Talk:Australian rules football/Archive 3

message: Surely someone has some better onces that are not subject to copyright restrictions.  The current photo is blurry and non-descript.  Some photos of the distinctive features of the game (ie. spectacular high marking etc) would be preferable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Biatch (talk • contribs) 09:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some new photos would be good. This has been mentioned before, but until someone actually goes out and takes some, rather than just asking for them, nothing's going to happen. JPD (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At last - someone's got a half decent photo - thank goodness!  Well done!  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I left you a note at your talk page. Basically, if you didn't take the picture yourself, or don't have something saying that the image has been released into the public domain or under the GFDL or something similar, we probably aren't allowed to use it, unfortunately. We can't just go taking pictures from other websites. JPD (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Americans like myself have no clue what a Australian football field looks like.  From the description, it is unique.field with some extra posts and markings. --Rulesfan 02:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: This statement should be correct.
Although the rules for "rugby football" were codified by the Rugby School in 1845, this game is not played today.  Even the rugby school now plays the game of rugby union.
It wasn't until on January 26, 1871, the Rugby Football Union (RFU) formed, leading to the standardisation of the rules for all clubs in England that played a variety of the Rugby school laws that the sport of rugby union was officially codified.  --Rulesfan 04:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rugby football (as it was known until the split with rugby league in the 1890s) was codified at Rugby School in 1845.  There is a clear connection between Rugby School and present day rugby union.  The RFU is neither here nor there -- the Melbourne FC rules weren't instantaneously adopted by every club in Victoria in 1859 and — if the matter were decided by leagues/associations/federations (like the RFU) — the VFA wasn't formed until 1877. Grant65 | Talk 04:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The code of rugby union is named after the Rugby Football Union, which first wrote the rules of the game.  It is as different to rugby school football as soccer is to the Eton rules. Just because there is a connection does not follow that it is the same game.  Otherwise Aussie Rules might be "Australian Rugby Marn Grook Gaelic Football League", first codified by the rugby school in 1845. --Rulesfan 23:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is ridiculous. All of the modern games are quite different to all of the games from that era. Either we accept that the in both cases the modern games are "the same game" as the older ones becasue of clear historical continuity, or we shouldn't be saying that any of them are the same game. JPD (talk) 11:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken.  fair enough.  --Rulesfan 03:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  oldest codified football game still being played 

message: Is it really necessary to introduce the level of technical detail in the intro.  It now sound stupid.  The purpose should be to focus on what makes this game unique when compared to others, not to flesh out all of the concepts raised.  I mean afterall, it is just a summary, further clarification of the rules can be found further into the article .... there is no sense in repeating the same info.  --Rulesfan 23:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit in intro 

message: Why was this necessary ?  I think both pics add to the article by demonstrating the diversity of participation.  Country football has much higher participation than city football.  --Rulesfan 04:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without commenting on the choice of pictures, there definitely were too many pictures crammed into that section. We need good pictures to illustrate the article, not turn it into an image gallery displaying the whole range of participation. What would be good is a way to fit appropriate pictures into the sections that don't have any. It would also be good to put some info on country v city participations rates in the text. JPD (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Country Football and Community Cup pics 

message: I just asked an AFL nut friend of mine this question, and she did not know the answer. I  couldn't find any info here either, so it may need to be added, if anyone knows the answer. What is the procedure in the case of a tie, in both goals and total points scored? And what would be the procedure if such a tie occurred in the Grand Final? I understand it's a rare occurrence, but there must be some kind of rule to cover it. Kelvingreen 16:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a matter for the rules of the league/competition, not the rules of the sport. If the scores are tied at the final siren, the game is drawn. In home and away matches for the Australian Football League and similar leagues, both teams receive 2 premieship points. Traditionally, tied finals are replayed the next week, but now there are provisions for extra in early weeks of the finals, and only the Grand Final would be replayed. This possibly should be covered somewhere on Wikipedia, but as I said, it really does depend on the competition, and isn't something specific to the sport. JPD (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tied games? 

message: Black Diamond Challenge Cup remains Australia's oldest sporting trophy. Are there any citations to back this up? Ozdaren 10:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Put in the only citation I could find from the BDAFL site.  It claims that the Cup is older than cricket's Sheffield Shield, but I would have thought that in terms of sport overall that the Melbourne Cup, first awarded in 1861, would be older.  Perhaps oldest football trophy or team sport trophy is correct ? --Rulesfan 06:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has now been removed.  Probably belongs on the Australian rules football in New South Wales page anyway.  --Rulesfan (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bit redundant anyway. In England local sporting groups came together and played cup matches long before the earliest listed on this webpage. They would agree on the rules on the day frequently as some played more rugby style and others more foot-oriented styles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.56.87.56 (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest Sporting Trophy 

message: I m the one who made this edit (forgot to log on) Ksempac 11:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous edit 11:18, 8 August 2007 80.156.46.53 

message: Can anybody find out any further information on the source listed for the claim "7,496,000 North Americans watch Australian Rules Football at least occasionally on television." (section "Television".)  I tried Googleing the source, "Globalisation of Sport Report 2005," but only came up with copies of this entry. Information on authors, publishers, ISBN or publication would allow us to verify the authenticity of the source.
To my knowledge, Australian rules isn't aired on network or basic cable television station in America, which would significantly reduce its viewership base (if it airs at all -- I've certainly never heard about it, but who knows what goes on in the high, high reaches of the satellite dial.) Matt T. 07:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it until someone can show otherwise. The reference given was just a name of a report, which doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Remy B 12:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source was stated as Roy Morgan Research.  I have clarified the source and readded the statement.  I think you'll find that this is suprisingly correct. The population of the United States is far larger than Australia, and many more Americans use cable television than do Australians. --Rulesfan 06:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American viewers 

message: Hey,
This article i believe is very close to being good enough to be a featured article. 
Things i can see which need fixing are:
  - some referencing (do i need to reference every time a rule is mentioned?)
  - make a few of the paragraphs flow a bit easier
  - remove some information that is repeated
Any other ideas? Should try to aim to nominate it for featured article by the end of January.InsteadOf (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your suggestions for improvement, but I think a more realistic short-term goal would be to try to get the article promoted from its current B-class status to Good Article status. The article is quite a long way from reaching featured article status, as there are many unsourced statements and some sections have virtually no references at all. Even after fixing all of that, we would need to ask for reviews and feedback from more experienced editors, before we even consider nominating it for FA status, because the FA assessment process is so stringent.  Easel3 (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didnt know about all that hierarchy. Thanks for the info. I added a few references today, and ill add a few more as i find them. Thanks for the help. 61.69.183.142 (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It will definitely need to get to Good Article status first. Two things that leap out at me are that the article is far too long and it has too many photos conveying the same thing. Remy B (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article 

message: After trying at this for over a month, I am of the opinion that we have exhausted all possible options.  Every conceivable wording has been put forward, and still there is dissent over which version should be used on the various pages.  Therefore, I am declaring this mediation at an impasse and have closed it.  Parties should continue to discuss it and may seek out other forms of dispute resolution.  I would advise all parties involved to remain civil and to follow proper policies in handling the matter further.  Thank you. MBisanz talk 05:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation Closed

message: I've been looking for a reputable source for claims that football is Nauru's national sport. Ideally it would need to be from a Nauruan government source but all I have found are football sites. If anyone knows of such a source, that would be great.--Roisterer (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An Al Jazeera report sounds better than football sites, although not ideal. JPD (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: National Sport of Nauru

message: Is there a list anywhere of football terms?
I refer to a similar wikipedia page List of cricket terms for cricket terms. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 06:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Australian rules football terminology is as close as we have so far. The-Pope (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking here of terms such as "poster", "sausage roll", "sit" etc.  All in use but which probably don't deserve a wiki page on their own.  The Cricket list does link to wiki pages where they exist.  It might just be worth while having them all in one place.--Perry Middlemiss (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football terms 

message: I have followed Association Football and Basketball's lead and separated all the cultural references into another article.  As a result, the article is now much more focused.  It is primarily about the game, its rules and origins.  The new article Australian rules football culture should cover most of the rest. --Spewmaster (talk) 09:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Structure Change 

message: The article still contains a hell of a lot of speculation about the origins of the game.  I'm thinking of writing a new article called "The Origins of Australian Rules Football" to explain that the early history is vague and point out some of the different theories and stuff.  Anyone have any objections to this ?  --Rulesfan (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections.  In fact I think it a very good idea. Getting the balance right will be an interesting exercise. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of the Game 

message: What happened to it ?  Seems to have gone.  When I check the image, it does a 404.  --Spewmaster (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sherrin Image ? 

message: I don't see that the fact that we are now in 2009 somehow invalidates the notes on the 150th anniversary of Australian Rules football in 2008.  Yes, it's in the past but it is referred to in that context.--Perry Middlemiss (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008 Celebrations 

message: I think this article should be a FA (also suggested here), so I want to do some extensive work on it. From what I can see, the following needs to be done:
#As the previous FA attempt pointed out, we need more sources and in-line citations. There are vast sections with not a single citation.
#The structure is probably not too bad. The lead goes into far too much detail on the rules and the order of some sections could be rearranged, but that shouldn't be a problem. We could get some ideas from the round-ball code's FA. We might also run into problems with the numerous split-off articles.
#Prose is generally quite good. A few issues with flowery language or editorialising.
#There are more than enough pictures to illustrate key concepts.
In my opinion, FA status is attainable for this article. But getting any article to that quality requires a lot of work, and it's more than one person can do alone.
What does everyone else think? Reyk YO! 23:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the key is adding sources/citations. That's the main thing that the FA assessors seem to look for. I noticed that one of the subsections directs us to an article called Australian rules football in Australia. An option for merging perhaps? Some of the text can go in Australian rules football culture and the rest here. Jevansen (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Push for FA? 

message: Oppose. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Australian rules football → Australian football — the official name of the sport is Australian Football, therefore that should be the name of the article and Australian Rules Football (which is an informal name) should redirect to it. Rulesfan (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Yeah, it's ridiculous.  Half the "opposers" object to the move primarily because it's called ARF *outside* of Australia, when WP is supposed to error on the side of local naming when dealing with an English speaking country. 76.209.59.179 (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: What is the relationship of this sport and Rugby?--Pierce (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This topic is discussed in depth at Origins of Australian football.  The is no definitive relationship between the two sports, however some historians theorise a relationship as some of the founders had specific knowledge of rugby football.  There is, however, no relationship at all to the modern rugby codes.--Rulesfan (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  About this sports 

message: Why is this secondary, and extraordinarily easy, way of scoring a point with the "prolate spheroid" not mentioned in the first section of the article?
"A behind is scored when the ball passes between a goal post and a behind post at any height, or if the ball hits a goal post, or if an attacking player sends the ball between the goal posts by touching it with any part of the body other than a foot. A behind is also awarded to the attacking team if the ball touches any part of an opposition player, including his foot, before passing between the goal posts. When an opposition player deliberately scores a behind for the attacking team (generally as a last resort, because of the risk of their scoring a goal) this is termed a rushed behind." Ombudswiki (talk) 07:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is truly a consolation score.  No-one wants to score one unless scores are level and there are seconds left.  Are wides/no balls/byes mentioned in the cricket intro?  Drop goals in the rugby intros? Walks in baseball?The-Pope (talk) 09:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Its crazy really.  People keep editing the article intro to make it appear that kicking is the only way to score.  This is completely NOT true and should not corrupt the layman's view of the sport.  It absolutely can be pushed through by any part of the body to score.  Who cares if a behind is a consolation ??  Only AFL fans with a skewed perception view it that way.  Is a conversion or field goal not counted in rugby or American Football (even if it is not the primary object or the highest scoring option) ?  An over in Gaelic or pushing it through by hand ?  The object is to win by the highest score - not the most goals.  It is definitely possible to by points even if you don't kick a goal.  FFS a score is a score !  --Rulesfan (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: A Behind

message: "The AFL has governed the sport nationally since 1993 and internationally since 2005 through the AFL Commission and the AFL Rules Committee."
I'm a complete ignoramus, and the article needs to be addressed to people like me. This Commission and Committee: are they different? Does one do the domestic and one the international? I'm confused. Please fix the sentence.
Second, the caption under the green schematic in "Rules of the game" is about eight times too long. Can almost all of it be shifted to the accompanying main text? The staue pic ... same deal. Some of the images could be more generous in size. Please note the changes in MoS in this respect. Tony (talk) 09:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A really good question Tony and somewhat difficult to answer.  As far as I know, the AFL Rules Committee really only determines rules for the AFL competition, but their rules are highly influential and often adopted by other leagues both in Australia and abroad.   The Commission is not really responsible for rules of the game and acts at a much higher level but the CEO of the AFL is on the board of the commission.  However their structure is such that neither are really true governing bodies of the sport. It is only a defacto in the absence of a proper governing body for rules. --Rulesfan (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems a fair description. --121.127.223.219 (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  a few issues 

message: Why are AFL shirts called Guernseys and not jerseys like in other sports? --AW (talk) 08:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. --AW (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries.  --121.127.223.219 (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I always thought they were footy jumpers. HiLo48 (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guernsey? 

message: I moderate the Culture Victoria website and have added an external link to ourt story: Football Stories from Country Victoria, which includes 21 films about football in Victorian communities with interviews and archival footage, filmed by Malcolm McKinnon. Eleworth (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New External Link 

message: I have read about an "onballer". But can't find any definition of what it is in Australian football. Does anyone know of a definition? Kwenchin (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Traditionally you had 15 players who played in relatively fixed positions (5 rows of 3 players per row) plus 3 players, the ruck, ruck-rover and rover, who "followed the ball", and hence were called the followers.  These days, the central three players plus the rover and ruck-rover are generally called the midfielders, or onballers, as they "play on the ball".  In reality, most teams now have 8-12 players who they rotate through the midfield during a match - and the rest of the players also tend to "follow the ball" with zone defences, flooding and similar flexible tactics. The-Pope (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  onballer 

message: The first paragraph says that it is incorrect to refer to the game as AFL. 
"In some regions, where the sport is in development, it is often known (erroneously) as AFL, after the Australian Football League, the only fully professional Australian rules football league." This is not the case. Without any references to back this up I'm removing it. The AFL has chosen to promote the game under the name of 'AFL' for example the renaming of QAFL AFL Queensland to avoid confusion with other codes of football particularly since soccer has started promoting itself under that name in Australia. Also, the AFL is not the only fully professional Australian rules football league - the WAFL? And it is not just called AFL in developing regions. - Bozzio (talk) 09:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't make much sense. AFL is simply not the name of the game. It's the name of a competition. I really think you need to provide a source that TELLS us that it's the name, not just your interpretation of some evidence. HiLo48 (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: AFL *should* only be used to describe the league played nationally between 16 teams (17 next year).  Not local leagues, not kick to kick in the park etc.  But, the marketing behemoth that is the AFL commission sees that if it uses it's cute little acronym in a wider sense, it will probably "gain market share".  Fights over sport name suffer from the fact that almost all WP:RSs have commercial biases and generally do what the sporting bureaucrats want.  And most WAFL players have other jobs (ie Toby McGrath is a fireman) so it isn't fully pro.The-Pope (talk) 10:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying that the sport should only be referred to as AFL, or that the article should be renamed; I'm saying that some people refer to it as "AFL" some of the time, and thus the first paragraph should be changed to remove the word erroneously. It is just an alternative name; it does not make it wrong. See Metonymy, Genericised trademark. It is also not just used overseas - I'm from Perth, which is certainly not a developing area of the sport, and I know if I used the term to refer to the sport they would understand. -Bozzio (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people say "somethink".  Our prime minister struggles to say "negotiate".  Some blow their nose on a "kleenex", clean the house by doing the "hoovering" and use a "biro" to write down notes.  All very good marketing exercises over the past 50 years.  That's what the AFL wants - it has a lot to gain by non-traditional Australian rules football people refering to the sport as AFL.  But this is an encyclopedia and we shouldn't be perpetuating incorrect uses.  The sport is not called AFL - it is either football, Australian football or Australian rules football (or slang abbreviations derived from those names). If you said to me, I'm going down to Subiaco Oval this weekend to watch the AFL, I'd think you were crazy.  The WAFL is on this week, and it's a game of football, or Aussie rules.  If you said, lets go have a game of AFL, I'd say the draft isn't on for a few more months and after my last knee injury I'm unlikely to be picked.  There are only 185 games of AFL played each year, only 3 remain in 2010.  After correcting you, I'd probably then ask you when did you move here from Qld or NSW? The-Pope (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Born and bred right here in Perth. Perhaps because I am of "the younger generation" I refer to things with names that you would not. Oh well. I don't really care as long as we don't call it rugby. -Bozzio (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Use the comparison between American football and the NFL. Most prople will automatically associate NFL with American football, yet it is incorrect to call the sport NFL. MC Rocks (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but we're not in America are we? I'm not saying it isn't incorrect (woah triple negative there) but you seem to think that no one calls it AFL; which they do. You can't change that. -Bozzio (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And you can't change the fact that it is wrong to do so.The-Pope (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally we agree! - Bozzio (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, we re-add "erroneously". OK? HiLo48 (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you boys, and I include my eldest, can't play together without fighting, so help me, I'll turn the hose on the lot of you! Shirt58's mum (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFL vs football 

message: A tiny edit skirmish just happened over whether or not the game is played indoors. What about Docklands (Etihad Stadium) with the roof closed? (Which it almost always is these days.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think it should still only be considered an outdoor sport, but I do understand the point you're making. Note also that American football (gridiron) only categorises itself as outdoor, despite the vast majority of NFL games being played "indoors". Jenks24 (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Diffs for the skirmish? --Shirt58 (talk) 09:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Skirmish" is a bit of an exaggeration :) It consisted of this edit by a new user (though on his talk it's claimed he is a sock of User:BrianBeahr), which was reverted 30 mins later by The-Pope here. That's it... Jenks24 (talk) 10:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I did say tiny skirmish. It's just that it got me thinking. Footy is played indoors, but in a very big room. I don't have strong feelings either way on the issue, but we cannot say absolutely that it's not played indoors. I'm not sure if that's what our IP editor was thinking. It's my thinking. HiLo48 (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes, maybe for the professional football league.  But the amateur football leagues and competitions, ALL play outdoors.  Please don't just focus on the major football league, but also consider the minor football leagues. --60.230.96.214 (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and you may notice that the article is currently in agreement with you and says the Aussie rules is and "outdoor" sport. Jenks24 (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I did notice the article says this, but I was just mentioning something that wasn't being talked about.  I was concerned in this discussion the minor football leagues and competitions were being ignored, as it was only mentioning the "AFL".  If I upset anyone in my comments, I apologise. --60.230.96.214 (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to apologise, you raised a valid point. I was simply pointing that out in case you hadn't realised (but obviously you had :). Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 11:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indoors? 

message: The article contradicts itself, or at least appear to. It says, "Before the start of the 2009 season, there was no penalty imposed for rushing a behind." So there was NO penalty BEFORE 2009. But then it says, "However, in 2008 a new rule was introduced whereby a player rushing a behind deliberately will concede a free kick in the goal square as well as the behind." Where I come from, 2008 was before 2009. That might not be the case in Australia. Cottonshirtτ 15:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The start of the 2009 season was in March 2009.  In December 2008, they introduced the rule.  The 2008 season finished in September. Happy now? The-Pope (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There was previously a one point penalty... Hack (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether I am "happy" or not is irrelevant; it's about improving the article and making it say what you mean so that people not immersed in the history and folklore of the game can understand what you say. I suggest it be re-written to read, "However, for the start of the 2009 season, a new rule was introduced..." Cottonshirtτ 20:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: This webpage is very wrong. This page is about Aussie rules Football, not the AFL or VFL. it should be about the game, not the leagues.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasadens070032 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect title for page 

message: Where is the proof that the first game was played in Melbourne at that date?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasadens070032 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof of first game 

message: White dots and red/black smudges on green with some white sticks and advertising in the stands.  Is that the best pic we have?  Is that the first impression we want to make?  Does that sum up the beauty and passion of our game?  Really?  I think the French have done it better. -- The-Pope (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2012‎ (UTC)
:Yeah, agreed it's not that great. Any picture of a hangar is pretty good, and even looking at the other pics already in the article, I reckon :File:Aussie rules game.jpg is better (although you can't see any goals in that pic). If you want to just be bold and change it I don't think you'd be reverted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo in the infobox