For love of the game

It is a popular myth that the origins of the modern game of rugby can be traced back to an incident at Rugby School in Warwickshire, where there is a commemorative stone that celebrates the event. The stone is shown below:


The inscription has faded somewhat, and reads as follows:

THIS STONE
COMMEMORATES THE EXPLOIT OF
WILLIAM WEBB ELLIS
WHO WITH A FINE DISREGARD FOR THE RULES OF FOOTBALL
AS PLAYED IN HIS TIME
FIRST TOOK THE BALL IN HIS ARMS AND RAN WITH IT
THUS ORIGINATING THE DISTINCTIVE FEATURE OF
THE RUGBY GAME
A.D. 1823

An alternative theory, and one that is enthusiastically promoted by some followers of Association Football, suggests that Rugby was invented in Neolithic times, by Stone Age cave-dwellers.

THE ABOVE IMAGE
IS A REPRODUCTION OF
A PREHISTORIC CAVE DRAWING
DISCOVERED IN THE TWICKENHAM TUNNEL
AND WHICH IS BELIEVED TO DEPICT
THE AFTERMATH OF A PRE-MATCH ENCOUNTER
IN WHICH RETALIATION WAS GOT IN FIRST
BEFORE A GAME OF RUGBY
B.C. 13,823

So there we have it; two contrasting images, two quite different views. So which is the superior sport? Rugby, or Association Football? Is it possible to present a balanced and reasoned opinion in favour of one or the other?

I've got my views! And so, dear friends, lend me your ears!



If I were to present a serious case, I'd support rugby. A game of schoolboy rugby gives eight more boys the chance to participate; rugby provides more than just one way of scoring (try, conversion, penalty goal, drop goal); the oval ball provides greater technical challenges than the spherical ball; and the game offers opportunities for players with a wider variety of physical attributes to participate and to excel.

But why be so serious about this? There is a man who lives in my apartment block who comes home from work, and spends an hour outside practising football with his two teenage sons. And I'm reminded of me doing some similar stuff, using a different shaped ball, with my son.

It's all about love, really.