The Origin of the Rugby 'H' Goal Posts

Sean Fagan - ColonialRugby.com.au

Rugby in England in the late 1800s Cambridge University

An initial reason brought up by some texts suggests that the Rugby School rules in the early 1800s introduced the concept of a 10 feet high crossbar to overcome the 'horde of boys standing in the goal mouth'.

By having to kick the ball over the crossbar to score a goal, it was reasoned, there was no longer any need for crowding the area in front of the goal.

The argument seems to make some sense - until you consider that the only kicks the boys could stop were those within their reach. If goals weren't being scored close to the posts anyway (because of the defenders), how would a crossbar make longer kicks any more or less difficult?

The answer lies in looking at other football codes and the introduction (or rejection) of the crossbar.

In the late 1850s soccer and Australian rules had no crossbar.

The laws of the schools/bodies central to the development of soccer had no provision for a crossbar (initially a rope) until 1866. Unlike in rugby though, it was introduced to reduce the height of kicks. It also led to more footwork skill being needed to thread a goal.

Interestingly, in 1869 in South Australia, The Observer reported that at a meeting of the Adelaide F.C., it was decided that "in future the ball be kicked over instead of under the crossbar of the goal". It suggests 'football' in that city evolved through hybrid forms of soccer, to rugby, to Australian (Victorian) rules.

Australian rules began in 1858, adopting the bulk of rugby's rules - with the notable inclusion of two Sheffield and later soccer principles - no off-side and the absence of the crossbar.

As noted earlier, soccer introduced a crossbar in 1866, leaving Australian rules as the only football code where there was an unrestricted/open goal. As a result, by examining Australian rules it is possible to see what soccer (a non-handling game) and rugby (handling game) gained by using a crossbar.

Long before tries (touchdowns in the USA) were worth points, without a crossbar, a rugby player could carry the ball to the goal-mouth and dribble the ball across for a goal. In soccer, without a crossbar, a goal could be kicked from well inside a player's own half, giving the defenders no hope of being able to stop the ball in flight.

The crossbar was introduced in rugby and soccer to even out the contest.

So what is to be said of Australian rules and the absence of a crossbar in that football code?

A Melbourne sports journalist for The Referee in Sydney, filed an interesting report in 1910. He suggested that rugby style posts should be introduced into Australian rules.

"Often a goal is scored within a foot or so of the goal posts, and at other times the ball bounces or dribbles through. The reward is ridiculously greater than the effort, and the bar would make for better and more scientific shooting at goal. Position would be studied, and the haphazard pot-shot would be a thing of the past."

Until the 1930s, rugby league and Australian rules officials talked of creating a hybrid football code. In all the 'rules' created for this new code, there was little argument from the Australian rules side against adopting rugby-style H posts.

Indeed, even without rugby league, in 1924 the Adelaide Advertiser reported (re Australian rules) a headline, "Improving Football - Players Favour a Crossbar".

The crossbar was introduced into rugby to eliminate aspects of 'football' that still exist, and are still criticised, in Australian rules today - namely:
1. Scoring a goal from a lucky bounce and/or along the ground.
2. A mass of players in front of the goal-mouth, fighting and grasping with hands and feet for the ball, and one fortuitously 'soccering' a lucky goal through the posts.

© Copyright - Sean Fagan - ColonialRugby.com.au