4 Comments
User's avatar
Jerald A Olund's avatar

This is quite interesting in view of a story I once read about a nineteenth century Canadian university team that traveled to the U.S. to play against a U.S. university team. This was at a time when official rule books were not yet common. The Canadians discovered that their U.S. opponents played a game with more holdover rules from soccer! It seems that we yankees owe our Canadian cousins a thank you for pushing us closer to gridiron football!

Expand full comment
Football Archaeology's avatar

I'm not familiar with the Canadian team you mention. McGill played an adjusted form of rugby but it was pretty close to Rugby Union. I have a PDF copies of the 1874 and 1880 Canadian rules. The 1874 rules match the RFU rules. I have not compared the 1880 rules.

Expand full comment
James L. Gilbert's avatar

The use of "prolate spheroid" by the NCAA, NFL, and USports in their rulebooks has become a bee in my bonnet. The ball probably hasn't been a prolate spheroid since the early 1900's. It's that 'ogive' part that you've mentioned. Rugby and Australian Rules both state the ball is 'oval' (also the incorrect mathematical term, because that refers to a 2-D shape). They could use prolate spheroid (an ellipse or oval rotated along its long axis) or ovoid. The American/Canadian ball is mathematically a lemon, the intersection of two spheres. And since the 1934 dimensions the profile of the ball is, or is very closely related to, a vesica piscis.

I think it might be one of those situations where the truth is superseded by custom and it won't change.

Expand full comment
Football Archaeology's avatar

I'll have to use a dictionary and think about this one. Interesting issue.

Expand full comment