A few questions about this great game....

[SpareTowel]

There was no tackling and no offside and an emphasis on passing - all features of Cambridge University rules.
And it was lacking all the finery of Rugby University rules - scrums, lineouts etc. I don't see how you can see the resemblance.

Definitely not rugby like at all.

As far as I know, all of the Melbourne rules can be explained by looking at Rugby School football and the games at Eton and Harrow. The founders themselves said that these games were the starting point. The Melbourne game was a really simplified, easy-to-understand version, and only started to really diverge in the 1870s.

 

[cos789]

As far as I know, all of the Melbourne rules can be explained by looking at .

the original rules. Where's the similarity ?
The difference is great. No throwing, no tackling, no offside, no scrums, no lineouts.
The innovation is great. A spaceous 200 yard field designed for kick passing and "marking".
A game that obviously was meant to be free flowing as there is only mention of legal disposal by kicking.


1 The distance between the goal post shall be decided upon by the captains of the sides playing.
2 The captains on each side shall toss for choice of goal. The side losing the toss has the kick-off from the centre-point between the goals.
3 A goal must be kicked fairly between the posts without touching either of them or a portion of the person of any player of either side.
4 The game shall be played within the space of not more than 200 yards wide, the same to be measured equally upon each side of the line drawn through the centre of the two goals and two posts to be called the kick-off points shall be erected at a distance of 20 yards on each side of the goal posts at both ends and in a straight line with them.
5 In case the ball is kicked behind the goals, anyone of the side behind whose goal it is kicked, may bring it back 20 yards in front of any portion of the space between the kick-off posts and shall kick it as nearly as possible in the line of the opposite goal.
6 Any player catching the ball directly from the boot may call 'mark'. He then has a free kick. No players from the opposite side being allowed to come into the spot marked.
7 Tripping and pushing are both allowed but no hacking when any player is in rapid motion or in possession of the ball except for the case provided by rule 6.
8 The ball may be taken in hand only when caught from the boot or on the hop. In no case shall it be lifted from the ground.
9 When the ball goes out of bounds (the same being indicated by a row of posts) it shall be brought back to the point where it crossed the boundary line and thrown in right angels with that line.
10 The ball while in play may under no circumstances be thrown.

 

[SpareTowel]

the original rules. Where's the similarity ?
The difference is great. No throwing, no tackling, no offside, no scrums, no lineouts.
The innovation is great. A spaceous 200 yard field designed for kick passing and "marking".
A game that obviously was meant to be free flowing as there is only mention of legal disposal by kicking.

I'm pretty sure throwing wasn't allowed at Rugby at the time. And the concept of marking the ball was in use at Rugby and other schools. Just like Aus Football, Rugby has evolved significantly over the same time period.

 

[cos789]

I'm pretty sure throwing wasn't allowed at Rugby at the time.

Then you'd be completely mistaken. Rule IV distinguishes between a knock-on and a "throw-on".
The total opposite of the original and contemporary laws of Australian Football.
There were 37 original rules at Rugby and a lot were concerned with offside. None allowed forward movement except by running.

And the concept of marking the ball was in use at Rugby and other schools.

That is a total misrepresentation. "fair catches" were allowed in Cambridge rules and Rugby rules as defensive measures only.
Players of the Cambridge game were allowed to punch the ball as their was no goalie.
from the outset the "mark" was seen as the preferred method of ball movement in Australian Football.

Looking at the original rules of the three codes it is evident that the ball was meant to be soccered in Cambridge, thrown backwards in Rugby
and punted/kicked in Colonial rules.

 

[underthestars]

It's interesting that you chose the Bulldogs here...

St Kilda, when all is said and done, have had a far worse run over the journey than the Bulldogs.

Same number of Premierships - yet 27 wooden spoons (the Dogs have four). So - once every four years or thereabouts, the Saints finish stone motherless last.

ONE wooden spoon in the 24 years of the AFL.
Countless finals, and 3 GFs, and one replay.

Saints poor performances belong to a different era.

 

[cammo78]

ONE wooden spoon in the 24 years of the AFL.
Countless finals, and 3 GFs, and one replay.

Saints poor performances belong to a different era.

The context of the question was "over history".

 

[Modified Dog]

1. I love the level of support teams get in WA and SA - the Eagles v Bulldogs game at Patersons Stadium was packed. Why is there such great support in WA, SA and VIC but not so much in NSW and QL? What happened way back in Australia's history to cause footy to be so popular in part of the country but not very popular in other parts? Any insight?

Victoria, WA, SA (and Tasmania) are the traditional heartlands of Australian football.

Queensland and NSW are rugby league (and rugby union) dominated states. The AFL has made a foray into these "frontier" states in the hope of growing the game and capturing a new market, much like FIFA has tried to popularise soccer in the Unites States.

2. Why are the Bulldogs consistently a poor team. I have watched some videos about how great teams of the past were but, I never see any sustained success for the Bulldogs. Why have they been constantly near the bottom? Not spending $ on players? Bad management? Poor drafting?

The Bulldogs have a fairly barren trophy cabinet - just the two Grand Final appearances and one premiership in their 89 years in the league - but I wouldn't single them out as the most consistently poor team. For much of their history, they've been a competitive, scrappy, mid-table team.

They've never had the financial resources nor the bountiful recruiting zones that other more successful clubs have enjoyed. As such, they always struggled to attract star players to their club. They've also struggled to prevent their own home-grown stars from being poached by richer rival clubs. The Bulldogs' lack of sustained success has created an ongoing vicious circle of poverty. The majority of young football fans are more inclined to follow the rich, successful clubs who receive more exposure on TV.

Even so, the Bulldogs enjoyed relatively successful periods under coaches Terry Wheeler, Terry Wallace and Rodney Eade. Six Preliminary Finals appearances in the past 22 years (1992, 1997-98, 2008-09-10). In that time, they've been truly terrible in just 4 or 5 seasons. This compares favourably to most clubs. It's probably just perception, more than reality that they've been "consistently poor" over the past two decades.

3. Could Tasmania really support a team? I watched some of the Hawthorn v Brisbane game and saw a lot of empty seats. The reigning Premiers were in town and the place couldn't sell out. Could Launceston support an AFL club?

No, Tasmania can't support an AFL team. Not a strong team anyway. Not according to the people who know. There just isn't a big enough market to make a Tasmanian club competitive with teams from Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Sydney and Brisbane. If there was, the AFL would've already located a new team there.

Hawthorn's attendances in Launceston have been in steadily decline for the past 5 years. The AFL have made it known they wish to relocate North Melbourne there for 7 home games instead of the current arrangement of Hawthorn playing 4 games in Launceston and North playing 2 games in Hobart. The AFL usually get their way by bullying clubs into submission, so I can see this happening, but whether it will be successful is anyone's guess.

The problem with this plan is twofold: most Tasmanians already have their favourite AFL teams and they won't change their allegiances to an existing enemy club even though it's their only chance of watching AFL footy in their hometown. Hawthorn have experienced this difficulty first hand in Launceston.

Secondly, the Tasmanian population is split 50/50 along north-south geographical lines and they can't seem to agree on anything. A start-up Tasmanian team might stand a chance if the entire population got behind them fully, but how this will be achieved logistically with Launceston and Hobart separated by 2.5 hours driving time remains problematic.

Can Darwin support a club?

No. With a population of just 127,000, there is zero chance of a team from Darwin being admitted to the AFL, especially given their remote location.

Canberra would be a more likely choice if the AFL was looking to expand with a new franchise or relocate an existing club. The GWS Giants currently have an agreement to play three of their home games there. Maybe if things don't work out for them in West Sydney, they could make a strategic retreat to Canberra for 11 of their home games.

Is 18 clubs the maximium that can be supported in Australia?

I think so. Most people would say it's 2 teams too many. The talent and resources are spread fairly thinly at the moment. Half the teams don't have a viable goal-kicking key forward. Injuries to key players has too much of an influence on the season outcome for many clubs. Fewer teams would mean greater depth of talent at each club and they could cover their injuries more effectively. But none of this means anything to the AFL administrators. They are more concerned about TV ratings, finances and bottom lines.

 

[cos789]

Victoria, WA, SA (and Tasmania) are the traditional heartlands of Australian football.

It's probably easier to say Australia is the traditional heartland of Australian Football.
Australian Football is now fully represented throughout the country again though other codes have support to varying degrees.

No, Tasmania can't support an AFL team.

A Tasmanian team could/should have been admitted some time ago when the economics were different. Luckily the AFL has now produced "boutique" models that allow clubs to be competitve on much smaller turnovers. Tasmainia currently produces attendances compatible with boutique modelling. A true Tasmanian team would probably receive even greater support publicly and financiallty

Most people would say it's 2 teams too many.

Certainly from a fans point of view a bigger league puts each individual club further from the chances of a premiership. From a physical point of view the league could expand even further. With participation rates constantly rising and the introduction of talent from overseas there is the personal. Distribution is a problem because clubs are not clones of each other.

They are more concerned about TV ratings, finances and bottom lines.

The AFL has been highly successful generating $1 billion which is pro rata fantastic money-wise but has contributed to the continuing imbalance between some teams.
Smaller teams are denied the exposure of "blockbusters" so they have trouble attracting new fans. The AFL has acknowledged this problem but pure monetary compensation would not be the solution.

Canberra would be a more likely choice if the AFL was looking to expand with a new franchise or relocate an existing club. The GWS Giants currently have an agreement to play three of their home games there..

Tasmania and New Zealand appear to be the favoured targets in bringing about a 20 team league. The Gold Coast was financial quickly and now competitve. The GWS now seems to be following. I heard that the GWS break even point for attendance is quite low so with some on field success I don't see them falling into a hole. In fact the long term potential of GWS surpasses that of the Sydney Swans.

 

[SpareTowel]

Then you'd be completely mistaken. Rule IV distinguishes between a knock-on and a "throw-on".
The total opposite of the original and contemporary laws of Australian Football.
There were 37 original rules at Rugby and a lot were concerned with offside. None allowed forward movement except by running.



That is a total misrepresentation. "fair catches" were allowed in Cambridge rules and Rugby rules as defensive measures only.
Players of the Cambridge game were allowed to punch the ball as their was no goalie.
from the outset the "mark" was seen as the preferred method of ball movement in Australian Football.

Looking at the original rules of the three codes it is evident that the ball was meant to be soccered in Cambridge, thrown backwards in Rugby
and punted/kicked in Colonial rules.

It was wrong to say that throwing was forbidden in Rugby School football, it just wasn't practiced.

I'm just going by what every reputable historian has said on the matter. Australian football was distinct from the beginning, but the most influential factor was Rugby School football. By the 1870s it was more or less recognisable as the game we know today. Evolution of Australian football, 1866 to 1879:

 

[IllBeTheJudge]

The context of the question was "over history".

My under performed team over history is better than your under performed team over history
Seriously, who cares?

Not the OP and nobody besides Dogs / Saints fans (and even then, not many)

 

[Billy ray]

I want to know why they don't have the countdown clock at the game for everyone to see like in a lot of other sports.
I mean on tv, you know what is left. End of story.
At the game, the coaches know, the benches know, those lucky enough to be in a corporate box or near a tv know, but the rest do not know. Why can't everyone know? I mean you can stream the game on foxtel go and see what time is left if at the game, just put it up on the scoreboard already...

Or, take it off the tv telecast so no one knows...

Sorry to hijack this thread, but it's another thing about our great game which puzzles me.

 

[cos789]

It was wrong to say that throwing was forbidden in Rugby School football, it just wasn't practiced.

That makes no sense what so ever.
Knocking-on was banned and throwing was permitted.
There are a lot of rules pertaining to off-side and passing the ball to a person on side.
It sounds very much like rugby is today without the refinements.

I'm just going by what every reputable historian has said on the matter.

Maybe you could post what these people said.

but the most influential factor was

clearly Cambridge rules, if anythibg, by going on the rules present at the time.

By the 1870s it was more or less recognisable as the game we know today.

Quite possibly, but the fundamentals of no offside and moving the ball by kicking and marking have always been a part of the Australian game. obviously the game was quite distinctive early on because rugby clubs switched to the "more attractive" colonial game notably in Sydney and Perth.[/quote]

 

[cos789]

I want to know why they don't have the countdown clock at the game for everyone to see like in a lot of other sports.
I mean on tv, you know what is left. End of story.
At the game, the coaches know, the benches know, those lucky enough to be in a corporate box or near a tv know, but the rest do not know. Why can't everyone know? I mean you can stream the game on foxtel go and see what time is left if at the game, just put it up on the scoreboard already...

Or, take it off the tv telecast so no one knows...

Sorry to hijack this thread, but it's another thing about our great game which puzzles me.

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.

 

[SpareTowel]

That makes no sense what so ever.
Knocking-on was banned and throwing was permitted.
There are a lot of rules pertaining to off-side and passing the ball to a person on side.
It sounds very much like rugby is today without the refinements.
Maybe you could post what these people said.
clearly Cambridge rules, if anythibg, by going on the rules present at the time.
Quite possibly, but the fundamentals of no offside and moving the ball by kicking and marking have always been a part of the Australian game. obviously the game was quite distinctive early on because rugby clubs switched to the "more attractive" colonial game notably in Sydney and Perth.

"At its origins the game was fundamentally rugby-like and extremely defensive so it is not uncommon to see results such as 0-0, 1-0 or 2-0 ... It was only in the 1870s that certain rule changes made the game faster and more open. In the 1870s and 1880s the style of the game was revolutionised by the Geelong football club. Geelong's scientific approach to the game put an emphasis on speed and accurate passing to players running into open spaces. This marked a radical departure from a game previously reliant on big packs and nimble players who could run with the ball."
-Mark Pennings, Origins of Australian Football, page xvii

Geoffrey Blainey gives extensive coverage of Rugby's influence in A Game of Our Own, and in so doing completely destroys the Gaelic myth. It's all on Google Books. Here's a quote from T.S. Marshall, who played in the first matches in 1858 and was later president of the VFA:

"The present generation of footballers is doubtless unaware that we are entirely indebted to Rugby for the introduction of football to Victoria, and that although the two games are now widely divergent, it must be conceded that the matrix of the Victorian game was Rugby."
'Rise and Progress of the Australian Game', ''Sporting Globe'', 21/8/1937

Also clubs in Sydney and Perth didn't switch to the Australian game until the 1880s.

 

[cos789]

"At its origins the game was fundamentally rugby-like

You are getting confused with rugby-like and the origins of football.

The differing rules clearly show the codes in different directions.
The fact that these were the formitive years and nobody knew any better
made all football look like one big messy battle a la rugby.
The exact same thing would be said about cambridge rules in that is was rugby-like.
In fact, isn't that how the anecdote goes - a guy got frustrated with the lack of action at Cambridge rules football so picked up the ball and ran with it.

completely destroys the Gaelic myth.

Exactly my point. Not so long ago The big influence had to be the Irish with their Gaelic Football. Not people are pushing there own agendas for whatever reason.

The facts are the rules show no major influences.
Possible influences are Cambridge, Rugby, Irish and Mangrook.
The biggest point is the we have a written record were it was recommended
to formulate a brand new game specifically not that of two others.

The fact might be that other codes influenced the colonial game indirectly because the players themselves knew no better in the way that newcomers to AF are stamped with the legacy of their previous game experience. But that is somethng different.

The men who formulated the game said the new game was not rugby and rugby has hated not helped the game ever since. So it's only influence has been negative IMO.

 

[SpareTowel]

You are getting confused with rugby-like and the origins of football.

The differing rules clearly show the codes in different directions.
The fact that these were the formitive years and nobody knew any better
made all football look like one big messy battle a la rugby.
The exact same thing would be said about cambridge rules in that is was rugby-like.
In fact, isn't that how the anecdote goes - a guy got frustrated with the lack of action at Cambridge rules football so picked up the ball and ran with it.




Exactly my point. Not so long ago The big influence had to be the Irish with their Gaelic Football. Not people are pushing there own agendas for whatever reason.

The facts are the rules show no major influences.
Possible influences are Cambridge, Rugby, Irish and Mangrook.
The biggest point is the we have a written record were it was recommended
to formulate a brand new game specifically not that of two others.

The fact might be that other codes influenced the colonial game indirectly because the players themselves knew no better in the way that newcomers to AF are stamped with the legacy of their previous game experience. But that is somethng different.

The men who formulated the game said the new game was not rugby and rugby has hated not helped the game ever since. So it's only influence has been negative IMO.

Wait, are you saying that modern historians have discounted the Gaelic theory not because of lack of evidence but some agenda?

 

[cos789]

Wait, are you saying that modern historians have discounted the Gaelic theory not because of lack of evidence but some agenda?

I'm saying, think for yourself and look at the facts.

The Gaelic theory is a theory.

 

[SpareTowel]

I'm saying, think for yourself and look at the facts.

The Gaelic theory is a theory.

I am looking at the facts. Rugby is constantly mentioned in 19th century sources in connection with Aus football origins. Irish/Gaelic football is not. At all. No observer in the 19th century noted a similarity between the Australian game and Irish games. The evidence for a Gaelic origin is almost as weak as Marngrook.

 

[cos789]

I am looking at the facts.

The facts are in the rules. Not heresay.
And suggesting there was no throwing in rugby is just plain ludicrous.
What are you suggesting the game looked like.

 

[cos789]

The evidence for a Gaelic origin is almost as weak as Marngrook.

But people have mentioned it haven't they.
It is quite possible nobody mentioned marngrook much
because that would be socially taboo and rugby was keen to grab
the limelight because they'd been done over.
Quite possible but let's stick to the facts.

The very first writing of the rules had rule IV throwing the ball in rugby.
It's ludicrous to suggest there was no throwing inrugby.
They even had a special name for it. "throw-on".
And why would the Aussies specifically say no throwing
if they had a knowledge of rugby.
It just doesn't make the slightest sense what you are saying.

 

[SpareTowel]

But people have mentioned it haven't they.
It is quite possible nobody mentioned marngrook much
because that would be socially taboo and rugby was keen to grab
the limelight because they'd been done over.
Quite possible but let's stick to the facts.

The very first writing of the rules had rule IV throwing the ball in rugby.
It's ludicrous to suggest there was no throwing inrugby.
They even had a special name for it. "throw-on".
And why would the Aussies specifically say no throwing
if they had a knowledge of rugby.
It just doesn't make the slightest sense what you are saying.

No one in the 19th century mentioned Irish or Gaelic football as an influence. The first time any such connection was made was in the mid-20th century, because Gaelic football had by then evolved in a similar direction to Australian football, and because Ireland is older, and neither sport had a strong historical perspective, people assumed Australian football borrowed from Gaelic. Historians discarded this by the 1970s and 80s but it has persisted in popular culture. Re throwing in Rugby:

"Passing or throwing of the ball, even handing the ball off to another, was not part of the game in Webb Ellis’ time, nor is it mentioned in Thomas Hughes’ celebrated account of a Rugby School football match in 1857’s “Tom Brown’s Schooldays”. That’s not to say the early written laws of the game in the 1840s-60s banned it – they didn’t need to – the notion of tossing away the ball to another player was an affront to one’s manliness, akin to one running off in the face of danger. While at Rugby School and England football traditions governed as forcibly as the written word, the divisors of the Melbourne FC’s rules in 1859 felt the need to add a final commandment: “The ball, while in play, may under no circumstances be thrown”. Many have retrospectively, and wrongly, presumed this was done to rid the Australian code of a Rugby trait. Hand-passing of the ball in Rugby football did not arise until after 1877’s reduction from 20-a-side teams to 15-a-side. It first began as short-passing and handing-off of the ball close-in amongst the forwards, led by the Blackheath FC in England."

"It is quite possible nobody mentioned marngrook much"

It is a fact that nobody ever mentioned it.

 

[cos789]

" nor is it mentioned

You haven't answered the question.
What did the game of rugby look like?

T.S. Marshall said this AF Vs RU
"... were all Rugby men.' These three have long sincepassed away, but I, for one,
do not regret that they left us as a legacy the Australian and" not' the Rugby' ""


Clearly they were different games.[/quote]

 

[SpareTowel]

You haven't answered the question.
What did the game of rugby look like?

T.S. Marshall said this AF Vs RU
"... were all Rugby men.' These three have long sincepassed away, but I, for one,
do not regret that they left us as a legacy the Australian and" not' the Rugby' ""


Clearly they were different games.

Read Tom Brown's Schooldays for detailed descriptions of how it was played. The ball was pushed, shoved, kicked, in huge packs of boys. They didn't throw or hand pass to each other. That novel, published in 1857, is what spurred schools in Melbourne to organise football matches btw. 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.

 

[cos789]

the divisors of the Melbourne FC’s rules in 1859 felt the need to add a final commandment: “The ball, while in play, may under no circumstances be thrown”. Many have retrospectively, and wrongly, presumed this was done to rid the Australian code of a Rugby trait. .

And many erronously think that that throwing did not exist in rugby even though it was clearly written into the original rules."
Giving one example of one club in England does not mean less "manly" clubs (or should we insert "more intelligent") clubs did not use the rules as they were intended.
Why arwe there so many rules about off-side with every man standing off the predecessor like in the modern game. The rules imply the men are strung out like the modern game. If the men were bunched together(as you imply because there was no passing) then then would be a mile off-side.

No passing simply goes against rule IV and the many off-side rules.

If you remove this modus operandi from the game then one can only imagine an almighty brawl.
Are you saying this is what the game resembled?

 

[cos789]

The ball was pushed, shoved, kicked, in huge packs of boys.

A huge all in brawl.

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