Related coverage
Many AFL fans will tell you that their game is the only truly indigenous code of football in Australia, and that the other codes are simply British exports.
In fact, many sports enjoyed in Australia today had their originating laws exported from Britain throughout her Empire. These include Football (Soccer), Tennis, Cricket, Badminton, Rugby Union – and through extension Rugby League – Hockey, and Australian Rules Football.
For Aussie Rules is not a game whose founding laws were created in Australia by Australians. It is a game, like Football and the Rugby codes, whose founding laws are based squarely in Britain.
To quote from the article: National myths, imperial pasts and the origins of Australian Rules football: “The set of rules developed in Melbourne in the 1850s and 1860s was simply one of many dozens of variations in the playing of football throughout the British Empire. The Melbourne rules were no more indicative of an Australian independence of mind than the Sheffield FA’s rules were an expression of Yorkshire nationalism.”
All the laws that may seem to make AFL uniquely Australian such as the Mark, offside interpretation, bouncing the ball, abolition of hacking, and even the playing area and team size, were documented in the various mish mash of British football before the original drafting of Australian Rules football laws in Melbourne in 1859.
If AFL fans do wish to boast of their codes ‘indigenous superiority’ they can at least point to the fact that of the British football laws chosen to create Aussie Rules, they were at least drafted in Melbourne and not Cambridge, Sheffield, or Eton.
Notably, while the founding laws of the NFL are as dependent on the various nineteenth century British football rules as the AFL, NRL, and ARU, NFL fans do not declare American Football as ‘America’s indigenous game’, presumably as the NFL has no real football rival in the USA.
The codes have all been steadily evolving for more than a century and if any of the law makers of the original versions of British football were to see a game of NRL, AFL, NFL, Football or Rugby today, they would be amazed, perhaps even appalled, by the speed, size and strength (and pay cheque) of the modern footballer.
Ironically, Rugby, a game that beat both the AFL and NRL to documenting its preferred version of the various football rules of Britain, has the least say in it’s law variations in Australia today.
The NRL, due to Australia’s domination of international rugby league, and the AFL, due a lack of an international game, can both crop and change rules as they please. Due to the size of Rugby internationally, the ARU has never had, and never will have, this luxury.
While the originating laws of Australia’s two leading codes, the NRL and AFL, are both British, it is the long standing rivalries in the domestic competitions that make both games the dominate codes in this country today.
And you could suggest that most fans of the NRL, ARU, and A-League could care less about exactly which of the melting pot of British rules were used to found their games, and by whom and where. They support one or more of the codes because they enjoy watching them, which is surely the whole point?
To again quote the above mentioned article: “In short, Aussie Rules is merely one of those variations of British football that managed to survive and ultimately thrive.”
Is the AFL Australia’s indigenous Game?
No. But as its current laws are controlled in this country and the game is not yet played away from our shores, the game in certainly Australian.
And the fact it is one of five football codes to have survived from all the variations of ‘football’ in nineteenth century Britain, is a sure indication of its strength and resilience.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- AFL, Australian Rules, football, rugby
October 22nd 2010 @ 4:39am
Kurt said | October 22nd 2010 @ 4:39am | Report comment
I can’t recall reading a single book or article touching on the origins of Australian Football that claims it owes nothing to the various loosely defined ‘codes’ of football being played in British public schools at the time. Victoria was a British colony and the majority of its inhabitants would have considered themselves ‘British’, as such the idea of adopting and then adapting British sporting traditions was hardly an odd one. The question therefore is not so much one of origins as evolution. I suspect if we were able to travel back in time to watch games of Rugby, Soccer and Australian Football in the mid 19th Century we would struggle to tell them apart. By the early 20th century however each of these games (along with American football) had evolved in response to their environments. Australian Football, with its wide open playing fields and various uniquely Australian cultural influences evolved into the game we know today, with long kicking and high marking a feature. Rugby and Soccer of course evolved in different directions.
There is of course something of a debate about how much, if at all, the Aboriginal game of Marn Grook contributed to football’s development. My personal theory is that whilst it did not contribute to the formal codification of the game, it did provide a cultural influence through the style of play of introduced by Aboriginal players.
To me the whole argument is akin to discussing whether or not Australia as a whole has a ‘unique’ culture. Of course we owe much to our British origins, and more recently to different cultural traditions from Europe and Asia. But the fact is we have created something quite unique in its own way – much as we have with Australian Football.
October 22nd 2010 @ 7:36am
Paul J said | October 22nd 2010 @ 7:36am | Report comment
“The question therefore is not so much one of origins as evolution. ”
I agree Kurt. The founding laws of both the AFL & NRL were first trialled and documented in Britain, but it is the long evolution and tribal rivalries developed in this country that make the games Australian.
One difference is that the first rule book for AFL was drafted in Australia, and for rugby – and then through extension the NRL – it was England. If some AFL fans want to use this as bragging rights they are of course quite entitled to. The down side is that AFL has not yet reached an international level, even as modest as rugby league’s.
I was not trying to start a code war, but most posts on the Roar seems to head that way anyways. I just feel the often repeated suggestion that the AFL is a truly indigenous game and the NRL is nothing but an English export is ridiculous. The Australian Football League and The Australian Rugby League are nothing but Australian.
October 22nd 2010 @ 7:54am
Joel said | October 22nd 2010 @ 7:54am | Report comment
Paul, this subject has been done to death. You know very well where it leads and your are quite obviously trying to fan the flames of a “code war”.
October 22nd 2010 @ 8:07am
Paul J said | October 22nd 2010 @ 8:07am | Report comment
Joel
If it’s been done to death on the Roar I’ve missed it, however i don’t check out the Roar as much as i once did.
If TV ratings, crowd figures, expansion, toughness of the game, etc etc are mentioned it often leads into code war territory.
It has been mentioned by some on the Roar that the ‘Code War’ is what keeps the Roar afloat.
October 22nd 2010 @ 9:04am
Joel said | October 22nd 2010 @ 9:04am | Report comment
While I agree with you about the value of “code wars” to this site, and find them an amusing distraction at times, the moderators have a different opinion.
I don’t find your claim credible for four reasons. Firstly this subject threatened to go nuclear in a discussion of an article currently under the afl ‘tab’. Secondly, if you’ve been on this site for any length of time you will have seen this issue arise, and you have been. Thirdly, you’ve posted a link to a site which was posted in the earlier discussion. Finally, you yourself have posted in articles previously where the origins of the game have been broached.
http://www.theroar.com.au/2010/06/02/the-afl-bets-its-expansion-future-on-marketing-ploys/
http://www.theroar.com.au/2010/02/19/saturday-marks-official-bounce-down-in-west-sydney/
http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/11/10/osborne-laughs-off-afl-threat-in-the-west/
http://www.theroar.com.au/2010/01/07/non-australian-expats-growing-the-afl-game/
And you’re seriously trying to say you’ve never noticed this subject come up once?
October 23rd 2010 @ 9:00am
beaver fever said | October 23rd 2010 @ 9:00am | Report comment
Computer forum speak, this post = nail, hammer, head, this article is a classic case of do not feed the tr…….
October 22nd 2010 @ 7:54am
Kurt said | October 22nd 2010 @ 7:54am | Report comment
Not sure I’m with you there Paul. I don’t consider it remotely disrespectful to say that Rugby League is an English game, nor is it boastful to say that Australian Football is uniquely Australian. These are just reasonable statements based upon the historical evidence. The argument that Australian Football’s founding rules were British is based upon the idea that because the game did not materialise out of thin air using a completely unique and previously unthought of set of rules, then it must be considered British. Every single culture in recorded history has featured some form of activity involving the kicking, punching and /or throwing of a ball-type object. So Australian Football was of course influenced by games from the playing fields of Eton and Rugby, which in turn were influenced by the ‘folk football’ of the middle ages which in turn were no doubt also influenced by the games, activities and military training of various Norman, Saxon, Roman and Celtic invaders and settlers. Presumably some tribe in sub-saharan Africa in 15,000BC were the true inventors of the concept – so are we to say that in Rugby and Eton they were doing nothing more than copying African hunter gatherers, and didn’t really create their own games?
October 22nd 2010 @ 12:20pm
BMAN35 said | October 22nd 2010 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
I think it is fair to say the Rugby League can at least claim part parentage from Australia
Noone is claiming that the idea of a football game in Melbourne occurred completely independently of the existence of such games in England in the 1850′s, which were almost exclusively played in Public schools or by old boys at the time and were inspired by a host of traditional folk games played in the Britisgh Isles and in Europe for centuries preceding.
Sifting through the array of early games played in the UK and succefully locating the handful of Melbourne rules of 1858, is a foolish basis to assert that Australian football is a british sport.
For those blinded by parochialism or with a lack of historical imagination and knowledge, remember this was a time when it took several months for people and mail to travel between Aujstralia and Europe and telegraph cionnection wasn’t established until 1872.
A small minority of the original footballers in Melbourne were exposed to british versions of football. Initially, you weren’t allowed to run with it (though apparently many did, particularly the captains who were often also the umpires). You were only allowed to gatehr posession with your hands either by catching it or “on the hop”. The first decade saw a round ball used initially before a oval ball was later adopted. So, very early at least and as the rules suggest, tha game perhaps had more in common with the precursers to soccer than rugby. I could be wrong but I am not aware of any prominent person early on that had played the “sheffield rules”
The game is an Australian version of an idea that evolved and developed in Australia at the same time and rate as rugby and soccer in the UK in the second half of the 19th century, and decades before before the branches of League and Gridiron grew from the Rugby tree.
The AFL, per capita, is the strongest domestic football league in the world of any code by attendance (AFAIAA). Subjectively it offers the broadest mix of athleticism, skill and courage of all the codes. It is actually a cultural triumph that all Australian sport lovers might be proud of, but unfortunately many are prevented due to parochial hang ups!
As much as it pains some, the australian game is an australian game.
October 22nd 2010 @ 1:14pm
Anthony said | October 22nd 2010 @ 1:14pm | Report comment
I am with you, Kurt. Furthermore, Aussie Rules is so entirely different to every other football code that it could only have been invented in Australia. Sydney could not cope with adopting a game invented in Melbourne – so they wnet for the British code(s). Says more about Sydney than the choice of sport!
October 22nd 2010 @ 1:18pm
General Ashnak said | October 22nd 2010 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
Sorry but there are many similarities between all the football codes.
October 22nd 2010 @ 1:29pm
Joel said | October 22nd 2010 @ 1:29pm | Report comment
For example, they all have balls and are played on a surface by people.
October 22nd 2010 @ 2:05pm
General Ashnak said | October 22nd 2010 @ 2:05pm | Report comment
They all have goals, they have fouls, they have a boundary line, the ball can either be live or dead etc etc etc.
October 22nd 2010 @ 2:15pm
Joel said | October 22nd 2010 @ 2:15pm | Report comment
…they begin and end, players breathe and even sometimes drink and rest.
October 22nd 2010 @ 2:25pm
Ken said | October 22nd 2010 @ 2:25pm | Report comment
There is actually very little that was unique about Aussie Rules when it was created is the point I think the author is making. 150 years of footballing evolution later and it stands somewhat alone (although Gaelic football is not ‘so entirely different’ hence the international rules tournaments). However the ideas of marking, kicking through goals and various interpretations of running the ball/tackling and releasing were all common elements of football games played in England which had been observed by the creators of Aussie Rules. The rules were codified here but there was little unique about them.
Of course, what does it really matter besides historical trivia? Anyone who reverts to arguments of origin to defend their passion is grasping at straws anyway.
BTW Anthony, I think that’s quite a simplistic view you have that Sydney (and I guess by extrapolation the entire east coast) doesn’t play AFL because it was invented in Melbourne! Actually while the rules were codified a few years later, Melbourne was probably still part of NSW in the games formative years. +1 for NSW!
October 24th 2010 @ 7:06pm
Black Diamonds said | October 24th 2010 @ 7:06pm | Report comment
Not quite – Victoria/Melbourne split from NSW/Sydney in 1851. This separation – and Victoria’s wealth thanks to the gold mining boom – were no doubt factors in the eventual rejection of the game up north.
It is a good piece of trivia to note that several Australian Football clubs in Sydney are older than their Rugby League counterparts! Despite those who claim Aussie Rules was only really introduced to Sydney in the 1980s!
October 24th 2010 @ 8:55pm
Jedda Baxter said | October 24th 2010 @ 8:55pm | Report comment
Black Diamonds. “This separation – and Victoria’s wealth thanks to the gold mining boom – were no doubt factors in the eventual rejection of the game up north.”
Based upon what? Got a reference for that presumption?
Of course, of course, NSW must have rejected the rules out of jealously. It couldn’t be on the basis there was something to do with the game.
We all know that AFL didn’t become the world game because of bad luck and influential people who were bigoted against the game.
99% of the world’s football fans over the past 150 years have never even heard of the existence of your code. Why? Because it isn’t as good in the eyes of the world as you all like to think it is.
The FIFA WC is coming to Australia. Get ready for your final reality check people. Enjoy your last decade in the sun before joining your Eton Wall game relic brother.
October 22nd 2010 @ 6:05am
Kermit is a frog said | October 22nd 2010 @ 6:05am | Report comment
Unique culture.
Try that up to the 1850s, ‘football’ other than once yearly festival day (eg Queens Birthday) sports might include some rough and tumble and unruly form of ‘folk football’, other than that, ‘football’ was solely the domain of priviliged school boys, and existed as a wide variety of local games perculiar to each school. There was no ‘culture’ of football for adults for recreation.
Culturally, certain things happened in Melbourne in the 1850s that DID make it unique. A small, young city that got big and got rich very quickly on the back of the gold rush. Melbourne gave the world the 8 hour day. Don’t underestimate the importance of this in creating a ‘wealthy’ (ish) class of adults able to indulge more readily in football for recreation.
Melbourne also didn’t have deeply entrenched scholarly institutions, for example, Eton and Rugby would never compromise their rule set to be able to play with the other. And we know the efforts in London in 1862-63 to create a single set of rules for a unique game that all could play – somewhat failed.
In Melbourne 4 years earlier, these efforts did NOT fail. That alone creates an element of cultural uniqueness. However, any student of this history must recognise what was also happening in Geelong, and Ballarat.
Culturally – I’d advise you to look up Richard Twopenny, and English journalist, with experience of playing Rugby, Soccer and Australian Football. His view was that in the mid-late 1800s that there was a distinct sport of football in Melbourne, a distinct culture of paid attendance, of vastly more football clubs compared especially to Sydney and a game that he regarded as more scientific and entertaining to participants and viewers alike than any other.
There’s a nice article in the Argus from Monday, May 14, 1860 – some extracts below (it starts off wasting a fair bit of text over the end of the cricket season)
FOOTBALL.
MELBOURNE V. RICHMOND.
At least, it (football) was a dangerous game in our young days ; Though still a manly, it has become a decorous, and to a certain extent tame pastime. Under the humane legislation of the Melbourne Foot- ball Club tripping has been tabooed, and “hack- ing” renders a member liable to excommunica- tion. These rare old “bullies,” so famous, at one time at least, at Winchester, Eton, and Harrow, have no place in Victoria, and in vain do we in these degenerate days anticipate the spectacle of a dozen players rolling on the ground together. But if sore shins and aching shoulders are less common, and the ex- citement be less intense, we make up in some measure by increased good humour and the absence of severe accidents. So that perhaps, after all, football under the rules of the ” Humane Society” is preferable to the horse-play we so much gloried in as schoolboys, when our heb- domadal bruises were deemed trophies of pluck, and a good limp or a black eye a thing to talk about and be proud of. Besides, fully a moiety of the football players here are grown men, and
don’t take a kick so kindly as they would a
dozen years ago. Black eyes don’t look well in Collins-street, and Melbourne business is to a great extent transacted sub Jove; on
‘Change, and not in office chairs. Again, it was found that under the old regime when boys played with men the juvenile element almost invariably got the worst of the encounter. One or two youngsters were hurt rather seriously when trip- ping was permitted; parents of course cried out, and the obnoxious licence was cancelled by a revision of the M. F. C. rules in July last. ” Pushing” is now the one destructive element remaining in the game, which in other respects might without impropriety or danger, be part of the calisthenic course of a young ladies’ seminary – that is, if they played entirely amongst themselves. So much for the ethics of football, as it is both in Melbourne and at the Pivot ; for the Geelongese, too, have a club or clubs of their own, and last year adopted the metropolitan rules. This season let us hope they will venture on a trial of strength with the Melbourne or Richmond club, and not let their modesty stand in the way, as it did
before.
……
Another drawback to an otherwise almost perfect afternoon’s enjoyment was the objeotionable shape of the ball, which was oval, and is said to have gained the prize at the Great Exhibition, besides being of the kind now in use at Rugby Sohool. This class of ball may fly further than a round one, but assuredly, in nine cases out of ten, does not fulfil the expectations of the propeller, more particularly if there be any wind. Considerable dissatisfaction was expressed when the game began at the Richmond cap- tain’s maintaining his right to the choice of ball, and a great deal more after the play was
over. Next year we may expect to have patent octagonal or parallelopipedal cricket balls, or some geometrical monstrosity equally inapplicable to the required purposes. There can be no ob- jection to a man playing football in thigh boots or in pumps, if he has a weakness that way, for no ono else suffers ; but the ball is, as it were, common property, and any abnormal condition
in it affects all alike.
And back to me – what was happening in Melbourne was in different ways attempting to happen back in England, and yes, parallels to the cricketers of Sheffield, although, their efforts to play other than themselves in ‘intra club’ matches came later than Melbourne where in 1859 there were matches b/w clubs such as Melbourne, South Yarra, St Kilda, and clubs popping up in Geelong and Ballarat. ‘football’ as an idea was not new.
However, in no way whatsoever, was the Melbourne game no more than a lock, stock and barrel import of an established game (such as tennis, hockey, cricket or later rugby/soccer). An established game from another country, for a start, brings with it a parent-child relationship. For unique culture – - apart from anything else – - the unique culture of Australian football includes that there was no servitude to a foreign world governing body. And this ‘culture’ of self determination and independence was more obvious in Melbourne than for example Sydney in the push for Australian federation. It was more obvious at the outset too, as Melbourne was a free (and illegal) settlement by settlers from Tasmania rather than an Imperial Penal colony. In the Australian colonial context – that alone was somewhat unique.
I doubt this will be published, I doubt many will read it all.
October 22nd 2010 @ 7:07am
Mister Football said | October 22nd 2010 @ 7:07am | Report comment
Many good points, amongst zillions more that can be made.
(edited)
October 22nd 2010 @ 7:45am
Paul J said | October 22nd 2010 @ 7:45am | Report comment
Mister Football
I’m obviously discussing sport, not people. Suggestions of racism are very insulting (my apology if that was not what you are suggesting?).
Aborigines are indigenous; it can be argued the AFL & NRL are not. Perhaps Andrew D should start marketing the AFL as uniquely Australian and not indigenous?
October 22nd 2010 @ 7:57am
Mister Football said | October 22nd 2010 @ 7:57am | Report comment
Do you understand what indigenous means? (used as an adjective)
Let me give you the Macquarie meaning:
(sometimes followed by to) originating in and characterising a particular region or country; native: the plants indigenous to Canada; an indigenous people; indigenous bird species.
Armed with that definition – do you still believe that Australian Football is not indigenous to Australia?
October 22nd 2010 @ 8:14am
Brissie Kid said | October 22nd 2010 @ 8:14am | Report comment
The English definition is correct Mister Football. No argument. But it is very clear that the native peoples of this land Australia have adopted the word Indigenous specifically instead of aboriginal.
Out of respect to their wishes indigenous should only in Australia be used to refer to the original people of our great land. Call it political correctness if you want. I prefer to call it respect.
October 22nd 2010 @ 11:08am
BigAl said | October 22nd 2010 @ 11:08am | Report comment
That is crap ! – indigenous means indigenous ! – you’re making it far too complicated.
October 22nd 2010 @ 11:12am
Brissie Kid said | October 22nd 2010 @ 11:12am | Report comment
Well BigAl I went to http://www.indigenous.gov.au/ and there isn’t any AFL there.
October 22nd 2010 @ 11:36am
BigAl said | October 22nd 2010 @ 11:36am | Report comment
So what ? indigenous still means indigenous !
BTW – I believe Aust. Aboriginal people refer to themselves as Koories.
October 22nd 2010 @ 11:39am
dasilva said | October 22nd 2010 @ 11:39am | Report comment
Indigenous has been adopted to mean the original people of Australia. That is true, however that doesn’t mean that the original dictionary meaning is now invalid. It just means that the word indigenous has multiple definitions.
October 22nd 2010 @ 1:20pm
Jeff said | October 22nd 2010 @ 1:20pm | Report comment
lol Yes I would definately call it Political Correctness, if Aborigines have adopted the word that’s fine but it is an ENGLISH word with many other connotations, and I don’t think you give Aborigines much credit if you think they will get offended by the most tedious subject such as this.
October 22nd 2010 @ 6:10pm
TCunbeliever said | October 22nd 2010 @ 6:10pm | Report comment
I’m not into playing word games here. Human beings have only one region that they are indigenous to. And it is not Australia. Only plants and animals can be said to be indigenous to Australia. And if you’re wondering, I refer to the First Australians by their names.
October 22nd 2010 @ 8:14am
Paul J said | October 22nd 2010 @ 8:14am | Report comment
Yes.
I think that the native people and plants and animals of Australia are indigenous.
I would say the Collingwood Magpies and the South Sydney Rabbitohs are not, but they are Australian.
October 22nd 2010 @ 1:32pm
beaver fever said | October 22nd 2010 @ 1:32pm | Report comment
Funny you should mention that, magpies are indigenous but rabbits clearly are not .
October 22nd 2010 @ 2:31pm
Ken said | October 22nd 2010 @ 2:31pm | Report comment
‘originating and characterising’
Originating: sure. Characterising: Tricky ground, undoutably there are sections of the country where this rings true but AFL has nothing to do with the place I grew up or the place I live now and they were both large population centres of Australia
October 23rd 2010 @ 8:52am
beaver fever said | October 23rd 2010 @ 8:52am | Report comment
Ken said AFL has nothing to do with the place I grew up or the place I live now.
You mean it has nothing to do with you !!, there is a big difference, i find it very difficult to believe that any big population center in this country has nothing to do with Austrlian football.
October 22nd 2010 @ 7:48am
Brissie Kid said | October 22nd 2010 @ 7:48am | Report comment
Thanks Paul J for this story! I was debating these points on another AFL thread here on Wednesday and was getting no balance in the responses. Many thanks for offering a counter view.And thanks to Kermit for his detailed reply. I think this is all good to ponder over.
October 22nd 2010 @ 7:55am
Joel said | October 22nd 2010 @ 7:55am | Report comment
You get balanced responses, you just don’t like them because they don’t conform to your prejudices.
October 22nd 2010 @ 1:18pm
Anthony said | October 22nd 2010 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
This very long article completely ignores the fact that Australian football clubs are older than most others in the world. Over 120 years old in many cases. Guess soccer & rugby were just not serious about their codes! Or was it because of the unique Australian character & independant spirit? That’s something I can identify with….but difficult for our soccer fans to accept.
October 22nd 2010 @ 2:10pm
Al said | October 22nd 2010 @ 2:10pm | Report comment
Sheffield FC 1857, Cambridge U FC 1857, vs Melbourne Aussie Rules Club 1859, yep 120 years there!
Cray Wanderers 1860, Notts County 1862, Wanderers FC 1860, Hallam FC 1860, yep 120 years behind all of these massive, world reknowned Aussie Rules club like Colingwood (1892).
There are also 8 Rugby clubs older than Melbourne Aussie Rules club.
October 22nd 2010 @ 6:26pm
TCunbeliever said | October 22nd 2010 @ 6:26pm | Report comment
Al. He wasn’t saying they were 120 years OLDER than all those other clubs, you fool. Melbourne FC was established in 1859, Geelong FC 1859, Essendon FC 1872, Collingwood FC 1892.. These are the oldest Football Clubs in Australia.
Unless I am wrong.. Which Association Football and Rugby clubs had formed in Australia prior to these that are still relevant today?
October 22nd 2010 @ 6:45pm
Dexter's Brother said | October 22nd 2010 @ 6:45pm | Report comment
Sydney University 1863. Won the Sydney club competition for the sixth time in a row earlier this month over Randwick (1882): http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/sixth-successive-shute-shield-for-sydneys-students/
October 23rd 2010 @ 2:29pm
sheek said | October 23rd 2010 @ 2:29pm | Report comment
They wish!
It’s been discredited even by a Sydney University eminent himself, Professor Tom Hickie, that the Sydney University rugby club couldn’t have started before 1865.
Just another little historical distortion on top of what William Webb Ellis did, or didn’t do.
And I’m a rugby buff…..
October 22nd 2010 @ 7:18am
Paul J said | October 22nd 2010 @ 7:18am | Report comment
A couple of links…
http://rugbyreloaded.blogspot.com/2010/03/aussie-rules-very-british-game.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football
October 22nd 2010 @ 7:50am
Joel said | October 22nd 2010 @ 7:50am | Report comment
Two links wholly without credibility. Next.
October 22nd 2010 @ 7:49am
Joel said | October 22nd 2010 @ 7:49am | Report comment
Ridiculous revisionist article. Australian football has always been 100% uniquely Australian from day one, with no intent to simply copy Rugby or any other rules. This is very clear if you read anything on the subject from an unbiased source.
What you’re trying to claim is analogous to someone once having played “old maid” and then going on to invent poker, that poker is somehow a derivative of “old maid”. No it’s not.
October 22nd 2010 @ 8:36am
Brissie Kid said | October 22nd 2010 @ 8:36am | Report comment
Thought I already replied to this. I’ll try again. Joel “from an unbiased source” must cut both ways. If it can’t be the rugby side of the argument, then it can’t be from the Australian football side either. Know of any “unbiased source”?
October 22nd 2010 @ 8:57am
Mister Football said | October 22nd 2010 @ 8:57am | Report comment
1. We have a stack of properly researched historical texts on the subject, written by eminent historians knowledgable in Australian History. You can’t separate out the history of Australian Football from Australian History – it’s impossible (and once one understands that, you see how silly the alternate arguments are).
2. All the original historical documents exist – they are on public display – anyone who is interested can research it with ease!! You don’t need to rely on rugby websites!!
October 22nd 2010 @ 9:08am
Brissie Kid said | October 22nd 2010 @ 9:08am | Report comment
“All the original historical documents exist – they are on public display – anyone who is interested can research it with ease!!”
And everyone such as Paul J is entitled to form their own views. Two people looking at the same evidence often reach different conclusions due to their own perspectives. Just because they don’t accord with your view doesn’t make them any less able to form their own opinion or even make them wrong or right. They just make them different.
I’m still not sure either way, but I would have liked an “unbiased” source but you seem to be saying that only an Australian and only one who doesn’t have interest in football at all or not in rugyb or soccer can be objective. But your idea of objectivity seems to be defined as someone that agrees with Australian football books.
October 22nd 2010 @ 9:35am
Joel said | October 22nd 2010 @ 9:35am | Report comment
Another person that equates facts with opinion. There’s a lot of this going on these days, it must be post modernism or something.
October 22nd 2010 @ 9:36am
Mister Football said | October 22nd 2010 @ 9:36am | Report comment
No – I’m saying there are stacks of historical treatises, written by eminent historians, skilled in Australian History, on the subject of the history of Australian Football.
A history of Australian Football is as much about understanding the historical context of Australian society at the time, as it is of understanding the chonology of the various forms of footballing rules in the previous two decades, in England.
October 22nd 2010 @ 9:49am
Brissie Kid said | October 22nd 2010 @ 9:49am | Report comment
So which “eminent historians, skilled in Australian History” also have equal skill as “understanding the chonology of the various forms of footballing rules in the previous two decades, in England”?
To be fair all I can see is two sides of this argument and no one on either side having the skill set to complete the balanced and unbiased real story.
I’m starting to think both sides are wrong and the true story lays in the middle.
October 22nd 2010 @ 10:43am
Joel said | October 22nd 2010 @ 10:43am | Report comment
Brissie Kid, what silly and illogical attempt to distract. You seem to think all opinions are equal. What you’re trying to do argue is like some spiritualist hippy arguing over the power of crystals, on the one hand we have the entire weight of the learned opinions of the scientific community backed up by countless tomes of data that crystals have no special power, on the other we have a hippy going “*toke* well that’s just your opinion maaaaan! *toke*”
October 22nd 2010 @ 10:58am
Brissie Kid said | October 22nd 2010 @ 10:58am | Report comment
Joel. I’ve told you I am trying to find a balanced arugment. I don’t have an opinion either way at the moment. All I see are views biased by rugby and views biased by Australian football. Fair enough if you want to treat the rugby side as heretics, but don’t lump everyone who is merely asking the question as heretics as well. I know people have said that football is like religion and this thread is starting to prove it.
October 22nd 2010 @ 1:38pm
Joel said | October 22nd 2010 @ 1:38pm | Report comment
You’re looking for an opinion that fits your prejudices. With respect to ‘religious attitudes’, I think your long campaign seeking to obfuscate and diminish the origins of Australian football, and track record of automatically dismissing any facts you don’t like speaks for itself.
October 22nd 2010 @ 9:28am
Joel said | October 22nd 2010 @ 9:28am | Report comment
Why don’t you go to a library and borrow one of the inumerable books on AFL history written by reputable trained historians and not transparently biased hacks and clueless bloggers?
October 22nd 2010 @ 7:56am
Mister Football said | October 22nd 2010 @ 7:56am | Report comment
These are the main problems I see with the thesis, as presented to us above:
1. Of the original ten rules first codified in 1859, it is true that a good number were rules that had been used by other forms of football in the preceding 11 years – but crucially – not all had been used. A couple, which survive to the present day, made Australian Football unique from other forms of football from the word go.
2. People show quite a superficial understanding of football history by supposing that the ten rules were the be all and end all of the rules of the game. As Kermit points out, the captains had a wide discretion, and shared in the responsibility of agreeing various aspects of the game before the game, and during the game (there were no umpires for some time to come).
3. Related to the second point, and emphasising the superficial and biased nature of the “analysis” coming from rugby quarters (which is why you should read propelry researched treatises on the subject and NOT rugby websites), absolutely zero regard is given to the context of the birth of the game, the Australain environment, the economics of the period, the social changes of the period (gold fever, shortened working week, general prosperity) – all of these things helped give rise to the new game – and they have absolutely nothing to do with any English game!
4. All of the modern forms of football are in one way or another related to the early forms of a variety of schoolboy games played in England over the 1840s/1850s, but once again, the superficial “analysis” of amateurs gives zero regard to the fact that there have been forms of folk football for millennia, all over the world. We have at least one account of a game of “folk football” occurring in Melbourne in the 1840s, and others from Adelaide and Tassie. These may have been an English form, or they could just as easily been an Irish form, we’re not sure, but what we do know is that from the outset, the early games of Australian Football most definitely carried a “folk” element.
5. Amateurs look at old etchings of rectangular fields and the use of rugby balls and assume that this is evidence of some sort. Firstly, it’s true that rugby played an influential part in the early days of Australian football (to what degree remains uncertain), but don’t look at those etchings as your proof! In the early days, the game was played on whatever surface could be found, and played with any ball that could be found – and any shape would suffice!! At a later time cricket grounds became the norm, and use of the rugby ball was codified specifically around the same time – both were later developments from a time where that part of the game had a wide discretion.
October 22nd 2010 @ 8:28am
Mister Football said | October 22nd 2010 @ 8:28am | Report comment
To add to point 4 above, to further emphasise that amateurs give little regard to the social changes of the time: the unique aspect of Australian Football at the time, aided by the changing working norms of the day, is that Australian Football very quickly went from a shoolboy game and/or a pastime for young wealth men of leisure to a game that was played by all and sundry – all in the space of less than two years – which sets it apart from what was happening in England from the late 1850s to the 1870s.
The full effects of that broad acceptance of the game are felt to this very day – and that’s about as Australian as you can get.
Also, just to reiterate, to first codify your rules in 1859 – that’s damn early folks – by world standards, that’s damn early!!
To quote the defnition of “indigenous” from the Macquarie: originating in and characterising a particular region or country.
October 22nd 2010 @ 8:35am
Paul J said | October 22nd 2010 @ 8:35am | Report comment
“it’s true that rugby played an influential part in the early days of Australian football (to what degree remains uncertain),”
To what degree is something that could probably be argued endlessly. This is from Wikipedia (i’m sure others may have more reputable sites to quote from)…
“The backgrounds of the original rule makers makes for interesting speculation as to the influences on the rules. Wills, an Australian of convict heritage was educated in England. He was a rugby footballer, a cricketer and had strong links to indigenous Australians. At first he desired to introduce rugby school rules.
Hammersley was a cricketer and journalist who emigrated from England. Thomas Smith was a school teacher who emigrated from Ireland. The committee members debated several rules including those of English public school games. Despite including aspects similar to other forms of football there is no conclusive evidence to point to any single influence.”
To me that suggested that they took the laws they liked from rugby, football, and perhaps any other of the various versions of ‘football’ played in England at the time, slapped them together and hey presto, you have another version of football.
October 22nd 2010 @ 8:42am
Brissie Kid said | October 22nd 2010 @ 8:42am | Report comment
“slapped them together and hey presto, you have another version of ENGLISH football.”
October 22nd 2010 @ 10:49am
Joel said | October 22nd 2010 @ 10:49am | Report comment
Guess who else played Rugby? James Naismith, inventor of basketball, want to claim that one too?
October 22nd 2010 @ 1:27pm
General Ashnak said | October 22nd 2010 @ 1:27pm | Report comment
In a word, yes – it is another game based in English roots, just like every other sport invented in the English colonies, because they were invented by Englishmen.
October 22nd 2010 @ 1:45pm
Joel said | October 22nd 2010 @ 1:45pm | Report comment
Oh dear, we can take this all the way back to monkeys in Africa if you like? Please run along and tell the Americans their game is English, and don’t forget to record the conversation so we can all have a good laugh.
October 22nd 2010 @ 8:46am
Paul J said | October 22nd 2010 @ 8:46am | Report comment
I think a notable point to mention, as has been mentioned above, is how much the games have evolved in Australia which greatly contributes to their ‘Australianess’.
Rugby League in Australia today is almost unrecognisable to the one that was played in 1908, i’m sure it’s the same for the AFL. While England was the more dominate partner is all the rugby league rule changes in the first half of it’s history, Australia has taken over as the dominant partner in the last half.
October 22nd 2010 @ 8:52am
Mister Football said | October 22nd 2010 @ 8:52am | Report comment
“Rugby League in Australia today is almost unrecognisable to the one that was played in 1908, i’m sure it’s the same for the AFL. ”
Of course that’s true, it’s true of everything.
But as Geoffrey Blainey says in his book: “A Game of Our Own”, within 12 months, the game was already quite distinctive from everything else that was happening, i.e. we’re talking 1860!!
Unless you bring in exact timelines, and a knowledge of the social and economic contexts of the developement of each game, it becomes a very amateurish portrayal of what happened – and quite obviously, those that have an an excellent knowledge of the history will assume that you are doing this for ulterior motives.
Afterall, why would any Australian try and make a case for Australain Football not being Australian??
October 22nd 2010 @ 9:08am
Paul J said | October 22nd 2010 @ 9:08am | Report comment
“Afterall, why would any Australian try and make a case for Australain Football not being Australian??”
I’m making a case that the AFL and the NRL are Australian; i’ve said that a few times already.
I’m arguing that considering that both the AFL and NRL’s original rule books consisted of laws that were already trialled and documented in England…
…and that both codes exist and prosper because of long standing tribal rivalries in Australia…
…and that both codes are continually evolving from law changes made by the respective governing bodies in Australia…
… that therefore both codes are uniquely Australian – not indigenous.
And, that when Andrew D gives a slight back hand to the NRL, ARU and A-League by declaring that the AFL has some moral high ground as it is “Australia’s indigenous game” that he should get down from his high horse.
I do appreciate though the logic of always keeping a positive light on the image of the brand.
October 22nd 2010 @ 12:31pm
st penguin said | October 22nd 2010 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
Paul,
the problem is that many people here don’t understand the meaning of the word indigenous. That’s why you get comments like Mr Football’s above. Some people think that saying AFL isn’t indigenous is the same as saying it isnt Australian.
It’s a real pet peeve of mine. (it also bugs me that the irish film industry calls itself indigenous)
October 22nd 2010 @ 2:56pm
Mister Football said | October 22nd 2010 @ 2:56pm | Report comment
Don’t look at me – I’ve put the Macquarie definition up on at least two occasions.
Here it is again, just for you: originating in and characterising a particular region or country; native: the plants indigenous to Canada; an indigenous people; indigenous bird species.
October 22nd 2010 @ 6:33pm
TCunbeliever said | October 22nd 2010 @ 6:33pm | Report comment
Exactly. No sports are indiginous to Australia. That’s it.
October 23rd 2010 @ 2:35pm
sheek said | October 23rd 2010 @ 2:35pm | Report comment
MF,
So the Macquarie dictionary is saying Australian football is Canadian…..?????
(Sorry, couldn’t resist)…..
October 23rd 2010 @ 2:39pm
Joel said | October 23rd 2010 @ 2:39pm | Report comment
Actually, the game of Australian football 1908 is surprisingly similar to the game today. You can view some 1909 footage here, except for the place kicks, it’s definitely recognizable as Australian football.
http://tinyurl.com/2ur74xj
October 22nd 2010 @ 8:47am
Mister Football said | October 22nd 2010 @ 8:47am | Report comment
“To me that suggested that they took the laws they liked from rugby, football, and perhaps any other of the various versions of ‘football’ played in England at the time, slapped them together and hey presto, you have another version of football. ”
What do you mean by “football”.
This is one of the bizarre things about both the article and your comment here.
Was there something called “football” that existed separately from rugby?
What was it?
Have you got a good handle on all your time periods and chronologies, or are you reading tiny bits and pieces and coming up with massive conclusions?
October 22nd 2010 @ 1:28pm
General Ashnak said | October 22nd 2010 @ 1:28pm | Report comment
Football was every sport played on foot. We already know this
October 22nd 2010 @ 9:08am
Kermit is a frog said | October 22nd 2010 @ 9:08am | Report comment
please read the following :
The real founders of Aussie Rules?
(noting that until 1980, the earliest known rules were 1866, then the MCC curator found the hand written 1859 rules, but, there’s also reference to a game in 1858 b/w residents of South Yarra and members of the MCC by the ‘South Yarra Rules’.
and
General footy writing: May 17, 1859 and the codification of footy
“Accounts of the meeting differ. Hammersley claimed Wills wanted football played by Rugby rules, but the others thought such rules were too localized, and specific to Rugby. Thompson was prepared: he had brought with him the rules of Rugby, Eton, Harrow and Winchester. It was quite a task to find the common ground.”
October 22nd 2010 @ 9:44am
Brissie Kid said | October 22nd 2010 @ 9:44am | Report comment
Kermit they don’t tell us much about the rules. They also both start out by saying that previously held accepted facts about AFL turned out to be wrong or superseded by earlier events. No one knows for sure. No one is right and no one is wrong.
October 22nd 2010 @ 1:48pm
Joel said | October 22nd 2010 @ 1:48pm | Report comment
Keep rubbing that magic crystal Brissie Kid.
October 22nd 2010 @ 9:15am
Paul J said | October 22nd 2010 @ 9:15am | Report comment
Apologies for any confusion.
By ‘football’ i’m suggesting the melting pot of different laws and rules from 19th Century England that all the football codes of today are based on.
However i think you mentioned earlier that one or two of the original laws from Melbourne 1859 were not from England? Do you know what they were?