Wasps
How the game of rugby evolved
Backs ...
By GeeWhizz50
April 30 2012
This is a perspective on how `backs' became known as such. Obviously written by a very perceptive and independent researcher. (Note: this is only one of many views on the topics, and the management would happily publish a counter view ... if one could be written!)
It is largely unknown to players and followers of the modern game of rugby, that in the very early days it started off purely as a contest for forwards in opposition in line-outs, scrums, rucks and mauls. This pitted eight men of statuesque physique, of supreme fitness and superior intelligence in packs against one another. In those days, the winner was the pack that had gained most set pieces.
The debasement of the game began when backs were introduced. This occurred because a major problem was where to locate the next scrum or line-out. Selecting positions on the ground for these had become a constant source of friction and even violence. The problem was resolved through a stratagem of employing forward rejects, men of small stature and limited intelligence, to select positions on the field from where, when in receipt of the ball they could be guaranteed to drop it in a random pattern but usually, as far from the last set piece as possible.
Initially these additional players were entirely unorganized but with the passing of time they adopted positions. For instance, the half-back. He was usually generally the smallest and least intelligent of the backs whose role was simply to accept the ball and pass it on. He could easily (given his general size) have been called a quarter forward or a ball monkey but then tolerance and compassion are the keys to forward play and the present inoffensive description was decided upon. The five-eighth plays next to the half-back and his role is essentially the same except that, when pressured he usually panics and kicks the ball. Normally, he is somewhat taller and slightly better built than the half-back and hence his name. One-eighth less and he would have been a half-back, three-eighths more and he might well have qualified to become a forward.
The centres were opportunists who had no specific role to play but who were attracted to the game by the glamour associated with forward packs. After repeated supplication to the forwards for a role in the game they would be told to get out in the middle and wait for the ball. Thus, when asked where they played, they would reply "in the centre". And they remain to this day, opportunists and scroungers, men so accustomed to making excuses for bad hands and errant play that most become solicitors or real estate agents.
You may ask, why wingers? The answer is simple. Originally these were players who had very little ability and were the lowest in the backline pecking order. They were placed far from the ball and given the generally poor handling by the inside backs, were rarely given the opportunity to even touch the ball. This is basically why, through a process of natural selection, they became very fast runners and developed the ability to evade tackles. But to get back to the name. The fact that they got so little ball led to the incessant flow of complaints from them and the eventual apt description "whingers". Naturally, in the modern game, the name has been adapted to become more acceptable.
Lastly, the full-back. This was the position given to the worst handler, the person least able to accept or pass the ball, someone who was always in the way.. the name arose because, infuriated by the poor play invariably demonstrated by that person, the call would come "send that fool back" and he would be relegated to the rear of the field.
So there you have it. The fact is that if a side does not have eight men of statuesque physique, of supreme fitness and superior intelligence then they might as well play soccer.
Digg
Delicious
Facebook
Reddit
StumbleuponHow the game of rugby evolved
Discussion started by DrunkenWasps.com , 30/04/2012 12:33
DrunkenWasps.com
30/04/2012 12:33
30/04/2012 12:33
What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.
Ball monkey! When you see George Gregan or Peter Stringer play that is exactly the right description. The advent of 6ft scrum halves is a disgrace.
PS. When Mary McAleese used to meet the Irish team before kick off you could tell that she wanted to pat little Stringer on the head and give him a jelly bean.
PS. When Mary McAleese used to meet the Irish team before kick off you could tell that she wanted to pat little Stringer on the head and give him a jelly bean.
Few people realise that in the very early days, rugby was a fast and free-running game with the result that, similar to the game of basket-ball, matches often tended to end as high-scoring affairs with only the odd point separating the winners from the losers. This exciting early game was based around the seven-a-side game that was flourishing at the time.
The attraction to play this kind of fast, free-flowing game was obvious, and many flocked to sample the glory of the fifty-yard dash, the clinical pass and catch move, and the final glory of grounding or kicking the ball for points. Many flocked to join in but some were not blessed with the skill, the vision, the physique, or indeed the fleet of foot required to succeed.
The early players possessed a natural flair, spatial awareness and speed of thought that only increased the level of entertainment; both for the participants and spectators alike. But also had the unfortunate side-effect of excluding those not so blessed with natural ability. However, the inclusive spirit of the game meant that none were turned away, and roles on the field were to be found for people of all ability, intelligence, and physique.
Those who were not blessed with a level of fitness were also found not to run very fast, or for very long. They end up lumbering around the midfield for the duration of the game, therefore being denied the same opportunities to participate or run with the ball, or score points. To address this lack of participation, various sub-games were contrived to give these players the feeling that they were contributing.
One of which was the feeding of the ball between the two sets of players of limited ability, where they would compete for possession. Not having the nous to outwit his opponent, this would obviously descend into a physical competition for possession. The ball-players would patiently wait at the ‘back’ for the ball to become available, when the game could finally resume.
Another, the throw-in, was also perceived to be an opportunity for the unenlightened to participate, by showing how high big men could actually jump, an idea was born. The heaviest players were lined up, and whoever could jump the highest would win possession for their team, where once again the ball would eventually find its way out to the ball-players where the game could finally resume.
The term ‘back’ actually derives from the ball-players willingness to stay back; to give the big guys a chance to play for a while. Naturally, if you were of a certain intelligence, ability or fitness, you were encouraged to 'move forward'.
The forward players’ enthusiasm sometimes gets the better of him when he starts to mimic his ball-playing colleagues. This can still be seen in the modern game where the forward player attempts to run with the ball. Rather than creating new laws to outlaw this anomaly, in the true spirit of the game opportunities were found for these players to feel involved during open play. They were encouraged to tackle each other for possession of the ball, rucks and mauls are the modern outcome of including players of varying ability, a real manifestation of the all-inclusive spirit of our game.
The attraction to play this kind of fast, free-flowing game was obvious, and many flocked to sample the glory of the fifty-yard dash, the clinical pass and catch move, and the final glory of grounding or kicking the ball for points. Many flocked to join in but some were not blessed with the skill, the vision, the physique, or indeed the fleet of foot required to succeed.
The early players possessed a natural flair, spatial awareness and speed of thought that only increased the level of entertainment; both for the participants and spectators alike. But also had the unfortunate side-effect of excluding those not so blessed with natural ability. However, the inclusive spirit of the game meant that none were turned away, and roles on the field were to be found for people of all ability, intelligence, and physique.
Those who were not blessed with a level of fitness were also found not to run very fast, or for very long. They end up lumbering around the midfield for the duration of the game, therefore being denied the same opportunities to participate or run with the ball, or score points. To address this lack of participation, various sub-games were contrived to give these players the feeling that they were contributing.
One of which was the feeding of the ball between the two sets of players of limited ability, where they would compete for possession. Not having the nous to outwit his opponent, this would obviously descend into a physical competition for possession. The ball-players would patiently wait at the ‘back’ for the ball to become available, when the game could finally resume.
Another, the throw-in, was also perceived to be an opportunity for the unenlightened to participate, by showing how high big men could actually jump, an idea was born. The heaviest players were lined up, and whoever could jump the highest would win possession for their team, where once again the ball would eventually find its way out to the ball-players where the game could finally resume.
The term ‘back’ actually derives from the ball-players willingness to stay back; to give the big guys a chance to play for a while. Naturally, if you were of a certain intelligence, ability or fitness, you were encouraged to 'move forward'.
The forward players’ enthusiasm sometimes gets the better of him when he starts to mimic his ball-playing colleagues. This can still be seen in the modern game where the forward player attempts to run with the ball. Rather than creating new laws to outlaw this anomaly, in the true spirit of the game opportunities were found for these players to feel involved during open play. They were encouraged to tackle each other for possession of the ball, rucks and mauls are the modern outcome of including players of varying ability, a real manifestation of the all-inclusive spirit of our game.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
