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
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Rugby's influence on early Montreal hockey

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-21-2014, 01:56 PM
  #1
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,469
vCash: 500
Rugby's influence on early Montreal hockey

Was rugby a significant influence on early Montreal hockey? Hockey Historysis has some analysis on this topic.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2014, 09:25 PM
  #2
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,815
vCash: 500
1863 Onside Kick

Suggest considering the kicking element in rugby which dates back to the 1863 rules in your analysis.

1863 Association Football offside rule
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.

Now the offside player may not touch the ball but he may tackle the opposing ball carrier. Conversely an onside player - a teammate behind the kicker of the ball may touch and possess the kicked ball without waiting for the opposing player to touch it. This is the onside kick. part of the 1863 rule and part of the 2014 CFL rules whose roots are in rugby football, 1874 McGill and before.From memory the Ottawa /Edmonton game earlier this season featured an onside kick.

The onside kick rule is similar to the onside pass in hockey where the pass is forwarded and chased down by a teammate who is behind the passer without the opposition touching the puck.

This is the clear similarity between rugby and ice hockey referred to.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2014, 10:44 PM
  #3
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,469
vCash: 500
Are you quoting the association football rules in support of a rugby connection? Yes, rugby rules are similar in this regard, but of course they only apply to kicks and not passes, whereas in hockey (and in soccer) there is no such distinction.

Rugby ultimately shares some ancestry with association football, but if you're going to argue a direct influence from rugby on ice hockey you're going to need more than that, since the association football influence (via association hockey) explains at least as well, if not more so.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2014, 06:59 PM
  #4
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,815
vCash: 500
Looking at Canada

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Are you quoting the association football rules in support of a rugby connection? Yes, rugby rules are similar in this regard, but of course they only apply to kicks and not passes, whereas in hockey (and in soccer) there is no such distinction.

Rugby ultimately shares some ancestry with association football, but if you're going to argue a direct influence from rugby on ice hockey you're going to need more than that, since the association football influence (via association hockey) explains at least as well, if not more so.
Looking strictly at Canada.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2014, 07:20 PM
  #5
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,815
vCash: 500
Rugby Union in Canada

A nice history is available here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_union_in_Canada

1823 onwards in Canada. Note that the Halifax and Montreal link is similar to Ice Hockey.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2014, 07:45 PM
  #6
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,815
vCash: 500
Rugby Rules Primer

Nice quick summary - see rule 12 as it pertains to a knock on.

Soccer allows dribbling the ball forward. Rugby does not. Once the player handles the ball, he cannot move it forward allong the ground. Play is stopped.Ice Hockey encourages stickhandlingespecially knocking the puck out of the air and handling it on the ice with the stick.


This seems to go towards the desire to strick a compromise between rugby and a game on ice. Handling the puck or projectile on ice in Ice Hockey does not top the game.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2014, 09:51 PM
  #7
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Looking strictly at Canada.
Yes, and? If you want to argue that rugby was a direct influence, you have to show more that incidental similarities. This is one rule that is also similar to a soccer rule. And since we can trace a direct rules lineage from association football to association hockey to ice hockey, there is no need whatever to invoke rugby as an explanation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Soccer allows dribbling the ball forward. Rugby does not.
And ice hockey allowed playing the puck forward as well. So not similar to rugby, but to soccer (and field hockey).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
This seems to go towards the desire to strick a compromise between rugby and a game on ice. Handling the puck or projectile on ice in Ice Hockey does not top the game.
So the compromise was to ignore rugby rules and use field hockey rules instead? That's not much of a compromise. That seems like they didn't use any rugby influence at all.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2014, 11:15 AM
  #8
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,815
vCash: 500
Rugby Rules

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Yes, and? If you want to argue that rugby was a direct influence, you have to show more that incidental similarities. This is one rule that is also similar to a soccer rule. And since we can trace a direct rules lineage from association football to association hockey to ice hockey, there is no need whatever to invoke rugby as an explanation.


And ice hockey allowed playing the puck forward as well. So not similar to rugby, but to soccer (and field hockey).


So the compromise was to ignore rugby rules and use field hockey rules instead? That's not much of a compromise. That seems like they didn't use any rugby influence at all.
Exact opposite. Read the second paragraph of the section Tried Lacrosse on Ice:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...5595%2C4611730

Patterned after English Rugby Rules down to the referee and goal judges. Note 1880

McGill University at that time feature an extremely high level of interest in athletics.

Lacrosse, Rugby morphing into a Canadian version of football yet competing against Harvard in 1874 in an event that featured the teams playing Under American and Canadian rules in halves. Also there was a spirit of innovation at the time - James Naismith and basketball have ties to McGill, last quarter of the 19th century. Also women's athletics were on the menu. Likewise McGill students were part of a Lacrosse tour to England.

So there was a definite move towards athletic innovation and progress at McGill university at that time.

Conversely is there any evidence of field hockey actually being played at McGill, by McGill teams pre March 3, 1875? In Montreal by any teams? Henry Joseph recollects play hockey in the street or on a pond without skates in the same article. But this is not field hockey. It is what it is simply playing not an actual sport.

It has been recognized previously that Ice Hockey allowed playing the puck forward. Not an issue at all. Key questions surround the constraints of playing the ball, puck or projectile forward. Rugby and soccer are not bound by boards that rebound a forwarded ball back into play. Ice Hockey starting in 1875 was bound by boards. How did the various rules in the three activities reflect this.? Soccer does not allow charging a free kick - 10 yards.? What about the other sports? In the activities under considerations there are various rules in place protecting the receiving player on the opposition of a forwarded pass or ball. The immunity zones, charging or targeting a player, the resulting penalties, etc have to be reviewed as well.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2014, 11:04 PM
  #9
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Exact opposite. Read the second paragraph of the section Tried Lacrosse on Ice:
Do you have any evidence of this that was not written 70 years after the fact? I'm basing my statements on analysis of contemporary evidence. You seem to be relying on uncorroborated claims made 70 years after the alleged fact.

Quoting an anecdote from a newspaper in 1943 is not going to get you anywhere, because the contemporary evidence from the 1870s contradicts it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Patterned after English Rugby Rules down to the referee and goal judges.
You're still repeating this despite being repeatedly shown that the actual text of the rules that clearly show they were drawn from field hockey and not rugby. The rules of rugby c.1875 bear no resemblance to the rules of ice hockey at the time.

Please get yourself a copy of 1870s rugby rules, and compare them to 1870s ice hockey rules. Then get back to us with the similarities, and compare these similarities to the similarities with field hockey rules. I've pointed out the significant differences many times already, including in the blog post linked in the OP. So, where are these rules that were based on rugby? Just list them.

And then tell me, if the rules were patterned after rugby, how do you explain the 1876 reference (rather than a 1943 reference) that the game was played using Hockey Association rules specifically?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Conversely is there any evidence of field hockey actually being played at McGill, by McGill teams pre March 3, 1875?
No, but field hockey is not ice hockey. The rules of ice hockey were based on field hockey, yes, but that does not require field hockey being a popular game there at the time. It only requires the organizer being familiar with it, and thinking it would translate well to ice. Perhaps an organizer that wasn't originally from Montreal, or something like that...

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2014, 08:31 AM
  #10
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Theokritos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 7,038
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Quoting an anecdote from a newspaper in 1943 is not going to get you anywhere, because the contemporary evidence from the 1870s contradicts it.
I share your assessment that the 1877 Montreal rules are based on field hockey and not on rugby, and there is certainly a possibility Henry Joseph's 1943 account contains an error of memory or two. However, as opposed to the claims by W. F. Robertson, R. F. Smith and W. L. Murray his counter-claim is not necessarily on a collision course with the evidence, many of his statements have in fact been verified by a look into the contemporary sources. Which of course does not put every little detail of his account beyond reasonable doubt, but does his 1943 rugby statement really have to be at variance with what we know from the 1870s? The way it is worded:

Quote:
After the lacrosse idea failed, Mr. James George A. Creighton, another McGill man, suggested a game on ice in which sticks and a ball were used after the fashion of shinney. Some of the Victoria Rink members tried it out. They decided to pattern the game after English Rugby which they all played and used similiar positions, goals and rules.
makes it sound like the decision to pattern the game after Rugby was made very early on, perhaps immediately after they tried out ice hockey for the first time in 1872 or 1873. Now we do know that by February 1876 at the latest field hockey rules were used, but do we also know what was used prior to that? No, we don't really know that. It's not out of question Creighton & Co used adapted rugby rules from 1872/1873 on until they switched to the field hockey model in 1876 for whatever reason. Conjecture, but it chimes with the contemporary evidence without throwing Henry Joseph's statement out of the window.

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2014, 09:56 AM
  #11
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Patterned after English Rugby Rules down to the referee and goal judges.
Ultimately, Joseph's mention of lacrosse on ice being played before ice hockey hurts the claim of rugby influence. Why? Because lacrosse at the time used a system of two goal judges and a tie-breaking referee. Whereas in the 1870s rugby rules I've read, there is mention of neither.

Although these fellows may have given up on lacrosse on ice, it continued to be played every once in a while into the 1880s. But if we incorporate the lacrosse bit of Joseph's story, that provides us with the goal judges and referee system without needgin rugby to explain it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
makes it sound like the decision to pattern the game after Rugby was made very early on, perhaps immediately after they tried out ice hockey for the first time in 1872 or 1873.
Yes, your comments are strictly true, however in response I will say that if, in fact, the earliest Montreal hockey matches were patterned after rugby the game would have been sufficiently different to call it a different game entirely; that it, they were not playing ice hockey. One of the defining features of ice hockey is that you are attempting to drive an object into or through an opponent's goal as the means to score a point. That does not come from rugby. Rugby scored points by touching down and by field goals, which went over the opponent's goal, between the uprights. So if they were really playing a game patterned on rugby, then they were playing rugby on ice, not ice hockey or even {ice hockey} as I have defined it before.

(Actually they were probably playing something else entirely, since I think a rugby fan would tell you that a game played with sticks to hit an object is not rugby.)

So yes, if you want to claim that these men played a version of rugby on ice, there's no evidence to contradict that and it may well be true. But this thread is to discuss rugby's influence on ice hockey specifically. And I submit that if they were playing rugby on ice, they were not playing ice hockey. The game or rugby football, even if played on skates on an ice rink, would not meet the definition of ice hockey.

Unless someone wants to submit another definition of ice hockey, but that would belong in the earlier definitions thread.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2014, 11:24 AM
  #12
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Theokritos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 7,038
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
One of the defining features of ice hockey is that you are attempting to drive an object into or through an opponent's goal as the means to score a point. That does not come from rugby. Rugby scored points by touching down and by field goals, which went over the opponent's goal, between the uprights. So if they were really playing a game patterned on rugby, then they were playing rugby on ice, not ice hockey or even {ice hockey} as I have defined it before.
I would counter that it depends on how you interpret "patterned after". Did they simply transfer rugby from the field to the ice? Henry Joseph's own account of sticks and a ball used after the fashion of shinney is incompatible with such a notion. So no, they were not playing rugby on ice according to Joseph, they were playing ice hockey as per your definition. He obviously had a lesser extent of rugby influence in mind when he said "patterned after", positions are explicitly mentioned as well as rules and the latter leaves quite a margin of possible rugby influence - offside rule for example. Mind you, prior to 1876 only.

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2014, 12:47 PM
  #13
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,815
vCash: 500
Halifax Rules

A brief overview of Halifax rules:

http://www.birthplaceofhockey.com/evolution/hfx-rules/

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2014, 12:47 PM
  #14
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 28,211
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Do you have any evidence of this that was not written 70 years after the fact? I'm basing my statements on analysis of contemporary evidence. You seem to be relying on uncorroborated claims made 70 years after the alleged fact.

Quoting an anecdote from a newspaper in 1943 is not going to get you anywhere, because the contemporary evidence from the 1870s contradicts it.
You have contemporary evidence from 1872-1874 contradicting the conjecture surrounding pre-1875 hockey and its rules? Please share.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
You're still repeating this despite being repeatedly shown that the actual text of the rules that clearly show they were drawn from field hockey and not rugby. The rules of rugby c.1875 bear no resemblance to the rules of ice hockey at the time.
How about the rules of rugby and hockey c.1873/74?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Please get yourself a copy of 1870s rugby rules, and compare them to 1870s ice hockey rules. Then get back to us with the similarities, and compare these similarities to the similarities with field hockey rules. I've pointed out the significant differences many times already, including in the blog post linked in the OP. So, where are these rules that were based on rugby? Just list them.

And then tell me, if the rules were patterned after rugby, how do you explain the 1876 reference (rather than a 1943 reference) that the game was played using Hockey Association rules specifically?
Wait, I read that game play was patterned after rugby, i.e. the "ball" (puck) can be "carried" (stickhandled) or "kicked" (dumped) forward - not "passed" - and stoppages/starts in play involved "scrums", etc. Just previous to that there was supposedly an attempt to pattern game play after lacrosse, but it was described as "too hectic". Why isn't 1876 onward regarded as simply the next "phase" in hockey's evolution, and how does anything from 1876 trump the impressive memory of a participant in terms of what was happening previous to that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
No, but field hockey is not ice hockey. The rules of ice hockey were based on field hockey, yes, but that does not require field hockey being a popular game there at the time. It only requires the organizer being familiar with it, and thinking it would translate well to ice. Perhaps an organizer that wasn't originally from Montreal, or something like that...
At least we're getting around to the notion of regarding field hockey as a donor of rules above a donor of game play. Much easier to believe that someone could have read those rules and seen how naturally they could be incorporated by a bunch of rugby/football players trying to develop a shinny (or even hurley)-based game into something that would be popular. Both rugby and field hockey seem to be simply intermediary donors of what was "necessary" or "desired", and not exactly train lines leading directly back to the station of hockey "origin".


Last edited by Ohashi_Jouzu: 08-24-2014 at 01:01 PM.
Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2014, 12:55 PM
  #15
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,815
vCash: 500
Field Hockey Rules and Play

Overview of field hockey rules and play:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_hockey

Note the restrictions on using both sides of the stick and the three players on the ball rule. Both are extremely alien to ice hockey.

Both sides of the blade of an ice hockey stick are used to stick handle. There are Right and Left ice hockey sticks. Forehand and backhand shots are permitted in ice hockey.

One of the stratégies going back to the early days of ice hockey has been creating an odd man advantage at the ball.

A detailed look of the nuances and detailed différences between field and ice hockey rules coupled with the actual play is imperative.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2014, 01:40 PM
  #16
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,815
vCash: 500
Applied to the Game

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
I share your assessment that the 1877 Montreal rules are based on field hockey and not on rugby, and there is certainly a possibility Henry Joseph's 1943 account contains an error of memory or two. However, as opposed to the claims by W. F. Robertson, R. F. Smith and W. L. Murray his counter-claim is not necessarily on a collision course with the evidence, many of his statements have in fact been verified by a look into the contemporary sources. Which of course does not put every little detail of his account beyond reasonable doubt, but does his 1943 rugby statement really have to be at variance with what we know from the 1870s? The way it is worded:



makes it sound like the decision to pattern the game after Rugby was made very early on, perhaps immediately after they tried out ice hockey for the first time in 1872 or 1873. Now we do know that by February 1876 at the latest field hockey rules were used, but do we also know what was used prior to that? No, we don't really know that. It's not out of question Creighton & Co used adapted rugby rules from 1872/1873 on until they switched to the field hockey model in 1876 for whatever reason. Conjecture, but it chimes with the contemporary evidence without throwing Henry Joseph's statement out of the window.
Part of the debate but field hockey does not allow certain plays that are fundamental to ice hockey since its inception, namely the forehand and backhand use of the stick, more than two on the ball. Other significant divergences exist as well.

Rules on paper vs rules as the game is played is the ultimate measure.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2014, 02:01 PM
  #17
Killion
Registered User
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Village
Country: Wales
Posts: 30,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Both rugby and field hockey seem to be simply intermediary donors of what was "necessary" or "desired", and not exactly train lines leading directly back to the station of hockey "origin".
Yes, I agree. As an interesting side~bar, theres the game of Cornish Hurling, of Celtic origin stretching well back into the mists of time & legend. Unlike one
of the fore~runners to hockey with Irish Hurling & the use of sticks, Cornish Hurling is akin to Rugby Football, no written rules, played without sticks...

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornish_hurling

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2014, 05:24 PM
  #18
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
I would counter that it depends on how you interpret "patterned after". Did they simply transfer rugby from the field to the ice?
Absolutely, and this makes relying on such an oblique reference problematic, since we can't know what was actually intended.

However, it is worth noting that no mention was made in that article about field hockey or Hockey Association rules. So the article was intended to mean that originally they used rugby-like rules, and then switched to field hockey rules (because we know for a fact they used Hockey Association rules by 1876 at the latest), it's very curious that this detail would have been omitted. The only sport listed as an influence is rugby, so the implication seems pretty clear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
You have contemporary evidence from 1872-1874 contradicting the conjecture surrounding pre-1875 hockey and its rules? Please share.
{Mod} When I say contemporary evidence, I mean evidence from the 1870s, which I hope you'll agree should be considered contemporary when compared to something written in 1943.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
How about the rules of rugby and hockey c.1873/74?
What do you mean by hockey? Do you mean field hockey? The rugby rules I'm referring to are dated from 1871, whereas the Teddington field hockey rules which formed the basis of the Hockey Association rules date from the later 1860s or earlier.

Or, if you're referring to ice hockey, then we don't know for certain what the rules are, however we do have some reason to believe they were similar to the ones published in 1877, since those rules still referred to a ball rather than a puck, and they started using a puck in 1875, which suggests those written rules may have predated the first game played in 1875. Not conclusive by any means.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Wait, I read that game play was patterned after rugby, i.e. the "ball" (puck) can be "carried" (stickhandled) or "kicked" (dumped) forward - not "passed" - and stoppages/starts in play involved "scrums", etc.
All of these examples you have provided are, of course, defined by the game's rules.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Just previous to that there was supposedly an attempt to pattern game play after lacrosse, but it was described as "too hectic".
We have documented games of lacrosse played on ice in various places. In fact, we have a documented case of Henry Joseph playing in a lacrosse match on skates on March 24, 1877 when the Montreal LC lost to the Independents 9-4. Several other early hockey players were involved as well: Billy Aird, Thomas Fraser, Samuel Baylis, Charles Lamothe, Fred Larmonth. These two clubs played another match earlier that season as well. I wonder if these are the lacrosse matches Joseph is remembering?

Joseph states that they tried lacrosse on skates before trying ice hockey, but gave up after one or two matches. And yet, we have a documented case of Joseph playing in a lacrosse game on skates in 1877, after the first hockey matches, and indeed after the time we know that field hockey rules had been adapted to ice hockey.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Why isn't 1876 onward regarded as simply the next "phase" in hockey's evolution
Who said it isn't? The point presently under discussion is whether rugby had any significant influence on that evolution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
and how does anything from 1876 trump the impressive memory of a participant in terms of what was happening previous to that?
It doesn't trump it, in the sense of automatically defeating it. However, if these remembrances are not corroborated with contemporary evidence, they must be taken with a certain amount of salt. Because if you can't demonstrate that what Joseph said in 1943 is what actually happened in 1873, then you just have to assume that he's remembering everything perfectly 70 years later, and human memory is, generally speaking, just not that good.

Now, if Joseph was referring to notes that he had written at the time, that would have corroboration. But we need corroboration. Otherwise, we'd have to accept Richard Smith's claims, and Chick Murray's claims, because they both claimed to remember exactly how it happened, providing some very specific dates at times. Of course, their claims contradict Joseph's claims, so we'll need some way to determine whose, if any, are the most likely to be accurate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Both rugby and field hockey seem to be simply intermediary donors of what was "necessary" or "desired", and not exactly train lines leading directly back to the station of hockey "origin".
What rules did rugby contribute to the hockey played in the late 1870s in Montreal? {Mod} This is a discussion about the version of hockey that was developed in Montreal in the 1870s, and the possible influence that rugby may or may not have had on it.


Last edited by Killion: 08-24-2014 at 05:39 PM. Reason: ... not reqd & technical glitch with quote function.
Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2014, 01:40 AM
  #19
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 28,211
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
{Mod} When I say contemporary evidence, I mean evidence from the 1870s, which I hope you'll agree should be considered contemporary when compared to something written in 1943.
Yeah, but the words of someone speaking from first hand experience in 1873 also means more to me than reverse extrapolation of a guess based on evidence from a later time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
What do you mean by hockey? Do you mean field hockey? The rugby rules I'm referring to are dated from 1871, whereas the Teddington field hockey rules which formed the basis of the Hockey Association rules date from the later 1860s or earlier.

Or, if you're referring to ice hockey, then we don't know for certain what the rules are, however we do have some reason to believe they were similar to the ones published in 1877, since those rules still referred to a ball rather than a puck, and they started using a puck in 1875, which suggests those written rules may have predated the first game played in 1875. Not conclusive by any means.
Wooden pucks were used in Nova Scotia long before Creighton made the move up to Montreal (leather hurley balls being "unwieldy" on the frozen surfaces), so the wording of the rules suggests they weren't exactly tailored to the product that Creighton was offering - rather, borrowed as "guidelines".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
All of these examples you have provided are, of course, defined by the game's rules.
And yet all the games in question to which they at least loosely apply are distinctly different in the eye of the observer. Weird, huh.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
We have documented games of lacrosse played on ice in various places. In fact, we have a documented case of Henry Joseph playing in a lacrosse match on skates on March 24, 1877 when the Montreal LC lost to the Independents 9-4. Several other early hockey players were involved as well: Billy Aird, Thomas Fraser, Samuel Baylis, Charles Lamothe, Fred Larmonth. These two clubs played another match earlier that season as well. I wonder if these are the lacrosse matches Joseph is remembering?

Joseph states that they tried lacrosse on skates before trying ice hockey, but gave up after one or two matches. And yet, we have a documented case of Joseph playing in a lacrosse game on skates in 1877, after the first hockey matches, and indeed after the time we know that field hockey rules had been adapted to ice hockey.
Correction: Joseph suggests that the group led by Creighton tried to pattern the game after lacrosse, but abandoned the idea after a couple of matches. Nowhere in there do I see anything that suggests that no one ever played it (for ***** and giggles, or whatever reason) with friends/colleagues in different settings or at future times.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Who said it isn't? The point presently under discussion is whether rugby had any significant influence on that evolution.
Well, at most it would have been a two year span out of the entire history of the game, and not much of the post-1900 evolution harkens back to such things, so I don't know how much "significance" there is to be found either way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
It doesn't trump it, in the sense of automatically defeating it. However, if these remembrances are not corroborated with contemporary evidence, they must be taken with a certain amount of salt. Because if you can't demonstrate that what Joseph said in 1943 is what actually happened in 1873, then you just have to assume that he's remembering everything perfectly 70 years later, and human memory is, generally speaking, just not that good.
Being able to recall the first names, initials, and nicknames of 14 of the other 17 participants, as well as their positions and family details, after all those years is enough for me to trust his memory to a very large extent. They've all been corroborated, right? Probably not logical to presume he meant any other sport, let alone field hockey of all things, when he said patterned after English rugby (whatever that meant to Joseph), regardless of whether or not his recollection 100% stands up to scrutiny in the other details.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Now, if Joseph was referring to notes that he had written at the time, that would have corroboration. But we need corroboration. Otherwise, we'd have to accept Richard Smith's claims, and Chick Murray's claims, because they both claimed to remember exactly how it happened, providing some very specific dates at times. Of course, their claims contradict Joseph's claims, so we'll need some way to determine whose, if any, are the most likely to be accurate.
How what happened, exactly, and what are the specific contradictions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
What rules did rugby contribute to the hockey played in the late 1870s in Montreal? {Mod} This is a discussion about the version of hockey that was developed in Montreal in the 1870s, and the possible influence that rugby may or may not have had on it.
Late 1870s? Possibly less than it might have in the early 1870s, when the background of the participants may have had a larger influence on the "tinkering". Realize that Creighton wouldn't have had to write down rugby rules for rugby players at a rugby club (or even write down specifically which ones he wanted participants to incorporate into "his" game), that he was starting with a template (shinny hockey) devoid of structured rules for the most part.


Last edited by Theokritos: 08-25-2014 at 06:34 AM. Reason: provocation
Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2014, 06:33 AM
  #20
Robert Gordon Orr
Registered User
 
Robert Gordon Orr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
We have documented games of lacrosse played on ice in various places. In fact, we have a documented case of Henry Joseph playing in a lacrosse match on skates on March 24, 1877 when the Montreal LC lost to the Independents 9-4. Several other early hockey players were involved as well: Billy Aird, Thomas Fraser, Samuel Baylis, Charles Lamothe, Fred Larmonth. These two clubs played another match earlier that season as well. I wonder if these are the lacrosse matches Joseph is remembering?

Joseph states that they tried lacrosse on skates before trying ice hockey, but gave up after one or two matches. And yet, we have a documented case of Joseph playing in a lacrosse game on skates in 1877, after the first hockey matches, and indeed after the time we know that field hockey rules had been adapted to ice hockey.
Montreal Daily Witness - February 8, 1871

LACROSSE MATCH - Prize, a purse of $ 12
This was the ordinary Lacrosse game on skates. The following entries were made: Henry Beckett, Hugh Beckett, F.O.Wood, S.Massey, L.Noyes, R.Huntingdon, J.MacDougall, J.Fraser, H.Joseph, F.Huntingdon, D.Barnston, B.Barnston, C.Huntingdon, F.Jarvis, W.Griffin, Charles Lindsay, R.A.Beckett, Harry Whitney, Gussey Glassford, John G.Grant. Five of the number failed to appear. After a short contest Mr.F.O.Wood and men succeeded in hitting the ball through the flags.

It is interesting to note that it was said to be "the ordinary Lacrosse game on skates", implying that this was not anything new.
Also, seems that they played ten aside, although five of them did not show up. Hitting the ball through the flags is also an interesting observation.

Jarvis, Griffin and Joseph all played in that first hockey game on March 3, 1875. Grant played hockey later on (1878/79).
Maybe B.Barnston (Bill ?) was William Barnston who also played in that first hockey game in 1875.

Robert Gordon Orr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2014, 06:43 AM
  #21
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Theokritos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 7,038
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Gordon Orr View Post
Montreal Daily Witness - February 8, 1871

LACROSSE MATCH - Prize, a purse of $ 12
This was the ordinary Lacrosse game on skates. The following entries were made: Henry Beckett, Hugh Beckett, F.O.Wood, S.Massey, L.Noyes, R.Huntingdon, J.MacDougall, J.Fraser, H.Joseph, F.Huntingdon, D.Barnston, B.Barnston, C.Huntingdon, F.Jarvis, W.Griffin, Charles Lindsay, R.A.Beckett, Harry Whitney, Gussey Glassford, John G.Grant. Five of the number failed to appear. After a short contest Mr.F.O.Wood and men succeeded in hitting the ball through the flags.
Thanks for posting this! Do we know where this game was played? Victoria Skating Rink?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Gordon Orr View Post
It is interesting to note that it was said to be "the ordinary Lacrosse game on skates", implying that this was not anything new.
Depends on whether the "ordinary" refers to "the Lacross game on skates" or to "the Lacrosse game" only. I don't think we can really tell which one it is. Maybe it means the ordinary, familiar game of Lacross - but on skates for a change.

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2014, 06:58 AM
  #22
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Theokritos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 7,038
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
field hockey does not allow certain plays that are fundamental to ice hockey since its inception, namely the forehand and backhand use of the stick, more than two on the ball. Other significant divergences exist as well.
I agree that ice hockey shouldn't be viewed as a rigorous implementation of field hockey on the ice. If that's the impression you got I can understand where your irritation comes from. In my opinion the point is more that the field hockey pattern has left some distinct and significant marks on the early ice hockey rules. The rugby pattern not so much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
it is worth noting that no mention was made in that article about field hockey or Hockey Association rules. So the article was intended to mean that originally they used rugby-like rules, and then switched to field hockey rules (because we know for a fact they used Hockey Association rules by 1876 at the latest), it's very curious that this detail would have been omitted. The only sport listed as an influence is rugby, so the implication seems pretty clear.
It doesn't seem like Henry Joseph wanted to give a systematic, comprehensive overview. That said, I agree it's not without curiosity and the question marks remain quite obviously. It is possible Joseph's memory failed him for once, I just think we shouldn't be to fast drawing imperative conclusions as long as there is no evidence that clearly proves him wrong. But I assume we're in agreement here anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Or, if you're referring to ice hockey, then we don't know for certain what the rules are, however we do have some reason to believe they were similar to the ones published in 1877, since those rules still referred to a ball rather than a puck, and they started using a puck in 1875, which suggests those written rules may have predated the first game played in 1875. Not conclusive by any means.
Sounds plausible, but another curiosity: they didn't adapt the rules for two years after they started using the puck.

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2014, 07:00 AM
  #23
Robert Gordon Orr
Registered User
 
Robert Gordon Orr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
Thanks for posting this! Do we know where this game was played? Victoria Skating Rink?
Yes, it was played at the Victoria Skating Rink

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
Depends on whether the "ordinary" refers to "the Lacross game on skates" or to "the Lacrosse game" only. I don't think we can really tell which one it is. Maybe it means the ordinary, familiar game of Lacross - but on skates for a change.
I agree, the writer may have referred to the game of Lacrosse only.


Here are two examples of early Lacrosse games on skates:
(Notice the size of the goals)

Ca 1879/80
http://www.mccord-museum.qc.ca/en/co...ts/M975.62.159


Ca 1881/82
http://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discove...if&Ecopy=77013

Robert Gordon Orr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2014, 02:43 PM
  #24
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Gordon Orr View Post
Montreal Daily Witness - February 8, 1871
Nice find!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
I agree that ice hockey shouldn't be viewed as a rigorous implementation of field hockey on the ice.
Absolutely, and I don't think anyone here has made any such claim. But in comparison to rugby, based on the available evidence, it seems to have been a much more important influence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
It doesn't seem like Henry Joseph wanted to give a systematic, comprehensive overview.
Absolutely, which also means that his statements cannot really be taken for the level of evidence that it seems to be here. Since he's not being systematic, perhaps he left out the part where they tried out rugby on skates, but that didn't work either, so then they tried field hockey rules. If the passage being used as evidence is acknowledged to be necessarily incomplete, then using it as evidence of what did happen (when there is no other corroboration) is sketchy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
Sounds plausible, but another curiosity: they didn't adapt the rules for two years after they started using the puck.
They may not have changed it in writing until 1886, which is the first written update of the rules that we now have. A reference to "ground" rather than ice snuck into the 1877 rules as well, so they clearly were not absolutely thorough in their revisions.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2014, 02:59 PM
  #25
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Yeah, but the words of someone speaking from first hand experience in 1873 also means more to me than reverse extrapolation of a guess based on evidence from a later time.
1943 is a much later time, so that fact shouldn't be ignored. Without corroboration we can't be sure of the claims, that's why contemporary evidence is so important.

Your characterization of "reverse extrapolation of a guess based on evidence from a later time" is also a serious misrepresentation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Wooden pucks were used in Nova Scotia long before Creighton made the move up to Montreal (leather hurley balls being "unwieldy" on the frozen surfaces), so the wording of the rules suggests they weren't exactly tailored to the product that Creighton was offering - rather, borrowed as "guidelines".
Cork pucks were also used in England before then as well. Creighton et all were certainly not thorough in their revisions of the rules - the 1877 rules had one reference to "ground" changed to "ice", but another reference to "ground" left as-is.

Would it be fair to characterize your statement that these rules were only guidelines (despite being labelled the Rules of the Game in the newspaper article that printed them) as an extrapolation of a guess?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
And yet all the games in question to which they at least loosely apply are distinctly different in the eye of the observer. Weird, huh.
No, not weird at all. Specific games are defined in large part by their rules. Two games played by entirely different rules would not be seen as the same game by observers, would they?

The point is that the specific examples you provided of "game play", as distinct from rules, are in fact defined in the rules of the game. So they are examples of how the rules of the game affect game play.

There are things beyond the rules that you could characterize as "game play", such as what I discuss at my blog. But the particular examples you provided don't work, because they're specific references to rules of the game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Well, at most it would have been a two year span out of the entire history of the game, and not much of the post-1900 evolution harkens back to such things, so I don't know how much "significance" there is to be found either way.
Indeed, and yet there are many sources that specifically state that the version of hockey developed in Montreal, that evolved into the game we now know as ice hockey, was specifically patterned on rugby. None of these sources refer to it as a brief blip in the evolution of the game, they refer to it as the basis of the Canadian game of ice hockey. See the post I link to in my blog post in the OP.

So you are correct in that, if rugby did have a significant influence at one point, that it was very short-lived. (And, of course, depending on how you define ice hockey, it may not have been ice hockey at all.) But that is not how it is portrayed when it is discussed, and that's what I'm addressing here: claims that rugby formed the foundation of the game we now know as ice hockey.

Iain Fyffe 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 08:49 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2016 All Rights Reserved.