Historical Question: Ruck v Play the Ball.

[newman]

When the decision was made to break away from Union at the turn of the century, was this the catalyst in reducing the number of players from 15 to 13 and replacing the ruck with the play the ball?

How did these changes come about?

 

[Slackboy72]

Yes the break away was followed by the rule changes. It was mainly an attempt to introduce professionalism so that players would recieve money to compensate them from time off work when they got injured.
The reasoning behind the rule changes are another matter.

 

[dogslife]

They probably decided the game looked like a vomitous mess, much like modern Rugby Union

 

[flippikat]

Yes the break away was followed by the rule changes. It was mainly an attempt to introduce professionalism so that players would recieve money to compensate them from time off work when they got injured.
The reasoning behind the rule changes are another matter.

Yeah, it's well documented that the breakaway was initially over compensation for time off work - this was more of an issue for the working class labourers in the north of England than the richer private-schooled types down south. (Hence the rich/poor, north/south divide that persists..)

However the original post was asking more about the reasoning behind the rule changes that broke the game away from that cluttered rabble that rugby union can be. Does anyone know?

 

[RL1908]

The move to reform rugby's laws (incl dropping teams to 13) existed before the 1895 split, and the RFU's intransience to positive change (spectator wise) was part of the discontent in the north of England, but it wasn't the driver of the split (fair compensation for players lost work time was).

Of course, once the new rugby (league) body was formed, and wanting to draw fee-paying crowds, calls for spectator-friendly rule changes gained momentum.

Mind you, the changes (play-the-ball & 13-a-side) still took a decade after the 1895 split before being adopted.

 

[RL1908]

They probably decided the game looked like a vomitous mess, much like modern Rugby Union

Prior to 1906, in both rugby codes play was called up for a scrum after every tackle or "held" call (similar to what still happens today in gridiron). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv8Ykiuotfg&feature=player_detailpage#t=104s

The RL "held" and play-the-ball rule of 1906-mid1920s was in fact modelled on RU laws of the 19th century. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=88yqbmmJKRE#t=48s

The (four man) play-the-ball we know today in RL was adopted in 1926.

In RU the "traditional" ruck and maul were in fact changes made after the split from RL - ruck c.1908 and maul c.1948.

There is an extensive article on this subject in my book > http://rl1908.wordpress.com/

 

[Kong]

Did these rule changes include the sideways play the ball or was it reintroduced recently?

 

[newman]

Very interesting. So in the early days, even in the NSWRL, there was a scrum after every held call?

 

[Hooch]

Mate I just bought that as I was so impressed with the website.

One thing I was wondering which you may know something about, it was interesting to see the long leggings which I heard there was a lot of worry about bacterial infections prior to penicillin, even tho the rep game there had shorts.

I was wondering about injury rates and types of injuries before we had todays surgical options, which are pretty successful for a lot of conditions. I know you can just let ACLs go and play without it or retire, but a lot of neck injuries that may require fusion these days or nerve damage, there eye damage and that, is there any reason to think the injury rate was less or more than it is now?

I just wonder if the people played more within their bodies limitations, but that just doesnt happen when you take the field, or if retirement and disabling injuries were more frequent, or the load on the body was just less due to less physical development in general. Anyway interested in your thoughts.

 

[RHCP]

Quick question that's been bugging me I might tag on here, when did the numbers change? When they became 1-13 from fullback and 8 went from lock to prop?

 

[kier]

The move to reform rugby's laws (incl dropping teams to 13) existed before the 1895 split, and the RFU's intransience to positive change (spectator wise) was part of the discontent in the north of England, but it wasn't the driver of the split (fair compensation for players lost work time was).

Of course, once the new rugby (league) body was formed, and wanting to draw fee-paying crowds, calls for spectator-friendly rule changes gained momentum.

Mind you, the changes (play-the-ball & 13-a-side) still took a decade after the 1895 split before being adopted.

I've always thought the 'broken time' issue was overplayed as the reason for the split. The leading northern clubs were already paying players. I can see why they preferred the make payments bona fide but the desire to see expenses being above board wasn't the driving force.

It was the threat of association football - being played in competitive league and cup competitions that was the biggest driver. The biggest rugby areas of Manchester and Liverpool has been lost to the round ball and the other heartlands were under threat.

The rugby clubs saw the need to offer organised competitions - and it was the refusal of the county unions and the RFU to sanction these that saw the eventual (and inevitable) creation of the NU.

The importance of paying players as the reason has been overemphasised as it plays to the simple amateur/pro explanation of why there are two codes. An oversimplification that doesn't favour RL imo.

 

[Goddo]

Went to 13 players in 1907 and numbers were reversed in the mid 70s wasn't it?

 

[RL1908]

Very interesting. So in the early days, even in the NSWRL, there was a scrum after every held call?

No. The scrum in RL in England was replaced by the play-the-ball (in its first form) in 1906 - 18 months before first RL was played in Aust.

 

[_snafu_]

Did these rule changes include the sideways play the ball or was it reintroduced recently?

:lol:

Just the 2011 grand final.

 

[RL1908]

Mate I just bought that as I was so impressed with the website.

One thing I was wondering which you may know something about, it was interesting to see the long leggings which I heard there was a lot of worry about bacterial infections prior to penicillin, even tho the rep game there had shorts.

I was wondering about injury rates and types of injuries before we had todays surgical options, which are pretty successful for a lot of conditions. I know you can just let ACLs go and play without it or retire, but a lot of neck injuries that may require fusion these days or nerve damage, there eye damage and that, is there any reason to think the injury rate was less or more than it is now?

I just wonder if the people played more within their bodies limitations, but that just doesnt happen when you take the field, or if retirement and disabling injuries were more frequent, or the load on the body was just less due to less physical development in general. Anyway interested in your thoughts.

I can only take it from the newspaper reports highlighting a player breaking his arm or damaging his knee, that these were a rare happening, and seen as the upper end of injuries.

My reading of the game is that it didn't have the collisions we do now, and to our eyes most players would be very lightly framed.

None of the 1908 Kangaroos was over 1.8m tall, and while Dally Messenger was about the same size as Matt Bowen, a third of the team were smaller still.

Players also had to not be overly reckless in how they played given they still had to work & provide for their families/future. They also often played mid-week games as well, suggesting the physical toll from playing RL, especially given training wasn't much, can't have been too heavy.

The risk of septicemia was high - adverts at the time for anti-bacterial ointments etc didn't just refer to footballers, but even a finger prick from needlework sitting in a chair in your drawing room.

Most footballers had a gauze material wrapped over their exposed legs. Then again, the risk is relative - Sydney Harbour & beaches were still full of sharks, and young men still went swimming and yachting with little concern.

Newtown & 1929 Kangaroo Jack Holmes reportedly died after an infection caused by SCG soil led to septicemia, though I've also seen reports it was in fact tonsolitis.

 

[RL1908]

Quick question that's been bugging me I might tag on here, when did the numbers change? When they became 1-13 from fullback and 8 went from lock to prop?

1-13 from fullback was notionally in use in Sydney club RL since the first season in 1908, but it wasn't really formalised until tv coverage in the late 1960s drove the NSWRL to enforce a consistent approach - players before that wore the number their club gave to & was published in the Rugby League News, but many clubs didn't bother too much with making the fullback #1 and so on.

The forwards numbering changed for the start of the 1989 season. If you see highlights of Balmain's grand finals 1988 & 1989, you will see for example hooker Benny Elias have #12 in 1988 and #9 in 1989.

 

[Loudstrat]

No. The scrum in RL in England was replaced by the play-the-ball (in its first form) in 1906 - 18 months before first RL was played in Aust.

We now follow the Northern Hemisphere protocol with numbers, but it was the late 1980's when we changed the forwards. The lock used to be 8, second rowers 9 and 10, props 11 and 13, and hooker 12.

On Kangaroo and Kiwi tours of Britain and France, the numbers would reverse in line with the local 6-7-13 scrumbase protocol, which also meant the Poms and French adopted our 6-7-8 scrumbase protocol.

I believe our fullbacks were 1 from day 1.

 

[Hooch]

I can only take it from the newspaper reports highlighting a player breaking his arm or damaging his knee, that these were a rare happening, and seen as the upper end of injuries.

My reading of the game is that it didn't have the collisions we do now, and to our eyes most players would be very lightly framed.

None of the 1908 Kangaroos was over 1.8m tall, and while Dally Messenger was about the same size as Matt Bowen, a third of the team were smaller still.

Players also had to not be overly reckless in how they played given they still had to work & provide for their families/future. They also often played mid-week games as well, suggesting the physical toll from playing RL, especially given training wasn't much, can't have been too heavy.

The risk of septicemia was high - adverts at the time for anti-bacterial ointments etc didn't just refer to footballers, but even a finger prick from needlework sitting in a chair in your drawing room.

Most footballers had a gauze material wrapped over their exposed legs. Then again, the risk is relative - Sydney Harbour & beaches were still full of sharks, and young men still went swimming and yachting with little concern.

Newtown & 1929 Kangaroo Jack Holmes reportedly died after an infection caused by SCG soil led to septicemia, though I've also seen reports it was in fact tonsolitis.

Fascinating. I always thought that if the game was played like it was today back then there'd be an inordinate amount of damaged people coming from it. Injuries must've been a much more serious business then. Look at Darren Lockyer, what condition would he be in if he couldn't have an operation for a depressed cheekbone fracture? Beats me.

 

[RL1908]

I've always thought the 'broken time' issue was overplayed as the reason for the split.

There's no doubt desire for league competitions/cups was an issue (being what all wanted, and in response to soccer offering the same), and while the RFU didn't sanction them, in many areas they still went ahead - in Yorkshire a challenge cup had been operating for 15 or more years before 1895 split, as in western Lancashire (the now RL towns), and a league competition centred around Manchester had been established in 1892. In many respects, the fight against soccer was already over (lost) by early 1890s.

The late 1894 RFU meeting that irrevocably led to the rugby schism was a vote centred upon professionalism and payments to players, and came on the back of the RFU actively seeking out and suspending clubs for acts of professionalism.

While many in RU before the split, and indeed for a century after, were content to play along with receiving payments in a hidden manner, many players and officials (incl later Dally Messenger here in Australia) thought it was humilating that they should be asked to participate (and secretly at that) in a charade as a "paid amateur".

If you place that sentiment in the prevailing attitude of male society in late Victorian and early Edwardian times, and that rowing, boxing, soccer and cricket had open professionalism, it is understandable that affront led to division in rugby.

[Anyone interested ought try to obtain a copy of Tony Collins' book > http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rugbys-Grea...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1318585801&sr=1-1 ]

 

[Willow]

Quick question that's been bugging me I might tag on here, when did the numbers change? When they became 1-13 from fullback and 8 went from lock to prop?

I recall in the 70s or 80s (?), the jersey numbers were changed in Australia in order to make it international (with the Brits). It was only changed in the forwards.

Prior to this the Aust competition numbers were as follows:

13. Prop 12. Hooker 11. Prop
10. Second row 9. Second row
8. Lock

Edit: I see it has been answered. Change happened in 1989.