Talk:Australian rules football/padding

This discussion was moved here from the main Australian rules football talk page due to the length of the discussion. The original discussion prior to the move can be found here.

Padding

We should include the "usually", since it is not necessary that no padding be worn, and it is worn sometimes. The fact that no current player in the AFL regularly wears a helmet is not really relevant to an article about the sport in general. Yes, we don't need to stop and talk about the padding, since it is fairly minimal, but that doesn't make "it is played without padding" true. JPD (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Padding

Many people accessing this through wiki will presumably be looking at 'australian football' as an unknown. To include 'usually' without padding is very misleading; to someone who doesn't know the game of aussie rule it suggests a far higher incidence of the use of padding than is the case. As I said in my note, if you were doing a post on "walking" you wouldn't refer to people 'usually' doing it without crutches even though some people do use crutches - an extreme example but you get the point.

The game of Aussie rules is a very physical game - NFL has external padding, the rugby codes currently wear padding underneath - less padding than NFL but padding none-the-less. And Gaelic has a 'no tackling' rules. Aussie rules is the contact sport with no padding - it is a unique feature that someone sought to highlight - don't water it down with 'usually' and mislead people who are not to know any better. [unsigned, anon]

Do rugby players wear padding? I didn't believe they did. Stevage 14:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't think so either.. league players use shoulder pads, they're akin to a keepers gloves - a vulnerable area* which is constantly subjected to collisions, often with opposing players knees. *Unless you're Billy Slater or Chris Walker,Wikipedians in ACT | then it's the tips of your fingers :) --Paul 16:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"Usually without padding" clearly implies that it is not normal to wear padding, without implying that padding is not allowed, or that noone wears padding. Walking with crutches is not a good analogy for many reasons. An alternative to saying "usually without padding" would be to mention that padding is used much less frequently than other contact sports, but it would be good to have a reference for this - I'm definitely used to union players not wearing padding. Also, we don't need to mention specific codes when making the comparison, but if we did, it woudl be American football, not "NFL". JPD (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with stevage - I tried to address your rare exception by explaining the basis of when/why players wear padding - but this is just too cumbersome for an intro. And leaving in the qualifier 'ususally' is simply too misleading; the whole basis of why someone wrote the 'no padding' comment was to distinguish it from the other codes. Most propositions in any article could be qualified by the word "usually" - in this context is is unnecessary and misleading.

I think you are having trouble understanding the word "usually". We can't talk about "no padding" in a way that gives it the same level of importance as the size of the field, the lack of offside rule and marks, which are all part of the very nature of the game, not just a statement about what players generally wear. It's worth noting the original wording [1] of this comment was "can be played with minimal to no padding", which I understood as a contrast with American football, together with a comparison of injury rates with the rugby codes, which wasn't backed up and so was deleted. I still don't think it's sensible to use padding to contrast AR with the rugby codes, which for most of their history haven't used padding either.

As for the padding itself - it's not just headgear, do you remember Paul Roos? At top level, it's generally only because of previous injuries, but it doesn't need to be approved by the AFL on a case by case basis. And at lower levels, partiuclarly juniors, helmets are not uncommon at all. Having said that, I agree that the article shouldn't suggest that padding is normally worn, and I don't think "usually no padding" does that. I do think that the current version is a complete mess, so I'm going to change it back. If you have a better suggestion please put it here first. JPD (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not a mess at all - it was put as succintly as your current version; you just don't want the more correct version used because you're being pig-headed. Look you win - I'm not as infantile as you but I have deleted the reference to padding altogether - it's better not in there at all than included in a way that misrepresents the use of padding - the original writer was seeking to draw attention to a feature of the game; less than 0.05% of players wear any padding - and those that do do so for medical reasons; it does not warrant any comment at all - especially to people who don't know the game. Also your other comments - 1. the other rugby codes currently use padding; sorry this doesn't sit well with you but it IS accurate for my version to isolate aussie rules as the only code that doesn't use padding; we are talking about the codes NOW - in the into paragraph we are comparing AR to the other codes NOW not historically 2. juniors using helmets and padding - what desperate nonsense JPD - I have never seen it - not once; and I've seen decades of junior football. I'm sure there has been the odd kid that has worn padding but I suggest it is even rarer that found in the professional league. 3. No padding of the same importance as marks, off-side? - this comment is more nonsense; no padding being worn by players is actually a totally unique feature. Rubgy Union has an equivalent of the markand American football has no offside. And in any event the intro is merely seeking to highlight unique features to unitiated, not to provide any features of a specific class. You're totally barking up the wrong tree with your insistance on watering down this unique feature of the aussie game with the qualifier "usually" - and in addition your version actually makes no sense - why include the word BUT and then go on to complete the sentence with no contrasting proposition? Anyway better leave it out altogether than allow a dishonest interpretation of this issue. As you are so expert in pedantry perhaps you can start a project of re-edtiting all articles in Wiki that could be qualified by the word "usually" to pick up the 1-1000 exception that may apply to almost any proposition. It's a big job but someone as petty as you would relish the opportunity.

The purpose of the introduction is to describe the game briefly, not just to mention unique features. If speople were playing a game where there were no marks, I'd not it was not Aussie rules. If they were playing a game with an offside rule, it wouldn't be Aussie rules. However, Aussie rules is still Aussie rules if one of the players is wearing headgear or some other padding. Most players don't, even at a junior level - I'm not trying to say that you see it all the time, I'm just saying that when you see someone playing football wearing headgear, you don't think there's something wrong. We should say that padding isn't part of the game, without implying that there's something against it - that's what the word "usually" implies. I do not understand what you think it means.

As for it's uniqueness, I find it very strange to argue that it is a unique feature when most people are still used to rugby played without padding. Maybe you're right, and it's changing, but you haven't provided any sources for that claim (or the ridiculous idea that American football doesn't have an offside rule). I don't see what all your decades of junior football watching means if we're only talking about the present - I've seen kids wearing helmets a lot more than once in the last 10 years. I don't see why you're making such a fuss about the wording as it was originally, but please don't go removing the fact that it is a contact sport as well! JPD (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

"it is not normal" and "usually" denote a far higher use of padding than is the case - your versions are worse than leaving out the reference to padding altogether; you've vandalised somebody's contribution (for whatever reason) and in the process given a totally incorrect impression - aussie rules players don't wear any padding; just like cricketers wear helmets when batting not 'usually' wear helmets (to account for the very rare cases when a batsman doesn't wear helmets. Aussie rules players wear protection to protect an existing known injury not as a prevention to the possibility of injury - as in rugby codes and NFL. You are a tool JPD. My version is infinitely more accurate - "Another unique feature of Australian football is that unlike the other 'contact codes' - NFL, and the rugby codes - the players wear no protective padding "

I have reverted the contribution to reflect the more accurate meaning that was already there. There are several problems with your version - firstly, it's not NFL, it's Amercian football, unless you want to call Aussie rules AFL? Secondly, there's no need to spell out which codes it's being compared to, if it really is a unique feature. Thirdly, you haven't provided any evidence that it is unique - padding is not "necessary" in rugby. I really do not see what problem you have with my version, unless you are speaking a different language - it is not normal to to wear padding. You seem to agree that it is true, but think it implies something that isn't true .... what? I think "it is not normal" is actually quite strong, but even if it isn't, it doesn't imply anything more than what it says. And yes, cricketers usually wear helmets when batting at the top levels (and these days at junior level). Personally, I've never worn a helmet while batting, so I wouldn't be happy with you suggest that batsmen wear helmets full stop. JPD (talk) 11:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is clear that we are not speaking the same language if you do not understand why your version is totally misreprenting the state of play on this issue. for what it's worth 1. American football - NFL; who cares? - you've made this semantic point before and it adds absolutely nothing to your argument; referring to the NFL and rugby codes is fine; the reader knows the sports being referred to - totally worthless point that could easily be addressed (by the bloody-minded such as yourself). 2. the uniqueness of no protective padding has nothing to do with whether or not the other sports should should be mentioned. Having said that, in this instance it is clearly very relevant because it adds to the readers knowledge on this point that the other football codes do use protective padding while aussie rules does not. It could hardly be more relevant!! 3. provide evidence of uniqueness - totally unnecssary; this is a brief commentary on the sport not a court of law. And in any event it not a controversial statement - anyone who watches these sports knows that players in both rugby codes and NFL wear padding - they can see it!! It is a statement of fact as plain as saying Australia is surrounded by seas.

You seem to be missing my point - so I will spell it out for you (again). This article aims to educate a person seeking knowledge on the game - by going through and qualifying propsitions that hold true 99.99% of the time is dishonest and adds nothing to the article; using words like "normally" implies that players actually wear padding when no players currently wear padding - none; the last was Hart who was a Brisbane player. And no player ever wears padding unless instructed to do so to protect themselves against further injury cause when they were playing without padding!! I don't know if it was your comment, but somebody suggested players can choose to wear padding and helmets - this is untrue; the AFL must approve any player who seeks to wear helmets of padding, other than strapping. As I said before - you've chosen to vandalise someone else's contribution for an ulterior motive - your edit certainly adds nothing and is in fact erroneous; and why you're at it why not take up my suggestion and qualify all the other propositions with phrases like normally?

• I suggest that before you use the word "vandalise" you read Wikiredia:Vandalism to find out what the word usually means here. What I have done is not vandalising. Correcting an error is a fundamental part of how Wikipedia works. When you and I or anyone else disagree on whether it is an error, we sort it out on this page. It is also unfair of you to say that I am going through and qualifying propositions - all I did was undo the change someone made to remove the qualifier that had been there for quite a while. I don't know what you think my "ulterior motice" is.
• As for evidence, you might find here and here that evidence is important in a lot of places other than a court of law, including most Wikipedia and just about anything in an academic context. In particular, in Wikipedia, a "statement of fact" isn't good enough - this shouldnt' be a problem as anything that "obvious" is easy to find a source for - e.g. using google, I find the BBC Sports Academy says that upper body protection has been a feature of both rugby codes for the last 20 years. Obviously this doesn't need to be spelled out in the intro, or even in the article, but there's no reason not to include it in this discussion, especially since this padding isn't anywhere near as visible (or universal) as in American football.
• As for American football v NFL, it was one of the several reasons your version was not "infinitely more accurate" and needed correcting. The distinction is an important one, which you seem to be missing when you make statements such as "no players currently wear padding". Have you watched all the players who played the game at any level throughout Australia (or the world, for that matter) in the last year? Are you saying that none of them wear padding? This article isn't simply about what how the game is played at the top level, although that is obviously an important part of it.
• The laws of the game do specify that the relevant league (once again, not necessarily the AFL) should approve protective equipment, although it is up to the umpires' discretion, and I understand the law to mean that it is the equipment that is approved by the controlling body, not the use of the equipment by a particular player as you suggest. At any rate, I think you'll find that the last time headgear was worn in an AFL match was this year's Grand Final, the reason being injuries sustained by Bolton earlier in the game. Yes, Bolton and players in general don't in normal circumstances wear helmets, but it isn't a big deal when they do.
• To state that the lack of paddding is a "unique feature" and list the other contact codes is redundant. Listing the other codes makes the sentence awkward and ugly, and doesn't add anything if uniqueness is being claimed. A more minor problem with it is that they shouldn't be referred to as "the other contact codes", or we might get some complaints from Canadians or who knows who else.
• Actually, to state something that is not always true is dishonest, even if it's true as often as your exaggerated 99.99% suggests. It should be possible to make the point you want to make without exaggerated or making definitive statements about things that aren't that simple. I have explained what I think was wrong with your version. You have stated that my versions (the first one wasn't actually by me, but I did revert to it) are "erroneous". Since it is clearly true that "it is not normal for players to wear any padding", I assume that you actually mean that it is too weak, and hence misleading. To me, it seems that the current version is actually saying what you want to say, in fact I think it is better than the earlier "usually played without padding" because it is stronger. I don't see what you think is wrong with the current version - maybe you could explain what you think it means. At any rate, if you don't like the current version, then at least let's move forward - suggest a new version that doesn't have the problems I mentioned above. JPD (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually 99.99% is about on the money - I've watched decades of state footy, afl and amatuer and 1 in 10,000 is probably about right; it is so rare....at the moment about 450,000 play the game of aussie rules across all levels; so that makes about 45 - 50 people playing with padded helmets...that sounds about right and may even be a bit highe...the point is that no uninjured and healthy player ever wears padding to prevent injury - it is a remedial measure taken by an alreday injured player who on medical advise, and with the approval of the governing body, uses whatever device has been prescribed. The simple fact is that aussie rules is played with no padding devices in all but very exceptional circumstances - and if you have ever played the game you will know why; it's a running and endurance game where padding limits your abilities and is a great disadvantage because it restricts movement, weighs you down and makes you heat up; it's like asking a marathon runner to wear cricket pads - players who must wear any padding do so as a last resort and on medical advice; nobody voluntarily wears padding. My recollection of the helmet worn in the grand final was that bolton received a gash to the head, in that game or the one prior - as you know there is a blood rule so they stiched him up, bandaged him and then used the helmet so that the bandages and stitching wouldn't get knocked around as much to cause further bleeding (meaning bolton would have to leave the field of play) - bolton will play next season with no helmet. "Unless injured, players wear no helmet or other protective clothing." "Unless injured, players do not wear any of the protective clothing used in other football codes."

I've changed the version to reflect the fact that uninjured players - and players in general - do not wear helmets/padding when playing aussie rules. I can't think of any objection to this version - it is more succinct and more accurate than your version; and it doesn't isolate individual codes which seemed to offend you. Comment: I put my proposed change up for a few days; I could see that JPD had been in a few times for other changes but hadn't bothered on this issue (which is a bit strange given he/she had so much to say about it before). On the basis that there was no objection over a numbers of days JDP had been into make other changes I decided to edit the version and now DaveB has reverted back for the stated reason that the prior version was more accurate? How so? It is certainly more vague - which players wear padding? and why? what does not normally mean? My version addresses these issues. DaveB or JPD please use this forum (as you told me to do) before altering the current version -it explains very accurately when/why players use protective gear in aussie rules. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.225.200.178 (talk • contribs) 26 December 2005.

Unless only injured players may wear padding, your sentence is incorrect. This is an encyclopaedia, so must strive to exclude incorrect statements such as yours. What part od "usually" do you not understand? Also, please sign your comments. --Daveb 09:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Daveb. Sorry not to answer earlier, but I have been quite busy. Your latest version is indeed much better than earlier suggestions, and I agree that in just about every case, a player wears padding because of some sort of injury. However, that does mean that there is never a player who wears headgear for precautionary reasons only, or something like that, which your version suggests. So your version is slightly inaccurate. You are right that it gives more detailon when padding is used, but unless this can be done easily without making blanket statements, I'm not sure the extra detail is worth it in the intro section. Surely it is fairly obvious that if it is not normal to wear padding, injuries are the thing most likely to cause someone to wear it? JPD (talk) 13:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

DaveB - yes ONLY injured players wear protection; no JPD - no player ever wears a helmet as a precaution - helmets limit lateral vision; add weight and make you heat up (players run many kilometers during a game); they are worn under sufferance by those unlucky enough to have been severely concussed. EVERY single player who wears padding does so because they are suffering a medically supervised injury - and to say so otherwise tells me that you two clearly have never played the game and/or are not followers of the game (which makes me wonder why you are so interested in editing this passage). Some truths for you: 1. Every player playing the game initially wears no protective gear at all (and as mentioned previously currently no player in the whole AFL wears any protective device - none). 2. Injured players returning to the game may have medically prescribed devices that are approved by the governing body. 3. Some players who are severely concussed during a game are advised to either retire immediately from the game (ala Michael Mitchell - Richmond) or advised to wear a helmet due to the permanent damage caused by the concussion (ala Hart - Brisbane). Even though they may play for seasons with a helmet they do so because of chronic and permanent brain injury; any subsequent blow to the unprotected skull may cause stroke or death - The aFL allows them to continue on the basis that a doctor has agreed it is safe to do so based on each individual case - in the case of Michael Mitchell even a helmet was deemed insufficient protection (from memory he suffered severe concussion several times in one season and the doctors told him to stop even though he was at that stage wearing a helmet). You say "Surely it is fairly obvious that if it is not normal to wear padding, injuries are the thing most likely to cause someone to wear it?" - injury is the ONLY reason padding is worn. It is the ONLY reason to disadvantage yourself with extra weight and discomfort. Every player wearing something has been forced to do so because of an injury. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.225.200.178 (talk • contribs) 27 December 2005.

Unless you can cite a reference to prove your assertion that only injured players are permitted to wear protective equipment at all levels (this is the Australian rules football article, not just the AFL article) under the rules of the game, your assertion is not entirely accurate. I will revert your edit until you can cite a reference. --Daveb 02:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

What about true propositions that aren't easily supproted by cited reference (as here); to allow people like you to insist on a cited reference would be totally arbitrary and result in leaving many valuable contributions from wiki. The fact is that the sentence as printed is uncontroversial and 100% accurate notwithstanding the lack of a cited reference; I have more than adequately explained to basis to you (and it is obvious you are not an aussie rules player of follower - you're better off editing something of which you have a little knowledge). My reference is 40 yrs in the game as a spectator, coach, player - it's common knowledge. What do you have to support your contention that uninjured players wear protection? I'd like to hear it?

Here is a link - http://www.iafc.com.au/g_field.html - it contains the following words supporting everything I've said - "Australian Football is largely a game without the protection of padding and helmets as worn by gridiron players in the United States. Some AFL players wear leather head-gear, but this is usually on medical advice following heavy knocks. Despite the fierceness of the game, Australian footballers generally use no more protective gear than shin guardsand tape on sore spots such as ankles, knees and shoulders." For the sake of brevity my reference is much shorter. Here are a bunch of other times the games is mentioned in reference to padding - http://www.travelintelligence.net/wsd/articles/art_844.html

http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=lawsofthegame&spg=display&articleid=39066

http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,15915910%5E23770,00.html

http://www.beckys-place.com/around1.html

You've asked for a reference for what is goig on at all levels of AFL - do you think the local u10s side produces such a document and puts it on the net? I am currently involved with coaching at u10 level - including in 'zones'; we have no written policy on this that I am aware - and the reason? None of the kids in the association wears a helmet - but if a kid was advised to do so by a doctor I'm sure there'd be no problem with that.

Players don't go down the path of seeking permission to wear padding unless they absolutely have to take this measure - what makes a player move from the 99.9% of players who wear no protection is an injury; most players get by strapping an injury but in rare cases it is severe enough to require ongoing protection.

And on junior football; this is from a SA government website - it is an initiative looking at reducing injury in junior sports - http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:QFvSX2ZTjcQJ:www.recsport.sa.gov.au/resources-publications/fact06active%2520alert.pdf+junior+football+protective+padding&hl=en - The section on aussie rules is worded - "Rule and Equipment Changes - Junior Football, SANFL The SANFL have a number of measures which they use to reduce injuries. These include: specifications for the number of players, playing area, playing time and ball size for children in years 3, 4-5 and 6-7; rules against tackling and barging (fending off and running into opponents) in younger age groups (year 5 and below); and compulsory padding of fixed goal posts. Nine-a-side games are also offered at all levels which incorporate the use of zones to prevent crowding around the ball. (SANFL Junior Policy Information Booklet" Padding is mentioned - but it is not the players padded but the goal posts; no where in this government assessment of injury does it mention equipping players with any padding. What's more the use of helmets/padding in aussie rules is controversial - its benefit is doubted and has the potential to pose risks to the majority that are no wearing the same protection - this is why the governing body must sanction it when used - to make sure it is safe for the wearer and all other players - http://www.education.theage.com.au/pagedetail.asp?intpageid=847&strsection=students&intsectionid=0 Note the reference to protective padding in this article - http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/VISAR/hazard/haz15.pdf - it mentions postively strapping, rules changes, padding of posts etc. but when it comes to protective padding it is equivocal.

DaveB - The sentence is fine as is - only injured players use protection. You have framed a requirement with 'rules of the game', 'cite reference' and 'all levels' - I do not need to respond to and satsify arbitrary criteria that you make up on the run. Many aspects of human behaviour are evidenced by convention not written rules - ie. accepted practice over long periods of time (just look at the UK which has no written constitution yet obeys numerous conventions that you will not find written authority for anywhere). Players do not wear any protection unless they are compensating for an injury - this is just how it is; and if they must use anything they will be backed by medical assessment and approval by governing body. As I said before, for you to be question this quite basic and uncontroversial fact tells me you have very little knowledge of the game. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.225.200.178 (talk • contribs) 27 December 2005.

Daveb has already pointed out that all serious sources include words like "generally" and "usually", and still make their point quite well. Why can't we do the same? I agree with you that it there are many reasons not to wear headgear when playing, I agree that we should make the point that people don't usually wear headgear, we just shouldn't make absolute statements. I personally have played in an U16s team with three people wearing helmets on a regular basis. I don't know the reasons why all of them did, but one of them did just because he was used to wearing it when playing rugby union. This backs up the point that it is not an Aussie rules thing to do, but it also makes the point that we can't make blanket statements about what actually happens. Of course, this personal experience isn't a good enough source for the article, but it is enough to make me point out that you are assuming things and making unjustified blanket statements. JPD (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said – I’m over this; the articles quoted use the words ‘generally’ in the context of discussions about the exceptions arising from injury – they do not support revision of the line as it was in wiki. What we are talking about here is a qualification to a very rare exception. As I said, I have never witnessed it myself in decades of involvement with amateur and junior football; at elite level I could list on one hand the players who have used something and it was always following injury. You/daveB refer to the qualification of the exception (‘unless injured’) as a “blanket statement” or an “absolute statement” yet you provide no logical basis this assertion – none. You just assume that it must be possible but in doing so you clearly demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the game. If a player (in a professional or amateur league) ever fronted to a game seeking to wear a helmet or other protective device without giving prior warning/explanation to the coaches then that player would not be allowed to play – the coach would be put in a position of explaining to the umpires/governing authority why one of his players is wearing a helmet (or other protective padding). If the coach had prior warning then the line of enquiry would be to find out the nature of injury, whether there is evidence that a doctor had supported the use of the device (self-diagnosis would not be acceptable), whether it is safe for that player to play at all even though using protection – his underlying condition may be too serious, whether the device itself is able to offer the protection required, whether the device is safe for other players and so on. For a player fronting with any protective gear there are a whole series of issues for the coach/umpire/association to consider. Given that, hopefully now you will understand that uninjured players fronting and being permitted to use protective padding is simply inconceivable; it has never happened at elite level and would certainly not happen at amateur level despite your anecdotal evidence. In a team sport such as aussie rules ‘peer pressure’ certainly means kids generally want to stand out as little as possible; I imagine that for most kids wearing a helmet would be akin to wearing braces – an embarrassment; no uninjured kid would voluntarily put themselves in that position or accede to parent wishes to do so. And as you move into higher amateur levels then as I explained there are simply too many disadvantages to wearing any protective devices – even injured players wearing strapping or a knee brace put the opposition on notice to any weakness; so wearing a helmet or other protective device is like painting a target on yourself to receive extra attention from the opposition – you wouldn’t do it unless a doctor has advised you it is absolutely necessary. Despite your protestations, my ‘blanket statement’ or ‘absolute statement’ is 100% accurate – there is no need to revise it at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.31.52.131 (talk • contribs) 00:25 28 December 2005 USome AFL players wear leather head-gear, but this is usually on medical advice following heavy knocks. TC.

Your "qualification" implies that noone ever wears a helment unless injured. This is clearly an absolute statement, whether it is correct or not. What sort of logical basis do you want for this assertion? It is the sort of absolute statement that the serious sources you quote don't make. For example, you quoted a site which said "Some AFL players wear leather head-gear, but this is usually on medical advice following heavy knocks." - exactly the sort of qualification we are trying to make. My personal experience tells me that your absolute statement is not completely true, and more to the point, even if it were, it would need to be justifiable, not just true. Whether or not headgear is a good idea, and whether you think anyone would logically choose to wear it, is irrelevant. Your opinions on how coaches and umpires would react are also irrelevant. The laws clearly state that it is up to the relevant league, with decisions made on the day by the umpires, on the basis of whehter it will cause a risk to other players, and without any reference to whether the player is injured. Apart from anything else, I don't see why you think you can assume that all governing authorities use the same approach. You seem to have a huge amount of disdain for being careful about what we say, but I would suggest to you that it is actually quite a good idea. For exmple, you said "1. Every player playing the game initially wears no protective gear at all". Now, in context, it was clear that you meant no padding or headgear, but actually the statement is ridiculous, as it implies that players don't use mouthguards! JPD (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

DaveB’s school of editing – ‘we make the simple complicated’:

Kangaroos are herbivores = the vast majority of kangaroos are herbivores, those that are not typically consume a few insects by mistake as they eat through the grass making them omnivores

Water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius = the vast majority of water freezes at zero degrees, when it doesn’t this indicates the presence of soluble impurities that alter the freezing point.

Whales live the in the ocean = the vast majority of whales live in the ocean, those that don’t are typically stranded on a beach somewhere and will be either rolled back into the ocean or die after a short time.

Flour is a food = the vast majority of flour is used as a food, when it is not used as a food it is typically mixed with water and used as a glue for children’s paper mache animals

Lions are carnivores = the vast majority of lions are carnivores, those that are typically eat the contents of their preys intestines which contain plant matter meaning that these lions are omnivores.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.31.52.131 (talk • contribs) 29 December 2005.

Cute. JPD has already pointed out the flaws in your previous version, namely that it is an absolute statement that does not hold absolutely true. Even the sources you quoted to try to back up your point used the words "usually" and "generally". The is an encyclopaedia so must be accurate, and the current version conveys the information accurately and succinctly. On other matters:

1. Wikipedia uses talk sub-pages for a reason. Sub-pages allow discussions to have their own place. There is no need move this discussion back to already over-length main talk page as you recently did.
2. Please observe basic Wikiquette and sign your comments. It is not difficult; just type four tildes, i.e. ~~~~.

--Daveb 08:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Can I add that it is certainly true that the official AFL rules are quite strict on what players can wear out on the field. So you can't simply whack on anything you want underneath your guernsey and run out - I have been involved in games in the middle of a Canberra winter and the ump has told us to take off t-shirts we are wearing underneath our guernseys. It is also true that at amateur level I don't recall ever seeing anyone wearing a helmet or similar form of padding (although forms of lycra underneath shorts are common). ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 06:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)