Why we call it Man of the Match

[innsaneink]

The winner of the AFL does get a flag saying 2010 premiers which they fly over their homeground/officers for the year.
I'm told that it's very much like the gay pride flag.

OK thanks for that was unaware.

For those saying, ''who gives a f**k'' if we call refs, umpires, if we call touchlines, bondaries, if we call the NRL trophy "the flag" etc....well, if we call it that and all the more, we end up talking about something that is NOT rugby league.

 

[_Johnsy]

Flag = gay

 

[mooney thompson]

This line made me laugh:

"Why there should be any need in coverage of rugby league to refer to Australian rules at all is perplexing, to say the least"

That is a bit rich coming from Fagan. He always seems to be referring to AFL. Maybe he should have a look back through his articles and posts so he can realise what a hypocrite he is.I guess his point is that you are allowed to talk about AFL as long as it is criticism. Fagan's paranoid rantings about AFL always seem to remind me of talk of communism in the US in the 50's and reds under beds.

I would say that 90% of commentators wouldn't even know "best on ground" is an AFL phrase.

"Best On Ground" doesn't bother me at all. Although I admit to being slightly disturbed by people referring to premierships as 'flags', i have NEVER heard anyone say it. Only in the examples shown in the post, so i doubt it is anything to worry about.

What i find more concerning and annoying is commentators CONSTANTLY referring to tackles as 'plays' . Which i assume started when Big Jack Gibson was commentating origin matches in the 80's?? With Jack having a fascinantion with Gridiron and it's training techniques.

Why does that not seem to bother Fagan? The answer of course is that Gridiron is not AFL so he can live with it.

 

[Special K]

The term flags just seem so..... sh*t

Kinda sums up their gimpy game where they f**k around on a oval and the winner actually gets a flag.

Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaame

 

[Whoosh]

I agree with the article. Why shouldn't we be able to keep our own traditions rather thanhave them encroched on by other sports. I believe we can co-exist with all of the other codes of football and still be the best, but it doesn't mean we need to starting mixing up the terms that have been part of the game for some long. Warren Ryan and Richard Swenson on ABD Radio are two of the worst culprits.

 

[Whoosh]

I agree with the article. Why shouldn't we be able to keep our own traditions rather thanhave them encroched on by other sports. I believe we can co-exist with all of the other codes of football and still be the best, but it doesn't mean we need to starting mixing up the terms that have been part of the game for some long. Warren Ryan and Richard Swenson on ABC Radio are two of the worst culprits.

 

[TheRam]

I agree 100% with Sean Fagan's article. It bugs the crap out of me when commentators refer to fumble ball in any way. I mean why? It is ridiculous. They keep slipping the boot in when ever they can and all we do is praise the fu*kers.

 

[TheRam]

I agree 100% with Sean Fagan's article. It bugs the crap out of me when commentators refer to fumble ball in any way. I mean why? It is ridiculous. They keep slipping the boot in when ever they can and all we do is praise the fu*kers.

 

[TheRam]

I agree 100% with Sean Fagan's article. It bugs the crap out of me when commentators refer to fumble ball in any way. I mean why? It is ridiculous. They keep slipping the boot in when ever they can and all we do is praise the fu*kers.

 

[Brutus]

This line made me laugh:

"Why there should be any need in coverage of rugby league to refer to Australian rules at all is perplexing, to say the least"

That is a bit rich coming from Fagan. He always seems to be referring to AFL. Maybe he should have a look back through his articles and posts so he can realise what a hypocrite he is.I guess his point is that you are allowed to talk about AFL as long as it is criticism. Fagan's paranoid rantings about AFL always seem to remind me of talk of communism in the US in the 50's and reds under beds.

I would say that 90% of commentators wouldn't even know "best on ground" is an AFL phrase.

"Best On Ground" doesn't bother me at all. Although I admit to being slightly disturbed by people referring to premierships as 'flags', i have NEVER heard anyone say it. Only in the examples shown in the post, so i doubt it is anything to worry about.

What i find more concerning and annoying is commentators CONSTANTLY referring to tackles as 'plays' . Which i assume started when Big Jack Gibson was commentating origin matches in the 80's?? With Jack having a fascinantion with Gridiron and it's training techniques.

Why does that not seem to bother Fagan? The answer of course is that Gridiron is not AFL so he can live with it.

f**k off back to your AFL forum MR 5 posts.

 

[Brutus]

Richard Swenson on ABC Radio are two of the worst culprits.

Swenson never shuts up about the AFL. He seems to like it more than RL and keeps coming up with useless AFL stats and comments during league calls.

The Wok usually puts him in his place.

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

This line made me laugh:

"Why there should be any need in coverage of rugby league to refer to Australian rules at all is perplexing, to say the least"

That is a bit rich coming from Fagan. He always seems to be referring to AFL. Maybe he should have a look back through his articles and posts so he can realise what a hypocrite he is.I guess his point is that you are allowed to talk about AFL as long as it is criticism. Fagan's paranoid rantings about AFL always seem to remind me of talk of communism in the US in the 50's and reds under beds.

I would say that 90% of commentators wouldn't even know "best on ground" is an AFL phrase.

"Best On Ground" doesn't bother me at all. Although I admit to being slightly disturbed by people referring to premierships as 'flags', i have NEVER heard anyone say it. Only in the examples shown in the post, so i doubt it is anything to worry about.

What i find more concerning and annoying is commentators CONSTANTLY referring to tackles as 'plays' . Which i assume started when Big Jack Gibson was commentating origin matches in the 80's?? With Jack having a fascinantion with Gridiron and it's training techniques.

Why does that not seem to bother Fagan? The answer of course is that Gridiron is not AFL so he can live with it.

So, how's the job at the Caltex going, been promoted to cleaner yet?

 

[RL1908]

This line made me laugh:

"Why there should be any need in coverage of rugby league to refer to Australian rules at all is perplexing, to say the least"

That is a bit rich coming from Fagan. He always seems to be referring to AFL. Maybe he should have a look back through his articles and posts so he can realise what a hypocrite he is.I guess his point is that you are allowed to talk about AFL as long as it is criticism. Fagan's paranoid rantings about AFL always seem to remind me of talk of communism in the US in the 50's and reds under beds.

I would say that 90% of commentators wouldn't even know "best on ground" is an AFL phrase.

"Best On Ground" doesn't bother me at all. Although I admit to being slightly disturbed by people referring to premierships as 'flags', i have NEVER heard anyone say it. Only in the examples shown in the post, so i doubt it is anything to worry about.

What i find more concerning and annoying is commentators CONSTANTLY referring to tackles as 'plays' . Which i assume started when Big Jack Gibson was commentating origin matches in the 80's?? With Jack having a fascinantion with Gridiron and it's training techniques.

Why does that not seem to bother Fagan? The answer of course is that Gridiron is not AFL so he can live with it.

I've never written or said people shouldn't talk about AFL or praise it. There are plenty of forums availalble for that to happen in. The Australian rules community and anyone else is free to talk up whatever it wants, and I'm free to make comment on that or add my own observations.

Sorry you can't discern the difference between calling a sporting contest and writing an article about a particular issue - both serve different purposes and occur in different settings.

And if NRL coaches started calling half-backs by the name "quarter-backs", or if a trend emerged in the media where some called the Clive Churchill Medal "the MVP award", then they too would be criticised.

I'm not sure "plays" is a misnomer and/or imported - between each tackle is a play-the-ball, and the game could do with people thinking of each available tackle as a one-off "play", instead of working "sets" (which, incidentially, didn't come from tennis).

 

[rabbitohs]

And if NRL coaches started calling half-backs by the name "quarter-backs", or if a trend emerged in the media where some called the Clive Churchill Medal "the MVP award", then they too would be criticised.

They already do this in AFL. A halfback player who sets up the plays is sometimes said to be playing the quarterback role (Andrew McLeod).

I am sure the players player of the year award is now called the MVP award as well!!

Plays as a shortening of play the ball doesn't seem too bad to me. If they start calling them downs....that would be an issue.

 

[Paullyboy]

Plays as a shortening of play the ball doesn't seem too bad to me. If they start calling them downs....that would be an issue.

I agree with this.

 

[Dr.J]

In response to the original thread question:

Man of the match = Darius Boyd

Best on ground = Tony Archer

I think this explains the difference between the two terms.

 

[RL1908]

They already do this in AFL. A halfback player who sets up the plays is sometimes said to be playing the quarterback role (Andrew McLeod).

I am sure the players player of the year award is now called the MVP award as well!!

Plays as a shortening of play the ball doesn't seem too bad to me. If they start calling them downs....that would be an issue.

Except that, ironically, in rugby the half-back was originally called the quarter-back, and the "down" in gridiron is a very close relative of RL's play-the-ball (both share the same parent...the "down" rule in early rugby).

"In the event of any player holding or running with the ball being tackled and the ball being fairly held he must at once cry down and there put it down." 1871 RFU Laws.

So you're right - but in a way it would be just the game going full circle!

See more related history discussion on the "down" & play-the-ball at: http://www.RL1908.com/rucksinfo.htm

 

[rabbitohs]

Having a quarter, then a half, three quarters and full back makes logical sense as fractions of their role. I wouldn't complain too much about the term quarterback being used as we accept the other terms.

The down thing is also very clear. Thanks.

 

[fourplay]

The worst is Ray Warren calling the area in front of the goal posts the forward pocket.

 

[RL1908]

Another "NRL flag" waver...(I'll give Mascord the benefit of the doubt...it's probably someone else's summary text...)

St George-Illawarra won the NRL premiership on Sunday - its first flag in 31 years - but the players, and coach Wayne Bennett, seemed more interested in settling old scores than celebrating success, as STEVE MASCORD explains.
http://www.backpagelead.com.au/league