Talking Footy

TLPG wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 5:46 pm

Revisionist??

*throws arms in the air*

There's a view I could give in response to that, but I'm going to be polite and overlook it as careless ignorance and a reduced feel for game. The accusation you aimed at me there is insulting. We're done.

Fred wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 3:11 pm

Quolls2019 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 12:16 am

TLPG wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 11:09 pm

4. And saw Marn Grook being played by the First Australians.

I'm not saying they started it. I'm saying it had an influence - and speaking as a historian I find it hard to believe it didn't. It makes no sense given that union bears no resemblance to our game and Marn Grook does. Gaelic football does to and for the record while it wasn't codified until later (1870's) it was still about as an idea surely?

No influence at all.
And several of the early rules of Canterbury, Rugby and Blackheath had rules very similar to Australian rules.
The first rules of association football allowed kicking through the posts and catching the ball for a free kick by making a mark.
And a Description of the Rules of Football as played at Shrewsbury School (1855).

1. Each side could consist of twelve, or of an unlimited number.
2. A match was decided by the best out of three 'games' (i.e. goals).
3. A goal could be kicked at any height.
4. A player who caught the ball direct from a kick could take a 'hoist' (i.e. drop kick); otherwise the ball might not be handled.
5. No one might stand wilfully between the ball and his opponent's goal.

Lots of similar but different games played in the english schools.

Tom Wills had significant contact with local aboriginals in 3 colonies as a child, youth and an adult before and after his English trip, on a cultural, personal and sports basis.
He was a prolific writer, mentions many things about aboriginal sporting prowess, but never mentions any form of native football.
The mark/catch and kicking practices were well established in some the English public schools when the members of the rules committee attended them.

Some historians have mentioned the influence of irishman Tom Smith in the formation of the first rules.

Thomas Smith was the Irishman who was part of the first Melbourne rules committee.

He was educated at Trinity College, Dublin, formally and officially known as College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity of Queen Elizabeth.
This is a Protestant established University to promote the ideals of the English establishment and
suppress local tradition, beliefs and practices. It did not support, or allow any native practices including sport.
Until 1793 Catholics were prohibited from attending and after that date admission was via a process of vigorous religious testing that very few Catholics passed, they were still banned from any teaching or authority positions.

In 1871 the catholic authorities of Ireland banned all Catholics from attending this college.

Smith graduated from the university around 1852 and arrived in Victoria 1858.
Irishman in name only, grew up in a Protestant, heavily English dominated, environment where it very unlikely he was aware of much if any of the Irish culture.

At this time there is no record of any organised Irish football being played, as generally, Irish culture was suppressed. Mob, village and town football was certainly played on occasion and in some parts of the country was referred to as caid.

At the time Trinity College played a game akin to early rugby but with sufficient enough differences that when an English student from Rugby College, Charles West, watched a game in the 1850’s he commented that it was “Rugby of sorts”.

The other first rules committee members were also English educated gentleman, Wills was born in Australia but spent his higher education years in England. He was an outstanding sportsman and played both cricket and football at rugby, and cricket, and possibly football at Cambridge, both colleges played a significantly different style of game.

Rugby came from soccer - Rl came from. Rugby Union. I’m sure Australian Rules had many influences - from many sports. Just like our great country. Australian Rules is uniquely Auatralian with influences from all over. Again, it what makes our country great and makes our (Australia’s) game great.

All my own opinion - do your own research

Quolls2019 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 5:51 pm

TLPG wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 5:46 pm

Revisionist??

*throws arms in the air*

There's a view I could give in response to that, but I'm going to be polite and overlook it as careless ignorance and a reduced feel for game. The accusation you aimed at me there is insulting. We're done.

Show Me the link, “im done” is a cop out.

Quolls2019 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 5:50 pm

TLPG wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 5:46 pm

Revisionist??

*throws arms in the air*

There's a view I could give in response to that, but I'm going to be polite and overlook it as careless ignorance and a reduced feel for game. The accusation you aimed at me there is insulting. We're done.

Show n
Me the link, “im done” is a cop out.

TLPG wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 10:32 am

Quolls2019 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 5:50 pm

TLPG wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 5:46 pm

Revisionist??

*throws arms in the air*

There's a view I could give in response to that, but I'm going to be polite and overlook it as careless ignorance and a reduced feel for game. The accusation you aimed at me there is insulting. We're done.

Show n
Me the link, “im done” is a cop out.

I gave you a link and you ignored it. That's a real cop out. As I said, we're done.

Quolls2019 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 2:10 pm

TLPG wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 10:32 am

Quolls2019 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 5:50 pm

Show n
Me the link, “im done” is a cop out.

I gave you a link and you ignored it. That's a real cop out. As I said, we're done.

“We’re done” apparently not.

Quolls2019 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 2:51 pm

Contemporary evidence is very clear, how, why, where and who was involved, and there is no evidence of first nations or Gaelic football involvement…none….

Gone wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 6:59 pm

Quolls2019 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 2:51 pm

Contemporary evidence is very clear, how, why, where and who was involved, and there is no evidence of first nations or Gaelic football involvement…none….

Too much of the Marngrook mythology revolves around "Wills saw this, so he must have been influenced by it". None of the other founders of the game mention it, its not in Thompsons recollections. It *might* have been part of the debate on the rules, but theres no documentation to support it.

On the other hand we know that rugby rules were considered, and discarded.

Quolls2019 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 7:06 pm

Gone wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 6:59 pm

Quolls2019 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 2:51 pm

Contemporary evidence is very clear, how, why, where and who was involved, and there is no evidence of first nations or Gaelic football involvement…none….

Too much of the Marngrook mythology revolves around "Wills saw this, so he must have been influenced by it". None of the other founders of the game mention it, its not in Thompsons recollections. It *might* have been part of the debate on the rules, but theres no documentation to support it.

On the other hand we know that rugby rules were considered, and discarded.

And Wills was a prolific writer, didn't write much about football at all, and as far as the rules go he was pretty much ignored at the first meeting and not invited after that.
He did however write a lot about his involvement with the Aboriginal cricket team, incuding coaching them, so as far as the suggestion that writing positively about aboriginals in those times, you would get you sent to coventry or the like, does not ring true.

Quolls2019 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 2:51 pm

Quolls2019 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 2:10 pm

TLPG wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 10:32 am

I gave you a link and you ignored it. That's a real cop out. As I said, we're done.

“We’re done” apparently not.

I have read the linked article before and after your post….gives no evidence at all for any direct link between marn grook (or the many other first nation ball games), all conjecture. Not any evidence at all…..none…all could've, would've, should've and must have….no evidence.

Contemporary evidence is very clear, how, why, where and who was involved, and there is no evidence of first nations or Gaelic football involvement…none….

TLPG wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 10:21 pm

Quolls2019 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 2:51 pm

Quolls2019 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 2:10 pm

“We’re done” apparently not.

I have read the linked article before and after your post….gives no evidence at all for any direct link between marn grook (or the many other first nation ball games), all conjecture. Not any evidence at all…..none…all could've, would've, should've and must have….no evidence.

Contemporary evidence is very clear, how, why, where and who was involved, and there is no evidence of first nations or Gaelic football involvement…none….

Bolded the part to show why we are done. Ignorance at it's most scintillating. Contemporary evidence is biased, blinkered and lazily put together.

That's it.

TLPG wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 10:23 am

Thank you for confirming my claims.

Quolls2019 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 10:33 am

TLPG wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 10:23 am

Thank you for confirming my claims.

I cannot see where any one, certainly not me, has confirmed any of your claims.
Do you often make stuff up. Or do you see things that are not there.