To return, however, to the Rugby Union game during its first or ' shoving' age. The Union code very properly abolished hacking, tripping, and scragging, the last named of which practices consisted in the twisting of an opponent's neck round, with a gripe of the arm, to make him cry 'down,' if he had any available voice; but the abolition of all these practices, and especially of the hacking, tended to make the game 'tight,'and to render of little value the best and most skilful forward play, which can be only exhibited in 'loose' scrummages. But what kept the old system alive was undoubtedly the retention of twenty a side in the international contest with Scotland. The bulk of the 'forwards' chosen for the twenty-a-side contests were strong, heavy men, and without strength and weight 0 player had little chance of making his mark amongst the forward brigade.

The result was that under the old regime the typical forward was a man who knew how to ' shove,' and very likely could do very little else. So firmly, indeed, was the traditional notion of the 'big-side' impressed upon the chief players of the Rugby game, that as late as 1875 the 'Football Annual,' which is what a political writer would term a 'semi-official' publication, was still advising captains, in its 'Hints upon the Two Styles,' to play twenty-a-side if they could get the men to play. By this time, however, twenties had been abandoned in all but the classical matches of the year, and in the winter of 1875 the Oxford and Cambridge authorities agreed to have fifteens instead of twenties for the Inter-'Varsity match. In the following season the example was followed by the English and Scottish Unions. Up to 1876, however, the first period which we have called the 'shoving' age, lasted, and during this period the light and speedy forward was seldom heard of. The character of the forward players, too, influenced the arrangement and style of play of the rest of the field, and as the old game is now only recollected by few - for spectators at football matches were scarce in those days, and even international matches were sometimes financial failures - it may be worth while to describe what manner of game was played in the days of 'English twenties.'

Matches between clubs were played with sides of fifteen as is usual now, but not only was the style of forward play different from the present, but the arrangement of back players in the field was also necessarily different, the greater part of the offensive play falling upon the half-backs and of the defensive upon the full backs alone. The original notion was to have only two classes of players behind the scrummage, half-backs and backs, there being two half-backs, three backs, and the remaining ten players being forwards. The earliest development of the game was to put the 'centre' back a few yards in front of the two backs at the sides, to enable him occasionally to get away on a run after a drop kick from the back ranks of the other side. Such was the arrangement of the field which the present writer first recollects. Now as to the points which made a good player of the game at that time. We have already said that the forward was expected to do his best to keep the scrummage tight and shove the other side down the ground.

The half-backs, standing well away from the compact scrummage, would exhort their forwards to be 'steady with it,' to go 'not too fast,' and to 'keep it together.' The same authority from which we have already quoted as ' semi-official' (and a very competent authority the writer was) says: -

Some players are given to putting their heads down in a scrummage so as to look after the ball better, but it is a plan not to be commended as it loosens the mass, a man with his head down taking up the space of two. A scrummage should be formed as compactly as possible, every man pressing firmly on the man in front of him, bodies and legs close together, so as to form a firmly packed mass to resist the weight of a like mass of opponents, . . . the great point to be aimed at being to stop the progress of the ball towards one's own quarters.

A scrummage so formed naturally took so long in breaking up that the behind players of one another's side were off and away with the ball in most cases before the mass of the forwards could get thoroughly loose. The 'behinds' then did most if not all of the brilliant play, the running and the tackling, while the forwards did the scrummaging, which was their main business during the game. Of course we do not want our readers to think that the course of every game was this invariably; no doubt the tactics of some clubs differed from those of others, and gradually from year to year the advantages of 'loose play' came to be more and more recognised. The style of play, however, altered very gradually for the better, and we have known more than one forward to remark in the field after half an hour's play that he had not yet touched the ball.

One or two things tended to keep up the tight scrummage game longer than it would otherwise have lasted. It was considered 'bad form' for a man to put down the ball immediately he was collared; for one thing, the runner was nearly always a behind, who had to get back to his position in the field, and there was thus plenty of time for the scrummage to collect and pack itself, and indeed the ball was as a matter of courtesy never put down until the scrummage was well formed. Again, too, for a long time there was a controversy as to when a man was 'fairly held' within the meaning of the rule, many averring that there must be at least two opponents on the ball before it became obligatory to cry 'down.' This rule of football etiquette was, however, definitely disposed of in 1878, when law 18 of the Union code was altered to its present shape, and the player was obliged, 'when fairly held,' to 'at once cry down, and immediately put it down.' This alteration at once made dribbling an essential feature of Rugby forward play. Another rule of football etiquette was to consider it more or less of a 'low trick' to 'heel out' the ball to the half-backs, a course which was obviously advantageous to the side when its back division was strong and its forwards weak.