Historical Question: Ruck v Play the Ball.

[WireMan]

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.

To be fair at around the time of the split the jobs these players were doing day to day was probably more dangerous!!

Interesting thread though. Cheers.

 

[newman]

Fascinating stuff.

 

[PaddyBoy]

On ya Sean, I often stalk your comments for a bit of a history lesson. I've always thought it might be a good historical thing to have a game played with the original rules. Probably be awful, but it would be interesting.

Should've done it in 08 though...

 

[bobmar28]

Good thread, thanks guys. Does anyone know what is the oldest surviving video of the game? Anything on youtube?

 

[RL1908]

Good thread, thanks guys. Does anyone know what is the oldest surviving video of the game? Anything on youtube?

See the two youtube links I posted earlier.

 

[RL1908]

On ya Sean, I often stalk your comments for a bit of a history lesson. I've always thought it might be a good historical thing to have a game played with the original rules. Probably be awful, but it would be interesting.

Should've done it in 08 though...

I was involved in training two school teams (boys were about 15y.o) and referee Steve Clarke for a short re-enactment game using 1908 RL rules, with the teams kitted out as NSW v NZ - the game was held at the old Sydney Showground in August 2007 at the launch of the centenary events. Hardest part was stopping the boys throwing spiral passes and other modern innovations.

Of course, would love to see a game played with two adult teams, and I don't think it would be anywhere near as dangerous as a game under 2011 rules.

In the USA there are groups that re-enact baseball under old rules > http://vbba.org/Main/What Is Vintage Base Ball.htm

 

[RL1908]

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?

Further to this question, recommend you have a read of this excellent history piece by Tony Collins >

Why are there 13 players in a rugby league team?
http://rugbyreloaded.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-are-there-thirteen-players-in-rugby.html

 

[newman]

Fantastic article. Just what I wanted. Thanks Sean!

What's the earliest footage you have of a NSWRL match?

 

[Jason Maher]

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.

I've always wondered why the change happened. By coincidence, the year I started following league was 1989, and it as a couple of years after that I discovered the numbering had been changed. So did England always number their forwards from prop to lock, or was there a period prior where they numbered from lock to prop as we used to?

A weird consequence of getting into the game when I did is that while the numbering changed, the teams were still named in the same order (with the lock following the halfback), so when teams are listed with the prop following the halfback these days (i.e. in numerical order), it still throws me.

 

[RL1908]

Fantastic article. Just what I wanted. Thanks Sean!

What's the earliest footage you have of a NSWRL match?

The NRL's http://www.rugbyleaguefilms.com.au/ has some archived clips of news reels of Final/Grand Final mid/late 1930s - that's earliest Sydney club matches I'm aware of.

There is one of the 1940 Easts v Canterbury final (no GF that year) at http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=26061

This 1916 film apparently has Sydney club RL game/training footage in it, but there is no known surviving copy of it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Last_Stride

 

[RL1908]

I've always wondered why the change happened. By coincidence, the year I started following league was 1989, and it as a couple of years after that I discovered the numbering had been changed. So did England always number their forwards from prop to lock, or was there a period prior where they numbered from lock to prop as we used to?

A weird consequence of getting into the game when I did is that while the numbering changed, the teams were still named in the same order (with the lock following the halfback), so when teams are listed with the prop following the halfback these days (i.e. in numerical order), it still throws me.

I'm not sure what the story is with numbers in England. They were used in club football here (since 1908) which was before England.

 

[siv]

I picked up this article from somewhere and its a great insight into the early years. RL1908 I assume you may have had some input into this one

More interesting was how rules were added to deal with issues

MAJOR AMENDMENTS TO THE LAWS OF RUGBY LEAGUE
An insight into how the game was played in 1908
• No limit on number of tackles a team can retain possession.
• Scrum formations not regulated (no loose-head rule, numbers in each row not specified, ball permitted to come out from anywhere behind front row). Front rows bind against each other before subsequent rows pack behind.
• Play-the-ball: provided they are onside (no minimum distance specified) all players in vicinity permitted to kick or rake for the ball in any direction.
• Attacking team (the team in the opposition's half of the field) to put ball into the scrum.
• Scrum feed method unrestricted (spinning and bouncing the ball not illegal).
• Penalty options: drop, place or punt kicks only.
• 'Fair catch' rule: catching the ball on the full from an opponent's kick, knock-on or forward pass earns a 'free kick' (can drop or place-kick for goal; 'tap' impractical).
• All goals valued at two points. Penalty goals and 'free kicks' permitted to be either placed or drop-kicked for goal. All conversions to be place-kicked. 'Soccer-style' field goals (kicking a loose or bouncing ball from the ground over the cross-bar on the full) permitted.
• Kicking to touch from penalty results in a scrum (feed given to attacking team).
• Defenders permitted to stand on the 'mark' at a penalty or 'fair catch'. The subsequent kick must go beyond the 'mark' for play to continue ('tap' impractical).
• Restart of play after unconverted try: drop-kick from inside halfway (ball must cross halfway).
• Kickoff or drop-out crosses touchline on the full: recalled for a scrum (opposing team to feed).
• Restart of play after defending team makes ball dead after carrying, kicking or passing ball into own in-goal: five-yard scrum, with attacking team to feed.
• Restart of play after defender makes ball dead in own in-goal (where opponent kicked or carried ball across the goal-line): 25-yard line drop-out.
• All other significant rules are essentially as per today's playing laws.
Note on Replacements: A local rule operated in NSW between 1908 and 1925 whereby a replacement player was allowed for an injured player. From 1925 to 1963, no replacements were allowed.

Changes 1909 to 2007
Year Rule Amendment
1909 Maximum of three forwards in front row of the scrum; other rows remain unrestricted.
1920 Scrum half required to roll ball into scrum.
1922 Goal from 'fair catch/mark' and soccer-style 'field goal' abolished.
1925 A second football provided at the touch-line to eliminate delays during all first-class matches.
1926 Goal-line drop-out (instead of from the 25-yard line) after defender makes ball dead; play-the-ball modernised - only marker and man playing the ball to be involved in contest for the ball, and marker to keep both feet on ground until ball is dropped or placed.
1930 Defending halfback to feed scrums, with attacking side having the loose-head; '3-2-1' scrum formation made mandatory.
1932 Hooker must have both arms over props (loose-arm rule); penalty extended to include optional scrum (instead of 'free kick').
1948 Front rows cannot pack against each other until ordered by referee.
1951 Five-yard ruck rule introduced (for one season only); previously there had been a 'no-yard' ruck rule.
1952 No-yard ruck rule reinstated; dummy-half and second-marker to stand one yard behind the two men at the play-the-ball.
1954 Tap penalty introduced, with offending team to retire 10 yards.
1956 Three-yard ruck rule, with no minimum distance for dummy-half and second-marker.
1959 Abolition of tap penalty.
1961 Dummy-half caught with ball resulted in a scrum.
1963 Reinstatement of unrestricted dummy-half runs; ball from scrum to come out from behind the second-rowers; non-offending team given feed and loose-head for scrum from penalties (including after kick to touch); teams can replace a maximum of two injured players up to and including halftime.
1964 Scrums minimum of 10 yards from goal-line; place kickoff from halfway line to restart play after unconverted try; penalty at halfway if kickoff out on the full.
1966 Five-yard ruck rule implemented.
1967 Four-tackle rule replaced unlimited tackles; tap penalty reintroduced; scrum replaced by tap kick for restart after penalty kick into touch.
1968 Restart after attacking team makes ball dead: 25-yard optional kick.
1969 Front row to pack 'square' in the scrums.

 

[russ13]

1909 Maximum of three forwards in front row of the scrum; other rows remain unrestricted.

http://therugbyhistorysociety.co.uk/jbax.html


I saw a photo somewhere of a 2-man front-row scrum.

Anyway here is something about it from a union site:

The New Zealand 2-3-2 scrum formation caused controversy from the moment it was first seen in the Northern Hemisphere in 1905. Matters came to a head with the Lions tour to New Zealand in 1930, which, according to the tour agreement, was to be played under International Board laws.
“..... manager James Baxter's crusade against the hosts’ habit of fielding a two-man front row and a wing-forward deployed outside the confines of the scrum led ultimately to a change in the laws and the outlawing of this practice.
[&#8230, post: "]
He also ensured he had the final word, courtesy of the trump card of his position as England's representative on the International Board, the law-making body of which New Zealand had not been allowed to become a member.
By coincidence or otherwise, within a year, the board had adopted new regulations requiring teams to field three men in the front row of the scrum. At a stroke, the 2-3-2 formation and the wing-forward was consigned to history. Baxter's mission was accomplished”
(The Lions. The Complete History of the British and Irish Rugby Union team
by David Walmsley)
This is pretty well what all the histories say, though some phrase it less aggressively – which is apparently more than you can say for Baxter. However when I was in the RFU Reference Library at Twickenham a while back I decided to look at the laws in question.


Before 1930, there was no mention of the number of players in the front row. In 1931[1] there was indeed a change, but it merely specified “no more than three”. That certainly does not outlaw a two man front row. Indeed the minute books of the RFU (which also included the minutes of the IB meetings) make it clear that this phrasing was deliberately designed to accommodate the New Zealand formation.
In 1933 the RFU proposed changing this to requiring precisely three on the basis that New Zealand had now adopted this formation as well, but the IB decided not to make any changes at that time. In fact it was not until 1950 that the law demanded a three man front row.
One of the more cautious histories has a subtler version:
Centenary – 100 years of All Black Rugby
RH Chester and N A C McMillan (1984)
“… James ‘Bim’ Baxter …. obviously had great influence in the halls of rugby power and it was speculated that while in New Zealand he would lay the groundwork for the outlawing of the wing-forward position. This came about indirectly with changes to the scrummage off-side and hooking laws. New Zealand was disadvantaged to such an extent that in 1932 the NZRFU annual meeting decided to adopt a three-man front row and abolish the wing forward position.”...

 

[RL1908]

http://therugbyhistorysociety.co.uk/jbax.html


I saw a photo somewhere of a 2-man front-row scrum.

Anyway here is something about it from a union site:

The 2-man front row scrum was never used in RL, but if the code seriously wants to re-visit a competitive scrum, I would be very interested to see a trial of a scrum packed as 2-3 (front & second) or 2-3-2 (front, second, back).

 

[RL1908]

The conjuctive rule to the play-the-ball rule is the "held!" rule called on an upright ball-carrier - intended as a safety rule - many want to blame Issac Luke for legs tackle yesterday in Test, but if referee called "Held!" his late tackle never eventuates and ball-carrier not exposed to risk of injury.

 

[Teddyboy]

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/

Excellent clips.

 

[Andrew78]

Those Youtube clips from 1901 are great. Packing a scrum after every tackle was intersesting. They didn't waste any time packing down though.

 

[RL1908]

Those Youtube clips from 1901 are great. Packing a scrum after every tackle was intersesting. They didn't waste any time packing down though.

Was same in both codes at that time. No specialised places in the forwards yet, the opposing front rows bound against each other before their own second rowers joined in, and no "crouch, touch, pause..."

 

[BrisbaneRhino]

Just on the professionalism issue, RL in England made a very clear line between broken-time payments being made for lost work, and payments for playing (i.e. professionalism). In the early years players had to have full-time employment elsewhere, and couldn't be paid match payments or retainers in the off season. My own club Leeds took it so seriously they suspended two of their own players in 1903/04 for being in breach of the professionalism rule, as they were "not in bona fide employment".