This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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 ( talk • contribs) 09:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC).
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 ( talk • contribs) 10:26, 28 June 2006 UTC.
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?
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 afl.com.au 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)
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)
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)
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)
I m the one who made this edit (forgot to log on) Ksempac 11:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 64.132.221.211 ( talk) 18:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
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. 155.213.224.59 ( talk) 14:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
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." http://afl.com.au/Development/AFLExplained/tabid/10294/Default.aspx
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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. 139.130.127.15 ( talk) 05:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I discuss in page of mediation cabal.-- PIO ( talk) 17:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
JPD, I discuss only in mediation's page.-- PIO ( talk) 13:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 210.56.91.251 ( talk) 10:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
The result of the proposal was Oppose.
Anthony Appleyard (
talk)
16:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Australian rules football →
Australian 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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
What is the relationship of this sport and Rugby?-- Pierce ( talk) 19:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
What was the shape of the ball before Rugby was invented? Aussie rules people keep telling me it predates rugby. 89.100.101.40 ( talk) 00:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, but why we don't call this sport as "Australian rules Rugby"?-- Pierce ( talk) 13:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Why not Aussie rules rugby? = because they KICK the bl**dy thing, not throw it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanBrodman ( talk • contribs) 19:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
"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)
Why are AFL shirts called Guernseys and not jerseys like in other sports? -- AW ( talk) 08:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Check out Guernsey (clothing)#Use in Australian sport and this site. Hack ( talk) 09:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Same word, identical meaning, similar origins, but the usage amongst the Southern states is different. -- 121.127.223.219 ( talk) 00:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 60.242.98.209 ( talk) 08:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. Cottonshirt τ 15:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
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. Ignorant Armies ? ! 08:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
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 58.96.125.138 ( talk • contribs) 0:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMZYZcoAcU0 http://www.afl.com.au/afl-hq/the-afl-explained/afl-football-today — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.79.160 ( talk) 06:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
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 ( talk • contribs) 08:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Has anything like that been done for Aussie rules? Moondyne ( talk) 05:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
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 ( talk • contribs) 12:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Where is the proof that the first game was played in Melbourne at that date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasadens070032 ( talk • contribs) 12:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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 ( talk • contribs) 09:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC).
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 ( talk • contribs) 10:26, 28 June 2006 UTC.
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?
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 afl.com.au 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)
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)
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)
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)
I m the one who made this edit (forgot to log on) Ksempac 11:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 64.132.221.211 ( talk) 18:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
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. 155.213.224.59 ( talk) 14:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
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." http://afl.com.au/Development/AFLExplained/tabid/10294/Default.aspx
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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. 139.130.127.15 ( talk) 05:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I discuss in page of mediation cabal.-- PIO ( talk) 17:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
JPD, I discuss only in mediation's page.-- PIO ( talk) 13:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 210.56.91.251 ( talk) 10:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
The result of the proposal was Oppose.
Anthony Appleyard (
talk)
16:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Australian rules football →
Australian 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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
What is the relationship of this sport and Rugby?-- Pierce ( talk) 19:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
What was the shape of the ball before Rugby was invented? Aussie rules people keep telling me it predates rugby. 89.100.101.40 ( talk) 00:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, but why we don't call this sport as "Australian rules Rugby"?-- Pierce ( talk) 13:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Why not Aussie rules rugby? = because they KICK the bl**dy thing, not throw it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanBrodman ( talk • contribs) 19:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
"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)
Why are AFL shirts called Guernseys and not jerseys like in other sports? -- AW ( talk) 08:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Check out Guernsey (clothing)#Use in Australian sport and this site. Hack ( talk) 09:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Same word, identical meaning, similar origins, but the usage amongst the Southern states is different. -- 121.127.223.219 ( talk) 00:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 60.242.98.209 ( talk) 08:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. Cottonshirt τ 15:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
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. Ignorant Armies ? ! 08:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
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 58.96.125.138 ( talk • contribs) 0:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMZYZcoAcU0 http://www.afl.com.au/afl-hq/the-afl-explained/afl-football-today — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.79.160 ( talk) 06:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
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 ( talk • contribs) 08:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Has anything like that been done for Aussie rules? Moondyne ( talk) 05:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
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 ( talk • contribs) 12:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Where is the proof that the first game was played in Melbourne at that date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasadens070032 ( talk • contribs) 12:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
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)