I interpret it thus – - well, there wasn’t really a clear and identifiable reference point. The grey area is that the more famous game of 1858 (but certainly not the only game of that ’season’ of ‘Melbourne football’) was played between two schools. So – at that point, we are talking about school football – - in amongst attempts by adults to get form of football going. Thus, the need for the common set of rules – - especially for the adults.
The fact that these rules then flowed back to the school boy matches – I guess might not have been an absolute ‘given’. But, it did.
AT the end of the day – the main question seems to be around 1 or 2 rules that help give Australian Football it’s key elements. ONe of those is running with the ball. One of those is KICKING a goal. ONe of those is the ‘mark’. One of those is the 4 posts (even if initially the outside posts were just the ‘kick off posts’.
Since then, via evolution, we’ve got the ‘neutral restart’, the ‘running bounce’, and the ‘point for missing’ as some might put it.
Of the initial elements that are retained –
–the Rugby game might credit itself the running with the ball,
–the ‘fair catch’ was a broader concept, however, the specific calling of ‘mark’ made it an important terminology relate rule.
–the 4 posts, and retentio of them was not so unique initially anyway, and had to wait ’til 1896-7 for the ‘behind’ and 6 pt goal.
but,
–’kicking the goal’ - rule 3 was so specific about kicking a goal without touching posts or players – - that seems a pretty unique rule and I might argue that it stands the game apart from the outset. (alas, they relented for a little while allowing a scrimmaged goal). To this day, no ‘try’ for goal, no soccer ‘flexi-goal’ (i.e. anything goes, just not off the hand). To me – this is the quintessential Australian Football rule – - it’s still to this day, a game ALL about KICKING goals.
Pippinu said | June 22nd 2009 @ 11:20am | Report comment
Ok – I can accept that all football games that allowed running with the ball can be viewed as a form of rugby (circa 1850s). Association Football of 1863 allowed ball handling, but didn’t allow running with the ball, so that is an important point of distinction.
Going back to that Richmond pub in 1859, where four or five kindly gentlemen sat to form the first set of “Melbourne Rules”, only Wills had been to Rugby, and others had been to other schools and/or had knowledge of other forms of football, and there appears to be evidenced that there was discussion from day one to the extent to which a player could run with the ball.
This does appear to suggest that from at least 1859, the new game tried to distinguish itself from rugby, and that elements of other football games were highly persuasive in this.
As for the much celebrated first game between Scotch and Grammar in 1858, was it most probably a form of rugby of that period (a la Tom Brown Schooldays)? yes – it probably was.
Is it still important? It certianly is in terms of the folklore of the game, but I would argue that it’s also important in the history of the game:
1. it did occur
2. Wills was one of the “umpires”
3. Wills would be part of 4 or 5 men who formed the first set of rules some 8 months later.
There’s a definite continuity there that is worth retaining in the history – even if we can argue as to the relative importance of each element.
Is rugby the starting point? On the evidence, it’s a very close run thing – but I have trouble dismissing the influences from other schools and games who sat around the table at that pub exactly 150 years ago.
Was rugby one of two or three templates that were held up against each other in formulating the “Melbourne Rules”?
Definitely. It may even have been the most important template.
At the end of the day, with all that has changed over the period of 150 years, our local game sits snugly in philosophy and temperament between both Rugby and Association Football – and that’s a direct result of decisions that were made back in 1859.
Pippinu said | June 22nd 2009 @ 11:29am | Report comment
Michael C
good post – good point about the “kicking goals” rule – it’s definitely a key distinction that has been there from the very start – even Gaelic Football allows a goal with any part of the body, and from an opposition player – only Aussie rules has mandated that it must come from the boot of a player on the attacking team.
Another interesting point, and it goes to the heart of the philosophy of the game, is that we describe our goals as the one we’re attacking. This is in direct contrast to all other football codes (although I admit I’m unsure about the Gaelic situation).
This is one problem I have in coaching my U8 soccer team – where I’m in the habit of describing the opposition’s goal (in the true soccer sense) as “our goal” – but to do otherwise is a bit confusing to the poor blighters (who are easily confused at the best of times).
Sean Fagan said | June 22nd 2009 @ 11:52am | Report comment
Pippinu said “Is rugby the starting point? On the evidence, it’s a very close run thing – but I have trouble dismissing the influences from other schools and games who sat around the table at that pub exactly 150 years ago.”
Except you’re merging different events over 12 months and calling it collectively “the starting point”.
In regard to the 10 rules of 1859, I see them as a simplified form of rugby, others see them as a broad coming together of various Schools’ rules, others see a unique game devised in a blinding flash of Aussie igenuity. But its not the results of this meeting that is the “starting point” that I have been referring to – it is everything before that point.
The 1859 meeting began with “Tom Wills suggested the Rugby rules, but nobody understood them except himself.”
I know many in Aust rules don’t want to hear my conclusions as I’m from outside the code, and, ultimately, no one in the code wants to countenance that rugby is a prominent part of the code’s foundation, rather than a creation myth that tells a story in 10 words or less of “an Australian game invented by Australians for Australia.”
So here’s Greg de Moore (again)…
page 82 of Wills biography (re the Sept 1858 match & earlier games): “The game played that day, as in the previous games, was close in style to Rugby School football.”
page 285 of Wills biography – “Australian Rules football owes its defining features – emphasis on handling the ball, the importance of kicking, the shape of the ball, receiving a free kick after marking the ball and much more – to the Rugby School rules that Tom Wills brought”.
Also de Moore says: “That is precisely the case. What happened is that he came back to Melbourne at the end of 1856. In 1858 there are the first recorded games of what we now call Australian Rules Football but that football was more like Rugby School football than anything, and we have clear archival evidence that that is the game that he favoured most.”
I’m not quibbling about Aust rules after the 1859 meeting, but before that football in Melbourne looks, smells and sounds like rugby (in the form and traditions of how it was played and ruled at that time).
Sean Fagan said | June 22nd 2009 @ 11:57am | Report comment
re “only Aussie rules has mandated that it must come from the boot of a player on the attacking team.” Both rugby codes allowed “soccer style” goals off the ground or a bouncing ball, into the 20th century. The only difference with Aust rules was no cross-bar and the allowing of punt kicked goals.
Tom Alexander. said | June 22nd 2009 @ 11:57am | Report comment
Anyone who knows anyhing about Empire knows that the ruling classes who voluntered or were sent for service in all four corners of the empire were educated at these colleges in England where Rugby in all it’s various incarnations was and still is played so it seems quite logical that these educated classes would take whatever rules or interpretations of those rules with them wherever they went in the process influencing the sporting culture within the individual colonies Cricket in the West Indies Pakistan India and Sri Lanka Rugby in New Zealand and South Africa etc. Rugby is acknowledged in both the US and Canada as the game from which they derived both NFL and CFL so it seems more logical that Melbourne Rules would have been influenced in some way by the earliest forms of Rugby rules as vague as they were.
Pippinu said | June 22nd 2009 @ 12:07pm | Report comment
Sean
I’m not one of those that are unable to countenance the influence of rugby in aussie rules, I’ve always understood that it was there (and it’s obvious from just looking at some of the terminology that survives to the present day).
Also, I would agree with you that the Australian game didn’t just emerge out of nothing – in fact, I don’t know anyone who would put that view forward in all seriousness.
I guess it’s the coming together of different rules/schools viewpoint that many of us agree with (from an aussie rules background) – with rugby clearly being quite prominent.
I have to say, that your original article carried the word “hoax” in the tagline, and that probably didn’t help much!
But apart from that, I found your explanations on this thread to be quite reasonable, and the position you put forward is certainly arguable – I don’t have a violent objection to it at all.
If some of the aussie rules side wish to downplay the rugby connection, it’s also true to say that many from the rugby establishment, who have a deep seated hatred of aussie rules and froth at the mouth at its mere mention, take great glee in referring to aussie rules as a “simplified form of rugby”.
Some even refer to it as a “shool boy’s game” – now that’s the pot calling the kettle black!!
Sean Fagan said | June 22nd 2009 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
Michael C wrote: ’kicking the goal’ – rule 3 was so specific about kicking a goal without touching posts or players – - that seems a pretty unique rule and I might argue that it stands the game apart from the outset. (alas, they relented for a little while allowing a scrimmaged goal). To this day, no ‘try’ for goal, no soccer ‘flexi-goal’ (i.e. anything goes, just not off the hand). To me – this is the quintessential Australian Football rule – - it’s still to this day, a game ALL about KICKING goals.
A goal in rugby didn’t count if it touched another player. It was still a RL rule until the 1990s, and I think is still in RU.
Adding the requirement that a goal not count if it hit the post was to simplify the game and remove another point of possible argument.
Pippinu said | June 22nd 2009 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
Tom
what you say is true, and I repeat that no one with a knowledge of the history of aussie rules would discount the role of rugby in the formative years.
But I would add this – the early proponents of aussie rules (those that sat around a pub in 1859 to formulate the first set of rules) were Australian-born, and/or educated in schools other than Rugby (Wills was both Australian born and educated at Rugby, but he was the only one).
So yes, the early proponents were definitely part of the educated, landed gentry in Melbourne – but it might be a stretch to link them directly to the Colonial overmasters – in fact, on the contrary, they set themselves apart and were very much interested in developing a game suitable for Australian conditions.
Michael C said | June 22nd 2009 @ 12:16pm | Report comment
btw – found a website “RichardLindon.(com)” – with this fine quote!!!! Did you know? Australian Rules Football was invented by a former Rugby Schoolboy who adapted the rules to suite his “hard-ground” Australian Estate, to keep his labourers amused during lunchtimes..
Gawd – - the world according to Garp!!
Michael C said | June 22nd 2009 @ 12:36pm | Report comment
Tom Alexander -
very good point you make – and that’s where Melbourne was a bit of a special case – - given that she was a city barely 20 odd years ‘old’ in 1858. Well, in reality, founded 1835, incorporated as a town in 1842 and raised to a city in 1847 – - so, as a city, barely 11 years ‘old’ come 1858.
The ruling classes were thin and threadbare on the ground. The city was NOT estbalished as an Imperial outpost :
Melbourne was founded in 1835, during the reign of King William IV, with the arrival of the schooner Enterprize near the present site of the Queen’s Wharf, as a barely legal, speculative settlement that broke away from New South Wales. Unlike other Australian capital cities, Melbourne did not originate under official auspices, instead forming through the foresight of settlers from Tasmania.
The colony was only established in 1851.
ALong then with the sudden wealth of the gold rush era (1850s) and the varied peoples drawn to the city – - the variety of views and people suddenly in positions of wealth and influence was much broader than other ‘typical’ Australian major cities.
Sydney on the other hand was a typical Imperial outpost, regimented, militarised, ordered, and very, very much looking to the Empire for guidance and leadership.
Michael C said | June 22nd 2009 @ 12:50pm | Report comment
Sean -
it’s a separate argument I suppose that looks for those ‘unique’ interpretations that are important – - and that one, whether just in your mind a ’simplification’ or otherwise, is one that has held pretty firm – - – that and no cross bars which is an area the London FA started out with and relented on permanently.
The actual object of the game is a fairly fundamental concept.
How to get there is another one.
I’d reckon the shape of the goal (minus a cross bar) is a pretty big distinction – - – but, on the basis of many of the other rule sets – - the rule number 3 in 1859 is very clearly spelled out.
(3. A goal must be kicked fairly between the posts without touching either of them or a portion of the person of any player of either side.)
Whilst many other rules might be significant no just for what they say but for what they don’t say.
The question of course then is – - how much does this rule or any of them for that matter – describe how most the games might have been played (or attempted to be played) before hand.
But – are we too narrow in focussing too much on the school football, and perhaps need to look more at ‘folk football’ and it’s variety of concepts. I’d suggest that many allowed basically any means to move the ball from point A to point B.
Michael C said | June 22nd 2009 @ 1:00pm | Report comment
Tom – (I apologise if this becomes an effective repeat – I’m not sure if an earlier post I had ready to go got sent or not (I had an microsoft moment).
Anyway – re Imperial Cities in far flung places – - yes – correct,
except that is…..for Melbourne.
wikipedia is only so good for quotes, but, this about sums it up:
Melbourne was founded in 1835, during the reign of King William IV, with the arrival of the schooner Enterprize near the present site of the Queen’s Wharf, as a barely legal, speculative settlement that broke away from New South Wales. Unlike other Australian capital cities, Melbourne did not originate under official auspices, instead forming through the foresight of settlers from Tasmania.
ANd, keep mindful the scale of the city (and it’s associated ‘institutions’) that we’re talking about,
Founded in 1835.
in 1842 the ‘Town of Melbourne’ was recognised.
in 1847 – the ‘City of Melbourne’
in 1851 the Colony of Victoria is established, Melbourne as the capital.
Tom Wills had headed to England in 1852, leaving a small city,
at about this time, APril 1852, the first 6 ships arrived in England carrying 8 tonnes of Victorian gold,
The city that Tom Wills returned to was vastly different to the one he’d left.
There wasn’t much time for the ‘institutions’ to respond. Melbourne was a slightly more ‘worldly’ city than those Imperial outpost penal colony cities that so characterised the early era of euro-Australian history.
No surprise then, that even the schools were established on a basis of a broad background of school masters, and that the schools as well as the adults were looking for a single set of rules for all to play by.
(again, it all illustrates how Melbourne was a special case, and there was a narrow window of opportunity for the game to become established).
Redb said | June 22nd 2009 @ 1:05pm | Report comment
Sean Fagan,
This obsession with naming the code rugby borders of fanaticism.
It is very clear that football manifested itself in many forms in the mid 1850s. The football gamesa of at lesat 4 English schools including rugby were part of the early football revolution in England, from those roots the Australian game emerged in May 1858.
It really is that simple. I like rugby so it’s not a problem from that perspective.
But until you can explain why the Melbourne Football club of 1859 was not called the Melbourne Rugby Club I’ll consider your views as marginal. If it was rugby surely they would have used that vernicular to name the club which was an offshoot of the Melbourne Cricket Club.
Redb
Sean Fagan said | June 22nd 2009 @ 1:43pm | Report comment
Redb – appreciate your comments.
All of the first clubs called themselves “football clubs”. For example, here’s a rugby club from 1865 http://www.hullfc.com
Redb said | June 22nd 2009 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
Sean Fagan,
Thanks, so the vernicular of rugby or football is interchangeable for the period? Your article though would not have sounded quite as controversial if it had been entilted “The first game of Australian football was football”
Redb
Sean Fagan said | June 22nd 2009 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
Michael C – obviously we are looking at this issue from opposite views.
Removing a cross-bar makes the game simpler to all-comers to understand and play – having a rule that says if the ball hits the post its not a goal, removes a point of dispute – saying you can’t throw the ball removes a trick/cheat – taking away the limits on off-side play provides clarity and makes the game simpler to all-comers to understand and play. Moreover, all these also make it easier for the spectator to understand the game, and to constantly see the ball.
I’ll always see them as demystifying the complex and dangerous “Harry Potter world of” rugby, and you’ll see them as honest Australian innovation.
If Rugby football did not exist, if Tom Brown’s School Days wasn’t a popular craze, if “muscular Christianity” wasn’t an Empire wide ideal, if Tom Wills hadn’t attended Rugby, if the other founders of Melb FC rules hadn’t attended English schools, if Melbourne wasn’t part of the Empire, THEN I would side with you – but rugby clearly was present, so its very difficult to side with your innovation argument over one of simplification/safety (and please don’t take “simplification” as “dumbing down” or some other slight against Aust rules – simplification has much to merit it in many forms of life – and the success of Aust rules is proof enough of that maixm).
Lazza said | June 22nd 2009 @ 2:20pm | Report comment
It’s interesting that the early pioneers of ‘Football’ types in England all included offside in their games. It was considered cheating to be in front of the ball during play? Aussie Rules is based on cheating then?
Britain was the richest, most powerful nation at the time with the biggest Middle Class so it’s no surprise that they first codified the different forms of football. It’s also no surprise that their English speaking dominions would import those ideas first. That’s why we had organised sport 20-30 years before other nations.
Pippinu said | June 22nd 2009 @ 2:24pm | Report comment
For those interested, here is another article on the origins of aussie rules written by Sean on what I presume is his blog (not sure):
http://www.rl1908.com/blog/tom-wills.htm
The Roar link took me directly there (nice touch!)
It’s a good article, but in my mind, it still leaves the question pretty wide open (as to whether we’re talking about rugby as a starting point or as a major influence on the new game).
There’s also clarification on the quote “game of our own” popularly attributed to Wills. Even if it is not documented that he said it, it is clear that that was the shared sentiment of the four or five blokes gathered at that Richmond pub in 1859.
What I didn’t know was that Victoria was capable of putting a rugby league side together in 1924 (if I have understood things correctly) – in all my time in Melbourne, I had never come across any league in Melbourne pretty much until the Storm came along.
I’ve always knwon about the VRU, but I had never heard of a VRL (is there such a beast even today?)
Pippinu said | June 22nd 2009 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
Lazza
it’s not cheating if the rules allow it!
Did you know that in 1863 the rules of Association Football allowed for ball handling in some situations?
Is the keeper cheating if he handles the ball? (the answer: it depends!)
Lazza said | June 22nd 2009 @ 3:15pm | Report comment
Pippinu,
What happened to your sense of humour? Real cheating is what used to happen and what many fans want to bring back? The old ‘biff’ where you hit someone behind play when the umpire wasn’t looking. King hit someone from behind when they’re not watching? That was outside the rules at the time but many fans loved it? I was always told that hitting someone from behind was cowardly and cheating but many AFL fans seem to miss the old days?
If the AFL hadn’t cleaned up the game it would of probably died out or at the very least suffered a huge decline in participation rates.
Pippinu said | June 22nd 2009 @ 4:00pm | Report comment
Lazza
Many people do prefer a bit of violence with their football – but – I can’t think of too many fans that actually condoned the king hit behind play – that has always been viewed as a cowardly act, even in the days when footy was, shall we say, a bit more free for all.
For me, the courage in football has always been about keeping your eye on the ball, and running straight at it, even if it meant copping it somewhere along the line; or backing into a pack (once again with eyes on ball); or having your head over the ball and not knowing where your opponent is exactly.
Interestingly, Josh Fraser was accused of pulling out of a contest about six weeks back (against Essendon on Anzac Day) – Robert Walls wrote a good article in reponse to those claims – that he could think of only two players he has seen his whole life who have never, ever pulled out of a contest. I can’t remember who they were, Glenn Archer might have been one of them.
The game is much cleaner today, and I think that’s a postive thing – but there remain situations where you have to show courage (and where it’s obvious to everyone if you have failed to show it).
Sean Fagan said | June 22nd 2009 @ 4:16pm | Report comment
RedB – “Thanks, so the vernicular of rugby or football is interchangeable for the period?” No, not interchangeable – but if had ball-carrying/running, then it was accepted as a form of rugby. It was all “the game of football”, but there were different laws for some clubs (or groups of clubs) – for example, have a look at the front page and wording of the RFU Law Book of 1872 on this page: http://www.RL1908.com/History/football.htm
Pippinu – yes, there was a VRL formed in 1923. Many of the clubs became RU clubs after the RL comp collapsed after the 1924 season. The VRL and Melb comp was put together by Harry Sunderland, who was the driving force behind the QRL earlier in the decade. He worked largely alone in Melb, without support from the NSWRL and Sydney – he banged on the NSWRL’s door for help, but got little, and then gave up. The NSWRL saw his attempts as forlorn and not worth the investment.
Towser said | June 22nd 2009 @ 4:26pm | Report comment
IN my book there is no place for violence in any sport where it is not written into the Rules. Hence I puzzle over why(what I consider to be a skilful sport)ice hockey often resorts to it. Boxing is legalised violence ,therefore when I watch it I expect it & know what to look for in that context. Violence in any other sport is cowardly,not expected unlike boxing which is a 2 way street. Hence often the damage is one sided. Violence outside the rules may amuse some spectators, but it is generally the act of a coward for the unknowing player on the receiving end.. Very different from courage. No doubt their are equivalents in Aussie Rules,but in Football Tim Cahills header the other night against 2 bigger defenders,with the strong possibility of a head clash was courageous,whereas the tackle by Paul Robinson on Damien Johnson for the red-card challenge that left him in hospital with a fractured jaw was cowardly.
Pippinu said | June 22nd 2009 @ 4:45pm | Report comment
Towser
agree on you observations re Timmy Cahill (and the countless times that sort of attempt is made in real game situations) – in fact I liken it to the aussie rules situation where you have eyes for the ball and you don’t know where everyone else is coming from – including a keeper’s fist!!
Pippinu said | June 22nd 2009 @ 4:46pm | Report comment
Sean
the NSWRL was probably right!!
Michael C said | June 22nd 2009 @ 4:54pm | Report comment
Towser -
that violence comment is interesting – - I was thinking through a schoolyard situation the other day and how I could point out to the kids that even the push and shove was not on,….and then I recalled the NRL who effectively let two gorilla’s go toe to toe and only worry about the 3rd monkey in…….and I figured it best to avoid sporting parallels. (is that written into the NRL rules – - or just the chosen interpretation??).
Michael C said | June 22nd 2009 @ 5:48pm | Report comment
Sean -
re your question If Rugby football did not exist, if Tom Brown’s School Days wasn’t a popular craze, if “muscular Christianity” wasn’t an Empire wide ideal, if Tom Wills hadn’t attended Rugby, if the other founders of Melb FC rules hadn’t attended English schools, if Melbourne wasn’t part of the Empire, THEN I would side with you – but rugby clearly was present, so its very difficult to side with your innovation argument over one of simplification/safety (and please don’t take “simplification” as “dumbing down” or some other slight against Aust rules – simplification has much to merit it in many forms of life – and the success of Aust rules is proof enough of that maixm).
If Rugby Football did not exist, then Tom Wills wouldn’t have played it whilst there.
However, I’d suggest that there would still have been a varied collection of folk inhabiting funny old Melbourne town in 1858 – with a variety of ideas (including the Scots, the Irish, Eton vs Harrow vs Winchester etc) who were still going to be crying out of a single set of rules to play by – - – and the cricketers would still have been seeking a game to play – - – and the fields/grounds were still vast and open, the grounds relatively hard and the spectators demanding open/spectacular play.
Tom Browns school days and muscular christianity – - that probably more dictates the desire of parents for their lads to be ‘disciplined’ whilst at the more well to do educational institutions – - along with the kids desires themselves – - – the cricketers would still be seeking a winter pastime to stay fit. It might have meant that the Rifle club idea got up. AGain though – had Wills played hockey, would he have returned to Melbourne and dictated hockey take precedence – - or, was it always going to be some local variant of ‘football’.
Rugby clearly WAS present – - I completely agree – - beyond dispute.
Given the folk at that meeting,
Hammersley had grown up in England and attended Cambridge where they had the issues of lads drawn from Eton, Harrow, Winchester, Rugby, Shrewsbury, and the like – however, by 1847 he was in Melbourne playing cricket and so missed out on the 1848 drawing up of the first set of rules – - so, he knew of the confliction of a variety of rules (one would think).
Smith had come from Ireland, and the presumed exposure to the un-codified Gaelic football.
Wills and the Rugby school is a given.
And Thompson, also had been to Trinity college at Cambridge, and was a journalist who came prepared with the rules of Rugby, Eton, Harrow and Winchester.
They had a blank sheet of paper.
And whether Wills immediately suggested Rugby football or not might appear the question? And then whether it was agreed that Rugby be looked at specifically and cull away the rules,
but, is that ‘Rugby school rules’ as were on hand??
or was that a ‘rugby style’ game with ball handling/carrying??
because, initially, it’s thought that running with the ball ‘Rugby’ style wasn’t permitted, but, it was the dashes of mavericks like I think Henry Harrison that opened up the play and the spectators prefered it such – - but, eventually the requirement to bounce was applied to avoid just an out and out running race (i.e. to NOT let a colt like Harrison run away from everyone). Not initially though:
So – by 1860 – the tightening up of rules shows an idea of initial intent :
‘Rule 8 of the MFC Rules, carrying the ball, was still a matter of controversy.’ The impact of carrying the ball was exaggerated on Victoria’s dryer grounds, as opposed to heavy English grounds. Sprinters carrying the ball had a freer run, which was more obvious in the better conditions.
The result was a rule that emphasised not handling the ball:VIII. The Ball may not be lifted from the ground under any circumstances, or taken in hand except as provided for in Rule VI (catch from the foot) or when on the first hop. It shall not be run with in any case.
The 1860 ammendments were :
• The ban on tripping was endorsed. Hacking (kicking opponents in the leg with spiked boots) had also been outlawed from the game’s beginnings
• Free kicks for infringements were introduced
• ‘Goals forced from scrimmages allowed’
(obviously, the goals via scrimmages didn’t last – but, might have been seen as a reasonable trade off for the ban on carrying)
Over the next few years, the ball more often was a rounded rugby style ball – - but, not necessarily so in the early days of the late 1850s.
Geelong at times had greater capacity for running (perhaps because T.Wills played down there), and finally by 1865 the bounce at least every 10 yards was agreed upon.
They had a rough idea of what they didn’t want, but, it took them 5-6 years to work out the best way around it.
I’d think the ‘amendments’ become a reasonable guide to the original (perhaps unwritten) intent.
beaver fever said | June 22nd 2009 @ 6:18pm | Report comment
Dont see what the big deal is all about, i dont think anyone disputes that rugby’s rules are related to aussie rules or viccy verca ,no one has original thought so its a progression.
Sean F wrote ” but it is clear he didn’t begin with a proposition that We shall have a game of our own”.
But Sean that is precisely what we have, whether its related to rugby or not.
Sean Fagan said | June 22nd 2009 @ 6:22pm | Report comment
beaver fever said “But Sean that is precisely what we have, whether its related to rugby or not.” No argument about that. But that doesn’t mean all talk about the beginning of the game should be silenced or are unworthy.
Michael C said | June 23rd 2009 @ 6:35am | Report comment
Another aspect about the very early games – on that sloping and relatively hard ‘paddock’ beside the cricket ground – - it DID basically dictate that a pure dribbling game would be inappropriate -
this is the environmental aspect -
after all, the Harrow football game was shaped hugely by the very ‘heavy’ perrenially muddy field in which it was played and the rules crafted.
at Rugby school we had the Quad game in the Quadrangle – - shaped and crafted by the local ’setting’,
so too – - and this can’t be ignored in the Melbourne game – so too, we had local conditions – -
a hard and sloping surface, but also a vast expanse available -
that immediately suggests that a closed in dribbling game might not be the logical outcome.
And this, de Moore alludes to when at the conclusion of the ‘football’ chapter he has a single page that pays tribute to the Richmond paddock that helped shape the game.
(this of course is cognisant that there were other outposts of ‘football’, but, that the MelbourneFC played a key role and so the influences upon Melb FC are a key consideration).
HOWEVER – that said too – - for the evolution of the game, we certainly have to consider the input from people outside of MelbFC – - and that includes the GeelongFC where Tommy Wills played so much of his football.
Pippinu said | June 23rd 2009 @ 9:43am | Report comment
I certainly agree with Sean’s sentiment that it’s all open for discussion, because we can all have our different preferences and yet be interested in the history of a particular game from a human interest/societal point of view.
To take up one of MC’s points, that I was mulling over last night, but I was too lazy to dig out the particular reference – somewhere along the line, in one of the scratch matches very early in the piece (remembering that an actual league as we would understand it today was still a decade away), and when the captains co-umpired games, there’s an eye witness account of a captain getting uppity about someone running with the ball, and after some discussion, they agreed a compromise, and it was probably one of the first tentative steps towards the need to bounce or touch the ground every 10 yards.
This might raise some doubt as to whether running with the ball was allowed from day one.
Also, I wanted to mention something about the shape of the ball.
In the very earliest days, players played wherever and with whatever they could find, in terms of a ball. The shape of both the ball and the field were not important. Ultimately, the rugby ball (and it was described as that) won preference over the round ball, and eventually, the now familiar shape of the aussie rules ball came into being (Beaver put up an accurate account of this development a few days back).
Michael C said | June 23rd 2009 @ 9:54am | Report comment
Pippinu -
yep, the ball – invariably was whatever was available, that was expensive and hard to come by and had arrived from England.
The obvious point of the evolution of the Sherrin was that the balls being used were inappropriate. But – were all that was available.
btw – The bronze statue near the MCG that commemorates ‘that game’ in 1858 definitely has a round ball.
Sean Fagan said | June 23rd 2009 @ 10:08am | Report comment
Pippinu – I think that story re the dispute over running is in Blayney’s book.
I can’t see why any club/body would introduce an elaborate rule (bouncing the ball) to bring (limited) running into the game. Rule makers are generally focused on adding/amending a rule to restrict/stop something that is already happening, rather than to bring it into being.
In this case, the bouncing of the ball was to slow/discourage runners. The imperfect shape of the ball and the unfinished ground surface would have made bouncing the ball on the run quite a task (almost impossible?). There obviously was no restriction on running in the rules beforehand – it’s difficult to contend that players weren’t running with the ball as it clearly wasn’t a breach of the rules, and it was THE big drawcard/appeal of Tom Brown’s Schooldays and rugby.
This restriction on running with the ball was the ultimate stumbling block as to why Aust never got one code in the 1870s & ‘1880s. Had the Aust rules fathers waited until the 1890s to restrict running with the ball (via bouncing the ball), they would have won over NSW and QLD. The players and public in NSW and QLD weren’t so in love with rugby scrummaging to the extent that they were in Britain – running with the ball was the big draw. [ http://www.RL1908.com/blog/football-codes.htm ]
Pippinu said | June 23rd 2009 @ 10:38am | Report comment
Sean
to me it points to the tension that has beset the various codes from day one: to be primarily about running with the ball, or to be primarily about kicking the ball (rugby league and Association Football being at the polar extremes, or very close to it).
Some of us believe that the 1858-59 period was a coming together of footballers of different backgrounds wanting to agree on a uniform set of rules, and naturally enough, the classic conundrum would have surfaced: is the game about running with the football or about kicking it?
Clearly, some did not like the rugby concept of running with the ball, and the compromise ultimatley was to impose a hindrance to that (without getting rid of it entirely, to appease the rugby adherents).
Obviously I’m speculating somewhat, but it is very easy to picture this sort of scenario, and the evidence suggests that there was a fair bit of toing and froing as to what should and shouln’t be allowed.
Pippinu said | June 23rd 2009 @ 10:40am | Report comment
by the way – I followed the link above, wanting to read that particular article, but couldn’t track it down – instead I was confronted with a blonde in bikinis, a pleasant enough distraction, but not exactly what I was looking for!!
Michael C said | June 23rd 2009 @ 10:44am | Report comment
Pippinu -
it is the question that forever is unanswered.
What compromise game would have resulted had the London discussions of 1863 not broken down.
Granted – even the Cambridge game was ideally a compromise – - well, hybrid if we must.
The reality of the London FA game is that it’s compromise elements got further watered down by the time the game proper was recogniseable in the late 1870s. How much of that was in direct contrast (deliberate) to the 1871 establishment of the RFU?
There was always tension in that environment – - as, many of the original members and early participants in the FA did walk away to play the handling style games. Obviously, the ‘compromise’ elements in the London rules were insufficient (for whatever reason) to win over people from perspectives.
Obviously in MElbourne, the compromise elements were sufficient, or at least evolved sufficiently – to not freeze out either side such that rugby and soccer – whilst later having a ‘profile’ of sorts, were never able to push the ‘hybrid’ game aside.
Michael C said | June 23rd 2009 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
btw – in partial answer to my ponderance of the answer that is forever unanswered is that -
in England there was too much ingrained self interest (of established educational institutions) that went to the heart of the political and class based social structures that ensured that a simple compromise across the board would be impossible.
And fair enough – after all, it was enough for Melbourne and then Victoria to come on board. Had the meeting included members from Sydney – then, who knows whether there might have been insurmountable barriers to an agreed compromise. After all, Sydney is another world compared to Melbourne…….
circus said | June 27th 2009 @ 12:08am | Report comment
Michael c
And that’s the point, Melbourne is very different from Sydney and will always be. Melburnians are brought up to love their city and never say a bad word about it. Sydneysiders don’t care what people think about them and won’t go to watch a sport just because their bosses, neighbours pressure them to go. In that respect Sydney is like 99.9% of other cities in the world and that is why Sydney is an international city and Melbourne isn’t.
On another theme you keep harping on is that rugby wasn’t successful in the southern states of Australia because the hard grounds were only suitable to the fast paced game of Aussie Rules and that the northern states were more suitable to rugby because of their muddy fields. Do you have any idea of the climate in NSW or Queensland or in South Africa, or Argentina, or the South of France? That is where running rugby came from.
I can accept now that Aussie Rules is a fast game but historically it was a very slow paced game, much slower than the rugby codes. A kick – a mark – a kick – a mark – a kick – very little running (and I played Australian Rules in Canberra in the years following Alex Jesaulenko’s brilliant performanes for Eastlake – before he went to Carlton) so all the hoopla about its speed catching the imagination of the Victorian public is …….
Why is it it so hard for Melburnians to accept that their game came from rugby and their teams were formed well after rugby commenced? Melburnians are quick to point out that AC Milan was formed in the 1890s, much later Melbourne Rules teams, but can’t take it when mention is made of the fact of the Irish Wolfhounds and Edinburgh Academicals Rugby teams (to name only two) were formed in the 1840s and 1850s.
However, if you are so uptight in your pinion that Melbourne must have had the first ever ‘football’ teams in the world, and that Melbourme was the richest city in the world (I’m flabbergated to read that you are actually taught such rubbish in schools in Victoria) why did no other country in the world take any interest in the sport. Sure, NZ and South African gold rushes sparked some flicker of interest but this quckly faded and Aussie Rules did not leave any mark on those two countries where rugby became the principal sport.
You also make great play that Aussie Rules is a democratic sport compared to rugby which you term an elitist school-based sport. My take on this is that the Melburnian captains of industry have great fun ripping off their poor brethren supporting the likes of Footscray and North Melbourne to make them pay up their hard won dollars to waste their Saturday afternoons watching 40 men running around an oval kicking and missing the 2 big sticks. But that’s my opiniion – beauty’s in the eye of the beholder.
Rugby is a difficult sport to watch but not to play, and that is the reason it is growing rapidly around the world, in particular in universities. It is a middle-class sport but as this is what most people aspire to be, surely that is a plus. When Rugby Sevens is accepted into the Olympics in October this year it will give it added impetus. Rugby will always be a niche sport in Australia compared to Aussie Rules but your previous comments that Rugby does not have a narrative in Australia compared to Aussie Rules or RL betrays your deep ignorance about the sport.
Captain Nemo said | June 27th 2009 @ 11:29am | Report comment
Melburnians are the North Koreans of the western world. Told to love both AFL and their city and never question why!!! My father-in-law always makes me laugh whenever Victoria is mentioned. “Bloody peasants, the thing about living in Sydney is we are a free people, we can support what we want, when we want, those Victorians are just brain washed peasants”. Cracks everyone up…..
I have a numer of friends living in Melbourne and these guys are intelligent people however if AFL comes up in a discussion its as if they leave their brains at the door!! I have one mate who is a GP and is a really well read intelligent guy who will look you in the eye and say to you with a straight face that AFL will be bigger in the UK in one generation than football. He believes all this hype about how its growing globally and talks about test matches with NZ etc.
Dave said | June 27th 2009 @ 3:03pm | Report comment
Captain Nemo
The reason they are so entrenched is because their football code is the oldest, so it has been entrenched for more generations than other codes.
Michael C said | June 29th 2009 @ 2:09pm | Report comment
Cirius -
you lost me at ‘Hello’.
Melburnians are brought up to love their city and never say a bad word about it.
Huh?!?!? Where you coming from??
Melbournians have been brought up to show disdain for our upside down river, and 4 seasons in one day and – whilst others like to point out how good our Pub Transit system is – just ask US, and we’ll tell you how bad it is because there’s been insufficient planning/spending for about 30 years……
How you’ve proven to yourself that Sydney is an ‘international’ city and Melbourne isn’t kinda says it all. You haven’t provided any (proof that is).
re. climate – do you realise how much more actual rain the east coast of NSW up through QLD gets compared to Melbourne. About double the actual rainfall. (perhaps less actual days with precipitation, but, in Melb we get a lot of days with 0.5mm, up north, when it rains, it pours – so,along with warmer winter temperatures, and grass LESS likely to go into hibernation – it’s far easy to play – in the populous regions – Rugby in such regions.
re However, if you are so uptight in your pinion that Melbourne must have had the first ever ‘football’ teams in the world, Who said that?? Where?? Perhaps you should address Pippinu on this point.
re one of the richest cities in the world – well, simply, it was – - but, it depends on you ‘measure’. ON a per capita basis – given the modest size, we’re talking a city that was only about 80K around late 1850s and only about 280K late 1880s I think it was…..also, Bendigo, on a relative scale was very wealthy too. These were ideal conditions for a city/colony to be pretty confident to self-determine. It also meant that the new code didn’t suffer for lack of conducive growing conditions.
You answer your own question in large : why did no other country in the world take any interest in the sport. Sure, NZ and South African gold rushes sparked some flicker of interest but this quckly faded and Aussie Rules did not leave any mark on those two countries where rugby became the principal sport.
The obvious point is that these 2 countries saw a period of migration from the Victorian gold fields – - and there was a reasonable amount of football activity that started up. Alas, goldfields don’t reward the lazy so for the diggers, digging was a priority!!! That, and eventually WWI came along which had a massive impact upon a generation of young men. AFter that, there wasn’t the same mass movement of people to be able to grow the game overseas. Simple.
- – I didn’t use the word ‘democratic’, I used ‘egalitarian’. However, if you want democratic – then, yep, all clubs are member owned and the members can vote at the AGM and can run their own ticket and force an EGM. As distinct to franchises owned by wealthy billionaires. The egalitarian point is simple – that all major football clubs in Melbourne played in the same competition. That there’s a very distinct ‘old boys’ attribute of a club like MElbourne along with the exclusivity of the MCC illustrates that there’s still ‘class’ distinctions – - however, the Shinboners from the markets and meat works of inner North-West Melbourne were able to take on the Melbourne white tails on the same paddock. (re captains of industry – - – well, what’s different to the Rugby codes or soccer? or any sport. It’s about having a bit of an outing and getting away from the humdrum of Mon-Fri and work and bosses etc, is it not?).
re Rugby – good luck to Rugby (Union I gather). For you to suggest it’s a simple sport to play – - ahem??? (perhaps because positions are so defined??). Rugby is a highly technical game, with a very thick rule book with a whole heap of “don’ts”.
I’d be amazed if an abridged version of the game (7s) makes the Olympics – as, meeting the womens participation criteria is on very, very thin ice. Good luck though – then, you can be just like the Soccer folk – - reliant upon the ‘big brother’ over seas for reflected greatness rather than that which can be built organically in a competitive market place. I look at Aust Footy overseas, and it’s growth that is 98.5% organic (well, 100% organic in all but about 2 markets) – - and there’s zero instance of people opting to play because they might be able to win Olympic gold. Nah…just, cos the love it. That’ll do.
(btw – I take from your comments, you love Rugby U, hate Melbourne, hate AFL. Funny thing is, down here, we don’t ‘hate’ Sydney – we go there for holidays, it looks great. We don’t ‘hate’ Rugby, we generally go watch the Wallabies – if given a decent game – in good numbers, irony, only 43K to Homebush the other night vs France, and the Swans are meant to be in trouble because they ‘only’ drew 41K a week earlier??)
Michael C said | June 29th 2009 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
Captain Nemo -
Surely you jest. No one who follows the gradual international growth of AUst Footy has seriously suggested international ‘tests’ with anyone involving Australia.
ALthough the other day GErmany defeated Finland.
- – - –
funny how the ‘hate’ is coming from yourside against Melbourne.
Sydney as ‘free people’??? The free people were the convicts granted their liberty who got away from Sydney and populated Victoria!!!! Do the names Hammersley and Wills ring any bells – born in NSW, moved to Victoria and helped establish a ‘game of our own’.
You said “We can support what we want” with respect to Sydney.
Interesting that you said “support”.
“Support” is illustrated best by making a commitment, such as buying a seasons membership, by attending semi regularly.
Interesting because, the best supported/attended club in Sydney is an AFL one supposedly most ’support’ by expat AFL state people!!!
Interesting because – the best supported HAL club is in Melbourne.
Interesting because the NRL club with the best membership uptake is in Melbourne.
Interesting because, we have the best attended international cricket games (granted, the greatest capacity and the best timeslot – Boxing Day).
It still seems to come down to this – - yourself and Cirius seem to think that sporting diversity is having BOTH rugby codes.
That good sir – is NOT sporting diversity. Rugby League and Union ARE essentially the same game and largely illustrates a legacy of bitterness and lack of compromise rather than anything to really be proud of.
(btw – I’m still picking myself up off the floor of Cirius’ comment that Sydneysiders don’t care what people think about them ….gawd,
, Sydney is the most self conscious city in Australia that ONLY cares about trying to be an ‘international’ city……what, since joining Melbourne in the Olympic city ‘club’!!
That and I realise he just doesn’t get it when he assumes people are ‘pressured’ into attending sports?!?!?!? It just prooves that he really, really doesn’t get it.)
Pippinu said | June 29th 2009 @ 2:38pm | Report comment
I remind people that my reference to the “2nd oldest club” in this article is in the context of Australian Football.
There most defintely are older football clubs in the British Isles, although only a handful can actually offer hard, documentary evidence.
I just looked up the “Irish Wolfhouds” in wikipedia. It’s the name of their national team but there’s no mention of some ancient club.
People might be interested in this wikipedia article on the world’s oldest football clubs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_football_clubs
There are indeed 9 clubs older than the Melbourne Football club, although a few lack hard documentary evidence.
Those that do have solid evidence are only 2 to 5 years older than the MFC (incl Edinburgh Academicals).
Why do some segments of the Australian population have trouble being proud of the fact that some of the oldest footballing clubs in the World started here in Australia? It’s an extremely odd sentiment.
I don’t think I have made any claims either in this article, or in the following posts that can be viewed in any way as being exaggerated or unbelievable (where speculation occurs, it’s around the importance we attach to individual events, rather than questioning whether the events themselves are real or not).
The more outlandish posts appear to be from those who wish to dismiss the history of Australian Football (being unimportant in their eyes), e.g. this business about the Irish Wolfhounds.
Real or not – why would it in any way be relevant to the discussion around the 2nd oldest football club in Australia?
Pippinu said | June 29th 2009 @ 2:48pm | Report comment
I should add – this is what I understand about this whole business of hard grounds influencing the development of Australian Football.
When the rules were being drafted in May of 1859, the story goes that Melbourne had experienced a dry, hot Summer/Autumn, and the grounds were unusually hard (so we’re not talking about a constant fact, but what the writers were experiencing at that point in time).
So with four of the five “rules committee” being from a non-rugby background, they were able over ride many of Tom Wills’ preferences (which were to align more closely to the rugby rules he was familiar with).
So it wasn’t so much about deliberately making the game faster as it was about avoiding being on the ground more often than was necessary (of course, if players are keeping their feet more, naturally enough, the game is faster).
As a closing remark to Cirrius – if anyone thinks the game of rugby is remotely close to the overall/average speed of aussie rules (as is played at the elite level and as can be measured by sports scientist a number of different ways) – they are absolutely barking up the wrong tree.
Millster said | June 29th 2009 @ 2:59pm | Report comment
This thread, which started off with a well balanced original article (a combination of a nice little historical tid-bit and some self-deprecation by our mate Pippu) has since well and truly wandered into the realms of the ridiculous.
Redb said | June 29th 2009 @ 3:36pm | Report comment
Captain Nemo, Cirrus, Millster,
Maybe there is a skeric of enjoyment that one gets from being with 60,70,80,000 people at the MCG with two tribes roaring their guts out – Sydney and other cities dont have thre unique combinatioo of Australian Rules football ad the MCG – it is a unique combination.
Redb
Michael C said | June 29th 2009 @ 9:14pm | Report comment
Redb -
nah – they just whinge that Rugby and Soccer aren’t close enough to see – - – haven’t they heard of bino’s, decent specks, eye tests, and radios with ear plugs.
Millster -
did you read the post to which I responded??
Michael C said | June 29th 2009 @ 9:17pm | Report comment
Cirius -
just for your benefit.
Melb has on avg about 8 more ‘precipiation’ days a year. However, Sydney avg rainfall is around 1200 mm. Melb is around 650mm. Tell me in which city you’d rather play Rugby!!!!
(local conditions – - I dunno why you picked on it – - local conditions dictated what games would be played/designed if there were no greater imperatives to consider.)
Pippinu said | July 1st 2009 @ 2:44pm | Report comment
Speaking of hard grounds, I was just reading in the Age then about the Hay footy club, whose closest rival is 120 km to the South, and whose farthest rival is North-central Victoria, necessitating a day trip that starts at 6:30 on the morning.
I imagine in parts of remote NT, Qld, NSW, SA and WA there are trips that are even longer than that.
Pippinu said | July 3rd 2009 @ 9:55am | Report comment
This thread has sort of moved in the direction of questioning the viability of a 2nd team in Sydney, so I thought I would copy this particular article from RealFooty describing the results of a survey of 500 residents of NSW on this very subject (not commissioned by the AFL):
A THIRD of people surveyed in NSW were interested in the AFL and almost a fifth would watch the games on TV, a poll on the planned team for western Sydney has found.
The Auspoll survey found that 6 per cent of people in NSW would make western Sydney their team, and 5 per cent would become members. Three per cent would switch clubs to follow the new club, perhaps indicating the Swans might lose some of their support. While the survey, which was not commissioned by the AFL, found an overwhelming 67 per cent had no interest in the AFL, this was not surprising in a rugby union- and rugby league-dominated state.
Importantly for the sake of the AFL’s next broadcast rights agreement, 18 per cent of respondents said they would watch AFL games on television.
People in higher income brackets were more likely to be interested in the AFL.
The survey, of more than 500 people, was deemed an indicative sample in line with the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Auspoll chairman Adam Kilgour said the research showed there was a good level of interest in Sydney for a second AFL team.
“The encouraging thing for the AFL is the main interest is from the high-spending 25- to 34-year-old age group, and higher income earners. This would be music to potential sponsor’s ears and good news for the AFL’s media-rights partners,” he said.
Captain Nemo said | July 3rd 2009 @ 10:40am | Report comment
Pip, 62% of people know statistics are crap:) But seriously, I would be curious where the survey was conducted. If you asked 500 people in wollongong or newcastle, the response would be almost zero, pennant hills would get you maybe 50%. NSW is a big state so I think it would have to be more area specific to have any real meaning.
Pippinu said | July 3rd 2009 @ 11:09am | Report comment
Capt Nemo
You’re right of course, at the same time, that’s what these survey people do (statistical analysis, samples of population, ranges of accuracy, etc).
So if your assessment is to be on the population of NSW, using a population of 500, textbook statistical analysis dictates that you get a sprinkling across the state, including all major population centres with an emphasis on the Sydney metropolitan area that should provide at least 50% of your sample.
The actual results, if one looks carefully, are neither overwhelmingly positive or negative, i.e. there’s a fair bit there that would gel with your own intuitive assessments.
For example, 67% have zero interest in AFL. That is an extremely high response to such a question (if the question indeed used the word “zero”) – on the other hand, no doubt you and many on the Roar would argue it’s at least that – so we immediately have a pretty sound starting point in terms of validating the data.
The percentages that say they would have an active interest in a 2nd team are nothing Earth shattering, but they would give the AFL a bit of hope that the team starts off with some chance of winning support (and that’s all they’re are really looking for at this early stage).
Most importantly, a surprisingly large percentage of those “supportive” are willing to show that support quite actively – that’s crucial to the AFL in terms of both selling memberships and winning a fat TV contract – it’s actually not necessary for the AFL to win the whole of Sydney over (that will never happen), they only need a healthy niche to make it worthwhile (just as the Storm only needs a healthy niche in Melbourne).
Finally, and this is where marketers excel, focussing on who exactly is showing their support and whether they have money – in the case of the AFL in NSW – the figures would give plenty of hope once again.
Michael C said | July 7th 2009 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
Pippinu -
surely we can get to 200!!!
http://aph.gov.au/SEnate/committee/rrat_ctte/afl_tasmania/report/e03.htm
interesting link above to Senate Tassie AFL inquiry. The stats table illustrate a compelling reason for the AFL to have as many teams in NSW as QLD, and that Tassie really does struggle to present a compelling case even for one team.
On this basis – plus potential up side/growth and overall market size and the opportunity to double AFL exposure to the market and servicing of the market (i.e. twice the number of players who can visit schools/clinics etc) – -
well, you’d have to suggest – it’s an absolute ‘no brainer’ to get in there.
Pippinu said | July 8th 2009 @ 9:05am | Report comment
MC
it took me a few minutes to work out what the “200″ meant!
Michael C said | July 8th 2009 @ 9:30am | Report comment
Pippinu -
ah, well, glad that when you did figure it out that you didn’t just put up a post just for the sake of it…….
Pippinu said | July 9th 2009 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
No, no, no – heaven forbid!!