"There
is little evidence to support the popular belief that William Webb Ellis
created a new form of football. The point is that the rules of the game as
it was played at the school at that time were made by the boys themselves
and those rules were constantly revised. If you look at the notes of the
Bigside Levees - notes made by the boys themselves - you will see that the
rules were discussed almost every time the boys went out to play and that
adjustments were frequently made."
Malcolm Lee, master in
charge of Rugby football in 1978, talking to John Reason and Carwyn James in
The World of
Rugby
.
"There
are so many conflicting reports of how the game of rugby came into being
that the only thing that is for certain is that Rugby School's William Webb
Ellis did not spontaneously invent the game when he picked up the ball and
ran with it, 'Showing a fine disregard for the rules of football as played
in his time', the time in question being 1823. Not only did a schoolboy
contemporary of Webb Ellis refute the notion a few years later, but there is
also the fact that rugby was by no means the first code to involve running
and handling. In fact, before Webb Ellis did his party trick in 1823, all
codes of football involved running and handling."
The ultimate Encyclopedia of Rugby, edited by Richard Bat
Introducing
Matthew Holbeche Bloxam
1805-1888
|
|
Matthew
Bloxam was, like me, an enthusiast that nobody but his friends had ever
heard of - with the one exception that he is the sole source of the William
Webb Ellis myth. We therefore need to know something about who he was, and
how he came to know about WWE.
He
was himself a pupil at
Rugby
School
, where his father was a master. Born in 1805, he entered the school in 1813
and left in 1820. He qualified as a solicitor and lived the rest of his life
in the town. He acquired a reputation as a diligent antiquarian, and wrote a
very successful work on Gothic architecture.
He
remained a lifelong enthusiast for all things Rugbeian, and maintained close
links with the school. In his day there was no school magazine, but when the
Meteor was started, he contributed articles reminiscing about
the old days, his days.
Rugby
football was one of
the subjects that attracted his interest as it grew to be a national and
even international pastime. When a correspondence arose in The
Standard newspaper about the origins of the game, he wrote to
the Meteor with a
description of the game as played when he was at the school. A later letter,
in October 1876, first mentioned the William Webb Ellis story, which he had
been told by some unidentified person. The details were (slightly) expanded
in an article in 1880.
By
the time the Old Rugbeian Society decided to conduct an investigation in
1895, he was sadly no longer available, having died in1888.
What
do we know about WWE?
James Ellis was in
the Dragoon Guards, and married Miss Ann Webb in
Exeter
in 1804. He was killed in the battle of Albuera in 1812 leaving his widow
with two small sons. Thomas was 8, and William, who was born on 24 November
1806 in Salford,
Lancashire
, was then aged 6. Mrs Ellis decided to move to
Rugby
because she hoped to get the children a good education at the school at no
cost as local foundationers.
William entered
the school in 1816 and was a good scholar as well as a good cricketer. In
1825 he won the Second Exhibition of his year to
Oxford
, where he represented his university at cricket against
Cambridge
. He entered Holy Orders, first as minister of St George's, Albemarle
Street, London, and then as Rector of St Clement Danes in the Strand. The
only known picture of him appeared in the Illustrated London Post at this
time, as a consequence of a stirring sermon he gave concerning the Crimean
War. In 1855 he became rector of Laver Magdalen in
Essex
.
He died in the
South of France on 24 January 1872, probably quite unaware of his supposed
connection to the RFU that had been founded the year before. His grave at
Menton was rediscovered by Ross McWhirter in 1959 and has since been
renovated.
None of the rather
small amount of further information that has been gathered about his life
sheds any light at all on the claim that his action in running with the ball
changed the nature of
Rugby
football.
How
the story arose
The first article
by Bloxam in the Meteor
simply gave his reminiscences on the game of rugby football as played in his
day. To quote Jennifer Macrory's excellent book, Running
with the ball, "Bloxam
had originally responded that running with the ball had been introduced
sometime after Dr Arnold became Headmaster in 1828. However he had made
further enquiries and then he '... ascertained that this change originated
with a Town boy or foundationer of the name of Ellis, William Webb Ellis.
[...] It must, I think, have been in the second half-year of 1823 that this
change from the former system, in which the football was not allowed to be
taken up and run with, commenced.' " This
was written in October 1876.
A more detailed
version of this, again by Bloxam, appeared in the 12 December 1880 edition
of the Meteor:
"In the latter half of
1823, some fifty-seven years ago, originated though without premeditation,
that change in one of the rules, which more than any other has since
distinguished the
Rugby
School
game from the Association Rules.
"A boy of the name Ellis - William Webb Ellis - a town boy and a
foundationer, .... whilst playing Bigside at football in that half-year,
caught the ball in his arms. This being so, according to the then rules, he
ought to have retired back as far as he pleased, without parting with the
ball, for the combatants on the opposite side could only advance to the spot
where he had caught the ball, and were unable to rush forward till he had
either punted it or had placed it for some one else to kick, for it was by
means of these placed kicks that most of the goals were in those days
kicked, but the moment the ball touched the ground the opposite side might
rush on. Ellis, for the first time, disregarded this rule, and on catching
the ball, instead of retiring backwards, rushed forwards with the ball in
his hands towards the opposite goal, with what result as to the game I know
not, neither do I know how this infringement of a well-known rule was
followed up, or when it became, as it is now, a standing rule."
It is perhaps
unsurprising that after 57 years the actual details were a little hazy.
Bloxam himself writes: "After
the games of the day were concluded, however vigorously they may have been
contended, all further remembrance of the game was consigned to the limbo of
oblivion, our tasks to be learned that night were sufficiently onerous to
allow little leisure for discussion, and there was no Meteor
in which the incidents of each game could be recorded."
It is sheer chance
that this snippet of memory has survived, shorn of all context. It is
disappointing that Bloxam did not say whose memory he was relying on -
clearly it was not his own. One strong possibility is that he had been
talking to his brother John, who had been an exact contemporary of WWE at
school. If so, it is noteworthy that the subject had apparently never arisen
before.
These articles,
written 53 and 57 years after the event and based on someone else's
memories, are the sole source for the WWE story.
The
original game
History abounds in
references to ball games, such as harpastum, camp-ball, or hurling to goals,
which had features now recognised as belonging to soccer or to rugby. Most
games combined handling and kicking, and in some, such as the game at
Scone
, kicking was actually forbidden. In general, we should not be asking when
carrying the ball was first allowed, but when it was first banned.
However the boys
at
Rugby
School
in 1820 would not have been aware of any historical precedents for their
game, so we should look a little closer at the version they were
playing. Here we can safely start with Matthew Bloxam's own memories:
"When all had
assembled in the Close, two of the best players in the school commenced
choosing in, one for each side. [...] After choosing in about a score on
each side, a somewhat rude division was made of the remaining fags, half of
whom were sent to keep goal on the one side, the other half to the opposite
goal for the same purpose. Any fag, though not chosen in, might follow up on
that side to the goal of which he was attached. Some of these were ready
enough to mingle in the fray; others judiciously kept half-back, watching
their opportunity for a casual kick, which was not unfrequently awarded
them. Few and simple were the rules of the game; touch on the sides of the
ground was marked out and no one was allowed to run with the ball in his
grasp towards the opposite goal. It was football and not handball, plenty of
hacking but little struggling. As to costume, there were neither flannels or
caps, the players simply doffed their hats, and coats, or jackets, which
were heaped together on either side near the goals till the game was
over."
In those early
days the game was controlled entirely by the boys themselves, and it was
governed by custom rather than written rules. As the Rev. Thomas Harris (of
whom more later) wrote of the late 1820s: "Our
Laws in those days were unwritten and traditionary, so that I can give no
authority beyond custom."
There are some
exercise books extant that record discussions of Bigside Levees, at which
such matters were argued, but the first known written rules date from 1845.
Until then the game was handed down from one generation to the next, and,
like the children's games you can observe in primary schools today, each
generation felt free to modify the rules as they thought fit, careless of
what previous generations had decided or what future generations might
think.
Most of the other
descriptions of the early game come from after the time of WWE, and will be
considered later. One thing at least is crystal clear: running with the ball
was not permitted in 1820, whatever the historical precedents elsewhere.
"The
distinctive feature"?
Much is made of
the claim that running with the ball is the
distinctive feature of rugby as distinct from soccer, but in
1820, when there were no inter-school games, each school developed its own
version of football, all with their own distinctive features. Most such
games have been dropped in favour of modern standardised sports (though the
Eton Wall Game still survives, for example).
We must also
remember that soccer and rugby were not distinct games at that time.
Everybody considered that they were playing "football" and merely
accepted that there were different versions. Even as late as 1871, (the FA
was founded in 1863) when the first rugby international took place, it was
seen as being the third match in a series between England and Scotland - the
first two of which happened to be played under Association rules.
And, of course,
even within each school the game could change from one generation of players
to the next. However each school did tend to have a distinctive basic style
of its own as the following synopsis (for about 1850) shows.
|
|
handling
|
tackling
|
|
|
|
stop
|
catch
|
carry
|
collar
|
hack
|
goal
|
Eton
|
-
|
8
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
8
|
between
posts
|
Cambridge
|
-
|
8
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
between
posts
|
Shrewsbury
|
-
|
8
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
8
|
between
posts
|
Harrow
|
-
|
8
|
8
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
between
posts
|
Charterhouse
|
-
|
8
|
8
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
under
bar
|
Winchester
|
8
|
8
|
8
|
8
|
-
|
-
|
over
line
|
Rugby
|
8
|
8
|
8
|
8
|
8
|
8
|
over
bar
|
As can be seen,
all games allowed the use of hands, if only to stop the ball. What would a
contemporary of Bloxam's, transferring perhaps from another school, have
regarded as distinctive about the
Rugby
game?
Before the game
even started, he would have noticed the unique H-shaped goal posts, and
would have learned that "it
won't do just to kick the ball through these posts, it must go over the
cross bar; any height'll do, so long as it's between the posts",
as East described it to Tom Brown, eponymous hero of Thomas Hughes'
well-known book.
When the game
started, he would have seen scrummages and mauls, involving much pushing and
heaving, kicking and hacking, the ball being somewhere in the middle.
If the ball rolled
out of such a press of boys, it was kicked, and if it was caught in the air,
the catcher could "make his mark". He would then retire a little
way, and the opposition could come up to that mark, but not charge him until
he started to kick. A player with the ball could be obstructed in some way,
though what we would now call tackling was apparently not permitted.
If the mark were
near enough to goal, he would attempt a place-kick or drop-kick. For the
former, the player would hold the ball just above the ground for another to
kick, and the opposition could only charge when the ball was actually
touched to the ground - at the last possible second. For the latter, the
player would let the ball drop so that it bounced on the ground before he
kicked it. A goal could also be scored in what the visitor might regard as a
more conventional way - by kicking it off the ground and over the bar.
However this was relatively unusual.
If a player
catching the ball had run forward with it instead of retiring, it might have
been too subtle a breach of the rules for a new-comer, though obvious enough
to an experienced Rugbeian. The rules were complex, and as the estimable
East tells us "you'll be a
month learning them".
For us, soccer is
the kicking code, and rugby the handling code; and this was probably true in
the 1890s when the famous plaque was researched and written. It is not
unreasonable for us to ask how this came about, but we should be wary of
assuming that any such distinction was particularly noteworthy at the time
of William Webb Ellis.
The
original investigation
In
1895, the Old Rugbeian Society set up a sub-committee to investigate the
origin of
Rugby
football. They published a report in 1897 which contained in full the most
significant letters they received, but did not give details of the questions
that were asked. It is however fairly clear that they specifically quoted
Bloxam about William Webb Ellis: Gibbs refers to an unspecified quote from
Bloxam, and Hughes writes: "The
'Webb Ellis tradition' had not survived to my day."
The
following table summarises the various points made to the sub-committee, and
for convenience, I have also included Ellis and Bloxam in their
chronological positions. Items in brackets represent an inference rather
than a direct statement.
name
|
arrived*
|
left
|
WWE
|
pick-up
|
carry
|
passing
|
mark
|
hacking
|
collaring
|
try
|
Matthew Holbeche Bloxam
|
1813
|
1820
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
William Webb Ellis
|
1816
|
1825
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas Harris (& John)
|
1819
|
1828
|
yes
|
no
|
no
|
|
yes
|
|
no
|
|
Henry Homer
|
1828
|
?
|
|
|
probably
|
|
|
|
|
|
H G Allen
|
<1830
|
1833
|
|
|
unclear
|
(no)
|
|
|
|
|
John R Lyon (& Edward)
|
1830
|
1834
|
|
yes
|
yes
|
|
|
yes
|
yes
|
yes
|
Francis Hugh Dean
|
1830
|
1839
|
|
|
probably
|
|
yes
|
|
|
|
George Charles Benn
|
1830
|
1840
|
|
no
|
yes
|
no
|
|
|
|
|
H R Nevill
|
1830
|
1840
|
|
no
|
yes
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Coke Fowler
|
1830
|
?
|
|
|
yes
|
(no)
|
|
|
|
|
Peregrine Birch
|
1831
|
?
|
|
no
|
yes
|
|
|
|
|
|
Samuel Garratt
|
1831
|
?
|
|
|
yes
|
|
|
yes
|
|
|
Henry H Gibbs
|
1832
|
1836
|
(no)
|
|
yes
|
|
|
yes
|
|
|
Sir Alexander Arbuthnot
|
1832
|
<<1850
|
|
|
yes
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas Hughes
|
1834
|
1842
|
|
no
|
see
below¤
|
no
|
|
|
(yes)
|
yes
|
F Lushington
|
?
|
1839
|
|
|
probably
|
|
|
yes
|
|
|
J W Cunningham
|
?
|
?
|
|
|
yes
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Although
correspondents are listed by their year of entering
Rugby
School
, it would have been better to list them by their leaving year, if that were
available, since in general, only the senior boys played Bigside. That
implies that the information given refers to their final three years or so.
It is notable that
most of the writers were somewhat vague about the rules in their time. In
part this was due to their age, and the time that had elapsed since their
days at
Rugby
; moreover subsequent developments may have confused the issue. However the
lack of formality over rules in those early days was undoubtedly a
significant factor.
The oldest of all,
the Reverend Thomas Harris, was surprisingly confident:-
"Picking up and running
with the ball in hand was distinctly forbidden. If a player caught the ball
on a rebound from the ground, or from a stroke of the hand, he was allowed
to take a few steps so as to give effect to a 'Drop-kick', but no more;
subject of course to interruption from adverse players."
He was also the
only one to have known WWE:-
"I remember Mr William
Webb Ellis perfectly. He was an admirable cricketer, but was generally
regarded as inclined to take unfair advantages at Football. I should not
quote him in any way as an authority."
(Perhaps he was under the
impression that WWE himself was claiming to have invented carrying the
ball.)
In a second letter
he says:-
"As to Mr W Webb Ellis
and his practices, you must observe that I was several years his junior, and
had not either reasons or opportunities for closely observing his manner of
play."
Harris also
comments that his brother, John, who left in 1832, agrees with what he has
written.
At the other end
of the scale, Hughes made an interesting point which illustrates that rules
were not as hard and fast as we see them today:-
¤"In
my first year, 1834, running with the ball to get a try by touching down
within goal was not absolutely forbidden, but a jury of Rugby boys of that
day would almost certainly have found a verdict of 'justifiable homicide' if
a boy had been killed in running in."
The famous plaque
that the Society put up in 1900 is perhaps best regarded as an early example
of spin-doctoring. The actual report is much more circumspect in the
conclusions it drew:-
"It may, we think, be
fairly considered to be proved from the foregoing statements, that in 1820
the form of football in vogue at Rugby was something approximating more
closely to Association than to what is known as Rugby football to-day, that
at some date between 1820 and 1830 the innovation was introduced of running
with the ball, that this was in all probability done in the latter half of
1823 by Mr W Webb Ellis, who is credited by Mr Bloxam with the invention and
whose 'unfair practices' were (according to Mr Harris) the subject of
general remark at the time. To this we would add that the innovation was
regarded as of doubtful legality for some time, and only gradually became
accepted as part of the game, but obtained a customary status between 1830
and 1840, and was duly legalized first by Bigside Levee in 1841-42 (as
stated by Judge Hughes) and finally by the rules of 1846."
The last part of
this, regarding the 1830s, seems unexceptionable. It is however somewhat
curious that, despite quoting Mr Harris on WWE's practices, they ignore his
clear statement that in his day, running with the ball was forbidden - which
means that the practice had not been accepted in 1828. William Webb
Ellis left the school in 1825.
Conclusions
The historical
evidence that William Webb Ellis "with
a fine disregard for the rules of football as played in his time, first took
the ball in his arms and ran with it thus originating the distinctive
feature of the Rugby game AD1823"
is unsatisfactory, since the story is anonymous and incomplete.
The historical
evidence that 3 years after he had left the school, the practice was "distinctly
forbidden" is pretty
strong, being a firm personal recollection from two individuals with
first-hand experience.
The necessary
connection between what William Webb Ellis might have done and the
development of the carrying game, is not just missing, but apparently cannot
exist. He therefore cannot be presented as the father of the modern game.
No doubt the myth
will continue, if only because of the William Webb Ellis Cup. The choice of
name was in the same PR tradition as the famous plaque, and History is the
loser. Plus ça change, plus c'est la
même chose, as they would say in Menton.