In the first half of the 19th century in Australia, there was very little activity which bore any resemblance to current rugby.
Prior to 1850 there were various pastimes which involved kicking a ball, but none of them took place with any prevailing rules or as part of a structured competition, and most were associated with other festive activities.
It is generally thought that Tom Wills was instrumental in bringing about the establishment of a rugby competition in Melbourne.
Born in New South Wales, Wills was sent to Rugby School in England, where he played rugby for five years before returning to Melbourne in December 1856.
By then rugby was being played in schools in England but usually in accordance with their own version of the rules, with no code by which everybody played. The Rugby School had developed a game with the characteristics of rugby, but Eton, for example, played their rugby in a style similar to what became football.
On his return, Wills set about attracting interest in playing games of rugby and on July 10 1858, he published an open letter, calling on sportsmen who had just finished a season of cricket to form a rugby club, and advocating the establishment of a committee to draw up a code of laws.
Later that year, several games of rugby were played in the parklands around Melbourne. Not surprisingly, the absence of rules made umpiring a challenge, and also probably explained why one of the early matches – between Scotch College and Melbourne Grammar – took three consecutive Saturdays without either team scoring the best of three goals to win in accordance with the Rugby School custom. The match was finally declared drawn.
The game quickly grew in popularity, bringing with it increasing urgency in formulating agreed laws for the conduct of games. In what is now regarded as one of the most significant developments in the history of the game, on 14 May 1859 the Melbourne Rugby Club was established and on 17 May 1859, Wills, William Hammersley and Thomas Smith met in a back room of the Parade Hotel in Melbourne to formulate rules.
The meeting had a momentous outcome, with the formulation of what came to be known as “the Melbourne Rules”.
There were several significant innovations in the rules published. Tripping and pushing were still allowed, but hacking was banned, no doubt to the disappointment of rugby adherents who enjoyed the technique. Hacking involved deliberately kicking an opponent in the shins or lower legs, but below the knee and provided the player was running with the ball.
The ball could be taken in hand only when caught from the foot “or on the hop”, and, in what amounted to the greatest divergence from then current practices, the ball while in play could under no circumstances be thrown. Significantly, no provision was made for an offside rule.
The rules did not result in immediate agreement or consistent application. This was due in part to the fact that Wills’ prominence in other sports, such as cricket and athletics, left Victoria for Queensland and did not return until 1864. This saw the game pick up momentum again, including in relation to the clarification of the rules of the game.
Wills, notwithstanding his initiative in promoting a game specific to the colonies, maintained a tendency to seek to preserve rugby practices, which were normally so complex that probably only he understood them. One practice he sought to maintain was the use of a crossbar attached to the goalposts, but he was unsuccessful and four posts were introduced.
In 1866, following a meeting of clubs in Melbourne, another important development took place, with the introduction of the requirement to bounce the ball “every five or six yards”.
The agreement embodied in the Melbourne Rules reflected a uniformity which had not taken place in England. English rugby comprised two groups, one of which was responsible for the formation of the Rugby Association in 1863, and the other preferring a code of rugby which preserved the ancient and venerable art of hacking.
These tardy developments have led to claims of triumph by Australian rugby historians that Australian Rules is older than either of the codes of football or rugby.
The introduction of the Melbourne Rules did not immediately provide a game for all tastes, and agreement as to the appropriate level of vigour was not immediately forthcoming. The eminent Colden Harrison, who later became a pillar of the administration of the game, is renowned for his famous assertion that “rugby is essentially a rough game all over the world and is not suitable for men-poodles and milk sops”.
Despite the rules, players still tripped, punched and kicked each other, charged or jumped on a player who had just taken a mark, or slung their opponent to the ground even if yards from the ball. It took more than a century before some of these practices disappeared.
In any event, the formulation and publication of the Melbourne Rules was undoubtedly the start of what has been a gradual process of 150 years of refinement of the fundamentals of the laws of the game of Australian Rules, which were then put in place.
What is also worthy of note is the subsequent rapid spread of the game of rugby played according to the Melbourne Rules across the south of the country and to the west, with the result that playing Melbourne Rules according to rugby rules never took hold. That was not the case in the colonies to the north.
The game was known as Melbourne Rules for short and Wills dropped any reference to old-school rugby. With the spread of the popularity of the Melbourne Rules, the sport outgrew Melbourne and ventured into a number of Victorian outcrops to become famous as Victorian Rules.
As the game grew and started to be played in other southern colonies, it eventually became known as Australian Rules. The rest is history.
Norad
Guest
WITH the establishment of a Women’s League, the AFL (Victorian Rules) has returned to what Tom Wills established: a girl’s game for those not having the ball skills for soccer or being tough enough for rugby. RICHARD MORRIS, Elizabeth East. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opinion/the-advertiser-letters-to-the-editor-december-10/news-story/566f9eedffe20a861f3b6a59c58e91a0
Perry Bridge
Guest
Mr.Orange: You said "The Melbourne Rules ball was egg shaped like a rugby ball and not round like a football” This is a quote from the Melbourne Argus Sat April 28 1860 with reference to a Friday evening general meeting of the “Melbourne Football Club”, after which a ‘scratch game was got up’. “The ball, which was of rather a novel shape – oval, was kicked about merrily.” So - let's just suggest that across the first year of 1859 of football played by clubs across Melbourne that an oval or egg shaped ball was certainly not yet the norm. Agreed?
YowiePower
Guest
It amazes me that this article is still up. 'Rugby' was never used to refer to Melbourne football, but the author has mendaciously inserted 'rugby' at every opportunity. Even in this Harrison quote: "rugby is essentially a rough game all over the world and is not suitable for men-poodles and milk sops”. In the original quote, Harrison used the more generic term of 'football', not specifically 'rugby'. And in Wills' 1858 letter to Bell's Life, he never mentions 'rugby', only 'foot-ball'. If Wills was so gung-ho about adopting rugby wholesale, he would not have shied away from stating so directly, given what a prolific and cantankerous letter writer he was. But his only reference to rugby in relation to Melbourne football is the quote I brought up in an earlier comment, in which he states that he and the other rulemakers "thought differently" and came up with a new game suited to the environs of Melbourne. Nonetheless, his preference for some features of the rugby school game is evident in the mark and the oval shaped ball, much to the dissatisfaction of Thompson, who wanted a game that was more like soccer.
Perry Bridge
Guest
Stumbled across this article - A major concern is the too great focus on Tom Wills. Sure, he wrote the famous letter to Bell's Life magazine. Perhaps that letter alone inspired the course of action that followed - somehow I doubt it. After all - when the Melbourne Football Club established in 1859 it was formed exclusively by members of the Melbourne Cricket Club, and a few days latter the appointed committee met to draw up the rules. The 'football season' of 1858 in Melbourne was a season of the 'idea' of playing at football. The specifics were much tougher to nail. We know that the famous match between Melbourne Grammar and Scotch College (that continues annually to this day (Cordner-Eggelston Cup) played over 3 days was umpired by Tom Wills and John Macadam (he of the macadamia nut fame). References in 1859 in the papers indicated that a MFC committee would meet to draw up rules and were to do so largely because of the malaise of 1858 where it was impossible to agree on a set of rules and there was reference to the trialled Rugby rules although to what degree they were trialled as per the rules relating to the school of Rugby (with many localised references to 'the big side' etc - would always require adaptation) is unknown. What was clear was that the journalist Thompson who produced the sporting annual (almanac) "Victorian Cricketer’s Guide" was the one who came prepared, with rules of a variety of the English Public schools - and he published them in a section of the 'VCG'. Hammersley, Smith, Wills and to a lesser degree the publican Bryant joined him to draw up a basic set of 10 rules. Clear ommissions from the Rugby game include not a single reference to on-side or off-side. Wills was primarily a cricketer - but at football was amongst the best in the colony. It is clear that he didn't win many arguments if he fought for the features of the Rugby game. The ball was generally round in the early years and by the time the Rugby type ball became most prevalent the influence of Wills had waned - in that his name is only referenced with respect to the rules committee of 1859 and this is an important fact. (certainly his time in Queensland and personal tragedy of his father being killed by aborigines up there played large roles - however, even across the remained of 1859 and 1860 the Wills name is absent in rules committees.) Wills argument for a cross bar and specialist kickers was seen more as a recognition of his own value as arguably the best kick in the colony which would make him a natural and valued selection as the specialist kicker. Perhaps this was purely an ego driven suggestion rather than any great desire to align with the Rugby school rules. The argument about the taking up of the game as a 'game of our own' was not so far from the concept of a 'nationalist' ideal. Certainly Victoria was a colony of the crown - with new found independence and Melbourne barely nudging 25 years old. However it was a very different colony to the Imperial penal colonies. The rule of the military was very much stretched by the rapid growth of the Victorian colony first via rapid geographic expansion as the squatters spread their flocks far and wide and then via the gold rush of the 1850s. Wills had suggested forming a rifle club to assist in the defence of the colony or a football club to help the fitness during winter - it wasn't so specifically to keep cricketers fit for cricket, but, to keep them fit for the defence of the colony should the Russians sail into the bay to steal the gold of the colony. This was a serious threat, enough to build major fortifications at Fort Nepean and Fort Queenscliffe. Melbourne grew very differently to Sydney. And very much more independently and self sufficiently. Far greater entrepreneurial zeal. A football 'game of our own' was a natural fit at that time and it was retained - and this is important. There was no need felt to fall in line with either of the latter offered choices from mother England when by the 1870s-1880s the games of 'Association Football' and 'Rugby Football' were being exported. Sydney and Brisbane were far less evolved by comparison socially, economically and culturally - and were very much more torn about effectively severing such cultural ties with the mother country. I very much am amused by this assertion by Mr Orange: "– Up until 1866 the Melbourne rules goal posts were the same as the rugby goal posts with a crossbar. the removal of the crossbar and the 2 extra smaller side goal posts didn’t come into play till later." Incorrect. The Melbourne goal posts had no crossbar - there was a short dalliance with a x-bar in Adelaide but that was short lived. The Melbourne goals were akin to the latter 1863 FA goals - allowing a goal no matter the height of the ball, the important statement that was completely distinct and is still so today is that the ball could not touch either of the goal posts. The FA eventually reverted to a x-bar. Melbourne/Vic/Aust football never did. This assertion too "– The Melbourne Rules ball was egg shaped like a rugby ball and not round like a football". Well, it wasn't. Initially it was predominantly a round ball. The Rugby type ball evolved in over a period of time - and was certainly not stipulated in the earliest rules. However too - the first 10 rules like most such early sets of rules leave a fair space for adaptive play on the day and agreement between the captains of the day.
John Ryan
Guest
Don't believe everything you read Flick,by the way Flick, Fagan would run rings around you in knowledge of the various codes, Australian Football is a mix of RU with Gaelic football thrown in. Don't believe everything put out by the now AFL which you apparently do
Australian Football Fan
Guest
You are engaging in Historical Revisionism. The Melbourne Football Club was never called the Melbourne Rugby Club. The letter published by Tom Wills on 10th of July 1858 said in it calling on sportsmen who just finished a season of Cricket to form a ''foot-ball'' club, not a Rugby club. The games played in 1858 in the parklands of Melbourne were games of Football not Rugby. And one of the games was a experimental match with purpose of experimenting with rules to create a new code of Football. And there is a Statue of it outside the MCG with a Plark on it saying that. There are articles about all of these things I have mentioned all over internet proving this. You are engaging in Historical Revisionism.
Dalgety Carrington
Guest
I think that is the sum of the author's research, so why not eh?...
Storm Boy
Guest
on 14 May 1859 the Melbourne Rugby Club was established. Is that for real? I thought Storm started 1998?
Floyd Calhoun
Guest
No problem with that Brian. I wasn't disputing anything. Most things are derived from what went before. Aussie Rules is no different in that regard. Cheers.
Peter Baudinette
Roar Guru
Don't believe anything you read on wikipedia Flick....
Flick
Roar Rookie
That is Brians MO, sling mud, make things up, print mistruths, allege things that don't exist.
Dalgety Carrington
Guest
References please. You make these statements as though they are indisputable but with zero backup.
Flick
Roar Rookie
The sport of Australian football has been called by a number of different names throughout its history; but since 1905, after the formation of the Australasian Football Council, the game has been officially called "Australian football"; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_Australian_rules_football
Flick
Roar Rookie
You did not check hard enough Brian, which seems to be your MO, the offical name for Aussie rules has been Australian Football for over 100 years. The AFL, VFL, SANFL, WAFL, AFLNT even Sydney AFL etc all play the game of Australian Football.
Brian Orange
Roar Guru
In those days people called rugby football and vice versa till the Football Association and the Rugby Union formed. In the 19th century football became popular in English public schools, and Eton was instrumental in its development. The Football Association was founded in 1863 so Wills would have been unaware of the rules of the sport that become modern football. Certainly Melbourne Rules developed in isolation and started to bear less resemblance to Rugby or football as the game developed through the 1860s and 1870s.
Brian Orange
Roar Guru
I did Flick. The game was originally called Melbourne Rules, then Victorian Rules and finally Australian Rules. Originally comprising only teams based in the Australian state of Victoria, the competition's name was changed to the Australian Football League for the 1990 season by the AFL Marketing Department when teams were introduced from other states..
Emric
Guest
Both sports were called football So Football was and remains the correct term for the sport of Rugby.
Flick
Roar Rookie
Australian football is the official name of Aussie Rules an has been so for over 100 years, You should try just a smidgen of research
Flick
Roar Rookie
What a seriously dogs breakfast of an article
Flick
Roar Rookie
Before Wills even knew rugby existed he was the only white child in a Victorian district who spoke the local aboriginal language and played with native kids.