Page 2:
This game is reputedly Anglo-Saxon in origin and there are many legends concerning its first appearance. For example, in both Kingston-on-Thames and Chester, the story goes that the game was played for the very first time with the severed head of a vanquished Danish prince. In Derby, it is said to have originated far earlier, in the 3rd century, during the victory celebrations that followed a battle against the Romans.
Despite the legends of Kingston and Chester, certain facts appear to contradict the Anglo-Saxon theory. Namely that there is no evidence of it having been played at this time in Saxon areas or on the continent, nor is the game mentioned in early Anglo-Saxon literature. Prior to the Norman Conquest, the only trace found of any such ball game comes from a Celtic source.
One other possible theory regarding its origin is that when the aforementioned "mob football" was being played in the British Isles in the early centuries A.D., a very similar game was thriving in France, particularly in Normandy and Brittany. So it is quite feasible that the Normans brought this form of the game to England with them.
All these theories produce a picture quite bewildering in its complexity - far more complex than the simple rules that governed this form of the game, if we dare even to call them rules.
Quite apart from man's natural impulse to demonstrate his strength and skill, even in this chaotic and turbulent fashion, it is certain that in many cases, pagan customs, especially fertility rites, played a major role. The ball symbolised the sun, which had to be conquered in order to secure a bountiful harvest. The ball had to be propelled around, or across, a field so that the crops would flourish and the attacks of the opponents had to be warded off.
A similar significance was attached to the games between married men and bachelors that prevailed for centuries in some parts of England, and, likewise, to the famous game between married and unmarried women in the Scottish town of Inveresk at the end of the 17th century which, perhaps by design, was regularly won by the married women. Women's football is obviously not so new as some people think.
Scholars might have conflicting views on the origins of the game and the influences that certain cults may have had on its evolution, but one thing is incontestable: football has flourished for over a thousand years in diverse rudimentary forms, in the very region which we describe as its home, England and the British Isles. The chain of prohibitions and censures, sometimes harsh, sometimes mild, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt what tremendous enthusiasm there was for football, even though it was so often frowned upon by the authorities. The repeated unsuccessful intervention of the authorities and high offices of the land shows how powerless they were to restrict it, in spite of their condemnation and threats of severe punishment.
As long ago as 1314 the Lord Mayor of London saw fit to issue a proclamation forbidding football within the city due to the rumpus it usually caused. Infringement of this law meant imprisonment. King Edward III passed extremely harsh measures in 1331 to suppress football, which was regarded as a public nuisance. At the same time, similar measures were also introduced in France.
During the 100 years' war between England and France from 1338 to 1453 the court was also unfavourably disposed towards football, albeit for different reasons. Edward III, Richard II, Henry IV and Henry V made football punishable by law because the well-loved recreation prevented their subjects from practising more useful military disciplines, particularly archery, which played an important and valuable role in the English army at that time.
All the Scottish kings of the 15th Century also deemed it necessary to censure and prohibit football. Particularly famous amongst these was the decree proclaimed by the Parliament convened by James I in 1424: "That na man play at the Fute-ball". None of these efforts had much effect. The popularity of the game amongst the people and their obvious delight in the rough and tumble for the ball went far too deep to be uprooted.
The passion for football was particularly exuberant in Elizabethan times. An influence that most likely played a part in intensifying the native popularity for the game came from Renaissance Italy, particularly from Florence, but also from Venice and other cities that had produced their own brand of football known as "Calcio". lt was certainly more organised than the English equivalent and was played by teams dressed in coloured livery at the important gala events held on certain holidays in Florence. It was a truly splendid spectacle. In England the game was still as rough and ungracious and lacking in refinement as ever, but it did at this time find a prominent supporter who commended if for other reasons when he saw the simple joy of the players romping after the ball. This supporter was Richard Mulcaster, the great pedagogue, head of the famous schools of Merchant Taylor's and St. Paul's. He pointed out that the game had positive educational value and it promoted health and strength. He claimed that all that was needed was to refine it a little and give it better manners. His notion was that the game would benefit most if the number of participants in each team were limited and, more importantly, there were a stricter referee.
Resentment of football up to this time had been mainly for practical reasons. The game had been regarded as a public disturbance that resulted in damage to property, for example, in Manchester in 1608, football was banned again because so many windows had been smashed.
In the course of the 16th century a quite new type of attack was launched against football. With the spread of Puritanism, the cry went up against "frivolous" amusements, and sport happened to be classified as such, football in particular. The main objection was that it supposedly constituted a violation of peace on the Sabbath. Similar attacks were made against the theatre, which strait-laced Puritans regarded as a source of idleness and iniquity. This laid the foundations for the entertainment ban on English Sundays, which would later become a permanent feature during the Commonwealth and Puritanical eras (even though it is said that Oliver Cromwell himself was a keen footballer in his youth). From then on football on Sundays was taboo. It remained so for some 30 years, until the ban was lifted once again, at first unofficially and ultimately with the formal consent of The Football Association, albeit on a rather small scale.
However, none of these obstacles could eradicate football. Take Derby as an example. Between 1731 and 1841, the town's authorities made continual attempts to ban football from the streets. In the end, they had to resort to riot laws before there was any effect at all.
All told there was scarcely any progress at all in the development of football for hundreds of years. But, although the game was persistently forbidden for 500 years, it was never completely suppressed. As a consequence, it remained essentially rough, violent and disorganised. A change did not come about until the beginning of the 19th century when school football became the custom, particularly in the famous public schools. This was the turning point. In this new environment, it was possible to make innovations and refinements to the game.
The rules were still relatively free and easy as there was still no standard, organised form of the game. Each school in fact developed its own adaptation and, at times, these varied considerably. The traditional aspects of the game remained but innovations depended for the most part on the playing ground available. If use had to be made of a paved school playground, surrounded by a brick wall, then there was simply not enough space for the old hurly-burly mob football. Circumstances such as these made schools like Charterhouse, Westminster, Eton and Harrow give birth to the type of game in which more depended on the players' dribbling virtuosity than the robust energy required in a scrum. On the other hand, schools such as Cheltenham and Rugby were more inclined towards the more rugged game in which the ball could be touched with the hands or even carried. All these early styles were given a great boost when it was recognised in educational circles that football was not merely an excuse to indulge in a childish romp, but could actually be beneficial educationally. What is more it was accepted that it also constituted a useful distraction from less desirable occupations, such as heavy drinking and gambling. A new attitude began to permeate the game, eventually leading to a "games cult" in public schools. This materialised when it was observed how well the team game served to encourage such fine qualities as loyalty, selflessness, cooperation, subordination and deference to the team spirit. Games became an integral part of the school curriculum and participation in football became compulsory. Dr. Thomas Arnold, the head of Rugby school, made further advances in this direction, when in 1846 in Rugby the first truly standardised rules for an organised game were laid down. These were in any event quite rough enough, for example, they permitted kicking an opponent's legs below the knees, with the reserve that he should not be held still whilst his shins were being worked on. Handling the ball was also allowed and ever since the memorable occasion in 1823 when William Webb Ellis, to the amazement of his own team and his opponents, made a run with the ball tucked under his arm, carrying the ball has been permitted. Many schools followed suit and adopted the rules laid down in Rugby, others, such as Eton, Harrow and Winchester, rejected this form of football, and gave preference to kicking the ball and carrying it was forbidden. Charterhouse and Westminster were also against handling the ball. However, they did not isolate their style as some schools did, instead they formed a nucleus from which this style of game began to spread.
Finally, in 1863, developments reached a climax. At Cambridge University, where in 1848 attempts had already been made by former pupils from the various schools to find a common denominator for all the different adaptations of the game, a fresh initiative began to establish some uniform standards and rules that would be accepted by everyone. It was at this point that the majority spoke out against such rough customs as tripping, shin-kicking and so on. As it happened, the majority also expressed disapproval at carrying the ball. It was this that caused the Rugby group to withdraw. They would probably have agreed to refrain from shin-kicking, which was in fact later banned in the Rugby regulations, but they were reluctant to relinquish carrying the ball.
