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

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Jono

Far out Scaly you didn't even come close to putting away the darts argument. Tell me what do dart players aim for? One would think the bullseye to try and maximise the points they get,

Treble 20 surely then?

[steds]

Originally Posted by Jono

Lol, I call your Gary Ablett and raise you a Mick Martyn.

[Jono]

Game over, I concede defeate. I could try and throw in a Damien Peverill (Uglier version of Roger Federer):



But it doesn't cut the mustard.

Interesting enough though, if you search 'Damien Peverill' in Google Images you get a picture of Roger Federer. That had me in stitches the first time I found that out.

[pasag]

Who could go past Johnny 'The Rat' Platten:

[steds]

pasag wins.

[BoyBrumby]

I'm not going to join the "bag Aussie Rules" bandwagon, but I think it's slightly disingenuous to claim you don't get a point for missing. I doubt players would often actually aim for behinds, would they? I may be wrong tho.

Much of the game is impenetrable to me, but that's more my problem than AFL's. Three things principally I can’t get used to: the size of the pitch, the "no offside" thing & the awarding of free-kicks for "marks" wily-nily.

[Jono]

LOL! Johnny Platten... what a gun he was.

[pasag]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

I'm not going to join the "bag Aussie Rules" bandwagon, but I think it's slightly disingenuous to claim you don't get a point for missing. I doubt players would often actually aim for behinds, would they? I may be wrong tho.

Much of the game is impenetrable to me, but that's more my problem than AFL's. Three things principally I can’t get used to: the size of the pitch, the "no offside" thing & the awarding of free-kicks for "marks" wily-nily.

I think the main problem is thinking that AFL is some sort of tweaked variation of soccer and not a sport that has been around since 1850.

From what I have read about AFL's history and origins, there is no connection between the two

[Jono]

You're not really getting a 'free kick' by taking a mark (grab or catch), but rather you're earning it. I mean when you climb on top of 3 guys and grab the ball out of mid-air like in the images above (not the attractive men images), you deserve to have your own kick.

I understand how some things would be hard to get used to though Brumby. It took me ages to understand the offside rule. I do believe it to be more foreign to most sports though, rather than the other way around.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Jono

You're not really getting a 'free kick' by taking a mark (grab or catch), but rather you're earning it. I mean when you climb on top of 3 guys and grab the ball out of mid-air like in the images above (not the attractive men images), you deserve to have your own kick.

I understand how some things would be hard to get used to though Brumby. It took me ages to understand the offside rule. I do believe it to be more foreign to most sports though, rather than the other way around.

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!

[Scaly piscine]

Originally Posted by pasag

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]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

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]

Originally Posted by pasag

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]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

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]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

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.