Product Code Database
The Cambridge Rules were several formulations of the rules of football made at the University of Cambridge during the nineteenth century.
Cambridge Rules are believed to have had a significant influence on the modern football codes. The 1856 Cambridge Rules are claimed by some to have had an influence in the origins of Australian rules football. The 1863 Cambridge Rules is said to have had a significant influence on the creation of the original Laws of the Game of the Football Association.
During the early nineteenth century, each school tended to use its own rules of football.Searby (1997), p. 668 These school codes began to be written down in the 1840s, beginning with Rugby School in 1845. When Cambridge students who had attended different schools wished to play each other at football, it was necessary to draw up a compromise set of rules drawing features from the various codes.Curry and Dunning (2015), pp. 63-64
Thring himself wrote in 1861: "in 1846, when an attempt was made to introduce a common game, and form a really respectable club, at Cambridge, the Rugby game was found to be the great obstacle to the combination of Eton, Winchester, and Shrewsbury men in forming a football club". No rules from this attempt at codification have survived.Curry and Dunning, p. 66
Green describes this development as "the first positive step to create an identity of views and a common code of laws of acceptable to as many as possible", and laments the absence of a plaque "to commemorate this historic moment".Green (1953), p. 15
Though the 1848 rules described in Malden's letter have not survived,Curry and Dunning (2015), p. 69: "The 1848 regulations, though we cannot be sure as no copy survives, may have been generally satisfactory for the players who reflected the balance of power among Cambridge undergraduates at that time"Green (1953) p. 16: "The tragedy, from the point of view of research, is that no copies exist of either the 1846 or 1848 rules, but from the following copy of the University Rules of circ 1856 a comparison can be made" followedEven though no copy of the 1848 rules has survived, some sources describe the 1856 laws (see below) as the "Cambridge Rules of 1848". These include
Some other sources, such as Witty (1960), p. 143, assume that the 1848 rules must have been similar or identical to the 1856 rules, though the basis for this belief is unclear.
Malden's claim that the 1848 rules worked "very satisfactorily" is doubted by Dunning and Sheard, on the grounds that a new set of rules had to be created in 1856 (see below). (2025). 9780203491713, Routledge. ISBN 9780203491713 Peter Searby also suggests that while "perhaps these 1848 rules were adopted for some games ... the variety of practice that Malden described in fact continued for some time".Searby (1997), p. 669 Searby cites the recollections of T. G. Bonney, who attended St. John's College from 1852 to 1856, that he "often ... played football on Parker's Piece, without uniform or regular organization"., also cited at Searby (1997), p. 670.
Sykes was unaware of any compromise rules earlier than his own 1856 code (which he suggests might be "the first attempt at combination") and stated that before their enactment "University Football" had "no rules". Curry and Dunning suggest that "the regularity with which new rules were issued at Cambridge indicates a probable lack of effectiveness in the 'laws'".Curry and Dunning (2015), p. 26
A copy of the 1856 Cambridge Rules survives at Shrewsbury School:Curry and Dunning (2015), p. 73 another copy, dated from 1857, was included by Sykes with his letter. The rules bear the signatures of ten footballers: two each from Eton, Rugby, Harrow, Shrewsbury, and the University of Cambridge. The rules allow a free kick from a fair catch; otherwise the ball may be handled only to stop it. Holding, pushing, and tripping are all forbidden. The offside rule requires four opponents to be between a player and the opponents' goal. A goal is scored by kicking the ball "through the flag posts and under the string".
The complexities of Eton's "rouge" tie-breaker and Harrow's free-kick for a fair catch were both excluded from the rules for this game, which ended in a draw.
Like the earlier 1856 laws, the 1863 rules disallowed rugby-style running with the ball and hacking. Nevertheless, there were several differences between the two codes:
There is little textual similarity between the two sets of laws: in general the 1863 laws are longer and more detailed, but the 1856 rule that "every match shall be decided by a majority of goals" has no equivalent in the later code.
The Field published a detailed report of a game played under these rules on Tuesday 1 December 1863. The author concluded that while "we do not consider the the best game that might be had, ... it is a good one", and suggested that it could be adopted by some of the schools.
An FA meeting of 17 November 1863 discussed this question, with the "hacking" clubs predominating.Harvey (2005), pp. 135–139 A further meeting was scheduled one week later in order to finalize ("settle") the laws. The Cambridge Rules appeared in the sporting newspapers on 21 November, three days before the FA meeting.
At this crucial 24 November meeting, the "hackers" were again in a narrow majority. During the meeting, however, FA secretary Ebenezer Morley brought the delegates' attention to the Cambridge Rules (which banned carrying and hacking):
Discussion of the Cambridge rules, and suggestions for possible communication with Cambridge on the subject, served to delay the final "settlement" of the laws to a further meeting, on 1 December. A number of representatives who supported rugby-style football did not attend this additional meeting,Harvey (2005), pp. 144-145 resulting in hacking and carrying being banned. As the newspaper report of a later meeting put it, 'the appearance of some rules recently adopted at Cambridge seemed to give tacit support to the advocates of "non-hacking".'
The FA adopted the Cambridge offside law almost verbatim, replacing the quite different wording in the earlier draft. Morley even proposed making the FA's laws "nearly identical with the Cambridge rules", but this suggestion was rebuffed by FA president Arthur Pember. As a result, the FA's final published laws of 1863 retained many of the differences from the Cambridge rules that had been present in the earlier draft, including the following:
The historical significance of these distinctions was, however, minor in comparison to the decision to reject hacking and carrying the ball. Jonathan Wilson has summarized it thus:
In 1871, the break between the two main codes of football was crystallized with the formation of the Rugby Football Union (RFU). This was followed in 1872 by the founding of the Cambridge Rugby Union Club, following RFU rules. Shorn of adherents of the "carrying game", the Cambridge University Football Club joined the FA in 1873.Allcock's Football Annual, 1873, reported in It played under FA rules when it took part in the third edition of the FA Cup, in the 1873-4 season.
Here on Parker's Piece, in the 1800s, students established a common set of simple football rules emphasising skill above force, which forbade catching the ball and 'hacking'. These 'Cambridge Rules' became the defining influence on the 1863 Football Association rules.
In May 2018, a monument titled "Cambridge Rules 1848" was installed on Parker's Piece. The monument consists of four stone pillars, engraved with the 1856 Cambridge Rules translated into several languages.
| + Laws of football reportedly created at Cambridge up to 1867See Curry and Dunning (2015), p. 78 | |||||
| c. 1838–1842 | Shrewsbury | Gonville and Caius | Edgar Montagu (letters of 1897 and 1899) | Although drawn up solely by Shrewsbury alumni, the rules were intended to be "fair to all the schools". | |
| 1846 | Eton Shrewsbury Rugby Winchester | St John's Trinity | J. C. Thring (article of 1861) N. L. Jackson (1899) | The sources do not make it clear whether this attempt to create a code of rules was successful: "the Rugby game was found to be the great obstacle to the combination of Eton, Winchester, and Shrewsbury men in forming a football club". | |
| 1848 | Eton Harrow Rugby Shrewsbury Winchester | Trinity othersMalden stated that fourteen persons had created the rules, but he was able to recall only four (including himself), all of whom had attended Trinity College | H. C. Malden (letter of 1897) | Malden claims that these rules were "still in force at Cambridge" when the FA's rules were created in 1863. | |
| c. 1851–1854 | Eton "Non-Etonians" | Trinity others | W. C. Green (published memoir of 1905) | Rules were "more like the Eton Field rules than any other" | |
| 1856 | Eton Harrow Rugby Shrewsbury | Clare Jesus Peterhouse St John's Trinity | Copy preserved in Shrewsbury library (c. 1856) F. G. Sykes (published letter of 1897) | Sykes states that before this code was created, university football was a "general melée" with "no rules". He suggests that these rules might be "the first attempt at combination". | |
| 1862 | Eton Harrow | Trinity others | Letter of J. A. Cruikshank to the Old Harrovian magazine The Tyro (October 1863) | Rules were specially created for a match between old Etonians and old Harrovians at Cambridge in November 1862 | |
| 1863 | Eton Harrow Marlborough Rugby Shrewsbury Westminster | Gonville and Caius Trinity | Published contemporaneously in newspapers (1863) | Influenced the first FA rules | |
| 1867 | Charterhouse Cheltenham Eton Harrow Marlborough Rugby Shrewsbury Uppingham Westminster Winchester | Christ's Emmanuel Gonville and Caius Jesus St. John's Trinity | Published contemporaneously in newspapers (1867) | Explicitly presented as a revision of the 1863 laws | |
|
|
