Jump to content

A Photographic History Of Scottish Football


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

Did it not happen in favour of a Bielsa side a few years ago? 

Sure he then told his side to stand back and allow their opponents to score straight from kick off.

Not sure if it was a quick kick-off but remember an incident when a team didn't return the ball after the ball was played out for treatment to a player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

What was the Sheffield code and how did it differ from Association?

I assume it's related to Sheffield being such an early club?

Remember there was no FA until 1863 - the early clubs devised their own rules, which took a while to standardise locally, then nationally.

Cambridge, London and Sheffield were all notable 'codes'; and of course Rugby in the oval ball game.

Notable feature of Sheffield was the 'rouge' - a sort of tiebreak, produced from counting near-misses. If you drew on goals whoever had most 'rouges' won. There were other differences e.g. size of goals, extent of handling and roughing-up, plus details around freekicks, corners, throw-ins etc.

EDIT: Vastly more detail here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheffield_Rules
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_rules

Edited by HibeeJibee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

What was the Sheffield code and how did it differ from Association?

I assume it's related to Sheffield being such an early club?

As HibeeJibee set out above.  Even under association rules there was some room for improvisation, Queen's Park for instance would sometimes let the opposition have more than 11 to make it a fair match.  Only official matches were strict.

One thing that probably stopped the Sheffield rules from becoming the dominant code was that they were more subject to change.  Association rules on handball for instance were fairly constant.  The original laws allowed you to make a mark à la rugby (which did not exist as a national code at that moment).  It was quickly changed to no handball for anyone except the goalkeeper.  Whereas Sheffield changed pretty often - a mark, then no handball for anyone, then handball by the goalkeeper, then no goalkeeper but the defender nearest the goal can handle it. 

By 1877 though the Sheffield and association rules had come together so much, each nicking the best laws from the other (e.g. throw-ins are from the Sheffield rules - the FA rules were like rugby ones; one-handed and perpendicular to the touchline) that the FA and Sheffield FAs merged.

It's a reason incidentally why the FA Cup was so southern-dominated in the early days.  Clubs like Sheff Weds didn't take part in it.  I think the earliest a modern-day League (well, ex-league) team started in it was Notts County in 1877.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it was a compromise between the different public school games.  Some schools were purely dribbling, it must have looked like a phalanx with someone at the front being pushed along by those who could get onto the loose ball if he were tackled., so no handball at all, not even a goalkeeper.    One of the things in Sheffield Rules which would be useful today was that the tie-break was rouges - shots that went between poles either side of the goals.  So a bit like the one pointer in Aussie rules.  And like Aussie rules in 1863 there was no bar, could be as high as you wanted.

The thing that set rugby apart in 1864 was running with the ball.  Which meant keeping hacking (kicking the shins) and physical tackles to dislodge the ball.  Neither necessary if carrying is banned.

Incidentally, offside was a bone of contention in the early versions, football originally was like rugby and everyone attacking had to be behind the ball, that didn't last too long.  But most public schools had a version of offside, and Eton had (still has for the Field Game) the perfect term - sneaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nowhereman said:

Interesting. Dumbarton's year of foundation given as 1873 when it has always been 1872 as far back as i can remember. Wonder if the club have got it wrong all these years

Many football clubs foundation years are wrong. Berwick's is 1884 (IIRC) but was thought to be 1881, and the centenary was celebrated in 1981. For a few years we actually altered official materials, strips etc. to 1884 but after a new board took over it was "put back" to the "traditional" date of 1881 - even though contemporary news reports etc. have proven this to be wrong.

There was a museum exhibition about Berwickshire football a few years ago that had features on the counties 'traditional' senior clubs - Coldstream, Duns, Eyemouth and Chirnside. They proved to all have the wrong foundations years, after research was done.

It's also hard to define what a "foundation" date actually is. First time some people congregated and kicked a ball around? First time they played versus somebody else? First time they set-up a committee? First time they joined an FA or league? First time they played a competitive game? What if they began as cricket or rugby? What if they stopped and restarted? What if they broke from another club?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HibeeJibee said:

Many football clubs foundation years are wrong. Berwick's is 1884 (IIRC) but was thought to be 1881, and the centenary was celebrated in 1981. For a few years we actually altered official materials, strips etc. to 1884 but after a new board took over it was "put back" to the "traditional" date of 1881 - even though contemporary news reports etc. have proven this to be wrong.

There was a museum exhibition about Berwickshire football a few years ago that had features on the counties 'traditional' senior clubs - Coldstream, Duns, Eyemouth and Chirnside. They proved to all have the wrong foundations years, after research was done.

It's also hard to define what a "foundation" date actually is. First time some people congregated and kicked a ball around? First time they played versus somebody else? First time they set-up a committee? First time they joined an FA or league? First time they played a competitive game? What if they began as cricket or rugby? What if they stopped and restarted? What if they broke from another club?

Having checked we had our first meeting and appointed office bearers in December 1872. Although there are reports of us playing a game in December 1872 there are no details so first documented game is 1873. Maybe that's where the book took its date from. Mind you the book also has Kilmarnock being founded in 1872 which appears to be their first game rather than 1869 when they had their first meeting

Edited by Nowhereman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nowhereman said:

Mind you the book also has Kilmarnock being founded in 1872 which appears to be their first game rather than 1869 when they had their first meeting

It's important to not rush into things.  

Edited by resk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, paulbrucerick said:

Frank, before he became a caricature. 

FB_IMG_1628436250162.jpg

I remember watching a segment on football focus (I think) when they took him around London’s east end asking hammers fans if they knew who he was cause when he started with West Ham there was a Tv highlights blackout. Not many did.  

Edited by Drew Brees
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Drew Brees said:

I remember watching a sequent on football focus (I think) when they took him around London’s east end asking hammers fans if they knew who he was cause when he started with West Ham there was a Tv highlights blackout. Not many did.  

He was also a guest on Wogan.

Denis Law was kind of sent on with him to guide him through an excruciating interview.  McAvennie just spent the whole time grinning inanely and scratching his face nervously.  

Jonathan Watson must have been in heaven watching it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Tony Cottee his deadly pal there]

In a previous employment in Kent I met a young lady whose surname was Cottee.

I (hilariously) asked if she was related to Tony.

"Yeah, he's my uncle" she said, which put my gas at a peep. To be honest, there was a bit of familial resemblance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember watching a segment on football focus (I think) when they took him around London’s east end asking hammers fans if they knew who he was cause when he started with West Ham there was a Tv highlights blackout. Not many did.  


Never had an English team growing up. Was always influenced by them having Scottish players. So, always looked out for Liverpool, loved watching John Robertson at Forest, exceptional player. McAvennie was the same. Always looked forward to watching that West Ham team on MOTD.

Hardly watch it now.....

By the way, some great historical chat in here over last few days. Your a knowledgeable bunch been a good read.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

He was also a guest on Wogan.

Denis Law was kind of sent on with him to guide him through an excruciating interview.  McAvennie just spent the whole time grinning inanely and scratching his face nervously.  

Jonathan Watson must have been in heaven watching it.

IIRC Sir Terence wrapped up the interview along the lines of...

"Glad you're enjoying life in London Frank, regards to all your family back up in St Mirren."

NINTCHDBPICT000001497339.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, resk said:

It's important to not rush into things.  

On a serious note, you've also got to find someone to play.  When Sheffield FC started, the club rules expected members to buy one red shirt and one navy shirt, so they could divvy up into ad hoc teams to play each other.  There was no thought of it being a spectator sport or a team becoming a representative side.  So Killie may have spent their rugby years never playing any other rugby teams - just playing games amongst the membership. 

Plus one of the things I noticed was that Dumbreck had only ever played one game, a 1-0 defeat.  Just dipping their toe in competitive action before Queen's Park put them to the sword in 1873.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TheJTS98
7 hours ago, bluearmyfaction said:

Plus one of the things I noticed was that Dumbreck had only ever played one game, a 1-0 defeat.  Just dipping their toe in competitive action before Queen's Park put them to the sword in 1873.

Maybe they were playing 'winner stays on'.

Edited by TheJTS98
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...