HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Hockey Invented In England ... Not Canada

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-28-2014, 07:28 PM
  #351
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 25,010
vCash: 500
Okay, new line of questioning. How big of a distinction does the physical aspect of hockey provide? Since the evolution of bandy/hockey supposedly draws influence from games like field hockey (non-contact sport), is the nature of physical contact possibly the biggest differentiation we might find? I'm not familiar enough with bandy to know what the body contact rules are, but I'm pretty sure field hockey has always been fairly contact-free. And while soccer has always allowed shoulder tackles by rule, we all know how that gets called in reality.

I bring this up, because while perusing the ice hockey wiki I was reminded of early 19th century descriptions of "shinny" in Nova Scotia, and how the Mi'kmaq evidently described it as having a physical element to it; not unlike their game of lacrosse. I think we'd all agree that what separates hockey from soccer, baseball, golf, field hockey, etc is the nature and degree of physical contact/aggression. So maybe "shinny" is as far back as we really have to go to find the "conception" of hockey. All the older stick/ball/ice games seem so loosely similar to each other that I feel we might as well just find out who invented field hockey, or hurley, or bandy, or shinty (pick one) and just give them the title of having invented ice hockey to them, if a distinction can't be made anywhere in between.

Despite the lack of formalized rules (or rules at all, apparently), it sounds like shinny is the first game where we have a meeting of the stick/ball/ice/team commonalities shared by "(field) hockey on the ice", bandy, shinty and hurley, with the physicality and contact of lacrosse. I mean, it almost makes too much sense that "hockey", in the "original" sense of the word, would have been conceived from the mixing of any number of closely related British stick/ball games in a mixed population and the intensely physical Mi'kmaq game that would eventually become our (other) "national sport". I mean, I'm sure most "experts" would agree that it's just such a mixture of elements that has contributed to its increasing popularity over the past century or so.

I'm becoming more inclined to think of that as the real branching off and birth/conception of ice hockey as a distinct sport on the path of evolution that we can now trace backwards. According to wiki (lacking citations, unfortunately), the game of shinny seems to have come out of Nova Scotia. Now, obviously that leads us back to shinty, from Scotland (Nova Scotia = New Scotland), which is interesting in that it had/has a rule allowing "tackling" with the body as long as it's shoulder to shoulder, and with the stick as long as it wasn't brought down on the other player's stick ("hacking"... modern slang for slash, btw) - more links to the roots of hockey's physicality. Another key difference from field hockey that bridges the gap to ice hockey is the ability to use both sides of the stick to control the ball (in the air or on the ice). Those are some fundamental reasons I don't think it's useful to go back as far as any precursors to hockey that are too closely based on field hockey (or hurley, or soccer, or golf, for that matter).

Shinny, as simple as it might seem, might be the starting point we're looking for. After all, even to this day, aren't all of our first introductions to the game of hockey more like shinny than anything observable on TV, and played by pros? Surely there's something to that. Perhaps the version of hockey we're searching for, in its infancy, most closely resembled the version of hockey that we're still introduced to in our infancy.

Ohashi_Jouzu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2014, 09:11 PM
  #352
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,079
vCash: 500
At what point in the development of ice hockey in Canada did the degree of physicality reach the level that we now associate with the NHL game (for example)? Certainly not in the 1870s, or 1880s. I'd suggest it probably wasn't until the professional era, maybe about 1905 or so. Modern bandy features a certain amount of physicality, and I would suggest that Montreal hockey in the 1870s and 1880s had a level of physicality more similar to modern bandy than modern hockey. So if you establish a certain level of physicality as a criteria, you're going to be excluding a large portion of early hockey in Canada.

And of course, there's the issue of women's hockey. Are we going to call women's hockey a separate sport from men's hockey because of the difference in physicality?

As for the "own side" idea, it's simply not true that all English field hockey featured this restriction. Some types of hockey in England allowed you to play on both sides. The rules that Creighton (?) adapted the first (?) Montreal hockey rules from did have such a restriction, but it wasn't the only version of field hockey.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2014, 09:33 PM
  #353
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 25,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
At what point in the development of ice hockey in Canada did the degree of physicality reach the level that we now associate with the NHL game (for example)? Certainly not in the 1870s, or 1880s. I'd suggest it probably wasn't until the professional era, maybe about 1905 or so.
Ya, I think thats about right. Mind you it depends where regionally be it Upper or Lower Canada, the Northern Mining Leagues, Michigan & Pennsylvania etc. Seemed to vary from league to league / pro or amateur just what level of physicality was acceptable. Certainly the OHA in its formative years had a real problem with it. Felt that it was a symptom of the sickness of professionalism however their own poster boys, amateurs all, they gave as good as they got. There was the Loney Case in 1905 of course. Amateur player. Charged with Manslaughter for clubbing another player to death with his stick. Some serious cases of spontaneous combustion. Ultra violence & physicality of a much more viscous nature than just taking the body or finishing your check as we'd call it today. More than a few homicidal maniacs out there running wild into the 30's. Nasty outbreaks to this day really & thats with some seriously increased body contact over the intervening decades.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2014, 11:17 PM
  #354
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 25,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
At what point in the development of ice hockey in Canada did the degree of physicality reach the level that we now associate with the NHL game (for example)? Certainly not in the 1870s, or 1880s.
Not as relevant as whether or not it distinguished that brand of hockey from others - not unlike more recent comparisons drawn between European (read: "international") vs NHL hockey, though, I suppose. The comparison is to field hockey, bandy, hurley, etc too, though. But from the ice hockey wiki ("citation needed" certainly noted, so I'm starting to skim back through more shinny-specific ties):

"Early 19th-century paintings depict shinney (or "shinny"), an early form of hockey with no standard rules which was played in Nova Scotia.[citation needed] Many of these early games absorbed the physical aggression of what the Mi'kmaq in Nova Scotia called dehuntshigwa'es (lacrosse). Shinney was played on the St. Lawrence River at Montreal and Quebec City, and in Kingston[9] and Ottawa, Ontario."

Also noticed that "shinny" is linked regionally to all three places having claimed in the past to be the "birthplace" of hockey (underlined above). That's more than just a bit interesting to me. If substantiated, that would seem to be a (the?) direct intermediary between what we now know as (North American) hockey and the variety of more ancient stick/ball games that keep coming up in the discussion due to a variety of similarities and the people who played them.

I'm starting to become inclined to form the opinion that anything before shinny can't/shouldn't really be considered "hockey" (at least not for the purposes of attempting to identify the "birthplace" of the game; as opposed to the roots of any "inspiration") unless they can be shown to be as, or more, similar to today's game according to whatever reckoning. "Early 19th century" could pre-date both the Montreal and Windsor claims, after all, and it's not like the entire list of similar, older stick/ball games can ALL be the "parents" of what we call hockey. I'm not sure the whole rules tangent is going to be useful to this end, either.

Ohashi_Jouzu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2014, 12:11 AM
  #355
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
I'm starting to become inclined to form the opinion that anything before shinny can't/shouldn't really be considered "hockey" (at least not for the purposes of attempting to identify the "birthplace" of the game; as opposed to the roots of any "inspiration") unless they can be shown to be as, or more, similar to today's game according to whatever reckoning.
Seems to me you need to define what you mean by hockey. Also, if you want to draw the line at shinny, it would ignore the question of where shinny came from. This is why drawing a line and saying "only things on this side are hockey" because it shuts out those things that led up to that point.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2014, 07:19 AM
  #356
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 25,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Seems to me you need to define what you mean by hockey. Also, if you want to draw the line at shinny, it would ignore the question of where shinny came from. This is why drawing a line and saying "only things on this side are hockey" because it shuts out those things that led up to that point.
Not at all. Shinty coming from Scotland to Nova Scotia (New Scotland) isn't exactly a stretch for me, nor is its proliferation toward Quebec/Ontario. But see, shinty would be in the same boat as hurley, bandy, etc: transplanted games that would provide some of the basic equipment and some of the basic framework in terms of stick/ball game basics. Shinny, however, may represent the branching out of one of those transplanted games (shinty) and development in the direction of what we now call hockey (i.e. not field hockey, nor "Russian" hockey, nor "hockey on the ice", which seems similar mostly in name; not so much in execution, etc).

Again, once you attempt to find a link back on the other side, I suspect you end up forced to give equal credit to every British stick/ball game that was ever played on ice, and you might as well stop the search anyway. They can't all be "legitimate parents" of one game. Since shinty is believed to be derived from hurling (rules from the two have even been meshed in our times to allow matches between Ireland and Scotland, it would seem), we can even start tracing a (postulated) genetic lineage:

hurling -> shinty -> shinny -> "hockey"
or
(hurling/field hockey/bandy) -> shinty -> shinny -> hockey
or
(hurling/field hockey/bandy/shinty) -> shinny -> hockey

Either way... if the tie was established between shinty and shinny, that would be significant given the readily apparent ties between shinny and hockey. I think it's significant that, of all the older stick/ball games we're talking about, shinny (informal or even "pick up" hockey) is the one that hasn't been absorbed into history over here. Lots of talk about what the English, Irish, or Russians may have contributed in the past, but I think it might be time to give the (transplanted) Scotsman a bit more airtime.

Finally coming back to your first sentence, I suppose I'd start by defining hockey as NOT hurling, field hockey, bandy, or even shinty - all being their own distinct and specific games whose lineage can be traced farther back than necessary here, imo. Shinny as an informal, loosely structured "melting pot" of them all or "primordial ooze" from which hockey would emerge makes a lot more sense to me now.

Ohashi_Jouzu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2014, 09:41 AM
  #357
hawkman
Mr Hockey
 
hawkman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,567
vCash: 500
Quote:
TheDevilMadeMe , Killion , Hawkey Town 18 , seventieslord
Hockey must have been invented in England, not Canada, because otherwise one of the mods listed above would change the topic title to a question, not a statement.

__________________

"Mick [Taylor] was lyrical," Watts said. "He had such a good ear." Taylor's elegance and power are on full display in "Can't You Hear Me Knocking." It's the Stones' greatest guitar extravaganza – brutal but wide-open and a rare moment of on-the-record, long-form jamming.
hawkman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2014, 09:51 AM
  #358
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Again, once you attempt to find a link back on the other side, I suspect you end up forced to give equal credit to every British stick/ball game that was ever played on ice, and you might as well stop the search anyway.
Certainly not. We know for a fact that the first printed Montreal hockey rules were based on one particular version of English field hockey - the Hockey Association rules, which were based on the earlier Teddington/Surbiton rules. So if you want a direct antecedent, this is it.

There's no need for a melting pot if you can determine the direct ancestor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Finally coming back to your first sentence, I suppose I'd start by defining hockey as NOT hurling, field hockey, bandy, or even shinty
Would you define a cat to be "not a dog, a rabbit or a weasel"? Why would you start with what it isn't, rather than what it is? What are ice hockey's defining characteristics?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Shinny as an informal, loosely structured "melting pot" of them all or "primordial ooze" from which hockey would emerge makes a lot more sense to me now.
More sense than putting field hockey on ice, like they were doing in England for several years before? If we're looking at direct lineages, the version of the game that developed into modern ice hockey, we know it started with field hockey rules specifically.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2014, 10:10 AM
  #359
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,035
vCash: 500
1913 Bandy Championships and Newspapers

Researched Davos - took all of two minutes:

http://www.davos.ch/en/stay/davos-kl...tradition.html

the Hockey rink was built in 1926 per the link above. Reference is made to an earlier skating rink but it is not dated.

So the key question is whether in 1913 there was a facility in Davos Switzerland that could host a Bandy Championship of any kind.

Newspapers are rather interesting from a research standpoint. Example, most use the Montréal Gazette as the main or only source for 19th and early 20th century Ice Hockey history in Montréal or the province of Québec. Yet the Gazette was third in terms of importance in the English community - behind the Montreal Star/Montreal Daily Star and the Montreal Herald.The Star and Herald also had the better sports journalists and made a better use of pictures or illustrations.

When the French newspapers are factored in The Gazette would drop to app 8th-10th in terms of popularity for the same time frame.

Sadly the Montréal Gazette has become the main source on this boards because it is the only English paper available via Google and no one seems interested in the French papers.

Reading the The Montréal Star and Herald coverage of hockey does provide a clearer, perhaps diffrent picture of ice hockey in the late 19th century, early 20th century.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2014, 10:26 AM
  #360
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,035
vCash: 500
1933 Article Contrasting the American and Canadian Versions

Interesting article contrasting the difference between the the Canadian and American versions in the early 1890s:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...6627%2C2219632

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2014, 10:31 AM
  #361
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,035
vCash: 500
Violence - 1899 MacDougall/Gingras

In response to the question about violence at least back to 1899:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...6686%2C3040131

MacDougall/Gingras, similarities to Clarke/Kharlamov.

There are other earlier incidents that I will post as time allows.

Curious - limiting the question to on ice incidents or fan brawls etc included?

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2014, 12:37 PM
  #362
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Theokritos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,928
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Do you mean enough to be accepted as probably true? I certainly don't agree if it's something you're going to pass off as true yourself, repeating the claim to others.
If the claim comes from someone whose profession gives me reason to assume he knows what he's talking about? And the claim is not obviously wrong, inconsistent, biased or questionable for any other reason? Yes, then I'm going to assume it is probably true, even if no further evidence is given at that point.

Let's say I hear a historian mentioning that a Roman army was defeated by the Parthians at Carrhae 53 BC. He doesn't say anything about the sources of information. Do I reject his claim? No, I accept it for the time being, assuming he's familiar with the historic sources and knows how to deal with them. And I have no issue repeating the claim to others.

Now of course, when I'm interested in the subject and want to look deeper into it I'm going to ask the historian for the sources and I'm going to check them myself to see what's in them and what's not, how credible they are and so on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Now, you might say that we're just discussing hockey and bandy history, in the grand scheme of things they're unimportant, so does it really matter if we apply relatively rigorous skepticism to it? I think it does matter, we here obviously consider it an important subject and as such we should care whether the things we believe about it are true.
While I agree with you that hockey history is anything but unimportant for us here, the particular case of the 1913 European Bandy Championship was hardly of any importance in the debates around here so far. I guess only a few were even aware of that tournament. More of a footnote, not a matter people had occasion to look into.

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2014, 01:24 PM
  #363
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
If the claim comes from someone whose profession gives me reason to assume he knows what he's talking about? And the claim is not obviously wrong, inconsistent, biased or questionable for any other reason? Yes, then I'm going to assume it is probably true, even if no further evidence is given at that point.
Sure, you can accept it on that basis, but passing it along as true on that basis is an appeal to authoriry. If you're going to pass something off as true, you should check your sources first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
While I agree with you that hockey history is anything but unimportant for us here, the particular case of the 1913 European Bandy Championship was hardly of any importance in the debates around here so far. I guess only a few were even aware of that tournament. More of a footnote, not a matter people had occasion to look into.
I would suggest this is a reason to treat it more skeptically, not less skeptically. Matters that many people have had occasion to look into are more likely to have been researched already, more likely to have had errors corrected. Little-known claims are generally also little-researched claims, and as such it's more likely to contain errors.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2014, 02:13 PM
  #364
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Theokritos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,928
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Sure, you can accept it on that basis, but passing it along as true on that basis is an appeal to authoriry. If you're going to pass something off as true, you should check your sources first.
If a historian tells me there was a battle between the Romans and the Parthians in Mesopotamia 53 BC then I have confidence enough in his - indeed - authority to believe and repeat the claim (provided it's not obviously wrong etc). There are limits of course. Would I pass it along unchecked in a book I happened to write? Not if the battle was of importance for the subject I decided to treat. If the battle was a side issue however, I would do it without having a bad conscience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
I would suggest this is a reason to treat it more skeptically, not less skeptically. Matters that many people have had occasion to look into are more likely to have been researched already, more likely to have had errors corrected. Little-known claims are generally also little-researched claims, and as such it's more likely to contain errors.
That's a valid notion, but I was referring to people on this forum only. The 1913 tournament has not really been a subject of interest and importance worth a closer look to them so far.

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2014, 02:43 PM
  #365
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
If a historian tells me there was a battle between the Romans and the Parthians in Mesopotamia 53 BC then I have confidence enough in his - indeed - authority to believe and repeat the claim (provided it's not obviously wrong etc).
I'm not suggesting that you need to independently verify every little thing, but I would think you would check with, say, at least one other historian. If you're going by authority, finding out the consensus of the authorities is surely a good idea.

TDMM asked how a myth could become such a popular belief, and this is how. Too few think to verify what they're being told, or even just to corroborate it.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2014, 03:45 PM
  #366
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Theokritos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,928
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
I'm not suggesting that you need to independently verify every little thing, but I would think you would check with, say, at least one other historian. If you're going by authority, finding out the consensus of the authorities is surely a good idea.
Conceded, that's the way to go - if more than one report or opinion is available.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
TDMM asked how a myth could become such a popular belief, and this is how. Too few think to verify what they're being told, or even just to corroborate it.
While there are people who had reason to look deeper into the subject than they actually did and who are at fault (the International Bandy Federation and the organizers of the Anniversary match, for example) I don't see too much credulity in those who only have a passing interest in the subject and allow the claim to mislead them. It looks plausible, comes with some genuine looking details that still have us wondering how they came into the world, and as opposed to your "regular" false claim it involves neither obvious mistakes (like "my friends and me invented hockey in 1877") nor noticeable biased tendencies (like "my friends and me invented hockey in 1877"). In my eyes it's not a prime example of the lack of critical thought you rightly call out above.

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2014, 08:44 PM
  #367
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 25,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Certainly not. We know for a fact that the first printed Montreal hockey rules were based on one particular version of English field hockey - the Hockey Association rules, which were based on the earlier Teddington/Surbiton rules. So if you want a direct antecedent, this is it.

There's no need for a melting pot if you can determine the direct ancestor.
Unless I'm missing some of the rules, most of them seem to simply govern the stopping and starting of play - particularly when the puck exceeds a boundary. The restriction on forward passing wasn't even exclusive to field hockey. If you wanted to re-invent rugby tomorrow, you could borrow those rules exactly as written... like Creighton did.

As for the direct ancestor, having brought up Creighton, the guy who first put those rules to paper grew up playing shinny in Halifax. What if Creighton simply borrowed fairly commonly known rules for stopping/starting of play out of convenience, as part of adding a bit of structure to the game he grew up playing (which is almost defined by its very lack of structure).

Beyond that, the goaltender position and the nets in the "original" game were reportedly borrowed directly from lacrosse. So like I commented in an earlier post, the shinny and Mi'kmaq influences may have been two of the bigger influences in distinguishing "hockey" from any of the semi-related stick/ball/ice games that came before it, and lead us back to Eastern Canada.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Would you define a cat to be "not a dog, a rabbit or a weasel"? Why would you start with what it isn't, rather than what it is? What are ice hockey's defining characteristics?
No, but if there were only 5 or so animals in the whole world (like there are games that seem closely related enough to hockey to warrant inclusion in the discussion), removing 4 of them from consideration doesn't exactly leave much room for confusion.

You're right though, the common characteristics are the most important. If someone was wondering if soccer and football (American) had a common ancestry, I wouldn't suggest anyone make a big deal of the fact that they both start with kick-offs from centre. I think I already listed a few of what I consider to be key characteristics in a previous post. I'm thinking that scoring, the net, and the goaltender position are pretty key at this point, but I don't think I have the depth of knowledge to develop that much beyond anything I've shared already.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
More sense than putting field hockey on ice, like they were doing in England for several years before? If we're looking at direct lineages, the version of the game that developed into modern ice hockey, we know it started with field hockey rules specifically.
If we're still looking at the rules, all we know is that it started with a former shinny player from Halifax who borrowed a handful of stoppage/start rules from field hockey specifically (though it shares at least one of them with rugby as well) and adopted them into "his" game. In contrast, the equipment used seems to be quite different, as do descriptions of game play and strategy. If we were watching instead of reading words on a page, which of all these would we really expect to resemble the hockey that evolved most closely? Where did Creighton really get all his ideas, and which ones provide us with links to hockey's ancestor(s)?

Heck, do we even know if he was aware of/familiar with all of these games that we're making connections to? Is he not the bottleneck through which this whole path of evolution must pass, as the "father of the modern game"? Didn't really intend to make this all about Creighton (just one link in the chain of history), but we can't make a big deal about the ties created by the rules without making a big deal about the background of the guy who supposedly first published them.

Ohashi_Jouzu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2014, 08:59 PM
  #368
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
If you wanted to re-invent rugby tomorrow, you could borrow those rules exactly as written... like Creighton did.
No, Creighton borrowed the offside rule from a particular brand of field hockey, which had previously borrowed it from association football (soccer). The idea that early hockey offside rules came from rugby is a myth.

Here is the 1877 ice hockey offside rule:

"2. When a player hits the ball, any one of the same side who at such moment of hitting is nearer to the opponents’ goal line is out of play, and may not touch the ball himself, or in any way whatever prevent any other player from doing so, until the ball has been played. A player must always be on his own side of the ball."

Here is the 1975 Hockey Association offside rule:

"6. When a player hits the ball, and one of the same side who at such moment of hitting is nearer to the opponents' goal-line is out of play, and may not touch the ball himself, not in any way whatever prevent any other player from doing so, until the ball has been played, unless there are at least three of his opponents nearer their own goal-line; but no player is out of play when the ball is hit from the goal-line."

Here is the 1863 Association Football offside rule:

"6. When a player has kicked the ball, any one of the same side who is nearer to the opponent's goal line is out of play, and may not touch the ball himself, nor in any way whatever prevent any other player from doing so, until he is in play; but no player is out of play when the ball is kicked off from behind the goal line."

And finally, here are the 1871 rugby football offside rules:

"22: Every player is on side but is put off side if he enters a scrummage from his opponents' side or being in a scrummage gets in front of the Ball, or when the ball has been kicked, touched or is being run with by any of his own side behind him (i.e. between himself and his own goal line).

23: Every player when offside is out of the game and shall not touch the ball in any case whatever, either in or out of touch or goal, or in any way interrupt or obstruct any player, until he is again on side.

24: A player being offside is put on side when the ball has been run five yards with or kicked by or has touched the dress or person of any player of the opposite side or when one of his own side has run in front of him.

25: When a player has the Ball none of his opponents who at the time are offside may commence or attempt to run, tackle or otherwise interrupt such player until he has run five yards.
"

That should be clear enough. The 1877 ice hockey rules were seven in number, the 1875 HA rules were 12. In 1871 rugby football had 59 separate rules.


Last edited by Iain Fyffe: 07-29-2014 at 09:16 PM.
Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2014, 09:15 PM
  #369
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
As for the direct ancestor, having brought up Creighton, the guy who first put those rules to paper grew up playing shinny in Halifax.
Tell me, what's the earliest reference to shinny in Canada that you know of?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
So like I commented in an earlier post, the shinny and Mi'kmaq influences may have been two of the bigger influences in distinguishing "hockey" from any of the semi-related stick/ball/ice games that came before it, and lead us back to Eastern Canada.
May have been...okay, so what evidence is there to support the idea? You still haven't even decided what makes hockey hockey. And your idea about physicality was addressed previously: the physicality you associate with modern hockey did not exist in early hockey. Early hockey was much closer to modern bandy in that regard. We're not talking about violence, of course, but physicality.

That level of physicality really did not emerge until the professional game took hold in the 1900s-1910s I'd say. There were certainly some players who took the body before then, but all-round it was more of a finesse game. Playing 60 minutes, you'd wear yourself out hitting too much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
I'm thinking that scoring, the net, and the goaltender position are pretty key at this point, but I don't think I have the depth of knowledge to develop that much beyond anything I've shared already.
Bandy, hurling, shinty, field hockey all have goaltenders and nets, and you score by putting a thing in the opponent's net. Nothing to make a distinction there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
If we're still looking at the rules, all we know is that it started with a former shinny player from Halifax who borrowed a handful of stoppage/start rules from field hockey specifically (though it shares at least one of them with rugby as well) and adopted them into "his" game.
No, in fact we do not know that Creighton was even the author of those rules. He's the best candidate, but it's far from certain. And as mentioned above, the offside rule taken from field hockey was quite different than the rugby equivalent. The later stories told by Smith, Robertson and Murray are full of inconsistencies and don't hold up to scrutiny.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Where did Creighton really get all his ideas, and which ones provide us with links to hockey's ancestor(s)?
Again, we don't know that it was Creighton getting these ideas, so assuming it was a man from Nova Scotia is not supported by the evidence. The one really strong link we have to a direct ancestor are the English Hockey Association rules. Six of the seven 1877 ice hockey rules are very clearly drawn from the HA rules, some are slightly modified. The other rule seems to have been drawn from lacrosse (umpires and referee).

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2014, 10:47 PM
  #370
Uncle Rotter
Registered User
 
Uncle Rotter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Kelowna, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
The one really strong link we have to a direct ancestor are the English Hockey Association rules.
So to clear: a link to field hockey, but no known links to bandy aka hockey-on-ice

Uncle Rotter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2014, 11:00 PM
  #371
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Rotter View Post
So to clear: a link to field hockey, but no known links to bandy aka hockey-on-ice
Per On the Origin of Hockey, bandy was simply another word for ice hockey at the time. And per J-P Martel, the author, ice hockey in England was at least sometimes played using field hockey rules. So assuming that's correct, that's a common link to bandy.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2014, 11:17 PM
  #372
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 25,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
No, Creighton borrowed the offside rule from a particular brand of field hockey, which had previously borrowed it from association football (soccer). The idea that early hockey offside rules came from rugby is a myth.
Yes, I have read that. But that's not what I said. Point was that the rules borrowed were so generic that any game involving a boundary could use them as a basis for starting/stopping play, and even the rule that DOESN'T pertain to the boundary shares similarities with at least one other sport that also pre-dates hockey itself.

Ohashi_Jouzu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2014, 11:40 PM
  #373
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Yes, I have read that. But that's not what I said. Point was that the rules borrowed were so generic that any game involving a boundary could use them as a basis for starting/stopping play, and even the rule that DOESN'T pertain to the boundary shares similarities with at least one other sport that also pre-dates hockey itself.
This ignores the degree of similarity the 1877 rules have to the Hockey Association rules. On the Origin of Hockey points out that 83 percent of the 1877 rules text was copied directly from the 1875 HA rules. They did not just take the idea of their rules, they copied them directly.

You seem fixated on the idea that the rules were mostly about boundaries. Only two are. The offside rule and the list of prohibited actions are far more important in their effect on the game. The latter was also taken almost verbatim from the HA. Neither of these were generic rules. As noted, even though other sports had a concept of offside, they used a specific implementation of it, quite different from rugby, for example.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2014, 12:25 AM
  #374
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 25,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
This ignores the degree of similarity the 1877 rules have to the Hockey Association rules. On the Origin of Hockey points out that 83 percent of the 1877 rules text was copied directly from the 1875 HA rules. They did not just take the idea of their rules, they copied them directly.
83% is just another way of saying 5 out of 6, but that's interesting because I have a list of 7:

Montreal (McGill) Rules Transcription

1) The game shall be commenced and renewed by a Bully in the centre of the ground. Goals shall be changed after each game.
2) When a player hits the ball, any one of the same side who at such moment of hitting is nearer to the opponents’ goal line is out of play, and may not touch the ball himself, or in any way whatever prevent any other player from doing so, until the ball has been played. A player must always be on his own side of the ball.
3) The ball may be stopped, but not carried or knocked on by any part of the body. No player shall raise his stick above his shoulder. Charging from behind, tripping, collaring, kicking or shinning shall not be allowed.
4) When the ball is hit behind the goal line by the attacking side, it shall be brought out straight 15 yards, and started again by a Bully; but, if hit behind by any one of the side whose goal line it is, a player of the opposite side shall hit it out from within one yard of the nearest corner, no player of the attacking side at that time shall be within 20 yards of the goal line, and the defenders, with the exception of the goal-keeper, must be behind their goal line.
5) When the ball goes off at the side, a player of the opposite side to that which hit it out shall roll it out from the point on the boundary line at which it went off at right angles with the boundary line, and it shall not be in play until it has touched the ice, and the player rolling it in shall not play it until it has been played by another player, every player being then behind the ball.
6) On the infringement of any of the above rules, the ball shall be brought back and a Bully shall take place.
7) All disputes shall be settled by the Umpires, or in the event of their disagreement, by the Referee.

Interesting difference between the Halifax rules and Montreal rules is that Halifax rules allowed forward passing and Montreal (McGill) rules did not.


1) deals with start of play. 4) deals with balls going out of the end boundary. 5) deals with balls going out of the side boundary. 6) deals with start of play after an "infringement". So that's 4 out of 7 rules (57%!) governing stop/start of play that literally any ball game played within a boundary could borrow (whether it's because "common knowledge" elements like that facilitate participation of new players or not, who knows).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
You seem fixated on the idea that the rules were mostly about boundaries. Only two are. The offside rule and the list of prohibited actions are far more important in their effect on the game. The latter was also taken almost verbatim from the HA. Neither of these were generic rules. As noted, even though other sports had a concept of offside, they used a specific implementation of it, quite different from rugby, for example.
As before and above, not just boundaries but the resulting/inevitable starts and stoppages of game play. Those rules don't even lay out how a goal is scored or points awarded, btw. What elements got molded into the 1875 version of hockey, and where did they come from? Those rules still tell us very little about how much/little a game of that "brand" of hockey would resemble a game of bandy, hurley, field hockey, or whatever.

If we're entertaining the notion that "modern hockey" draws fundamental similarities to all of bandy, hurley, field hockey, etc, then why isn't the oldest of these the de facto "birth" of hockey, end of discussion? Otherwise we're essentially looking for the "version" of hockey to which the boundary and offside rules from field hockey, a standardized surface size based on the Victoria Skating Rink, Mi'kmaq (I still have to force myself not to write Mic-Mac...) hockey sticks, and lacrosse goaltenders/nets were added, right?

Ohashi_Jouzu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2014, 05:46 AM
  #375
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Theokritos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,928
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Creighton, the guy who first put those rules to paper grew up playing shinny in Halifax.
Is that an established fact?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
What if Creighton simply borrowed fairly commonly known rules
Even if we assume those rules were "fairly commonly known", they were still not Rugby rules, but specifically Field Hockey rules.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
If someone was wondering if soccer and football (American) had a common ancestry, I wouldn't suggest anyone make a big deal of the fact that they both start with kick-offs from centre.
If the earliest football rules contained a kick-off rule that was almost a 1:1 copy of a soccer kick-off rule in the way the Montreal offside rule is almost a 1:1 copy of the Field Hockey offside rule then I'd say it's a big deal indeed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
the rules borrowed were so generic that any game involving a boundary could use them as a basis for starting/stopping play
Could, but not any game actually did. Ice hockey did, that's a direct influence of field hockey right there.

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:04 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.