Aussie Rules vs Rugby League

As a change of pace from movie reviews I thought I'd talk about something that I've meaning to address for a while, and that's the whole code wars thing - Aussie Rules vs Rugby League, or AFL vs NRL. Having lived in Victoria for 20 years I obviously grew up following the AFL, as many Victorians adopt it as their second religion (or, in many cases, their first) and it's almost impossible to escape. I always thought it was a great, exciting game, and to be honest never gave NRL much thought. However, upon moving to Queensland I found it was harder to follow the AFL, especially not having Foxtel at the time, and began to be inundated with pro Rugby League sentiment. Following this, I discovered the dislike and even outright hatred a lot of League fans had for my beloved sport. I found this kind of perplexing, as from my experiences in Victoria people there seem mostly fairly indifferent to League, and it was as if League fans somehow threatened by Aussie Rules.

Well, they have good reason to, as Aussie Rules is clearly the superior sport in every way, and I can only assume that seeing it on TV leads League to realise how many hours they have wasted watching such dribble, and I imagine this must be very unsettling. There are really only two criteria I can think of to judge the merit of a sport, how much skill is involved and how entertaining it is to watch. For the criteria regarding skill this one is obviously won by Aussie Rules, so much so that I don't really know what else to say. I challenge anyone who disagrees with me to watch a full game of both sports back to back and then honestly and without bias hold onto their claim. The second criteria regarding entertainment is much more subjective, however I will say that Aussie Rules is faster, there's much more going and more variety to the game, and as it does OBJECTIVELY require more skill, then I can't see how one could prefer to watch League. But whatever.

I think the easiest way for me to drive my point home would be to address every criticism I can think of that has been directed at Aussie Rules, so here it goes;

League players are so much more buff than Aussie Rules Players

Yeah, never mind the fact that Aussie Rules players are generally fitter, can jump higher, run faster, kick further, have to think more about their plays and get paid more. The fact that League players are "More buff" is way more awesome, man!

In Aussie Rules you get a point for missing

I've got to points to make about this one. First, you don't get a point for missing, you get a point for kicking a "Behind", which if you like is a secondary goal. If you missed completely you would get no score and would most likely have kicked the ball out of bounds on the full, turning it over to the opposition. Second, I don't know how many times I've been frustrated watching sports, say for example Soccer, where a team will work tirelessly to try and get a goal, and have several shots only to keep missing, sometimes only narrowly. I think a point for a behind is a meagre concession for the hard work of getting the ball in your forward line but being unable to convert.

Aussie Rules is so scrappy, you may as well just throw some chips to a group of seagulls and watch them fight over them

I'll make a small concession here, as there is a scrappy element to the game, especially when multiple people are converging around the ball. However it takes up only a small amount of game play, and EVERY sport without exception has their less attractive, boring elements. So it's only a minor concession. Besides, I'd much rather watch seagulls fight over chips than a bunch of lobotomised baboons run into a wall for 80 minutes any day of the week.

League is much faster paced than Aussie Rules

Nope.

Aussie Rules doesn't translate well onto television

I don't know what to say to this other than I just find it to be completely untrue, although I guess it's another statement grounded in subjectivity. I will say however that how well a sport translates onto television is no measure of how good the sport is - most sports were around well before television exited.

Aussie Rules isn't violent enough

This statement makes the presupposition that a sport needs to be violent, which is patently false given the large number of non contact sports. Although I will admit that it's a shame how much this aspect of the game has been toned down in recent years.

Aussie Rules is aerial Ping Pong

I'm not even sure if this is a criticism and it definitely makes absolutely no sense, but it gets stated so often that I thought I had to look at it. Ping pong, also known as Table Tennis, is a game played between either two or four people. They stand at opposite ends of a table with a net on it, and using miniature bat hit a ball back and forth to each other, with the aim being to hit the ball past your opponent, similar to the original game of Tennis. This, in no way whatsoever, mimics the game of Aussie Rules, which is played on a large oval where the aim is to kick or hand pass a ball forward to your team mate, avoiding the opposition players in the process. If the game being played was kick to kick, which you can often see being played by juveniles in parks on suburban streets, then MAYBE there is some vague similarity to be found. Anyone who refers to Aussie Rules as aerial Ping Pong is either a complete idiot or has never seen a game of Ping Pong.

AFL, more like GAYFL

Good one. Your lack of wit is only surpassed by your unoriginality and blatant homophobia.

Need I go one. No. Also, the sport is called Australian Rules Football (Aussie Rules for short), not AFL, you dumbasses.