After yesterday’s soul searching post, reader Joe sent in a link to RL1908, a site dedicated to the history of rugby league. There are quite a few interesting articles there — including one which claims that Aussie Rules in 1858 was actually rugby and not the game we see today. (Wow, the rules of a game might change a few times over the course of a century and a half. I’m as shocked as you are.)
The article that grabbed my attention, though, was one about a practice that has since been banned in rugby league: leaping over tacklers like an Olympic hurdler. Apparently, this killed as many rugby players as the flying wedge in America, but as we all know, only death can stop a rugger bugger.
As the two opposing wingers again approached each other, the attacking (Billy) Batten took to the air to leap over the tackling (Albert) Asher’s head. But Batten’s timing was not perfected – and Asher saw his opportunity to bring the Englishman to ground.
Asher jumped in the air too!
The New Zealander’s head came into contact with Batten’s knee and they both hit the pitch hard. Asher was the worse for wear of the two as his head was gashed open. He was carried from the field to have ten stitches inserted in the wound, after which he returned to the fray.
Yes, New Zealand winger Albert Asher got his head stitched up and went back into the game. Somewhere, Andre Gurode suddenly feels like less of a man.
I’ve added RL1908.com to the links section on the far-right column. Go check it out when you get a minute.
8 responses so far ↓
1 a different dave // Dec 5, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Good article. I’m inclined to agree with the writer; the aussie rules mythmakers remind me a lot of the American gridiron mythmakers.
For instance in American “histories” of football you may hear mention of something called “the London Football Association” which is clearly intended to deceive the reader as to the true nature of the FA (which no one but American gridiron writers has ever called the “London” FA) and its role in the evolution of football.
You’ll also read in these American histories various claims about early American football games without mention that these were simply American versions of either the dribbling (soccer) or running (rugby) versions of football, or some combination of both, that originated in Britain.
Some of these “histories” still claim the first Princeton vs. Rutgers football game as the first American college football game even though that game was clearly a version of soccer as it was then codified by the FA, with some local modifications as to number of players and duration of the game.
Of course rugby has its own myths such as Webb Ellis inventing the game.
For that matter, baseball also has its own myth of American origins (ie Doubleday) but the fact remains it was derived from a British game called baseball (and not rounders, although the games are vaguely similar).
These myths seem to get created for reasons of nationalism and marketing more than anything else.
2 Sean // Dec 6, 2007 at 6:07 am
There is no “myth” about the origins of Aussie Rules.
Amazing how this guy is the first and only historian to make this claim. Afterall, what would you expect from an amateur Sydney based rugby league “historian” who has his head buried in rugby history books. Irish historians continue to push their agendas too, claiming that Aussie Rules is in fact Gaelic Football. When it suits them, rugby league fans will try to claim both.
There are various little truths in Fagan’s story, but they are all twisted to his agenda. His so called evidence that the first game was played on a rectangular field is basically hearsay based on unrelated accounts of the game “sometimes” in its history being played on such arenas and “sometimes” in its history being played with a rugby style offside rule, particularly in later matches against rugby team. Does this necessarily mean that it “always” did ? There are numerous depictions going right back to the early days of the game which show Australian football making the full use of cricket ovals. Take the 1879 lithograph of Victoria vs South Australia for example.
http://www.fullpointsfooty.net/is_1.htm
Should we excuse these harder proofs as fiction ? I think not.
To claim that this is a picture of rugby being played is pure nonsense. Since when has rugby had no offside, played man-on-man on a full sized oval ?
Full Points footy is a much more credible source than RL1908.com. check out that site when you get a moment.
On one hand this guy Fagan admits that rugby rules were incredibly scant in the 1850s, on the other hand he admits that the Melbourne Rules were set in concrete by 1859.
Then he goes on to claim that the unique rules weren’t unique because rugby had a “mark”, and some obscure account of rugby players in the 1880s (some decades later) experimented with the “handball”. Fagan uses vague referenences which don’t really stand up from a historical perspective, and he certainly has never published a thesis on the subject. The fact is despite superficial similarities they are and have always been different games. So does this guy have any argument ?
In fact there is more evidence that Aussie Rules is actually older than most people acknowledge.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_rules_football_-_Early_years_in_Victoria
The history is as detailed, if not moreso, than the history of other sports of the time.
The game played in Geelong’s league (founded by Tom Wills) had behind posts, handpassing and bouncing the ball, while not all the official Melbourne rules, have been traditions of the game in the Victorian goldfields as early as 1853. They were later merged into the sport in 1866. But none of these things are features of rugby football. The origins of soccer are in several sets of rules does that make it any less soccer ? I mean now try to tell a rugby league fan that their game is rugby union and see how they react ….
Aussie Rules has been waiting to celebrate its “official” birthdate for a century and a half. Who cares if a handful of diehard rugby league fans feel ripped off in their centenary year.
Whatever the case, no rugby league person could claim that, by 1908, the year of rugby league in Australia began, Australian Rules was not by then very much a unique national game.
3 Joe // Dec 6, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Dave, I should have told you up front about the site having a little anti-Aussie rules bias. I had no idea that you were going to post about the site.
I think there is some validity in his claims about Aussie rules coming from rugby, but a lot of it is hogwash.
However, there are a lot of factual, interesting articles on his site. I do recommend the site whole-heartidly. It is an interesting read for anyone who wants to know about the history of rugby league.
However, I should let your readers know that some of what he says about Aussie rules should be taken with a grain of salt.
P.S. Check out full points footy, too
4 a different Dave // Dec 6, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Dave,
See, this is why aussie rules fans beat up fans of rival football codes in bars!
(yes that was an attempt at a joke)
I’m sure there are lots of biased rugby league fans but to be fair, I’ve seen lots of aussie rules fans on the internet making the claim that their code is the “oldest” using lots of sources about what was going on in Australia in the 1850′s, while claiming that “soccer” was only created in 1863 when the FA was set up and “rugby” was only created in 1871 when the RFU was set up, etc., while ignoring the fact that the VFA was not set up until 1877 and that soccer and rugby go back in history in Britain long before the FA or RFU were set up, and are in fact older than any form of aussie rules.
American gridiron fans pull similar tricks to stretch out the age and history of their code. Just because these “historians” of whatever code get their books published, does not mean that they are approaching the subject from an unbiased perspective and don’t have an axe to grind or aren’t putting their conclusions ahead of the facts.
Anyway “rugby” circa 1858-1871 is a pretty amorphous “code”. The “aussie rules vs. rugby” types are engaging in a huge game of semantics. So what if aussie rules had rugby elements in it; it clearly was on an entirely separate line of development from rugby. That doesn’t mean that aussie rules inevitably had to develop into its own separate code of football, though; like other codes it could have merged with or been incorporated into either soccer or rugby, as happened for instance with Sheffield football and soccer.
5 Jeff // Dec 7, 2007 at 1:33 am
Brian Ching played an entire half against Ecuador with Kleenex stuffed up his nose to stop the bleeding. That’s kinda badass too, whatever you think of Ching’s striking ability.
6 Sean // Dec 7, 2007 at 3:08 am
Another Dave, like your namesake I am not one of those that really cares about who did what first, BUT I do care about those that dispute or disclaim the code’s unrefutable status as the only truly Australian game (besides 2 up that is), and unfortunately that is the agenda that Fagan and many of his Sydney based rugby league friends constantly attempt to do. The article he wrote was aimed straight at the AFL hating Sydney media.
One of the best things I like most about Dave’s blog is that, compared to most other blogs at least, it is so balanced, unbiased and has a world view. Obviously this means he gets more traffic.
But you have to understand a few things about Australia.
We get this whole “soccer is a billion years old”, “rugby is a trillion years old” crud shoved down our throats all the time.
In this age of globalisation, most people jump on bandwagons because they assume that because these games are more popular around the world, they must be better.
You have to understand that Australia is a very small country with a small history and not much culture to call our own.
But here, there is a massive “cultural cringe” that goes on. As a young country, every other country is somehow bigger, older and better than us. That is why we often blindly follow what others do, and also why there are so many Aussies now living in places like London and LA. It is why we still have the flag of the UK stuck in the top left corner of our flag.
The USA is probably protected from this because it is a global superpower and its mainstream sports are billion dollar industries. In Ireland, they’ve had to create laws and institutions in an effort to protect their culture.
Sadly, most Australians have no clue just how old the game of Australian Rules is, or for that matter even want to admit that it is actually a great game.
Some don’t realise that the game has been played continuously in every single Australian state and territory for almost a century. This is something that no other code of football in Australia can claim.
Many actually think the rest of the world dislike the game because they don’t play or watch it. But they don’t consider that you can’t dislike it if you’ve never even heard of it. Until a decade ago, even our Kiwi cousins across the Tasman would not know the Australian game from a bar of soap.
Things are slowly starting to change and a generation of Aussies are demonstrating their national pride. Sure you may get the odd Aussie Rules fanatic sticking up for the national code. Those that love the game of Australian Rules are passionate about it because it means so much to their culture. As a “new” sport on the world stage, it is near impossible to get noticed. For the very same reasons, they believe he game is one of the world’s best kept secrets. Some of them want it to be known, others want to keep it to ourselves. But for every spruker, there about ten (mostly fellow Australians – and mostly rednecks) who constantly tell them that their sport is an insignificant abberation and the fact it isn’t known or played in the “mother country” or anywhere else in the world is “proof”.
You’d be very much suprised to find that the biggest critics of the Australian game are actually Australians.
Back on topic though. Just about every aerial marking contest in Aussie Rules is a potential flying leap of death.
I mean check out Nick Reiwoldt’s recent gutsy effort to mark to see what I mean:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJGeSRJ5MMQ
Leaping into an oncoming player at full speed takes guts. And both players didn’t so much as flinch. Wearing no protective equipment, they simply get up and resume playing, as is often the case with Australian rules footballers. Because the nature of the game is such that accidental collisions do occur all the time, and no rule changes I can think of can prevent them from happening. Not that they haven’t tried. Metal stops, for example are allowed in rugby, but strictly not in Aussie Rules. They could potentially do some serious damage.
Anyway, avoiding tackles by a leap of death, to my knowledge, has never been officially banned in Aussie Rules. It have rarely seen it, but I have seen it happen.
While it isn’t exactly the same, there one classic moment that comes to mind.
Essendon Aussie Rules player Tim Watson in the 1980s hurdled a pack of players, break another tackle only to kick a goal running at full pace whilst finally being run down and tackled by an opponent.
http://www.veoh.com/videos/v641043JSdsE2Tp
Electrifying stuff !
7 Sean Fagan // Dec 19, 2007 at 12:30 am
While I appreciate the frank comments re my article on Aust rules in Melbourne in 1858, I at no time disputed that Aust rules became a uniquely Australian game.
The whole purpose of the article was to offer a counter view to the oft given statement that Aust rules was invented by Australians in a blinding flash of insight in 1858.
While I am happy to debate how far within the ambit of Rugby School laws the 1858 game in Melbourne was, what no one can state is that it was in 1858 a uniquely Australian invented game – and many Aust rules writers, fans and media do exactly that.
No one has challenged the prevailing Melbourne-view as no one from outside the Aust rules world has ever bothered to look at it – and equally, no one from within Aust rules has ever bothered to look (nor understood) the game’s context within the wider world of “football” in the mid-1800s.
And for those citing FullPointsFooty as a guiding reference, perhaps they could consider this statement from that writer: “…the earmarking of 1858 as the year in which Australian football was ‘born’ is a mere convenience, with nothing substantive to back it up.”
8 Dave // Dec 19, 2007 at 11:04 am
Maybe we just need to go back in history and figure out when the offside rule was abolished in Australia. Maybe then we’ll figure out when Aussie Rules was *really* born.