Between 1876 and 1884, did folks call the american game "rugby?" Was there ever any serious movement around, say, 1905, to say "hey we have really downplayed the kicking in this game maybe we should call it freedom ball instead?"
Football was the generic name for all kicking games, so soccer, rugby, American football, and other games were all called football. Reading newspaper accounts, you need to know the teams or check the box scores to know which was which. Still, early on, rugby football was a common expression, as was the collegiate game. I wrote about the issue from a Canadian perspective here: https://www.footballarchaeology.com/p/the-name-of-the-game-canadian-rugby
In the beginning, you had to touch the ball down, so you had to control the ball through that process. That led to problems with maul-ins, which I describe in another article.
My recent article about spotting the ball connects with the issue of scoring touchdowns, since they applied the same concept in both cases. Since 1900, the ball simply has to be on, above, or behind the goal line for the score: https://www.footballarchaeology.com/p/the-twists-and-turns-of-spotting
Your series is great and allows us to see the evolution of the game. I’m not sure it’s intended as a platform for critique of today’s game.
My contention- Is scoring on an end zone pass, the receiver must control the ball to the ground even is out of bounds but a rusher only has to cross the plane and the ball is dead. Rushers should be held to the same standard as receivers- must remain in control of the ball until the play ends.
I try to connect the past to the present, so comparisons of the old and current game are welcome.
The difference for me is that a ball carrier already controls the ball as he runs or leaps over the goal line, so he simply has to get the ball into the goal area. If he bobbles the ball as he crossed the goal line it is not a touchdown until he regains control. For a receiver, the issue is the point at which he controls the ball. You can argue about the exact rule for demonstrating control, but conceptually, the rules make sense to me.
Between 1876 and 1884, did folks call the american game "rugby?" Was there ever any serious movement around, say, 1905, to say "hey we have really downplayed the kicking in this game maybe we should call it freedom ball instead?"
Football was the generic name for all kicking games, so soccer, rugby, American football, and other games were all called football. Reading newspaper accounts, you need to know the teams or check the box scores to know which was which. Still, early on, rugby football was a common expression, as was the collegiate game. I wrote about the issue from a Canadian perspective here: https://www.footballarchaeology.com/p/the-name-of-the-game-canadian-rugby
Yea ill admit the world cup of rhe association game has got me wondering
Appears “touch-down” required control of the ball. Should adopt today for rushing TDs.
In the beginning, you had to touch the ball down, so you had to control the ball through that process. That led to problems with maul-ins, which I describe in another article.
https://www.footballarchaeology.com/p/maul-ins-mauls-and-the-fundamentals-of-football
My recent article about spotting the ball connects with the issue of scoring touchdowns, since they applied the same concept in both cases. Since 1900, the ball simply has to be on, above, or behind the goal line for the score: https://www.footballarchaeology.com/p/the-twists-and-turns-of-spotting
Your series is great and allows us to see the evolution of the game. I’m not sure it’s intended as a platform for critique of today’s game.
My contention- Is scoring on an end zone pass, the receiver must control the ball to the ground even is out of bounds but a rusher only has to cross the plane and the ball is dead. Rushers should be held to the same standard as receivers- must remain in control of the ball until the play ends.
I try to connect the past to the present, so comparisons of the old and current game are welcome.
The difference for me is that a ball carrier already controls the ball as he runs or leaps over the goal line, so he simply has to get the ball into the goal area. If he bobbles the ball as he crossed the goal line it is not a touchdown until he regains control. For a receiver, the issue is the point at which he controls the ball. You can argue about the exact rule for demonstrating control, but conceptually, the rules make sense to me.
"Offside-visiting team. Penalty of impending doom. First down..."