Scotland were leading by a try to nil when one of their players, CW Berry, “knocked back” the ball near their line when it was “thrown out from touch” – in modern parlance, in a lineout. It soon came to RS Kindersley of England, who promptly ran in for a try.  There followed a disputatious 10 minutes (or more) as the Scots argued the try should be disallowed.  Eventually the game was resumed, and, under protest, WN Bolton kicked what was to be the game (and championship) winning goal.

Since part of this dispute turned on a question of law, here is the relevant passage:-

LAW 26 Knocking On ie hitting the ball with the hand, and Throwing Forward ie throwing the ball in the direction of the opponents’ goal line are not lawful.  If the ball be either knocked on or thrown forward, the opposite side may (unless a fair catch has been made as provided by the next rule) require to have it brought back to the spot where it was so knocked on or thrown forward, and there put down.

The law was well established by 1884, having been essentially in effect for International Matches since 1871.

After the match the Scots continued to vigorously dispute the decision to allow the English try, and hence their winning goal.  So aggrieved were they that they attempted to have the decision overturned by appeal after the match was over. 

Strange though it may seem to us, in those days a result or incident could be overturned by appeal to the RFU (a right finally abolished in 1969).  The Scots problem here was that the match was played in England, and the RFU was not prepared to agree that anyone other than themselves should rule on the laws they themselves had made, and under which the game had been played for some years.

There was a stiff, formal, somewhat waspish exchange of letters between the two Secretaries, extracts from which perhaps best convey the flavour of the problem and the arguments raised.

From: Hon Sec SRFU James Alex. Gardner 19 March 1884

          They [the Scottish Committee] at once accept the ruling of the Referee that the ball was ‘fisted’ by a Scotchman, but they entirely dissent from your reading of Rule 26.  They consider that ‘knocking on’, the technical expression for what is commonly called a ‘fist’, includes knocking forward, knocking to the side, and knocking backwards.  Striking the ball with the hand in any direction they believe to constitute a knock-on, and thus to be illegal.

From: Hon Sec RFU G Rowland Hill 21 March 1884

          Did your Committee in deciding to appeal on the grounds that a knock back is illegal consider the words in law 26, – “the opposite side may?”

          The interpretation of these words is, that it is only the opposite side that has the right of appeal.  I was told by the referee that no Englishman appealed.  I am not admitting that knocking back is illegal, but simply pointing out that if it is, the act was done by a Scotchman who has to suffer for his mistake.

From: SRFU 25 March 1884

          In the Laws of Rugby Football, ‘back’ is contrasted with ‘forward’, not with ‘on’.  We maintain that a ‘knock on’ means a knock onward in any direction.

From: RFU 1 May 1884

          You ask that the fact should be considered that you believe an Englishman appealed.  Assuming the necessity for discussing such a point the Scotch Umpire is of the opinion that an appeal was made by an Englishman.  The English Umpire holds a contrary opinion.  The Referee has to decide.  He gave his verdict that no Englishman appealed.  On a question of fact against the decision of the Referee no appeal can be made.

At the suggestion of the RFU, both sides made statements to the newspapers.

RFU 28 May 1884

[after quoting Law 26] The Scotch Committee maintain that ‘knocking on’ mentioned in the Law means knocking the ball with the hand in any direction.

          The Rugby Union Committee have ruled in the past and still hold that the words in this Law, – ‘in the direction of the opponents’ goal line’, apply to ‘knocking on’ as well as to ‘throwing forward’.

          It is equally lawful to knock back as it is to throw back.

          This is the reading of the Law which was intended by the framers of the code.  Therefore, as there was no breach of Law, the try was fairly obtained.

          It should be further noted that if the act was illegal it was done by a Scotchman.

SRFU 22 July 1884

          There was at the time an appeal from several players, and it was not then, and probably could not be decided who made individual appeals to the Umpire, but that the appeal was acquiesced in by both sides was evident from the fact, that the majority of the players on both sides stopped playing as soon as the piece of play under dispute occurred.

The post A Disputed Try first appeared on therugbyhistorysociety.co.uk.

As the year drew to a close the All Blacks made the journey from Twickenham to Portsmouth to meet Hampshire on Wednesday December 17th 1924. So far the tour had gone well for them. Although in some quarters the squad had been considered almost embarrassingly weak as they had departed New Zealand they had settled and soon proved their detractors wrong. This was to be the twenty sixth match of a long, long, tour. The quarter century of matches that had preceded it had all been won, and often won well. The scalps of both Ireland and Wales had already been taken, with tests against England and France to follow in the coming weeks, two of the four games that remained for the All Blacks to face after today before they finally headed home. For Hampshire itself the chance to face such august company was without question the greatest single honour that had ever been handed to the county and it was the first time that they had been included in the schedule for a touring side from the southern hemisphere. To date Hampshire had never advanced to the final stages of the County Championship and were not generally regarded as one of the stronger county sides. It proved a rare opportunity. Interest in the game was expected to be high, and expectations were that it would far outstrip the amenities provided by any of the rugby grounds available within the county. With this in mind Portsmouth Football Club had been approached and the use of their home ground Fratton Park secured for the game, a decision that was in the end justified by the fifteen thousand odd spectators who turned out to watch the proceedings unfold.

During their last game the previous Saturday against Combined Services the All Blacks had been comfortable winners by a twenty five to three point margin. As may be expected so far into a major tour they made several changes for this match. Hampshire in all fairness were probably regarded by them as a fairly easy target and with test matches to come their remained the need to rotate the squad in an attempt to keep players fresh. Even so then, as now, there was no such thing as a weak New Zealand side and there were few who realistically expected an upset. For their part Hampshire selected several of the services players who had faced the All Blacks earlier in the week, possibly in the hope that their previous exposure to the visitors style of play would prove to be of assistance. The United Services Portsmouth club had long provided quality players to the county, today providing five of the counties number including the Captain WG Agnew. The rest of the team was also playing week in and week out for good club sides. Many played for the Army or Navy or with some of the more glamorous London clubs such as Harlequins and London Scottish. In all it was probably as strong a side as Hampshire could expect to put together. A notable member of the side was Cyril Kershaw, now in the twilight of his illustrious playing career which had seen him gain sixteen caps for England , many of them whilst partnering the now retired but almost legendary Dave Davies. The scrum half’s game would be watched with interest by the England selectors and the casual spectator alike, particularly with an England trial match forthcoming the following week.

On the day of the match an early morning fog had burnt off and the sun shone on Portsmouth as New Zealand kicked off. Hampshire started as brightly as the day, the tactical kicking of the Harlequins three quarter Richard Hamilton-Wickes pushing the county team into All Black territory where their outweighed pack played a spirited game that stopped the visitors in their tracks. During a dynamic forward attack early in the game fate, as is often the case, took a hand. Tackled strongly D Orr-Ewing, one of the United Services players on show, fell awkwardly. Showing no slight personal bravery he remained on the pitch for a few minutes, but it was clear that his collar bone had been dislocated and he was forced to leave the pitch. Being a man down in the pack against any side is a major handicap, but against New Zealand for Hampshire this was near disaster. Even so they doggedly hung on for most of the first half. The All Blacks it has to be said were playing below their normal standard. To those who had been following their tour they appeared jaded and mechanical in their play. It was not until minutes before the interval that the deadlock was broken. From a scrum deep in Hampshire territory Bert Cooke and Kenneth ‘Snowy’ Svenson moved the ball on to Quentin Donald who scored the try. This was soon followed by a further try to Cooke. With the second try converted by Andrew ‘Son’ White the All Blacks took a fairly unconvincing eight points to nil lead into half time, but all things considered it was still a lead that appeared quite safe.

As the sides changed ends Hampshire continued their now uneven battle. Kershaw and HWTT Wood of the United Services both came close to scoring, but were denied. The All Blacks continued to turn the screw. Even though still far from their best they could capitalize on the mistakes of their opponents. Following a lapse in Hampshire’s defence Neil McGregor crossed their line, White this time missing the conversion. The great George Napier kicked a difficult penalty as the visitors drew away to an unassailable lead. The mist that had been present in the morning now began to reappear. Through the growing fog Svenson dashed through out wide on the right wing, Napier missing the tricky conversion. With ten minutes to play the gloom had grown, visibility being now reduced to just a couple of yards. The two Captains and the referee, Major HEB Wilkins of the London Society, decided to complete the match but there were few of the rapidly thinning crowd who could actually see McGregor score a final try, Napier convert it or indeed White leave the field as he suffered a similar injury to that which had befallen the unlucky Orr-Ewing earlier in the game. As the final whistle blew the All Blacks could leave the pitch with their work finally comfortably done, victors by twenty two points to nil.

In many ways it had been an anticlimactic match, certainly not the spectacle that had been hoped for before kick off. Hampshire had shown grit, but had never truly been menacing. The loss of Orr-Ewing so early in the match obviously did them few favours. Equally their half backs had failed to connect as a pair, a fact that stifled their attacks. Kershaw was far from his best, whilst his partner D Macdonald of London Scottish seemed unable to read his game and anticipate his moves. Eventually Kershaw took to cutting him out, firing passes to the right wing that had mixed success. For Kershaw there would be no international recall as England faced the All Blacks later in their tour, with Richard Hamilton-Wickes being the only Hampshire man selected for the game  For all this it had been a creditable effort and Hampshire had stood up to the New Zealanders until the end. For the All Blacks themselves it had been an artisan performance. They had set out to win and win they had. They had not been at their best but had taken the chances that were offered to them. Their mindset is indicated by a tale related by Wavell Wakefield in his book ‘Rugger’. During the game a Hampshire forward was tackled strongly by William ‘Bull’ Irvine , a member of the New Zealand pack. Irvine immediately remonstrated with the county player, asking him what he was doing and to let him go. Being the tackled party the probably rather bemused Hampshire man apologised and the game went on. After the match Irvine was heard to say that the other player was no good, after all what sort of player apologises for being tackled? Mental strength or gamesmanship? However you view it the 1924 All Blacks were strongly imbued with the self belief that is shown by all good teams, one that allows them to play poorly and still win. From here they would go on to win their remaining four matches and claim the title ‘The Invincibles’. Even without their injury worries, misfiring halves and dense fog it remains a fact that Hampshire would have been hard pressed to achieve what no other team could do and best this particular side.

  Hampshire:- CM Evan-Thomas, HWV Stephenson, RH Hamilton-Wickes, JA Coutts, HWH Wood, CA Kershaw, D Macdonald, P Williams-Powlett, TG Rennie, KI Herbert, JS Chick, JA Ross, WG Agnew, D Orr-Ewing, JW Forrest

New Zealand:- G Napier, KS Svenson, FW Lucas, A Hart, NP McGregor, AE Cooke, J Mill, JH Parker, Q Donald, WR Irvine, MJ Brownlie, IH Harvey, AH West, A White, L Cupples

  Sources

‘A Game for Hooligans’, Richards H, Mainstream Publishing, 2006

‘Fifty Years of the All Blacks’, Wooler W & Owen D, Phoenix House Ltd, 1954

‘Rugger’, Wakefield WW & Marshall HP, Longmans, Green & Co, 1927

The Times Online Digital Archive

Statsguru at scrum.com

The post Hampshire v New Zealand 1924 first appeared on therugbyhistorysociety.co.uk.

He was born on 9th November 1856 in Dublin , the eldest son of William Barclay Browne Scriven, a Physician, and Sarah (nee Hamilton ). His grandfather, Henry Alexander Hamilton, bequeathed to his parents when he died in 1901, the Hampton Estates including Hampton Hall, Balbriggan (north of Dublin ), as well as properties in Dublin , City and County, Longford, Meath and Kildare.

He was christened on the 4^th December 1856 at St. Peters in Dublin . His brother was Rev. Roland Scriven who became curate of the parish at Hampton Hall.

George was educated at Repton School , and Dublin University (M.B. 1880, B.Ch. 1881, M.D. 1884). He played rugby for Wanderers, Leinster and Blackheath.

After he produced some excellent performances for his University he was selected to play for Leinster against Ulster on 2^nd March 1878, and Munster on 3^rd December 1878 witnessed by 5,000 spectators. It was his performance for Leinster against Ulster in January 1879 that forced him into the Ireland side for his debut against Scotland . He was one of nine new caps in an Irish side that had lost every game it had so far played.

The only games I can find a record of that he played for Blackheath were on 19^th November 1881 against Oxford University and 4^th November 1882 against Cambridge University .

George was unique in Irish Rugby history in that he became President of the IRU (1882-1883 and 1885-86), chairman of the selectors, and captain of the Irish team.

Above photos of George Scriven in Ireland kit

He played 8 times for Ireland , twice as captain in his last two internationals.

Matches played for Ireland

He refereed the 1885 match between England and Scotland in which England’s winning try was disputed and led to the cancellation of the fixture and ultimately to the formation of the IB.

He married Violet Fetherston on 15^th December 1900. She was the eldest born of Stephen Radcliffe Fetherston and Jane (nee Boyce). Both George and his wife appear in Burke’s Peerage.

Above George Scriven. Circa 1890s

George, like his father, became a physician in 1884. Practising at the Dublin Homeopathic Hospital at 33 St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin (he was resident there in the 1911 Irish census) and then a Consultant at the London Homeopathic Hospital . He was a Magistrate for co. Dublin , a member of the Alpine and Junior Constitutional Clubs, and University Club, Dublin .

His son Lt. Col. William Hamilton Scriven was born on 3^rd May 1903 in Dublin . His daughter Elsie F. Scriven was also born in 1903 in Dublin .

In 1928 George Scriven’s old home, Hampton Hall, was sold. Later it would become the venue for the summer camps of the Irish Hitler Youth before World War 2. The house still stands and is still a private residence.

George died on 18^th December 1931 at Brown Gables, Lower Bourne, Farnham, Surrey , his son’s house. His funeral took place at Frensham.

His wife died on 1^st June 1941

His son died on 7^th January 1985. His obituary appeared in the British Medical Journal on 23^rd February 1985.

The post George Scriven first appeared on therugbyhistorysociety.co.uk.

In the world of sports betting, lay betting is a unique and intriguing concept that offers an alternative approach to traditional betting. While most bettors are familiar with backing a selection to win, lay betting flips the script by allowing you to bet on an outcome not happening. In this article, we will delve into the intricacies of lay betting, exploring its definition, mechanics, advantages, and considerations for those looking to explore this fascinating betting strategy.

Definition of Lay Betting:

Lay betting involves placing a wager on a selection or outcome not occurring. Instead of backing a team, player, or horse to win, you become the bookmaker, accepting bets from other bettors who believe the selection will be unsuccessful. In simple terms, you are betting against the chosen outcome.

Mechanics of Lay Betting:

To participate in lay betting, you need to have access to a betting exchange platform or a bookmaker that offers this option. These platforms allow you to act as the bookmaker, setting the odds and determining the potential liability. You can choose to lay a selection at the odds available on the platform or set your own odds and wait for other bettors to match your bet.

Advantages of Lay Betting:

1. Increased Betting Opportunities: Lay betting opens up a wider range of betting opportunities by allowing you to bet against an outcome. This means you can profit from your knowledge and intuition in situations where you believe a team, player, or horse is overrated or unlikely to win.
2. Betting on Underdogs: In traditional betting, backing underdogs may not always yield significant returns. However, with lay betting, you can profit when the underdog loses, which can be a valuable strategy for those seeking to find value in less-favored outcomes.
3. No Requirement for Selection to Win: In lay betting, your chosen selection doesn’t have to win for you to profit. As long as the selection doesn’t achieve the desired outcome, your lay bet is successful. This provides an alternative approach to betting and diversifies your wagering strategy.

Considerations for Lay Betting:

1. Liability: Unlike traditional betting, where your potential losses are limited to your stake, lay betting carries the risk of higher liabilities. If the selection you lay wins, you are responsible for paying out the winnings to the bettors who backed that outcome. It’s crucial to assess your risk tolerance and manage your bankroll accordingly.
2. Understanding Odds and Market Movement: Lay betting requires a solid understanding of odds and market dynamics. As a lay bettor, you need to monitor the movement of odds and adjust your bets accordingly to manage your potential liabilities and maximize your profits.
3. Liquidity and Matched Bets: The success of lay betting relies on the availability of matched bets. It’s important to choose reputable betting exchanges or bookmakers with sufficient liquidity to ensure your lay bets can be matched by other bettors. Low liquidity can result in unmatched bets or limited betting opportunities.

Conclusion:

Lay betting offers a compelling and alternative approach to traditional betting, allowing you to bet against outcomes and act as the bookmaker. By understanding the mechanics, advantages, and considerations associated with lay betting, you can explore new betting strategies and capitalize on your knowledge and insights. Remember to practice responsible betting, assess your risk tolerance, and embrace the opportunities that lay betting provides in diversifying your wagering experience.

The post Demystifying Lay Betting: A Comprehensive Guide to Understanding the Concept first appeared on therugbyhistorysociety.co.uk.

In the realm of sports betting, there are various terms and acronyms that can seem confusing to newcomers. One such term is “SP,” which stands for Starting Price. Understanding what SP means is essential for bettors who want to make informed decisions and navigate the intricacies of the betting world. In this article, we will delve into the concept of Starting Price, its significance in betting, and how it impacts your wagering experience.

Definition of Starting Price (SP):

The Starting Price is a term commonly used in horse racing and refers to the odds or price at which a horse is valued when the race begins. It is the official price determined by on-course bookmakers or the betting exchange right before the race commences.

Calculation of Starting Price:

The Starting Price is determined by taking into account various factors, including the current market prices offered by bookmakers, the track conditions, the form and reputation of the horses, and the overall betting activity on a particular horse leading up to the race. The goal is to establish a fair and representative price that reflects the collective opinions of the betting public.

Significance of Starting Price:

1. Fairness and Transparency: The Starting Price ensures fairness and transparency in horse racing betting. It provides a standardized price for all participants, eliminating potential manipulation or bias from individual bookmakers. This allows bettors to have confidence that the odds they receive are reflective of the general consensus.
2. Tote Betting: The Starting Price is particularly important for Tote betting systems. Tote betting pools collect wagers from bettors and distribute the pool among winning tickets. The Starting Price determines the final dividend paid to winning bettors who placed their wagers on the Tote system. It ensures that all bettors receive a fair share of the pool based on the collective bets placed.
3. Best Odds Guaranteed: Many bookmakers offer a feature called “Best Odds Guaranteed” (BOG) on horse racing bets. With BOG, if you take an early price on a horse and the Starting Price ends up being higher, the bookmaker will pay out at the higher odds. This ensures that bettors receive the best possible value for their wagers.
4. In-Play Betting: In some cases, the Starting Price can also be relevant for in-play betting. If you are placing bets during a live event, such as a horse race, and the Starting Price changes significantly, it may affect the odds and potential returns on your bets.

Conclusion:

Understanding the meaning of “SP” or Starting Price is vital for any bettor, particularly those interested in horse racing. The Starting Price represents the official odds at the start of a race and ensures fairness, transparency, and standardized pricing for all participants. Whether you’re using Tote systems, taking advantage of Best Odds Guaranteed offers, or engaging in in-play betting, knowing how the Starting Price impacts your wagers is essential for making informed betting decisions. So, the next time you come across the term “SP” in betting, you’ll have a clear understanding of its significance and relevance to your betting experience.

The post What Does “SP” Mean in Betting? Understanding Starting Price in Gambling first appeared on therugbyhistorysociety.co.uk.