Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
English, Gaelic, Koori and what about the Scottish influence?
1 Single soled shoes, no iron
2 No tripping
3 Ball to pass imaginary line
4 A free kick if ball out of bounds
5 Pushing is allowed. Holding not illegal
6 Allow the ball to be lifted between fields
“playing semantics”?
As has already been mentioned a few times various forms of "folk" football existed for centuries in the British Isles (and in parts of continental Europe).
They often share many commonalities.
No surprise that many of the football rules from various English schools from the 1840s and 1850s have common features (and that all the modern footballs share some terminology).
In that 1858 to 1871 period, there is an observable tension between two clear camps: those who wish to run with the ball and those who wish to kick the ball (often both having the option of kicking out of hand in certain circumstances).
At least two modern forms of football: Australian and Gaelic, got stuck in the middle of the two camps, for whatever reason.
Absolutely no one should be surprised that an array would exist between these two extremities, for anyone to think otherwise is foolhardy. In fact, the histories of both soccer and rugby show some movement along the array in different directions at different times.
Given we know so little about how these forms of "folk" football were played, other than it often occurred over big distances, often across the land separating two villages, it's almost impossible for anyone to conclude what was the biggest influence on what.
What we do know is that that 1859 codification (of Melbourne Rules), is relatively early in the piece in the context of modern football.
Some things I dislike about these sorts of discussions:
- people often use a 21st century lens to attach importance to things like the shape of playing fields and balls, when circa 1858-60, the shape of such things mean absolutely nothing;
- people beating the drum of one particular type of football, jump to extraordinary conclusions given some sort of historical quirk. For example, I can recall finding out how one form of "folk" football made goals out of two balconies facing each other, i.e. the ball would have to have been thrown or kicked above one story onto the balcony to be a score - I can recall one soccer "historian" concluding that this was most likely an early form of soccer - well, why would it mean that?? One could almost draw the exact opposite conclusion! (that conceptually, the balcony is more like a rugby or American football goal)
I would think he meant football, I hope this helps.
As has already been mentioned a few times various forms of "folk" football existed for centuries in the British Isles (and in parts of continental Europe).
Some things I dislike about these sorts of discussions:
- people often use a 21st century lens to attach importance to things
“What's the difference to the big kick and the "little kick"?l
sorry, never come across these terms in the Australian rules resources I have examined, where did they come from?
in 1897 the "little mark" was abolished.
Again, there is no mention of the introduction of the "little mark" as there is no mention of the hand-pass.
1877 A player cannot the ball to another player.
Wow your testing my memory now and going back many years.“What's the difference to the big kick and the "little kick"?l
sorry, never come across these terms in the Australian rules resources I have examined, where did they come from?
Jesus that is my line…sorry for all my sins …and hallowed be my name ..yes I am scared…What is going on in your head??!?!
From memory the little kick was a very short pass used mainly in the fwd line so that the goal sneak could get into a better position to kick the goal. so how was it passed besides kicking.
Perhaps it was handed to the other team mate in the packs is one theory.
Wills was probably the first to utilise a player away from the pack,
the history of the little mark, the fors and againsts, the change in rules re distance for a mark, the change in rules “kicked to another player” and the use of hand ball in the early days,.[/QUOTEI
Are not reflected in the rules until after the fact.
No.Was this because he played Marngrook ?
I would have thought this would have appeared in the experimental games prior to codification.
the history of the little mark, the fors and againsts, the change in rules re distance for a mark, the change in rules “kicked to another player” and the use of hand ball in the early days,.
It was relatively common for longer marks taken deep in the pockets to moved to a better angle for players to successively take the mark a few inches off the boot of their teammates several times in a row. That would have gone down well with opposition fans!I remember reading about the little kick.
Around the late 1800s, pre-VFL, there must have been a time when a kick didn't have to travel any distance to be called a mark, so there was a period where players would do tiny kicks to each other and claim the mark.
It got so bad, one article of the period said that some marks were paid with the ball barely touching the boot of the original kicker.
At the meeting of codification it was recorded that Tom Wills suggestion were rejected.
"Historians" immediately assume that was rugby rules that was rejected due to Tom Wills connection with rugby
but that makes no sense as everybody knew the rules of rugby and would have recognised them as such.