A few questions about this great game....

[cos789]

Melbourne FC's rules were about reducing the violence found in Rugby School football and other English public schools, such as kicking of shins and tripping opponents.

So thus it was different to both English games.

 

[TheSunGod]

I am no expert in the area, but comments like that are generalisations and incorrect. Australian football was once a significant presence in New South Wales and Queensland, up until the late 19th and early 20th century. At this point, certain people with influence (people who controlled what sports were played in schools, what sports were played on fields etc.) decided that the 'colonial game' was not for them and that they would play the game/s from the received from the British empire.

Other historians on BigFooty can provide a far better insight here. Mero RogersResults cos789

Agree here. Back in the seventies, Aussie Rules had a strong competition in Brisbane and Rugby league wasn't that much more popular. It was The first State of Origin match in the early 80s that changed everything. Queensland used to get flogged most of the time until that game. It changed everything. Finally Queenslanders could beat the cockroaches at something and Queenslanders being the great bandwagoners they are, jumped on board. AFL has never stood a chance since that first SOO. Most people up here have never played league and have no club affiliation but they will all watch the SOO, the idea they stole from Aussie Rules. Works to a tee for RL as there are only two states. Concept doesn't work as well for the AFL where you have three strong footy states and club interests rule (e.g. Fear of players getting injured, players not released to play).

 

[cos789]

Agree here. Back in the seventies, Aussie Rules had a strong competition in Brisbane and Rugby league wasn't that much more popular.

The advent of television was clearly IMO what polarised sport almost everywhere in the world. The dominant sports eventually received saturation coverage and those without critical mass withered from non-exposure.

 

[Billy ray]

Not such a silly question. Football used to have the time expired on a (yellow usually)clock with the the "time on" potion coloured in red. So teams had a very good idea to the amount of time left to play. In close games the leading team would constantly kick the ball out-of-bounds to cause throw-ins to take place. This lead to the introduction of the out-of-bounds-on-the-full law. This lead teams to kick along the boundary and then knock the ball over the boundary line. Somewhere in there they decided to remove the clock visible to the players. Now we have "possession play" to wind down the clock and runners running onto the ground with different methods to signal time remaining.

So, no need to bring it back.

So why have runners go on the ground with signals to tell how much time remaining? Just put up a countdown clock so players AND spectators at the ground know also, and runners can do more important things.... And then spectators at ground, viewers at home are all equal...

 

[SpareTowel]

A huge all in brawl.

So we invented a game that was the opposite to a huge all-in brawl.

Talking to you is exhausting. You clearly have an anti-Rugby bias. I'm not a fan of the rugby codes but that doesn't mean I ignore or distort the facts. You want Aus Football to be this emphatically new and distinct game from the start but the truth is it took time to evolve. "A huge all in brawl" It looks that way, doesn't it?

Oh wait, that's a game of Aus Football, Melbourne vs Carlton...

 

[Billy ray]

Further to my last post, on any given Friday night, there are say 1 million people watching on tv, plus, 50000 at the ground, plus 60-70 club officials(players, runners, coaching staff). Of these, the million people at home know the clock time remaining, say half the club officials know for sure, and the other half have some idea due to runners and signals, and then, of the 50000 at the ground, maybe 2000 or so, folks in corporate boxes or near tv screens etc know, but 48000 people don't.
Don't you find this odd that it is all so inconsistent?

 

[cos789]

Talking to you is exhausting. You clearly have an anti-Rugby bias.

Wrong again. I played RU

I'm not a fan of the rugby codes but that doesn't mean I ignore or distort the facts.

You're taking people's opinions over facts and ignore other people's opinion.

You want Aus Football to be this emphatically new and distinct game from the start

It was. We know that because they said so. Simple as .

it took time to evolve.

Of course it did.
But you say the games were the same simply because they looked superficially the same. You even quote the Melborne FC wanting to be different to other codes.

The facts are the rules of games are completely different to each. Not similar in any way.
You cannot refute this.

 

[cos789]

Further to my last post, on any given Friday night, there are say 1 million people watching on tv, plus, 50000 at the ground, plus 60-70 club officials(players, runners, coaching staff). Of these, the million people at home know the clock time remaining, say half the club officials know for sure, and the other half have some idea due to runners and signals, and then, of the 50000 at the ground, maybe 2000 or so, folks in corporate boxes or near tv screens etc know, but 48000 people don't.
Don't you find this odd that it is all so inconsistent?

Severe global climate change is everywhere. We ignore that.
Lack of a countdown clock doesn't seem that odd.

 

[SpareTowel]

Wrong again. I played RU



You're taking people's opinions over facts and ignore other people's opinion.



It was. We know that because they said so. Simple as .



Of course it did.
But you say the games were the same simply because they looked superficially the same. You even quote the Melborne FC wanting to be different to other codes.

The facts are the rules of games are completely different to each. Not similar in any way.
You cannot refute this.

I never said Aus Football was the same as Rugby School football, just that it's a direct descendant, and in the early years very similar, but with less violence. To quote Mark Pennings again:

"The new code was as much a reaction against the school games as influenced by them. Public school football allowed for dangerous and potentially injurious tactics like hacking (kicking shins). Thomson wrote that the committee, 'unanimously agreed that regulations which suited school boys well enough would not be patently tolerated by grown men'". These regulations were the aforementioned kicking of shins and tripping of opponents. "You're taking people's opinions over facts and ignore other people's opinion" I'm just going by what's more likely, based on the facts.

 

[Billy ray]

Severe global climate change is everywhere. We ignore that.
Lack of a countdown clock doesn't seem that odd.

We take wa gst money. We ignore that. Inconsistent mrp decisions doesn't seem that odd either.

Do you watch all games on tv and its not an issue for you?

 

[cos789]

We take wa gst money. We ignore that. Inconsistent mrp decisions doesn't seem that odd either.

Do you watch all games on tv and its not an issue for you?

Definitely not an issue with me. But I can see your point.
I have issues that concern nobody else but me.
The FF stands 5m from the kick-out box when the FB kicks in.
Why not mark that spot so umpires don't have to waste time pointing out where they think 5m is from the box. Or why not make the box 15m and let the FF stand on the line.

 

[cos789]

it's a direct descendant,

Clearly it's not.
Clearly when the founders state they do not want other codes.
Clearly when the founders state they want a new code.

You can debate "influence" but "descendant" is clearly wrong.

 

[SpareTowel]

Clearly it's not.
Clearly when the founders state they do not want other codes.
Clearly when the founders state they want a new code.

You can debate "influence" but "descendant" is clearly wrong.

The experimental matches and school matches of 1858 were played under a modified version of the Rugby School rules. The Herald reported in late August:

"The game of football promises, as it deserves to be, one of the popular amusements of the ingenuous youth of Victoria. Hitherto, a modification of the Rugby rules has been adopted, which, in the opinion of some, might be altered for the better. But as the cricketing season is so close at hand, it is, perhaps hardly worthwhile to discuss the matter seriously.”

These experimental matches, and the rules of English public schools, most prominently Rugby, informed the Melbourne FC rules of 1859, which were most certainly "altered for the better" over the ensuing years.

 

[cos789]

The experimental matches .....

Why are you so persistant in trying to show that the original game of AF that looks nothing like the modern game had some similarly to a game that has nothing in common with that modern game? It's academic BS. You've obviously spent a lot of time trying to find a handful of quotes that may or may not be meaningful.

The simple fact is that the rules do not support your theory and the founders stated they wanted a new game different from other games. They specifically said it wasn't to be rugby. Why do you beat your head against cold hard facts. Why don't you accept these quotes from the founders instead people on the periphery. I did one search on your sources and he implied the opposite of what your trying to fabricate.

 

[cos789]

T.S. Marshall said this in 1908 in reference to the origanal rules.

"We decided to draw up a simple code of rules, and as few as possible,so that anyone could quickly understand. We did so, and the result was the rules then drawn up form the basis of the of the present code under which the game is universally played in Victoria and most other parts of Australia. I feel sure the neither the Rugby nor the Association code will ever supplant them."

 

[SpareTowel]

Why are you so persistant in trying to show that the original game of AF that looks nothing like the modern game had some similarly to a game that has nothing in common with that modern game?

Pardon?

It's academic BS.

Lol.

You've obviously spent a lot of time trying to find a handful of quotes that may or may not be meaningful.

Uhuh.

The simple fact is that the rules do not support your theory and the founders stated they wanted a new game different from other games. They specifically said it wasn't to be rugby. Why do you beat your head against cold hard facts. Why don't you accept these quotes from the founders instead people on the periphery.

The founders wanted a game that was less violent than Rugby as it was played in a modified form the previous winter. Reducing violence was the pressing issue that the 1859 rules addressed, and why those rules were regarded as superior and more 'civilised' than Rugby and the other public school games. In 1860 co-founder J.B. Thompson said the new game "combines the merits while excluding the vices" of the Rugby and Eton rules.

I did one search on your sources and he implied the opposite of what your trying to fabricate.

Which was that?

 

[cos789]

In 1860 co-founder J.B. Thompson said the new game "combines the merits while excluding the vices" of the Rugby and Eton rules.

The new game. Read you own quotes.
That contradicts your theory.
Too easy.

 

[SpareTowel]

The new game. Read you own quotes.
That contradicts your theory.
Too easy.

Where did I say that Australian football wasn't a new game? My only point has been that it was closest to Rugby in the beginning, and then evolved into something quite distinct by the 1870s and 80s.

 

[cos789]

Where did I say that Australian football wasn't a new game? My only point has been that it was closest to Rugby in the beginning, and then evolved into something quite distinct by the 1870s and 80s.

So recapping. We agree.
Australian Football was a new game.
Australian Football evolved.
RU evolved so you say.
We know the rules were certainly different facilitating a pathway for this divergence.
What did cambridge rules look like at that time?
Are we premature in dismissing Cambridge rules from the mix?

 

[jatz14]

I am not sure what a Canadian is going to make of this debate

 

[SpareTowel]

So recapping. We agree.
Australian Football was a new game.
Australian Football evolved.
RU evolved so you say.
We know the rules were certainly different facilitating a pathway for this divergence.
What did cambridge rules look like at that time?
Are we premature in dismissing Cambridge rules from the mix?

The Cambridge University rules were really a compromise between the public school games. The Melb FC rulemakers came up with their own compromise a decade later. Hammersley and Thompson were at Cambridge when the Cambridge rules were codified, so they may have brought the concept of compromising to the 1859 rules. They wanted the Melbourne game to be easily understood by men of all football backgrounds. Maybe Tom Wills's influence, and the popularity of Tom Brown's Schooldays, resulted in a game closer to Rugby.

 

[cos789]

I am not sure what a Canadian is going to make of this debate

Canadians are pretty switched on people and can think for themselves.
It doesn't worry them that Canadian Football is close to American Football
or that American Football started with one forward pass in rugby.
There's probably some person saying it was influenced by Lacrosse.
It doesn't worry Australians that we don't know a lot about the foundations
of our football - we just enjoy it.
It's quite ironic that some people are trying to attach the beginnings of Australian Football to a code that tried everything in it's power to stop the spread of AF.
Think about it. If Australian Football had been treated as some sort of derivative, relative,
modification or similar game then English would have accepted the colonial rules and we'd all be playing British Empire Football and there'd be no American or Canadian Football.

 

[gaskin]

Further to my last post, on any given Friday night, there are say 1 million people watching on tv, plus, 50000 at the ground, plus 60-70 club officials(players, runners, coaching staff). Of these, the million people at home know the clock time remaining, say half the club officials know for sure, and the other half have some idea due to runners and signals, and then, of the 50000 at the ground, maybe 2000 or so, folks in corporate boxes or near tv screens etc know, but 48000 people don't.
Don't you find this odd that it is all so inconsistent?

Nope. It adds to the atmosphere at the ground in a tight contest. You can feel the tension and nerves build around the ground when the clock gets to say about the 25 minute mark of the last quarter and you know there can be anywhere between 2-5 minutes (in general) but you can't be sure. Most people that go to the games can usually tell how long a quarter is going to go for anyway so it doesn't matter a great deal.

 

[SpareTowel]

It's quite ironic that some people are trying to attach the beginnings of Australian Football to a code that tried everything in it's power to stop the spread of AF.

The code warring going on in your head didn't arise until Rugby (if that's what you're referring to) was in fact a code. Like all football in the 1850s it was still in flux and without a standardised game for the colonists to copy, they compromised between the public school games.

 

[cos789]

Nope. It adds to the atmosphere at the ground in a tight contest. You can feel the tension and nerves build around the ground when the clock gets to say about the 25 minute mark of the last quarter and you know there can be anywhere between 2-5 minutes (in general) but you can't be sure. Most people that go to the games can usually tell how long a quarter is going to go for anyway so it doesn't matter a great deal.

Somtimes in a close contest people will be heard to yell "blow the siren". It all adds to the atmosphere IMO.