Goaltenders who started as skaters

[Killion]

But these are unclear as to whether the goal-keeper may be rotated from amongst the skaters or benefits from distinct equipment, special positional rules and considerations.

So the first codified goalie would be post February 27, 1877 at least.

And thats it, the extent the Rules for Ice Hockey circa 1877? Because no, obviously nothing there Goaltender specific. Rather arcane as one would expect, Rugby Rules essentially.... about the only thing missing is the Scrum, a somewhat more genteel adaptation with the Bully's etc.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Individual definitions are nice but of little importance.

They are of utmost importance. I take it you would find it useful to differentiate between hockey and bandy, for example? How will you do that without defining them?

The original definition of "hockey" was essentially "hitting a thing with another thing." I hope you'll agree that this is insufficient for our purposes.

When was the position of goalie codified in the rules with goalie specific rules touching equipment, responsibilities, defined rule considerations for the goalie positions.

The first goalie-specific rule was codified in 1886 (prohibiting them from falling to the ice to make a save), which was the first time we have record of an amendment to the original rules. We know goaltenders were in the game from 1875, and it's quite possible this was a rule in place for several years before 1886. We just don't have any record of rules revisions between 1877 and 1886, so we can't be sure.

But these are unclear as to whether the goal-keeper may be rotated from amongst the skaters or benefits from distinct equipment, special positional rules and considerations.

He could be rotated in theory. Wasn't done in practice. No special equipment to start with. Merritt was the first to wear cricket pads in the 1890s, and based on photographic evidence goalies had somewhat thicker sticks.

So the first codified goalie would be post February 27, 1877 at least.

The game report for the second recorded match (March 17, 1875) referred to a goal keeper, and noted that it was a single player (Mr. Henshaw in that case).

 

[Iain Fyffe]

And thats it, the extent the Rules for Ice Hockey circa 1877? Because no, obviously nothing there Goaltender specific. Rather arcane as one would expect, Rugby Rules essentially.... about the only thing missing is the Scrum, a somewhat more genteel adaptation with the Bully's etc.

No, they were directly based on a particular set of field hockey rules, with a few bits taken from lacrosse. You will see some claims that rugby was a direct influence, but that comes from later authorship claims of certain people (decades after the fact), whose stories cannot be corroborated, and indeed contradict the historical record.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

This is where the thread is going, so be it. Here's the definition I use for "organized hockey," the game which can be traced back directly from the game that you and I simply call hockey now.

Organized hockey is a competitive game that is player using a codified set of rules on an enclosed ice rink in which two teams of players wearing skates and using sticks that are curved at the end, attempt to propel a puck through their opponents' goal, with the number of goals so scored by each team being used to determine the result of the match.

The elements here are needed to differentiate from bandy and shinny, and other similar games that we also do not consider hockey in the current sense of the word. If you don't wish to differentiate between shinny and hockey, for instance, you don't need such a stringent definition, but if you're not clear in exactly what you mean by the term hockey, these discussions tend to go nowhere because people are talking about different things.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Codification

They are of utmost importance. I take it you would find it useful to differentiate between hockey and bandy, for example? How will you do that without defining them?

The original definition of "hockey" was essentially "hitting a thing with another thing." I hope you'll agree that this is insufficient for our purposes.



The first goalie-specific rule was codified in 1886 (prohibiting them from falling to the ice to make a save), which was the first time we have record of an amendment to the original rules. We know goaltenders were in the game from 1875, and it's quite possible this was a rule in place for several years before 1886. We just don't have any record of rules revisions between 1877 and 1886, so we can't be sure.


He could be rotated in theory. Wasn't done in practice. No special equipment to start with. Merritt was the first to wear cricket pads in the 1890s, and based on photographic evidence goalies had somewhat thicker sticks.


The game report for the second recorded match (March 17, 1875) referred to a goal keeper, and noted that it was a single player (Mr. Henshaw in that case).

Work it forward. First codified rules and the differences would separate hockey and bandy. Even a quick read of the 1877 rules show that certain rules were improvised from soccer and rugby. You propose the puck distinction yet the 1877 rules clearly refer to "ball".

Photographic evidence has value. When was the thickness of sticks codified? Also assumes that photographic forensics were used to study the actual thickness of skater sticks. Show when the distinction in thickness between goalie and skater sticks and you would have a few steps beyond the initial codification of hockey and the respective positions. Likewise for the pads or other equipment.

Second recorded game. 50% viable. Game would require two goalies, would it not? No mention of the other goalie is there? This is interesting since news reports tend to mention the unusual. So one player playing the whole game at one position may have seemed unusual if the opposition rotated players thru the goalie position for rest or strategic purposes.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Work it forward. First codified rules and the differences would separate hockey and bandy.

Go for it. Which of these original rules distinguish the game from bandy?

Even a quick read of the 1877 rules show that certain rules were improvised from soccer and rugby.

No, nearly all of the rules were copied directly from field hockey rules (which in turn had been influenced by association football). I literally wrote the book on this subject, you know.

You propose the puck distinction yet the 1977 rules clearly refer to "ball".

Yes, and the very first game report mentions the use of a puck. This suggests that they had originally intended to use a ball, but before the match someone had the bright idea to make a puck for spectator safety. This was the reason given in the game report. This is also suggestive that the rules published in 1877 were the same ones used in 1875, since they had changed "ground" to "ice" in the rules, so if they were already using a puck it would make no sense that they would not have changed "ball" to "puck."

Second recorded game. 50% viable. Game would require two goalies, would it not? No mention of the other goalie is there? This is interesting since news reports tend to mention the unusual. So one player playing the whole game at one position may have seemed unusual if the opposition rotated players thru the goalie position for rest or strategic purposes.

No, the player was being singled out for his outstanding play, not for his existence. Montreal Gazette, 17 Mar 1875. I would suggest you refer to the sources before making guesses about what they might say. It reads as follows:

"...the last named gentleman (Mr. Henshaw), notwithstanding the success of the other side [Victoria Skating Club], being a most wary and valuable goal keeper, and but for whom the score would have shown up still worse for the red stripes [Montreal Football Club]."

 

[Canadiens1958]

On Topic

Go for it. Which of these original rules distinguish the game from bandy?


No, nearly all of the rules were copied directly from field hockey rules (which in turn had been influenced by association football). I literally wrote the book on this subject, you know.


Yes, and the very first game report mentions the use of a puck. This suggests that they had originally intended to use a ball, but before the match someone had the bright idea to make a puck for spectator safety. This was the reason given in the game report. This is also suggestive that the rules published in 1877 were the same ones used in 1875, since they had changed "ground" to "ice" in the rules, so if they were already using a puck it would make no sense that they would not have changed "ball" to "puck."


No, the player was being singled out for his outstanding play, not for his existence. Montreal Gazette, 17 Mar 1875. I would suggest you refer to the sources before making guesses about what they might say. It reads as follows:

"...the last named gentleman (Mr. Henshaw), notwithstanding the success of the other side [Victoria Skating Club], being a most wary and valuable goal keeper, and but for whom the score would have shown up still worse for the red stripes [Montreal Football Club]."

Topic is goalies not bandy. Let's not go there or your claims to authorship unsupported with documentation.

Modern field hockey was codifying rules at the same time. Cube instead of puck replace by a cricket ball.

Nice comment about Mr. Henshaw. Nothing about the other team's goalie situation. My point stands.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Topic is goalies not bandy.

Topic was hockey goalies. To discuss them we need to differentiate between hockey and bandy.

Let's not go there or your claims to authorship unsupported with documentation.

I'm not going to post a link here, I don't want to be seen as shilling my book. But before you make claims about unsupported claim, make sure said claim is itself not unsupported. If you're really interested in the topic, you'd do well to read my book. It's the only one on the subject as far as I can tell.

Modern field hockey was codifying rules at the same time. Cube instead of puck replace by a cricket ball.

The cube was used in the Blackheath version of the game, the cricket ball in the Teddington/Surbiton version. They competed for popularity for a while, the Hockey Union using Blackheath rules and the Hockey Association using Teddington rules, but the latter eventially won out. This is all in the book.

Nice comment about Mr. Henshaw. Nothing about the other team's goalie situation. My point stands.

No it doesn't. Your point was an unsubstantiated guess that suggested it was unusual to have a single goaltender, and that's why it was noteworthy to report in the newspaper. The truth is nothing of the sort.

 

[Killion]

I literally wrote the book on this subject, you know..... Yes, and the very first game report mentions the use of a puck. This suggests that they had originally intended to use a ball, but before the match someone had the bright idea to make a puck for spectator safety.

Oh? What book (you have permission to mention it, no problem) is that Iain? Id be interested in reading it.... first puck if Im not mistaken was in fact a "cube". Square wooden plug yes?.... and I have to say, reading those rules, adapted from Field Hockey (which were based on football or "soccer" rules as we call it in NA) & Lacrosse, and Ive re-read them 3-4X's to be certain, thats right out of Rugby/Soccer. I played both frequently, not as much as hockey of course but I must say, there must be more to this than the dismissal of accounts decades after the fact claiming such as well that were proven "unreliable". Theres just no way. The parallels are exact almost in some of those 1877 Rules to that of Rugby. I dont see how anyone could conclude otherwise.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I'm okay with Iain promoting his book in the context of this discussion.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

The book is called On His Own Side of the Puck: the Early History of Hockey Rules. It's available here.

I posted a couple of excerpts on my blog when it was released earlier this year:

This one discusses the original Montreal rules.

This one discusses the authorship of those rules.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

.... and I have to say, reading those rules, adapted from Field Hockey (which were based on football or "soccer" rules as we call it in NA) & Lacrosse, and Ive re-read them 3-4X's to be certain, thats right out of Rugby/Soccer.

They're not right out of rugby at all. The book contains the full rules of 1870s rugby, and while some of the ideas are kind of the same, the presentation and wording is completely different. You can see the direct line from association football to association hockey to ice hockey. Rugby doesn't enter into it. You might see it because rugby and soccer share some influences, but there's no direct line from rugby to ice hockey.

I played both frequently, not as much as hockey of course but I must say, there must be more to this than the dismissal of accounts decades after the fact claiming such as well that were proven "unreliable". Theres just no way. The parallels are exact almost in some of those 1877 Rules to that of Rugby. I dont see how anyone could conclude otherwise.

That's because you haven't actually looked at the evidence. I would suggest that you actually read the book before dismissing it as impossible. You say there's "just not way", but you haven't even seen the argument. You've reached your conclusion without examining the evidence. I don't have to explain how problematic that is, do I?

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Nowhere is the evidence for a direct line from association football to association (field hockey) to ice hockey more obvious than the text of the offside rule.

Here is the offside rule from the original Montreal ice hockey rules:

2. When a player hits the ball, any one of the same side who at such moment of hitting is nearer to the opponents' goal line is out of play, and may not touch the ball himself, or in any way whatever prevent any other player from doing so, until the ball has been played. A player must always be on his own side of the ball.


Here is the Hockey Association version of the offside rule. Remember that it was noted when the first Montreal rules were published that they were based on the Hockey Association code, which is obvious when you read them:

6. When a player hits the ball, any one of the same side who at such moment of hitting is nearer to the opponents' goal line is out of play, and may not touch the ball himself, nor in any way whatever prevent any other player from doing so, until the ball has been played, unless there are at least three of his opponents nearer their own goal-line; but no player is out of play when the ball is hit from the goal-line.


And finally, the 1863 Association Football rule:

6. When a player has kicked the ball, any one of the same side who is nearer to the opponent's goal line is out of play, and may not touch the ball himself, nor in any way whatever prevent any other player from doing so, until he is in play; but no player is out of play when the ball is kicked off from behind the goal line.


The origin of the ice hockey offside rule is clear as day. Now, if we look at the offside rules from the 1871 rugby code, we see that while they have some slight similarity (in that it's an onside game), they are presented very differently, and also have some important differences.

22. Every player is onside but is put off side if he enters a scrummage from his opponents' side or being in a scrummage gets in front of the ball, or when the ball has been kicked, touched on or is being run with by any of his own side behind him (ie between himself and his own goal line).
23. Every player when offside is out of the game and shall not touch the ball in any case whatever, either in or our of touch or goal, or in any way interrupt or obstruct any player, until he is again on side.
24. A player being offside is put on side when the ball has been run five yards with or kicked by or has touched the dress or person of any players of the opposite side or when one of his own side has run in front of him.
25. When a player has the ball none of his opponents who at the time are offside may commence or attempt to run, tackle or otherwise interrupt such player until he has run five yards.
26. Throwing back. It is lawful for any plaeyr who has the ball to throw it back towards his own goal, or to pass it back to any player of his own side who is at the time behind him in accordance with the rules of on side.

In rugby, you could only pass the ball to a player who is behind you. In hockey, you could pass the puck to a player who is not in front of you at the time the pass is made. Rugby only allowed back-passes, hockey allowed laterals, and indeed allowed the puck to travel forward on the pass so long as the recipient was not ahead of you when the pass was made. The wording is completely different, and the effect is substantial.

Now, there may be some rugby influence in the OHA offside rule. Rule 24 above has some wording similar to the original 1891 OHA offside rule, which was worded differently than the Montreal version. But this was 16 years later, and has nothing to do with the original ice hockey rules, which eventually subsumed the OHA rules anyway.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Some people have taken Richard Smith's 1908 claim to mean that he actually took the original ice hockey rules, and amended and added to them around 1878, adding some rugby influences since he mentioned rugby in his claim. This is the most charitable reading of his claim possible, since a literal reading of the claim is defeated before it gets started, because he claims to have written the original rules in 1878, while we know they were playing hockey three years earlier, and the first publication of the rules was the previous year as well.

The first known revision to the 1877 rules was published in January 1886. If rugby did indeed have influence over the amendments, we should be able to detect it. As you'll see, many of the changes were simply codifications of existing practice. So here are the changes:

1. A rule was added restricting the width of a stick.

2. A rule was added specifying the dimensions of the puck.

3. A rule was added specifying the dimensions of the goal.

4. A rule was added specifying how the referee and umpires were to be selected.

5. A rule was added specifying the number of players to a team.

6. The bully rule was amended, so that teams did not have to change ends after each score if they agreed not to.

7. A rule was added specifying that the game is won by the team scoring the most goals.

8. A rule was added specifying that games are played in two half-hour halves.

9. The puck-off-the-ice rules were amended, so that play was always restarted with a faceoff.

10. A rule was added to define the boundary line.

11. The only amendment to the offside rule is changing the references from "ball" to "puck."

12. The referee is given the power to send a player off for the match for rules violations.

13. A rule is added to prohibit the goalkeeper from going to the ice, he must remain standing.

There is no rugby influence in the above changes. If Smith did actually introduce some rudgby elements in 1879 (and I don't think there's anything to support this hypothesis, it's an attempt to change Smith's story so that it sort of fits the facts, but it's not what he himself claimed), then the changes were all undone soon enough.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Field Hockey

Field hockey in the 1870s in England was played on field hockey dedicated fields or on rugby or soccer playing fields? Were the rugby and soccer field markings and equipment used?

Simple yes or no answers without extensive narratives.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Field hockey in the 1870s in England was played on field hockey dedicated fields or on rugby or soccer playing fields?

Different dimensions, so presumably different fields.

Were the rugby and soccer field markings and equipment used?

Equipment? The only thing I can think of that might be shared would be the goals. The balls were obviously different, and there are no sticks in rugby or soccer. And no, the goals were not shared, they're all different sizes. But they weren't really goals, but posts. They might have used the same posts for field hockey and soccer, but they were placed at different distances apart.

Simple yes or no answers without extensive narratives.

If you don't like how I answer questions, by providing neccesary details, you can go find the information yourself.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Field Markings

Different dimensions, so presumably different fields.


Equipment? The only thing I can think of that might be shared would be the goals. The balls were obviously different, and there are no sticks in rugby or soccer. And no, the goals were not shared, they're all different sizes. But they weren't really goals, but posts. They might have used the same posts for field hockey and soccer, but they were placed at different distances apart.


If you don't like how I answer questions, by providing neccesary details, you can go find the information yourself.

Presumably. So exhaustive definitive research was not conducted at your end.

McGill - Molson Stadium has one field adaptable to football, soccer,rugby, field hockey with all the appropriate markings. Pre Molson Stadium you have the lower field inside the Roddick Gates, still around. Where Creighton and the boys played and codified ice hockey. Same field was used for all the sporting activities of the day, ice hockey,football, rugby, etc. So in Montreal, the only city that matters, at McGill the only venue that matters the various sports - football, soccer, rugby were played seasonally on a common field with markings, as they were, adjusted. Likewise posts, other accessories were added as required by the sport.

As for field hockey, you have not submitted any evidence that it was played at McGill and you won't find any because the first recorded field hockey game in Canada was in 1896:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_hockey_in_Canada

So unless your are attributing clairvoyance or happenchance to the authorship of the Montreal-McGill rules your explanation misses the mark completely.

 

[Killion]

You've reached your conclusion without examining the evidence. I don't have to explain how problematic that is, do I?

Far from it. Completely open mind. I'll read your book & thesis on the subject with interest. Naturally I do have preconceived notions on the idea however I openly admit I havent done any exhaustive research on the subject myself. Could be mistaken. However that being said & as outlined above, with the exception of the amendments & additions to the rules which are ice hockey specific, I do indeed see & read into the original 1877 decrees an incredibly close connection to Rugby. Not just cousins whereby Field Hockey Rules were borrowed & lifted, but so too siblings with the game of Rugby & its slight variation of Rugger.... thats what Im reading but as I said, open mind.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Presumably. So exhaustive definitive research was not conducted at your end.

No ****. That might be because it's utterly irrelevant to what I was writing about.

McGill - Molson Stadium has one field adaptable to football, soccer,rugby, field hockey with all the appropriate markings. Pre Molson Stadium you have the lower field inside the Roddick Gates, still around. Where Creighton and the boys played and codified ice hockey. Same field was used for all the sporting activities of the day, ice hockey,football, rugby, etc. So in Montreal, the only city that matters, at McGill the only venue that matters the various sports - football, soccer, rugby were played seasonally on a common field with markings, as they were, adjusted. Likewise posts, other accessories were added as required by the sport.

What does this have to do with hockey, that was played at the Victoria Rink, exactly? You assert that Creighton and the boys codified ice hockey at McGill. How do you know that? What evidence do you have for that?

The first recorded hockey match was between two teams from the Victoria Skating Club. The second recorded march was between the Victoria Skating Club and the Montreal Football Club. The third recorded game, in 1876, was between the same two sides. It wasn't until March 29, 1876 that McGill was involved in a match, which they lost 6-0 to the Football Club.

I'm not sure where you get your idea that this all developed at McGill. I haven't seen any evidence for it. If you have some, please put it forward.

As for field hockey, you have not submitted any evidence that it was played at McGill and you won't find any because the first recorded field hockey game in Canada was in 1896:

That's great. I never claimed it was played at McGill. If you spent less times on strawmen and more time examining what I actually say, we'd waste less time with this sort of exchange.

So unless your are attributing clairvoyance or happenchance to the authorship of the Montreal-McGill rules your explanation misses the mark completely.

How about this: why don't you read my book before telling me that it's wrong.

In an 1876 game report it was explicitly stated that the rules being used were based on the Hockey Association rules. That's what I'm basing this on. It was reported as such in 1876, and the rules actually printed in 1877 certainly bear this out. Montreal Gazette, Feb 7, 1876. You can go rule-by-rule and see the correspondence, the ice hockey rules were an edited version of the fild hockey rules.

 

[Theokritos]

As for field hockey...

The conformity in sentence structure and wording of the offside rules posted in #38 is hardly coincidence, is it?

 

[Iain Fyffe]

first puck if Im not mistaken was in fact a "cube". Square wooden plug yes?....

I've seen that claim as well, however I think it comes from the various Halifax/Nova Scotia assertions, I don't know what it's based on.

The Montreal Gazette on Mar 3, 1875 referred to the puck as a "flat circular piece of wood", and on Mar 17, 1875 as a "little circle of wood."

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Far from it. Completely open mind.

I'll take your word for it, I was just basing my comments on your words: "Theres just no way" and "I dont see how anyone could conclude otherwise." Those did not imply open-mindedness.

I've already posted the offside rules from contemporary field hockey and rugby. Please read them over and let me know which one you think has more influence on the ice hockey rule.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Indoor

No ****. That might be because it's utterly irrelevant to what I was writing about.


What does this have to do with hockey, that was played at the Victoria Rink, exactly? You assert that Creighton and the boys codified ice hockey at McGill. How do you know that? What evidence do you have for that?

The first recorded hockey match was between two teams from the Victoria Skating Club. The second recorded march was between the Victoria Skating Club and the Montreal Football Club. The third recorded game, in 1876, was between the same two sides. It wasn't until March 29, 1876 that McGill was involved in a match, which they lost 6-0 to the Football Club.

I'm not sure where you get your idea that this all developed at McGill. I haven't seen any evidence for it. If you have some, please put it forward.


That's great. I never claimed it was played at McGill. If you spent less times on strawmen and more time examining what I actually say, we'd waste less time with this sort of exchange.


How about this: why don't you read my book before telling me that it's wrong.

In an 1876 game report it was explicitly stated that the rules being used were based on the Hockey Association rules. That's what I'm basing this on. It was reported as such in 1876, and the rules actually printed in 1877 certainly bear this out. Montreal Gazette, Feb 7, 1876. You can go rule-by-rule and see the correspondence, the ice hockey rules were an edited version of the fild hockey rules.

Do you have anything other than assumptions and guesswork to contribute to this discussion?

Usually referred to as the first indoor ice hockey game. Lower campus field at McGill was outdoors.

Contact the McCord Museum at McGill if you want details.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Usually referred to as the first indoor ice hockey game. Lower campus field at McGill was outdoors.

Contact the McCord Museum at McGill if you want details.

It's the first recorded, organized game.

Even McGill does not claim that hockey was invented at McGill, just noting that several McGill students (including Creighton) were involved with it.

It's certainly possible that Creighton et al worked out some of the game at McGill before March of 1875. If you had evidence to that effect it would be a useful addition to the research.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This is not a primary source document, but if true would indicate that the position of "goaltender" is as old as the game itself (actually older than what Iain would define as "organized hockey"):

As boys began playing Ice Hurley and Ice Hockey around 1800, the goal openings were indicated by the placement of two rocks on the ice at both ends. For nearly a century into the development of the game, the goals faced the sides of the ice surface rather than the ends. Since there was no net covering the posts, the goal tender could be scored on from either side, or from front and back, which ever way you wish to consider it. While this meant that long shots could not score, it did keep the goal tender very busy guarding both sides of the opening.

In the 1890s the rocks were generally replaced with posts, which were then positioned parallel to the ends of the ice surface, as goal nets are today, but still without net

The article then talks about the importance of goal judges in determining whether a goal was scored. At the time, the goal judge would be positioned on the goal line.

In 1899 the hockey net was invented and took off (I've seen multiple other sources for this one). The goal judge then moved behind the net.

http://www.birthplaceofhockey.com/origin/boxnet/

Edit: That link seems to be to the "Windsor Hockey Heritage Museum" in Nova Scotia, which claims Nova Scotia to be the "birthplace of hockey," a claim that I know is controversial

I believe that the posts that were used before 1899 were just upright posts with no crossbar. Iain, do you happen to know if it was the goal judge's job to determine if the puck was too high when it went between the posts to count or what the rule there was? I remember reading elsewhere that the ref would determine if the puck went in too high, but that doesn't make sense when there were goal judges. Also, what was too high?