Stadium will host games as planned despite damage
By Roger Vaughan, 8 Mar 2010 Roger Vaughan is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- AFL, Etihad Stadium, Melbourne Victory, NAB Cup, St Kilda Saints, Western Bulldogs
141 Have your say
Related coverage
- Western Bulldogs news
- Melbourne Victory news
- St Kilda Saints news
- AFL news
- Toyota Premiership news
- Western Bulldogs news
Etihad Stadium is still determining the full extent of Saturday’s storm damage, but it will host the AFL NAB Cup final and Tuesday’s soccer match.
Melbourne Victory will play at the stadium on Tuesday in an Asian Champions League match before St Kilda and the Western Bulldogs clash in this Saturday night’s Cup final.
Water and structural damage to entertainment areas at the southern and western sections of the stadium meant the St Kilda-Fremantle semi-final on Saturday night was delayed for 20 minutes.
But the affected areas are not part of the main stadium structure.
The playing surface was not damaged by the wild storm that hit Melbourne on Saturday afternoon.
“The most significant damage is in the Livewire and Medallion Club areas, and gates two and three,” said venue communications manager Bill Lane.
“We’ve had engineers and building inspectors in all day, appraising the damage and it’s going to be ongoing in terms of establishing the extent of the trouble.”
Lane said fans attending this week’s matches should prepare for some changed conditions.
“As far as Tuesday night, we will isolate those areas that have been impacted and we’ll be able to host the event around those areas,” he said.
“It will mean some inconvenience and some re-education for patrons coming into the venue.
“The same (will apply) with the NAB Cup, we’re equipped to host the event and the event will go ahead as scheduled … we’re going to have to manage patrons as they come into the venue.”
He added the assessment of the damage was ongoing.
“At this stage, it’s a little bit hard to appraise where we’re going to be in a couple of weeks’ time,” Lane said.
“There’s lots of mopping up.”
The Saints smashed Fremantle by 70 points to reach the Cup final, while the Western Bulldogs beat Port Adelaide on Friday night.
St Kilda narrowly beat the Bulldogs in last year’s preliminary final, before losing an epic grand final to Geelong.
The `Dogs were filthy with a crucial free kick paid to Saints captain Nick Riewoldt early in the second half of the match, which St Kilda won by seven point.
The Saints last won the NAB Cup in 2008, while the Bulldogs have never won the pre-season competition.
The Bulldogs have only won one AFL premiership, in 1954, and their last silverware was for taking out the 1970 night series.
Meanwhile, Geelong and Brisbane are likely to apply to the AFL for extra practice match time after the cancellation of Saturday’s fixture.
The two sides were supposed to play on Saturday afternoon at Visy Park, but the storm meant the game was cancelled.
The game was already rescheduled from the Gold Coast because of the poor weather there.
Under AFL rules, if they feel players are underdone, the clubs can apply for some form of practice match conditions in the week off between the NAB Cup final and the start of the premiership season on March 25.
© AAP 2012Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
AFL articles
- More rugby league players to defect to the AFL? (160)
- Mobile madness: Optus decision bad news for codes (153)
- AFL divisions are the way of the future (106)
- Foxtel’s AFL coverage is nirvana for footy fans (89)
- AFL’s most hated club turns 120 years old (78)
- Israel Folau now ready for AFL (76)
- Optus ruling actually a good thing for AFL fans (52)
- Ling holds hope for club loyalty in AFL
- Andrew Krakouer given four weeks leave from Collingwood
- Giants inspired to prove doubters wrong (32)
- Malthouse not fazed by assistant issue
- Richo says look out for the Tigers in AFL
- AFL clubs’ leadership groups getting out of hand (15)
- Who’s to blame for the Majak Daw beat-up? (32)
- AFL clubs’ leadership groups getting out of hand (15)
- AFL divisions are the way of the future (107)
- Crows changing, but will this AFL preview change your life? (2)
- Is Heath Shaw the right leader for Collingwood? (11)
- Could a female coach succeed in the AFL? (36)
- Demons’ two captain Jacks the right leadership choice (5)
- Mobile madness: Optus decision bad news for codes (153)
- Explore:
- AFL, Etihad Stadium, Melbourne Victory, NAB Cup, St Kilda Saints, Western Bulldogs
Country Victoria said | March 8th 2010 @ 1:09pm | Report comment
It’s football ‘not soccer’ mate…Go St Kilda in the Aussie Rules and Melbourne Victory in the football and Melbourne Storm in league.
Black Diamonds said | March 8th 2010 @ 4:31pm | Report comment
Says who? You? In Victoria mate Football has always been played in the Victorian Football League – now knows as the Australian Football League.
A couple of years back there was a comp called the National Soccer League, had a few Victorian teams. They’ve rebranded themselves but they can’t force 5 million Victorians to change their minds.
bever fever said | March 8th 2010 @ 4:40pm | Report comment
I agree entirely BD. ask country victoria to link you to his website then see if you still think he likes football of the australian variety.
Its soccer to me in this country and most other Englisn speaking ones ( except ironically England), if memory serves me right, soccer city is nearly finished in South Africa where the socceroos will play.
The attempt by the soccer mob to steal the name football is really quite pathetic, if i lived in the UK i would be quite happy to call it football, but i dont, when in Rome.
Michael C said | March 8th 2010 @ 5:42pm | Report comment
!?!?!??!
St Kilda FOOTBALL CLUB if you haven’t noticed,
I’ve never partaken in Aussie Rules except as observed by the odd ignorant outa-stater whom I set straight pretty quick,
the Victory are certainly soccer,
around town at local level – - far best that the round ballers call their clubs ‘soccer clubs’,
Country Victoria said | March 8th 2010 @ 10:13pm | Report comment
Melbourne Victory Football Club, Syden FC (football Club) if you haven’t noticed and many country Victoriians teams are now football clubs.
Michael C said | March 9th 2010 @ 10:08am | Report comment
as compared to just how many ‘Aussie Rules’ clubs have you noticed??
I’ve only ever seen “FC”, or “AFC” for ‘Amateur Football Club”
Not sure why you’ve come barging on with such a silly comment to start a thread……….
Derby County FC said | March 9th 2010 @ 1:51pm | Report comment
Oh for God’s sake who bloody cares! Does it really matter?
Michael C said | March 9th 2010 @ 3:46pm | Report comment
Yes.
In a similar way to how it probably matters MORE to people of Elizabeth or Geelong that they and those they know seriously consider or buy a Ford compared to a resident of Brisbane who may be more ambivolent.
For Victorians and Melbournians in particular – Australian Football IS living history. So too the Melbourne Cup. So too Carols by Candlelight……..etc etc.
If these things are decided to NOT matter – - – then why bother about anything??
Al said | March 9th 2010 @ 11:59am | Report comment
Why are the AFL themselves pushing their game as “AFL” and not “football” into NSW and Qld? Surely the AFL know what their sport is called.
Michael C said | March 9th 2010 @ 3:49pm | Report comment
Do you actually know what AFL stands for??
“AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL league”
The AFL is a commercial brand,
“Australian Football” is a football code,
is that too grey a distinction for you????
AndyRoo said | March 9th 2010 @ 3:51pm | Report comment
Yes it is, do you have any in blue?
Australian Football said | March 9th 2010 @ 4:02pm | Report comment
Thanks for the plug MC…
~~~~~~
AF
Country Victoria said | March 9th 2010 @ 4:04pm | Report comment
MC is getting delirious
Australian Football we know and we have Marngrook (Aussie Rules)
Al said | March 9th 2010 @ 4:08pm | Report comment
The sport is not called “AFL”, it is apparently called football, the name of the league is called the AFL. It would be like tennis authorities pushing their sport as Wimbledon and not as tennis.
If the AFL cant push their sport by what most of its own fans call it, “football”, but need to brand it as AFL, then why should non-AFL followers refer to it or even accept it as football? It is simply AFL.
The FFA on the other hand pushes its sport not as “A-League” but as football because that is the name of the sport and not of some stupid, corporate franchise.
bever fever said | March 9th 2010 @ 4:19pm | Report comment
So are you telling me that the A-league is not a stupid corporate franchise ?.
Westfields anyone.
Michael C said | March 9th 2010 @ 4:37pm | Report comment
Al -
Actually it’d be like the NFL pushing the NFL more so than AMerican Football,
the EPL and Bundesliga and Seria-A brand themselves quite strongly – but, have the advantage or otherwise of NOT having to worry themselves about ‘the game’.
Your reference to Tennis and Wimbledon is a bit silly.
Wimbledon is more like ‘Superbowl’ – - it’s an ‘event’ within the sport. Wimbledon though is part of the Grand Slam, which is part of the world ATP tour. Now – more to the point then would be if ‘ATP’ were pushed rather than ‘Tennis’ per se.
To a degree it is – - it is branded.
The AFL though does use the ‘AFL’ in a more comparitive way to how the ‘NFL’ brands itself. Such as NFL-Germany.
That’d have been a better comparison.
but don’t let me tell you how to construct your arguments…….
Michael C said | March 9th 2010 @ 8:16pm | Report comment
Al -
the FFA push their sport as “Football – but not as you know it”,
now isn’t that confusing????
How did you get your head around that or is it still spinning (thus explaining your disjointed ramblings on here).
btw – the AFL is doing the right thing – because, whilst the game is ‘Australian Football League’, it ensures that the QAFL and and NSW-AFL are clearly distinguished as “Australian Football Leagues”…….however, the WAFL should be WAAFL except that’s the WA Amateurs, and the SANFL is just confusing (SA National Football League)……..?!?!??!
Tifosi said | March 8th 2010 @ 6:22pm | Report comment
“The playing surface was not damaged by the wild storm that hit Melbourne on Saturday afternoon.”
Its hard for the playing surface to be in a much worse state than its already in.
Country Victoria said | March 8th 2010 @ 6:27pm | Report comment
Black Diamonds – bever fever
Fellas fellas back in those early days of the National Soccer League wrongly used the word soccer they were being polite, it should of used football and AusBall for Austalian Rules (I think it
was western bulldogs on Saturday who football-ed a goal without using his hands) now that was real football.
Its common to see football goals kicked in AusBall. The word football did not originate or is not a Australian word its not even an Americans word, football, they should use gridiron – you
have to agree its not real football and Ausball is not real football too.
The word originated in England way back in the 13 century as seen in records, You have to agree too, that football is played 99% with foot, AusBall is played only 45% with foot as in only
kicking the rest is in catching, running with the ball, hand passing.
The English would of had a kick of football on the beachers for a bit of fun, football was here first – “5 million Victorians to change their mind” is this the AFL talking crap again 5 million, all
AusBall followers! And it is changing too, Victorian’s need to know that there are other sports played not just AusBall – I also take in interest in League, Rugby, Football and AusBall.
Football Federation Australian rightly has reclaimed the games correct title form the mother of football which is Rugby, AFL should change to AusBall League or Hands FootBall League HFL – They even correctly use football here at The Roar tabs – your kick fellas.
bever fever said | March 8th 2010 @ 6:43pm | Report comment
Oh dear, we have another one, how about you call soccer what you want, and i will call Australian football …. football. Please do not attempy to tell me what to name something.
Just out of interst CV a club that folded in Tassie recently (Kermandie Football Club) was 123 years old, it started life as Liverpool football club and was older than the world famous Liverpool FC in England, from memory about 10 years older, what that says to me is that no one has a mortgage on the word football , their are stacks of football codes all over the world but the one we have here is Australian football .
Now that would be polite.
BTW give us a link to your website CV, out of Ballarat or Bendigo ?.
Australian Football said | March 8th 2010 @ 8:26pm | Report comment
Bever,
thanks for the plug…
~~~~~
AF
Dan said | March 8th 2010 @ 8:17pm | Report comment
“The word originated in England way back in the 13 century as seen in records, You have to agree too, that football is played 99% with foot, AusBall is played only 45% with foot as in only
kicking the rest is in catching, running with the ball, hand passing.”
This is indeed correct. However, it is also irrelevant and represents an all too common misunderstanding of the genesis of the word. “Football”, as originally conceived, had nothing to do with the amount of ball to foot contact. No, it was the blanket term given to all the team ball games played by the plebs, as they played “on foot”, while the nobles played their games on horse back. The games referred to as football thus included both the predominantly hand and feet games that would eventually evolve into Rugby Football (and later League and Union), American Football (which evolved from Rugby Football), Association Football, Gaelic Football and so on.
None of these games are entitled to sole use of the word “football”, as they all evolved from common origins and adopted the name well before people began to confuse themselves by incorrectly imagining that the word “football” meant that the a player had to use his feet more than his hands.
Ultimately the likelihood of the word football ever being recognised as only belonging to association football is about as likely as the assumption that the Chinese will decide to dump mandarin and just speak English. It’s worth noting that the word soccer is actually the more common name for the game in the English speaking world in terms of sheer population numbers (all of North America alone achieve this).
Michael C said | March 9th 2010 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
Dan -
people prefer to ignore this because it too quickly kills off most arguments around usage of the word,
btw – talking of the Chinese, Sepp and his FIFA mates claim China invented the game 2000 years ago……..so, I’m thinking it’s NOT meant to be called ‘football’ anyway??
so, ‘cuju’…….or…..’kick ball’……..I suppose then, CV and KB might seek to claim ‘kick’ as well???
Michael C said | March 9th 2010 @ 11:08am | Report comment
99% with the foot??
mate…..what rot are you smoking??
from the outset, between 15-25% of soccer goals are scored from the head!!
Soccer rules only legislate that the hand NOT be used…..other than by the goalie or from side line throw ins,
the rules only legislate kicks to be used for corner/free/penalty and kick off scenarios.
Compare to Australian Football -
100% of goals are KICKED,
and the rules also legislate a specific reward/penalty for ‘KICKED’ balls (reward = Mark, penalty = out on the full) as a law book recognition of a ‘kick’. Soccer doesn’t provide any law book recognition for a kick as being of any different value to any other form of propulsion………..just so long as it’s NOT off the hand.
Surely if your argument held water – then the Association Football “Laws of the Game” would stipulate Foot-ball-kicking specificity???
Association Football, via it’s rules, is actually a LESSER form of legislated ‘football’ than the Australian Game – -however, it (Assoc Football) is MORE of a form of ‘Anything but Hands-Ball’.
The obvious conclusion – you don’t NEED to use your feet – - the rules omit the hands – - so, use whatever else as the ‘loophole’ of the laws…..i.e. chest, head, knees, feet…….heck, you can even get a goal kicked by the opposition!!! Anything goes!!!
Country Victoria said | March 9th 2010 @ 11:36am | Report comment
Micheal C – wake-up and get off that crap and listen
I am not talking about % goals kicked or headered or goals kicked by foot in AusBall – I am talking about 100% game time played using foot as in fooball not about just scoring goals.
Michael C said | March 9th 2010 @ 12:36pm | Report comment
CV -
correct, you didn’t mention that,
doesn’t really matter – - I’ve watched plenty of soccer, and seen passages of play with 3 or 4 consecutive headers (true aerial ping-pong!!!) -
I’ve seen guys like Timmy Cahill who use their head more than their feet,
I’ve seen a goalie at each end of the paddock
I’ve seen side line throw ins,
your 99% is the ‘crap’ comment,
and you’ve provided nothing in response.
And you’re 45% is false as well, although this is being pedantic, but for season 2009, it was kicks 53% to handballs 47% for disposals.
but, again, the primary object of the game…..to score a goal,
in Australian football 100% of goals were kicked,
in soccer, what ever dribbles over the line is a goal,
one is a qualitative measure, the other is purely quantitative,
is one better or worse than the other??? is one truer ‘football’ or not than the other? or can we just say they are different games and if not for the clear differences, then we’d be a poorer society with less choice!!
Derby County FC said | March 9th 2010 @ 2:00pm | Report comment
Michael
I love your passion but jeez mate you need to get out more. As you say they’re two different sports, don’t worry about it, same to you CV. Don’t lower yourselves into the same argument.
P.S Can you please forward me a copy of a game where you have seen TC use his head more than his feet? Let’s be honest though the foot is surely used a lot more in soccer/football not that i care, i love AFL too….. cheer cheer the red and the white!!
Al said | March 9th 2010 @ 12:02pm | Report comment
Can an Aussie Rules game be decided by less than a margin of a goal? Can a point be scored by any other means than the foot? Have AFL games been decided by less than a goal? Your point regarding the way in which goals are scored is therefore redundant.
Michael C said | March 9th 2010 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
Al -
how so??
The primary objective of Australian football is a goal kicked by the attacking team.
All other forms of scoring are the dregs over the scoreline, touched balls, balls off the opposition and deflected off woodwork, these are the ‘minor’ scores (which one could argue ought ONLY be used as a form of countback after the fact of goals being level – - that I accept, as an original usage of ‘rouges’ in some forms of football, but, that’s another discussion).
Games being decided by less than a goal is hardly defeating of my point – - what you should’ve said is games being won by a team with LESS goals than the team they defeated. You didn’t say that – I just did for you to show how you don’t even grasp your own argument!!!
bever fever said | March 8th 2010 @ 7:01pm | Report comment
Formed: 1887 as Liverpool Football Club (Tasmania)
http://www.fullpointsfooty.net/kermandie.htm
Liverpool F.C founded 1892 (England)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool F.C.
So what you are saying CV is that a club that has been a football club for 123 years and is older than most EPL clubs should not call itself a football club anymore, do i have this right ?.
Tifosi said | March 8th 2010 @ 8:03pm | Report comment
“Oh dear, we have another one, how about you call soccer what you want, and i will call Australian football …. football. Please do not attempy to tell me what to name something ”
“The attempt by the soccer mob to steal the name football is really quite pathetic”
You are just as bad as he is mate.
bever fever said | March 8th 2010 @ 8:15pm | Report comment
Not at all , and not by a long shot Tifosi.
I have never attempted to hijack the name, its always been known as football for over 150 years in this country.
Punter said | March 8th 2010 @ 8:44pm | Report comment
It’s been known as football in every country.
Tifosi said | March 9th 2010 @ 2:48pm | Report comment
Tifosi said | March 9th 2010 @ 2:52pm | Report comment
Well you said :
“do not attempt to tell me what to name something”
However you are saying he shouldn’t name his sport football but soccer
Despite:
a) The FOOTBALL Federation of Australia being in the Asian FOOTBALL Confederation.
b) Which is a part of the Federation Internationale de FOOTBALL Association.
c) With the laws of the game Authorised by the International FOOTBALL Association Board.
No one is highjacking the term here. They are just calling it as its Officially been known since its inception. They are just catching up.
How about you call AFL “Australian Football”, He should call soccer “Association Football”
That should make you both happy and wont confuse you both too much.
AndyS said | March 9th 2010 @ 3:02pm | Report comment
Indeed, and who knows, folk might even shorten one to Aussie rules and the other to Soccer….
Football is a generic term that is fine in context when speaking of one code, but useless when speaking of multiple codes. So, when you are talking with your mates about a single code, call it footy. But if you are discussing more than one of the codes, be more specific.
And FFS, how about everyone just get over themselves instead of infesting so many discussions on this site with pointless tadger-waving.
Country Victoria said | March 9th 2010 @ 3:08pm | Report comment
If you say Aussie Rules here in Victoria and call football, football they kill you with their looks or sneer at you.
They think football should be only used for Aussie Rules they feel it their right to hi-jack the foreign word fooball for themselves only. But shout up when the Americans use football in their presents.
bever fever said | March 9th 2010 @ 3:38pm | Report comment
Are you back again roman, no one has said anything like that.
i did think it was KB, but with better grammar.
Hows Shepparton ?.
Michael C said | March 9th 2010 @ 3:58pm | Report comment
wanna use the English translation of “Federation Internationale de FOOTBALL Association” which is
International federation of Association Football”
at any rate – it only re-inforces your final comment about How about you call AFL “Australian Football”, He should call soccer “Association Football”,
which I’d subscribe to.
Australian Football said | March 9th 2010 @ 4:22pm | Report comment
No I don’t agree with that; we have the Australian National Football team, shortly embarking on a Football World Cup odyssey in South Africa. Australian Football is representing Australia––not association football.
~~~~~
AF
bever fever said | March 9th 2010 @ 4:35pm | Report comment
Well !, i dont agree, they are australians playing association football, its all been agreed to in this thread KB, please dont upset the applecart now, if you have been following, everyone has agreed to Australian football and association football.
You have been voted down.
Country Victoria said | March 9th 2010 @ 6:16pm | Report comment
bever fever
“you have been voted down” as you say! How appropriate for you only!
Geewizz – How come when I tab on football I get football and not Aussie Rules! I get Australian Football.
bever fever said | March 9th 2010 @ 6:26pm | Report comment
Now now roman, settle petal, BTW is there any radio station, tv station or newspaper in Victoria that you have not fired off a anti australian fooball letter/email to.
I see you are now writing letters to councils complaining about upgrading sports club rooms for rural australian football clubs, who BTW are also for netball and cricket.
Australian Football said | March 9th 2010 @ 6:48pm | Report comment
Bever,
No they are Australians playing for the Australian National Football Team. You have to have a National Football Team representing the whole of Australia—not just suburbia teams playing in Australia. I think we can all agree on that.
~~~~~
AF
bever fever said | March 9th 2010 @ 6:59pm | Report comment
Dear KB, i thought we were past that, the team that represents us at at american football and plays matches against teams from around the world is not called the Australian football team my dear, it is a Australian team playing american football.
Just like the team at the soccer world cup is playing association football.
Its all been ratified on this thread dear man, please pay attention.
Country Victoria said | March 9th 2010 @ 7:48pm | Report comment
bever fever –
Kewell and many other Australians do not play Australian Association Football and they are or have presented Australian Football in the worldcup.
They are playing football for ‘Australia’ and are not playing for the Australian Football Association.
bever fever said | March 9th 2010 @ 10:59pm | Report comment
Roman, Kewell plays association football not australian football, i think this is pretty easy to understand, i hope for your sake that you can understand it, you are going to save yourself plenty of heartache in and around Shepparton.
In this country we are a simple folk, and being australian we even like to simplify things even more so we take shortcuts with our language, so to make it really easy we have simplified association football to “soccer”, so no-one gets confused, it appears you are very confused.
Now we know soccer is a form of football, and we know how old it is because we have accounts of a mongol hordes first 11 played against a ming dynasty 11 in 567bc (BTW was won by penalty shootout), i believe they used a peasants head as the first ball, but Roman its not Australian football.
If i was in Europe or south america i would be in total agreement that the common use of the name football implies soccer, but lets face it they have no other codes of football so they really have no need to use different terminology.
In America football refers to American football , Canada the same, in most of NSW and QLD football refers to RL or at times RU, but generally their is no confusion.
Lets face it Roman … when in Rome !!!
Country Victoria said | March 8th 2010 @ 10:24pm | Report comment
You got it mate Australian Football and the attempt by Aussie Rules mob to steal the name football is really quite pathetic.
Next you’ll be telling us that the Aussie Rules ANZC DAY MATCH is played by New Zealand and Essendon
Australian Football said | March 9th 2010 @ 9:56am | Report comment
Yep, you are 100% right—whole heartily agree with you—they have an indigenous local name they won’t use.
~~~~~
AF
Ian Noble said | March 8th 2010 @ 10:38pm | Report comment
As a matter of interest the oldest formally recorded Football Club is Sheffield FC formed in 1857. They drew up the first draft of formalised rules which were used as a basis for the rules when the Football Association was established in I think 1863. The oldest Rugby Clubs when first established were called football clubs such as Harlequins FC.
There are a number of football clubs that were established in the late 19th century and early 20th century in England as the professional football leagues became popular, Amateur clubs such as Corintinian Casuals were established much earlier and still exist. A number of sports such as Aussie Rules use the term “football” but if you were to ask 99% of the world’s sporting public, they would immediately refer to Association Football and would probably not be aware of the Aussie version.
Beast-A-Tron said | March 9th 2010 @ 2:13am | Report comment
“…if you were to ask 99% of the world’s sporting public, they would immediately refer to Association Football and would probably not be aware of the Aussie version.”
Argumentum ad populum.
Michael C said | March 9th 2010 @ 11:16am | Report comment
Ian –
when you say ‘formalised rules’, and yes, there’s an 1858 set avaible on the internet – - however, the reality is that they didn’t play externally to the ‘club’ themselves for the first few years, apparently not until about 1862.
Compared to the Melbourne club who was playing externally vs Geelong, Melb Uni, Emerald Hill, early but not modern St Kilda or Essendon etc etc, and by 1862-63 the Caledonian Cup was introduced in Melbourne whilst the London FA was still being discussed by a bunch of clubs that would fold if they every existed in the first place, or more to Rugby instead!!!!!
That FIFA recognises Sheffield FC as the oldest Association Football club is pretty disengenuous given that they were off doing their own thing until the late 1870s wouldn’t you think???
Aka said | March 9th 2010 @ 11:41am | Report comment
hmmmmm lets see, a football club is formed to play football and in fact plays football. but we cannot recognise that?
Its a strange world when the oldest football club could not have existed before the second oldest football club.
Michael C said | March 9th 2010 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
Ah, but many ‘clubs’ very fluidly existed around this time. And played by whatever rules/interpretations may have prevailed,
that Sheffield was a fully internal club in it’s infancy – - playing as ‘married’ vs ‘singles’, or as ‘gentlemen’ vs ‘professionals’ as a intra club muck around of the cricketers who made it up – - that’s a pretty loose interpretation of a ‘football club’,
that THAT is deemed enough for FIFA is laughable. They weren’t playing soccer. Soccer didn’t exist yet!!!! They later joined the true ‘branch’ of the football family that is the soccer branch – i.e. the London branch, the London FA and the rules of the London FA that were ‘added to’ from the Sheffield FA over 20 years before finally Sheffield fully JOINED the London FA.
compare to Melbourne Football Club who was likewise established by cricketers, but, in 1859 – their first season, Melbourne FC played matches against StKilda, South Yarra, Emerald Hill, Prahran and Geelong.
whilst Sheffield were still playing glorified social matches amongst themselves (and, how many of these were they playing in an English winter anyway??).
Irrespective of how pedantic people want to get – the fair claim is that Melb FC is the oldest Football Club in the world to be at the top level of it’s code – let alone from day 1 (i.e. the initiator of that code!)………obviously far easier to occur in less than 25 year old settlement of MElbourne than most other ‘settlements/cities’ of the world!!!!
Country Victoria said | March 9th 2010 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
Melbourne AusBall Club (what is the aboriginal name for AusBall) is the oldest Aussie Rules/AusBall club in Australia if you wont to get more excited its the oldest Aussie Rules/ Ausball club in the world
Did they have any celerations stating that they were the oldest football club in the world no, they did not because they knew it was not true.
Any way the guts of the matter is, not the olderst fooball club its the word football the real meaning of the game which is an English word and not an Australian word. Lets have our own name for AusBall.
Michael C said | March 9th 2010 @ 12:42pm | Report comment
strange CV that you worry so much about it??
Melbourne FC celeberated turning 150,
they should do no more or less than celebrate being the oldest Australian Football club in the world.
I’m curious about why you’re going on so much about it all??
‘football’ is to ‘soccer’ as ‘wine’ is to ‘champagne’,
your own argument……football is ‘generic’, soccer/association/London is ‘distinct’.
you can not, or ought not, seek to claim the ‘generic’.
Country Victoria said | March 8th 2010 @ 10:45pm | Report comment
YOUR WRONG bever fever
Melbourne Aussie Rules Club was caught offside – It claimed to be the oldest fooball club in the world I notified them, and it mucked-up their olders football club in the world celebrations.
Don’t be fooled when you hear that Melbourne Aussie Rules Club is the oldest football club in the world and will celebrate 150 years in 2008. Were in fact English Sheffield Football Club celebrated 150 years this year.
bever fever said | March 8th 2010 @ 11:10pm | Report comment
Actually i think you will find that sheffeild fc actually played rugby and not soccer back then, Melbourne football club has played the same code for all its existence and at the highest level the code has to offer.
I am glad that you notified them promptly about this extremely important bit of info that you had, must have been keeping you awake with the importance of it all.
Rob said | March 8th 2010 @ 11:36pm | Report comment
Not Rugby, the Sheffield Rules, an early variation that contained many aspects that became unique to the Association Rules…no catching, heading, corner kicks, crossbars etc.
Anyway, i kinda like the way some people have taken to using Futbol on this site to avoid confusion
bever fever said | March 8th 2010 @ 11:47pm | Report comment
You are correct Rob, likewise with rugby school , cambridge rules etc, most schools, unis had their own code.
Michael C said | March 9th 2010 @ 11:35am | Report comment
Rob –
believe what you like – but, do some research:
1858 sheffield rules
rule number 3. 3.A fair catch is a catch from any player provided the ball has not touched the ground or has not been thrown from touch and is entitled to a free-kick.
Their original rules didn’t have corner kicks, or heading, and did not mention a cross bar, – but DID stipulate via rule 11 11.Each player must provide himself with a red and dark blue flannel cap, one colour to be worn by each side.
Let it be suggested that ‘heading’ was not likely in the 1858 internal club version of their game if the participants wore ‘caps’.
I would suggest that over the intervening 20 years b/w 1858 and 1878 when the Sheffield FA (that was est around 1862) and London FA were effectively fully aligned – that during that period there was a fair bit of ‘evolution’ of the rule sets.
Please people – let’s not pretend that ‘soccer’ was dropped from heaven in 1858 or 1863 or whatever.
Rules of football in general, and any code in particular are living breathing things – and ARE members of a broader ‘football’ family. No logical argument can suggest otherwise.
agreed – the ‘Futbol’ works well. which recognises at least that in the English language nations – the ‘football’ is very much ambiguous.
Rob said | March 9th 2010 @ 12:01pm | Report comment
Nobody is pretending football had some kind of immaculate conception in 1858, Yes the fair catch was included in the first issue of the Sheffield rules but as you say rules evolve so what point exactly are you trying to make by isolating that? Its abandonment shortly afterwards became one of the defining aspects of the Association game and its own particular branch of football’s glorious evolutionary tree.
Michael C said | March 9th 2010 @ 12:15pm | Report comment
what point – - merely to correctly portray your comment,
if people wish to claim Sheffield FC – - from outside of the London FA as being the oldest Association Football club…….then, can ALL codes claim Cambridge Uni? or can Aust Footy claim BOTH Cambridge Uni AND Rugby School/Barnes Rugby club or whatever………
at some point you need to distinguish between solid line connections and dotted line connections, and whilst later in the relationship there’s effectively a solid line connector b/w Sheffield FA and London FA……..prior to the exitence of the London FA….there’s NO connection.
I guess the question is……..is London FA the sole parent, with Sheffield FA marrying into the London FA family? being adopted as a child, or, perhaps marrying ‘LondonFA’ to become dual parent scenario………..if the latter, then, I’d love for people to stop deriding (at other times and places) Aust Football as being some evil hybrid, as, I’d suggest Soccer is equally if not MORE of a hybrid game.
Rob said | March 9th 2010 @ 12:50pm | Report comment
Ah yes more contradictory, blinkered logic from the Sheedy Boys.Its a living breathing thing, but no it needs solid lines Do some research of your own.
Original AFL rule No.8″ The Ball may be taken in hand only when caught from the foot, or on the hop. In no case shall it be lifted from the ground.”
Sounds to me like the actual flow of the game would have been a lot more like a “football ” game than a contemporary AFL game. Looks like a dotted line to me.
Rob said | March 9th 2010 @ 12:50pm | Report comment
Im starting to like the whole genetic thing..lets just accept we all have a common ancestor with some shared DNA.
That said us futbol types have been breading like rabbits for a while now.
Redb said | March 9th 2010 @ 12:56pm | Report comment
‘Sheedy’s Boys’ would be me. Michael C is a North Melb fan they hate him with a passion becuase he labelled ‘em as soft as marshmellows. Get your facts right!
Theres also something about Esssendon depriving North of some players (vaguely dont care either) decades ago that some North fans clearly haven’t gotten over it, but you cant blame Sheeds on that one.
Punter said | March 9th 2010 @ 1:02pm | Report comment
I thought ‘Sheedy boys’ was the marketing tool of the GWS AFL side.
Rob said | March 9th 2010 @ 1:02pm | Report comment
Sorry Red, Coming from western Sydney I assumed it was just a general dis on grooky folk. Will respect your turf in future
Redb said | March 9th 2010 @ 1:09pm | Report comment
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/kevin-sheedys-career/story-e6frf9if-1111114038649
“1998 – After referring to then-Kangaroos officials Greg Miller and Mark Dawson as “marshmallows” earlier in the season, Sheedy was pelted with the soft confectionary after Kangaroos beat Essendon in that year’s finals.”
No sense of humour these North folk.
Michael C said | March 9th 2010 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
Redb -
we have a sense of humour,
that’s why there wasn’t no sharp objects embedded in them marshmallows.
Sheesh, piffing away perfectly good confectionary,…..you guys were able to take’em home and roast ‘em.
ruddy ungrateful Essendon supporters……
Michael C said | March 9th 2010 @ 4:08pm | Report comment
Rob -
re your earlier point re rule 8 – yup, and for a little while goals via the scrimmage were inserted and trialed – and obviously in 1859 there were no behinds, no bouncing, the game began with a ‘kick off’.
The game simply needed an agreed upon set of starting parameters – thus a far from comprehensive set of about 10 rules……most of these games had that, about 10-12 rules. THat permits a heap of ‘grey’ to be agreed upon on the day.
And the games evolved. The Melbourne game evolved in relative isolation and is like the Galapogas of the Football world. ‘Football’ fans who can’t appreciate that are missing out.
re the flow of the game back then – - it was more like ‘Rugby’ but not, more like ‘Soccer’ but not. But, soccer did not exist other than elements in games such as at Harrow, or Eton or Cambridge.
Tom Wills often tried to institute elements of the Rugby game he’d played (note that at his time at Rugby – he was far more feted for his cricket deeds and football was not the ‘true love’) – - Wills was a prodiguous kick and tried for the x-bar (as that made the ‘big kickers’ all the more important – - i.e. himself), and also tried to get the ‘designated’ kicker. So, from the outset – and important ‘Australian Football’ characteristic that developed was the combination of A. no x-bar and B. no ‘designated’ kickers.
From this perspective – I still find astounding that soccer – for so highly skilled a foot game – doesn’t force whomever wins the free/penalty to take the kick. ALL players should be able to cope in that situation. But – that game evolved differently. So be it.
AndyRoo said | March 9th 2010 @ 4:22pm | Report comment
“From this perspective – I still find astounding that soccer – for so highly skilled a foot game – doesn’t force whomever wins the free/penalty to take the kick.”
I assume because the player who won the free kick (i.e. got fouled) may on some occasions be a little worse for wear and so allowing others to take the kick means we don’t have to wait for him to recover. The Arsenal vs Stoke game would still be ongoing as they wait for Ramsey to get back from the Hospital.
Michael C said | March 9th 2010 @ 4:43pm | Report comment
AndyRoo – that WAS a very, very ugly incident that was.
but, as per Australian Football, if the player is too worse for wear, someone else (the nearest to the event) can take the kick …. this happens on occassion. No issue there.
It seems more of that ‘defined’ roles element more so associated with the real ‘formation’ codes – esp Rugby and American Football which are super defined in some respects.
That’s why it’s kinda fun when soccer gets to a penalty shoot out as you know that only 1 of the guys is really in his comfort zone and the others are just as likely to melt under pressure……that said, I don’t like penalty shoot outs as a way to declare a winner but that’s another issue altogether.
AndyRoo said | March 9th 2010 @ 7:53pm | Report comment
that said, I don’t like penalty shoot outs as a way to declare a winner but that’s another issue altogether.
well I just submitted an article on that topic….. spooky
Country Victoria said | March 9th 2010 @ 9:26am | Report comment
bever fever you have a fever
Stop thinking will you, there is a sheffield football club and a sheffied rugby club too your getting yourself confused.
Sheffield is the oldest football club in the world – And if it wasn’t Aussie Rules should find its own Australian name for its own grown Australian sport – Ausball.
TahDan said | March 9th 2010 @ 10:57am | Report comment
Isn’t this argument utterly pointless? The fact is that 60 years ago there was no arguments about the legitimacy of the word “football” for a particular sport, let alone 150 years ago. Both teams and sports are entitled to the name football. This argument about who has more of a right to use it is both fallacious and pathetic.
Michael C said | March 9th 2010 @ 8:12pm | Report comment
so……according to CV – Sheffield Football Club who played by their own rules and apparently pioneered ‘football’ themselves then got hijacked by soccer.
Because London wasn’t playing the Sheffield game….so, the London FA wasn’t football…….Sheffield was,
and casual observors suggest that the most similar game to it at the time was the Melbourne game…….so, by extension – the most correct ‘modern football’ must be the Melbourne game as it evolved naturally whilst the Sheffield game got totally compromised and gobbled up.
Country Victoria said | March 9th 2010 @ 9:18pm | Report comment
Micheael C
You are telling lies to justify your silliness I wrote no such or implied such thing.
only that Sheffield Football Club in the oldest football clubl in the world. Stop making up stories.
“so……according to CV – Sheffield Football Club who played by their own rules and apparently pioneered ‘football’ themselves then got hijacked by soccer”.
Michael C said | March 10th 2010 @ 10:49am | Report comment
CV -
you dear sir are the one going on about hijacking of words,
by your own logic –
SHeffield Football Club, 1857…….they were NOT playing Association Football (it didn’t exist yet).
Association Football was born in London. i.e. Sheffield CAN NOT count prior to this time, as they are NOT part of the original London FA and are playing their own local version of ‘football style’ game.
Sheffield later JOIN the FA, and even later accept a compromised set of rules.
Surely you can see it is hijacking of their heritage to claim them from 1857.
It would be akin to MelbourneFC switching to RL and suddenly RL claim a RL club dating back to 1858/59………it doesn’t work that way.
So……..you’re happily perpetuating one hijacking whilst decrying another.
Talki about silliness.
Country Victoria said | March 10th 2010 @ 11:29am | Report comment
Michael C
You did like making up irrelevant issue away from the main point. The word football orginated in England in the 13th century. Its did not originate in Australia, football was played on the Australian beachs by the English sailors before Aussie Rules.
Sheffield is the oldest football club in the world, Melbourne Aussie Rules Club is the oldest Aussie Rules Club in the world and is not the oldest football club in the world, they will even tell you that they are not the olderst football club in the world. U’s just go around in circles and only talk rubbish.
O ya ‘bever fever’ found with his magnify glass small crack about 0.03mm long in one of the bicks 7th rowe 4 on left at gate 4 at the BubbleDome form the storm, but should be safe friday nights game St’s and Bull D’s – you guys are pathetic
Michael C said | March 10th 2010 @ 12:07pm | Report comment
CV -
ah, the heart of the problem here -
so long as Australia speaks English – then Australia can not do anything but ‘hijack’ an English phrase????
YEs football was coined seemingly about 600-700 years ago……in English……
…..and it has and is clearly a generic term…..
.,…being hijacked by FIFA and it’s regional minions.
remember your champagne argument…..
‘football’ is to ‘soccer’ as ‘wine’ is to ‘champagne’
clearly……I agree whole heartedly and am glad you brought up champagne.
btw – there are clearly people from other forms of football who dispute Sheffield as the oldest ‘football’ club in the world, whilst I still submit to you that you ought not seek to count the history of Sheffield Football Club prior to it’s being an Association Football club. In doing that – you are hijacking a prior and unrelated history.
btw – and what code of football were the sailors on the beach playing???? a code that didn’t exist??
or a variation of Eton Field Game? or a variation of Harrow school football? or a variation of Rugby School Football,
who cares what English sailors may or may not have played on the beach??? What’s more important is what the permanent residents adopted, adapted and created.
btw – according to your logic – - CUB does NOT brew ‘beer’, because the word was invented before Australia was. Holden does not make cars…..because they weren’t invented in Australia and therefore Holden has ‘hijacked’ the word………
Rob said | March 8th 2010 @ 10:52pm | Report comment
Likewise Bever … Sheffield FC 1857, Notts County FC 1862, equally ridiculous you insist we call it soccer
bever fever said | March 8th 2010 @ 10:57pm | Report comment
I have never insisted that Rob, i have only stated what i call it.
elbusto said | March 8th 2010 @ 8:43pm | Report comment
Football is that game played all around the World – not a minor code played in Australia.
Football is ‘Association Football’.
The Rugby’s respect that. Its the AFL that does not!
TahDan said | March 8th 2010 @ 8:55pm | Report comment
People have such a limited understanding of how language works sometimes…
Rugby has chosen to identify itself as “rugby” and not “rugby football”, as it was originally known because of its more international market and the desire not to confuse people in predominantly association football countries. Australian Football however, like American Football, has a limited market place in which its population base have generally grown up knowing their sport as football, and association football as soccer. These sports took root long before being called “football” was ever a source of indignation to association football followers. Language is a fluid and malleable thing; the meanings of words are co-opted and change from place to place. You cannot claim a word which has a variety of uses as your own, that’s not how language works.
elbusto said | March 8th 2010 @ 9:09pm | Report comment
That makes sense but what I find amusing is that so many AFL supporters take offence at Football being called Football.
In the end the bigger sport will prevail. More and more Australian media are now calling Association Football ‘football’. SO yes the language is fluid and the times are a changing!
TahDan said | March 8th 2010 @ 9:21pm | Report comment
AFL fans who get upset at people calling association football “football” and not soccer are just stupid. But so are the association football fans who demand that everyone call their game football. The media here is starting to call the game football (well, some of it… the newslimited press still calls it soccer), but the complex nature of the Australian football landscape (possibly the most diverse in the world – where else do single cities have teams of 4 different fully professional football codes representing them?) will likely dictate that people will use the name soccer for convenience in any uncertain context (of which there will always be many in this country).
elbusto said | March 8th 2010 @ 9:24pm | Report comment
Agreed.
bever fever said | March 8th 2010 @ 10:34pm | Report comment
Well i agree as well, i call it soccer to differentiate between what i call football (Australian football) and well … soccer (association football).
If i was in the the UK and someone said football i would know they were talking soccer , but if in the southern states of Australia i would assume they were talking about Australian football, if in the northern states and someone mentioned football i would assume RL.
Capish.
KISS….. the facts are that FFA has confused the issue and attempted to hijack a name that traditionally is not theirs in this country.
Beast-A-Tron said | March 9th 2010 @ 12:56pm | Report comment
“That makes sense…”
Intriguing because he essentially just contradicted what you said.
The generic word ‘football’ is in the eye of the beholder, a concept which for some reason you are unable to grasp.
elbusto said | March 9th 2010 @ 7:52pm | Report comment
Where did he contradict me?
Country Victoria said | March 8th 2010 @ 10:34pm | Report comment
O yes you can – The french claimed the word Champagne back legally from other countries that wrongly used Champagne as their (other countries) own brand of Champagne.
bever fever said | March 8th 2010 @ 10:36pm | Report comment
Give a plug for your website CV, be interested to have a look.
TahDan said | March 8th 2010 @ 11:04pm | Report comment
Yes, but champagne is a patented product with a clear historical lineage. Football, on the other hand, is a name that has been utilised by different sports for more than 100 years.
Michael C said | March 9th 2010 @ 10:57am | Report comment
champagne is a regional term,
a bit like how ‘Rugby’ should remain relative ONLY to the school or Rugby,
all are codes of ‘football’,
the ‘regional distinctions’ include :
“Association”
“American”
“Canadian”
“Gaelic”
“Australian”
…..and Rugby still get’s me, ‘cos, it’s spawned a 2nd ‘Rugby’ that is even LESS connected to the real Rugby schoolboy game.
Go figure.
Anyway – it is dastartly to come into a ‘Region’ and try to pinch it’s regional identifier – i.e. the local game plays by the rules of ‘Australian Football’,
vs the game that uses the “Laws of the game”.
So, glad you brought it up – Champagne……..it fully supports the exclusive protection of ‘Australian Football’ as referring to the game using a sherrin.
Good talking.
Country Victoria said | March 9th 2010 @ 11:24am | Report comment
Sparkling wine in Australia, Champagne is not made here in Australia – Be proud to use the aboriginal name for AusBall know your country and its culture
Michael C said | March 9th 2010 @ 11:40am | Report comment
Okay – yep,
Country Victoria IS either KB or Norm under KB’s guidance.
Australian Football said | March 9th 2010 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
Well said Country Victoria, and you are 100% correct—a green thumb for that post.
~~~~~~
AF
Australian Football said | March 9th 2010 @ 3:15pm | Report comment
I thought I would just drop in to see how the debate is progressing. Poor MC, he would still have us believe that every AFL player straps on four boots––two on their hands and two on their feet. Yet still no mention of the hand to foot combo to deliver the ball; or a hand-thing pass to a comrade. Hmm, yes MC, the hands do drop the ball to the foot to score a goal in a game of AFL. MC it’s a hand-foot combo dear boy––not as we Football Purists call a pure delivery of the ball by the foot to score by the foot, or at times with the head.
A move constructed on the ground most times with the feet and a final pass by the foot to a striker to score a goal with the foot in most cases––it’s called shot on target to score a goal. It’s not the goal so much, but the act of getting away a shot on target for a goal. That’s why its called Football as it was meant to be; and why the name Football was first coined by the English.
It was never meant to be hijacked by Tom Wills for it to be rebranded as the indigenous game from the ancient form of Marngrook. Many of your own AFL historians have been calling for it to be recognised as the modern game of Marngrook. Why drink French Champagne when you can drink the local Australian Sparking Wine variety that suits your palate better. French Champagne would be a sheer waste with a palate like yours.
Have other pressing things to do now—so keep going CV you are doing a fine job.
~~~~~~
AF
Michael C said | March 9th 2010 @ 4:13pm | Report comment
KB -
and you wear boots on your head obviously??? or, perhaps you ought to have to limit the concussions from propelling that water soaked soccer ball in your youth with your brain box.
mate – IT was never meant to be anything………..you’re only limiting yourself dear sir.
Your loss.
Rod said | March 9th 2010 @ 11:53am | Report comment
MC, Rugby League was still playing “Rugby Football” in the 19th century, it has every right to the name Rugby Football.
Michael C said | March 9th 2010 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
ah, but ought ‘Rugby Football’ have retained the school/town name or developed a less ‘regional’ name?
(actually, should soccer be “London-football”?)
Look – just an extension of any silly ‘champagne’ arguments.
Poor CV above has shown the futility of his argment by referring to ‘sparkling wine’ as distinct to ‘champagne’,
because, ‘soccer’ is far more like ‘champagne’, as ‘football’ is to ‘wine’.
I wonder if CV can see that he is defeated by his own argument???
Punter said | March 9th 2010 @ 12:26pm | Report comment
It’s Australian Rules or Aussie rules to me, so in the northern states, we are not taking anything away from AFL.
bever fever said | March 8th 2010 @ 10:44pm | Report comment
Macdonalds is eaten around the world, i imagine thats what you eat because its the world food elbusto ?.
Stop winding these soccer guys up, they will be eating at the same restaurant as you soon, in your quest to put down Australian rules footy you really scrape the barrell dont you.
Ian Noble said | March 8th 2010 @ 10:57pm | Report comment
Pathetic, I am a Brit with no axe to grind. My nephew is on the Sydney Swans roster and I follow his progress with considerable interest. My favourite spectator sport happens to be rugby union. If you can’t face up to fact then you are a poor Roarer.
bever fever said | March 8th 2010 @ 11:02pm | Report comment
What fact do i have to face up to Ian ?.
Rod said | March 8th 2010 @ 8:53pm | Report comment
What’s League?
Which League do they play in?
Ian Noble said | March 9th 2010 @ 3:26am | Report comment
Interesting connections, Thomas Willis went to Rugby school played rugby, football and cricket and came back to Oz and drew up the rules for Aussie Rules. Presumably based the rules on a version of a game played at Rugby School, I don’t know perhaps someone could enlighten me.
Country Victoria said | March 9th 2010 @ 9:33am | Report comment
Ian Noble
Yes I have heard this too, I heard this was on the BBC (a book) about Englishmen and the inventions or creating of new games and sporting games around the world – table tennis was first invented and played in England.
Michael C said | March 9th 2010 @ 10:52am | Report comment
Tom Wills was but one of a committee of men,
Rugby School rules were but one of a collection of English school rules to be considered,
most school rules included certain reference or implicit limitation due to the confines of the field or the grounds upon which they played.
Redb said | March 9th 2010 @ 10:01am | Report comment
The ‘football’ Tom Wills saw in the mid 1850s in England bear little resemblance to todays various codifed football rules. English football was school based, with many different rules between schools which made it difficult for play each other.
So there is no doubt some rules in Aussie Rules have an early rugby flavour as well as early soccer and unique rules.
The first ten rules of the Australian version of ‘football’ were drawn up in 1859 in a pub in Melbourne by four people including Wills. These rules now adorn the inside of the Olympic Stand at the MCG (near the escalators). They are quite distinct.
Victorians have been calling Aussie Rules, ‘football’ for a very long time.
1858 – the Melbourne Cricket Club sets out to play a football game and the following year form the Melbourne Football Club.
1877 – Victorian Football Association (VFA)
1896 – Victorian Football League (VFL)
1987- Australian Football league. (AFL)
So its been ‘football’ for a very long time.
I subscribe to the theory that no one owns ‘football’ as it depends on where you come from. Soccer only started using the term very late in the piece, about 2005 I beleive, but you have to acknowledge that soccer has been known as ‘football’ for a long time in other countries, just not in Australia.
Country Victoria said | March 9th 2010 @ 10:17am | Report comment
AusBall hi-jacked the word football away from the real football – your dates do not justify AusBall to be called football.
The sailors who first arrived on Australias beaches even had a bite of fun playing football. There is even an 1855 etching our native playing football but the AFL don’t mention it because it resembles fooball and not AusBall.
Redb – and so it don’t upset you that football is called football and AusBall is called AusBall or, ya use the aboriginal name.
Michael C said | March 9th 2010 @ 11:43am | Report comment
in the 1840s there would often be ‘football’ played as part of the Queens Birthday festivities……once a year ‘football’, a bit like ‘Shrove Tuesday (Mob) Football’,
what the rules were is anyones guess??
was there a regiment in town from a particular area of England more tuned to the Eton game, or the Rugby school game, or Harrow, or Uppingham……..or just a more disorderly ‘mob’ style game.
No matter – we’ll probably never know, but, the ‘football’ was on along with the ‘foot races’ and other forms of activity,
Ian Noble said | March 9th 2010 @ 8:58pm | Report comment
I would agree that football is a generic term.
However, some interesting dates
1857 – Sheffield F.C formed
1863- Football Association formed
1871- Rugby Football Union formed (Blackheath broke away from the FA and joined with other rugby clubs)
1888- Football League formed (the original 12 clubs were from the North and Midlands of England, no London clubs they were formed in the early 1900′s, Arsenal was the first London club to win the league in 1931)
1895- Rugby Football League formed (originally known as the Northern Union, similar in many ways to the formation of the Football League in that the main driving force was the need to pay players and create a market to sell the game. Whereas the south of England was probably more prosperous and wished to and was able to maintain the amateur game)
I suppose if one was looking for an acid test to immediately relate football to one game then it probably comes down to marketing and the recognition of personalities. In a worldwide context if you were to say Beckham, Pele, Best, et al then people would relate to football, I can’t think of any personalities or marketing of any off shoot of football which would immediately imply football.
Mr Real Australian it's called Football Man formerly known as Kurt said | March 9th 2010 @ 9:51am | Report comment
I’m fascinated at how an article reporting on damage to Docklands Stadium turned into a footsoccerball naming argument. Any ideas?
Redb said | March 9th 2010 @ 10:13am | Report comment
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/1/1f/Wood_Troll.jpg
one of these, don’t feed him.
Country Victoria said | March 9th 2010 @ 11:12am | Report comment
One of these that wont face facts – Redb is one of these.
Mr Real Australian it's called Football Man formerly known as Kurt said | March 9th 2010 @ 10:14am | Report comment
I wonder which of the soccerinas has rebadged himself ‘Country Victoria’? My original guess would have been KB, but to be fair he does seem to have a slightly superior grasp of the nuances of punctuation than our old Brit masquerading as an Aussie. Probably Jimbo or Norm would be my guess.
AndyRoo said | March 9th 2010 @ 11:12am | Report comment
I think the thumbs down was brought in exactly for his post….. if we are going to throw down theories as to his true Identity I suspect he is an Aussie Rules fan who has decided to fire everyone up (I suspect Borked). Why else would he be reading the AFL tag
In his first post he admitted to knowing who St Kilda are, if he was really a member of the soccerinas he would know that’s a big no no. The official policy is to deny all knowledge of who St Kilda are since the Rovers have ripped off their kit.
Anyway I now have to read what Shevin Keedy* is saying about the new ALF team.
* That ones for you Redb.
Redb said | March 9th 2010 @ 11:17am | Report comment
Oh gee thanks.
Australian Football said | March 9th 2010 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
Thanx Jurt—you should think more about the use of the double em dash then the two worded sentence without a verb or a noun—sorry about the lisp.
~~~~~
AF
bever fever said | March 9th 2010 @ 3:51pm | Report comment
I suggest you look for “roman ausball blog”, this is for anyone interested in MR CV.
Very interesting, possibly related to KB.
Australian Football said | March 9th 2010 @ 4:30pm | Report comment
Geez Bever, my right to reply didn’t last long..
bever fever said | March 9th 2010 @ 6:19pm | Report comment
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/arenas-1b-boost-for-afl/story-e6frf9jf-1225837768439
Another present for you KB.
I did post it on another thread but maybe you did not see it, interested in your views.
Please explain all this to me.
Mr Real Australian it's called Football Man formerly known as Kurt said | March 10th 2010 @ 1:08am | Report comment
Looks like another of those foolish AFL types who doesn’t understand property law. Sure, the AFL CEO at the time the stadium deal was signed thinks the AFL will get freehold ownership in 2025, whereas in actuality KB has sussed out that it’s only an options contract, based upon his analysis of The Roar archives.
AndyRoo said | March 9th 2010 @ 10:39am | Report comment
This is the 47th Comment, and only one so far (congrats to Tifosi) has actually been on topic.
Anyway I think only Rugby League should be allowed to call itself Football this year. The other codes will have to come up with new names that don’t involve either the words “foot” or “ball”.
My reasoning is that Billy Slater won the deodorant sponsored greatest athlete competition and since I am yet to hear back from Sepp Blatter, the IRB and Andrew Demetriou (must be busy rebranding) I assume their all ok with it.
Seems a flawless way to decide all disputes really.
Can’t wait for next season where Palestinian’s, Israeli’s, Climate change deniers and Bob brown will be going head to head.