Talk:Australian rules football

Quote

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)

The quote is not NPOV therefore shouldn't be included . 203.97.49.94

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)

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)

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)

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 210.56.87.56 (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous edit 11:18, 8 August 2007 80.156.46.53

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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." 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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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. --203.94.135.134 (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. 61.69.183.142 (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

POV

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)

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)

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)

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, 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, [1] 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)

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:

1. Site sportbusiness - this is an index page, the relevant article is at http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/159125/fans-say-aussie-rules . The article reports the 2005 Sweeney report, which is clearly even more out of date than what was already there.
2. [2] - 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. [3] - 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. [4] - 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Mediation

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)

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)

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.

• [5] Football most popular

• [6] Football most popular

• [7] unclear, but doesn't appear reliable

• [8] Football most popular

• [9] pay per view

• [10] football most popular, but uses unreliable weasel wording.

• [11] Football most interesting

• [12] Cricket most interesting

• [13] 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)

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:

• [14] 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.

• [15] Football most popular

Again, football was the most attended spectator sport in 2005-06.

• [16] 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.

• [17] 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.

• [18] pay per view

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.

• [19] 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.

• [20] Football most interesting
• [21] 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.

• [22] 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)

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)

Even though the mediator said it would be better to discuss it here? JPD (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

No explanation => tag removed. JPD (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Category:Australian rules football terminology is as close as we have so far. The-Pope (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thankyou Somno. I'm not sure why people here ASSUME controversy ? Consensus on this issue was reached years ago [23] 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)

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)

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)

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 121.45.206.70 (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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)
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)

• Support. I'm (almost) always in favor of shortening article names. I took the liberty of correctly formatting this move request. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly better and just as accurate. AFL-Cool 02:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• 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)
• Oppose the current title is the common name, atleast outside of Australia. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• 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)
• Oppose On basis of WP:UCN, and that outside of Australia at least, Australian rules football is more common. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 22:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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. 76.209.59.179 (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

About this sports

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

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)

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)

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.129.94.30.7 (talk) 02:03, 29 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)

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)

Correct. --121.127.223.219 (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2010 (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)

• More soccer trolls having a go at Australian football. --121.127.223.219 (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

That seems a fair description. --121.127.223.219 (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Guernsey?

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)

Thanks. --AW (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries. --121.127.223.219 (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I always thought they were footy jumpers. HiLo48 (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

onballer

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)

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)

Lead

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)

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. --124.180.40.91 (talk) 11:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

And you can't change the fact that it is wrong to do so.The-Pope (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Finally we agree! - Bozzio (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

So, we re-add "erroneously". OK? HiLo48 (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

Indoors?

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)

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)

Diffs for the skirmish? --Shirt58 (talk) 09:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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. --60.230.96.214 (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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. --60.230.96.214 (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

Contradiction

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)

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)

There was previously a one point penalty... Hack (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Counter-arguments.

• 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)

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)

Sure, why npt! Be my guessed! [[sic]] :-) --Shirt58 (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

What? HiLo48 (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

Please tell us more. HiLo48 (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Didn't we settle this last October? See #AFL vs football. What's changed since then? Jenks24 (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

If there are no further objections, I'll change to my previous version. IgnorantArmies^?! 09:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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.[24][25] Hack (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)