Ok! I admit it - I'm hooked on the World Cup...

[Scaly piscine]

Darts is a perfect example. Good one from Jono.

Darts, archery and so on are target sports/games so that's why it's perfectly viable to award lesser points for 'missing'. Aussie rules isn't a target sport so why award a point for missing? I can't think of another non-target, decent sport (gaelic football etc. sort of do if you hit the ball higher than you wanted) that does this

 

[pasag]

Darts, archery and so on are target sports/games so that's why it's perfectly viable to award lesser points for 'missing'. Aussie rules isn't a target sport so why award a point for missing? I can't think of another non-target, decent sport (gaelic football etc. sort of do if you hit the ball higher than you wanted) that does this

What? How is it not a target sport, when the whole aim is to kick it into the target - the goals?

 

[Scaly piscine]

What? How is it not a target sport, when the whole aim is to kick it into the target - the goals?

It's not a target sport. In archery, darts etc. all you're doing is firing at a target and that's it. Most sports are more complicated than that and have far more facets.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Darts, archery and so on are target sports/games so that's why it's perfectly viable to award lesser points for 'missing'. Aussie rules isn't a target sport so why award a point for missing? I can't think of another non-target, decent sport (gaelic football etc. sort of do if you hit the ball higher than you wanted) that does this

Worst argument ever. It's not a "target sport"? What the hell is a target sport? Since when is this a categorisation by which people determine whether or not its okay to get a point for missing? Surely if a target sport is one where the only activity in the game is trying to hit a target, it'd make even less sense to give points for missing, since you're failing at the only necessary skill.

The fact is, there are two ways to score in AFL. One is to score a goal by kicking the ball through the centre of the goal, the other is to score a point by getting the ball through any part of the goal in any other way. For instance, if the ball comes off your hand through the centre of the goal, it's still only worth one. So it's clearly not an instance of "six if you get the goal and one if you miss", it's just two different methods of scoring, much like plenty of other sports I could name including both rugby codes, american football, "target sports", basketball and so on.

Attacking a sport you clearly know absolutely nothing about as an "organised farce" is just absurd. It's a game with 150+ years of history which is unrelated to pretty much every other game in the world (obviously excluding gaelic football, to which it has some similarities), and if you intend to criticise it it'd be worthwhile having a clue what you are on about first.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The three football codes I follow (Association, Union & League) all have offsides. I dunno about Gaelic or Seppo football, but I think AFL is in the minority by not having one.

I think ultimately arguing over the superiority of one footy code over another is fruitless 'cos what a non-fan sees as a weakness (like AFL's no offside thing) fans probably see as a strength; I see a bloody mess with bemulleted Victorians flying hither & thither, you probably see a free-flowing game unhindered by petty considerations of where the last defender may be!

Interesting you should mention that, I've never even thought about it really. American Football doesn't have an offside rule in the same sense as soccer or rugby, though you do have to start the play behind the last defender, so I guess it's similar. Because of the size of the field and the fast-moving nature of the game, having an offside rule in AFL would be pretty silly I think. The purpose of it in soccer is to stop someone simply hammering the long ball up to a striker in front of the goal over and over, but you can't really do that in AFL (unless you can kick the ball 180 odd metres), and those who follow the sport are simply taught that you have to mark your opponent well enough that they can't just sit there and score goals every time their team goes forward.

I've never had any problem with the offside rule in soccer, but in the rugby codes I find the entire structure of the sport with regard to where the players stand (and thus the offside rule) incredibly frustrating. It's basically two groups of gigantic men getting into lines and crashing into each other (particularly in rugby league, which is the main reason I prefer union), and there seems to be virtually no strategy to it at all, aside from throwing the ball around until you find a gap in the wall of the oppostion and run through it. Never really occured to me that players having the freedom to go wherever they want would be considered a negative aspect of the game from those raised on other sports.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Worst argument ever. It's not a "target sport"? What the hell is a target sport? Since when is this a categorisation by which people determine whether or not its okay to get a point for missing? Surely if a target sport is one where the only activity in the game is trying to hit a target, it'd make even less sense to give points for missing, since you're failing at the only necessary skill.

The fact is, there are two ways to score in AFL. One is to score a goal by kicking the ball through the centre of the goal, the other is to score a point by getting the ball through any part of the goal in any other way. For instance, if the ball comes off your hand through the centre of the goal, it's still only worth one. So it's clearly not an instance of "six if you get the goal and one if you miss", it's just two different methods of scoring, much like plenty of other sports I could name including both rugby codes, american football, "target sports", basketball and so on.

Attacking a sport you clearly know absolutely nothing about as an "organised farce" is just absurd. It's a game with 150+ years of history which is unrelated to pretty much every other game in the world (obviously excluding gaelic football, to which it has some similarities), and if you intend to criticise it it'd be worthwhile having a clue what you are on about first.

Target sport is fairly commonly used categorisation. You examples again are poor, you do not get points for missing in rugby, american football, basketball and so on for missing, the different methods of scoring for different disciplines don't matter. Non-target sports do not generally have this stupid notion for giving points for missing because it would overcomplicate it unnecessarily. Something having a history does not stop it being a farce, neither does it being unrelated to other sports - completely irrelevant. As for the guff at the bottom I figure it'd be worthwhile if you didn't froth over the keyboard, you might shock your brain into life.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Interesting you should mention that, I've never even thought about it really. American Football doesn't have an offside rule in the same sense as soccer or rugby, though you do have to start the play behind the last defender, so I guess it's similar. Because of the size of the field and the fast-moving nature of the game, having an offside rule in AFL would be pretty silly I think. The purpose of it in soccer is to stop someone simply hammering the long ball up to a striker in front of the goal over and over, but you can't really do that in AFL (unless you can kick the ball 180 odd metres), and those who follow the sport are simply taught that you have to mark your opponent well enough that they can't just sit there and score goals every time their team goes forward.

I've never had any problem with the offside rule in soccer, but in the rugby codes I find the entire structure of the sport with regard to where the players stand (and thus the offside rule) incredibly frustrating. It's basically two groups of gigantic men getting into lines and crashing into each other (particularly in rugby league, which is the main reason I prefer union), and there seems to be virtually no strategy to it at all, aside from throwing the ball around until you find a gap in the wall of the oppostion and run through it. Never really occured to me that players having the freedom to go wherever they want would be considered a negative aspect of the game from those raised on other sports.

In League's defence, it comes back to my point about strengths/weaknesses and one's perception thereof. In League the crucial ability the best players have is finding that tiny chink in the oppo's defence, be it thru a well timed pass or a delightful show of the ball. Half-a-yard of daylight would be infinitely more important in League than in AFL because of the size of the respective pitches & the six-tackle limit. I'd imagine a break of thirty yards is fairly quotidian in AFL (I'm only guessing here), but is potentially match turning in League.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Target sport is fairly commonly used categorisation. You examples again are poor, you do not get points for missing in rugby, american football, basketball and so on for missing, the different methods of scoring for different disciplines don't matter. Non-target sports do not generally have this stupid notion for giving points for missing because it would overcomplicate it unnecessarily. Something having a history does not stop it being a farce, neither does it being unrelated to other sports - completely irrelevant. As for the guff at the bottom I figure it'd be worthwhile if you didn't froth over the keyboard, you might shock your brain into life.

What a waste of time. As has already been explained to you, you don't get a point for missing in AFL, you have two different methods of scoring. If you miss, the ball goes out of bounds and you score nothing.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

In League's defence, it comes back to my point about strengths/weaknesses and one's perception thereof. In League the crucial ability the best players have is finding that tiny chink in the oppo's defence, be it thru a well timed pass or a delightful show of the ball. Half-a-yard of daylight would be infinitely more important in League than in AFL because of the size of the respective pitches & the six-tackle limit. I'd imagine a break of thirty yards is fairly quotidian in AFL (I'm only guessing here), but is potentially match turning in League.

Yeah, I'd say that's pretty accurate, but as I was just saying to steds on MSN, I still spend most of the time when watching League wishing the guy on the left would just run past so Johns could kick it to him. I think there are good arguments for the advantages of the lack of offside rule in AFL, such as requiring more honesty from defenders, allowing more differentiation between the positions on the field (a forward in AFL has a totally different role, different ideal physique and different necessary skills than a midfielder or ruckman or whatever, which is something I find lacking in rugby codes), but really I think it's just something that takes a good deal of watching to understand the benefits of, as offsides in soccer do for many Australians.

 

[steds]

a forward in AFL has a totally different role, different ideal physique and different necessary skills than a midfielder or ruckman or whatever, which is something I find lacking in rugby codes

Are you kidding? In league the nature of the modern game has bred the need for players with similar physiques, but there is still a difference. However, in union a prop has a totally different physique, necessary skills and role then a hooker, who in turn is completely different to a second rower, who is nowhere near like a stand off, same for him and a winger, etc. etc. It's very exaggerated in union.

 

[luckyeddie]

Can't beat a CW peeing contest.

That's all you are doing, children - my sport's better than your sport.

Let me know when someone makes the air brick at the top of the wall, then we can move on.

 

[steds]

Don't be silly, Edward. We are having an adult discussion on the merits and faults of Aussie Rules and Rugby. Scaly, on the other hand, isn't.

 

[Blaze]

Union is a game for all sizes...

I guess you sort of do get a point for missing in AFL, because the players are almost always aiming for the middle goal, and if they are slightly off target they get a point anyway...

I don't mind AFL though, we get one game a week over here now, and it's ok.

 

[luckyeddie]

Don't be silly, Edward. We are having an adult discussion on the merits and faults of Aussie Rules and Rugby. Scaly, on the other hand, isn't.

About 3 bricks short, steds.

Try having a couple of extra pints next time (or one of these fabulous daiquiris)

 

[sledger]

i didnt realise the *** pistols did aussie rules.

 

[Craig]

Interesting you should mention that, I've never even thought about it really. American Football doesn't have an offside rule in the same sense as soccer or rugby, though you do have to start the play behind the last defender, so I guess it's similar. Because of the size of the field and the fast-moving nature of the game, having an offside rule in AFL would be pretty silly I think. The purpose of it in soccer is to stop someone simply hammering the long ball up to a striker in front of the goal over and over, but you can't really do that in AFL (unless you can kick the ball 180 odd metres), and those who follow the sport are simply taught that you have to mark your opponent well enough that they can't just sit there and score goals every time their team goes forward.

I've never had any problem with the offside rule in soccer, but in the rugby codes I find the entire structure of the sport with regard to where the players stand (and thus the offside rule) incredibly frustrating. It's basically two groups of gigantic men getting into lines and crashing into each other (particularly in rugby league, which is the main reason I prefer union), and there seems to be virtually no strategy to it at all, aside from throwing the ball around until you find a gap in the wall of the oppostion and run through it. Never really occured to me that players having the freedom to go wherever they want would be considered a negative aspect of the game from those raised on other sports.

And when was the last time you watched a game of league?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

And when was the last time you watched a game of league?

I watched Newcastle vs Canberra a few weeks ago when I was in Newcastle. I don't know what round it was, but it was pouring rain and Newcastle won by miles.

 

[Mister Wright]

There are a few things I don't understand about AFL.

Why do both teams get a chance of getting the ball back when the ball goes out of bounds? That's the one I find hardest to understand.

Why if a player drops a mark can it still be claimed as a mark? Cricket would be a different sport if you could get a wicket by simply making an effort to catch the ball.

I also feel it is a sport that rewards missing. However those are the rules, so you really can't knock it, despite the ridiculousness of the idea (and my spelling).

I guess the hardest thing for rugby league fans is to understand what's happening, it just seems like the whole game is a disorganised mess without any structure. But, each to their own.

 

[steds]

Why if a player drops a mark can it still be claimed as a mark? Cricket would be a different sport if you could get a wicket by simply making an effort to catch the ball.

Monty Panesar would be the new Jonty Rhodes.

 

[Robertinho]

Why do both teams get a chance of getting the ball back when the ball goes out of bounds? That's the one I find hardest to understand.

It's only a throw-in if the manner in which it went out of bounds is not deemed to be deliberate.

Why if a player drops a mark can it still be claimed as a mark? Cricket would be a different sport if you could get a wicket by simply making an effort to catch the ball.

They're two different games, buddy, and I don't see why you'd even compare them. It's only under special circumstances that a mark is still awarded in the event of ball droppage - ie; he's deemed to have had sufficient control over the ball and it was only dropped due to some outside interference (like a guy running into him).

I also feel it is a sport that rewards missing. However those are the rules, so you really can't knock it, despite the ridiculousness of the idea (and my spelling).

It doesn't reward missing. Assuming scoring a behind is missing, which it isn't, there's nothing rewarding about missing a 6-point goal (after which there's a centre bounce, where theoretically the teams have a 50/50 chance of winning possession of the ball) in favour of scoring 1 point and the opposition having possession. MISSING in AFL is kicking it out of bounds on the full, which is a free kick to the opposition.

I guess the hardest thing for rugby league fans is to understand what's happening

Yeah, most things are pretty hard to understand for rugby league fans.