International rules is back on the up

Less players an "over and under" goal and the worst sacrilege, a round ball. About as far removed from AFL as you could get. Then again if they used a Sherrin the Irish would be slaughtered every game. A big yawn IMO. If I am going to watch a round ball international I'll watch soccer.

........'sorry, but what!!!!!!' to you too........

Sorry, but what!!!!!

........yes, NZ do hold a deep seated contempt for all things Australian and this only exacerbates my consternation and great disappointment in our governing body and those who would support the pseudo international growth of our code to that sovereign rugby mad nation. It is the expedience to this end, of viable domestic options that certainly hold a criteria of merit in terms of expansion compared to NZ that concerns me the most. With all due respect, NZ should never be mentioned in the same breath as these, while you only need compare the DNA of the code in a city such as Canberra alone to realise its contribution to the game at the highest tier over time. Seriously, the hyperbole in respect of NZ is simply breathtaking and quite frankly, insulting. Thank you for your thoughts just the same Aligee.

If you are really interested in understanding what happened to AF in NZ, you should at least attempt to read this book VV "Forging imperial and Australasian identities: Australian rules football in New Zealand during the nineteenth century" - by McConville and Hess

Plenty of big words, but i dont think you actually said anything. The game was going OK in NZ in the 1860's and it continues in the last few years to be a minor player in the NZ sporting scheme of things. There is and was a definitive group of people who hate the game IN NZ and see AF as cutlural Australian imperialism, but in reality that is exactly what they have taken from England in Rugby History will show us that during the 1860- 1890's in NZ the rugby authorities were so concerned about football overtaking rugby that they considered asking for rule numerous times changes to keep the game more exciting and flowing to keep up. History also shows us that the first rugby club in NZ has very strong football roots and in fact was originally a club that played AF before rugby.

Allege, whether they were from somewhere else or not is irrelevant. The colonists, immigrants, new settlers whatever you like to call them, did not engage with our game in NZ. There seems to be a hard sell to gift the undeserving NZ, AFL status based on an inaccurate and spurious premise that the game was embraced in NZ way back then. Scrutiny and context is whats required in respect of deconstructing these commercially motivated follies, that are ultimately expedient of the domestic game and its devoted and loyal heartlands......

........I believe a distinction can be made here, i.e the 'running the game' and engaging in the game. The fact of the matter is the 'status quo' politically speaking was more to do with the running of the game and we all know that the stars quo were the English and more privileged Lowland Scots, while those actually on the ground playing the game and indeed impacting on its development were far more influential than the gospel according to the AFL is willing to admit. there are accounts of the irish playing the code during those experimental founding years, more often than not sabotaging the contest by turning the game into one more akin to the Irish game. It is incredibly disappointing that so much of the codes history has basically been rendered mythical, by a governing body that purports to be the custodians of such a significant cultural institution.............

That correct, but you would also find that after the gold rush a very high :% of people in NZ were from somewhere but else, it was actually the new migrants from the UK primarily that did not like the Australian game, stating that the country deserved a proper English game, t was a matter of population and eventually the bigger numbers of incoming migrants from the U.K. held sway.

You can take umbrage but the facts are that all the initial rule makers and players bar a few were quite simply WASPs. The Irish (catholic) influence on the game was not seen at Collingwood until the early 1900's, before 1892 the club was called Brittania, a more Empiric sort of name you could not find. Now of course it could actually be argued that Micks run the game, but initially that was not the case.

.......indeed, it is a bastard code in that respect. I take umbrage however with the WASP status quo that continues to assume to dictate the writing of our codes story, now through the governing body, that is dismissive of all influences. The Gaelic influence and by that I mean Irish, has long been understated despite this large diaspora contributing significantly to this nations cultural, social and political institutions and this of course includes our indigenous game. Marngrook has also been committed from the games history from the gospel according to the AFL sadly. Much of history was not written but passed down by the 'Sheanachire' in Irish culture, as well as by stories in indigenous culture.........

IMO the game has influences from Gaelic football, rugby and marngrook, but interestingly the first players of the game were not Irish or catholic and that most carholic of clubs Collingwood ( which in those days would mean Irish) were not Catholics either, the early players and officials were Protestant. The players on the goldfields which was much more egalitarian than Melbourne may have had Irish playing football but not necessarily Melbourne rules, eventually it all meshed together to become a inclusive game.

.....indeed and thats why the code ceased to exist once war broke out. Nearly all those from Vic and beyond returned to these fatal shores. There is absolutely NO credibility in talking NZ up as having an affinity for Australian Football since 99.9% of those playing our game in the South island, were from here.........

......aaah the old chestnut that our code has a Rugby DNA. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Gaelic games were being played up and down the eastern seaboard, all be it, they were not yet codified. There is plenty of 'fact' available to the Irish games influence on ours, subject to your interpretation of 'fact'. Wills influence was significant however his journey to Mother Albion only meant he realised that the code of Rugby was most unsuitable for the conditions here and as such a new one needed to be developed. Perhaps yours is influenced by the old status quo however you should know, that so much of what we were taught about our history in this country was and remains, a very subjective story. Often it is what is not told rather than what is that renders our history incomplete. It is fascinating that those who are our games most vocal detractors, Rugby supporters, also covet it with such superior ignorance. It seems sometimes, that little has changed in respect of this nations story being dictated to by perfidious Albion. Then of course there is Marngrooks influence, but lets don't go there again...........

Not for one minute am I suggesting that Aussie footy is older than Gaelic, but the codifying and making the game standard across all the Irish counties

Witness Croke Park in Dublin

In fact it as the opposite, the codifying of the Gaelic games was related to the Australian game, archbishop Croke was stationed in NZ and witnessed the thousands of Australian gold miners plenty of which were Irish who made the trip across the ditch from the Vic gold fields during the NZ gold rush, this was at a time when NZ was tied to Melbourne culturally and financially much more strongly than today, Croke visited Melbourne regularly and when he moved back to Ireland was instrumental in the formation of the GAA and the codifying of Hurling, Gaelic footy etc. Many of the rules for Gaelic footy were taken from the earlyvrules of Australian football from the 1860's

" especially since the Australian game was influenced by the Gaelic games far more than many here would like to admit, which ironically includes the governing body, who uphold the status quo version of its history wars. " Really? Where did you pull that "fact"??? Funny how the first game of Australian footy happened around 1858 and the Melbourne and Geelong footy clubs were formed shortly after. By 1885 which is when the first game of Gaelic football was believed to be played, there were many Australian footy clubs already in existence including current AFL teams Carlton, Richmond, Essendon, St Kilda, Port Adelaide and North Melbourne in addition to Melbourne and Geelong. Australian footy was originally based on a mixture of soccer and rugby, the latter specifically due to Tommy Wills education at Rugby in England. Both sports may have similar origins but Australian footy was not influenced by Gaelic football - if anything it may well have been the other way around.

.....I concur with your sentiment especially since the Australian game was influenced by the Gaelic games far more than many here would like to admit, which ironically includes the governing body, who uphold the status quo version of its history wars. The said, the hybrid code epitomises the AFL agenda which is anything but a cultural one, far from it. There's is to ultimately compromise the cultural aspect of our game which they are already doing a damn fine job of, in the hope it will gain international traction & support commercially. The AFL are unfit to assume governance of our indigenous code in respect of culture, community & history, since they are solely driven by an avarice to expand the empire, that is so dependant on and symbiotic of tele........

its a great game, more than one AFL/GAA player has said playing was a career highlight. Its self financing. It has certainly introduced me to AFL and I have become a big fan of many AFL players over the years through it.