Hockey Invented In England ... Not Canada

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Sure, it might have been. But there's no particular reason to believe that it was. If there was an exception, that should have been mentioned by Mr. Weston.

Other than the seeming fact that "forward passing" was explicitly allowed, you mean.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Other than the seeming fact that "forward passing" was explicitly allowed, you mean.

Yeah, given Theokritos' comment above, I'll give you that one. There is a possible interpretation where it works.

Edit: I will, however, say that it seems unlikely. The 1870s Montreal rules, for example, did not forbid forward passing, in the sense of the puck moving forward on a pass. So long as the player receiving the puck never gets ahead of the puck at any point; he could skate ahead to receive the pass. As such, if the reference in the Halifax rules to staying onside were similar to the soccer rules, then the reference to forward passing would be redundant. If you can define players being onside in a particular way, then there's no need to specify that you can pass forward, since that would already be within the definition of onside as well.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Yeah, given Theokritos' comment above, I'll give you that one. There is a possible interpretation where it works.

Edit: I will, however, say that it seems unlikely...

Again, except for the resoundingly clear wording of:

8. The ‘forward pass’ was permitted.

And it's not like history couldn't have repeated itself here. What happened when they put forward passing back into hockey? They found themselves having to come up with a rule to prevent "cherry-picking" soon afterwards (December 21, 1929 forward pass/offside amendment). Creighton probably came across the same problem over the initial 2 year development period once scores were being kept and games became more competitive, and could have incorporated the offside aspect from another common/related game to combat a problem which was likely less of an issue on most of the smaller surfaces which would have been cleared for less structured shinny back East.

Theokritos simply picked up on exactly what I originally meant when I said:

"it might have simply meant that no player could be closer to the opposing goalie/net than the last defender; i.e. no "cherry-picking". Leaves everywhere else open for forward passing."

 

[Theokritos]

if the reference in the Halifax rules to staying onside were similar to the soccer rules, then the reference to forward passing would be redundant. If you can define players being onside in a particular way, then there's no need to specify that you can pass forward, since that would already be within the definition of onside as well.

It's true that rule 8 is redundant if we assume "on side" happens to mean the same thing as in modern soccer. But it seems to me both rules have different points and intentions (7: don't be closer to the opponent's goal than the last defending skater, 8: feel free to make forward passes in general). I'm not sure sport law makers are always logical thinkers of enough stature to strictly avoid any redundancy in a case like this, even though if you think about it more systematically #7 makes #8 dispensable of course. And remember, Weston's account may not even reflect the official wording (if there was such a thing at all) or systematics of the rules from the 1860s (or so) but only the main points he remembered 80 years later. Which only makes it even clearer how important it would be to dig up the original report to find out what Weston actually said and how he put it.

The 1870s Montreal rules, for example, did not forbid forward passing, in the sense of the puck moving forward on a pass. So long as the player receiving the puck never gets ahead of the puck at any point; he could skate ahead to receive the pass.

Well, that gives us another possible solution it seems: If what the Montreal rules allowed is interpreted as forward passing then Weston's Halifax Rules may have permitted and disallowed exactly the same things as the Montreal offside rule: A player is not allowed to move ahead of the puck (Weston Rule 7), but the puck is allowed to move forward on a pass (Weston Rule 8).

Unfortunately we're only talking possibilities, no evidence to check anything so far.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Again, except for the resoundingly clear wording of:

Note the part where I said "seems unlikely", rather than "nope." Remember that we're dealing with 70+ year old memories here, so there's a strong possibility of these things being misremembered in the first place. So even if your interpolation of what was written is correct, we still wouldn't know that what was written was accurate.

A contemporary description of the rules of ricket in Nova Scotia makes no mention of offsides. Now, I know you're talking about hockey here, but since you haven't yet defined what you mean by hockey, we can't exclude ricket from the discussion, since it might very well be hockey.

Creighton probably came across the same problem over the initial 2 year development period once scores were being kept and games became more competitive, and could have incorporated the offside aspect from another common/related game to combat a problem which was likely less of an issue on most of the smaller surfaces which would have been cleared for less structured shinny back East.

Sorry, I thought Creighton was supposed to have imported the game from Nova Scotia, the game which Weston apparently describes as being an onside one?

 

[Iain Fyffe]

IAnd remember, Weston's account may not even reflect the official wording (if there was such a thing at all) or systematics of the rules from the 1860s (or so) but only the main points he remembered 80 years later. Which only makes it even clearer how important it would be to dig up the original report to find out what Weston actually said and how he put it.

I think this is the crucial point. However, digging up the original report isn't going to relieve the problem that it's not contemporaneous, and as such will have to be considered less reliable than if it were written at the time under discussion. Unless corroboration is found, of course.

Unfortunately we're only talking possibilities, no evidence to check anything so far.

Indeed, which it why I said "seems unlikely" rather than "no it isn't."

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Note the part where I said "seems unlikely", rather than "nope." Remember that we're dealing with 70+ year old memories here, so there's a strong possibility of these things being misremembered in the first place. So even if your interpolation of what was written is correct, we still wouldn't know that what was written was accurate.

A contemporary description of the rules of ricket in Nova Scotia makes no mention of offsides. Now, I know you're talking about hockey here, but since you haven't yet defined what you mean by hockey, we can't exclude ricket from the discussion, since it might very well be hockey.

Morely likely hurley, if this source can believed when it says "Nova Scotia's newspapers document the gradual and steady development of ice hurley into ice hockey within the province prior to its eventual spread across the nation." But obviously we've already found aspects that draw similarities to other local games like rickets, shinny, lacrosse, etc.

Sorry, I thought Creighton was supposed to have imported the game from Nova Scotia, the game which Weston apparently describes as being an onside one?

Yes, he imported the game, like the equipment used, from Nova Scotia. Whether or not there was any element of "onside" (whatever that meant, given slight differences between all the games which had said element and have possible ties to hockey as we see it) is kind of beside the point. You're looking to corroborate the rules, not offer your opinion on how they would have been interpreted over 100 years ago, right?

 

[Theokritos]

Morely likely hurley, if this source can believed when it says "Nova Scotia's newspapers document the gradual and steady development of ice hurley into ice hockey within the province prior to its eventual spread across the nation." But obviously we've already found aspects that draw similarities to other local games like rickets, shinny, lacrosse, etc.

Not sure it can be believed. Not saying it definitely can't, but the contemporary sources presented by Houda and Gidén paint the following picture (all newspapers from Halifax-Dartmouth unless stated otherwise):

1827 Acadian Magazine
"At ricket with hurlies some dozens of boys chase the ball o'er the ice..."

1842 Morning Post
"The Dartmouth Lakes were rough yesterday. Maynard's was best - but a great spot might be found almost on any of them for a game of ricket."

1846 book Little Grace, or, Scenes in Nova Scotia
"Grace looked about for George, and as she did not see him, she felt sure he was with some boys whom she saw playing at hurley on the ice."

1853 Acadian Reporter
"The Lake above Mr. Hostermau's was literally covered with skaters, with their hurlies..."

1859 The British Colonist
"...when the bat laid aside, skates strapped on, and hurly in hand, the ball is followed over the glassy surfaces of the lakes..."

1859 Evening Gazette (Boston)
"Ricket is the favorite pastime" (in Nova Scotia)... "Each ricketer is provided with a hurley (or hockey, as it is termed here [scil. in Boston],), and all being ready, a ball is thrown in the air, which is the signal to commence the play..."

1864 Halifax Reporter
"If we turn towards the country, we are at once struck by the almost total absence of stone throwing boys... What has become of them? The nearest pond answers this question; they are playing hockey on the ice..."

1867 Halifax Evening Reporter
"Two well contested games of 'ricket' were being played. At the upper end were a number of young men from Dartmouth and the City, playing their 'hurleys' and 'following up' the ball while the centre was occupied by a number of officers of the Garrison and Fleet, in a match game called hockey i.e. ricket."

1869 Acadian Reporter
"There is a ricket club formed of the officers of the 78th Regiment, another by some members of the Phoenix Cricket Club and one is proposed at Dartmouth."

Conclusions:
1) Ricket and hurley were synonyms (with "hurley" often referring to the stick used in a ricket game).
2) Except for the forming of clubs there's hardly any documentation of an "gradual and steady development" of the game.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Charging

Charging in Ice Hockey has not been a constant definition.

Could those relying on charging as evidence please define the term as applicable at the time in reference.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Canadian Rugby Football Union

Please note that there is a difference between Rugby Football in Canada and in Britain and the USA Similar but not identical:

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

Brief overview of the forward pass in football:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_pass#Early_illegal_and_experimental_passes

 

[Canadiens1958]

Followed

Not sure it can be believed. Not saying it definitely can't, but the contemporary sources presented by Houda and Gidén paint the following picture (all newspapers from Halifax-Dartmouth unless stated otherwise):

1827 Acadian Magazine
"At ricket with hurlies some dozens of boys chase the ball o'er the ice..."

1842 Morning Post
"The Dartmouth Lakes were rough yesterday. Maynard's was best - but a great spot might be found almost on any of them for a game of ricket."

1846 book Little Grace, or, Scenes in Nova Scotia
"Grace looked about for George, and as she did not see him, she felt sure he was with some boys whom she saw playing at hurley on the ice."

1853 Acadian Reporter
"The Lake above Mr. Hostermau's was literally covered with skaters, with their hurlies..."

1859 The British Colonist
"...when the bat laid aside, skates strapped on, and hurly in hand, the ball is followed over the glassy surfaces of the lakes..."

1859 Evening Gazette (Boston)
"Ricket is the favorite pastime" (in Nova Scotia)... "Each ricketer is provided with a hurley (or hockey, as it is termed here [scil. in Boston],), and all being ready, a ball is thrown in the air, which is the signal to commence the play..."

1864 Halifax Reporter
"If we turn towards the country, we are at once struck by the almost total absence of stone throwing boys... What has become of them? The nearest pond answers this question; they are playing hockey on the ice..."

1867 Halifax Evening Reporter
"Two well contested games of 'ricket' were being played. At the upper end were a number of young men from Dartmouth and the City, playing their 'hurleys' and 'following up' the ball while the centre was occupied by a number of officers of the Garrison and Fleet, in a match game called hockey i.e. ricket."

1869 Acadian Reporter
"There is a ricket club formed of the officers of the 78th Regiment, another by some members of the Phoenix Cricket Club and one is proposed at Dartmouth."

Conclusions:
1) Ricket and hurley were synonyms (with "hurley" often referring to the stick used in a ricket game).
2) Except for the forming of clubs there's hardly any documentation of an "gradual and steady development" of the game.

In the bolded, the key word if followed. Depending on the interpretation this could mean that what was viewed as an offside in sports like soccer or rugby was tolerated in Nova Scotia.

Specifically the player following the pass would not have to be strictly onside he could be ahead of the originator of the pass as long as the pass was not direct but a leading pass that allowed members from both teams to chase it.

 

[Theokritos]

Charging in Ice Hockey has not been a constant definition.

The 1877 McGill University Gazette makes the following claim:

…the rules of hockey (The Halifax Hockey Club Rules as they are called) are modelled after the football rules. “Offside” is strictly kept. “Charging” in anyway but from behind is allowed and so on…

No definition is given, neither of offside nor of charging.

Could those relying on charging as evidence please define the term as applicable at the time in reference.

The fact that charging is mentioned is only used as evidence that the University Gazette was referring to rugby, not to soccer when using the term "football". I don't have the contemporary definitions at hand, but would you disagree with that interpretation?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Charging

The 1877 McGill University Gazette makes the following claim:



No definition is given, neither of offside nor of charging.



The fact that charging is mentioned is only used as evidence that the University Gazette was referring to rugby, not to soccer when using the term "football". I don't have the contemporary definitions at hand, but would you disagree with that interpretation?

Charging has had many definitions over the years.

These have varied from the number of strides allowed before contact is made. The movement before the ball or puck is put in play and other nuances.

Also there are distinctions, very nuanced at times, touching the "from behind" aspect. This creates overlap between charging and other fouls - clipping, collaring to name two.

More concerned with pinning down the understanding of charging before commenting further.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Yes, he imported the game, like the equipment used, from Nova Scotia. Whether or not there was any element of "onside" (whatever that meant, given slight differences between all the games which had said element and have possible ties to hockey as we see it) is kind of beside the point.

Okay then, if we're not going to consider rules important to whether "the game" was actually imported from Halifax, then I have to ask this again. Assuming that by "the game" you mean "hockey", what definition of hockey are you using here?

You're looking to corroborate the rules, not offer your opinion on how they would have been interpreted over 100 years ago, right?

We're first ooking to corroborate that there even was something called the Halifax Hockey Club rules. All we have at the moment is a brief reference in a Montreal student newspaper, and a vague reference to a couple of rules.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

The fact that charging is mentioned is only used as evidence that the University Gazette was referring to rugby, not to soccer when using the term "football". I don't have the contemporary definitions at hand, but would you disagree with that interpretation?

Indeed, we're discussing charging in football, not hockey.

1871 rugby code rule 54: "Charging i.e. rushing forward to kick the ball or tackle a player, is lawful for the opposite side in all cases of a place kick after a fair catch or upon a try at goal immediately the Ball touches or is placed on the ground; and in cases of a drop kick or punt after a fair catch as soon as the player having the ball commences to run or offers to kick or the ball has touched the ground but he may always draw back and unless he has dropped the ball or actually touched it with his foot they must again retire to his mark (see rule 56). The opposite side in the case of a punt out or a punt on, and the kicker's side in all cases may not charge until the ball has been kicked."

I was just looking at the Association Football rules again, and they actually say nothing about charging, unless I've missed it. Both the earlier Cambridge and Sheffield rules, both of which had some influence on which the Association Football rules, allowed charging at least in some situations.

So now I think the rugby conclusion might not be as solid as we thought. The Hockey Association rules barred charging, but the Football Association rules did not.

 

[Theokritos]

More concerned with pinning down the understanding of charging before commenting further.

Fair enough. Unfortunately we don't have more than the short reference in the University Gazette. However, McGill University was a rugby football stronghold in the 1870s, so one would expect the University Gazette to refer to the rugby game when talking about "football".

In the bolded, the key word if followed. Depending on the interpretation this could mean that what was viewed as an offside in sports like soccer or rugby was tolerated in Nova Scotia.

That report is from 1859. We don't know whether the same (alleged) rules as in 1877 were applied back then. I'm not even sure that what was viewed as offside in soccer or rugby was already viewed as offside in football prior to the original 1863 Football Association Rules. We'd have to look at local English football rules I guess. In short: Yes, it's very possible that there was no offside rule in Nova Scotia in 1859.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Fair enough. Unfortunately we don't have more than the short reference in the University Gazette. However, McGill University was a rugby football stronghold in the 1870s, so one would expect the University Gazette to refer to the rugby game when talking about "football".

Certainly a reasonable interpretation, and it fits the information provided in that one reference.

That report is from 1859. We don't know whether the same (alleged) rules as in 1877 were applied back then. I'm not even sure that what was viewed as offside in soccer or rugby was already viewed as offside in football prior to the original 1863 Football Association Rules. We'd have to look at local English football rules I guess. In short: Yes, it's very possible that there was no offside rule in Nova Scotia in 1859.

The Cambridge football rules had the offside rule at least back into the 1850s. The Sheffield rules, which were apparently more popular than the Cambridge version, was not an onside game in the 1850s. Can't be sure about rugby, the earliest set of rules I've seen is from 1871, when the Rugby Football Union was formed, but since the purpose of the union was to bring together clubs that played versions of rugby football, the offside rule must have been present in at least most versions.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Various Games

Fair enough. Unfortunately we don't have more than the short reference in the University Gazette. However, McGill University was a rugby football stronghold in the 1870s, so one would expect the University Gazette to refer to the rugby game when talking about "football".



That report is from 1859. We don't know whether the same (alleged) rules as in 1877 were applied back then. I'm not even sure that what was viewed as offside in soccer or rugby was already viewed as offside in football prior to the original 1863 Football Association Rules. We'd have to look at local English football rules I guess. In short: Yes, it's very possible that there was no offside rule in Nova Scotia in 1859.

Suggest expectations be tempered by actual reports and history of the sports especially when it pertains to McGill:

Henry Joseph in 1943:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=zXYtAAAAIBAJ&sjid=fpgFAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=5595,4611730

clearly refers to "...pattern the game after English Rugby...". yet later in the article reference is made to a Montreal Football Club. So there was a clear distinction between English Rugby, Football and Rugby Football.

We then have this report about the 1874 McGill vs Harvard North American Football game


http://www.mcgill.ca/channels/news/date-history-first-football-game-was-may-14-1874-106694

The report of the game is particularly telling since it also introduces soccer and has
very vivid descriptions - excerpt below:


__________________________________________________________________

McGill's game, which featured an oval ball, permitted kicking the ball as in soccer, but the participants could also pick the ball up and run with it whenever they pleased.



Harvard's syle of play incorporated a round ball and a kicking style of play known as "the Boston game" and was also closely related to what we today call "soccer". However, a curious feature of that game was that a player could run and throw or pass the ball only if he were being pursued by an opponent. When the opposing player gave up pursuit he called out to the runner, who had to stop and kick the ball.



The 1874 McGill-Harvard series, which featured 11 men per side, was played with a round ball and "Boston" rules in the first game. The next day, they played under McGill rules, which included McGill's oval ball and the ability to pick up the ball and run with it.
__________________________________________________________________

Notice the round vs oval ball distinction plus the pursuit quality which seems to be similar to "charging" as it has the from behind element while forcing a kick(possiblechange of possession) when the pursuit is stopped.

To summarize.

The variations in the various football, rugby, soccer rules seem to have been put Under one umbrella when in fact there were many umbrellas in use at the time in question.

Interprétations of onside/offside and charging have to be properly studied. This has not been done to date.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Creighton's achievement was moving the game indoors, into an environment that was spectator friendly, facilitated scheduling while allowing the game to be played after sundown so that the working class or students could participate and/or attend.

You say this as if a significant proportion of Canadian organized hockey was not played on outdoor rinks for a lengthy bit of time after 1875. The 1883, 1884 and 1887 winter carnival tournaments had at least some matches played outdoors. The 1920 Olympic tournament was played outdoors. Heck, the 1948 Olympic tournament was held outdoors.

That the rules may have been replicated in part from elsewhere is of little or no consequence.

Given that these rules were present in every match, and given that many matches continued to be played outdoors, the former seems rather more intrinsic to this version of the game than the latter.

The sport had a fixed foundation, a spectator following and a demand that saw other venues built or adapted in the coming years.

The spectator following is important, I think, and it's something that (for example) Donald Gauy missed in his discussion of organized sport. Having spectator interest certainly suggests a game is more organized, but of course any sort of binary determination is problematic.

 

[sr edler]

The 1920 Olympic tournament was played outdoors. Heck, the 1948 Olympic tournament was held outdoors.

I think it was the 1924 Olympic games that was played outdoors, when Harry "Moose" Watson shipped in boatloads of goals in every game, no?

1920 Olympic games, played in April in Antwerp, took place in this arena, Palais de Glace d'Anvers

 

[Theokritos]

1920 Olympic games, played in April in Antwerp, took place in this arena, Palais de Glace d'Anvers

Good find! Somehow I also had in mind the 1920 tournament was outdoors.

 

[Theokritos]

Mod note: The thread "The Halifax Hockey Club Rules" has been merged with this one. Posts 590-643 of this thread now.

 

[sr edler]

Good find! Somehow I also had in mind the 1920 tournament was outdoors.

Here are links to five of the teams. Those files are pretty big.

http://www.winnipegfalcons.com/falcons3600.jpg
http://www.winnipegfalcons.com/america3600.jpg
http://www.winnipegfalcons.com/czechoslovakia3600.jpg
http://www.winnipegfalcons.com/sweden3600.jpg
http://www.winnipegfalcons.com/switzerland3600.jpg

 

[Canadiens1958]

Canadian Organized Hockey

You say this as if a significant proportion of Canadian organized hockey was not played on outdoor rinks for a lengthy bit of time after 1875. The 1883, 1884 and 1887 winter carnival tournaments had at least some matches played outdoors. The 1920 Olympic tournament was played outdoors. Heck, the 1948 Olympic tournament was held outdoors.


Given that these rules were present in every match, and given that many matches continued to be played outdoors, the former seems rather more intrinsic to this version of the game than the latter.


The spectator following is important, I think, and it's something that (for example) Donald Gauy missed in his discussion of organized sport. Having spectator interest certainly suggests a game is more organized, but of course any sort of binary determination is problematic.

Canada played at the 1920 and 1948 Olympics but the games were not held in Canada.

The PCHA owes it foundation to indoor rinks. This is not in any dispute. Patricks built arenas so that hockey could be played without interruption from the elements.

Likewise in Canada if you compare the growth of hockey in two similar districts/suburbs in Montréal - Verdun - southwest, Rosemont northeast. Similar socioeconomic background, established as cities in the early 20th century. Depression era monies for make work project saw Verdun include an indoor arena, Rosemount did not. Verdun enjoyed app a 25 year edge in hockey development as did the SW ring of suburbs abutting Verdun that was eliminated when Rosemount saw two arenas built in the early 1960 - 1962 period. Suggest checking the early years of the NHL Amateeur draft in the O6 era and paying attention to the provenance of the players.

Similar point could be made about the Mauricie region - strip between Trois Riviers and Shawinigan. Both towns built early arenas during the period between the WWs. For a very small population the goalies from the Mauricie were fairly common and good in the NHL or high minors - Jacques Plante, Bob Perreault, Marcel Paille, Claude Pronovost to quickly name a few.Throw in skaters like Marcel Pronovost, Jean-Guy Talbot, André Pronovost - quick list and the impact of arenas or indoor ice hockey is telling on organized hockey, even to this day.

Actually Guay did not miss the spectator element in his book. He chronicles the growth of paid attendance in his book in a very informative fashion.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

I think it was the 1924 Olympic games that was played outdoors, when Harry "Moose" Watson shipped in boatloads of goals in every game, no?

Yes, you're quite right, typo on my part.