Foot-ball : $b its history for five centuriesVincent, James Edmund
History
Foot-ball : $b its history for five centuries
Vincent, James Edmund
Football
And now, it may be asked, What manner of game was this football, which
delighted our forefathers so hugely that they persisted in indulging
in it although under ban of the law? Strange to say, there was not the
chaos of conflicting rules which were found in use when the game was
brought into prominence again a few decades ago. The original game
appears to have been of the simplest description. Given two boundaries
or goals, a ball of any make so long as it were strong enough to
prevent its being torn in pieces, and the opposing sides were allowed
to get the ball on and make it touch the adversaries’ goal in any
manner whatever they pleased, whether by kicking, hurling, shoving,
or running, or by stealth. Sometimes we hear of goals a mile or more
apart; often the arena of play was a street or a high road, sometimes
a whole town; and the attacking party with the ball would try and
sneak round by bye-streets in order to escape notice, and plant the
ball unawares through the window or against the post which was fixed
as the goal. The game, in short, when played in a confined space, was
none other than a rough form of the present Rugby Union football,
without the rules and prohibitions which have now reduced to order and
civilized that game. But it must have been a rough game, that of which
the yokels and ’prentices of merry England were so fond; and of broken
pates and aching shins there must have been not a few. But let us hear
what the writers of the age had to say about it. But before we proceed
to give a few extracts of their views, we must premise that football
was always looked upon as a vulgar game, a game for clod-hoppers, Irish
kernes, and ’prentice lads, which a gentleman of quality should shun,
lest perchance his eye be blackened or his skin be raised in lumps by
a wight of low degree. Hence we can only expect the writers of gentle
birth of the age of Elizabeth and James I., and indeed of all the
later ages up to the present generation, to look upon so rough a game
as unfitting for a man of refinement. But a game does not need to be
defended now because it brings men of different rank to meet on equal
terms with no favour; and ardent footballers might indeed be still able
to adhere to their game although it had been deemed vulgar by James
I. and by Sir Thomas Elyot. Nor is there anything in the contempt of
these dignitaries which will depress the spirits or hurt the sensitive
pride of the football-player especially; for he will find upon study
that football was not the only game condemned by the aristocratic
classes. On the contrary, almost all athletic exercises which did not
immediately and obviously conduce to knightly skill, were held in
equally low esteem; and the game of cricket itself was equally lightly
regarded. In fact, it is not too much to say, that it was not until
the present century was well advanced that men of gentle birth and
education gave up putting away boyish sports when they reached man’s
estate.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account