CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Rec footy

Non-contact version of Australian rules football

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionSep 17, 2025
Entity authoritySource title only
Source-derived summary

Recreational football was a non-contact version of the Australian rules football game first played in 2003 and later sanctioned by the Australian Football League's game development arm, and was inspired heavily by the growing popularity of tag rugby. It was a more accessible version of Australian rules football that people could pick up and play. It was a mixed competition, with eight players on each team, accessible to players of both sexes, all shapes and sizes and requires minimal equipment to play. Rec Footy was criticised mainly by Australian rules players for appearing similar to netball and being too restrictive, lacking of ability for skilled footballers to run kick and play naturally whilst also penalising newer unskilled players with frequent turnovers.

Editorial summary

“Rec footy” enters the record as non-contact version of Australian rules football. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what footy, Non-contact and version can confirm, complicate or overturn.

Editorial reviewA practical starting point whose main value is the path it opens into stronger specialist and primary sources. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2003—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its strongest next move is a source search built around footy, Non-contact and version.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“Rec footy” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, footy, Non-contact and version provides the most credible route into that argument.

Evidence profile

The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 17, 2025. The first chronological checks are 2003.

Critical limits

The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Rec footy”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Rec footy primary sources, Rec footy archive and footy research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Rec footy”?
  2. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
  3. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Rec footy” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.