I'm also looking for a book that might give detailed descriptions on how the game was played prior to 1870. I can't quite picture how the fair catch/ free kick rule worked (and I'm not allowed to start a thread here yet, because I'm new). It looks like a book might be my only way of getting this information. Any recommendations?
I've been reading several books on how American Football was played prior to adopting the rugby influenced rules of the 1870's. Most agree that it was played exactly like the London "Rules of Association Football" that were compiled in 1863. The difference was that the americans largely ignored the offsides rules, which led to a wall of blockers leading the way for their teammate dribbling the ball up field. This gives me a pretty clear picture on what scoring a goal was like, until you introduce two facts: Rule 1: The maximum length of the ground shall be 200 yards, the minimum breadth shall be 100 yards, the length and breadth shall be marked off with flags; and the goals hall be defined by two upright posts, 8 yards apart, without a tape or bar across them. So this tells me that 1863 association rules required you to kick a ball between two posts that went infinitely upward. I've read accounts of soccer goals that counted despite being "90 ft in the air." That sounds pretty hard to defend even with posts that are only 8 yards apart, but I can still picture it. That is until you introduce rule 8. Rule 8: If a player makes a fair catch he shall be entitled to a free kick, provided he claims it by making a mark with his heel at once; and in order to take such kick he may go as far back as he pleases, and no player on the opposite side shall advance beyond his mark until he has kicked. This is where I get confused. I understand the free kick part, I think. A player catches an airborne ball, and quickly makes a mark on the ground with his heel. Every defender on the field must now gather somewhere between that new mark and their own goal. This must've really slowed down the American football game, where a dozen or so players are "offside" camping in front of their opponents goal, and now have to gather behind the mark. The player who makes the fair catch can now bring the ball anywhere behind the mark and place kick it. But where do they kick it? Do they try to score a goal? The modern indirect kick was based on the Sheffield Rules, and was probably not used in the association game of 1863. So I assume a free kick would be the easiest way to score. Espeically when there is no crossbar to kick the ball under. I imagine defenders could do absolutely to stop a free kick on goal. My larger question is, when can you make a fair catch? Any time the ball is in the air? It seems like the easiest way to score would be to dribble the ball up the pitch and lightly kick the ball (in the air) to a teammate a couple of yards behind you. the teammate could make a fair catch and have a free direct kick on goal that would be pretty much unblockable. Sounds like scoring a goal under those rules couldn't be simpler. But I'm fairly sure that goals were just as hard to come by as today, so I am interpreting the rules of 1863 incorrectly. So in summary, I was wondering: under what circumstances can a fair catch be made, and can your free kick be made to score on your opponents goal? Thanks for reading guys!
I may have answered my own question about the fair catch/ free kick rule. I found a definition of terms from that era. Firstly, I was mistaken in thinking that a fair catch had to be place kicked. A "free kick" by 1860's definition is "the privilege of kicking at the ball, without obstruction in such a manner as the kicker may think fit." So I think you probably could've scored (or passed the ball) by a place kick or drop kick. There's no mention of punting anywhere in these rules, so I'm not sure if that was an option. And I now see that a fair catch is: "when the ball is caught after it has touched the person of an adversary, and before it has touched the ground or one of the side catching it; but if the ball is kicked from behind the goal line, a fair catch cannot be made." So it appears that you can't kick it to your own teammate for a free kick. It's more of an interception of the other team's kick. So if a ball is launched into the air, the defender can try to catch it, but the attacker has to play the ball with his body only? I don't think that sounds correct. If there's anyone who has a better grasp of the Association Rules of this time, I'd love to hear from you! I wish I could've started my own post on this, instead of being hidden in the history books section. The downside of being a newbie.
I think the big thing to remember is that the modern passing game didn't exist at the time. The key point is Law 6 at the time of the 1863 rules which stated: 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 the ball has been played, but no player is out of play when the ball is kicked from behind the goal line. So basically you couldn't pass the ball to a player further forward than you were (like in rugby today). This rule was amended in 1866 at the same time as the Fair Catch rule was dropped. Passing though in this era (backwards or forwards) wasn't in the minds of people. Essentially it was a game of dribbling. You got the ball and charged forward with it, dribbling until you were either tackled or you had a shot on goal. The idea of passing to another player was totally alien. More than that, it was unmanly and seen as a dereliction of your duty as a player. There are quite a few books which cover this off quite well (The Ball is Round and Inverting the Pyramid being good examples), but most of the people who played football in the earliest days came from the public schools (particularly Charterhouse). There the game was played in narrow cloisters so there was no room to pass the ball. If you've ever played football in a narrow corridor you'll know what I mean, basically all you can do is charge forward and hope to barge your opponents out of the way. I hope that helps a little but let me know if i can help more.
Thanks comme, I am reading The Ball is Round as you suggested, and have a better idea of what play was like at that time, and the aggressive and violent mind state of the public school students playing it. The lack of any kid of real passing as you say, must have kept the ball largely close to the ground and probably made any kind of fair catching rare. I would think that any attempt to loft the ball would be in an effort to score or possibly a desperation pass in front of your opponent's goal. There are still two possibilities of the fair kick/ free kick rule that I haven't seen addressed and I was wondering if you knew any more about these situations: 1) If a player kicks a ball into the air, we have established that a defender can catch it. But if the kicker's teammate is standing next to that defender, can he make a play on the ball? Or does he have to stand aside and allow that defender a free catch? I know that heading the ball and high crossing were not practiced in this era. 2) The rules state that after a free catch, a player "may" take a free kick by immediately making a heel mark in the ground. Gameplay stops and the defenders must now approach no closer than the mark. But does the player catching the ball have to take a free kick? Can he just catch the ball, drop it to the ground, and continue play? It seems like the best way to take advantage of a change of possession, is to immediately charge up the field without halting play.
The "mark" still exists in Aussie Rules. Indeed, kicking to a player near to the goal to give him a relatively free shot is a crucial part of the tactical play of there game there, perhaps even more so than trying to score directly. Quite when it was realised that would be tactically beneficial is less clear though. It is more likely that a mark near the goal would come from a poor defensive clearance. It might seem odd that in a game with a rugby style offside law that the ball would be kicked forward at all, but then the ball is kicked forward in rugby too. The reason is that a kick gains a lot of territory, and kicking the ball down the other end and trying to force a turnover near their goal could easily have been a tactic of the day. As for the questions, I'd speculate that there'd be no problem with a teammate challenging for a catch. There'd just be little point. I'm sure a player could also just play on. He'd just not indicate a mark is being taken.
Thanks RichardL. You are probably right on both counts. Part of my problem is that I'm trying to discover how the earliest American football games were played, which were adapted from 1863 Association rules. The people on this forum seem to be the most knowledgable about these London rules, which is why I've come here instead of an american football forum. I suppose that much of my confusion of the fair catch rule, comes from the fact that the americans didn't use offsides at all. It seems to me that a fair catch under the old american rules, would in fact operate a lot like the modern Australian rules. I've recently discovered that Princeton University did just that in it's second intercollegiate game ever. They just made short kicks up and down the field which were caught by teammates. Play stopped, more short kicks, and then an easy score. They blanked their first opponents 8-0 under this style of play, since their opponents at Rutgers were used to the standard kicking game. The inclusion of offsides in the UK game, really takes the powerful advantage out of the fair catch/ free kick. As always, I have one more question! 1) Was punting always around in the association game? As RichardL said, it would be the best way to clear a ball down the field on a fair catch (as goal keepers do today), but again, I am thinking of the no-offside situation in america. It seems like if one got a free kick in the vicinity of their opponents goal post, punting it through would be the easiest way to score (like in Aussie rules). The rule says the player may kick the ball in "any way that they seem fit", I just don't know if people actually punted the ball back then. It's not mentioned anywhere. Thanks!