Talk:Kick-to-kick

Australia: Australian rules football Low‑importance

	Australia portal Kick-to-kick is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian rules football (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

The league version of this, which we called 'forcings back' was an actual game. You set a point, say the try lines (or often a larger area), which you defended. The idea was to kick the ball over your opponent's line to win the game. There were two rules: A> You had to kick from where you retrieved it, and B> except if you caught it on the full, you got a bonus 10 steps from the mark to take your kick. --I like pants 01:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References needed

I've added tags to unreferenced sections - most of this article cites no sources at all. I realise all this info may be patently obvious to people in certain parts of Australia, but for readers from elsewhere, we need sources. User:The-Pope has expressed a preference for fact tags on specific points. I'd prefer to avoid that, as it would mean a fact tag on nearly every sentence. Does anyone else care either way? --hippo43 (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So why did you undo my efforts of adding 4 or 5 valid sources? Did you actually read the links? Articles from major newspapers, government websites and official coaching manuals? I said your previous edit was WP:POINTy... well this one is plain stubborn and borders on vandalism as you removed valid references for unreferenced tags. Is that hypocritical or what? Lets start again from this starting point, not how it was two days ago and see how we can actually improve the article, not just flag it for others to improve or go backwards again.The-Pope (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down a little - accusations that my edits "border on vandalism" will hardly encourage cooperation to improve the article. I didn't read the references you added - your edit summary didn't mention that you had added any at all. ("Puting in that many unreferrenced tags, when there already is an refimprove tag, is being disruptive. Stick a fact tag next to the points you want verified, don't disrupt the whole page.") If you had pointed it out, I would have read what you had added.

Clearly these references have made the article better, but I don't know why you removed the tags from the sections 'Kick-to-kick type practice in other sports', 'Marks up, King of the pack and Points Up' and 'End-to-end footy'. None of these are referenced at all, and the article as a whole is still not well-referenced. What do you suggest as the best way to flag this for readers? I won't be able to look for sources for this over the next few days, but will get to it later. If you can find any more in the meantime, it would really help. --hippo43 (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current AFL matches

Kick-to-kick is offered after certain AFL matches, see https://www.afl.com.au/matches/kick-2-kick. A quick Google search shows it was offered in 2022 and 2023, and I personally attended a game in 2017 where it was offered. kcowolf (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If your quick Google search identifies articles that meet our criteria for reliable sources, perhaps you could add some content to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]