Talk:Origins of Australian rules football

Having commenced the Wikipedia page "History of Australian Rules football in Victoria (1859-1900)" (now "History of Australian Rules football in Victoria (1853-1900)" and continually contributing to it, I was aware that it was very long and really needed splitting. Congratulations to RulesFan for doing so by the creation of this page.

As well as including much from "History of Australian Rules football in Victoria (1859-1900)", this page contains some fascinating new material. I've learnt a lot and consider this to be an important contribution to the history of Aussie Rules!

In parenthesis, let me add that I'm pleased that some of the AFL's incorrect theories and spin have been answered so articulately.

Albert Isaacs (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere along the line it has acquired an ambiguous title, as it's only about AR, not football in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.113.234.126 (talk) 03:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The naming of the article doesn't have anything to do with the official title of the code we know as Australian (Rules) Football. It deals with the earliest football games in Australia and is not code-specific as AR did not exist until later, however as Australian Rules was the earliest organised code to emerge in Australia, so naturally addresses the influence of these early games on the Australian game. So the title is accurate no matter which way you look at it. It could be "Origins of Football in Australia", however then a separate, almost identical article would need to exist for "Origins of Australian Rules Football". Given that the history of Australian Rules Football goes back a lot further and its evolution had a lot more to do with these early matches, it could be argued that it should be more notable and the common name for the article. --Rulesfan (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of fully cited Timeline of Early "Football" matches and discussion

The timeline, which was fully cited has been removed from the article at various stages and repeatedly by some editors. I can understand summarising it, however this information has now been lost which makes it difficult for the reader to make up their own mind. The timeline appears to support a strong connection between Australian Rules and both Marn Grook and Gaelic football which apparently does not sit too well with some. I know some editors have a barrel of their own to push, and I know a list is not ideal so I'll try to integrate these referenced facts into the rest of the articles.

• 1829 - earliest known printed reference to a form of football ("much played in Leicestershire") being played in Australia (in July) at Sydney by soldiers at a military barracks
• 1841 – Robert Brough Smyth observes indigenous Australian men playing a game of "foot ball" (most likely marngrook)
• 1843 – Irish settlers celebrating Saint Patrick's Day in South Australia played a "foot ball" match (Referred to as "Australian Rules" by the SANFL, possibly a variation of Caid)
• 1844 – "footballing" noted at Batman's Hill in Melbourne However hurling was played also, making it likely that this match was also caid.
• 1845 – "football" kicking recorded at the temperance picnic on Emerald Hill Melbourne
• 1849 - "foot-ball" recorded in Brisbane, Queensland. Although later matches were played under "Melbourne Rules" early scratch matches were more likely played under English rules.
• 1850 – a "football match" was played as part of the week of Separation celebrations in Emerald Hill Melbourne, wherein a publican promoted "foot ball" between two teams of eleven players, and then afterwards a twelve-a-side match
• 1850 - a six-a-side "football match" was played in Geelong in November for a wager.
• 1851 – "football" noted in a public demonstration in Hobart February
• 1853 – "football" in Richmond, Tasmania advertised in The Courier on 18 July
• 1854 – "football" in Richmond, Tasmania advertised in the Courier on 25 October
• 1855 – "foot-ball" matches played on 1 September at the Jerusalem Inn outside of Hobart.
• 1857 – William Blandowski sketches indigenous Australians playing "foot ball" in Merbein (most likely marngrook)
• 1857 – "foot-ball" match played at the Jerusalem Inn outside of Hobart in November.

Sean Fagan claims that early matches played in Tasmania may have been an early form of rugby football, pointing to early mentions of goal posts with cross-bars and off-side rules of later Tasmanian clubs.

Quote games played in 1858 were variants of English public school games

This quote implying that these games played in 1858 were variants of English public school games is not true. This text is un sourced, and the article was originally not written that way. It is proven in the (100 years of Australian football Book) that these games are officially recognised as the first games of Australian rules football. You can also read about it in the National Sports Museum as the MCG. As this material is un sourced, and the article was originally not written that way, my version which is sourced and is similar to the original version should be added.AustralianFootballFan (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Why MUST you keep ignoring what others tell you? That quote is attributed to The Herald of the time. It sure reads like journalism of the time. I doubt if anyone just made it up. Without an online version of the source, you need to assume good faith and accept it. And you haven't identified your source for your text yet. You might gain from reading Wikipedia:Citing sources. HiLo48 (talk) 06:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I came across The Herald quote in the 2009 article "A Code of Our Own", co-authored by sports historians Gillian Hibbins and Trevor Ruddell. It is one of the most thoroughly researched works on the topic of Australian football's origins. I suggest you read it, AustralianFootballFan. Mark Pennings' books are also worth citing in this article. Like Hibbins and Ruddell, he relies solely on primary sources. Here's a quote from a review of Pennings' 2012 book Origins of Australian Football (Vol 1): "He could not find evidence that those who wrote the first rules were influenced by the indigenous game of Marngrook. He did find plenty of evidence to suggest that they were adapting traditional English games, most particularly rugby, to local conditions." - HappyWaldo (talk) 10:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks HappyWaldo. I knew you hadn't made it up, and I was broadly aware of that book. The problem we have is twofold. Neither your material nor that from our new editor has been correctly sourced in the article, and our new editor is showing distinct signs of a lack of competence, combined with an unwillingness to communicate and learn. Because of our Three revert Rule I shouldn't be touching that article again at this stage. Maybe you can, but you would want to include that source with any material you add. HiLo48 (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

A book by a individual author is not considered a reliable source if you read through reliable sources on wikipedia. Anyone can claim anything in a individual book. And I doubt in those books they provide any evidence of their claims apart from doing just that. It is clear through many articles that the consensus of the origins of Australian rules football are not decided on, as many people are claiming different theories. If you are going to add anything to this article HappyWaldo it needs to be written as a theory, as that's what this page is about. Regarding one of the opening bits of text you keep reverting HappyWaldo my text is sourced, I just don't how to put it in as I'm rather new to Wikipedia. It's in the (100 years of Australian football) book. Your text isn't sourced so please don't add it again.AustralianFootballFan (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Until you actually include a source here, your addition is, by definition, unsourced. Both you and Waldo need to have a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Perhaps also spread your wings. Have a look at how books are cited in other articles. HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hilo, I have provided sources for every addition I have made to this article, except the lead, which doesn't require inline citations per WP:CITELEAD. This article needs a lot of work, and I am willing to put the time and effort in, but right now that doesn't seem possible because AustralianFootballFan reverts anything that goes against his belief that Australian football is a wholly Australian invention with no outside influences. He has been doing the same thing to the Rugby Union article under various IP addresses. AustralianFootballFan, the origins of Australian football are not as murky as you think. We can learn a lot about the early years by looking at primary sources, such as letters and newspaper clippings, all of which point to English public school as the game's starting point. The founders—two Englishmen, an Australian, and an Irishman—played football at English schools and colleges. They brought their knowledge and experiences to the playing fields of Victoria. Every law they penned in 1859 can be explained by looking at football as then played at Rugby, Eton, Winchester and Harrow. For example, the 'mark' was actually used in Rugby School football. When a player caught the ball, he would mark the ground with his foot and shout "mark!", and from this point he would take a free kick. Tom Wills, of Rugby School, introduced the mark to the Victorian/Australian game. He was also an advocate of the oval Rugby ball—another example of Rugby's influence on the Australian game. It's important to realise that the modern versions of Australian football and Rugby Union have evolved significantly over the past 150 years. But back in the 1850s and 1860s, they were quite similar: roaming packs of men, pushing and shoving a ball towards the goal. It took the Australian game fifteen to twenty years to develop some of the characteristics we reocgnise today: high marking, kicking into open spaces, free flowing play etc. If you think Gaelic/Irish football and Aboriginal games should be presented as equally plausible "theories", then bring forth the evidence. Comb the Trove archives and find a contemporary article that links non-English games to the beginnings of Australian football. It's already been done and no positive link has been found, but try anyway. Who knows what you might find. - HappyWaldo (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Waldo - the little chunk of text you and AustralianFootballFan had a little edit skirmish over wasn't sourced. It gave him ammunition. As for your version of the history, it is the better documented one, so I have no problem with it. We just need to better source the article. HiLo48 (talk) 04:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing in your sources HappyWaldo that prove Australian football has origins from Rugby or English Public School games, there just people making claims with no evidence to support them. Evidence would be one of the creators of the game saying we took aspects from Rugby or English Public School games, or something like that. You don't have that, all you have is people making claims with no evidence to support them. Until you have a credible source of evidence to support your theories the article should stay the same.AustralianFootballFan (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you even read the article? J. B. Thompson is quoted as saying that the new code "combines the merits while excluding the vices" of Eton and Rugby School football. By the way, the 1859 Melbourne Football Club rules, on display in the National Sports Museum, are written in Thompson's hand. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)