1888 T. S. Power - The Whistleblower
	One of the most influential officials in the decades immediately following the formation of the Victorian Football Association in 1877 was Thomas P. Power.   Even before the V.F.A. was born, Power published "The Footballer", the first annual devoted to Melbourne Rules, as the game was known.   In 1888, Power visited "the old country" and an interview conducted upon his return gave some revealing insights on his thoughts on the British Association game (soccer) and ideas on how some of the English rules could be applied to advantage in our local game ...

Even as late as 1888, the rule-makers of our local game were still looking to the "old country" with an eye to a common set of rules between the two countries.   Power admired the rule in the English game that allowed a player of the opposing side to throw the ball back into play after the other team last touched the ball, but suggested a rather novel twist, that a player of the offending side should be made to throw the ball back into play, suggesting the side would be sufficiently disadvantaged under the locals rules (which insisted that the ball must be kicked before it could be taken in hand) to discourage teams playing for the boundary line …

"Mr. Power said that whilst in England he spent an evening with a gentleman who was desirous of bringing out a team of Association players, and would renew the subject at a later date, although he (Mr. Power) could not hold out any inducement for him.  It was certainly a pity that there could not be a series of international matches arranged, so as to determine the relative merits of English and Australian players … "

… on a British Association match between London and Glasgow, won by the Scottish team by five goals to two …

"… I very much enjoyed it, because the players were picked men, who played the game well, and scientifically.   I was a bit puzzled about the "off" and "on" side, to which we are unaccustomed.   Sometimes a man steals away with the ball, and apparently he is going to perform prodigies, but then he is adjudged out of play.  

The system of going for goal is very scientific indeed, the manner in which they try and kick for goal being something wonderful.   They play the ball up the side, and if a man finds his chance is not good, he does not stupidly kick the ball behind, but he plays it back and "middles" to get it to the other side.    Then with the players verging towards him have left the other side unprotected, he gives the man playing up the wing unmolested an opportunity of sending the ball through, and invariable he gets it through …

… the players try and introduce more science into the game than they do here.  The only club I notice here who play in a scientific manner, man-to-man, and with quick regularity to each other is Essendon.   They play a fast, fine game, and the men in the field seem to know the intention of their opponents.  South Melbourne are also very good in that respect.

… there are two umpires and a referee, and the rules are rigidly adhered to.  You would fancy on first impression that three men would impede the game considerably, but it is astounding how quickly they decide a dispute.  The umpire blows a whistle when wishing to protest against play … everyone hears the whistle, and it is an innovation Victorian Umpires might adopt with success.  The shrill whistle has a far better effect than lifting a hand to stop play …

The Victorian game is very nice to look at but is nothing near so scientific as the Association game.  Our game is a better one for spectators, as it, as it is more exciting and fast in my opinion.   The marking is very nice.   It may seem absurd to us for a man to butt the ball with his head in the Association game, but he is not allowed the use of his hands, nor can he indulge in any roughness.   He can go in with his shoulders, but as a matter of fact, when the hands are in a state of inactivity, he cannot be rough unless he deliberately kicks.   There is no unfair play from behind; no pushing from behind.   You very rarely see a game in this colony without a man being taken by the neck or shoulders … in the British Association game, he cannot be brought down unfairly, and is not unless by a fair charge.   He is not allowed to run with the ball in his hands, nor allowed to handle his opponent with his hands.   It makes a marked difference to the game.

The Rugby game is dying out in England.   It will always be supported at Rugby School where traditions give it life.   There are about 50 or 60 rules in the game, which from their number, must be difficult to retain in the mind.   Rugby is very rough – much rougher than the Victorian game.   When men get in a scrimmage, excited, with their muscles at full tension, how is it possible to, under such circumstances - and it seems a farce –to ask 20 or 30 athletic fellows to stupidly push their opponents down?   Some will vote it "slow", and then go at it …

Our game is fast and exciting, and, if umpires play up to the rules laid down by our Association, play would improve greatly … umpires don't play up to them.  Mr. Trait, one of our umpires seemed to go in with a bit more determination to uphold the rules than others.   And then Houston … the Association should protect these men, if, as so often happens in the Press and elsewhere, they are run down unnecessarily … "

 Our Representative : "Then, in your opinion, what is the best system of football for adoption in this colony?"

"Upon careful consideration, the Victorian game well played and under judicious and prompt umpires who possess the determination to put down unfair roughness and play of a mean description (because a man may go for a player and go so close within the line as almost to defy an umpire) my opinion is in favour of the Victorian game, although I could not fail to be impressed with the fact that the Association game is skillfully and scientifically played at home) …

At the match between London and Glasgow, there were very few people.  The attendance was very meager – nothing like the attendance at a Victorian match in Melbourne.   At home, the Northern people patronize the matches more than the Southern people, and I am told up North it is nothing unusual to see 10,000 people standing as spectators.   I fancy there were 1000 people at the London match – certainly no more.

… Unfortunately, I have not yet seen the amended rules of the Victorian game, although a day or two ago, I was told new laws had in some instances been made. … an amendment has been made with regard to "little marks", so as to preserve a distance between the player who gave the mark and the man that received it.   Some five years ago, I proposed to the Association that if they could define the running with the ball, bouncing it every five or six yards, they could make a rule to define the distance for a mark … they would not listen to me at that time.  Little marks had just come into vogue, and several clubs were getting proficient in the practice, and being successful in that practice, they did not care for any alteration …

With regard to the appointment of boundary umpires, the idea should be to make the game as free as possible from interference in order to preserve its interest.    The question should be, when a man deliberately kicks the ball out of bounds, whether it would not impose a salutary check in making him throw the ball in, the umpire of course taking reasonable care that it was thrown in properly.    The man, whilst throwing the in the ball, would be to a certain extent, a loss to his side and, therefore, his own club would have an interest to prevent him kicking the ball in unfair fashion out of bounds.   They had studied these things greatly in England.

There is a rule in the Association game for "off" and "on" side, and it is a point, which would never suit the fast vigour of an Australian who had become imbued with the Victorian game.   He would not like the Association game because the non-use of hands debars the player from marking.   Only one man was allowed to use his hands and that was the goal keeper who could handle the ball.  In England they say that the association game is practically "foot' ball".

Mr. Power, in general conversation, said that when Mr. Harrison was at home he tried to convince people of the superiority of the Victorian game, but it was like trying to force one's hand through a stone wall, because the English votaries of the game would not be convinced against their predilection in favour of their own.  

He noted that the Association game was played in lesser limits than ours, and with eleven men a-side.  Mr. Power was not prepared to say exactly whether our game was played with too many men – perhaps eighteen would be better – but in the event of a reduction in the number of players on a side, the area for play would have to be proportionately less.

Mr. Power, in concluding the conversation, expressed his sorrow that he had not known his experience of football at home would have been of service here, or else he would have collated information likely to have been of use here to serve as a standpoint for judging the merits of the different games.   

The Association game, as he had seen it played here by the Anglo-Australian football clubs, was not near so taking in its character as compared with the contests he had seen at home".

The Sportsman, March 17, 1886

Power's suggestion that players be forced to throw the ball back in their side was last to touch it went nowhere, the task still lying with the central umpire, but his idea of the umpire carrying a whistle was instantly adopted for the 1886 season.   His reference to "Mr. Harrison at home" was to an attempt by one of the early greats of the local game, Henry A. Harrison to introduce the game in England on a trip in 1884.   Officials of the Surrey Cricket Club expressed some interest, but the local football administrators, already with widening differences between the Rugby and Association games failed to see any likelihood of the Melbourne rules being adopted as a compromise.