|
Post by dibo (pron. "DIB-OH") on Jan 30, 2006 15:53:35 GMT 10
your chants are shit.. die fags wow, these rugby league people from queensland are so witty and intelligent no wonder phil gould is considered a genius amongst their ranks i can see this discussion has moved to sociological discourse at ten paces. when it's over, you'll find me at the bar (or asleep on a train back to the city like friday night...).
|
|
marinermick
Moderator
Coming to Bay 16 Soon
Posts: 8,657
|
Post by marinermick on Jan 30, 2006 15:58:43 GMT 10
wow, these rugby league people from queensland are so witty and intelligent no wonder phil gould is considered a genius amongst their ranks i can see this discussion has moved to sociological discourse at ten paces. when it's over, you'll find me at the bar (or asleep on a train back to the city like friday night...). you're just so superior to everyone else dibo i am humbled to be in your presence i bow because i am not worthy
|
|
|
Post by dibo (pron. "DIB-OH") on Jan 30, 2006 16:37:04 GMT 10
thanx mick, and the rest of you plebs better join him eh? ;D
i was more trying to you and tiger sorted him pretty well anyway, so it was kinda like a suggestion that he towels off and goes home and we get back to talking about the mariners.
we're going to have the occasional loon trolling for a fight (hell, i picked a couple myself), but right now i'd rather have a laugh, and maybe hear more about red vedder's drunken antics on friday night.
[note: my saying this doesn't at all mean that on occasions where i can be arsed i'll give people both barrels if they come on to stir shit]
|
|
wok
State League player
Posts: 255
|
Post by wok on Jan 30, 2006 20:34:01 GMT 10
2 things: as for neils comment about me only playing 1 or 2 seasons of football, i actually played about 12, and if someone is to judge how hard/tough a sport is by how dirty someone gets then that is a joke, i've seen many league players come off the field lookin like they just left the dry-cleaners, so that arguement is out the window. in addition to this, football requires a lot more skill, in league u need to be able to throw and catch a ball and know how to grab someone. football requires foot skills, along with head, shoulders, knees, thighs, u need to be able to take into account the variables when kicking the ball, how hard?, how high?, which direction?, which player has the best options when he receives the ball?, who is marked?, should i put spin on it?, u dont just "boot" the ball in the right direction. so from my 12 seasons of football along with the 6 seasons of league i've played, along with representative teams and state finals, i reckon i'd be in a pretty good position to judge on the two sports without a biased opinion. football is harder, skill wise and physically, league may need a bit more grit but then again football needs it almost as much, i played a few school football games last year, after not playing for a couple of years, and after the game i was absoulutely stuffed, more-so than after any league game i played last year. and as for the naming of the game, officially what u call "footy" is RUGBY LEAGUE, and what u call "soccer" is FOOTBALL, these facts are undisputed, u can call the games what u want but FOOTBALL IS FOOTBALL, and RUGBY LEAGUE IS RUGBY LEAGUE. in heinsight, i probably covered more than 2 things.
|
|
|
Post by Farthing on Jan 30, 2006 21:17:35 GMT 10
My frineds have started this arguement with me and i know i am right because it is Football not soccer and it is Rugby League not Football. If you look at the countries around the world there are only three countries that do not call it football that is USA, Australia and NZ. Surprise, Surprise Australia follow the lead of the USA and call football, Soccer. I always called it soccer my whole life ever since i got introduced to the sport at the age of 6. But it has been in the past few years where i have gotten more into the sport that i realised we should be calling it football. I was one happy kid when i heard that they changed Soccer Australia to the FFA and i realised that things are going to changed here in Australia. But things take time and it is going to take alot of time for some of the meat heads of this country to realise that the sport is called Football. You look at rugby league and i dont get why they even call it football they almost never use their feet. I hear my friends say Rugby League requies alot of skill, Bullshit it does. they run forward and run into people, i even played it once for my primary school in year 5 and 6 and it is easy. Then they say it is a soft game they are always on the ground crying, well when i played i kicked a kid in the shins and he was on the ground almost crying, im lucky the ref didnt see it I just think its sad that Australia have to follow almost everything USA does. Mainly because they call it Soccer we have to call it soccer as well, and NZ just follow us because they are our B*tch. Football requies skill and talent its not like rugby league where anyone can play and be put out on the wing or something, every player on the pitch has to do something weather it be Keeper, Wing, Defender, Mid or Striker every single player on the pitch has to make an effort un like in Rugby League where there are 3 players that do most of the work on the field. I dont really expect people starting to call it football stright away, i know i even call it Soccer some times to get through the thick heads of my mates who think when i say Football i talk about rugby league.
|
|
Trogdor
State League player
TOOL ...Greatest band ever!
Posts: 212
|
Post by Trogdor on Jan 30, 2006 21:23:16 GMT 10
It's football and I will always call it football. Football!!
Rugby League is not football. nothing else is...
|
|
Murphs
State League player
mmmmmm beer
Posts: 265
|
Post by Murphs on Jan 30, 2006 22:48:48 GMT 10
i think the only other code that has a claim to being called football is afl
but as its name says, its australian rules football, so its just an ugly blemish on the name football created by someone who liked kicking balls and playing table tennis
|
|
|
Post by brett on Jan 31, 2006 1:19:27 GMT 10
...and NZ just follow us because they are our B*tch... ;D hahaha
|
|
|
Post by shelleybeach on Jan 31, 2006 4:31:26 GMT 10
football is definitely more skillful as it is usually only the halves/ dummy half in league that have any passing/ kicking skills with good players often being the most athletic/ biggest rather than skilled, where in football everyone needs at least good passing/ tackling skills - no way is league soft though, and there's room for both (but the NRL missed its chance and its the Mariners who are the coast's team!)
|
|
marinermick
Moderator
Coming to Bay 16 Soon
Posts: 8,657
|
Post by marinermick on Jan 31, 2006 8:29:36 GMT 10
football is definitely more skillful as it is usually only the halves/ dummy half in league that have any passing/ kicking skills with good players often being the most athletic/ biggest rather than skilled, where in football everyone needs at least good passing/ tackling skills - no way is league soft though, and there's room for both (but the NRL missed its chance and its the Mariners who are the coast's team!) isn't it ironic that the most idolised players in leagues are the ones who possess the most skill and play in the halves/five-eight, centres etc
|
|
|
Post by omni on Jan 31, 2006 20:48:09 GMT 10
You're right there Shellybeach, there was definatley a chance for the codes to co-exist but the NRL passed up that opportunity and may be kicking themselves now.
|
|
|
Post by jollyroger on Feb 1, 2006 18:30:56 GMT 10
A good posting WT.
I really cannot see how football is limited to "so many moves" as you put it Neil. I like to watch rugby league occasionally, but I fail to see the endless dimensions to the game you say exist.
Football is very strategic, and the tactics and field positions are probably difficult to grasp for people who don’t understand the game. I think the game is very versatile and provides endless flexibility in formations and tactics as WT said.
At the end of the day, you have your opinion, which you are entitled too. Personally I think you made this post to start a war of words on RL v’s Football.........or a war of text for a better word.
Just out of interest though, since football is played with your feet, and RL is mostly played with your hands , what are the grounds for calling RL football?
|
|
|
Post by Sam on Feb 1, 2006 20:52:10 GMT 10
Just out of interest though, since football is played with your feet, and RL is mostly played with your hands , what are the grounds for calling RL football? They're meatheads, what do you expect? As for neil, your a f***ing ignorant twat! Obviously know nothing about football. Having grown up watching Rugby League and following the mighty Sydney Roosters (or Eastern Suburbs as they were formally known) most my life I must jump to its defence. It requires skills, just because they are different skills than football doesnt make them lesser skills. Not just anyone can play NRL! Having said that, football is more exciting and more diverse with much more flexibility than the standard rugby league tactics and requires more thinking. I much prefer football for this reason. Not only are their physical skills but yu also have to think alot more. Only halves and five eights are thinking in most league teams (unless your st george where your 5/8 isnt tinking all that often!!! ) As for this whole Football V Soccer naming issue....why is the eggballers who are always the ones with a problem. I also dont classify footy as soccer, it doesn't sound right. Footy will always be RL to me. Geez what a rant!
|
|
|
Post by MrCelery on Feb 2, 2006 19:17:02 GMT 10
Don't tell anyone I told you this, but I played Thugby League as a youth (shudder). I gave it up after I realised that it was totally boring just running forward (or sideways) for a couple of step and then everything stops for a breather. I scored a try once, that was a small highlight, but nothing like thumping a football from distance into the top corner of the net.
Did you the lead up to the Bresciano goal against Uruguay? The penalty saves? Try THAT sort of move in Thugby League. Nope, you can't can you?
ARL is Yawn Central. Only a smidgin less dull than Gridiron.
|
|
wok
State League player
Posts: 255
|
Post by wok on Feb 2, 2006 19:20:16 GMT 10
one plus for NRL against gridion is that you dont have to clear your whole day schedule just to watch a game
|
|
md
New Recruit
Posts: 5
|
Post by md on Feb 15, 2006 8:53:29 GMT 10
anyone (neil) who has the one-mindedness and narrow view that Rugby League can be any way more technical, skillful or all round more difficult to play than Football (or soccer, whatever your worded persuasion is) has got to be a moron.
I will give respect to RL players like Andrew Johns, who has amazing all round talent, like ball controll and the like.
But apart from maybe 2% of the NRL players you will never see a League player who can;
a) Juggle a ball b) Control a ball with his head, chest, knees, feet. c) Curve a ball d) Sucessfully tackle a player and disposess him of the ball without causing a foul. e) Kick a ball on a volley, or half-volley. f) Trap and control a ball from high up in the air. g) I could go on, but i wont, you get the idea.
not to mention the ridiculous and almost impossible things we see players like Ronaldinho, Beckham, Gerrard, etc, etc do on an every day basis. Sporting Genius's in their own right.
The basic league player needs 3 skills; 1. To run forward. 2. To pass backward. 3. To tackle hard.
I rest my case your honour.
|
|
|
Post by marinermum on Feb 15, 2006 10:54:08 GMT 10
Well an interesting debate. If you go back to the history of all codes you will realise that Soccer in Australia refers to football. Rugby League was a hybrid of Rubgy Union not ;D a mention of football in its name. Aussie Rules has always had Australian Rules Football to differentiate itself from other codes hence Australian Rules before the word Football. ;D ;D I agree that different countries have different names for things yet soccer has always been known internationally as football and all other names are a derivative of games played with feet. But enough of the history, CCMARINERS PLAY soccer/football and what they play is awesome, skillful, better than any other team.
|
|
|
Post by dibo (pron. "DIB-OH") on Feb 15, 2006 11:59:02 GMT 10
they're all codes of football, football being so named because it's played on foot rather than horseback (no joke). our football is also soccer, but football is what everyone barring the US calls it, and it is the predominant code. the only one that comes close is that abomination rugby union (where even experienced players/fans can't tell you what's going on half the time) or american football (only one country but huge business).
you're technically correct if you call our football 'soccer', but nobody can tell you to not call soccer 'football'.
here endeth the sermon.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Feb 16, 2006 23:27:06 GMT 10
OK this thread prompted me to do a little fishing around on Google and I checked what happened way back in the 1800s when the codes (RU and Football) sprang up from the town and villages in the UK to establish the modern codes. The Football Association (FA) was formed in 1863. This was the groundbreaking Association that started the rules and regs that eventually turned into the game we love, and the Mariners play. It came about as a result of a meeting in London, by way of invite to all the various towns/clubs throughout England who were using various rules to play "football". Football is a generic term for "any of a number of forms of team game involving kicking a ball".(Source: Concise Oxford Online) Football of any type of variation had been long played throughout the UK, sometimes getting so violent and disruptive to normal everyday life that Monarchs placed bans on it being played, not to much success. By the 1800s football had become quite successful within counties, and clubs had started up and schools had adopted some form of football or another. One - Rugby school, had mauling and handling of the ball for example. So by the late 1800s, there were variations of football being played throught England and the UK. The organisers of the first conference to found the FA, sent out letters to all clubs and schools inviting them to take part in the formation of the FA. A number of schools, notably Rugby being one, chose not to attend. But the Rugby school had advocates in the first conference who did push for some inclusion of the Rugby style of football rules. As the first set of rules were published, a number of clubs and schools dissented from what they saw as a dissipation of their own set of rules and the demise of the own brand of football. By December 1862, Rugby school had decided not to join the FA, and set in motion to have an alternative set of rules established for their brand of football. By 1871, the Rugby Football Union was established. It is interesting to note that no one association, county, club or school prior to 1863 had sought to bring all these types of football under the one umbrella, and schools like Rugby detested the set of rules set down by the FA from 1863 (no hacking of the ball). One of the original FA member clubs, Blackheath advocated incorporating some of the Rugby school rules into the first FA rules, but when the majority voted against that, Blackheath and their Rugby advocate clubs withdrew from the FA ( 4 clubs). From 1863, the FA set about establishing matches between their member clubs, but the Football Association Challenge Cup (FA Cup) competition wasn't established until 1871. Clearly from 1863 there were at least 2 codes of football within the UK - Association Football and others. There was an attempt to have the Rugby advocates brought into the fold, but when the FA finally compromised and offered some limited handling and carrying of the ball within the rules, the Rugby advocates declined.Hacking of the ball was also a contentious issue, and when the FA declined to allow hacking, the Rugby advocates turned their back on the FA forever. (The Rugby Football Union later outlawed hacking anyway!) By 1871, there was Rugby Union and Association Football. The first match under FA rules was played as early as 9 January 1864 with 14 a side teams. Both codes of football developed from there. Rugby Union found its way into colleges in the US but its violence saw the then US President demand the game be made less violent. In 1906 American Football (Gridiron) was founded. In 1907 a field was bought in Twickenham UK, and started the formation of the Rugby League, a variation of Union with only 13 players (from 15). In 1908, the Australian Rugby Union team travelled thru England and I guess Dally Messenger saw what the League had to offer and took that back to Australia with him, with others, to set up Rugby League in Australia. So, all codes are "football". And soccer? Where did that come from? Soccer is a nickname for Association Football or Assoc. Football. As much as I detest calling football 'soccer', it has been accepted for a long time as just that, in the UK, here and elsewhere. The term "footy" is an Australian and NZ colloquialism of the name football (Source: Australian Pocket Oxford). BTW, as much as I have looked into this by going to the FA website and Rugby websites for info, I am not a historian. So if I'm wrong on some aspects of this I'm open to correction. But it's pretty clear to me that all codes, be it Association Football, Rugby Union, Austalian Rules Football, Amercian Football and Rugby League, are ALL football, but our brand - by the dates of it's first formalising Association, seems to be the first one to get serious about playing a proper game with universal rules. In 1857, a Victorian returned home from being football captain at Rugby school and thought it a good idea to adapt football as a means to keep cricketers fit in the off season. Wills, and some of his associates, formed a club, Melbourne Football Club, and initially played football (Rugby I guess) til they set up their own rules. The first match of Australian Rules was played on 7 August 1858 between Scots College and Melbourne Grammar. This is yet another type of football before the universality of rules was set in motion throughout all the codes. Geelong Football Club was established in 1859, and they formalised a new set of rules in 1866 (3 years after the FA). The VFL was established in 1896. So, in chronological order it would appear that the formalising of the codes was as follows: Association Football (1863), Australian Rules Football (1866 - if you accept that the new set of rules at that time constituted formalisation of that code), Rugby Union (1871 -the founding of the Rugby Football Union), VFL Australian Rules Football (1896 - founding of the VFL), American Football (1906), Rugby League (1907/8). So sorry for the long post ;D
|
|
|
Post by brett on Feb 16, 2006 23:44:15 GMT 10
Thanks for that Pete! So the word 'Football' has two clear meanings. It can describe any ball game involving use of the foot, ie the 'codes' of football. Otherwise it specifically is the sport that the Mariners play and that FIFA governs. So when someone says "I'm going to the football on Friday" it should be taken as soccer, because it is being used in a specific sense. There is no language problem here, or any official ambiguity. Our sport is called football, and the only thing in the way of that is habit. Dont expect everyone to catch onto it overnight, but dont let anyone tell you that any code of rugby is the real football or that football should be called soccer. If they insist, make up a horrible nickname for them and insist on using it
|
|