Talk:Australian rules football/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Opening para

There has been a lot of mucking around with the opening para of late, in particular, the other games it resembles. Right now it is saying: It has many similiarities to Gaelic football and some similarities to basketball and ice hockey. We seem to have lost the reference to Rugby, which I think should remain because it did influence aussie rules moreso than any other modern code. I am mystified by these constant comparisons to basketball and especially ice hockey. In fact, if I were to choose one game where there really are similarities, it would be netball (no, it's not meant to be a joke, I am referring to the patterns of movement of the ball and the one-on-one nature of netball, which no other code appears to share). ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 23:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the sentence, because the way it was going, people were just changing it to fit their own ideas, which means it was all Original Research. JPD (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't have thought that the fact that aussie rules shares some features with rugby would be considered original research - all the books I have on aussie rules make this point. That's where the word "mark" comes from (although many of the early football codes, including association football, had this rule). Mentioning gaelic and rugby seems straightforward enough, mentioning basketball and ice hockey strikes me as mischievous at best. Any characteristics it shares with soccer is pretty minor and not worth mentioning (although the very first recorded game of aussie rules in 1858 had the socceresque scoreline of 1-0, aussie rules has since moved on, and soccer remains, well, socceresque). ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 01:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we should be able to say something that isn't original research, but references to basketball and ice hockey were just inviting people to put whatever they thought in. I'd be happy with a mention of Gaelic and rugby, with a reference to make it clear that we're not analysing it ourselves, but since it's described as a type of "football" anyway, is such a mention necessary in the opening para? JPD (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed re basketball and ice hockey. We probably end up making a reference to rugby somewhere along the line anyway. Gaelic is probablematic because they resemble each other superficially when in fact they do not appear to be related to each other any more than any of the other football codes (all having being derived from the various public school codes of the 1840s/1850s). In a round about way, I guess I am saying that your suggested approach is a sound one. Although it is probably correct to say that Gaelic football and aussie rules occupy roughly the same position between soccer (kicking, no carrying of the ball) and rugby (less kicking, lots of carrying of the ball), I'm not sure if it is OR or not. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 08:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Basketball is a valid point of comparison for two reasons: the lack of an offside rule and the requirement to bounce the ball while moving. It was an American who first pointed that out to me. As for comparing it to ice hockey....I don't get that at all. Grant65 | Talk 07:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

ACT 2

At the moment this article is saying that the game was first played in the ACT in 1881. Now seeing that the ACT was only created around 1913, this is either an error or is meant to say that it was first played in the environs of what became the ACT (which certainly quite possible). ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 09:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the ACT needs to be specifically mentioned here. The game may well have been played in the general area that early, but at that time the area that is now the ACT had no special significance. The first mention of football games on theAFL Canberra site is in 1911/12 when the population started to grow. JPD (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
If it is to be mentioned, I think 1912 is the correct year (as mentioned on the AFL Canberra site). ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 23:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed that immediately under the interstate section, it says that the game spread to South Africa in 1858 - that is wrong by a long shot. Does anyone know the correct year? It refers to the Boer War and First World War, so we are talking somewhere between 1898 and 1914. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 23:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Popularity of Aussie rules revisited

This issue has drawn a lot of attention over the past 9 months or so. In this morning's The Australian newspaper, Patrick Smith, a regular columnist, writes:

Vigorous administration will chase its vision at rapid pace
COMMENT
Patrick Smith
April 27, 2006
THE AFL is doing very nicely, thank you. It is not just the 91,234 crowd that turned up for Tuesday's Anzac Day match that is the undeniable indicator. The AFL commission has recently viewed a 67-page document that says the competition is in health so rude it is borderline boorish.
Look every which way, for it doesn't matter. The AFL is the dominant national sport. Here's a snap shot:
    • The league draws the largest weekly TV audience;
    • It generates more than double the income of any competing code;
    • It is the most affordable sport;
    • It has the highest total audience;
    • It has the richest broadcast deal;
    • It has the biggest following;
    • It leads sport in total TV audience;
    • It dominates participation (a player must be registered and played minimum six games) and talent nationally;
    • It leads sporting industry in brand recognition;
    • Print coverage nationally doubles exposure of other sports;

I understand that this is neither here or there, and that the article isn't about a popularity contest. At the same time, we do get a lot of ill-informed criticism (and out and out vandalism) in this article, and so it's not a bad little extract to keep up our sleeves for the next time this argument flares up again. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 22:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the whole popularity thing should go into an article called "Australian rules football in Australia". None of it relates to the code's popularity anywhere else in the world, yet this article is about the game, its origins and history, not about it's place in Australia. Further to this, the history of the AFL, although relevant to popularity, should be dealt with in the Australian Football League article. --Biatch 08:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)User:Biatch - 22:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The detail of the popularity probably would be best in such an article, however this main article should at least give a decent picture of where the game is popular. The history of the AFL and the other leagues is very important part of the history of the code as a whole, so should be explained here, if not in as much detail as at the AFL article. The International Rules section should be moved out of the origins of the game section, however. JPD (talk) 10:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Role of public school/university football

I made a slight change to increase the prominence of the role of English public school and university football in the codification of Australian football. Unfortunately this was reverted.

The evidence for Wills being influenced by the Cambridge and other rules is far far greater than the alleged influence of Marn Grook. The para about English football should go before Marn Grook, especially as the article itself acknowledges, the role of Marn Grook is debated and the only evidence is that Harrison "may" have seen it.

In addition, having the caveat about how the influence of English school/university football on Australian football is "undetermined" is interesting given that the para on Marn Grook has no such caveats.

As currently structured, the article makes Marn Grook seem like a bigger influence on Australian football than public school/university football, which is clearly absurd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Burl2011 (talkcontribs) 14:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The order in which the topics are covered should depend on how well it reads, not which influence we perceive to have been greater. What is actually said is much more important. The article currently says that there is much debate about the influcence of Marn Grook, but that the influence of British football was clearly substantial. The section possibly could be rewritten in a different order, buit simply moving paragraphs around is not the way to do this. JPD (talk) 10:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

First sentence/names

The start of the article, with its listing of the many different ways the sport is referred to, is ridiculously unreadable. If they all need to be mentioned, then some shoudl be moved to later in the paragraph. I personally would prefer to leave out the "AFL" mention altogether, but it is true that in some places it is commonly used to refer to the sport, and even without it the first sentence is a bit unwieldy. JPD (talk) 09:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree with both points, opening was already unwieldly (but difficult to avoid). The additional info has a strong basis of fact to it (but I am only speaking from personal experience living in Canberra) and is relevant, but it simply cannot stay where it currently sits. Probably needs to be a separate sentence. Options:
  1. as the second sentence;
  2. at the end of that first paragraph; or
  3. around the end of the third para, i.e. as a closer to the introductory section.
None of these three options jump out at me (in terms of how it all reads currently), but almost anything would be better than what is there right now. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 10:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was thinking, but I was hoping an option would jump out at someone. Then again, what do you think of: Australian rules football, officially known as Australian football, is a code of football that originated in Melbourne, Australia. Informally, the game is usually called "football" or "footy" in areas where the game is popular, or "Aussie rules" or "AFL" (actually the name of the top-level competition) when contrasted with other codes. The game is played... ? I'm not that happy with it, but as you say, it can't stay as it is. JPD (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you're definitely on the right track. I like the first sentence and the second sentence starts well, but then sort of falls into the same malaise we're trying to get around - perhaps it is the repitition of "or" that detracts. Also, the context of "football" and "footy" is correctly provided, whereas "Aussie rules" appears to sit in limbo (not sure if there is a context we can provide, but it is a term that is definitely used). What about a stop after "popular", and then we have a 3rd sentence (I know, I know...):
The term "Aussie rules" is also used as a nick name, while "AFL" (actually the name of the top-level competition) may occasionally be applied when contrasted with other codes.
Not really sure, but I am confident this is the sort of direction we will end up taking. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Once I start thinking about another sentence, I start to wonder whether any of these names need to be there at all. They definitely shoudln't take the focus away from the description of the game. Is it any better if the "or Aussie rules" becomes "and "Aussie rules"? In my experience, "aussie rules" is the short form of the name used whenever "football" is inappropriate for whatever reason (until "AFL" appeared!) and I would rather see it in the same sentence as "football". We might be able to leave "footy" out - it is an obvious derivative of "football" - unless we feel the need to cater to the small number of Americans/Brits who think that "footy" is such an Australian word that it refers to aussie rules in particular.

Alternative, what do you think of:

In areas where the game is popular, the game usually simply called "football" or "footy". When contrasted with other codes, it is often called "Aussie rules", and sometimes referred to by the name of its top-level competition, the "AFL".

JPD (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've run with it! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 21:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Great! I'm happy with it now, as long as everyone else is. JPD (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The Age of reason

There have been two articles that have appeared in the sports section of The Age newspaper over the last two days that are of great interest to us. In yesterday's edition, I read that Australia Post is about to release a series of stamps to celebrate the Socceroos' attempt to embark on the impossible dream (not meaning to be disrespectful, simply an honest assessment). This new series of stamps is entitled "Soccer in Australia". When the General Manager of Australia Post was asked why use the term "soccer", he simply said that it was Australia Post's view that that is the name used by the majority of Australians, and that the word football is saved for the more dominant code of a particular area, i.e. aussie rules or league.

In today's edition, there was a great article about the proposal to heritage list the Melbourne Football Club, the oldest football club in Australia (in any code) and the third oldest in the world (in any code). It was formed in 1858, the year in which we have the first recorded game of aussie rules, the game being codified in the following year, making the game older than Association Football. Interestingly, it was once thought that the Geelong Football Club was the second oldest club in Australia (formed in July 1859), but there is now new evidence indicating that the Castlemaine Football Club was in fact formed in June 1859. That makes it the 5th oldest club in the world, and Geelong the 6th oldest club in the world. I thought to myself as I read this: How appropriate that a club evocatively called "Castlemaine" (part of a gold mining region in central Victoria) should have such an honour. It is possible that the Football article may need to be reviewed, but I mention it here just in case: 1. I run into difficulties (as I undoubtedly will), and 2. Someone out there has access to a better (or simply another) reference than this Age article. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Photos

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

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

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

I left you a note at your talk page. Basically, if you didn't take the picture yourself, or don't have something saying that the image has been released into the public domain or under the GFDL or something similar, we probably aren't allowed to use it, unfortunately. We can't just go taking pictures from other websites. JPD (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Americans like myself have no clue what a Australian football field looks like. From the description, it is unique. Can someone whip up an svg or png? 70.177.71.206 22:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
There is one in there already. It is just a cricket field with some extra posts and markings. --Rulesfan 02:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Does this article really need this infobox? In my opinion, the infobox is not particularly attractive, and is slightly bizarre in the way the relatively unimportant "international" links placed before Australian club competitions. Most other sports do not have these infoboxes - there is no need to copy rugby league mindlessly. JPD (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

AFL Quiz

Test your footy knowledge at the Wikipedia:WikiProject AFL/Quiz -- I@ntalk 14:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

New Zealand

According to this article New Zealand doesn't play aussie rules. And yet I find this Australian rules football in New Zealand. Should this article be deleted? Wallie 08:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

They definitely do play (not in huge numbers) but they won the international cup a couple of years ago. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 10:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The article definitely doesn't say that Aussie rules isn't played in New Zealand - it just doesn't include it in the silly infobox at the top. This would be fixed if we removed the infobox. (See my comments above.) JPD (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Football

I think that rather then mentioing the Australian Rules everywhere, or Australian football we should just stick with football. We have introduced what code we are talking about in the opening paragraph, and there is no need to make sentences longer.--Krabby me 11:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

To some extent, I agree. However, in the section discussing the origin of the game, it is being compared with other types of football, so it is necessary to spell it out. JPD (talk) 11:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

New Photos

I just added a new photo. I removed the old on of Lynch altogether and moved that other one to its old position. I put my new one in the first position. I thought it was a better picture, but if its not then just move it. I dont have much time, but i also have two other photos

Mahoneyresize.JPG and chadkickresize.JPG

feel free to add them.

Featured Article

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

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

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)

History of Australian football

It seems we need to make a new page on footballs history. Should we name it History of Australian Football, or Histroy of Australian Rules football...or something else. It should be a quick cut and paste, with a few edits to turn it into an article. --Krabby me 11:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the old section, and cut it down a bit. It could probably do with some more culling, and definitely some more references! JPD (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Gameday traditions confusion

I just passed this article for Version 0.5, but could someone knowledgable please fix the following paragraph from "Gameday traditions"? I couldn't even understand what some of it means, or I would edit it myself.

Players wear sleeveless guernseys, similar to basketball jumpers. Although players wore sleeveless lace-up tops since the turn of the century, this became standard in 1960 season and lace-ups were no longer used. A few players choose to wear a long sleeved variation. Players wore pants until the 1920s. Short shorts were a notable trend in the 1980s. Padding is rare, but some ruckmen wear shin pads and thigh pads and players with head injuries sometimes wear soft helmets. Long socks, or football socks, are compulsory and must be worn by all players. Mouthguards are essential and worn by most players.
  • Lacetops were used since(from) the turn of the century, and became standard in (the) 1960 season, when lace-ups were no longer used? I'm confused!
  • Players wore pants until the 1920s - does this mean long pants? Did they begin to wear dresses or skirts after that, or just run around in their underwear as is implied? "Short shorts" sounds almost like a typo. Could this be rewritten to be something like this: Players originally wore long pants, but after the 1920s shorts became standard. During the 1980s there was a trend towards making the shorts even shorter.
  • If football socks are compulsory, why wouldn't they be worn by all players?
  • If mouthguards are essential, why don't some players wear them?

Hope this helps improve an otherwise nice article! Cheers, Walkerma 04:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You're confused? We're all confused!! I'll have a quick look. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 05:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I have reworded this section a bit to address some of your confusion. Cheers. --Rulesfan 23:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Re this bit: sleeveless lace-up tops which gradually disappeared between the 1960s and 1980s - I reckon the lace ups disappeared before 1980 (in the VFL) - I started watching games regularly from 1973 and can't recall ever seeing one (although you would occasionally see them in the footy cards of the early 1970s) - I wonder if anyone is able to confirm definitively what my recollection is. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 05:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually if I remember correctly, Richmond Football Club were the last to VFL/AFL club have lace-up tops and they wore them up until about 1982 many years longer than any other club, probably considered some sort of club tradition. I have photos of the 1982 Grand Final between Richmond and Carlton in which the entire side wore lace-up tops. It is possible that other clubs in other leagues (like the VFA/SANFL/WAFL/QAFL/NTFL/TFL) continued to wear lace-ups as long as this also. --Rulesfan 23:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Spelling mistake

In the caption under first picture, 'tries' rather tryes.

this page has been vandalized

how does one lock down the page?

Quarter lengths

I went to this page to find information about the length of quarters in an AFL match, but as far as I can tell it doesn't exist. Could someone update it with this information in the rules section, please? LeighStillard 10:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added a couple of sentences. JPD (talk) 11:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Images & Commons

Could someone explain or assist in how to set up a Commons page to collect some free Aussie Rules related imagery ? --Rulesfan 03:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Archive this discussion page & Peer Review ?

All the issues raised here seem to have been addressed long ago.

I propose we nominate this page for peer review and see where the article rating is currently at to see if it can be featured. --Rulesfan 04:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Injuries ?

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

oldest codified football game still being played

This statement should be correct.

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

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

Rugby football (as it was known until the split with rugby league in the 1890s) was codified at Rugby School in 1845. There is a clear connection between Rugby School and present day rugby union. The RFU is neither here nor there -- the Melbourne FC rules weren't instantaneously adopted by every club in Victoria in 1859 and — if the matter were decided by leagues/associations/federations (like the RFU) — the VFA wasn't formed until 1877. Grant65 | Talk 04:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The code of rugby union is named after the Rugby Football Union, which first wrote the rules of the game. It is as different to rugby school football as soccer is to the Eton rules. Just because there is a connection does not follow that it is the same game. Otherwise Aussie Rules might be "Australian Rugby Marn Grook Gaelic Football League", first codified by the rugby school in 1845. --Rulesfan 23:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Replace photos

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

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

Relationship to Gaelic football

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

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

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)

Perhaps the main bone of contention is the wording of the final sentence: "These elements have been attributed to the influence of..." - I probably would be comfortable if this was qualified by mentioning the name of the observer - rather than making it sound as if it has been widely attributed by many observers - which is clearly incorrect. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
yes, thanks, that's the first think I attacked. I still don't think any form of blatant speculation should belong in a wikipedia article. Fair dinkum, some people have such a cultural cringe, even in academic circles, that they'll believe any cockamimi theory that is put forward, like the world is flat.--Rulesfan 04:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)