Why is it called a "mark"?

[mcuzzy]

it was named by Mark Markington

 

[peejay]

What about the term 'behind'

Actually Rex's behind the stick is almost spot on.

A behind is so called because the ball passes behind the goal post (not literally) as in just misses but close enough to score a point.

 

[peejay]

Lol thats hilarious ..it's a wonder our game doesn't also involve boomerang tossing and spear throwing

Anyone who thinks Aussie rules has anything to do with an Aboriginal game is clutching at straws and pushing their own agenda's .

I think there could be a link and i ain't got any agenda's to push.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The free kick is then taken from the mark the player made with his foot - gives us another term. the mark is both the catch, and the place.

The place being the spot where the man on the mark is on. If you get my drift.

Paul Medhurstis obvously a great historian, because whenever he marks the ball he also marks his mark with his stops. Again, if you get my drift!!!

 

[melbournemartin]

Last year Geoffrey Blainey came out and said the whole Marngrook story was a hoax, and the AFL on his evidence even agreed and were embarrassed because they have a Marngrook trophy game. They have kept it as a goodwill symbol though.

People have known this for years but just don't want to accept that our beloved game was influenced more by rugby (our apparently bitter enemy) than an indigenous code. When I say that, I don't mean to imply that aboriginal sport had no influence on football but most of the stories are exagerated.

I've got "100 Years of Australian Football" on my shelf willing to back me up.

That's interesting regarding the two feet having to be on the ground for a mark to be called. I wonder if that is written on the Olympic Stand wall near the escalators?

 

[absfab]

However , very early on in Australian Football, players started to take to the sky for 'speccies' or 'hangers' (call them what you like).

Really. How quickly, and according to whom? there is good reason to believe that the overhead mark, let alone the speccie, was unusual in the first few decades of football. Early engravings show lots of chest marks (or more accurately gut marks). The big fly nowhere to be seen.

It seems not unreasonable that the aboriginal game of marngrook (which basically was about kicking the ball high to see who could take the best speccie) was a crucial influence here. Unfortunately, however, the lack of documentary evidence for this (people back then weren't in the habit of giving much credit to aboriginals for anything, let alone matters as important as the rules of our footy) means the marngrook origin theory will always fall short of the 'proof' required for it to be accepted by many or most professional historians.

Not unreasonable, logically possible, why should it not be. All favorite words from the revisionists, once spoken then the subject matter accepted as fact. The high catching kick to kick version is at best a variant of the aboriginal game, only reported once through a third hand verbal claim. Tthe more convincing accounts of the game could equally be compared to just about any of the stuffed skin (or enemy head in some cases) games recorded world wide.

But lets not allow that to get in the way of a good story.

As for proof? The chief rewriter of history, Poulter, even claims that due to the lack of early recorded competition that Gaelic was in fact the Aboriginal game migrated to Ireland. Yet has encouraged a wealth of believers to embrace the idea that the absence of even a letter to a friend speaking of Marn Grook is a symptom of the white man's scorn.

Doesn't sit well with the proposition in the same breath that the white man was so impressed he copied the game and that the clear links with the British codes are just a misleading coincidence.

It just may be reasonable to suggest some influence on how the game is played. But even that is drawing a very long bow. To any person with a knowledge of the games it is very easy to perceive the direct links between soccer, Rugby and Gaelic football. There is a close and obvious family resemblance. It is likewise easy to see the links between the British sports and our great game, Rugby a little more directly than soccer, but the antecedents are clear..

 

[Wallaby]

Really. How quickly, and according to whom? there is good reason to believe that the overhead mark, let alone the speccie, was unusual in the first few decades of football. Early engravings show lots of chest marks (or more accurately gut marks). The big fly nowhere to be seen.



Not unreasonable, logically possible, why should it not be. All favorite words from the revisionists, once spoken then the subject matter accepted as fact. The high catching kick to kick version is at best a variant of the aboriginal game, only reported once through a third hand verbal claim. Tthe more convincing accounts of the game could equally be compared to just about any of the stuffed skin (or enemy head in some cases) games recorded world wide.

But lets not allow that to get in the way of a good story.

As for proof? The chief rewriter of history, Poulter, even claims that due to the lack of early recorded competition that Gaelic was in fact the Aboriginal game migrated to Ireland. Yet has encouraged a wealth of believers to embrace the idea that the absence of even a letter to a friend speaking of Marn Grook is a symptom of the white man's scorn.

Doesn't sit well with the proposition in the same breath that the white man was so impressed he copied the game and that the clear links with the British codes are just a misleading coincidence.

It just may be reasonable to suggest some influence on how the game is played. But even that is drawing a very long bow. To any person with a knowledge of the games it is very easy to perceive the direct links between soccer, Rugby and Gaelic football. There is a close and obvious family resemblance. It is likewise easy to see the links between the British sports and our great game, Rugby a little more directly than soccer, but the antecedents are clear..

I fear you have just blown your chance at a Cultural and Historical research Government grant.

Now, if your theory was that Aussie rules was started by blind, disabled, lesbian, handicapped, forced migrant labourers with clinical depression and body image issues, we may be able to support your study.

 

[Wish Wellingtons]

I cannot believe anyone would claim that it has etymology in Aboriginal language.

Clearly derived from rugby.

 

[Dennis]

This is all I could dig up:
Some people claim that the origin of the term 'mark' comes from the practice of a player who has just taken a mark physically marking the ground with his foot, or cap which formed part of the attire worn by players in the 19th century, to show where he took the fair catch.

Others claim that the origin of the mark comes from the traditional Aboriginal game of Marn Grook, which is said to possibly have influenced Tom Wills writing of the laws of the game. It is claimed that in Marn Grook, jumping to catch the ball, called "mumarki", an Aboriginal word meaning "to catch" results in a free kick. Some counterclaim this theory as false etymology. (Wikipedia)

Given the term mark has been used in rugby originally, I'm not sure Marn Grook influenced the boys at that private school in England

 

[Subprime]

Given the term mark has been used in rugby originally, I'm not sure Marn Grook influenced the boys at that private school in England

The term 'mark' is used for the scratch made on the ground.

Catching the ball is referred to as a "fair catch".

Two. Different. Things.

Have a read of Rugby's rules.

 

[Subprime]

Really. How quickly, and according to whom? there is good reason to believe that the overhead mark, let alone the speccie, was unusual in the first few decades of football. Early engravings show lots of chest marks (or more accurately gut marks). The big fly nowhere to be seen.


Not unreasonable, logically possible, why should it not be. All favorite words from the revisionists, once spoken then the subject matter accepted as fact. The high catching kick to kick version is at best a variant of the aboriginal game, only reported once through a third hand verbal claim. Tthe more convincing accounts of the game could equally be compared to just about any of the stuffed skin (or enemy head in some cases) games recorded world wide.

But lets not allow that to get in the way of a good story.

As for proof? The chief rewriter of history, Poulter, even claims that due to the lack of early recorded competition that Gaelic was in fact the Aboriginal game migrated to Ireland. Yet has encouraged a wealth of believers to embrace the idea that the absence of even a letter to a friend speaking of Marn Grook is a symptom of the white man's scorn.

Doesn't sit well with the proposition in the same breath that the white man was so impressed he copied the game and that the clear links with the British codes are just a misleading coincidence.

It just may be reasonable to suggest some influence on how the game is played. But even that is drawing a very long bow. To any person with a knowledge of the games it is very easy to perceive the direct links between soccer, Rugby and Gaelic football. There is a close and obvious family resemblance. It is likewise easy to see the links between the British sports and our great game, Rugby a little more directly than soccer, but the antecedents are clear..

Tom Wills spoke an aboriginal language fluently, he didn't learn it at Rugby School or indeed any school in Australia, he learnt it by hanging around with indiginous kids in his childhood. Its a fair bet that a sporty type like Wills would have learned their games too, don't you think?

Wills then recieved 4 years of indoctrination at Rugby School and instead of setting up a Rugby club when he returned to Australia he was a pivotal figure in the setting up af a new game that contained none of the 5 offside rules of Rugby (see the rules I posted earlier), nor did it allow throwing, the need for a try to be scored or various other elements of Rugby.

Other colonial boys that returned to Cape Town or Sydney or Auckland from Rugby School set up Rugby clubs.

 

[Josh Wineduck]

The term used originally was Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch, although as the game became a quicker, much more frenetically paced affair it was sensibly shortened to the more practical adaptation we all use today: mark.

 

[raskolnikov]

I used to wonder when watching Rugby League why they call it a "try" when they actually score.

 

[Wanbli]

Lol thats hilarious ..it's a wonder our game doesn't also involve boomerang tossing and spear throwing

Anyone who thinks Aussie rules has anything to do with an Aboriginal game is clutching at straws and pushing their own agenda's .

Not trying to get PC up here, but your first paragraph is just plain stupid. Apparently throwing boomerangs and spears are the only two things you can identify with aboriginal culture, and they never did anything else. Well done.

I don't necessarily believe in the whole marn grook story, but it sounds more like you've got your own agenda and you're afraid of someone calling bullshit on it.

"The men and boys joyfully assemble when this game is to be played. One makes a ball of possum skin, somewhat elastic, but firm and strong. The players of this game do not throw the ball as a white man might do, but drop it and at the same time kicks it with his foot. The tallest men have the best chances in this game. Some of them will leap as high as five feet from the ground to catch the ball. The person who secures the ball kicks it. This continues for hours and the natives never seem to tire of the exercise."

- Mr. Thomas, Aboriginal Protector, 1841.

Sorry, kind of getting off topic. Just food for the skeptics.

 

[Bazzar]

"The men and boys joyfully assemble when this game is to be played. One makes a ball of possum skin, somewhat elastic, but firm and strong. The players of this game do not throw the ball as a white man might do, but drop it and at the same time kicks it with his foot. The tallest men have the best chances in this game. Some of them will leap as high as five feet from the ground to catch the ball. The person who secures the ball kicks it. This continues for hours and the natives never seem to tire of the exercise." [/I]

- Mr. Thomas, Aboriginal Protector, 1841.

A remarkably descriptive summary from 1841. Is Mr Thomas still on the rules committee

 

[LET ME TALK]

why Mark? because catch sounds gay.

 

[BobbyMorri]

Its from Rugby. Marn Grook is just fantasy thinking. I say it evolved from "marking his ground", as other people have said.

Also, Marking, and high flying marking, didnt take off in the AFL till around the 1880's. It wasn't prominent in the early days. Sheffield Rules(codified 2 years earlier), an early form of the soccer code, had a fair catch rule, which would give you a free kick. Who knows how many English schools also played with a fair catch rule.

So a free kick from taking a catch was not new and not unique to Australia, and hence not indigenous, considering Australia and Wills background.

 

[Full Wingspan]

it was named by Mark Markington

ORLY?

I heard it was Hooty McBoob.

 

[Subprime]

Its from Rugby. Marn Grook is just fantasy thinking. I say it evolved from "marking his ground", as other people have said.

Also, Marking, and high flying marking, didnt take off in the AFL till around the 1880's. It wasn't prominent in the early days. Sheffield Rules(codified 2 years earlier), an early form of the soccer code, had a fair catch rule, which would give you a free kick. Who knows how many English schools also played with a fair catch rule.

So a free kick from taking a catch was not new and not unique to Australia, and hence not indigenous, considering Australia and Wills background.

Once again, marking the ground is not the same as catching a ball.

Completely different in fact.

And yeah they probably downloaded Sheffield rules from the steam powered internet of the day and took them to the meeting.

 

[Wallaby]

I used to wonder when watching Rugby League why they call it a "try" when they actually score.

Because originally in rugby, when you scored a 'try', you got no points for it, but you were entitled to a kick at goal to score points (so you earned a 'try' for goal).

It has now evolved so that they do get points directly for scoring the try and still retain the shot for goal after - the conversion.

 

[Wallaby]

Tom Wills spoke an aboriginal language fluently, he didn't learn it at Rugby School or indeed any school in Australia, he learnt it by hanging around with indiginous kids in his childhood. Its a fair bet that a sporty type like Wills would have learned their games too, don't you think?

Wills then recieved 4 years of indoctrination at Rugby School and instead of setting up a Rugby club when he returned to Australia he was a pivotal figure in the setting up af a new game that contained none of the 5 offside rules of Rugby (see the rules I posted earlier), nor did it allow throwing, the need for a try to be scored or various other elements of Rugby.

Other colonial boys that returned to Cape Town or Sydney or Auckland from Rugby School set up Rugby clubs.

I'm pretty sure Wills got far more sporting influence from his time at Rugby School in England - he did wind up captain of the School rugby team. He was also one of the best schoolboy cricketers in the country. Those experiences were probably far more influential than 'kicking a possum skin around in the bush'.

He participated in the meeting of the Melbourne Football club to standardise the rules of Australian football - interestingly this was after the famous 'Melbourne Grammar vs Scotch' match that is supposed to be the first official game of football (which Wills umpired). Important to note, this meeting was to 'standardise', not 'set' the rules. There were already other various rules (inc the Geelong Rules) in existence at the time. So Wills, while possibly the most important person in the early years was not the sole 'Rules administrator and Game creator' that some seem to give him credit for. It took a few years to finally settle on the game structure, and many people were involved in it.

 

[BobbyMorri]

Once again, marking the ground is not the same as catching a ball.

Completely different in fact.

And yeah they probably downloaded Sheffield rules from the steam powered internet of the day and took them to the meeting.

Words evolve and in the end, they mean different things. See that example for a try. Early football had been played since the early 1800's, it had ample time to evolve from "to mark the ground" into meaning "to mark the ball. "

Sheffield Rules is an example of another code of Football from the motherland, having a similar rule than Melbourne rules. This whole argument about Marn Grook is based on the fact that Wills loved marking, and so put it in the rules. But Fair catch rules have been around in England, and was not unique thinking. See, Sheffield Rules for that example. Even Cambridge rules(1848) had a type of fair catch rule, and that was a no hands type of game.

Considering Australia at the time was British, Wills was educated in Britain, and the other members of the panel, were British, it makes way more sense that the game was designed off the British games. It was a British game. How it evolved was unique, but the original set of rules weren't that different for British early football at the time.

 

[Subprime]

I'm pretty sure Wills got far more sporting influence from his time at Rugby School in England - he did wind up captain of the School rugby team. He was also one of the best schoolboy cricketers in the country. Those experiences were probably far more influential than 'kicking a possum skin around in the bush'.

He participated in the meeting of the Melbourne Football club to standardise the rules of Australian football - interestingly this was after the famous 'Melbourne Grammar vs Scotch' match that is supposed to be the first official game of football (which Wills umpired). Important to note, this meeting was to 'standardise', not 'set' the rules. There were already other various rules (inc the Geelong Rules) in existence at the time. So Wills, while possibly the most important person in the early years was not the sole 'Rules administrator and Game creator' that some seem to give him credit for. It took a few years to finally settle on the game structure, and many people were involved in it.

I guess Wills could have just pulled the Rugby School rules from his kitbag on that day in 1858 if he'd wanted to. No one would have objected as they were all enamoured with Tom Brown's Schooldays at the time, according to Blainey.

If he had done so Rugby would likely have become the game played at Melbourne Grammar and Scotch College and the rest would have been history, as they say.

It would have been the easist way to go, no need to standardise anything.

That's probably how it happened in Cape Town, Sydney, Auckland etc.

I'm pretty sure that growing up with indiginous kids and becoming fluent in their language gave Wills a unique set of experiences and he was probably a bit of a rarity at the time. It can't be dismissed.

 

[Subprime]

Words evolve and in the end, they mean different things. See that example for a try. Early football had been played since the early 1800's, it had ample time to evolve from "to mark the ground" into meaning "to mark the ball. "

Sheffield Rules is an example of another code of Football from the motherland, having a similar rule than Melbourne rules. This whole argument about Marn Grook is based on the fact that Wills loved marking, and so put it in the rules. But Fair catch rules have been around in England, and was not unique thinking. See, Sheffield Rules for that example. Even Cambridge rules(1848) had a type of fair catch rule, and that was a no hands type of game.

Considering Australia at the time was British, Wills was educated in Britain, and the other members of the panel, were British, it makes way more sense that the game was designed off the British games. It was a British game. How it evolved was unique, but the original set of rules weren't that different for British early football at the time.

I've never seen anyone say Wills loved marking, have you got a source for that 'fact'?

All the rulebooks that were available to the original commitee had various offside rules yet this concept never entered Australian Rules. They could have adopted say Rugby's offside rules or Eton's etc but they didn't so to say the game is British is a fallacy.

Does it make soccer more Australian for you if you can make out Australian rules is British?

 

[BobbyMorri]

^^^

I've never seen anyone say Wills loved marking, have you got a source for that 'fact'?

Not saying he did, but you are if you think that Marn Grook had an influence on Melbourne rules. after all, that was all Marn Grook was about.

"The men and boys joyfully assemble when this game is to be played. One makes a ball of possum skin, somewhat elastic, but firm and strong. The players of this game do not throw the ball as a white man might do, but drop it and at the same time kicks it with his foot. The tallest men have the best chances in this game. Some of them will leap as high as five feet from the ground to catch the ball. The person who secures the ball kicks it. This continues for hours and the natives never seem to tire of the exercise."

- Mr. Thomas, Aboriginal Protector, 1841.

There was not much to it.

Sheffield Rules had no Offside rule. That would be incorporated in 1863, 6 years after it was first played.

Does it make soccer more Australian for you if you can make out Australian rules is British?

How does that work???

No..........It just common sense that the game was British origins. It evolved into the Rules that are unique to the world, but at the start, it was very much like Australia; British. It is called realism.