Research Marngrook

Remove this Banner Ad

Wills himself would have had no idea what he did as a kid by the time the end came for the poor bugger.
 
royals1922 said:
I'll be blunt- go to the facts- in Trove there are 2 references to Marngrook before 1992 - that's right 2.....

Historians want , whether for reasons of pro aboriginal or anti anglophile leanings to make the connection between the two but the basic problem is there is nothing to substantiate a connection.

I'm not on either side -whether Aussie Rules was generated from the aboriginal game or the English game matters nought personally to me. That said it would appear that historians and journalists are trying to confect a correlation of AFL to Marngrook when the evidence is just not there.
Click to expand...

Out of interest how many pro indigenous stories appear?

Is the story that a widely played sport has origins in an indigenous game going to be found appealing by the white readership?


I haven't done a lot of research on the subject what I do believe is that Football is a coming together of a lot of different things, the indigenous game being one of them.

I don't believe that AFL and Marngrook are so intrinsically connected that without one we wouldn't have the other. What I do believe is that the game now referred to as marngrook is an ingredient in the mix of things that came together to give us the game of AFL.

Cricket has as much connection to the sport as the indigenous game does.
 
Only Forwards said:
Out of interest how many pro indigenous stories appear?

Is the story that a widely played sport has origins in an indigenous game going to be found appealing by the white readership?


I haven't done a lot of research on the subject what I do believe is that Football is a coming together of a lot of different things, the indigenous game being one of them.

I don't believe that AFL and Marngrook are so intrinsically connected that without one we wouldn't have the other. What I do believe is that the game now referred to as marngrook is an ingredient in the mix of things that came together to give us the game of AFL.

Cricket has as much connection to the sport as the indigenous game does.
Click to expand...
The focus here is on Tom Wills. A contemporary article (Australasian page 23, april 13 1929) is insightful because it:

1. Refers to Tom Wills as a great sportsman;
2. Says that upon his arrival from England where he played rugby;
3. Says that Wills was an even greater cricketer being known as the greatest all rounder of the time and a great tactician and was called "the Grace off Australia";
4.In 1866 organised a tour of aboriginal cricketers to England but was unable to get away.

Much, if not all, of this is known but what is interesting is that in 1929 , the father of football is said to be H Harrison. Further that there is no antipathy or perjorative reference to aboriginals. Further the report refers specifically to him playing rugby and lastly accredits him with being a much better cricketer.

Again only inferential.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The first written set of Sheffield Rules laws were produced at the club's first annual general meeting on 21 October 1858. The original draft was amended at the same meeting to produce the following set of rules for the 1858–59 season.

1.The kick off from the middle must be a place kick.
2.Kick out must not be more than 25 yards [23 m] out of goal.
3.A fair catch is a catch from any player provided the ball has not touched the ground or has not been thrown from touch and is entitled to a free-kick.
4.Charging is fair in case of a place kick (with the exception of a kick off as soon as a player offers to kick) but he may always draw back unless he has actually touched the ball with his foot.
5.Pushing with the hands is allowed but no hacking or tripping up is fair under any circumstances whatever.
6.No player may be held or pulled over.
7.It is not lawful to take the ball off the ground (except in touch) for any purpose whatever.
8.The ball may be pushed or hit with the hand, but holding the ball except in the case of a free kick is altogether disallowed.
9.A goal must be kicked but not from touch nor by a free kick from a catch.
10.A ball in touch is dead, consequently the side that touches it down must bring it to the edge of the touch and throw it straight out from touch.
11.Each player must provide himself with a red and dark blue flannel cap, one colour to be worn by each side.


note how laws 2 - 6 are very familiar to the rules as refined in 1860 by a meeting of the Melbourne Football Club but with some input from other existing clubs.

1. The distance between the goals and the goal posts shall be decided upon by the captains of the sides playing.

2. The captains on each side toss for choice of goal; the side losing the toss has the kick-off from the centre point between the goals.

3. A goal must be kicked fairly between the posts without touching either of them or any portion of the person of one of the opposite side. In case of the ball being forced between the goal posts in a scrimmage, a goal shall be awarded.

4. The game shall be played within a space of not more than 200 yds [182.9 metres] wide, the same to be measured equally on either side of a line drawn through the centre of the two goals; and the two posts, to be called kick-off posts, shall be erected at a distance of twenty yards [18.3 metres] on each side of the goal posts at both ends, and in a straight line with them.

5. In case the ball is kicked behind the goal, any one of the side behind whose goal it is kicked, may bring it twenty yards in front of any portion of the space between the "kick-off" posts, and shall kick it nearly as possible in line with the opposite goal.

6. Any player catching the ball directly from the foot may call "mark". He then has a free kick; no player from the opposite side being allowed to come inside the spot marked.

7. Tripping, holding and hacking are strictly prohibited. Pushing with the hands or body is allowed when any player is in rapid motion or in possession of the ball, except in the case provided for in Rule 6.

8. The ball may not be lifted from the ground in any circumstances, or taken in hand, except as provided for in Rule 6 (catch from the foot) or when on the pick-up. It shall not be run with in any case.

9. When a ball goes out of bounds (same being indicated by a row of posts) it shall be brought back to the point where it crossed the boundary line, and thrown in at right angles with that line.

10. The ball, while still in play, must under no circumstances, be thrown.

11. In case of a deliberate infringement of any of the above rules, by either side, the captain of the opposite side may claim that any one of his party may have a free kick from the place where the breach of the rules was made; the two captains in all cases, save where umpires are appointed, to be the sole judges of "infringements".
 
There are quite a few reference to Aboriginal football in the 19th century which are reproduced on Jim Poulter's webpage that are worth posting in this thread. The first is from Richard Thomas who, as Protector of the Aborigines wrote in 1841, the following:

"The men and boys joyfully assemble when this game is to be played. One makes a ball of possum skin, somewhat elastic, but firm and strong. The players of this game do not throw the ball as a white man might do, but drop it and at the same time kicks it with his foot.

"The tallest men have the best chances in this game. Some of them will leap as high as five feet from the ground to catch the ball. The person who secures the ball kicks it.

"This continues for hours and the natives never seem to tire of the exercise."

Another from James Dawson in an 1881 book describes a game he saw in 1844:

"One of the favourite games is football, in which fifty, or as many as one hundred players, engage at a time. The ball is about the size of an orange and is made of opossum skin, with the fur side outwards. It is filled with pounded charcoal, which gives solidarity without much increase of weight, and is tied hard around with kangaroo tail sinews. The players are divided into two sides and ranged in opposing lines, which are always of a different 'class' -- white cockatoo against black cockatoo, quail against snake, etc.

Each side endeavours to keep possession of the ball, which is tossed a short distance by hand, and then kicked in any direction. The side which kicks it oftenest and furtherest gains the game. The person who sends it highest is considered the best player. And has the honour of burying it in the ground till required next day.

The sport is concluded with a shout of applause and the best player is complimented on his skill. This game, which is somewhat similar to the white man's game of football, is very rough; but as the players are barefoot and naked, they do not hurt each other so much as the white people do; nor is the fact of an aborigine being a good football player considered to entitle him to assist in making laws for the tribe to which he belongs."

There are some other accounts of aboriginal football re-produced on that page as well.
 
As pointed out a few times, there were two references in Trove to Marngrook pre 1980.

There was the Argus of 16 August 1934 at page 4 which said:

"There was a form of football that was older than any of these (ie the then 4 codes) that went out of fashion nearly 100 years ago. it was called Marngrook and played by the aborigines near Melbourne. A round ball was made of opossum skin, rolled hard, 8 inches in diameter. The black boys kicked this high in the air, and the highest kicker won the game. They played with great vigour while the old men sat around, giving advice and judging. Girls also played the game but did not kick the ball, they merely threw it one another".

Then there was the Australian Town and country Journal of 11 May 1901 at page 53 which said:

"Again the native ball game is called "Marn Grook".The ball is made of opossum skin, and is "punted out" by some man of mark. The kick is a regular "punt" not a "drop" or "place" kick, and the sides struggle for it as when the ball is knocked out in our modern Rugby game"


Two different descriptions....

Mind you I like the Argus version - young men playing and old men judging:thumbsu:
 
It, the game that the indigenous played has a role.

AFL is not that game.

But AFL is not Rugby, or cricket.

For me there is a connection, it may not be written however there are traits from the indigenous game, that crossed over, as there are traits from rugby and cricket.

I find it hard to believe that convergent evolution would happen (2 games similar traits no connection) given the proximity to each other.

There is some form of influence there.
 
Subprime said:
There are quite a few reference to Aboriginal football in the 19th century which are reproduced on Jim Poulter's webpage that are worth posting in this thread. The first is from Richard Thomas who, as Protector of the Aborigines wrote in 1841, the following:

"The men and boys joyfully assemble when this game is to be played. One makes a ball of possum skin, somewhat elastic, but firm and strong. The players of this game do not throw the ball as a white man might do, but drop it and at the same time kicks it with his foot.

"The tallest men have the best chances in this game. Some of them will leap as high as five feet from the ground to catch the ball. The person who secures the ball kicks it.

"This continues for hours and the natives never seem to tire of the exercise."

Another from James Dawson in an 1881 book describes a game he saw in 1844:

"One of the favourite games is football, in which fifty, or as many as one hundred players, engage at a time. The ball is about the size of an orange and is made of opossum skin, with the fur side outwards. It is filled with pounded charcoal, which gives solidarity without much increase of weight, and is tied hard around with kangaroo tail sinews. The players are divided into two sides and ranged in opposing lines, which are always of a different 'class' -- white cockatoo against black cockatoo, quail against snake, etc.

Each side endeavours to keep possession of the ball, which is tossed a short distance by hand, and then kicked in any direction. The side which kicks it oftenest and furtherest gains the game. The person who sends it highest is considered the best player. And has the honour of burying it in the ground till required next day.

The sport is concluded with a shout of applause and the best player is complimented on his skill. This game, which is somewhat similar to the white man's game of football, is very rough; but as the players are barefoot and naked, they do not hurt each other so much as the white people do; nor is the fact of an aborigine being a good football player considered to entitle him to assist in making laws for the tribe to which he belongs."

There are some other accounts of aboriginal football re-produced on that page as well.
Click to expand...
I read the Poulter website- in essence it said I don't know the facts but I think it did.

The simple fact is that most of the Trove newspapers were not digitalised until recently and a lot more still remain to be digitalised.

As stated above- I don't care if AFL is or is not based, influenced or reflects Marn Grook but the history does not establish that.
 
What does history establish?

- there was an indigenous game that has similar traits to Aussie rules and has been described as:
Each side endeavours to keep possession of the ball, which is tossed a short distance by hand, and then kicked in any direction. The side which kicks it oftenest and furtherest gains the game
Again the native ball game is called "Marn Grook".The ball is made of opossum skin, and is "punted out" by some man of mark. The kick is a regular "punt" not a "drop" or "place" kick, and the sides struggle for it as when the ball is knocked out in our modern Rugby game"
- This game was played in and around the time of the creation of Aussie Rules
- This game was played in areas near where Aussie Rules were created

is the above fair?
 
Only Forwards said:
What does history establish?

- there was an indigenous game that has similar traits to Aussie rules and has been described as:
Each side endeavours to keep possession of the ball, which is tossed a short distance by hand, and then kicked in any direction. The side which kicks it oftenest and furtherest gains the game
Again the native ball game is called "Marn Grook".The ball is made of opossum skin, and is "punted out" by some man of mark. The kick is a regular "punt" not a "drop" or "place" kick, and the sides struggle for it as when the ball is knocked out in our modern Rugby game"
- This game was played in and around the time of the creation of Aussie Rules
- This game was played in areas near where Aussie Rules were created

is the above fair?
Click to expand...
Well the two reports I posted above are not of exactly the same game with the aim of the game being apparently different. There is also divergent evidence as to the extent wills knew of the aboriginal game ( if indeed there was just one game) and his involvement in that.

I suspect that there remains a lot of work to be completed on this because until all the contemporary sources are checked, we have only a partial answer.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Only Forwards said:
It, the game that the indigenous played has a role.

AFL is not that game.

But AFL is not Rugby, or cricket.

For me there is a connection, it may not be written however there are traits from the indigenous game, that crossed over, as there are traits from rugby and cricket.

I find it hard to believe that convergent evolution would happen (2 games similar traits no connection) given the proximity to each other.

There is some form of influence there.
Click to expand...
AFL isn't even a game, for starters.
 
royals1922 said:
I read the Poulter website- in essence it said I don't know the facts but I think it did.

The simple fact is that most of the Trove newspapers were not digitalised until recently and a lot more still remain to be digitalised.

As stated above- I don't care if AFL is or is not based, influenced or reflects Marn Grook but the history does not establish that.
Click to expand...

There are several published histories of Australian football, if you want to go beyond Trove, which is newspapers I take it.

The first one I read was 'A game of our own' by Geoffrey Blainey and his theory, in a rough nutshell, was that because the headmasters of the various schools in Melbourne in the 1850's came from different English schools, and somewhat due to rainfall patterns, a composite game was invented.

Gillian Hibbins went along with this as I recall, in the official history published in 2008, but also proffered that because the publican of the hotel where the 1858 rules were written, played cricket at Surrey then the form of football played at Surrey, may have been an influence.

If you are looking for an explanatory document that notes the sources of the game then, to my knowledge, it has not been found, if it ever existed.

Documents show that football was played in Victoria by Aborigines before and during the time when Australian football was developed. No one has yet found a document that says it was an influence but as far as I know there isn't a document that that states any particular game was an influence.

So that leaves plenty of room to speculate, at least as far as I'm concerned, and Aboriginal footy was in the right place at the right time and could be viewed as a spectacle, not just as words on a page.
 
Subprime said:
as I know there isn't a document that that states any particular game was an influence.
Click to expand...

The rulemakers mentioned Rugby, Eton, Harrow etc as their starting point. They constantly referred to Tom Brown's Schooldays and the ethos of muscular Christianity. The evidence for English public school football being the primary influence is overwhelming.
 
SpareTowel said:
The rulemakers mentioned Rugby, Eton, Harrow etc as their starting point. They constantly referred to Tom Brown's Schooldays and the ethos of muscular Christianity. The evidence for English public school football being the primary influence is overwhelming.
Click to expand...

According to Gillian Hibbins, James Thompson, who was on the original rules committee as secretary, said this in 1860 "the rare old 'bullies', so famous, at one time at least, at Winchester, Eton and Harrow, have no place in Victoria".

Those schools may have been a starting point but that is as stark a rejection as you can get.

Thompson also wrote in 1860 that "Football, as played in Victoria, is now fit to run alone...because we seem to have agreed on a code of our own."

As far as I know all of the English school games had offside rules, Rugby had 6 laws relating to offside apparently.

Offside rules define football codes. It is the thing that stands out most obviously when you see them. Blainey saw football as a preparation for the battlefield as England hadn't seen conflict since Waterloo. On the battlefields of the 19th century and before the enemies opposed each other.

Yet Australian football has never had an offside rule. In this fundamental aspect of the game 'the primary influence' is nowhere to be seen. So as far as I can tell, this defining feature did not come from Rugby, Winchester, Eton or Harrow.
 
Subprime said:
According to Gillian Hibbins, James Thompson, who was on the original rules committee as secretary, said this in 1860 "the rare old 'bullies', so famous, at one time at least, at Winchester, Eton and Harrow, have no place in Victoria".

Those schools may have been a starting point but that is as stark a rejection as you can get.

Thompson also wrote in 1860 that "Football, as played in Victoria, is now fit to run alone...because we seem to have agreed on a code of our own."

As far as I know all of the English school games had offside rules, Rugby had 6 laws relating to offside apparently.

Offside rules define football codes. It is the thing that stands out most obviously when you see them. Blainey saw football as a preparation for the battlefield as England hadn't seen conflict since Waterloo. On the battlefields of the 19th century and before the enemies opposed each other.

Yet Australian football has never had an offside rule. In this fundamental aspect of the game 'the primary influence' is nowhere to be seen. So as far as I can tell, this defining feature did not come from Rugby, Winchester, Eton or Harrow.
Click to expand...
The full Thompson quote: "Football, as played in Victoria, is now fit to run alone. I have accordingly omitted the Rugby and Eton rules, because we seem to have agreed to a code of our own, which, to a considerable extent, combines the merits while excluding the vices of both."

The "vices" were shin-kicking and tripping - tactics employed by "old bullies" at the English public schools. That's why a committee was set up in the first place, to address the problem of excessive violence. The Melbourne footballers also wanted the rules to be as simple as possible so men from different public schools could easily pick up the game. I'm pretty sure Eton, Rugby etc had different offside rules, so the Melbourne men probably did away with offside altogether to avoid confusion.
 
SpareTowel said:
The full Thompson quote: "Football, as played in Victoria, is now fit to run alone. I have accordingly omitted the Rugby and Eton rules, because we seem to have agreed to a code of our own, which, to a considerable extent, combines the merits while excluding the vices of both."

The "vices" were shin-kicking and tripping - tactics employed by "old bullies" at the English public schools. That's why a committee was set up in the first place, to address the problem of excessive violence. The Melbourne footballers also wanted the rules to be as simple as possible so men from different public schools could easily pick up the game. I'm pretty sure Eton, Rugby etc had different offside rules, so the Melbourne men probably did away with offside altogether to avoid confusion.
Click to expand...

I don't see how doing away with offside rules avoids confusion if everyone is influenced by English school games and is therefore used to offside rules. Surely they would have just adjusted the offside rules to a common position or adopted one set. They had the rulebooks with them so it would not have been that hard.

Dropping them altogether from the start is a bit more than avoiding confusion, it is a major philosophical change. They aren't preparing young men for the battlefield anymore which is what the public school games were about.

On the full quote, Thompson was the chap who published a pamphlet with Rugby, Eton and Melbourne rules one year and then just Melbourne rules the next, that's the context of that quote I think. If it is then I think Hibbins thought he dropped Rugby and Eton rules from his pamphlet in order to promote the code he partly wrote the first rules for.
 
Subprime said:
Surely they would have just adjusted the offside rules to a common position or adopted one set. They had the rulebooks with them so it would not have been that hard.
Click to expand...
Apparently it was hard. Tom pushed for offside-laden Rugby rules which "didn't make sense to anyone but Tom" (paraphrasing Hammersley).

Subprime said:
Dropping them altogether from the start is a bit more than avoiding confusion, it is a major philosophical change. They aren't preparing young men for the battlefield anymore which is what the public school games were about.
Click to expand...
The Melbourne rules were devised for adults and clubs, not schoolboys. The game was still similar in style to public school football and rough.

expires said:
It's more a question of percentage influence (that Marngrook had). None is not an option.
Click to expand...
Marngrook had 0% influence on the early laws of the game. Whether its influence can be found in the evolution of the game over the ensuing decades is another question.
 
Just one point on the "mark".

Various of the texts and articles refer to the aboriginal game refer to the "taking of the mark" as being an element of that game.

The taking of a mark was an element of the rugby union game from the earliest times.

It was referred to explicitly in the codified 1862 rugby union rules:

This Wikipedia extract neatly sums up this aspect:

"To mark a ball in rugby union , the player must be inside his own team's twenty-two metre line. The mark is performed by a player (normally the full back), making a clean catch and shouting "Mark!"."

and this

"For much of rugby's history, a mark could be made anywhere on the field, but under more stringent conditions: the marking player had to have both feet on the ground at the time of calling "Mark!", the defending side were allowed to advance as far as the mark in defending against the subsequent kick, and the kick itself had to propel the ball at least as far forward as the mark (in conjunction with the second stipulation, this effectively prevented the marking side from keeping possession with a tap-kick). However, under these restrictions a goal could be attempted. In the 1970s the mark was changed to the definition given above, except that it could be made anywhere in the defending side's half; it is no longer a requirement that the marking player have both feet on the ground"

It is through this "intellectual prism" in my contention, that authors and commentators in the 1900s were interpreting "Marngrook".

So what aspects of the aboriginal game that made the early VFL rules an aspect of Marngrook.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top