To Malcolm Knox-
Malcolm-

I have just finished reading your piece in the June Monthly.

You seem not to know that, unlike its Sydney counterpart, the Age has not bowed to the dictates of the soccer warlords, and still calls soccer "soccer". Down here "football" or more correctly "footy" refers to the indigenous version, or "Aussie Rules" as you northeners seem to persist in calling it.

I don't know what the Herald-Sun does. I avoid the Murdoch press. But I'd be surprised if it has followed the Sydney practice. Unless Rupert has issued an edict.

Actually, the solution to which code really merits the name of "football' is quite a simple one. Of the four football codes played in Australia, it is only the home-grown version in which the major form of scoring involves kicking the ball. In both Rugby games tries are scored irrespective of kicking; in soccer goals can be headed; but in our game a goal (6 points) must come by way of a player's kick. A behind (1 point) can result in other ways, but they are not what teams try to achieve. So I argue that it is only our game that deserves the name "football".