A Rugby critic on Australian football
Comparison between the Rugby and Australian games is apt to be forced during the season by the presence in Australia of the English team. In due time the question of superiority will no doubt be definitely settled in New South Wales, which, from being once entirely Rugby, now devotes its attention largely to the Australian game, which in both the northern and southern ends of the colony is making rapid strides. The fittest will, no doubt, survive.
In the meantime, it is desirable that wherever a comparison is made it should be a strictly fair one. In New Zealand, where two Victorian footballers have lately been engaged in teaching the members of the English team our rules, several scratch matches at the Australian game have been played, and the writers upon football in the New Zealand papers have taken advantage of the opportunity to institute comparison between the two games. Remembering that those playing the Australian game were for the most part novices, the comparison could hardly be otherwise than unfavourable to it, and, indeed, under the circumstances, it was foolish to attempt a comparison at all.
The point as already stated may be much more fairly settled in New South Wales where both games are played to something like perfection and in many of the inland towns, such as at Maitland for example, the Australian and Rugby games flourish side by side. But to accept a chance Rugby game played in Melbourne, or a scratch Australian match in New Zealand as throwing any light upon the point, is carrying the enthusiasm of the partisan to extremes.
As a sample of the criticism to which the Australian game has been subject, the following comments of a writer in the Weekly Press are interesting. In the first place, the title Australasian game is termed an impertinence since the game is not played in New Zealand. As a matter of fact, however, the game bears no such title, and throughout the Australian colonies is known as the Australian game. The writer continues as follows:-
*"An old footballer here described the game to me on Monday as follows:- Tho Melbournites obtained the rules of all the games of football ever played, picked out the worst points in each and putting them together called that the Victorian game. Well, without endorsing altogether such a sweeping assertion, a friend of mine who has seen the game played frequently characterizes it as a childish form of sport, and cannot understand what there is in it to attract men.
I must confess to agreeing with him. It seems to me that almost everything lawful in Rugby or Association is made unlawful in the Victorian game and vice versa. For example there is off-side in Rugby, none in the Victorian. Passing is one of the prettiest parts of the Rugby game, and knocking on is unlawful. In the Victorian you must not pass, but only punch the ball any way.
Running, one of the most exciting elements in the Rugby game, is spoiled by the law in the Victorian that the ball must be bounced every seven yards, although let me point out, on Monday this law was frequently broken, and that, strange to say, most of all by the Victorians engaged, McShane and Lawlor frequently running 10 or 12 yards without bouncing the ball. In the Rugby game punting a goal is indulged in only by forwards who lose their heads; in the Victorian it is one way to score.
Then, again, in Association, players must, not handle, but may head or breast the ball. Just the opposite in the Victorian. In Rugby a throw from touch often leads to fine line-out play. In the Victorian the field umpire bumps the ball in, or in crazy fashion throws it over his head. As to danger I can conceive nothing more dangerous than the reckless charging allowed at men making marks.
At the best the game is a hybrid, and unless a few Victorians get together will never be naturalised here or at home. I suppose Melbourne will stick to it, as she does to most things invented or patronised by herself. But here we are not likely to give up our own game with its dribbling, running, and passing for the sake of a game which rejoices in a ‘goal sneak’.*
Taking the objections in detail, it is considered a blot upon the Australian game that passing, otherwise throwing from hand, described as one of the beauties of the Rugby game, is not permitted. The objection, if really it be an objection, can scarcely be sustained, for passing is allowed in our game, only bearing in mind that the game is football, and not handball, the players pass the ball with their feet. In this, indeed, rests one of our chief indictments against Rugby, viz., that what with tucking the ball under the arm and running the length of the ground, or engaging when collared in what is elegantly termed a "scrum," the game becomes a race, a go-as-you-please contest, a wrestling match - anything you may name, indeed, except football.
Fault is also found with the Australian being obliged to bounce the ball as he runs. We who have seen the Australian game at its best know that bouncing the ball does not affect a player's speed when he becomes proficient in it. Were it otherwise, the man who runs with the ball would have a poor chance of covering any distance with teams of twenty in the field. It requires, however, more intelligence and cleverness than merely hugging the ball and running away with it, and in so far tends to lessen the elements of "brute force and blind ignorance," which an old Rugby player who had deserted that game for Association described as the chief points of his earlier pastime.
The two Victorian players - McShane and Lawlor - are, however, accused of running more than seven yards without bouncing. Of course, it was inexcusable in mentors, but they probably imposed on a lenient umpire, and were unaware that so keen a critic as "Three-quarter Back" had his eye upon them. It may be explained for the benefit of Rugby men that this law of bouncing is not too rigidly enforced." Custom hath given it a property of easiness," and a few yards more or less is not considered a cause for complaint. One may, indeed, watch half-a-dozen first-class games without seeing a free kick given for a breach of this law.
This keenness in the detection of breaches by Australian players of their own laws would naturally lead to the supposition that the rules of Rugby are rarely, if ever, broken, and that the two umpires and referee who do the work, the bulk of which is allotted to one umpire in Victoria, are merely ornamental adjuncts of the game. Strangely enough, however, the same writer, in his Rugby notes, complained of laws being repeatedly broken in matches in which the Englishmen took part.
The absurdity of punting a goal is the next blot discovered. Well, the fact is that we have no rules of etiquette upon the question, and a player who gets the chance for a goal may place, drop, or punt just as he pleases. The goals obtained from the two former kicks, in our senior matches, are, however, in proportion to the latter probably as 20 to 1.
In pointing out that the Australian player takes the ball in his hands, while the Association man butts it inelegantly with his head, the advocate of Rugby is surely straining for the point, and in his over-anxiety scoring against himself. In one or two remarks the New Zealand writer betrays the fact that his knowledge of the Australian game where once correct is sometimes ancient. The umpire does not throw the ball in from the bounds "in crazy fashion over his head," but, instead, faces the players when throwing it. At one time, indeed, it was thought necessary that an umpire, in order to rid himself of even the suspicion of partiality, should turn his back upon the players. As soon as the idea was shown to be no longer necessary, it was abandoned; and here, indeed, points of difference may be discovered between Australian and Rugby football, if the followers of the latter choose to look for them.
Mention of a "goal sneak,"' the possession of which is evidently considered a reproach, again shows that the Australian game has progressed somewhat too rapidly for its critics. The term is long since obsolete, but even admitting its existence, Rugby players may rest assured that it sounds not a whit more ridiculous in their ears than such a phrase, for example, as "screwing the scrum " - one of the points of merit, by the way, which "Three-quarter Back" discovers in the play of the Englishmen - would be in the ears of followers of the Australian game."
As to danger I can conceive nothing more dangerous than the reckless charging allowed at men making marks." This last complaint is surely the furthest flight of all into the realms of fancy. The fourteenth rule of the Australian game reads as follows:-
"Pushing with the hands or body is allowed only when a player is running within five or six yards of the ball. Pushing from behind shall not be allowed under any circumstances. N.B. - Any player infringing this rule shall be reported to the association by the field umpire, and dealt with as the association may think fit."
A player will require to be rather clever before he can recklessly charge an opponent in the act of making a mark, and yet escape the consequences of so stringent a rule as that just quoted, the penalty for a breech of which - or otherwise rough and brutal play - is not left to the discretion of the umpire. As for the play being childish, the Englishmen, after their Victorian matches, and upon their return tour through New Zealand, will be in a position to remove all wrong impressions upon that head.
Without subjecting the teams to the same risk of injury as at Rugby, it strains the physical capacity of players to the utmost and a first-class game of football in Melbourne requires very much the same strict training on the part of the competitors as any other branches of athletics, save perhaps a champion sculling match. That Rugby is more a matter of brute strength is shown in the greater weight of the players, the English team at Canterbury, for example, averaging 12st, 6lb. And the consequence, with a very fair idea of the character of Rugby play, is shown in the following fragments from the reports of the play in one match:-
"Stuart was hurt in the groin, and had to be carried off the field. Then Moorehouse and Banks were successively injured. The latter hopped off the field just as Stuart slowly hobbled on again. Banks did not return. After a short respite, owing to Bumby receiving a kick on the neck, the whistle sounded for the interval. Wattman, a fine forward from Wairarapa and one of the best in the colony, rushed at him, but Spackman stooped before the charge, and Waturan falling headlong over the Runcorn player, snapped his left leg above the ankle. Another misfortune here before them, Thomson having his shoulder hurt. Haslam had to retire for a few minutes in consequence of a blow on the thigh received in rolling into touch."
The list might be multiplied, but is quite long enough as it stands. "Stooping before the charge," so graphically described as the cause of a broken leg, was once known as "rabbitting" in Australia, but has long since been prohibited as unfair and unmanly. Reports as to the progress of the wounded follow quite naturally upon such a game. Here are samples: - "It is doubtful if Banks and Stuart, who were hurt in the match against Wellington, will again play during the present tour in New Zealand. Of the local team Warbrick and Moorehouse are a good deal bruised and shaken.
"It is much to be regretted that the injury to Stoddart's ankle in the match on March 19 is more serious than was at first thought. He was confirmed to his bed on May 10, and we hear that it is improbable that the team will have the services of this brilliant three-quarter during their stay in New Zealand."
It becomes really a matter of some concern to Victorians whether, in face of such a list of casualties - which we know by cable were further multiplied in subsequent matches - a sufficient number of the Englishmen, free from bruises and fractures will reach us to make a team. Wellington has indeed, as the local papers put it, "made a record in disabling more opponents than Otago and Canterbury put together," though no doubt both the latter teams made their work in the same direction. Nor is it surprising to learn, too, that "all through the match the umpires had a lively time of it.” Were it not for the necessity for correcting errors into which critics of the Australian game have so persistently fallen, no better testimony in its favour could perhaps be given than the printing of the report of one of our premiership matches side by side with such a game as that of England v. Wellington.
Footnotes
Title: A Rugby critic on Australian football Author: 'Observer' (Donald MacDonald) Publisher: The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1956) Date: Saturday 2 June 1888 p 6 Article Web: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/6129465
Comments
This article does not contain any comments.
Login to leave a comment.