The Evolution of Soccer to Rugby to Football

On this blog I infrequently voice my fantasy of traveling in a time tunnel to Georgia as it was 36,000 years ago.  Here, I establish a secure homestead and enjoy living off the land in a wilderness untouched by man.  I bring as many modern conveniences back in time with me as possible because I’m not a masochist who believes in unnecessary suffering.  In fact I’ve even proposed bringing a few voluptuous models with me  (it’s just a fantasy afterall). As long as I had a sturdy house, electrical power, plentiful food and alcohol, and a naked woman’s backside in my vicinity; there would not be much about this modern world that I would miss.  I could look out the window and see a saber-tooth or a bear and be entertained to my satisfaction, though I’d bring a library of books, music cds, and dvds with me.  About the only thing from this modern world I would miss that I couldn’t bring back with me would be college football–easily the most exciting spectator sport ever invented.

Modern American football evolved from an ancient sport that may have originated thousands of years ago.  I wouldn’t be surprised if stone-aged tribes kicked and batted the inflated bladder of a wild boar around.  It seems natural that some playful participant would have suggested a friendly test of each tribe’s strength.  Could his tribe push the object past the other tribe?  There is no evidence of this, probably because football-like games predate written history.  The Romans played a game called harpastum.  From the ancient descriptions harpastum seems very similar to rugby, and the Romans copied this game from one played by the Greeks.  Who did the Greeks learn the game from?

The first written record of the word, “football,” dates to 1180 in England.  The English royalty outlawed “football” and “handball” between 1314-1667.  These early ordinances already differentiated games that included rules favoring advancing the ball with the foot vs. those favoring carrying the ball.  Whole towns played against each other in these brutal contests and I doubt the laws were enforceable–officials couldn’t imprison the entire town.

By the 19th century schoolboys often played soccer at recess.  According to legend, William Ellis, a student attending Rugby in 1823, had had enough of scoreless ties.  Before the bell rang ending recess, he picked up the ball and ran it into the goal.  This account is probably a myth, though the game as played in Rugby did change during this time period to one that allowed carrying the ball.  In reality rules varied depending on local preferences with some schools or regions favoring more handling of the ball, while others allowed less.  Handling the ball in soccer wasn’t completely outlawed until 1863.  Those favoring what’s known as rugby today didn’t codify their rules until 1871.

In the early 19th century America’s school kids played a game mostly resembling soccer, but the rules they used did allow some handling of the ball.  Players were allowed to bat the ball, and if they caught it, they were allowed a free kick on goal, not unlike modern Australian rules football.  Canadians introduced rugby to the United States in 1871, and it quickly became much more popular than soccer.  However, Americans thought scrums were a boring part of the game.  In rugby when a player is tackled, both teams have to fight for possession of the ball at the spot of the tackle.   The ball can stay hidden in the pile of men for a long time and the flow of the game is interrupted.  Walter Camp, a player/coach at Yale University, proposed changing the rule so that the team retained possession of the ball after the tackle.  Following this rule change, teams with the lead and the ball simply took a knee, necessitating another rule change also invented by Walter Camp.  Teams were given 3 downs to make 5 yards.  This rule lasted from 1880-1912 when it was changed to 4 downs to make 10 yards.  Canadian football still uses the 3 downs innovation, but they have to make 10 yards.  Walter Camp also invented the rule that the quarterback takes the snap from the center and hands off the ball to another player.  In the early days the center rolled the ball back with his heel.  But in 1891 the between-the-legs snap was invented.

Rugby scrum.  Americans thought scrums were a boring part of the game so they invented the new line of scrimmage instead: the downed player’s team retains possession. This rule change caused the 2 sports to diverge.

Artist’s depiction of an early American football game.  Before the legalization of the forward pass and other rule changes that opened up the game, these contests were far more dangerous than modern day football.

Early American football was an even more dangerous sport than it is today.  Before the forward pass was legalized, the best strategy was to carry the ball straight ahead using masses of blockers lined up in a v-formation or otherwise bunched together.  All of the blockers would converge on 1 point of the defensive line, so that 4 or 5 players were slamming into 1 defender.  Even outside runs were a little used strategy because the concept of hashmarks hadn’t been established yet, and if the ball carier was forced out of bounds, the center had to snap the ball from the sidelines, greatly constricting the offense.  Early football was a defensive game with teams often punting on first down.  Field goals had a greater point value than touchdowns.  The team with the better kicker usually won because the better punter set his team up for more field goals or dropkicks by changing field position.  Field goals were reduced from 4 points to 3 points in 1909, and touchdowns were increased to 6 points in 1912, finally making touchdowns more valuable.

The high numbers of deaths in the early years of football led to rule changes to open up the game.  In 1906 lineman were no longer allowed to lineup in bunched formations, and the forward pass was legalized, despite the opposition of Walter Camp who coached powerful teams, specializing in mass momentum plays.  Nevertheless, teams didn’t often use the pass because a) the quarterback had to be 5 yards behind the line of scrimmage before he threw a pass and he was not allowed to run with the ball, b) a team lost possession if the pass was incomplete, c) it was illegal to pass the ball over the goal line, and d) the ball was made for kicking not throwing.  In 1912 the rule was changed so that an incomplete pass did not result in a turnover.  Some teams began to pass the ball more often after this, but the passing game didn’t really get going until 1933 when the ball was changed to better suit throwing it rather than kicking it.  Other restrictive rules were eliminated in 1933 as well.  Hashmarks were also introduced in this year, encouraging teams to call outside runs more often.

Audible signals predate the huddle.  The huddle was invented by a team of deaf football players  in 1892 but was not widely used until 1921.  Before this, teams lined up rapidly and called the plays at the line of scrimmage–much like modern day no huddle offenses.  Here’s a link to the earliest footage of a college football game.  It’s the 1903 game between Yale and Princeton, filmed by Thomas Edison https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uERnf4jHe7s.

In the early days football, like soccer, only allowed 3 substitutions and once a player left the game, he could not return.  Players had to play offense and defense, and helmets were optional until 1939.  From 1941-1952 college teams were allowed unlimited substitutions.  The rule changed back to one platoon until 1964 when unlimited substitutions were once again allowed.  The NFL legalized unlimited substitutions in 1950.  Modern day substitution allows for more specialization.   Modern players are bigger, stronger, and faster, but these old school players must have had the edge in stamina.

I like college football more than pro.  In the NFL it is theoretically possible that a team with a 7-9 record could make the playoffs and win the Super Bowl.  This diminishes the value of each game, making them less exciting.  In college football 1 or 2 losses can be fatal to a team’s national championship hopes.  But even if this happens, rivalry games are still important and stoke more interest than late season NFL games which often have uninteresting matchups such as a 2-11 team going up against an 8-5 team or worse yet a 3-10 vs a 4-9.

The Georgia Bulldogs are my favorite team.  Todd Gurley is my favorite active player.

Todd Gurley leaping for a touchdown.  Beating Georgia Tech never gets old.

Reference:

Revsine, Dave

The Opening Kickoff

Lyons Press 2014

Of Lycanthropy and Dire Wolves (Canis dirus)

The fictional depiction of lycanthropic transformation is reminiscent of an oversimplified depiction of evolution. Although it seems a bizarre twist of logic, evolutionary science does support the existence of an animal that was part man and part wolf.

Man is a beast.  I think the ancient superstitious legend of the werewolf originates from a fear of ourselves or at least a fear of feral individuals within our society.  People with various mental illnesses don’t follow the rules of civilization and behave as if they were wild animals.  In modern cinema and literature the transformation of man to wolf appears as a kind of reverse evolution, depicting the man de-evolving into the most feared animal in medieval Europe–the wolf.  Of course, this doesn’t parallel the reality of evolution.  Evolution doesn’t reverse course, though occasionally retro mutations take place that begin new lines of progression.  But if evolution could reverse course in a linear regression, a man transforming back into beast would become apelike rather than as a canid/human hybrid.  On the tree of evolution primates are far removed from canids.  Despite the vast distance between the two on the evolutionary timescale, primates and canids do share a common ancestor.  Both man and wolf can trace their evolutionary lines back to a single unknown species of insectivore that diverged into two species early in the Eocene 55 million years ago, or probably earlier.  The split may have occurred as early as the Paleoecene or the Cretaceous.  When dinosaurs walked the earth what was to become man and wolf was the same animal.  According to what we know of evolution, werewolves were real and may have lived with the dinosaurs.  But they were nothing like the monsters depicted in fiction.  Instead, they were shrew-like animals, something a modern day house cat could toy with.

This is not a man wearing a werewolf mask.  He has a rare condition known as hypertrichosis.

The legend of lycanthropy may predate written language.  Both the Greeks and the Romans believed in the existence of men who could temporarily transform themselves into wolves.  The word, lycanthrope, itself is Greek: lycaos means wolf, anthrope means man.  A belief in the existence wolf men persisted in medieval Europe.  Today, we can be certain the legend was based on a number of strange factors that modern science can explain.  Then as now, serial killers occasionally terrorized society. Instead of blaming a deranged man for mutilations and murders, authorities scapegoated wolves despite conflicting evidence implicating a human.  They couldn’t comprehend that a man could be so vicious.  Diseases such as rabies and and the disorder of hypertrichosis compounded the confusion because symptoms of these conditions partly mimic the legend.  The Age of Reason ended the widespread belief in the existence of werewolves, but the legend lives on as a popular monster of horror fiction.

Here’s a skull comparison between a dire wolf and a timber wolf.  I found this photo on another wordpress blog. 

When paleo-indians encountered dire wolves they were forced to deal with a real monster.  Unlike timber wolves (Canis lupus) which originally evolved in Eurasia, dire wolves evolved in America where the large pack-hunting canids never learned to respect or fear man.  Studies of the fossil record suggest dire wolves appeared suddenly about 200,000 years BP.  They replaced Armbruster’s wolf which had been the dominant canid in America for over a million years.   It’s unclear whether dire wolves evolved from Armbruster’s wolf or another canid (C. nehringi), a little known extinct canid that inhabited South America.  Dire wolves ranged from coast to coast and from what’s now southern Canada to Peru.  They’re very common in the fossil record, suggesting they were the most abundant large predator on the continent.  In the northern parts of their range they co-existed with timber wolves.  In the southeast they co-existed with red wolves (C. rufus) and coyotes (C. latrans). 

I didn’t include an illustration of a dire wolf because at first glance, they would’ve probably looked just like a modern day timber wolf.  There were some subtle anatomical differences.  Dire wolves had a broader head, larger teeth, stronger jaws, and shorter but stouter legs.  On average they were significantly larger than timber wolves.  The average weight of an adult timber wolf is ~80 pounds.  The average weight of an adult western dire wolf was  ~120 pounds; the average of an adult eastern dire wolf was ~140 pounds.  Scientists noted a difference in size between eastern and western dire wolf fossils.  Eastern dire wolves also had longer legs than their western cousins.  Thousands of dire wolf skulls have been recovered from the La Brea tarpits in California.  Coincidentally, one of the few dire wolf skulls found in South Carolina was larger than all but one of the California skulls.  Though timber wolves average 80 pounds, some individuals do reach 160 pounds.  That suggests a really large dire wolf would’ve approached 200 pounds.  White tail deer are not large enough to sustain a pack of wolves consisting of individuals of this size.  Dire wolves required abundant bison, horses, llamas, and juvenile mammoths and mastodons.  Man and the extinction of the megafauna caused the downfall of the dire wolf.  

Interestingly, the appearance of dire wolves coincides with the evolution of the larger Smildon fatalis from the smaller Smilodon gracilis, indicating an arms race of sorts between the two.

***************************************************

A comment on last week’s nudie photo

I thought the hypothesis I discussed in my last week’s blog entry would be of interest to members of the fossil forum, so I posted a thread about it.  I wanted to kick my hypothesis around and see what they thought of it.  A moderator pulled the thread because my blog, which I linked, had a photo of a naked woman.  He remarked that they like to keep the fossil forum “kid friendly.”  Of course, they have the right to control the comment on their website, just as I have the right to moderate my own.  But I don’t agree with the value system behind their reasoning.

The thread was pulled on a Saturday.  It occurred to me that violent college football was on television all day.  Football is a sport where men break each other’s bones on a regular basis, and a significant risk of inflicting permanent brain damage is high.  Society is ok with exposing kids to violence, but the image of a beautiful naked woman is somehow not “kid friendly.”  Violence is good; sex is bad.  I don’t get it.

A few years ago, people were freaking out because of Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction.  For some reason parents were furious because children might have accidentally viewed a woman’s breast.  The same thing happened once when an intro for Monday Night Football included a sexy seductive woman.  Yet, they’re ok with big defensive lineman clobbering quarterbacks in a game.

I’m a big Georgia Bulldog fan.  David Pollack was one of my favorite players, but I found his religious values somewhat twisted.  He refused to participate in his selection as  a Playboy all-American because of his religious beliefs.  He wears a wristband with the quote of “What would Jesus do?”  Well, I’m pretty sure Jesus wouldn’t knock the shit out of a quarterback.

Our society considers it acceptable to expose children to violence as entertainment but rejects exposing them to images of naked women.  Our society has a twisted value system that teaches kids violence is good but sexuality is dirty and bad.  I don’t agree with the notion that viewing images of naked women is in any way harmful to children.