The Big Blue (and Melbourne) (1876)
The Victorian Football Association was formed early in 1877 and the initial constitution gave it the sole right to settle disputes between members clubs. Perhaps the move was overdue after the last game of 1876 and an argument that contributed greatly to the need for the new Association ...
For most of the seasons leading up to the birth of the Victorian Football Association, Carlton and Melbourne were by far the most dominant clubs, both on and off the field. The rivalry between the two in the first 25 years of the game was as intense as any seen in the 125 since.
Melbourne was seen as the "gentlemen's club" and derived most of its members, if not players, from the wealthier sections of the colonial society. Carlton, on the other hand, was regarded as a much more democratic club, perhaps because of the proximity of the Melbourne University and the middle class nature of the early dwellings.
Games between the two clubs were the highlight of the season and attracted crowds of up to 10,000 people despite the rather rudimentary nature of the grounds.
In 1876, the two were drawn to play each other four times. The two great rivals played their first match for the season at Royal Park on June 10th and attracted a crowd estimated at over 10,000 spectators. This was to be Carlton's only victory against Melbourne for the year, winning three goals to nil.
Honours were shared equally before the last game of the season - both had won a game and the other was drawn, and the last match was critical to decide the top ranking team for the season.
Admission charges were almost unheard of at the time, most observers believing that the clubs wouldn t know what to do with money anyway.
But with most grounds controlled by cricket clubs, secretaries of football clubs sometimes agreed to play matches for charity, in part to establish their claims of respectability.
The last match between Melbourne and Carlton the previous year had been played at the University Oval ( the ground having a good fence around it which enabled a charge for admission to be made as a benefit for Edward Jackson, a well-known Ballarat cricketer who had been severely injured in a mining accident a few months beforehand.
In 1877, the two teams agreed (with the blessing of the University Chancellor, Professor Strong) to play the final game in aid of Hospital Saturday, as the name suggests a day set aside for raising funds for Melbourne's hospitals. Despite the benevolent intentions, the admission charges did not prove overly popular, but a crowd of around 5,000 swelled the charity coffers by £115.
Both teams were described as being at their strongest for the year. Melbourne (the Reds) were captained by Bob Sillett, while Carlton (the Blues) were led by Jack Gardiner, later a prominent administrator with the club for several decades, and the man after whom the Gardiner Stand at Princes Park is named.
Carlton scored the first goal through Henry, but a few minutes later, the great controversy erupted.
"... kicked it forward, where Nudd and F. Baker motionless awaited it. Baker, who stood behind Nudd, pushed him forward and took the ball over his head, upon which a dozen Carlton throats shouted "How's that, umpire?" and he replied "no mark", intending, as he later told me, to follow it up with "free kick to Carlton" (Peter Pindar, The Australasian)
But Fred Baker, who wasn't waiting upon any long-winded conversation, immediately kicked the ball through the goals, the goal umpire awarding the goal to Melbourne.
Carlton players besieged the umpire, Mr. Seary, demanding he complete his decision (which he later assured Pindar would have been a free kick to Carlton), but being somewhat flustered and more than a little annoyed by the some of the language used, he left the ground in disgust.
Another umpire was found, but on appeal he rightly refused to amend the Seary's decision. To add injury to Carlton's insult, Nicholas scored another goal for Melbourne some minutes later and despite the desperate efforts of the "blues", they could not score the equaliser.
Carlton, convinced that the umpire had originally decided to pay the free kick before the intervention of the players, immediately protested to Seary after the game, and went so far as to challenge that he sign a statutory declaration to corroborate his decision was in fact simply to call "no mark" and that he had not intended to pay a free kick.
Seary took offence to the implication that he had been talked out of his decision and refused to sign the declaration as a matter of principle. Carlton rather conveniently took his refusal as an indication that he HAD intended to pay the free kick, and therefore "we wus robbed".
Pindar, writing in The Australasian a week after the game, made two predictions, both of which came true.
"... I suppose Melbourne will go on considering the game a win, and Carlton a draw"
Individual clubs at the time were responsible for supplying tables of their season's results to the press for publication.
Pindar's prognostication was spot on; Melbourne's report showed them as having two wins, a loss and a draw with Carlton. Carlton, however, submitted their results as one win each and two drawn games, the club refusing to acknowledge the last match as a victory to Melbourne.
Pindar's other prediction had much more far reaching effect.
"... the central umpire has been appealed to regarding the protest. How much better if the subject could be referred to a football association"
The ongoing dispute reinforced the need for a formal organization to take control of the game and led to the meetings the following year that saw the formation of the Victorian Football Association. By happy coincidence that Carlton president, Mr. Robert Robertson, issued their annual report to the press on the eve of the first meeting, some five days ahead of the club's Annual Meeting. The report was published in The Age on the morning of the key meeting and devoted a special section to games against their old rivals.
After describing accurately enough the first three games, Carlton's report continued :
"the fourth is claimed as a draw pending the decision of the central umpire as required by Rule 12 relative to an infringement of Rule 8 by a Melbourne player, for which the Carlton player by Rule 11 claimed a free kick."
Removing the legalese, Rule 12 deemed the central umpire to be the sole adjudicator of free kicks claimed by a player (rule 11). Rule 8 prohibited "tripping, hacking and rabbiting" and the unnecessary holding of players.
"So far as the committee is concerned, every effort
has been made but without success to obtain Mr. Searcy's decision and your
committee, with a wish to have the matter settled, has even intimated that if Mr.
Searcy will say "no mark" when referred to Carlton's appeal, the
match will be considered a win for Melbourne."
Carlton's Annual
Report, The Age, May 7, 1877
The report then concluded with a statement that the club regretted the need to dispute the result and in line with Pindar s prediction the previous September, urged that an association be formed to settle such disputes.
An examination of the history of our game will show few instances where an umpire has changed his mind, and certainly significantly fewer when the reconsideration was six months after the event as Carlton seemed to expect. And although ahead of its time by nearly 50 years, to Carlton we offer the gratuitous advice from winners to unhappy losers - "look it up in The Sporting Globe" (or in this case, "The Australasian").