Hondo. SURL were in the NSW Tertiary Student Rugby League comp just a few seasons back. I presumed they were still there, but a quick google search suggests they may have dropped off the perch.

Re politicians & rugby, I think you are referring to Mark Latham, but he played for Liverpool. When I was playing Sydney Uni RU were for a while in 2nd division with Smithfield and Liverpool in the early/mid 1980s. Tony Abbott was no longer playing for Uni then, but Joe Hockey did a bit later.

Cheers Sheek. Remarkably (well, I thought so) the 1908 NSWRL rules/regs document that sets out the club boundaries, also included provision for a Sydney Univeristy club – so even in RL, right at the very start, the Uni still got a special provision & the NSWRL wanted them. Uni was left as an option, even though Manly, St George and Sydney weren’t, even though they were in existence in Sydney first grade RU when RL laid out its map. So it does appear to me the NSWRL management definitely put their minds to the matter of a Uni club, more than future district clubs.

Interesting reading the tos & fros of the student-driven push in early 1920 to enter a Sydney Uni club into the Sydney RL competition, and that it actually began with the object of having the existing rugby club switch codes – which on a vote taken purely amongst active players would have won, but it seems past players continued to have a right to vote, and the club committee members managed to revive every last greybeard still living in Sydney they could find, and the club did not switch.

This year the Uni club is celebrating 150 years, but that meeting in 1920 was a very near thing – as it turned out, the Uni has had clubs in both codes ever since, but it could easily have just been RL alone. That may have been a body blow to RU in Aust given how fragile it was in the early 1920s. I suspect though if the Uni club had swapped codes, and somehow the NSWRU gone on, no doubt a new Sydney Uni RU club would have emerged at some point.

Those boundaries listed above are from the NSWRU meeting in 1900. As noted later in the article, the boundaries were subsequently changed numerous times by the NSWRL (and the NSWRU). See also “What are Australia’s oldest rugby clubs?” http://www.theroar.com.au/2013/06/12/what-are-australias-oldest-rugby-clubs/

Cheers p.Tah.

Thanks Billy Bob!

@ carnivean. Will be interesting to see how the next Lions tour here comes about. Is due for 2025. Comparing the changes that have come in the game in the periods between each of the previous tours 1989, 2001 & 2013, predicting what will come in next decade up to 2025 would be anyone’s guess.

Thanks p.Tah. Was an interview re the 1888 Lions book & how it impacted our footy codes.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/Rugby/034first-lions034-author/video-e6frf4pu-1226674110938?subcat=1225914702672&site=FoxSports

@ sheek. Seems the only constant then and now was footy codes in Australia battling with each other!

@ sheek. I think you have the basis of a very good article here. You should think about posting it as such. The Lions tour really only survives on the goodwill of the UK clubs letting their players take part. They may well argue, and they would be right, why release players if they are to meet 2nd or 3rd string tour games. The Lions not returning home series victors doesn’t help either.

@ Cattledog. A pleasure!

@ Billy Bob. I agree any “representative team” should remember they are representing more than just the on-field football talents of their region or nation. My point wasn’t an attempt to excuse players from acceptable behaviour, merely pointing out it is inevitable that a footballer one day (or night) will sooner or later fail. If a code educates its current crop of players, that alone won’t do it – it must do it over and over as each new generation of players enters the pro ranks. The AFL and NRL, given they have so many more teams (and thus players) & the higher profile, will never be in a position where no incidents occur. Yet, knowing that, we as a society seem to be shocked when that inevitably happens. Meanwhile music artists and other entertainers, particularly rock stars, are lauded for the hard partying and hi-jinks they get up to, or even just portray in video clips.

It’s not that footballers shouldn’t held to account, it’s just that we as a society prefer not to apply that same standard to us all.

Thanks Spiro – very kind of you to say all of that!

Special offer going on “The First Lions of Rugby” – get 30% off + free post (in Australia) >>> http://Lions1888.com

The introduction of the 10m rule was the greatest blunder in RL rule-making history. It was pushed, believe it or not, by England in 1993 after the British team had gone very close to beating the Kangaroos in Ashes series in 1990 & 92, and within a try of winning the 1992 WC final – their theory was the increased separation between attack/defence would give their halves more time & space to be creative with the ball against the bigger Aust pack, especially backrowers. The RLIF adopted the change (the ARL didn’t object).

All of which ignored men like Tommy Bishop who pointed out, as in RU, nothing happens in the game until the defence & attack meet – so keeping them further apart just made for wasted energy & the false impression something was happening. The logic is absurd…every time the defence does its job (tackling a ball-carrier), it is immediately punished by being forced to give up 10m!

So, it didn’t take long to work out that fitness would matter more then creativity, and that dummy-half runs & hit-ups were the best way to make ground…and then England/Britain team got flogged even more over the next decade, and the bottom fell out of international RL as a result.

The 10m rule also gave us wrestling, ‘dancing’ with ball-carriers to hold them up, shoulder charge runs with 10m momentum up instead of 5m, and misguided officials & commentators who somehow concocted the view that the change from 5m to 10m was to not create space, but to speed up the game.

Men like Frank Hyde were ignored – he argued that the 10m was already there if you fairly enforced the rules, and kept both the defence and attack back 5m from the play-the-ball.

Hyde was, unsurprisingly, correct – and with two referees in use today, you could actually properly adopt that rule…but no one in RL will ever have the gumption to admit the 10m rule was a mistake, that is the cause of many of the game’s present blights, that speeding up the game doesn’t make it better, and the 5m+5m rule should be gone back to.

If you see a NSW Cup or QLD Cup game on tv, or even the Aboriginal knockout games, record them…then play it back at 1.5x, 2x, whatever speed suits your taste, it won’t look any different to taking a NRL game & slowing it down…which is sad, as the Aboriginal knockout games were once where you saw the most adventurous RL ball-passing game.

Not in terms of purely ball-passing plays for tries. AB’s first try was a kick-chase, second against a broken defence from a turnover, third was a great try that included a long kick.

Cheers Sheek.

Fact is people relate better to the act of an identifiable talisman creationist, rather than a slow evolution that gives us no individual to applaud, honour & revere. Abner Doubleday in baseball, Walter Camp in gridiron, Tom Wills in AFL…the list goes on & on.

Ironically with soccer, you can pin down its birth & founders to the FA forming in 1863, but the code invariably wants to portray itself as ancient, even though rugby is the more rustic brother of folk football than the refined & higher evolved “no hands” restrictive game – all of which presents a further problem with the Webb Ellis myth, as many wrong presume football in 1823 at Rugby School was soccer, even though it would not be invented for another 40 years.

By coincidence, IRB boss been discussing same matter (Webb Ellis) over the weekend, & may in part answer your first question. https://twitter.com/brettgosper/status/345925456844947456

I don’t agree with your summation re 1909 & the Wallabies. The NSWRL didn’t sign them, a private promoter did for a 3-game series. Fact is the players wouldn’t have taken the money if RL was as fragile as you have supposed. Of the 31 Wallabies involved with the 1908/09 tour, 14 signed to play against the Kangaroos. The remaining 17 Wallabies were hardly the second-rate members of the tour party & left RU with plenty of stars: Tom Richards, Norm Row, Ward Prentice, Philip Carmichael, Bede Smith, Syd Middleton, Danny Carroll, Fred Wood, Tom Griffin and the team’s captain ‘Paddy’ Moran were all highly regarded and popular footballers.

Of the original 31 Wallaby tourists, only eight provided a significant contribution to rugby league: John Hickey, Charles Russell, Chris McKivat, John Barnett, Robert Craig, Albert Burge and Paddy McCue. The other six converts made few or even no appearances with Sydney clubs: William Dix 0 games, Edward Mandible 2, Charles McMurtrie 14, Kenneth Gavin 0, Peter Burge 9 and Edward McIntyre 0.

As with creation myths, sports also seem to like stories that portray them as victims when they lose out to another code. In every area of NSW, QLD & NZ that Aust rules lost or never got hold of, you will find an excuse given, of nefarious acts that wrongfully robbed the code of opportunity. In the end, then as now, its all about the game on the field, to play or to watch, that drives success and failure and profitability.

@ David Shaw. Not specifcally, but we are finding more towns across NSW in the mid/late 1870s had a rugby club, even just to play amongst themselves each Saturday, than was ever imagined. Seems not all felt any particular urgency to affiliate with the NSWRU in Sydney.

@ Harry Kimble. They weren’t amalgamations or mergers in 1900 to create the district clubs. That’s where it begins and ends.

All the 1899 grade clubs, except Uni, each held a meeting, settled their club’s accounts and passed a vote to become extinct. The only pre 1900 clubs that survived were suburban one-team clubs that in 1900 &/or shortly after put themselves in the rebel competition that became Subbies.

In early 1900 the NSWRU got a map of Sydney and put lines on it to divide up the metropolis, creating districts. Each district wasn’t really a “club” per se but a sub-branch of the NSWRU. It only existed at the whim of the NSWRU, not the club’s members.

Lineage and ancestry from 1890s clubs can flow thru that, but none of the 1900 district clubs existed in any form before 1900.

It’s the same silly argument about Newtown in the RL re its founding and who was first to form in 1908.

Each club in 1900 under NSWRU and in 1908 under NSWRL was simply an allocated district – being founded first, 2nd, 10th or last made no difference – you couldn’t snavel another club’s district or players, you couldn’t even set your own district boundaries. Both the NSWRU & NSWRL in time took areas from clubs to create new clubs and/or absorb dead ones.

deleted as rhe above post got deleted

For the record, I wasn’t doubting the club’s founding in 1892. My assertion in the article & in comments since is no club (adult male players) founded in 1800s has been continuous ever since, other than Sydney Uni.

@ Stellahands. There’s no doubt the Drummoyne club are the 1919 merger of Balmain & Glebe clubs established in 1900.

The Wolves, according to http://www.balmainrugby.com/about-us/club-history/ say “From 1919 – 2004, Balmain did not have it’s own rugby club until a couple of rugby fans over a quiet beer decided to re-establish Balmain Rugby Club”.

The original Balmain club disbanded in the early 1890s, replaced by many new clubs in the area, such was the growing popularity of the code.

The 1900 Balmain district club is not the Balmain club of 1873.

The Wolves are, from what I can see, a re-establishing of the 1873 club, who also honour & celebrate the history of rugby in the Balmain district, including the 1900-1914 Balmain club.

That probably sounds like a bob each way! The main thing is there are two groups wanting to remember rugby history in Balmain, and while that may involve a friendly squabble, that is far better than having no one or no club(s) interested in the history of rugby in Balmain.

@ Michael Bell. That may well be a commonly held view, but it is not backed up by archive records & newspapers. There were many years in the 19th century & into the 1920s where there was a “Parramatta” club (not “Cumberland”), but there were also years where the game (except in King’s, schools & juniors) wasn’t played at all. There was a “Central Cumberland” club in the mid 1890s, but all other reports thru the 1880s-90s refer to “Parramatta”. There are periods in the late 1800s where Parramatta has more than one club, but neither of which are called the Parramatta FC.

For example re the break in continuity:

The Cumberland Argus, 11 March 1893
The Secretary read the following annual report :— Your Committee have much pleasure in presenting this, the fourth annual report of the Parramatta Football Club. “Fourth” would mean this version of the Parramatta club being founded in 1889.

Sydney Morning Herald, 2 April 1889
PARRAMATTA FOOTBALL CLUB.
A new football club, consisting of the principal members of the Nomads and Unions, was formed at Parramatta last night. It is to be limited to 20 playing members, and a good 15 is guaranteed. It will be known as the Parramatta Football Club.

The Cumberland Argus, 27 February 1924
RUGBY UNION. REVIVAL IN PARRAMATTA.
We learn on good authority that an effort is to be made this season to revive the old union game in Parramatta The Western Suburbs seniors are Interesting themselves in the matter, and it is proposed to convene a meeting at an early date.

THE GAME IN PARRAMATTA
The Cumberland Argus, 22 March 1924
For some years past, the district colours have not been seen on the playing fields of the Union code. The reason is difficult to trace. One would expect the traditions established by former Rugby Unionists for Parramatta, and their and their otherwise noteworthy achievements were sufficient to keep alive for all time enough enthusiasm and pride to never allow the past to be forgotten. Teams and players from Parramatta, in the past, have excelled themselves. If then, why not still?

None of the above is to say that Parramatta should not celebrate 1879, all the discussion was about was no club founded in the 1800s, other than Sydney Uni, having continuous existence.

@ Dale. Tremendous isn’t it – a promise made by local rugby players in 1888, still being followed today.

@ Jim Boyce. No I wasn’t at the Maitland visit. I have used the ARU archives a number of times in doing research & obtaining photos – the staff have always been very helpful. I can’t comment on how the archive is staffed or funded as I don’t know.

I obviously agree it would be wonderful if the game did much more with saving, documenting, collecting & celebrating its history – rugby certainly doesn’t have a publicly accessible museum such as found in NZ, England & other codes in Australia.

Having a designated person within each club is a tall ask given the nature of all football clubs, of all codes, is to put resources into the now, rather than the past. The latter only happens when there is plenty of funds available. In England the Heritage Lottery Fund issues grants to fund many sports history projects and facilities. There is a recognition that sports bodies & individual clubs can’t fund history projects or facilities, apart from the big brands of soccer. We have no such funding model in NSW or Australia, so unless you are big code with a massive tv deal, funding is scarce.

That’s not to say more interest in the history of the game in Australia could not be taken. I have said many times that just as there is a $ value/income for a popular sport for each year ahead, each year of its past has a $ value too that can be mined. Of course, the further back in time you go, the less material (film, audio, documentation) there is to work with, but nevertheless, it is there & available to be used to not only tell the game’s history, but to bring further $ income to the game.

@ Phill. In very early 1900s can find Hunters Hill Juniors & Hunter Hills Baronias, but not a Hunters Hill club. I don’t rule out the current club may be one of those two early 1900 teams. If one of those can be confirmed as the club founded in 1892 and active from 1904 on (the club says it has team photos from 1904 on, but history before that is scant http://www.huntershillrugby.org.au/aboutTheClub/fullHistory.htm ) then there would be no gap. The club was playing in 1914 and 1919.

@ Marko of Manly. Sorry you have taken exception to “and even putting aside the disruptions caused by wars”, however, in the context of a story traversing near on 150 years, there was no need to expand on that aspect of rugby history. Perhaps if you had read more of my work you would not have posted that final paragraph about my understanding of WW1 and rugby in Australia. http://jottingsonrugby.com

I’m not on a crusade to find holes in club histories. Each club owns its unique history & how it chooses for it to be told & celebrated. All that sentence I wrote asserts is that no club founded before 1900, aside from Sydney University, has played every season (WW1 & WW2 years excluded).

Mosman celebrating the centenary since their founding is not in itself evidence the club has played every season. I agree Mosman appear to be 2nd to Uni for continuity.

However, I can find no evidence in the now substantial electronic newspaper archives of that era of a Mosman rugby team playing in 1900-01, the first two years after the social rugby clubs were disbanded to make way for the district scheme. Many clubs played in the forerunner of the Subbies, but I can’t see Mosman among them e.g. http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article113716115 Mosman in 1899 were in 2nd grade but withdrew from the competition with four rounds still to be played. Mosman do enter the NSWRU’s new Borough competition when it started in 1903. There are also no mentions of a Mosman club in the newspapers in the years immediately before WW1.