1. Origins of The Various Forms of Football (Garry Archer, Desmond Morris)
2. Firsts in International Matches (Garry Archer)
3. Changes to The Laws (various)
4. Changes to The Offside Rule (Garry Archer)
===========================================
1. Origins of The Various Forms of Football
===========================================
Subject: Football/Soccer Origins
From: Garry Archer (archer@hsi.com)
Date: Mon May 13 12:35:43 EDT 1991
There are various forms of football:
1) Association, which we now call "soccer", evolved from the "dribbling
code" style of football.
2) Rugby Union evolved from the "handling code" style of football.
Association and Rugby Union evolved at about the same time as the same game
with similar rules, but the "handling code" people split away to form their
own set of rules.
3) Rugby League was yet another split within the "handling code"
group. Rugby League came several years after Rugby Union was organised.
4) Gaelic Football. Hmmm, I'm not familiar with the origins, but
there is more information in "The Soccer Tribe" by Desmond Morris. More
on this later (**). I believe Gaelic football is more like rugby than soccer
but has elements of both. Some form of football has been played in Ireland
for centuries, quite independent of what happened in England. Both probably
originated from games the Romans played but evolved quite separately into
Gaelic rules and Association/Rugby rules.
5) Australian Rules Football was originally some form of rugby
played on cricket pitches. Hence the large oval field. However there
are still some old (*really* old) soccer rules retained. The "mark"
is a prime example, which in itself is no longer used in soccer these days.
6) American "Gridiron" Football.
Actually the FIRST football in the United States was soccer [US football in
Ancient Origins of Football].
Rugby Union was more popular with the French Canadians in Canada. Rugby
Union was slowly exported to the United States and the Americans started
to adopt it. Soccer became less popular as the new game became widespread.
Somehow the two rules became integrated with the rugby rules dominating.
It took someone like Walter Camp to organise the unfamiliar mix into the more
familiar gridiron rules and hence "American Football" was truly born.
--------
(**) "The Soccer Tribe" by Desmond Morris (author of the Naked Ape).
This is an excellent book about why soccer and its fans are the
way we are. Its a fascinating insight to the human psychology
and why soccer is the most popular sport in the world.
There is a page early in the book which outlines the six kinds of
football in the world and the quick-and-dirty origins of each.
If I get enough time this week, I'll type it in and post it here.
---------------------------------
Subject: More Origins of Football
From: Garry Archer (archer@hsi.com)
Date: Tue May 14 13:21:57 EDT 1991
As promised in a posting I made yesterday:
"In the centuries that followed [the Roman Empire], ball-games
remained rough and ready, rowdy informal sports of little importance and with
virtually no organisation. But they never died out. It was as if they were
lying fallow, waiting for their day to dawn. With the eventual decline
of blood sports, their moment had arrived. English public schools, with the
dictum 'a healthy mind in a healthy body', began to encourage various forms
of football among their pupils. The wildly uncontrolled and highly variable
types of popular football, raucously played in villages across the land,
were made more systematic in the school games. But there was more than
one system. At Harrow and certain other schools, a kicking game was played
that was to grow into modern Association Football, first called 'Socker'
and then 'Soccer'. At Rugby School and elsewhere a different form of
play was used, in which handling the ball dominated the kicking element.
This grew into modern Rugby Union Football. The two games were formalised
at about the same time, the Football Association being established in 1863
and the Rugby Union in 1871.
"In Ireland, a game that was a blend of soccer and rugger, called
Gaelic Football, was becoming popular and was formalised in 1884. In
Australia a mixture of Gaelic Football and rugger was being played on
cricket pitches. It developed rapidly into the modern game of Australian
Rules Football, known affectionately as 'The Footy'. In the 1860s, soccer
of a sort was spreading to the United States, but under the influence of
rugger-playing Canadians from Montreal, the Americans switched from a
kicking game to the handling, run-with-the-ball game, and in 1874, American
Football was born. As time passed, this diverged slightly from Canadian
Football, so that today they are two distinct games, although both remain
clearly derived from Rugby Union. Back in England, in 1895, Rugby Union
suffered a split from which it has never recovered, when a large splinter
group formed the Rugby League, with slightly different rules again, with
the professional players in contrast to Rugby Union's amateurs.
"In a few short decades in the second half of the nineteenth
century, the foundations were laid for all seven of the modern games
of football. All established fixed rules and were systematically controlled
by official organisations. Football had come of age. Five of the games
(Rugby Union, Rugby League, American, Canadian and Australian) used an
ovoid ball, its shape reflecting the early use of inflated bladders, while
the other two (Association Football and Gaelic Football) employed a
spherical ball. Six of the seven variants followed the original Rugby
style in allowing the ball to be handled. Only one rejected this:
Association Football, and it is this form, the soccer game, that has come
to dominate the world. Clearly, soccer has special qualities that the
other variants lack. American, Canadian, Australian and Gaelic Football
have remained largely restricted to their countries of origin. For some
reason, they lack wide appeal. Rugger has fared a little better, taking
a hold not only in the British Isles but also in Australia, New Zealand,
South Africa and France. But that is as far as it goes. Soccer, in
dramatic contrast, is now played in 146 different nations [circa 1981] -
virtually the whole world - and when the World Cup is staged, FIFA, the
organising body, can proudly boast that it flies more flags than the
United Nations Organisation.
"So there are Soccer Tribes everywhere, in every remote corner of
the globe, making the game of Association Football the most all-embracing
and most successful sport of all time. More cultures have adopted it, more
people play it and far more people watch it than any other sport in the
history of mankind. It is the sport phenomenon of the twentieth century,
and its raging popularity shows not the slightest sign of abating. If
fewer people are attending soccer matches in certain countries than they
used to do, this is because they are watching more of it on television.
The obsession with the game remains just as high. And in some countries,
such as the United States of America, Japan and China, the sport is showing
a rapid increase in popularity."
[Copied without permission.]
==============================
Subject: Re: SOCCER OR FOOTBALL
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993
From: Garry Archer (archer@hsi.com)
To: scoffey@eecs.umich.edu (Sean Coffey)
Sean Coffey wrote:
> > In the USA and Canada, of course, there is Gridiron football.
>
> I've never heard this phrase used here by a native, and had been under
> the impression that it was exclusively a rec.sport.soccer term. Have
> you heard it used as a standard term?
You are probably correct in saying that the natives do not use that
term very much. I hear it on the telly a few times though. But I tend
to say "Gridiron" in rec.sport.soccer when differentiating between
"English" football and American football.
> > Rugby Union, Rugby League, Australian Rules,
> > Gaelic, American and Canadian football all owe their roots to
> > Association football.
>
> None of these owe their roots to Association football!
>
> Well, OK, that may be debatable, but certainly not all do. Australian
> rules was codified around the late 1850's (wasn't it?) and seems to
> bear no real resemblance to soccer, which didn't really come into its
> modern form until the same time or slightly later.
Ahhh, good thinking, but Aussie Rules _do_ owe their roots to Association
Football. Obviously the former hardly resembles the latter now, but
I'm sure some evolution has taken place. I'm no expert on the history
of Aussie Rules, but below is an example of them owing their roots to
Association Football:
["Football/Soccer Origins" from May 1991, see above]
> Gaelic football
> was codified in 1884 as part of a revival of national sports in
> Ireland, and the point seems to have been that it was _not_ either
> soccer or rugby (``foreign games''). The rules here seem designed
> also to mirror those of hurling, revived by the same organization.
I think you may be right of course. Perhaps one reason they chose an
ovoid ball was so that there would be no resemblence to rugby and the
very nature of the game precludes it from resembling soccer. This was
certainly true when the GAA reintroduced Gaelic Football and Hurling,
but in 1884 I read that their was movement that Gaelic Football should
be changed to be more like rugby and soccer which were poular in Britain
at the time. Since then, rugby and soccer and Gaelic football have
gone completely separate ways.
Gaelic football has certainly influenced the Aussie game, probably due
to many Irish criminals sentenced to the Australian penal colony during
the last century.
> American and Canadian football are clearly descended from rugby, and as
> far as I know were invented late in the last century by American
> universities tired of being steamrollered by English ones at rugby.
> So it really comes down to whether rugby is descended from soccer.
> I'd say no: they are both independent codifications of the medieval
> free-for-all, in which the only rules were that there were no rules.
See my "included text" above. Yes, American and Canadian football
descended from Rugby, but the same players were playing soccer first.
Naturally, an "integration" of the rules evolved.
> (I've heard the Ellis story too, but if true was this the impetus for
> an entirely new game? Was ``soccer'' then anything recognizable as
> soccer now? I've also heard that the headmaster at Rugby designed
> the game to turn the boys' energies to ``healthier pursuits.'' (!))
> In any case, the game is probably at least as close to the medieval
> brawl as soccer.
Correct again. Soccer was less refined in those days since the rules
were not standardised and adopted by any one institution. One school
played one set of rules and another school played it differently.
Eventually some rules evolved over time as each school began to shift
in favour of either the "handling code" or the "dribbling code". I
assume what happened at Rugby School was that it started as a dribbling
code school and decided to eventually adopt the handling code.
This is partly because the dribbling code was beginning to attract
the attention of the blue-collar masses, whereas the handling code
was defined as a "gentleman's game"... er, brawling with rules :-)
You'd have thought it would be the other way around wouldn't you?
But this reminds me of my posting about "Calcio" in Italy the other
day. Calcio was a rough and tumble sport, but it was only played
(or allowed to be played) by gentlemen, the aristocracy. Visiting
aristocrats from England were attracted by the idea of a gentlemen-
only type of sport. Eventually, rugby would evolve from this thinking.
> > Ever heard the phrase, "Soccer is a gentleman's game played by
> > ruffians and Rugby is a ruffian's game played by gentlemen"?
>
> ``Rugby is a bowsie's game played by gentlemen, and soccer is a
> gentleman's game played by bowsies ... but Gaelic football is a
> bowsie's game played by bowsies!''
I was thinking more about your statement:
> None of these [football codes] owe their roots to Association football!
Well, you are right, it is debatable. But let me respond by saying
that at one time that those supporting the handling code and those
supporting the dribbling code were trying to form a set of unifying
set of rules for the same game. There was considerable debate about
when you could handle the ball and when you could kick it. It formed
a tremendous argument.
Remember, each school had its own rules. Major inter-school games
were always preceded by a long correspondence and lengthy argument
about the conventions. When could you handle the ball? How many
players on each side? How long should the pitch be? etc, etc. Even
during the games confusion and protests would necessitate long
midfield conferences between the two captains.
The first serious attempts at laying down rules was in 1848 when
several public schools were represented by 14 men in 7 hours to
produce the so-called "Cambridge Rules". These rules resembled
many instances from both modern rugby and soccer. These rules
were constantly revised in the 1850s.
As you know by now, the Football Association was formed in 1863.
It initially contained the "Rugby" men as they were called. But the
formation was bitter and tempestuous. Both sides were stubborn
and so a split was ensured. The real divergence was not over
running with the ball, but over "hacking". Rugby men felt it was
manly and courageous to tackle an opponent by kicking him on the shin;
the dribbling men did not, and voted it out. The Rugby men called
the dribbling men cowards and walked out on the Football Association
forever.
Those Rugby men eventually formed the Rugby Union in 1871. But there
was "trouble at t'mill" there too. They were always fighting about rules
and another split occurred. The Rugby League was formed in 1895, with
slightly different rules again, with the professional players in contrast
to Rugby Union's amateurs.
[see also FA Cup Trivia 1
"FA Cup Trivia #4: The origins of the FA Cup", a detailed Q&A on the origins
of British football.]
==================================
2. Firsts In International Matches
==================================
From: Garry Archer (archer@hsi.com)
Subject: Re: Uruguay 1930 (Re: US WC telecast)
Date: Mar 7, 1990
walt@portia.Stanford.EDU (walter garcia-fontes) writes:
> Uruguay - Argentina is one of the oldest rivalries in the football world, ...
England and Scotland have been fighting it out for centuries... oh, football?
Oh, yeah, er... the first international football game *EVER* was England
versus Scotland. (Excuse me a minute, I *have* to look up the details here...)
Interesting Stuff!!! In chronological order:
First UNOFFICIAL International Match: England 1, Scotland 1 at Kennington Oval,
London, 5th March, 1870.(I have a full match report on this game! Too long to
type in here though...)
First OFFICIAL International Match: Scotland 0, England 0 at the West of
Scotland Cricket Club, Partick, Scotland, 30th November, 1872.
First International in North America: USA 0, Canada 1 at Newark, New Jersey,
28th November, 1885 (Not too many folks realise how rich a history in soccer
the USA has!)
First International between European countries: Austria 5, Hungary 0 at Vienna,
12th October, 1902.
First International in South America: Argentina 0, Uruguay 0 at Buenos Aires,
15th August, 1905.
First International between a British country and a non-British country:
Austria 1, England 6 at Vienna, 6th June, 1908.
First International in Asia: Philippines 2, China 1 at Manila, 4th February,
1913.
First International between a European country and a South American country:
Uruguay 3, Switzerland 0 at the Paris Olympic games, 9th June, 1924.
First International in the Middle East: Egypt 7, Palestine 1 at Cairo, 16th
March, 1934.
======================
3. Changes to The Laws
======================
From: caar14@vaxa.strath.ac.uk
Subject: Rule Changes
Date: 13 Jul 92 11:11:44 GMT
The following should hopefully give readers an idea of how much
the game of football has changed over the years. Many of the following
were probably just as radical in their time as the new FIFA back pass
rule is today.
The referee's whistle was first used on the Nottingham Forest ground
in 1878.
Goalnets were first invented and patented by a Mr Brodie of Liverpool
in 1890 and were first used in the North v South match in January
1891.
At the instance of the Irish Association the penalty kick was introduced
in the season of 1891-92. The rule about the penalty kick was made
2 June 1891 at the Alexandra Hotel in Glasgow. The inventor of the penalty
kick was William McCrum, a goalkeeper in Milford Everton, who played
in the Irish League in 1890/91. [- Odd-Magne Sekkingstad, 15/7/94]
The "two handed" throw-in was introduced in December, 1892.
It was decided at the annual meeting of the League, on 8 June, 1909,
that goalkeeper must play in distinctive colours, of scarlet, royal
blue, or white, so as to assist the referee. Royal green was added on
3 June, 1912. On June 2, 1924, it was decided that in cases where the
colours of teams clashed the visitors must change.
An alteration in the off-side law that a player shall not be out of
play when a throw-in is taken was made by the International Board in
June, 1920.
It was decided on 11 June, 1921, that all goalkeepers in international
matches must wear jerseys of deep yellow.
A goalkeeper's privilage of using his hands was restricted to the pen-
alty area in 1912.
The law respecting the distance within which opponents may approach
the ball during the taking of a free-kick was altered from six to ten
yards in 1913. The same alteration was made with respect to corner
kicks and goal kicks in 1914.
On the proposal of the Scottish F.A., the International Board at a
meeting in London on June 14, 1924, decided that a goal could be scored
from a corner kick.
A new off-side law was passed in 1925-26. At a meeting of the Inter-
national Board at Paris on 13th June, 1925, it was decided, on the
proposal of the Scottish F.A, that a player shall not be in an off-side
position if two (instead of three) opponents are nearer their goal line.
The penalty law, making it compulsory for a goalkeeper to stand still
on his goal-line until the ball is kicked, came into operation for the
season 1929-30.
----------------------------------------------
From: major@shuksan.boeing.com (Mike Schmitt)
cmorris@Ingres.COM (Colin Morris)
craig@svcs1.UUCP (Paul Craig)
Subject: Re: Backpasses&Effective Time-Good or Bad?
Date: 19 May 92 20:05:22 GMT
Also, nowhere in the "Laws of the Game" is there mentioned Red cards and
Yellow cards - only Cautions and Send Offs. I believe 'cards' are a
relatively new development - first used around 1982 or 1986 because of the
language problem in international games and World Cup games - introduced at
the suggestion of the famous former World Cup referee and referee teacher
from England, Ken Aston, I believe. I'm also pretty sure they appeared in
the English Football League before they migrated to the International arena.
-----------------------------------
From: Garry Archer (archer@hsi.com)
Subject: Football Trivia -- The Penalty Kick.
Date: February 18, 1996
The 1921-22 season English FA Cup Final between Preston North End (PNE)
and Huddersfield Town was significant in a couple of respects.
Huddersfield, then under new management of Herbert Chapman (who would
eventually revolutionise The Game), won their first major trophy, the
FA Cup.
The 1921-22 FA Cup Final was played at Stamford Bridge, London for the
last time. The FA had already associated themselves with a new development
at Wembley after toying with the idea of investing in the old Crystal
Palace ground after the British Army had relinquished it.
The FA Cup Final itself led to the modification of the penalty kick rule.
The match was thoroughly dull until the 67th minute when the referee gave
a highly controversial penalty. The PNE full-back, Hamilton, intentionally
brought Huddersfield's England left-winger Billy Smith crashing down as
Smith had a clear opportunity to score. Was it in the area? Amidst
furious protest from PNE, the referee, J.W.D. Fowler, said it was in the
area. Amidst national outroar Hamilton was _not_ sent off.
Smith picked himself up to take the kick, whereupon PNE's bespectacled
amateur goalkeeper, J.F. Mitchell, began to dance about in the goal
attempting to put Smith off. His antics were likened to "an excited
monkey on a stick awaiting the offer of a bag of peanuts."
Smith scored despite Mitchell and Huddersfield went on to win 1-0. Another
significant FA Cup first -- the Cup was won for the first time by a penalty.
As for the goalkeeper, his clowning around led to an important rule change:
Goalkeepers have to remain stationary when a penalty is taken.
==============================================================
4. Changes to The Offside Rule Which Led To The "WM" Formation
==============================================================
From: Garry Archer (archer@hsi.com)
Subject: Brief History of the Offside Rule.
Date: 17 Jul 90 17:02:14 GMT
The roots of the offside law can be found in the various "football" type
games played in the English public schools in the late 18th and early 19th
centuries (yes, I did mean "18th" century!). The Harrow rules were written
in the early 19th century (1810-20) and included an offside rule, that
basically stayed the same until the Football Association adopted another
type of offside rule in 1866.
The Harrow offside rule went something like this:
To receive the ball from any forward pass was unlawful.
Sound familiar? Yes, it is essentially the same rule used in Rugby football,
even to this day...
A Harrow player was offside simply by being "nearer the line of
the opponent's base (goal line) than the kicker".
Thus, for many decades the only way to advance the ball up the pitch (in
games using a ROUND ball) was to dribble. The natural tactic of the day was to
form a line of players VERTICALLY or DIAGONALLY down the pitch and then the
ball was passed BACKWARDS along the line from dribbler to dribbler (similar to
today's Rugby pass).
The earliest break from this concept was made in the Cambridge University
Rules of 1848 (reference an earlier posting in rec.sport.misc days), the
first rules to resemble modern football.
The Cambridge rules permitted a player to receive a FORWARD pass
if MORE THAN THREE opponents were between him and the goal line.
Cambridge players were still reminded not to "loiter between the
ball and the adversaries' goal".
However, this rule was not adopted in the Sheffield Rules of 1857, the second
important set of modern football rules. Nor in The Football Association
Laws of the Game in 1863, football's first official code. Accordingly,
the "dribbling (VERTICAL) game" continued until well into the 1860's.
In 1866, The Football Association in London adopted the three-opponent rule:
AT LEAST THREE opponents were required between a player and his
opponent's goal line.
In 1873, the Laws first spelled out:
The offside rule applied only at "the moment of kicking" (i.e.
the moment the ball is played).
Goal kicks had been exempt from the rule from the beginning, but a clause
added in 1880 specified "last played by an opponent". Corner kicks were
exempted in 1881-82.
Offside was limited to the opponent's half of the pitch in 1907, and throw-ins
were exempted in 1921.
The "three-opponent" rule remained basically unchanged until 1925 when the
International Football Association Board accepted a proposal by the
Scottish Football Association that reduced the required number of opponents
to two. The 1925 rule remained in force until after World Cup, Italy 1990,
except that it was remodelled with the rest of the Laws in 1938. The change of
one word, from "three" to "two" began a tactical revolution, starting with
Arsenal's now-famous W-M system. All tactical innovations since 1925 have
revolved around the two-opponent offside rule.
-----------------------------------
From: Garry Archer (archer@hsi.com)
Subject: Re: Brief History of the Offside Rule.
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 90 09:24:18 EDT
As far as I know, the only "pro" league to tamper with the venerable Laws
of The Game is the NASL. They changed the demarcation from the halfway line
to an arbitary line 35 yards from the goal. The NASL instituted this change
in their league rules in 1973. This was strongly disapproved by FIFA, by the
way, but FIFA never did take any action.
==================================
From: Garry Archer (archer@hsi.com)
Subject: Re: Q:History of Offside
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1993 16:11:04 -0500
"Vasudev" wrote:
>I did not quite get the point. What's the point in passing the ball backwards?
A player cannot be offside if the ball is passed back towards him. Two
forwards can be behind the defence, going one on one with the goalkeeper.
The forward with the ball draws the goalkeeper while the other forward
moves into space in front of the goal. If the forward with the ball passes
the ball forward then the second forward will be offside. If the second
forward hangs back a little, so that the pass is made backward to him, he
is still onside.
In the early days, the ball was literally "advanced" up the pitch by
running with it a little way, then passing backwards to another player
who would run a little way, etc. The same tactic is used in Rugby Union
and Rugby League to this day (except they toss the ball instead of kick
it, albeit they can kick it forward, but they _must_ throw it backwards.
This is a clear indication of rugby's and soccer's roots being one and
the same.
> For a corner kick, the kicker is as far down the pitch as possible.
> (At the end of it in fact.) Anyone receiving a corner kick must be defacto
> behind the kicker. Why would this rule have to be explicitly specified?
Good question. (I see that you already understood that you cannot be offside
if the ball is passed back to you... a corner kick is literally a pass back
down the pitch, albeit usually lobbed over in front of the goal.) I can
only assume that originally you _could_ be offside from a corner kick.
Someone somewhere must have made the logical connection that the kick is
being made back down the pitch and so if it was any other pass, then like
the other passes down the pitch, you could not be offside from it!
-----------------------------------
From: Garry Archer (archer@hsi.com)
Subject: Re: Re: Q:History of Offside [the W-M formation]
To: U34746%UICVM@UIC.EDU (John Binder)
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 1994 15:38:06 -0500
Firstly, the classic 2-3-5 formation, which is _not_ the W-M system, dates
back to the late 1870's. England's national team did not adopt it until
1884, followed by Scotland in 1887 by which time the formation was widely
adopted. Preston North End was the first really successful club to play
2-3-5, winning the League Championship in 1889 and 1890. It remained the
standard formation for 40 years.
The offside law changed in 1925. After this change, an Arsenal player by
the name of Charlie Buchan suggested to his manager, Herbert Chapman, that
the centre half in the traditional 2-3-5 system be pulled back into defence.
This became the new "stopper" position. To compensate the lost midfielder,
an inside forward who was more adept at distributing than goalscoring was
pulled back into a deep-lying forward position. This new formation, which
could be designated 3-2-1-4, was called "Charlie Buchan's Third Back Game"
and was adopted with great success by Chapman's Arsenal in the late 1920s.
The now famous W-M Formation was an immediate extension of Buchan's third
back plan, in which _both_ inside forwards, not just one, were drawn back.
This designation could said to be 3-2-2-3, a W-shaped defence, and an
M-shaped offence. Herbert Chapman is credited with this as his Arsenal
team went on to dominate English football with it in the 1930s. It became
world-famous and remained the standard formation in England, at least,
until the 1950s.
So the basic lineup before Buchan's third back plan and Champman's W-M system
was the basic 2-3-5 and, secondly, the W-M system did not predate the 1925
offside law change. It did, indeed, come because of it.