Talk:Australian rules football/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Gameplay traditions

  • Needs copyedit in "Gameplay traditions" section 04:26, 24 July 2006 User:Walkerma


Surely someone has some better onces that are not subject to copyright restrictions. The current photo is blurry and non-descript. Some photos of the distinctive features of the game (ie. spectacular high marking etc) would be preferable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Biatch (talkcontribs) 09:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Some new photos would be good. This has been mentioned before, but until someone actually goes out and takes some, rather than just asking for them, nothing's going to happen. JPD (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At last - someone's got a half decent photo - thank goodness! Well done! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added the new pictures but i dont know how to confirm the copy right status. If someone could do that or explain to me how to do it that would be bloody awesome.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krabby me (talkcontribs) 10:26, 28 June 2006 UTC.

I left you a note at your talk page. Basically, if you didn't take the picture yourself, or don't have something saying that the image has been released into the public domain or under the GFDL or something similar, we probably aren't allowed to use it, unfortunately. We can't just go taking pictures from other websites. JPD (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Americans like myself have no clue what a Australian football field looks like. From the description, it is unique.field with some extra posts and markings. --Rulesfan 02:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we should replace the two photos at the beginning of the page showing a mark and a kick. They are taken (or edited) in a certain way that I don't think really gives a true picture of the skills required in footy. Any chance of someone having a copy (that can be legally used in wiki) of the Jesaulenko grab and the Wells goal?

It is a big improvement from what was there in that it at least it actually demonstrates the two skills, the high mark and kick. As for a Jezza grab, it is most unlikely. But if you are putting your hand up to not only capture the Mark of the Year on camera but release your photos to the public domain and forego the massive profits you might make, by all means, go ahead. Sports photography, especially for high speed games where you are so far from the action, is extremely difficult. The images are fine for the moment. --Rulesfan 00:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Featured Article

I think that we should make an effort to make this article awesome and then nominate it for the featured article. This could gain a lot of people to help extend the AFL wikipedia project. It would also give coverage to the worlds best game, football (AFL).

I agree, but personally, I am unsure why this article should only be rated B-class currently - someone may need to advise us in some detail as to what is required. By the way, when you write a note here, do you know how to do an automatic signature? click the the box above, 3rd from the right, with the squiggly line. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 06:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re: "B-Class", this is a common misunderstanding. At the bottom is "Stub", then "Start", then "B-Class". Next comes "Good article", which has its own nomination process, which this hasn't gone through. So even though "B-Class" sounds pretty unflattering, it is actually a pretty high mark.
In reply to your other question, I think the first task would be to provide references for everything. There's months of work to do in that alone, and I don't think you'd get through FA without it. I would also look at uncluttering the page; it is tryin to cover way too much. The history section especially should be rolled out into a separate History of Australian rules football article, and replaced in this article by a half-screen synopsis. Snottygobble 06:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thanks Drew, that's certainly made it a bit clearer for me - seeking out references - uggh - I don't mind putting down references as I go - but to look up references for the work of others doesn't thrill me. How is this for a fast track solution - I simply reference all the footy books in my library - there'd be a few dozen there - if I can find them all :-) ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 07:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seeking out references for enough inline citations will definitely be quite an effort, but worth it. As for otherwise improving the article, I'd like to get rid of the Hall of Fame section, which has its own article, and include an earlier section on positions (and general gameplay?). I'm also not sure about the need for the popular culture section, and whether the info on "structure and competitions" should really come before details about the game itself. JPD (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Injuries ?

Do players ever get injured ? There isn't much in the way of injury information on this page. Perhaps some typical injuries sustained whilst playing the sport would be useful ? --Rulesfan 23:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

oldest codified football game still being played

This statement should be correct.

Although the rules for "rugby football" were codified by the Rugby School in 1845, this game is not played today. Even the rugby school now plays the game of rugby union.

It wasn't until on January 26, 1871, the Rugby Football Union (RFU) formed, leading to the standardisation of the rules for all clubs in England that played a variety of the Rugby school laws that the sport of rugby union was officially codified. --Rulesfan 04:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rugby football (as it was known until the split with rugby league in the 1890s) was codified at Rugby School in 1845. There is a clear connection between Rugby School and present day rugby union. The RFU is neither here nor there -- the Melbourne FC rules weren't instantaneously adopted by every club in Victoria in 1859 and — if the matter were decided by leagues/associations/federations (like the RFU) — the VFA wasn't formed until 1877. Grant65 | Talk 04:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The code of rugby union is named after the Rugby Football Union, which first wrote the rules of the game. It is as different to rugby school football as soccer is to the Eton rules. Just because there is a connection does not follow that it is the same game. Otherwise Aussie Rules might be "Australian Rugby Marn Grook Gaelic Football League", first codified by the rugby school in 1845. --Rulesfan 23:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is ridiculous. All of the modern games are quite different to all of the games from that era. Either we accept that the in both cases the modern games are "the same game" as the older ones becasue of clear historical continuity, or we shouldn't be saying that any of them are the same game. JPD (talk) 11:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Point taken. fair enough. --Rulesfan 03:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relationship to Gaelic football

Rulesfan, since you persist in your unethical behaviour, I'll repeat what I said on your talk page: To delete correct and fully referenced information from an article is very bad form. Furthermore, you took the O'Dwyer quote from Australian rules football, without pointing it out in either the edit summary or on the talk page. That is sneaky and very bad manners. Especially as you knew my reasons for putting it there — we had just discussed it at Talk:Gaelic football and you did not object. You may not agree with O'Dwyer's point of view, but you can't deny that it is a POV that is held by many people in Australia and Ireland. Grant65 | Talk 00:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As my list of contributions will confirm, I have written a great deal for articles on various kinds of football at Wikipedia. I'm not going to let this go: history is always a matter of debate and to only represent one side of a historical debate is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Grant65 | Talk 00:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I too have doubts about the Irish connection, I have always thought that that particular wording was fair and reasonable enough, and I support Grant in leaving it as it is. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 00:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If anyone has any doubts about O'Dwyer's credibility, he provideds copious references, and the Victorian History Journal is not some fly-by-night operation, it is an academic journal subject to peer review and published by the Royal Historical Society of Victoria. Grant65 | Talk 01:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bob O'Dwyer's false account of the game's origins DO NOT BELONG IN THIS ARTICLE

You have just proved yourself that References are only useful if they are valid and good references they don't themselves prove that someone is credible. Helen Darville provided references too and she even won the The Australian/Vogel Literary Award. Everyone thought she was "credible" for a while.

User:Grant65 persists on including O'Dwyer's account of the origin of Australian Football, yet this "theory" has been widely proven to be wrong. Removing it is not censorship at all. My point is that it doesn't belong in this article and adds nothing to the subject. The statement "relationship is unclear" is good enough for this article.

The article states that "Australian football has always been differentiated from rugby football by having no limitation on ball or player movement (that is, no offside rule), the need to bounce the ball while running"

O'Dwyer's account is highly biased (given that he is Irish) and has been written on completely superficial comparison of both games, and therefore deserves mention only in the Comparison of Australian rules football and Gaelic football article.

Why? Because it is completely and utterly wrong, that's why:

a) Neither the Cambridge Rules of 1856 or the Sheffield Rules of 1857 had an offside rule, nor did the Christchurch rules of 1854. The Eton Rules (from which soccer was based) only introduced the offside rule in 1862 and these rules were adopted by several clubs including Christchurch before adopting rugby rules. Australian rules is also said to be similar to both Sheffield Rules and Christchurch Rules.

a) The 1859 Melbourne Rules did not have the requirement to bounce the ball while running (READ THE TEN ORIGINAL RULES IF YOU HAVE ANY DOUBTS). Nor for that matter, did the ancient Irish game of caid, which Gaelic football is supposedly based on. However, the Christchurch Rules of the Christchurch Football Club did, and the rule may well have influenced Australian Rules and later Gaelic Football (as Thomas Croke, who codified the game was second Bishop of Auckland, New Zealand from 1870 to 1875).

A theory is exactly that, a theory, and does not belong in this article and should be treated with about the same skepticism as Erich von Däniken's that the pyramids were built by people from outer space simply "because they would have been hard for humans to build". --Rulesfan 02:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps the main bone of contention is the wording of the final sentence: "These elements have been attributed to the influence of..." - I probably would be comfortable if this was qualified by mentioning the name of the observer - rather than making it sound as if it has been widely attributed by many observers - which is clearly incorrect. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yes, thanks, that's the first think I attacked. I still don't think any form of blatant speculation should belong in a wikipedia article. Fair dinkum, some people have such a cultural cringe, even in academic circles, that they'll believe any cockamimi theory that is put forward, like the world is flat.--Rulesfan 04:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rulesfan - please be a bit more circumspect with your comments - Grant has done a lot to improve the quality of quite a few football related articles and he has a right to objectively present a referenced theory on the subject. Our role should simply be to ensure that it is presented in a fair manner and doesn't give the impression that it is a widely accepted theory. I am confident that Grant would also agree with that. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 06:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Many have since dispelled..." is as badly weasel words as "These elements have been attributed to...". Find someone to quote on the matter. It doesn't really matter whether we believe the theory or not, only that we present it and it's counter-arguments fairly. JPD (talk) 11:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rulesfan, you seem to be saying that O'Dwyer is either a liar or totally incompetent, both of which are very big calls. And I think you're wrong, whichever it is. I'll take the reference to Helen Darville as a joke, since she is a novelist, not someone who writes articles for refereed journals. I would also like to see how O'Dwyer has wilfully misconstrued or falsified his evidence in the way that Erich von Daniken did. It's simply incorrect to say that O'Dwyer has been "widely proven to be wrong". If he has, prove it. Cite some sources as well-researched as his article, and I don't mean self-published web pages put up by nationalistic nutters or amateur "historians" with an axe to grind. As for your accusation of "cultural cringe", people who know me well would be amused. If we have it your way we end up with Aussie rules being a kind of bastardised rugby.

Now, as to the substance of your comments. The Cambridge rules of 1856 included the following: "9. If the ball has passed a player, and has come from the direction of his own goal, he may not touch it till the other side have kicked it, unless there are more than three of the other side before him. No player is allowed to loiter between the ball and the adversaries' goal." That is an offside rule, yer honour. It is possible that the Sheffield rules were an influence on Wills, but unlikely because they were only written in 1857, about a year before Wills started devising his game. I've never seen anything to say that the Christchurch FC rules did not have an offside rule, but then Christchurch FC wasn't formed until 1863, post NZ goldrush, so it was probably influenced by Melbourne. Or do you mean the earlier "College rules" in Christchurch? If you have good quality sources relating to the NZ situation I would be interested to read them. I notice that you don't dispute O'Dwyer's point that other Irish ball games with old roots, such as hurling, do not have an offside rule.

If it is true that neither caid nor the Melbourne FC rules of 1859 required players to bounce or solo/toe-kick, it doesn't make them less similar, it just means O'Dwyer is wrong on one point. And that is not to say that I accept what you are saying re this particular point. While it is true that the 1859 Melbourne rules did not require players to bounce the ball while running, they also did not specify what kind of ball was to be used! That doesn't mean that they didn't use a ball resembling the present-day rugby and Aussie rules balls, and it doesn't mean that the ball wasn't bounced in 1858. According to the MCG, the bouncing rule was brought in "a few years" later, which would still put Melbourne FC ahead of Christchurch FC.[1] I would also be interested to know your source for the statement that caid did not require players to bounce or solo/toe-kick. Slainte, Grant65 | Talk 12:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can say what I like about the guy. Is there a law against that ? Show me one other academically celebrated page that he has written besides his "take" on Aussie Rules. I am not suprised his account is so celebrated by cringing Aussies. I take SOME of your points BUT NOT the ones that count. The oval ball was not used until the Sherrin was invented in 1880 and there are drawn pictures of the round ball in use in from the 1860s until this time. But what is your point here ? What other rules did specify the ball ? None that I have read. Most balls are roundish by nature and even rugby played with a round ball in its early days. I believe, however, that you rely too much on the assumption that "there is no evidence to disprove", which should never be the premise of wikipedia, otherwise, as you say, it would be full of nutpot ideas and fuzzy logic, if anything an encyclopedia should be the realm of the skeptic. Sure, if you appeal to falsifiability, some clubs may have even kicked teapots around, but I don't assume that they did just because I don't have evidence that they didn't. There is no evidence to disprove the existence of aliens either, but that doesn't follow that they definately exist, even though Carl Sagan's theories say that they do, they are just that, theories, you cannot accept them as facts no matter how much you can try to believe them. And if you must refer to an "obscure" rule about loitering then under that definition isn't this an offside rule of sorts ??? Any player catching the ball "directly" from the foot may call "MARK". He then has a free kick no player from the opposite side being allowed to come "inside" the spot marked. As for bouncing. "a few years" later is a furfy until such time as you find the exact date. Until then it is 1866 in the official Victorian Rules as written by Harrison. --Rulesfan 01:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rulesfan has a point here Grant. You make out this guy is some kind of god, but anyone can call themselves a "historian" by paying the RHSV a total of AUD$60 and reading a few books (that positively affirm their beliefs) at the society's tiny reference library at A'Beckett St. There are 1,500 of these people apparently. Had it been published by the State Library of Victoria, that would be another matter entirely. I agree that theories belong in the comparison article, they should not be accepted as historical fact on face value. --Spewmaster 02:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I personally believe that a strong link between Australian football and Gaelic football has never been made conclusively - and that is precisely what the article says at the moment - and further to that, it is reasonable that we make a reference to a source that argues the contrary position - and yes, the ins and outs can then be further expanded upon in the comparison article. I now think we have that covered pretty well - here is how that section is currently reading:
While it is clear even to casual observers that Australian rules football is similar to Gaelic football, the exact relationship is unclear, as the Irish game was not codified by the Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) until 1887. Historian B. W. O'Dwyer argues that Australian football has always been differentiated from rugby football by having no limitation on ball or player movement (that is, no offside rule), while the need to bounce the ball while running, punching the ball rather than throwing it, are elements of modern Gaelic football. Some of these elements might be attributed to the influence of earlier Irish games.[3] Many have since dispelled many of the main premises of O'Dwyer's theory.
I'm pretty comfortable with that. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 02:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pippu, I'm not comfortable with the last sentence. Dispelled what? I don't know of a document authored by Wills spelling out the ways he was influenced by rugby football either, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't.

Rulesfan/Spewmaster, we can't ask B. W. O'Dwyer, ex-Macquarie University, about his credentials or his further thoughts on this matter, as he passed away in April this year:

Dr Barry O'Dwyer who died some days ago at his home in the Blue Mountains was the first medieval historian appointed to the Macquarie staff. An expert in Irish medieval history Barry also published in Australian history — (he was a decendant of the great Irish rebel Michael O'Dwyer) and wrote a history of Australian Rules Football — (he played in the ruck and 'down back' for Fitzroy in the VFL).[2]

(Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam.) His other publications include: Stephen of Lexington: Letters from Ireland 1228-1229, ISBN: 0879074280 Cistercian Pubns, 1982; "The Annals of Connacht and Loch Cé, and the monasteries of Boyle and Holy Trinity", Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy v.72 (1972) pp. 83-101; "The Problem of Reform in the Irish Cistercian Monasteries and the Attempted Solution of Stephen of Lexington in 1228," The Journal of Ecclesiastical History v.15, no.2 (1964), pp. 186-191; "Gaelic Monasticism and the Irish Cistercians," Irish Ecclesiastical Review (1967), pp. 19-28; "The Crisis in the Cistercian Monasteries in Ireland in the Early Thirteenth Century," ASOC v.31 (1975), pp. 267-304 & v.32 (1976) pp. 3-112; "Michael Dwyer and the 1807 Plan of Insurrection", Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society, v.69, 1983, pp. 73-82. He seems to have had pretty solid credentials as a historian to me. Of course, academic historians do make mistakes, but this is not someone "reading a few books (that positively affirm their beliefs)" at RHSV's "tiny reference library". The article in contention, which is front of me, has 12 pages of text with 56 footnotes, from at least 15 different publications. He cites at least a dozen different articles from Bell's Life during 1858-65 and half a dozen from the Australasian in 1866-74.

Rulesfan, Cambridge rule #9 of 1856 is an not an "obscure rule about loitering". It is a direct ancestor of the English FA's offside rule. To say that rule #6 of the Melbourne FC Rules of 1859 is an offside rule is stretching the point, since it is similar to both Cambridge rule #8 about a fair catch and essentially same as the modern Australian rules about marking. If you are saying that the current AFL rules about marking are a kind of offside, then that is a novel idea, but I'm not sure you will get much support for it.

As for bouncing the ball, O'Dwyer says: "this emerged in practice [my emphasis] as a compromise between the Geelong [which had it] and Melbourne rules...although the [false] story later got around that [H.C.A.] Harrison ... introduced this clause into the 1866 rules..." (O'Dwyer's source is Mancini & Hibbins, 1987, p. 20-22.) (Cat fans may not have much to celebrate at the moment but they can claim redit for bouncing it seems ;-) In other words the Melbourne FC 1859 rules were probably used only in intra-club matches and game day rules in the early 1860s were negotiated between the different clubs, based on their respective codes.

To briefly sum up my reasoning: the now-conventional argument, popularised by Blainey, that Tom Wills simply modified rugby and/or amalgamated it with other British public school/university games in 1858-59 seems problematic to me, because (1.) there weren't any public school games without strong offside rules and; (2.) there is circumstantial evidence to suggest that he was influenced by Marn Grook. It is safe to assume that there were caid-playing Irishmen in Australia prior to 1859, so where is the problem? The people who responded to Wills' ad in Bell's Life and turned up for the game/meeting at the Richmond Paddock on 10/7/1858 would have been from all kinds of backgrounds. There were also plenty of European folk football codes other than the ones we have mentioned. Is anyone confident that Wills did not have knowledge of caid, or other surviving medieval football games, and/or did not factor it/them into his formulation of the Melbourne FC code of 1859? Drawing a long bow if you ask me. (I also think Blainey does his credibility a lot of harm with his emphasis on the epic Melbourne Grammar-Scotch game of August-September 1858, umpired by Wills, which can hardly have had much to do with the Melbourne FC rules of May 1859.)

Grant65 | Talk 05:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grant, the guy is Irish, seriously what other perspective do you think he would look at it from ? I'm sure if you got a Martian academic could find some way to write a book, that "proves" that Martians kidnapped Wills and introduced some martian rules. You still have so many "what if?"s in your argument that it sounds like you want to believe this. "Safe to assume" does not equal fact. John Howard thinks it pretty safe to assume that global warming is science fiction. Besides, there have been plenty of other accounts of the game's history (including many Australian) ones which do not make the same claims. Why are you so obsessed with this one ? You have still not sold me that the bounce existed in caid - even in practice. Until you produce a fact, I have no choice but not to believe you. You cannot deny that Wills attended the Rugby schools. But it cannot be proven that caid had anything to do with the game, despite the Correlation implies causation and Hypothetical syllogisms that O'Dwyer puts forward - it remains no more than conjecture and just a theory. --Rulesfan 06:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By your logic, we can't take Blainey's word either, simply because he is "biased" by his attendance at a protestant public school. That would be wrong though, wouldn't it? I simply can't buy that kind of prejudice, especially against professional historians.
As I said to Pippu, I don't know of a document authored by Wills spelling out the ways he was influenced by rugby football either. Considering that the basics of Australian rules haven't changed in 140 years, the commonsense/visual evidence for a link to rugby isn't really very strong either. I am not saying that rugby wasn't one of the prime sources of Aussie rules. I am saying that the only difference between the "rugby/public school/university theory" and the "caid theory" is that we know Wills and the other authors of the 1859 rules attended those British institutions, while we don't know if any of them had witnessed caid. Grant65 | Talk 07:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wills didn't just attend the rugby school, he was also known to have been a big fan of the sport. He played the game extensively and campaigned long and hard for the crossbar to be introduced into the revised 1866 Victorian rules. This would be evidence enough that he was directly influenced by rugby rules. --Rulesfan 08:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, now try justifying it by reference to the Melbourne FC rules of 1866, which feature all the key elements of the 2006 rules. Grant65 | Talk 17:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once again Grant, you assume everyone has telepathic powers. Can you please explain what the hell you are on about here ? --Rulesfan 23:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Put it this way: how do you explain the differences between the rugby rules of the day and the Melbourne F.C. rules of 1866? Oh of course, silly me, the "Australian" elements (1) materialised out of thin air and/or (2) were the product of Tom Wills' genius. Anyone who says otherwise has terminal cultural cringe. Is that how it goes? Grant65 | Talk 00:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grant, I suggest that until you become the world's foremost expert on the subject, stop guessing and go put your solutiobn to how the pyramids were built here. --Rulesfan 04:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had another look at Blainey's book A Game of Our Own today and his coat is slung on a rather more slender logical hook than many of his admirers may imagine: first, he states that those involved in the match/meeting organised by Wills on July 31, 1858 played a variety of football codes. Second, his argument against Irish influence rests on the fact that few Irish Catholics played Australian rules before the 1880s; indeed Blainey states that they preferrred to play hurling and regarded the new code as a "Protestant game". The irony is, that in doing so he affirms that hurling, an Irish sport with no offside rule (like Australian rules and the later Gaelic football) was reasonably widespread in Victoria at an early stage. And if hurling was there, why not caid? Also, it is neither here nor there whether Irish people played Australian rules — Tom Wills & co had only to witness hurling, caid or whatever to be influenced by them. Finally — and it surprised me to see this practised by such a dogmatic empiricist — Blainey provides no references or bibliography in this particular book! Grant65 | Talk 15:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyedit in intro

Is it really necessary to introduce the level of technical detail in the intro. It now sound stupid. The purpose should be to focus on what makes this game unique when compared to others, not to flesh out all of the concepts raised. I mean afterall, it is just a summary, further clarification of the rules can be found further into the article .... there is no sense in repeating the same info. --Rulesfan 23:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of Country Football and Community Cup pics

Why was this necessary ? I think both pics add to the article by demonstrating the diversity of participation. Country football has much higher participation than city football. --Rulesfan 04:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Without commenting on the choice of pictures, there definitely were too many pictures crammed into that section. We need good pictures to illustrate the article, not turn it into an image gallery displaying the whole range of participation. What would be good is a way to fit appropriate pictures into the sections that don't have any. It would also be good to put some info on country v city participations rates in the text. JPD (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From an independent point of view, the CC picture looked much better than the floggers picture. I understand that the floggers are showing a cultural aspect of our game but the poor contrast between the people and their instruments (everything is black and white) makes the picture hard to make out. 40010 03:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tied games?

I just asked an AFL nut friend of mine this question, and she did not know the answer. I couldn't find any info here either, so it may need to be added, if anyone knows the answer. What is the procedure in the case of a tie, in both goals and total points scored? And what would be the procedure if such a tie occurred in the Grand Final? I understand it's a rare occurrence, but there must be some kind of rule to cover it. Kelvingreen 16:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a matter for the rules of the league/competition, not the rules of the sport. If the scores are tied at the final siren, the game is drawn. In home and away matches for the Australian Football League and similar leagues, both teams receive 2 premieship points. Traditionally, tied finals are replayed the next week, but now there are provisions for extra in early weeks of the finals, and only the Grand Final would be replayed. This possibly should be covered somewhere on Wikipedia, but as I said, it really does depend on the competition, and isn't something specific to the sport. JPD (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Australian rules or Australian Rules?

Shouldn't it be Australian Rules rather than Australian rules? If you type the name into google, the R will be capitalised in almost every single result. This is a minor quibble I admit, but it just looks odd every time I see it.

The History section on reveals that the sport is officially called "Australian football" and that "Australian Rules" is effectively just a slang term coined by journalists. So I guess there's no official right or wrong way to write it, but personally I'd go with the version that looks "right".

Bartolovic 06:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's an accepted standard that names of sports are not capitalised. For instance, we do not refer to Rugby League or Basketball. The A in Australian, however, is capitalised for obvious reasons.
In the context of a global encyclopaedia, the term "Australian football", while technically correct, is inappropriate due to possible confusion with the sport known as "football" in the rest of the world and "soccer" (traditionally) in Australia. --The Brain of Morbius 04:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

South Australia in History

The article credits the beginning of Australian rules in South Australia as 1877 (when the SANFL began), but clubs like Adelaide and Woodville were reported to be going before this time. The SANFL article says that they didn't adopt all the Victorian Rules until the advent of the SANFL but played a game very similar to the Victorian rules. Should not the article then read that South Australia played the game from 1860 ? --Rulesfan 06:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article says 1873, not 1877. This is the earliest year mentioned in either South Australian National Football League or Australian rules football in South Australia. Do you have a source saying that the game was played in SA in 1860? JPD (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just quickly, yes - at John Devaney's Fullpointsfooty site[3] "1860: Victorian style game initiated in Adelaide with formation of Adelaide club." John's site has more credibility than most given his extensive records and long devotion to the cause. I can look further if you wish - I have sighted some online State Library extracts previously which would confirm the game in SA predates 1877, but would need to Google for them. The point made above is quite valid - like Victoria (and Tasmania for that matter) the game was played for a fair while before the formation of Associations to run competitions. The SAFA/SANFL is in fact a week or two older than the VFA/VFL! And just as another aside, the SANFL official site[4] says that "The first official record of football being played in South Australia dates back to 1843." ... once again proving that just because it is on the 'web doesn't necessarily mean it is reliable. Pudgey 10:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A few points:
  • Thanks for the fullpointsfooty reference - the date should be added to all three articles, unless there is an earlier date. Ken Piesse's Complete Guide also give the formation of the Adelaide club in 1860 as the first date in SA's football history, but doesn't say anything about how similar their game was to the Victorian version.
  • The point that football predates the associations is valid, but irrelevant. The article did not give 1877 as the beginning of Australian rules in South Australia.
  • I can believe that there is a record of some sort of football in SA in 1843 - but it would be interesting to know what sort of rules they used, as this was when rules varied from school to school and town to town. JPD (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd certainly be interested to know what form of football was being played in 1843. Sounds like the SANFL knows what they are talking about, but what is their source. Has a book been written on the subject ? Certainly there would be specific mention if it were the rugby football variety. Is it possible that South Australian football somehow influenced or was the pre-cursor to the game the Tom Wills helped introduce into Victoria as some claim ? --Rulesfan 06:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
South Australia was only settled by the British in December 1836 so it would seem likely that any football game played in 1843 would have been a variation on what we would call soccer (Rugby school itself seemingly only accepting running with the ball in about 1841. While Croweaters certainly flowed over to the Victorian goldfields, I have not read anywhere yet that suggests they brought the game to the Vics. I'll let you know if/when I find some other references on pre-1870's football in SA, but a short online summary is here. In the meantime I will adjust the SA football articles when next editing (unless someone else gets to it first). Pudgey 09:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm not sure where in the article it could go but I found this quote about Australian Rules from the great CB Fry; "The Australian game is easily the finest form of football ever invented - the most athletic to play and the most exciting to watch." If someone can find a location within the article, the source is Australia's Yesterdays by Reader's Digest Services Pty Ltd., Sydney, Third Edition, 1986. ISBN 0 949819 98 0. --Roisterer 07:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The quote is not NPOV therefore shouldn't be included .

Oldest Sporting Trophy

Black Diamond Challenge Cup remains Australia's oldest sporting trophy. Are there any citations to back this up? Ozdaren 10:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Put in the only citation I could find from the BDAFL site. It claims that the Cup is older than cricket's Sheffield Shield, but I would have thought that in terms of sport overall that the Melbourne Cup, first awarded in 1861, would be older. Perhaps oldest football trophy or team sport trophy is correct ? --Rulesfan 06:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This has now been removed. Probably belongs on the Australian rules football in New South Wales page anyway. --Rulesfan (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bit redundant anyway. In England local sporting groups came together and played cup matches long before the earliest listed on this webpage. They would agree on the rules on the day frequently as some played more rugby style and others more foot-oriented styles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anonymous edit 11:18, 8 August 2007

I m the one who made this edit (forgot to log on) Ksempac 11:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

American viewers

Can anybody find out any further information on the source listed for the claim "7,496,000 North Americans watch Australian Rules Football at least occasionally on television." (section "Television".) I tried Googleing the source, "Globalisation of Sport Report 2005," but only came up with copies of this entry. Information on authors, publishers, ISBN or publication would allow us to verify the authenticity of the source. To my knowledge, Australian rules isn't aired on network or basic cable television station in America, which would significantly reduce its viewership base (if it airs at all -- I've certainly never heard about it, but who knows what goes on in the high, high reaches of the satellite dial.) Matt T. 07:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've removed it until someone can show otherwise. The reference given was just a name of a report, which doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Remy B 12:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The source was stated as Roy Morgan Research. I have clarified the source and readded the statement. I think you'll find that this is suprisingly correct. The population of the United States is far larger than Australia, and many more Americans use cable television than do Australians. --Rulesfan 06:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incorrect. In the DC metro area, Aussie rules is on several times a week on the over-the-air network MHz Networks, which shows programming from around the globe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have alternated between living in the US and Europe all of my adult life. I'm one of those who have watched the game many times on US TV. It's quite popular here, but can be hard to find. (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Australian Football

Over at Talk:Association_football there has recently been a consensus to change the article name from "Football (soccer)" to "Association football". You can use "Association football" instead of "Football (soccer)". I was recently on the AFL website and they state "Whether it is called Australian Football, Australian Rules Football, "Aussie Rules", the VFL, the AFL, Australia's only indigenous football code is officially entitled 'Australian football'. It has never been officially referred to as 'Australian rules football'. Such terminology has only ever appeared in the form of football journalism, coined by different writers. AFL refers to the elite Australian football competition known as the Australian Football League."

This got me thinking. Why is the sport referred to as Australian rules football when the official name is Australian Football. Note: Soccers official name is Association football.InsteadOf (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's interesting, I wasn't aware that the AFL stated the sport's official name on their website in such explicit terms. In my experience the terms "Australian football" and "Australian rules football" generally seem to be used interchangeably as a 'correct' name for the sport in the media and in conversation, with the version containing 'rules' being more common.
The use of the word 'rules' does however predate the 1897 founding of the VFL/AFL (the names "Melbourne rules", "Victorian rules" and "Australasian rules" have all been used in the past).
I don't know if there would be much mood to change this article's name at this stage, since the current name doesn't 'feel' wrong (unlike the title "football(soccer)" which was terrible) but it does at least strengthen the argument against some fans of association football trying to take over the name "Australian football" on Wikipedia (which I personally think is provocative and over-the-top). Easel3 (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict)Mainly because Wikipedia policy is to use common names, not official names. The soccer case is difficult, because the most common names are either ambiguous or consdered slang in some parts of the world. This is less controversial, as "Australian rules" is quite normal. JPD (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The AFL has authority only by virtue of the fact that it happens to control the peak competition. It doesn't "own" the game. Consider that it was founded (as the VFL) only in 1897, 39 years after the game itself began. Until recently, the other state leagues (and to a lesser extent the VFA), were powers in their on right. They did not always follow innovations and rule changes instituted by the VFL, and had to be negotiated with in relation to player transfers, games between state teams, carnivals and so on. The last real vestige of this was State of Origin (1977-99 RIP); it would have been unthinkable during that period for the AFL to select/manage/control state teams. Grant | Talk 16:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The official name of the sport is "Australian Football". The AFL is recognised as the de facto peak body (not just the peak competition) for the sport by all parties of any consequence (including the Federal Government) and what it chooses to call the sport must carry significant weight. In Victoria, at least, I would say that the term "Australian football" is more common than "Australian rules football" and in a perfect world would be the name of this article. The rename of "Football (soccer)" to "Association football" may be a catalyst to get this move happening but any move would need the goodwill of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football (soccer) in Australia in particular to have much chance of acheiving consensus. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with JPD. It is normal practice to name articles by how they are generally referred, not by their official names. It's like how Australia is used instead of Commonwealth of Australia. Nobody ever called association football "Football soccer" so that article's original name was a poor choice to begin with. I am a bit surprised by Mattinbgn's claim that "Australian football" is a more commonly used term than "Australian rules football". In my experience it is overwhelmingly "Australian rules football", or a slang variation of it (eg. "Aussie rules"). Remy B (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You'll find that "football" or "footy" are the most common names for the sport in Vic, WA, SA and Tas, more so then "Aussie rules", which is the common name used in NSW, Qld and NT. -- (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have never had a problem with Aussie Rules, but Kevin Taylor of the Footystats website does! In August 2003 he published the following comments:
I am distressed at the uncontrolled references to *Australian Rules* and *Aussie Rules* displayed in publications of the controlling body of our game, the Australian Football League. I despise the terminology *Aussie Rules* – as it is more often used by the media of the northern states as a put-down, as an insult – it is used against the code and denigrates the game I love -- it fails to give our national game the dignity of reference it deserves. Call it Aussie footy, Oz footy, AFL footy, or whatever, but it must be called Australian Football, for what it is.
Fremantle journo and attempted board member Les Everitt, however, doesn't have a problem with it, as it's what he's called his website! In WA when I was growing up it was always called either Football, Footy, Aussie Rules or Australian Rules if you were being formal. Never Australian Football or Aussie Football or Aussie Footy. They just sound wrong. So I think ignore what's happening with the other codes and KT and the AFL's reference to the "official name", and just continue to use the common terminology.The-Pope (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes i think it is right to keep it at the current name, as name changes do mean a lot of work. When wikipedia catches on in the USA their will be another name change from "Association football" to "soccer". We may even have our name changed from "Australian rules football" to "footy". Currently it seems like there is a lot of Australians on wikipedia with a few people from Britain. InsteadOf (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think Wikipedia has well and truly caught on in the US, and it is very unlikely that "soccer" will ever be the main name used. "Footy" is just a bit too ambiguous to be used for this article, too. Apart from anything else, the "use common names" principle doesn't mean use slang. JPD (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it just seems to me that Australian articles are the best ones as are some of the english ones. I hardly ever see any American contributors to any pages, and i have used wikipedia for research for a number of years now. "Soccer" isnt a slang term nowadays. When it started it was. As for footy. A number of american sports articles refer to the game as footy, as American football is not called footy. InsteadOf (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To most Brits, "soccer" is still slang, but I agree that it isn't in Aus/US. I was talking about "footy". Some people see the word as particularly Australian, and so use it to refer to Aussie rules in particular, but it is also used (as slang) to refer to soccer in Britain, and more so to the rugby codes in NSW/Qld. JPD (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
suppose we will have to wait and see. Im probably wrong but i thought it was footie in Britain??InsteadOf (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we should be using "Australian Football" in the main title of the article, with a redirect from "Aussie Rules", etc. The term Australian Football is the proper noun that refers to the game and is therefore the best title for the article. Within the article, I think it would make sense to use the colloquial expressions like 'Aussie rules', 'Australian rules', etc. Lets rename this page Australian Football.

With regard to North America, it would seem that their naming is "Australian football". Note that AFL Canada, the governing body for the game there refers to it as "AFL Canada » Australian Football in Canada". And also the "United States Australian Football League" is the governing body for the sport in the USA. The combined populations of the USA and Canada dwarfs Australia and this is as good an endorsement for the renaming as anything. I think it is only fair in that although most Australians call it Gridiron, they are not unfamiliar with the term "American Football" and easily recognise that they are one in the same. We do not superimpose our slang onto them "American Rules Football" doesn't sound right. From my experience, use of the term "Rules" in many parts of Australia is derogatory by people who do not understand the game and do not recognise that it actually has rules.

Of the international bodies, the only ones I could find that used "Australian Rules Football are in the UK - the Australian Rules Football League of Ireland and the British Australian Rules Football League.

The move is necessary and long overdue IMHO. --Biatch (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do we have to do to get the ball rolling on this. Must be done in my opinion. Synthesized designs (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This discussion was followed by a move request here - #Requested move - which was unsuccesful. "Australian football" is too ambiguous. -- Chuq (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the name should changed to Australian football, it's official title. I think it's confusing for people not familiar with the sport. And in general people in states who play the game in Australia apart from Victoria, are less likely to use the term AFL, and refer to it by generic titles. People often confuse Australian football for a form of Rugby, and having a generic title, like nearly all other codes of football e.g American football, Canadian football, Gaelic football, would be less confusing. (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Featured Article

Hey, This article i believe is very close to being good enough to be a featured article. Things i can see which need fixing are:

 - some referencing (do i need to reference every time a rule is mentioned?)
 - make a few of the paragraphs flow a bit easier
 - remove some information that is repeated

Any other ideas? Should try to aim to nominate it for featured article by the end of January.InsteadOf (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with your suggestions for improvement, but I think a more realistic short-term goal would be to try to get the article promoted from its current B-class status to Good Article status. The article is quite a long way from reaching featured article status, as there are many unsourced statements and some sections have virtually no references at all. Even after fixing all of that, we would need to ask for reviews and feedback from more experienced editors, before we even consider nominating it for FA status, because the FA assessment process is so stringent. Easel3 (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didnt know about all that hierarchy. Thanks for the info. I added a few references today, and ill add a few more as i find them. Thanks for the help. (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It will definitely need to get to Good Article status first. Two things that leap out at me are that the article is far too long and it has too many photos conveying the same thing. Remy B (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Valid sources support evidence: footy is most popular sport among Aussies and cricket isn't first sport by general interest!!!!--PIO (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you have valid sources, then include them. You will have do spell out what the sources mean by "most popular". So far, the only source I have seen that even tries to measure general interest is the Sweeny report, which puts cricket ahead. If you know Australia, this will not surprise you, as while various codes of football receive more attention than cricket in each area, the football codes are dominant in different parts of the country, whereas cricket has a significant following throughout the country. At any rate, this has nothing to do with POV - it is simply reporting the sources. If you really do have similarly relevant sources, then supply them! JPD (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may also wish to read that sentence together with the next two sections, which spell out things such as the fact that Aussie rules is the most attended sport in the country, and so on. The fact that these are not all mentioned in one sentence doesn't mean that the article isn't adequately covering them. It is perhaps not ideal that these sections have been split off, leaving a short "popularity" section by itself. JPD (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I propose definition "most popular" in article adding sources:Sports Attendance, Australian Bureau of Statistics, April 1999 and Australia's attendance 2006. Cricket is totally out of point and Sweeny report is simple an opinion not valid statistics!!!!--PIO (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PIO, on what basis do you call the Sweeney Report "simple an opinion not valid statistics"? If you look at the sample size for the ABS stats, it's 14,219, [5] not significantly more than the sample size used by Sweeney. Seems to me that what you want to do here and at National sports is to push your own opinion, in your own words, that "footy is most popular sport among Aussies and cricket isn't first sport by general interest!!!!" The first problem among many here is that you are not Australian, the second is that you deny the validity of any other sources that you don't like, and quite cheerfully delete them and the third is that your edits are so full of grammatical and spelling mistakes that they just make a mess. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PIO, neither of your sources claim that Aussie rules is the most popular sport. They both say that it is the most attended sport in Australia, a fact which is already mentioned in the article. This is one part of popularity, but it is clearly not the only one (what about participation, not to mention tv and so on). The Sweeney report attempts to measure general interest through use of statistical surveys, just like the ABS, and is definitely not just opinion. Any survey can be criticised, but most criticisms of Sweeney attack its definition of "general interest", but that is because there is no single good standard for measuring popularity. This article should, and does, give an idea of all the different factors (attendance, tv, participation), together with the statement based on Sweeney as an introduction. Anyone who bothers to read the whole thing (it should be shortened a bit) will get a good idea of the situation. If you think cricket is "out of point", then you really don't have a clue. JPD (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Addressing PIO's recent edits: It is good that we include the most recent Sweeney report rather than the out of date one. Now let's look at your "many sources" for being the most popular sport in terms of general interest:

  1. Site sportbusiness - this is an index page, the relevant article is at . The article reports the 2005 Sweeney report, which is clearly even more out of date than what was already there.
  2. [6] - This is a Britannica article (not a reliable source) which says that the AFL is the most popular sports competition in Australia. This is a very different thing from being the most popular sport in terms of general interest.
  3. [7] - an article from 2003, referring to a ABS report about 2002 that documents Aussie rules as the most attended sport, and says nothing about "general sports interest".
  4. [8] - This article refers to the game as "Australia's most popular spectator sport" - once again, not referring to general sports interest.

So, none of the sources say what you are claiming they say. Could you please read your sources before adding them? You might also like to read the text that was already in this article - you might learn something about sport in Australia. JPD (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also I notice the four links above are from google searches with "Australian rules football most popular sport" in the search string - ie. PIO was specifically looking for sources that give a certain point of view. -- Chuq (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Without condoning PIO's recent edits, I have found a source for his claim. From looking at the Sweeney website, it seems that the company actually conducts two surveys per year, one in summer and one in winter. The summer survey, of which the 2006-07 edition is the most recently published, shows cricket overtaking swimming which had been on top for many years. However, the winter survey, of which the 2006 edition still seems to be the most recent available, shows Australian football overtaking swimming in 2005 (which explains this article), and then remaining marginally ahead of both swimming and soccer in 2006. Easel3 (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That doesn't support any claim that PIO has made - it just makes it clear why the Sweeney reports from different times are so different and suggests that we don't have any source reflecting the relative interest in different sports throughout the year, so we shouldn't make any outright claims. Is anyone seriously disputing my recent edit, saying that football is consistently ranked in the top few sports by the Sweeney report? The other claims that PIO is making all relate to attendance, which is discussed just a bit later in the article. JPD (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not at all, I agree with you. I should have said something more like, "I have found a source that complicates the definition of what is the most popular sport". Easel3 (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

JPD is total in error!!!! I add sources with criteria about popularity: attendance in stadium and by television!!!! General interest=popularity.--PIO (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, popularity can be measured in any number of ways, using different criteria. We should, and do, describe more than one. The phrase "In terms of general sports' interests" implies that some combination of the attendance, participation, tv watching, etc, is used, and none of the sources you gave did this, apart from the article referring to the old winter Sweeney report, which I integrated into the article. Please see my comments above on each of the sources - one calls the sport the "most popular spectator sport" - while this doesn't tell us which criteria it is using, it is definitely ignoring participation; another is entirely about attendance, which is much more specific that "general sports interest", and the other (which isn't even an appropriate source) doesn't talk about the most popular sport in the country in any sense, but talks about the most popular sports competition! As far as I know, the Sweeney report is the only source which even tries to come up with a "general sports interest" criterion - if you can find another one, great, but don't assume that everything that comes up in a search for "Australian rules football most popular sport" is doing this!
Once again, please read the article and see that it already includes sources talking about attendance and television audiences. JPD (talk) 12:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PIO, you obviously don't want to try to understand what is wrong with your edits (factually, grammatically and in terms of which links you use), but perhaps you can explain why you feel you need to make them. What is wrong the article as I have just edited it? It says that Australian football is consistently the most popular version of football, and often the most popular sport in terms of Sweeney's "general interest". Then it explains the regional variation in popularity. Then it says that it is the most popular sport in terms of attendance and then describes the tv audience, pointing out that it has rated as the most popular sport in terms of tv viewing in 2005 and 2006. Nearly everything your sources say has been included - so what is the problem? It sets the facts out in a clear and orderly fashion, and it doesn't help to try and mix it all together, even if it should perhaps be shortened. JPD (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop your ridiculous and nonsense statements!!!! I request mediation but they not accept: it's absurd!!!! Agreement is impossible now.--PIO (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which of my statements is ridiculous. Above, I have summarised the "popularity" section as I left it. Again, I ask, what is wrong with it? It is not absurd that the formal mediation request was not accepted - as Daniel said, we need to try other forms of dispute resolution first. We could try informal mediation, but the first step really should be trying to talk about it - please explain what the problem is. There is no reason why agreement should be impossible, unless you are not trying. If you are not trying to discuss it, then please stop editing - there are many problems with the edits you keep repeating. JPD (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Howdy, I'll be your mediator in this matter. This is a voluntary process and is only regarding content. I'm just another edtior and I don't have any special powers to make a decision, only to facilitate discussion.

It seems that this debate centers around sources. Each side has sources to back up their assertions, but disputes the validity of the other side's sources. Thankfully we have the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard as a central place to vet and compare sources. In order to avoid any accusations of POV-pushing, I'd like each party to list their sources and a short one or two sentence summary of the part of them that supports their assertion in this seciton. I'll then lodge a request over at the noticeboard to get some source-experts to evaluate which are the strongest sources. MBisanz talk 06:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MBisanz, I think you have misunderstood the issue here. The question isn't the validity of the sources, it is whether they actually say what PIO says they do. JPD (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So I've gone through each external link on this page and pretended I was looking to find out what a person would find after viewing it.
  • [9] Football most popular
  • [10] Football most popular
  • [11] unclear, but doesn't appear reliable
  • [12] Football most popular
  • [14] football most popular, but uses unreliable weasel wording.
  • [15] Football most interesting
  • [16] Cricket most interesting
  • [17] Football most popular, but not as reliable.
I'd say the issue here appears to be in what manner football is the most X sport of australia. Is it the most popular, most interesting, most view, most popular spectator sport, etc.
The most current version Australian_rules_football#Popularity has only 1 footnote (#22) in the popularity paragraph. The source only seems to support describing football's popularity in national terms in the current and prior years. In particular I see to support the assertion of a national sport or popularity in other nations, the degree of indigenous penetration or local popularity.
It seems that football is a very very popular sport by a variety of measurments. I'd suggest including the 2 most reliable, current, sourced wordings. It seems logical to me that the government site and the Sweeney site are the most reliable looking. So I'd suggest quoting as directly as possible from them, and excising the unsourced speculation as to local, international, or other popularity. MBisanz talk 02:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please note that the whole Popularity section is really about popularity, not simply the introductory part before the subsections. The article attempts to discuss the different ways in which the popularity of football can be measured. It probably could be shortened, but I think reducing it to two quotes is unnecessary. The local details are not under dispute as far as I know, and are definitely important in understanding sporting culture, but could do with some references. In general, I think it is always important to say how popularity is being measured - then my interpretation of the references above is:
  • [18] Football most popular
"Most popular" is debatable - What the source definitely says is football was the most attended spectator sport in the year ending April 1999.
  • [19] Football most popular
Again, football was the most attended spectator sport in 2005-06.
  • [20] unclear, but doesn't appear reliable
The relevant part of this page is the link to this article, which says football drew the most general interest according to the 2005 winter Sweeney report. The article interprets this as "most popular", but it is probably best to avoid such interpretations, since we can easily describe the criterion used.
  • [21] Football most popular
No, no, no. This doesn't say football is most popular in any sense. It says "the national professional Australian Football League (formerly known as the Victorian Football League), is the the country's most popular sports competition in terms of attendance and television viewing." An interesting fact (although Fourplay would proably dispute some of it, saying it is out of date), but not support for the claim that the sport is the most popular sport in terms of general interest.
The part of the article that is visible without paying makes it obvious that it is an article about the ABS attendance study, including the result that football was the most attended spectator sport in that year.
  • [23] football most popular, but uses unreliable weasel wording.
Not only weasel wording, but also a qualification - the most popular spectator sport. This is clearly not the same as the most popular sport in terms of "general interest", which was the statement PIO tried to support with this source.
  • [24] Football most interesting
  • [25] Cricket most interesting
Football/Cricket attracted general interest from the most people in the relevant survey periods. I'm not sure that's the same as "most interesting", but that's a matter of language.
  • [26] Football most popular, but not as reliable.
Discussed above. Since we can refer to the original source for this article, I don't see why we need to use the writer's interpretation, rather than sticking with a neutral description. JPD (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I discuss in page of mediation cabal.--PIO (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PIO, you have added a {{limited}} tag to this page. Please explain which views are being excluded from the current version. I have asked you to do this several times, but you haven't replied. If you can't explain what the problem is, the tag shouldn't be there. JPD (talk) 07:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

JPD, I discuss only in mediation's page.--PIO (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even though the mediator said it would be better to discuss it here? JPD (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, on the mediation page you have complained about my edits simply by saying I always removed your sources. This isn't true, but even if it were, you still need to explain why you have put the {{limited}} tag on the section. What is wrong with it? You can't go around adding tags without explaining why, and the fact that your edits have been changed is not an explantions. The tag should be removed unless you can justify it. JPD (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No explanation => tag removed. JPD (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Things seem to have quieted down and the current version doesn't seem bad. I'll leave the case open for another 5 days or so unless there are unresolved issues. MBisanz talk 04:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mediation Closed

After trying at this for over a month, I am of the opinion that we have exhausted all possible options. Every conceivable wording has been put forward, and still there is dissent over which version should be used on the various pages. Therefore, I am declaring this mediation at an impasse and have closed it. Parties should continue to discuss it and may seek out other forms of dispute resolution. I would advise all parties involved to remain civil and to follow proper policies in handling the matter further. Thank you. MBisanz talk 05:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

National Sport of Nauru

I've been looking for a reputable source for claims that football is Nauru's national sport. Ideally it would need to be from a Nauruan government source but all I have found are football sites. If anyone knows of such a source, that would be great.--Roisterer (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An Al Jazeera report sounds better than football sites, although not ideal. JPD (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Football terms

Is there a list anywhere of football terms?

I refer to a similar wikipedia page List of cricket terms for cricket terms. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 06:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Australian rules football terminology is as close as we have so far. The-Pope (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm thinking here of terms such as "poster", "sausage roll", "sit" etc. All in use but which probably don't deserve a wiki page on their own. The Cricket list does link to wiki pages where they exist. It might just be worth while having them all in one place.--Perry Middlemiss (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Major Structure Change

I have followed Association Football and Basketball's lead and separated all the cultural references into another article. As a result, the article is now much more focused. It is primarily about the game, its rules and origins. The new article Australian rules football culture should cover most of the rest. --Spewmaster (talk) 09:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Origins of the Game

The article still contains a hell of a lot of speculation about the origins of the game. I'm thinking of writing a new article called "The Origins of Australian Rules Football" to explain that the early history is vague and point out some of the different theories and stuff. Anyone have any objections to this ? --Rulesfan (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No objections. In fact I think it a very good idea. Getting the balance right will be an interesting exercise. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would be a good idea. Its a shame that most peoples views of the game's history ignore its obvious European ancestory. Would be great for the games origins in England to be recognised for once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sherrin Image ?

What happened to it ? Seems to have gone. When I check the image, it does a 404. --Spewmaster (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2008 Celebrations

I don't see that the fact that we are now in 2009 somehow invalidates the notes on the 150th anniversary of Australian Rules football in 2008. Yes, it's in the past but it is referred to in that context.--Perry Middlemiss (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Push for FA?

I think this article should be a FA (also suggested here), so I want to do some extensive work on it. From what I can see, the following needs to be done:

  1. As the previous FA attempt pointed out, we need more sources and in-line citations. There are vast sections with not a single citation.
  2. The structure is probably not too bad. The lead goes into far too much detail on the rules and the order of some sections could be rearranged, but that shouldn't be a problem. We could get some ideas from the round-ball code's FA. We might also run into problems with the numerous split-off articles.
  3. Prose is generally quite good. A few issues with flowery language or editorialising.
  4. There are more than enough pictures to illustrate key concepts.

In my opinion, FA status is attainable for this article. But getting any article to that quality requires a lot of work, and it's more than one person can do alone.

What does everyone else think? Reyk YO! 23:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the key is adding sources/citations. That's the main thing that the FA assessors seem to look for. I noticed that one of the subsections directs us to an article called Australian rules football in Australia. An option for merging perhaps? Some of the text can go in Australian rules football culture and the rest here. Jevansen (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Official Name = "Australian Football" - NOT Australian Rules or AFL ....

FFS, the official name of the sport is Australian Football, therefore that should be the name of the article and Australian Rules Football (which is an informal name) should redirect to it.

Someone keeps - incorrectly - changing this back to Australian Rules whereas that is completely incorrect.

You don't see people changing other articles to "Canadian Rules Football", "American Rules Football", "Association Rules Football" or "Gaelic Rules Football" - so why this article ????

Rulesfan (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Settle down. It has been changed back, twice, because you are taking action without any consensus whatsoever. As this is a controversial issue, please start up a page move proposal and people can vote on whether they think the article should be renamed. The instructions are here.
I must say too that I find it rather odd that an hour after moving this page to "Australian football" you create an article called Australian rules football tactics and skills. Cheers. Jevansen (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have moved it now. I used that title because of the very question you are begging, to be consistent with at least a dozen accessory articles which are incorrectly named as a result of the parent page and I don't have permission to move. And controversy ? Are you for real ? Does this mean I can change the American Football article to American rules football and noone will mind ? The people concerned are over it, it reached consensus a long time ago. The Football (soccer) article is now appropriately called Association Football. For your information, I have previously requested the move and if you check the logs - it was approved by an admin. So why reverse it ? It is also time for the appropriate name of this article to be reinstated. --Rulesfan (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rulesfan added it to Requested Moves here, but only completed step 3 of the process. Anthony Appleyard should have checked for consensus before moving, but to be fair to Anthony, he does do a helluva lot of moves. Somno (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thankyou Somno. I'm not sure why people here ASSUME controversy ? Consensus on this issue was reached years ago [27] with the creation of the article Football in Australia which I've worked further on to remove any ambiguity and make the current state of play very clear. Seriously how long does it take to get a page to its rightful place. The only controversy is the occasional Australian soccer supporter who still disputes the article name, but without ANY grounds for argument. --Rulesfan (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At Talk:Australian rules football#Australian Football you can see that the arguments for keeping the name where it is were made by Aussie Rules fans not soccer fans! The-Pope in particualr said "In WA when I was growing up it was always called either Football, Footy, Aussie Rules or Australian Rules if you were being formal. Never Australian Football or Aussie Football or Aussie Footy. They just sound wrong. So I think ignore what's happening with the other codes and KT and the AFL's reference to the "official name", and just continue to use the common terminology." Blaming controversy over the name on soccer fans is wrong. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note You still have not completed the listing at WP:RM. See the template at the top of the page for guidance on how to do so. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As someone who has followed the game for more than 35 years, it has always been referred to as "Australian football", "Aussie rules", "football" or "footy". Never, ever have I heard anyone refer to it as "Australian Rules football" in eastern Australia. Given the lack of references, that should carry just as much weight as "The Pope", whoever he/she is. Cheers,K (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You need to be a little careful with terms like "eastern Australia". I grew up in Victoria, mostly the eatern part, and that was effectively used as the proper name for the game. But I won't claim my experience to represent much more than the area I was in, and it certainly wasn't the whole of eastern Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rulesfan, I was aware of your previous proposal. The problem was that you went about it the wrong way by listing it as an uncontroversial move. As a result, no discussion took place before Anthony moved the page, which wasn't appropriate in this instance. It may not seem controversial to you but it clearly states at Wikipedia:Requested moves that "If there has been any past debate about the best title for the page, or if anyone could reasonably disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial". It has already been established that The-Pope has disputed the renaming of this page and there has also been past debate on the topic, so that covers both criteria. Cheers. Jevansen (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Oppose. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Australian rules footballAustralian football — the official name of the sport is Australian Football, therefore that should be the name of the article and Australian Rules Football (which is an informal name) should redirect to it. Rulesfan (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support. I'm (almost) always in favor of shortening article names. I took the liberty of correctly formatting this move request. (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Clearly better and just as accurate. AFL-Cool 02:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. The current title is umambiguous and reflects the majority of references (other than football or footy) to the game as Australian rules or Aussie rules.The Hack 03:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose the current title is the common name, atleast outside of Australia. (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Makes sense to me. User Talk:Hack, the article Football in Australia which deals appropriately with your objection. Association football is often called soccer and American football gridiron, but the intros of those articles deal with this appropriately as should this one. --Biatch (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose On basis of WP:UCN, and that outside of Australia at least, Australian rules football is more common. YeshuaDavidTalk • 22:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Until everything started getting derailed by the precious aspirations of the marketing people (and, of course, the delusions of grandeur of Melbourne dentist, the late Alan Aylett) it was always "Aussie Rules" (or just "footy"). It would be a total betrayal of all of those fine men (amateur and professional) who have played "Aussie Rules" over the last 150 years to be influenced by the moves recently made by Australian supporters of Soccer to rebrand things in this way.Lindsay658 (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. "Australian football" could be talk as meaning "ordinary internalional-type soccer when played in Australia". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Inside Australian, WP:UCN would lean towards football, at least in the southern/western states. But that obviously isn't acceptable, so the next most common term is "Australian rules football". Apart from AFL bureaucrats, very few people call it Australian Football. The claim that the official title of the sport is 'Australian Football' is a neologism and just a convenient grab for the name to try to keep soccer out from claiming it. We have to remember that AFL = Australian Football League = a league of football in Australia, not a league of "Australian Football". Australian football is ambiguous for all of the soccer related reasons. The-Pope (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The name of the game is Australian Football. The title of this article is WRONG. Unless, of course, there will be other articles renamed, such as for American Rules Football, Canadian Rules Football, Association Rules Football, Rugby Rules Football, Gaelic Rules Football etc. ad nauseam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanBrodman (talkcontribs) 19:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, it's ridiculous. Half the "opposers" object to the move primarily because it's called ARF *outside* of Australia, when WP is supposed to error on the side of local naming when dealing with an English speaking country. (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About this sports

What is the relationship of this sport and Rugby?--Pierce (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This topic is discussed in depth at Origins of Australian football. The is no definitive relationship between the two sports, however some historians theorise a relationship as some of the founders had specific knowledge of rugby football. There is, however, no relationship at all to the modern rugby codes.--Rulesfan (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ball shape

But I don't know why this sport is a ball in the shape of a prolate spheroid as same as Rugby?--Pierce (talk) 11:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In a way you are right, and in a way you are wrong. The first official VFL matches were, indeed, played with a rugby ball -- which, at that time, did not have standard dimensions -- and it was not until some time around 1905 that the Aussie Rules football (as we now understand it to be) was developed and introduced into the competition (it was manufactured by Sherrin).
One of the major changes to the rugby ball was to the shape of the ball at each end. The shape and the weight distribution of the ball was entirely re-designed for one specific reason: so that players (especially Collingwood players, such as Dick Condon, Charlie Pannam, and Bob Rush) could kick stab kicks.
They also soon found that the new shape of the ball was such that it made drop-kicks (either from a stationary start, as in after a mark, or on the move at full pace) much, much easier, and far more accurate. It was the introduction of this new-shape and new-weight ball that also, inadvertently, led to the demise of the place kick (the kicking style which contributed long-kicking records that will never be surpassed).
It is odd, however, that the shape of the ball has continued unchanged since both the use of stab-kicks and drop-kicks has become, to all intents and purposes, as obsolete as the earlier place-kicks. Yet, to those who were there at the time, it would clearly seem that neither drop-punts nor banana kicks (nor, even, Bill Young's amazing habit of kicking goals backwards, over his head) would ever have been possible, to the degree of accuracy of delivery that we see today, with a differently weighted and/or a differently shaped ball. (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What was the shape of the ball before Rugby was invented? Aussie rules people keep telling me it predates rugby. (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was invented before the RFU was formed but not before the Rugby school game. So yes and no - it was invented well after Rugby football was first played but before Rugby union (which is the current form of the fifteen-a-side game).The Hack 13:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correct. -- (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, but why we don't call this sport as "Australian rules Rugby"?--Pierce (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why not Aussie rules rugby? = because they KICK the bl**dy thing, not throw it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanBrodman (talkcontribs) 19:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Behind

Why is this secondary, and extraordinarily easy, way of scoring a point with the "prolate spheroid" not mentioned in the first section of the article?

"A behind is scored when the ball passes between a goal post and a behind post at any height, or if the ball hits a goal post, or if an attacking player sends the ball between the goal posts by touching it with any part of the body other than a foot. A behind is also awarded to the attacking team if the ball touches any part of an opposition player, including his foot, before passing between the goal posts. When an opposition player deliberately scores a behind for the attacking team (generally as a last resort, because of the risk of their scoring a goal) this is termed a rushed behind." Ombudswiki (talk) 07:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because it is truly a consolation score. No-one wants to score one unless scores are level and there are seconds left. Are wides/no balls/byes mentioned in the cricket intro? Drop goals in the rugby intros? Walks in baseball?The-Pope (talk) 09:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its crazy really. People keep editing the article intro to make it appear that kicking is the only way to score. This is completely NOT true and should not corrupt the layman's view of the sport. It absolutely can be pushed through by any part of the body to score. Who cares if a behind is a consolation ?? Only AFL fans with a skewed perception view it that way. Is a conversion or field goal not counted in rugby or American Football (even if it is not the primary object or the highest scoring option) ? An over in Gaelic or pushing it through by hand ? The object is to win by the highest score - not the most goals. It is definitely possible to by points even if you don't kick a goal. FFS a score is a score ! --Rulesfan (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

a few issues

"The AFL has governed the sport nationally since 1993 and internationally since 2005 through the AFL Commission and the AFL Rules Committee."

I'm a complete ignoramus, and the article needs to be addressed to people like me. This Commission and Committee: are they different? Does one do the domestic and one the international? I'm confused. Please fix the sentence.

Second, the caption under the green schematic in "Rules of the game" is about eight times too long. Can almost all of it be shifted to the accompanying main text? The staue pic ... same deal. Some of the images could be more generous in size. Please note the changes in MoS in this respect. Tony (talk) 09:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A really good question Tony and somewhat difficult to answer. As far as I know, the AFL Rules Committee really only determines rules for the AFL competition, but their rules are highly influential and often adopted by other leagues both in Australia and abroad. The Commission is not really responsible for rules of the game and acts at a much higher level but the CEO of the AFL is on the board of the commission. However their structure is such that neither are really true governing bodies of the sport. It is only a defacto in the absence of a proper governing body for rules. --Rulesfan (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That seems a fair description. -- (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Why are AFL shirts called Guernseys and not jerseys like in other sports? --AW (talk) 08:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check out Guernsey (clothing)#Use in Australian sport and this site. Hack (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same word, identical meaning, similar origins, but the usage amongst the Southern states is different. -- (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. --AW (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries. -- (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I always thought they were footy jumpers. HiLo48 (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New External Link

I moderate the Culture Victoria website and have added an external link to ourt story: Football Stories from Country Victoria, which includes 21 films about football in Victorian communities with interviews and archival footage, filmed by Malcolm McKinnon. Eleworth (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have read about an "onballer". But can't find any definition of what it is in Australian football. Does anyone know of a definition? Kwenchin (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Traditionally you had 15 players who played in relatively fixed positions (5 rows of 3 players per row) plus 3 players, the ruck, ruck-rover and rover, who "followed the ball", and hence were called the followers. These days, the central three players plus the rover and ruck-rover are generally called the midfielders, or onballers, as they "play on the ball". In reality, most teams now have 8-12 players who they rotate through the midfield during a match - and the rest of the players also tend to "follow the ball" with zone defences, flooding and similar flexible tactics. The-Pope (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The game is commonly referred to as Football, Aussie rules or (colloquially) as Footy.[3] In some regions, where the sport is in development.

Not sure what this is trying to say but it doesn't read well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, there was some vandalism earlier today. I've reverted it and got rid of the colloquially. It wasn't needed. Thanks for picking up the problem. HiLo48 (talk)
Why, get rid of colloquially. Footy is a colloquial term, because "footy" is not usually used in formal communications, but is used in informal communications, which is what "colloquial" means. -- (talk) 11:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AFL vs football

The first paragraph says that it is incorrect to refer to the game as AFL. "In some regions, where the sport is in development, it is often known (erroneously) as AFL, after the Australian Football League, the only fully professional Australian rules football league." This is not the case. Without any references to back this up I'm removing it. The AFL has chosen to promote the game under the name of 'AFL' for example the renaming of QAFL AFL Queensland to avoid confusion with other codes of football particularly since soccer has started promoting itself under that name in Australia. Also, the AFL is not the only fully professional Australian rules football league - the WAFL? And it is not just called AFL in developing regions. - Bozzio (talk) 09:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That doesn't make much sense. AFL is simply not the name of the game. It's the name of a competition. I really think you need to provide a source that TELLS us that it's the name, not just your interpretation of some evidence. HiLo48 (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AFL *should* only be used to describe the league played nationally between 16 teams (17 next year). Not local leagues, not kick to kick in the park etc. But, the marketing behemoth that is the AFL commission sees that if it uses it's cute little acronym in a wider sense, it will probably "gain market share". Fights over sport name suffer from the fact that almost all WP:RSs have commercial biases and generally do what the sporting bureaucrats want. And most WAFL players have other jobs (ie Toby McGrath is a fireman) so it isn't fully pro.The-Pope (talk) 10:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not saying that the sport should only be referred to as AFL, or that the article should be renamed; I'm saying that some people refer to it as "AFL" some of the time, and thus the first paragraph should be changed to remove the word erroneously. It is just an alternative name; it does not make it wrong. See Metonymy, Genericised trademark. It is also not just used overseas - I'm from Perth, which is certainly not a developing area of the sport, and I know if I used the term to refer to the sport they would understand. -Bozzio (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some people say "somethink". Our prime minister struggles to say "negotiate". Some blow their nose on a "kleenex", clean the house by doing the "hoovering" and use a "biro" to write down notes. All very good marketing exercises over the past 50 years. That's what the AFL wants - it has a lot to gain by non-traditional Australian rules football people refering to the sport as AFL. But this is an encyclopedia and we shouldn't be perpetuating incorrect uses. The sport is not called AFL - it is either football, Australian football or Australian rules football (or slang abbreviations derived from those names). If you said to me, I'm going down to Subiaco Oval this weekend to watch the AFL, I'd think you were crazy. The WAFL is on this week, and it's a game of football, or Aussie rules. If you said, lets go have a game of AFL, I'd say the draft isn't on for a few more months and after my last knee injury I'm unlikely to be picked. There are only 185 games of AFL played each year, only 3 remain in 2010. After correcting you, I'd probably then ask you when did you move here from Qld or NSW? The-Pope (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Born and bred right here in Perth. Perhaps because I am of "the younger generation" I refer to things with names that you would not. Oh well. I don't really care as long as we don't call it rugby. -Bozzio (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Use the comparison between American football and the NFL. Most prople will automatically associate NFL with American football, yet it is incorrect to call the sport NFL. MC Rocks (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but we're not in America are we? I'm not saying it isn't incorrect (woah triple negative there) but you seem to think that no one calls it AFL; which they do. You can't change that. -Bozzio (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And you can't change the fact that it is wrong to do so.The-Pope (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Finally we agree! - Bozzio (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, we re-add "erroneously". OK? HiLo48 (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you boys, and I include my eldest, can't play together without fighting, so help me, I'll turn the hose on the lot of you! Shirt58's mum (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


A tiny edit skirmish just happened over whether or not the game is played indoors. What about Docklands (Etihad Stadium) with the roof closed? (Which it almost always is these days.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personally, I think it should still only be considered an outdoor sport, but I do understand the point you're making. Note also that American football (gridiron) only categorises itself as outdoor, despite the vast majority of NFL games being played "indoors". Jenks24 (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Diffs for the skirmish? --Shirt58 (talk) 09:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Skirmish" is a bit of an exaggeration :) It consisted of this edit by a new user (though on his talk it's claimed he is a sock of User:BrianBeahr), which was reverted 30 mins later by The-Pope here. That's it... Jenks24 (talk) 10:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. I did say tiny skirmish. It's just that it got me thinking. Footy is played indoors, but in a very big room. I don't have strong feelings either way on the issue, but we cannot say absolutely that it's not played indoors. I'm not sure if that's what our IP editor was thinking. It's my thinking. HiLo48 (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, yes, maybe for the professional football league. But the amateur football leagues and competitions, ALL play outdoors. Please don't just focus on the major football league, but also consider the minor football leagues. -- (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, and you may notice that the article is currently in agreement with you and says the Aussie rules is and "outdoor" sport. Jenks24 (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did notice the article says this, but I was just mentioning something that wasn't being talked about. I was concerned in this discussion the minor football leagues and competitions were being ignored, as it was only mentioning the "AFL". If I upset anyone in my comments, I apologise. -- (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No need to apologise, you raised a valid point. I was simply pointing that out in case you hadn't realised (but obviously you had :). Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 11:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The article contradicts itself, or at least appear to. It says, "Before the start of the 2009 season, there was no penalty imposed for rushing a behind." So there was NO penalty BEFORE 2009. But then it says, "However, in 2008 a new rule was introduced whereby a player rushing a behind deliberately will concede a free kick in the goal square as well as the behind." Where I come from, 2008 was before 2009. That might not be the case in Australia. Cottonshirtτ 15:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The start of the 2009 season was in March 2009. In December 2008, they introduced the rule. The 2008 season finished in September. Happy now? The-Pope (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was previously a one point penalty... Hack (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whether I am "happy" or not is irrelevant; it's about improving the article and making it say what you mean so that people not immersed in the history and folklore of the game can understand what you say. I suggest it be re-written to read, "However, for the start of the 2009 season, a new rule was introduced..." Cottonshirtτ 20:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Names in intro

HiLo48 has asked me to raise my edits regarding my edit here on the talk page. Thoughts, opinions, suggestions? I certainly object to the use of "erroneously" in regards to the use of "AFL" as a name for the sport. Despite some users personal opinions, Wikipedia should not comment on whether the use of this term is correct or incorrect, particularly without a source being given. IgnorantArmies?! 08:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But it simply IS erroneous. AFL is NOT the name of the sport. It does not need a source. It's on a parallel with "The sky is blue". Using AFL as the name of the sport would be equivalent to using NRL as the name of rugby league, in all contexts, not just the national league. Wikipedia's job is to educate and inform, not to reinforce misconceptions. HiLo48 (talk) 09:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No-one says incorrectly says "the the sky is green" when it is in fact blue. Plenty of people incorrectly use "AFL" to describe Australian football. A neutral point of view is one of the 5 pillars - Wikipedia's role is not to educate and inform, but to report existing knowledge. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. If existing knowledge includes misconceptions, then those misconceptions must be included, if supported by verifiable, authoritative sources.
  • No-one says incorrectly says "the the sky is green" when it is in fact blue. Plenty of people incorrectly use "AFL" to describe Australian football. A neutral point of view is one of the 5 pillars - editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. Verifiable, authoritative sources do not support the "AFL = Australian football" misconception.
--Shirt58 (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's revealing that, while arguing against the use of "erroneously", you use "incorrectly" in effectively the same way. Can we do that in the article too? HiLo48 (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, why npt! Be my guessed! [[sic]] :-) --Shirt58 (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What? HiLo48 (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's worthy of note that one of the parties "erroneously" using the acronym AFL to describe the sport is the AFL themselves.Hack (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please tell us more. HiLo48 (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If someone can find a reliable source stating that this usage is incorrect eg. a MOS or an official AFL release, then by all means leave it. Otherwise, any words such as erroneously or incorrectly should be removed, unless with reference to another source (blog post, opinionative article, etc.) that states that this use is incorrect, then the wording could be changed to "this usage is considered incorrect by some", as I had in my original edits. The usage of AFL to refer to the sport itself is not in question, as it is clearly used by some, however incorrect this might seem to some people. IgnorantArmies?! 11:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there are no further objections, I'll change to my previous version. IgnorantArmies?! 09:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you're asking, does anyone object to removing "erroneously", I certainly do. My arguments are the clear, simple ones with correct spelling and grammar above. There's a lot of rubbish above. I gave up, thinking people had started joking. HiLo48 (talk) 10:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also object. It's obvious that it is erroneous to refer to the sport as AFL. As I said, we agreed on this last October and I can't see anything that's changed since them. Jenks24 (talk) 12:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although I completely object to the wording of the intro, I really can't be bothered arguing about it, even if I know its going to kill me every time I see it. Not sure why I brought it up again. Oh, well. (P.S. the WikiProject devoted to this sport is called WP:AFL!!) IgnorantArmies?! 13:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have a point. That project page seems quite confused about the matter. I have raised the issue on the Talk page there. HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This article states that all of the kids say that they play "AFL". It doesn't say that it's incorrect, but that's implicit in the fact it is mentioned at all. I think we all now agree that a) it does happen and b) it's wrong, - see this official explanation - so I think the approach taken by Holland is the best - mention it but say it is incorrect. The-Pope (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This source would suggest that any other name besides Australian football is incorrect - "Whether it is called Australian Football, Australian Rules Football, "Aussie Rules", the VFL, the AFL, Australia's only indigenous football code is officially entitled 'Australian football'." By the way, there is further discussion on this at the WikiProject AFL talk page if you wish to participate. IgnorantArmies?! 07:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But to avoid the whole "the rest of the world calls soccer football" problem, Australian football on it's own isn't an option as it's too ambiguous for the rest of the world. Australian rules football is the worldwide acceptable name. AFL is the name of the league The discussion at WT:AFL should be only about the project name. Everything else should be discussed here, not there. The-Pope (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added a citation needed tag to the word erroneously. Unless someone can verify using reliable sources that the usage of AFL is incorrect the word should not be there. The AFL themselves use AFL to refer to the sport as evidenced by their Play AFL and Umpire AFL programmes.[28][29] Hack (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Examples aren't sources. Examples require your or my interpretation, and that's original research. It's the claim that AFL is a valid name that's unsourced. I could just as easily say that Cobblers is an alternative name. It's equally well sourced. Until you show us a source TELLING US that AFL is a valid name, your tag doesn't belong. 07:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Where is the source for "erroneously"? The article is making a disputed statement without a reliable source. Hack (talk) 08:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You missed my point. Read my post again. If I added Cobblers as a name, you would be happy if the article said it was an erroneous name. You wouldn't expect to see a source saying Cobblers was erroneous. HiLo48 (talk) 08:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, if there were reliable sources that said that cobblers was an alternate name for Aussie rules. There are reliable sources that show that AFL is used as an alternate name for the sport. Saying that that usage is wrong is a value judgment. Hack (talk) 08:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I note your attempted sneaky use of the language there - "sources that SHOW", while publicly ignoring my point that they are not sources that TELL us. Thank you for effectively agreeing with my point. HiLo48 (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The branding of the sport as AFL by the governing body is very relevant to the allegation that the usage is in error. You seem to be suggesting they are wrong. Hack (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. It's on a par with those soccer fans who tell us that football is the correct name for their game in Australia because the Football Federation of Australia says so. Because of all the football codes we have here, that's just as silly as using the name of a league as the name of a sport. Commercial, marketing oriented organisations like the FFA and the AFL do not own the language. HiLo48 (talk) 08:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The colloquialism "footy" is unqualified, but the colloquialism "AFL" is - but they're same thing, just said by different people.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 0:22, 8 May 2012‎ (UTC)

We have a reliable reference that explains why AFL is erroneous. Footy is not erroneous, but has been used Australia wide for a very long time. The-Pope (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's a big consistency problem between this article and Names of Australian rules football; the former makes the flat out assertion that the use of 'AFL' is erroneous; the latter treats it as a commonly used and forgivably imprecise genericisation, and provides citations for the league tacitly approving this usage. So at the very least, we need to get these two articles making the same point in the same way.
In this discussion, I think we can learn a lot more from the treatment of genericised trademarks than we can from the soccer/football debate. For example, the article for ice resurfacer explains the generic usage of 'Zamboni' as a synonym, but stops short of declaring it as unequivocably erroneous. I think that's the approach we should be taking here. So, I'm inclined propose that the word "erroneous" be removed from this article, and the Names... article be left largely as it is. With appropriate wording, it can be made pretty obvious that the use of 'AFL' as a synonym for all Australian football is imprecise at best and erroneous at worst, without having to state anything explicitly. I'd phrase it as "Australian rules football, officially known as Australian football, also called football, footy, Aussie rules, or sometimes AFL (a genericized usage of the name of the sport's only fully professional league, the Australian Football League, to describe the entire sport)." Aspirex (talk) 06:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to signReply[reply]

Now it has disappeared all together. A bit odd, as there's no doubt that for many - I would in fact go out on a limb and say millions - that's what it's called. The debate seemingly was whether or not someone's else language was wrong, not that the term wasn't being used. Even the AFL itself dips its toe into the water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This just went back in again, and then removed. Are people really unaware that AFL is common parlance in a large section of Australia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Local Potentate (talkcontribs) 08:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Goals/points per game over time

Hurling Scoring.png

Has anything like that been done for Aussie rules? Moondyne (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I haven't seen anything like it, and I've trawled through most related articles. It would be an interesting stat to see. --Roisterer (talk) 06:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
VFL-AFL match stats from 1900.png
I tried to keep a similar style to the Hurling chart. Interesting, and certainly WP:OR, but I'm not sure it says anything Wikipedia-worthy. The dip in the 1950s and 60s is strange. Moondyne (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correlate it to rainfall on Saturdays in Melbourne 1920-1970? The jump since the 1970s would be the "play on at all costs" style of faster play. Interesting how people say that goal kicking hasn't improved, but the goals to points ratio indicates that it did improve in the 70s and again in the 80s, and again in the 2000s (Indoor Docklands effect?) <OR> WAFL games from the 80s regularly had 40 goals or more kicked, rarely happens now days.</OR> The-Pope (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If anyone wants the spreadsheeet to analyse by team/ground or whatever, send me an email. Gotta love the pivotable. I am such a nerd. Moondyne (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A real excel nerd would have had the points:goals ratio on a secondary y-axis, and maybe utilised a 3-5 year moving average to smooth it out a bit! my email's enabled (but could probably do very similar very quickly from the big list source doc)! The-Pope (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This sort of thing could have validity in History of the Australian Football League if there were some sort of sensible non-original research explanation for why the scores did that they did. Problem is that most modern discussion on the topic is pathetic whinging and misinterpretation of statistics by commentators who hate flooding (I recall a Garry Lyon article which showed the portion of the graph from 1980 to 2003, saying it showed a declining trend in scoring, when all it really shows is that they shortened the length of the quarters in 1994, that there was an unusual isolated high scoring year in 2001, and that there was no overall trend otherwise), and therefore has no particular value.
They should be something out there. The eras are pretty clearly defined in the graph - there's the rise of scoring early development of the game, the peak at the first era of big full forwards in the 1930s and 1940s (Farmer, Pratt, Coventry, Todd, etc.), the decline in the 1950s and 1960s, the rebirth of the big full forward in the 1970s, 80s and 90s, and the transition into the modern, less full-forward centric scoresheets – so surely someone with some football intelligence must have written a book about it at some point. Aspirex (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Farmer in the 1930s and 40s? Not to my knowledge. Polly Farmer played for Geelong in the 1960s. But I agree with your general point about (hopefully) a book. HiLo48 (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hope Roisterer, Holden and our other South Australians don't read this! Ken Farmer would be the Farmer referred to. I think the lack of positional play is the reason - we rarely get 100 goal kickers in a year compared to the past, but scores are up, as everyone wants to score. The-Pope (talk) 11:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, a Croweater. Hadn't thought of that. But surely, once we extend this beyond VFL/AFL we're into much more diverse territory. Documenting and comparing all of that would be almost impossible. HiLo48 (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incorrect title for page

This webpage is very wrong. This page is about Aussie rules Football, not the AFL or VFL. it should be about the game, not the leagues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasadens070032 (talkcontribs) 12:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proof of first game

Where is the proof that the first game was played in Melbourne at that date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasadens070032 (talkcontribs) 12:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photo in the infobox


White dots and red/black smudges on green with some white sticks and advertising in the stands. Is that the best pic we have? Is that the first impression we want to make? Does that sum up the beauty and passion of our game? Really? I think the French have done it better. -- The-Pope (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2012‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, agreed it's not that great. Any picture of a hangar is pretty good, and even looking at the other pics already in the article, I reckon File:Aussie rules game.jpg is better (although you can't see any goals in that pic). If you want to just be bold and change it I don't think you'd be reverted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]