Jump to content

Talk:Australian rules football/Archive 4

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

Quarter time

It says in the article that a normal quarter is 20 minutes, but as far as I know, the quarters in the AFL are 30 minutes, which I guess are the most common games. --Utdiscant (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The 20 minutes refers to playing time. There are many occasions where the clock is stopped, leading to longer quarters. Hack (talk) 02:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Suspension types in main article

I suggest to add the suspension types, which are mentioned to exist but not explained, to be added to the main article. I don't know about them - I would guess that there is something like a yellow card with a 3-minute-penalty going with it, and a red card, but I don't know nothing about it. I couldn't find the information by reading Laws of Australian rules football either. Eltirion (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! This is very helpful. Because, in fact, this is talking about being suspended for a certain number of matches. Australian rules football has no sending off penalties. So this needs to be explained - the article currently links to Suspension (punishment), which is of no help. StAnselm (talk) 05:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
The top level Australian Football League has no send off rule, but most lower leagues, and I would guess all amateur leagues, would have a send off rule. The AFL relies heavily on video review for suspensions, but generally don't use video review during a game, so prefer to deal with it after the game through two independent bodies called the Match Review Panel and the AFL Tribunal. The-Pope (talk) 06:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both very much for your reply. That is helpful. No "send off" is very uncommon in ballgames afaik, so I would suggest to add a short info that there is no send-off in the AFL, but in minor leagues, and add more detailed information in the Laws of Australian rules football. Cheers mates ;-) Eltirion (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
According to the laws, the "order off" is supposed to apply in all leagues except the top-level AFL competition. This is separate to the yellow card/sin bin system used by a lot of local leagues. Hack (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Cheers, I think we got the information together now, but since I am not Australian and don't want to ruin your site about your beautiful sport with my smattering, could one please add the information to the main article and close this discussion? Thank you, Eltirion (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Shape of the Field

The article declares that the field is elliptical in shape. That might be the ideal, but it's not always a reality. Geographical and other factors often have an impact. Even in the AFL/VFL the previous Hawthorn ground, Glenferrie Oval, was nothing like an ellipse. Many grounds began as cricket grounds. Our Cricket field article says "a large circular or oval-shaped grassy ground". What do the rules for footy say? HiLo48 (talk) 04:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

This Laws of Australian Football 2012 pdf (which I assume is AFL-standard) says "The Playing Surface shall be (i) oval in shape; (ii) between 135 metres and 185 metres in length; and (iii) between 110 metres and 155 metres in width." Most grounds could generally be described as elliptical, although there's obviously variation. The MCG is almost circular, Queen Elizabeth Oval in Bendigo is basically a rounded rectangle. IgnorantArmies 04:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah. that's just it. We can all instantly think of exceptions. And is an oval an ellipse? HiLo48 (talk) 05:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd never really thought of it, but oval is from ovum meaning egg, and hence a true oval isn't symetrical at both ends, but narrower at one end like a chicken egg. So, we'll have to rename all of the ovals to ellipses (I'll be heading down to Subiaco Ellipse next week!) An ellipse is symetrical in along both the short and long axis, and a circle is a special form of ellipse. But as all of that is WP:SYN or WP:OR, if the laws of the game say oval, then we should say oval. The-Pope (talk) 11:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
You mean 'Patersons Stadium'. ;-) 137.147.193.90 (talk) 06:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
And that would match the Cricket field article, which makes a lot of sense. Many footy grounds are cricket grounds too. (What does the C in MCG stand for?) I say go with oval. HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Capitalisation of 'football' in official name

It's standard in Wikipedia not to capitalise 'football' in the name of a code of football, for example see association football, American football, Canadian football, Gaelic football and rugby football. I don't see how Australian football is any different, even though the AFL website may capitalise all words in the name, that is probably their standard, but not Wikipedia standard. BTW I've read number of books on Australian football, with publication dates ranging from the 1950s to the 2000s, and they all predominately use the uncapitalisation of football in the name 'Australian football'. As a side note, these books also predominately use 'Australian football' not 'Australian rules football' when referring to the sport.137.147.193.90 (talk) 06:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I think "Australian rules football" was always more popular in spoken language than in written work, and has diminished in use over that period. It also came in the alternative, shorter forms of "Australian rules" and "Aussie rules". As for capitalisation, looking around will always deliver conflicting results. So, yes, might as well just stick with the Wikipedia standard. HiLo48 (talk) 06:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
A couple of months ago I read a book about Australian football, which was published in – I think – 1965 – definitely the 1960s though, and it predominately used the name 'Australian football' for the sport throughout the book, only listing the name 'Australian rules football' as a variant. I'm just trying to illustrate that the name 'Australian football' is older than some people may think, as some consider the name to be a neologism, which it isn't. 137.147.193.90 (talk) 07:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
As someone who has lived right through the period you're discussing, I'd still insist that it is neologism as far as popular spoken language is concerned. Where I grew up we always just called the game football, and if we had to differentiate, Aussie Rules, and probably never wrote it down. But I can only speak for my part of Victoria. How many footy fans read books about football, let alone write them? HiLo48 (talk) 08:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Where I grew up, in Victoria too, we also just called the sport football or footy and to distinguish from other codes used Aussie rules, but I was only saying that the name 'Australian football' is older than many may think, that is all. It was only a few years ago that I learnt that the official name of the sport is Australian football. I think the name has been mainly used by more knowledgeable footy fans, rather than the lay footy fan. Your comment about footy fans not reading books is a bit disingenuous, unless you were joking? 137.147.193.90 (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
How does one define an official name? HiLo48 (talk) 04:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
[MOS:CAPS] says "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia". Searching Google/Google news suggests that there are three common options: Australian Rules Football, Australian Rules football and Australian rules football. I haven't done an exact count, but if you want to go with majority rules, then I'd say 100% capitalise Australian (no surprise), a bit over two thirds capitalise Rules, and it's probably at least 50% capitalise Football.
afl.com says:
  • "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.com.au/laws consistently uses "Australian Football".
Personally, I can see arguments either way on whether to capitalise Football. However, I see no argument for not capitalising Rules.
Regards, Ben Aveling 23:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

New Zealand?

As a New Zealander, I'd like to note that if AFL/Aussie rules has any current presence here, it is negligible. If it existed in the past, it may have been overwhelmed by the hegemony of New Zealand rugby union and the secondary appeal of Australian rugby league, which we share with Queensland and New South Wales, particularly amongst New Zealand's Maori and Pacific Island communities, especially those in Auckland. Recent European migration has led to a surge in soccer's popularity, and AFL hardly features in this. This is not to say that individual New Zealanders don't find AFL interesting as a game, but it has yet to find any organized team expression or widespread audience on this side of the Tasman. Which is a shame, because I can certainly see why Victorian AFL teams are proud of their state's particular prowess at the sport.

203.114.146.141 (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)User Calibanu

The parts of the article suggesting current play in New Zealand are poorly sourced. The one link that could have done so is dead. I'd agree that the sentence "In Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada, and the United States there are many thousands of players" is unsupported. If you want to remove New Zealand from that list, I certainly wouldn't object. HiLo48 (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
According to this, there are "30,000 registered AFL players in New Zealand". Don't know if that's accurate. More numbers here. - HappyWaldo (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Australian rules football. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:


checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Australian rules football. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Australian rules football. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Australian Rugby

They should call it australian rugby, because it has nothing to do with football! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.245.189.166 (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

On 19 Oct, user Hrt953 added a section to the Australian rules page titled "AFL and LGBTI policy". It includes information on AFLW's recent rejection of a transgender player. The same editor afterwards added an exact copy of the section to the Australian Football League page. I left the latter section alone and removed the one added to the Australian rules page, stating in the edit summary that "if a section on the AFL's LGBT policies belongs anywhere, it's the AFL page". User Arianewiki1 reverted me with an accusation of imposing WP:OWN and failing to gain a consensus. I think it's pretty self-evident that sections strictly related to the AFL belong on the AFL page. In the hopes of reaching a consensus, I'd like to solicit the opinions of other editors. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Your behaviour here is not good, and your history of WP:OWN has now finally caught up with you. Considering you've already said yourself that: "I've watched the page since 2012" [1] confirms this. It is clear from discussions here[2]. As for WP:Consensus, you have now reverted two different Users, and this is not just me. Evidence also shows you've ignored WP:BRD after the first revert, and now appeal after just likely violating 3RR. The current revert by 203.59.50.173 here [3] who looks like a possible sock just to defend your untenable position. Enforcing your own view of what is acceptable or not is not acceptable. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Adding a page to a watchlist does not equate to ownership. And the IP is someone else. Why would I continue reverting after starting this discussion? In future, if you want to complain and throw baseless accusations around, do it here. - HappyWaldo (talk) 08:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Australian rules football. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Australian rules football. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Added cite template

There are several cities in this article that possibly contains inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text. The example added of: Prentis, Malcolm David. The Scots in Australia. UNSW Press, 2008. ISBN 9781921410215, p. 261.[4] and [] are dubious at best and is sadly unverifiable by other readers. Statement by HappyWaldo [5] saying: "remove template until "many of the dubious cites" are actually listed, given editor's history of calling cites dubious when they are in fact perfectly reliable" is not factual. Furthermore, there are many contradictions between related article on the sport. I.e. Australian rules football in Scotland does not imply Prentis, Malcolm David. The Scots in Australia at all nor even imply this current version (seemingly contradicts it) and is not cited in the alternative page.

There are also several of the other sources quoted in the article that have similar issues. I.e.

  1. Heathcote, Christopher (August 2009). "Bush Football: The Kunoth Family", Art Monthly (Issue 222).
  2. Hess, Rob (2000). "'Ladies are Specially Invited': Women in the Culture of Australian Rules Football". In # Mangan, J. A.; Nauright, John. Sport in Australasian Society: Past and Present. Psychology Press. pp. 111–141.
  3. Browne, Ashley (2008). "For Women, Too". In Weston, James. The Australian Game of Football: Since 1858. Geoff Slattery Publishing. pp. 253–259. ISBN 978-0-9803466-6-4.
  4. Referenced in Hutchinson, Garrie (1983). The Great Australian Book of Football Stories. Melbourne: Currey O'Neil.
  5. Collins, Tony (2011). "Chapter 1: National Myths, Imperial Pasts and the Origins of Australian Rules Football". In Wagg, Stephen. Myths and Milestones in the History of Sport. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 14.
  6. First Australian Rules Game, Monument Australia. Retrieved 18 June 2013.
  7. Comment (Ref 3) "In some special situations if the score is tied, such as grand finals or other knockout tournaments, either extra time or a rematch is required the following week to determine the winner."
  8. Link to the rules (on pg.45) with the text says: "A distinctive feature of the game is the mark, where players anywhere on the field who catch a ball from a kick (with specific conditions) are awarded possession.[4]" but this talks about "control of the ball" not only catching it. Contradicting this textt defines the mark as "The position on the Playing Surface where the opposing Player stands is known as “the mark”." (pg.58.)

There are many others like these:

Clearly this article likely needs an overall independent review of verifiable / accessible / better citations to make it more relevant. Page protection might be the only way to improve this.

Note advisement: The response made here is in light of this veiled threat against me here[6] "Remember, if you don't start to act in good faith then you will be banned for a long time", which I have removed as a likely WP:PA. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

So far you have listed a bunch of cites without actually explaining how or why any of them misrepresent the sources. All of the sources you listed are 100% WP:RELIABLE and the cites accurately represent the content within those sources. You have most likely selected these examples at random in an attempt to appear like you have a leg to stand on. Your point about the Australian rules football in Scotland page contradicting the claim in this page's "Global reach" section is also absurd. But please, attempt to explain how even one of these cites misrepresents the source. Also you are very confused about the mark. There's "taking a mark" (catch from a kick) and "being on the mark" (player standing where an opponent took a mark). No one has to be an expert in Australian rules to edit this page, but this example reveals how little you know about the sport. (Redacted)You are here because of a WP:GRUDGE, not to improve the page. - HappyWaldo (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Saying "All of the sources you listed are 100% WP:RELIABLE..." Says whom? How do we verify the text then?
Example: Hess, Rob (2000) reference spans between pg.111-141. to deduce this statement "It was the case in the 19th-century, as it is in modern times, that women made up approximately half of crowds at Australian football matches—a far greater proportion than soccer and the two rugby codes." There is seemingly no assertion here of this as fact, and seems so ambiguous and irrelevant (trivial). i.e. Equally, half of the crowds are men. Worst, what has this to do with Women's Australian football? If you argue it has something to do with the next sentence, then the presentation of this becomes personal research as it draws a conclusion. Yet you still claim it is also 100% reliable?
What must be done in edits is that not only references must be verifiable they must easily shown to be verifiable too. Like, showing a visible acceptable listing on the web showing the statement made of that text. In Hess case, there is apparently 30-pages to plough through to just to deduce this single statement, which on the face of it seems a preposterous statement. For "...cites accurately represent the content within those sources." defies basic commonsense.
Lastly, also open denigrating editors to 'win' arguments is unacceptable behaviour. Repeating falsehoods in an attempt to make statement seemingly true is pretty desperate. For example, you've said: "He is not interested in backing up his claim, just being a disruptive troll."[7], yet when I did create this thread, now you state above "You are here because of a WP:GRUDGE, not to improve the page." Another is saying: "No one has to be an expert in Australian rules to edit this page, but this example reveals how little you know about the sport." Does this imply you are an expert then, or you are a better editor than me? (Equality appears to say otherwise.)
Either way, whatever I do seems to be plainly wrong, and is it any wonder I'm questioning the motives and tactics here, as nothing seems to please. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Citing whole individually written chapters is fine per WP:CITEHOW. As has been explained, citing books without online access is fine as long as said books are available in libraries, archives the general public can access (all cited books and journals meet this criteria). You can stop burning fuel on this failed point. "Worst, what has this to do with Women's Australian football?" What has women's historical interest in football have to do with women's football? A lot. Women's comparatively high historical interest in Australian rules compared to other codes has been reported on extensively and verified in terms of attendance and club membership. If you were actually a fan of the sport, you would know this already. "'No one has to be an expert in Australian rules to edit this page, but this example reveals how little you know about the sport.' Does this imply you are an expert then, or you are a better editor than me?" It is exactly what it says and means. You are arguing with figments of your own imagination. - HappyWaldo (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Nonsense, as this is merely WP:Synthesis and is clearly overstated/exaggerated. After this edit[8], you cannot just manipulate text to just suit a WP:POV. The title says 'Women's Australian football' but the number of women watching the game has little to do with women playing the game. I was editing this section prior to your edit above, and a removed the overstated text and ambiguous reference, and just simplified it.
@Swarm:@HappyWaldo: Comment: As for the continued WP:PA this stops right now or an WP:ANI will surely follow. Continue and repeatably saying things like "how little you know about the sport" to others like me just to intimidate editing is unacceptable behaviour. Yours in not the only point of view. Also saying emotive crap like "You can stop burning fuel on this failed point.", "You are arguing with figments of your own imagination." is also unacceptable. It also does not win the argument and just makes you out as a bully. From now on I will be striking out every statement like this without fail. Again target the subject not the person. You now have been warned to stop this behaviour. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I make constructive edits and add new reliable sources. You revert all of it, stating I haven't gained a consensus (meaning your consent, since no one else has problems with my additions), and also falsely stating that I'm avoiding discussion. You then delete even more reliably cited content (I thought you were big on gaining consensus first?), and then put your own POV slant on the disordered fragments that are left, using words like "likely" and "maybe" that do not accurately reflect the definitive statements in the reliable sources. You also introduce a grammatical error into the lead. Brilliant work. - HappyWaldo (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Umm... ...stating I haven't gained a consensus (meaning your consent, since no one else has problems with my additions) Sorry. It doesn't quite work that way. You should have discussed the changes to the parts of article in the Talkpage first, especially the drastic changing of the heading and the modify the text to suit. e.g. Synthesis. Had you just bothered to explained it or attempting to discuss it rather just denigrate me because you thought it wrong, then things might be different. I only pointed out Hess as a problem example. (It was not done to force you into modifying it nor just to annoy you.) Really, most editing made here is a compromise - that what consensus simply is. It isn't just all one way.
In my edit, all I did was remove the contention, by reduced the synthesis from 'A+B concludes C' to just 'C' Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement

I'm totally done with arguing here. It is about time you adopt the precepts of Honest, which I also try to do. (admittedly sometimes I fail to do).

As for, the rest... Sorry, WP:CITEHOW is irrelevant here, as it only gives how cites are created. Better is Synthesis of published material & Reliable sources, where it says: "Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic."

As I said: "Hess case, there is apparently 30-pages to plough through to just to deduce this single statement" e.g. pg. 111-141. What page does it actually states: "...in the 19th-century, as it is in modern times, that women made up approximately half of crowds at Australian football matches." ? If it takes 30-pages to say that then it is original research because the conclusion has been synthesized to support the statement. If the first statement is written to support a second sentence, then it is synthesis, which appears to be the case here.

Saying: "As has been explained, citing books without online access is fine as long as said books are available in libraries, archives the general public can access (all cited books and journals meet this criteria)." is not quite true. The source has to be verifiable to other users. Many of the cites in this article are not easily verifiable (who has time to go to find that book in a library?), and although it is assumed good faith applies to the editor who states it in an article, it is easy to misuse them. The articles you are supporting statements are likely being used as primary sources, which is not allowed.

To make the point of all the problems with this article, I will be (mainly) adding the following Inline templates with a 'reason=';

  1. Cite quote e.g. [This quote needs a citation], for "actual quotations" which need citations to make them proper
  2. Request quotation e.g. [need quotation to verify], being the request a direct quote from an inaccessible source, for verification purposes.
  3. Failed verification e.g. [failed verification], source was checked, and did not contain the cited material
  4. Page needed e.g. [page needed], request a page number for an existing citation
  5. Unreliable source? e.g. [unreliable source?], flag a source as possibly being unreliable and/or unverifiable

Note: 'Request quotation' and 'Cite quote' shows the current issues with used cites in this article is a historical problem. Please before removing them, get adequate consensus. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Clean slate

@Arianewiki1:, if we are going to come to any kind of consensus, we need to go through the issues that you have one at a time. Once we have resolved something, we will move onto the next one, until everything is cleared up and we can hopefully return to editing the Australian rules page.

Let's go through the disputed material carefully, piece by piece.

We will begin by looking at the Australian rules football match that occurred in London in 1888. At this point in our back-and-forth, I'm sure you agree that this match occurred (that IP who deleted the original sentence is therefore incorrect in his edit summary claim that Australian rules was never played in the UK back then). The amount of archival evidence available for the match is overwhelming, those newspaper articles I found for you being but two examples. The sentence that you reverted in question reads:

"Australian rules football was played outside Australasia as early as 1888 when Australians studying at English and Scottish universities formed teams and competed in London."

The secondary source I found and cited, Scots in Australia (written by historian Malcolm David Prentis, published by the University of New South Wales. Meets WP:RELIABLE), reads:

"... there was a match in London in 1888 between teams from Edinburgh and London Universities. Many of the players were second or third generation Scottish-Australians."

Please explain the issue that you have with this. - HappyWaldo (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Collaborative discussion and restructure of the history section

@HappyWaldo:

This section is to discuss specific changes and or problems people have with the history section.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 07:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@HappyWaldo: My major gripe is that the chronological flow is all over the place in the history section. If the first football club in Melbourne was formed in 1859, then the same section should include the happenings of the following year, which includes the formation of the Adelaide Football Club (SAFA).

The spread to other colonies was very staggered and having it all represented in one section when South Australia adopted the code TWO DECADES earlier than Western Australia is inaccurate. South Australians played a pivotal role in the adoption of Australian rules in Western Australia.

Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 08:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@HappyWaldo: I also have a problem with the origins section basically being repeated in the "First rules" section.

As I'm sure you know, Australian rules did not arrive complete and readymade to South Australia in 1860. Even in Melbourne during these early years, clubs frequently disagreed over rules, and some devised their own rules. The Adelaide Football Club (SAFA) article you link to above states that the club had its own rules from inception (it does not say when the club adopted Melbourne/Victorian rules). The purpose of the "Early competition in Victoria" section is to describe how the Melbourne FC's rules became the standard, how organised competitions helped in this process, and how the game evolved over this period. It was not until later decades, when intercolonial matches began, that the other colonies began to impact the game's evolution in a noticeable way. I agree there probably is room for more info on the game's development in South Australia and other colonies, and how these colonies impacted the game's overall development, but I don't think you've gone about it the right way. I think some of your additions overstep into WP:TMI and WP:UNDUE. For example, you broke a coherent paragraph in half with this:
"As early as 1860 Australian rules football began to be played in South Australia with the Adelaide Football Club (1860) forming to facilitate games of football in the city. It was the first in South Australia, and initially only played matches internally: North (of the River Torrens) v. South. J. B. Spence led one side and John Acraman the other. The first such match was played on the North Parklands on Saturday 28 April 1860. The second club in Adelaide, the Modbury Football Club, was formed in 1862 and the first interclub match outside of Victoria was played that year between Modbury and Adelaide. By 1964 Tasmania had began playing Australian rules football."
These are very obscure clubs and events in the broader history of the game. Going by all the major histories of the game I've come across, the proportion of coverage here is simply out of whack. In the current version of the article, the 1859 formation of the Geelong Football Club, now a very famous institution, is rightly covered in a few words. You have devoted a whole paragraph to these liminal Adelaide clubs that very few people know about. - HappyWaldo (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Also I struggle to see how the "First rules" section repeats anything in the "Origins" section. - HappyWaldo (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Calling the Adelaide Football Club (SAFA) obscure in the history of the foundation of Australian rules football is a pretty misguided and unread opinion. It basically was the key club in regards to the development of the code in the state for the first 15 years.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 09:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, the merit of historical institutions and people shouldn't be judged on modern layman understandings. That is textbook presentism.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 10:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the Adelaide club is significant in SA's history. But it had virtually no impact on how the sport itself evolved. That is what the history section is for. Simply because a club happened to be the first somewhere does not mean it's worth mentioning. Should we devote similar amounts of space to the first clubs in TAS? QLD? NT? What about NZ? Here's two quotes to consider, taken from sources used in the article: "Football did not flourish in Adelaide, it existed. How could it when clubs could not agree on the rules?" (Blainey, A Game of Our Own, p. 137). "When Geelong toured [SA] in 1879, ... it left a lasting impression. For decades it was remembered as the team that showed South Australian clubs 'how the game should be played.'" (Coventry, Time and Space: The Tactics That Shaped Australian Rules, p. 54. Coventry is South Australian BTW). - HappyWaldo (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@HappyWaldo: Without South Australia adopting the game in 1860 I can make a very, very strong case that the code would never have gained a foothold beyond Victoria and arguably would've died out as we would've adopted Rugby, or "Sydney rules".Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
But SA didn't declare allegiance to the nascent Melbourne code as early as 1860, as has been pointed out. If anything, it was maybe one set of rules used among many, hence why the football scene there was not nearly as organised and active as Vic's. SA's far smaller population and geographical isolation contributed to this. I'm interested to hear your case, and agree that more info can be added on SA's contribution to the game's spread, but don't think the sections need restructuring or renaming to accommodate this. - HappyWaldo (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@HappyWaldo: is arguing that the game became popularly referred to as "The peoples game" in the 1880's. There is little evidence for this, especially in newspapers of the time. He has asked me to find evidence to the contrary in scholarly literature which is quite frankly absurd. Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

You are fixated on the specific term, but it's the reputation it denotes that's important here. Few sports attact titles such as "the people's game". Aussie rules became the first football code globally to develop mass spectator appeal. So it was called a variety of names, "the people's game" being a nice succinct one, which is probably why Mark Pennings, the cited historian, picked it out of the bunch when commenting on the record breaking crowds. The sport's early appeal across gender and class is also well documented.- HappyWaldo (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
It is possible to refer to something as the oldest without it still existing. Then it would be "oldest surviving". Please be concise in your language. - HappyWaldo (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead image survey

A ruckman leaps above his opponent to win the hit-out during a ball-up.
Ruckmen contesting a ball-up

The left image has for a while now served as the lead image for this article. User Slovebz recently replaced it with the right image, saying in one of his edit summaries that "two guys fighting over one ball is better". Anyone else have a preference here? I'd say the left image is far more captivating. It stopped me in my tracks when I first saw it. I'd argue it approaches something like the images of Jezza's mark on purely aesthetic grounds. The other shot, while depicting a more even contest, doesn't really stand out. Per WP:INTRO, "Consideration should be given to creating interest in the article". The left image is simply more interesting, and will compel more readers to scroll further. It has another advantage over the right image in that it shows AFL level footballers. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Left please. It illustrates an almost unique aspect of the game. HiLo48 (talk) 10:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Prefer left for a few reasons: it puts more emphasis on the contest because of the lighter background and has fewer distracting elements. I also like how it shows the ruckmen's faces. TeraTIX 02:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Why not add both. Each show aspects o the game. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
They're a bit too similar for my liking. TeraTIX 11:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Bounce 15m

When did the “bounce” become 15m? Not cited at Running bounce either.

MBG02 (talk) 03:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

And why? Players running faster? Bigger fields? Too hard to evaluate distance?
MBG02 (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Good questions. Running bounce says it began as "every five of six yards". I have this vague, potentially faulty memory that when I was a kid (1950s & 60s) the distance involved was 10 yards. As for why it became 15m, dunno. If anything, grounds have shrunk on average. We certainly have more players who can run fast. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps some useful information for you to consider: (1) 10 yards: 1944, Victoria, book of rules, page 12, item 17, clause (i), [9]; (2) 10 yards: 1912, Victoria, [10]; (3) 10 yards, 1897, Victoria, [11]; (4) 7 yards, 1884, Western Australia, [12]; and (5) 5 yards, 18??, Tasmania, [13]. I’m sure that there’s more specific information somewhere. Perhaps the best place to look for more details on this defining aspect of Aussie Rules might be (a) in the official rule books, and (b) in the ANFC's blanket declarations? Lindsay658 (talk) 06:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

That's some great information there Lindsay658. (And makes me feel reassured that my memory isn't as bad as I was worried it was.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Also, Rule 17 (1931), [14]; and, as well, 1915 difference between VFL and VFA, [15]. Further, recently I edited an article on a player, whose name I can't recall (who, I think, might have played for either Carlton of Fitzroy) who caused a great controversy when, on a very muddy day, he progressed a very long way up the ground touching the ball on the ground every ten yards; I seem to recall that the player knew the rules far better than the match officials. Lindsay658 (talk) 09:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
A further piece of "trivia": on 3 July 1897, Fitzroy rover, Bill McSpeerin, playing against St Kilda, ran nearly the entire length of the Brunswick Street Oval, bouncing the ball as he progressed, to kick a goal.[16]. Lindsay658 (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I have just recalled the name of the player involved with touching the ball on the ground; it was Carlton's George Bruce: "George Bruce, of Carlton, was the first player to introduce the tricky dodge of bending down, touching the ball on the ground, and then shooting past the man playing against him. Many have imitated him, but none has equalled him in this move" ([17]). Although I can't find the reference to the first occasion upon which he used it, I'm certain that, as he had already played a lot of senior football n Adelaide, before coming to play for Carlton in 1903, he must have learned to do it while still n South Australia. Further, the report on Carlton's 1908 Second Semi-final match, in which Bruce's team-mate on the other wing, "Kennedy, with a neat run (in the course of which he, instead of bouncing the ball, held it and touched the ground with it at intervals) … snapped a behind" ([18]), indicates that others were soon copying Bruce.Lindsay658 (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Nifty. Google "research" tells me 1981 for the change to 15m. And the most likely reason why is because it was too hard to judge 10m; though “speeding up the game” was mentioned.
I’m (also) guessing it was introduced (in the 1860s) to distinguish AFL (or Aussie Rules!) from Rugby?
MBG02 (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australian_rules_football/Archive_4&oldid=1096844877"