Talk:Association football/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Renaming

It seems strange to name the article football (soccer), naming the sport twice. Why not call it by its neutral and official name association football? I would like to move this article to association football. Does anybody agree or disagree?--Sonjaaa 14:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I find it useful to use Football (soccer) in my bios. e.g. "Slumgum (born 1908 in Europe) is an English football (soccer) fan." It is clear to all, and completely unambiguous. But "association football" is the dutiful name of the beautiful game. I personally don't mind - either of the two will do. I think it's clear though, that neither "football" or "soccer" alone will be acceptable.
 SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  18:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh *sigh* This is like groundhog day. Sorry Son, you may be aware of it, but this issue has been debated to death. The clear consensus is to have it here. That has been the decision in vote after vote after vote, etc. In the circumstances moving the article is not an option. This is the name judged necessary by an overwhelming consensus, given that much of the world exclusively calls it football, a large part exclusively calls it soccer and calls some other sport football, a majority understand both terms and only a tiny tiny minority, usually the bureaucrats running the game, call it association football. AF is not an option under the most common name requirement of the Manual of Style. Using either football or soccer in isolation triggers off the mother of edit wars and is unacceptable in large parts of the world. Using both stopped the edit war and got a consensus behind it every time it was voted on. At this stage, the only thing we should be voting on is to ban any more discussion of the damned name of this article for at least a year. lol. That friggin' name has been discussed more than anything else on this page, and every time it is voted on, the exact same result is produced. So it is a dead issue right now. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 19:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)}

Some of the more recent votes on this subject can be found at Let's move it to soccer, Let's move it to football and How about Association Football?. -- Alias Flood 19:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason this keeps coming up is that people are dissatisfied with the current name, and I doubt that will change. The common name/MoS argument is fair enough but it there was a similar agument about what to call records and eventually the less common but more accurate/archaic gramophone record was chosen. For similar reasons I also favour association football Jooler 21:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is, hardly anyone else on the planet does because they don't use that term, and it breaks the most common rule requirement on Wikipedia, so it is a non-runner. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"hardly anyone else on the planet does" - well that's hardly true. Jooler 21:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, neither Americans or Canadians do. That's a fairly significant percentage. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 21:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think he was referring to "association football". I've talked football/soccer with people from all over the word and with the exception of some eccentrics/pedants, I think it is true that virtually no-one calls it that. Dweller 21:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Soccer ball tricking, like footbag

A hobby I've seen among soccer players and often entertainment besides playing at matches is having someone who is preficient at keeping the ball up in the air alone using knees, kicks, their head, standing, moving or lying down. It is similar to what is done in football/hacky sack in movements, though probably more difficult due to the size/weight and circular bounciness making controlling the ball more difficult.

I would like to know if there is a Wikipedia article on this, and if so, can it be linked to on this page more obviously so that those interested can find it? I think it's actually a very important part often done in soccer training. Tyciol 13:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Keepie uppie?  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  14:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean with football? American football? Canadian football? Please use correct terminology here, otherwise things could get very confusing. (Also, maybe I misunderstood you, but keeping an american football in the air by kicking clearly seems more difficult than a regular "soccerball"...) 惑乱 分からん 23:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it's called good old Keepie uppie or ball juggling - tricks with a football both skilful and mesmerising. -- Alias Flood 23:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think is should be clear what is meant by "football" when asking on this page. Conscious 06:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I would suppose so, but Tyciol appears to be canadian and the phrasing is ambiguous, first he mentions "soccer ball" and "soccer player", and later he writes:

It is similar to what is done in football/hacky sack in movements, 
though probably more difficult due to the size/weight and circular bounciness 
making controlling the ball more difficult.

惑乱 分からん 13:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly a sloppy typo for "footbag". It confused me. 惑乱 分からん 14:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Football invented in Aberdeen, Scotland, 200 years before foundation of the FA

Just highlighting this slightly obscure BBC article about how football may have been invented in the 17th Century in Scotland in case nobody sees it. Would someone like to incorporate it into the football (soccer) article under history? Ninja-lewis 19:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would be suitable for use in History of football (soccer), but not here. Oldelpaso 11:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed that it was in the lead. Even if it were to be included here rather than the history article, it shouldn't be in the lead, and I've removed it. Oldelpaso 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Offside

Feel the urge to totally rewrite this section. The linked article (see also) is excellent though. This article however pervades the myth that the offside law is 'complex' It isn't, it's very simple. It's just that it has a *reputation* for being complex that it does not deserve. I'll attempt a rewrite Martyn Smith 20:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you shorten it and use purely prose rather than a list? Offside is but one of the laws of the game, and as an FA this article should avoid verbosity wherever possible. Oldelpaso 21:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Martyn,

I wrote most of the text regarding the Law itself (but not the history, etc) in the Offside law (football) article, and tried to keep it detailed and accurate whilst still understandable to most readers. On the other hand, I tried to keep the offide section in the main Football (soccer) article short and simple, as the main article is already too long and only needs basic overviews with links to detailed articles.

Good work on trying to demystify offside, though I have reversed most of your changes for the reason and the fact that there is already a detailed article on the subject.

Cheers, --Daveb 01:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I take your point, but it annoys me how the idea that the law of offside is regarded as fiendishly complex. It is detailed certainly, but not overly 'complex' IMV. I just thought the page could benefit from a thorough explanation of the offside law for the benefit of the casual reader. Regards Martyn Smith 10:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Just updated the offside section in light of the (correct) decision the ref took in allowing the second Swiss goal vs S Korea to stand this evening. Accept the article looks a bit long now....anyone less verbose than me want to have a go at a more compact rewrite?:-) Martyn Smith 21:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC) FORZA VILLA

I'm not really clear about this decision. http://www.kenaston.org/LAWS/LAW-11.htm - "If during the passing of a ball, the ball glances off a defender - the attacker is still deemed to be offside, because the attacker was in an offside position when the initial pass was actually made to him." - I think the point about the Swiss goal was that the ball was not being played towards the player who ended up putting the ball in the net. In that respect he was not active, but I'm not sure if this is right. Jooler 23:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If the ball was deliberately touched (i.e. played) by a defending player into the path of an attacker *regardless* of where the latter was when the defender touched the ball. An incidence of this event occurred during the match between Switzerland and South Korea at the 2006 World Cup on 23 June. A Swiss player passed the ball forward into the S Korea penalty area. At that point the furthest forward Swiss player was in an offside position. However a Korean defender deliberately kicked the ball on its way towards the Swiss attacker, who scored. Because of the Korean defender's touch, the scorer of the goal was *not* offside. The goal being allowed to stand caused controversy because the referee's assistant had flagged for offside. However subsequent TV replays showed that the referee's decision to let the goal stand had been a correct one. The incident also highlighted a broader rule of the sport in that the referee's assistants are there solely to assist the referee and that the referee can overrule their judgement at any time he sees fit. - I don't think this is right. at all. BTW you should mention that offsie is not given in the case where the ball is played from a corner kick or goal kick as well as a throw-in. Jooler 23:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the Swiss player was gaining an advantage by being in the position he was, which is why I am confused by the decision. Jooler 23:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

History of the game

Personally, I am not happy with the paragraph related to the history of this game. It shall be re-worded and made less particular to the national game names. Anyway, I like this far more than what I see in this article

The origin of football can be found in every corner of geography and history. The Italians, Chinese, Japanese, Egyptians, Ancient Greeks,Ancient Egyptian linen ball found in a tomb Toltecs, Native American Indians, Persians, Central Americans, Scottish Clans, Vikings and Assyrians played a ball game long before our era. Later, the Roman harpastum, using a bull's bladder, reached the shores of the Atlantic when the legions conquered Gaul. This game led the way to soule, considered together with the Florentine calcio which emerged during the Renaissance, as the real ancestor of football.

found at [[1]]--IvoJovo 23:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Racism

What about all the issues of racism that are very prevelant, but largely ignored? Don't European fans often use racial slurs and other insulting gestures (such as throwing bananas at black players). Apparently this is a huge issue in the sport and I think that it should have some attention paid to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.166.255.16 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps that should be in a new article. It's not an integral factor of football, it's something that has manifested itself on football, not from it.  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  02:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see Ethnicity and football. -- Alias Flood 02:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Visibility problem of football strategy articles

Last week I looked for football strategy information on wikipedia. I looked at 'football strategy', it was a redirect to american football strategy. I looked at 'soccer strategy', the article did not exist. I looked in the soccer article, there was not even a strategy section. I concluded that there are no football strategy articles on wikipedia. Today I learned that there are, in fact, articles about football strategy. There is the excellent Formation (football), the good Football (soccer) positions, and the decent Football (soccer) tactics and skills. The problem is that these articles are very well hidden. I tried to remedy this by creating an article "soccer strategy" that linked to the existing articles. However, this article was speedy deleted because it only linked to other articles. Now, soccer strategy and football strategy (via a disambig) link to this article. I have created a section here 'strategy' that links to our strategy articles but its a crutch. I think the real solution would be a 'mother article' on strategy that could be placed at football (soccer) strategy or something similar, but for now, this is a problem. S Sepp 16:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have redirected soccer strategy to football (soccer) tactics and skills (it links to formation (football) and football (soccer) positions). I think the latter should be developed into a better article (possibly split into two) and give better overview of the subject. BTW, what's strategy? Is it the same as tactics in the context of football? Conscious 17:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the redirect. I don't know of a difference between strategy and tactics in football. With strategy I just meant the, umm.., total of theory on how to play S Sepp 17:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Dispute: Is football a massive paranoia?

Imagine a person arriving from future or from past, and watching people pottering about a ball entering into a net. If this is not a massive paranoia, then what is it? I think I am NPOV, thats why this remark should be mentioned into the main article. ARrohetMeZemer 12:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean with a paranoia? S Sepp 13:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Madness. Prevalent Madness. Do you find reasonable that so many people bother so much about 22 hulkings sons kicking and pushing a ball towards a net? ARrohetMeZemer 13:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a lot of things about this world could be considered 'madness', depending on your reference frame. What about wearing clothes or using computers. Whether something is 'normal', or 'strange' or 'madness' depends on what you're used to, and what you think people 'should' be doing, or spending their time on. Also, wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should describe things, and not comment or judge them. S Sepp 14:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It is reasonable wearing clothes, because otherwise you get cold or burn by the sun. It is reasonable using computers for calculations or in order to communicate. It is also reasonable watching 22 hulking sons playing a game, but there is no reason at all for SO MANY people bothering SO MUCH about such a meaningless thing. ARrohetMeZemer 14:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether anything is meaningless or meaningful is a matter of opinion. For many people football is very meaningful, perhaps much more meaningful than calculations. S Sepp 14:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

A meaningless event turning so meaningful and important by so many people worldwide, seems to be the definition of prevalent madness. Some people's opinion about football is that it worths to give their own life for it, and some others opinion is that it worths to give enormous amounts of money (they dont have!) in order to watch it or support it. ARrohetMeZemer 14:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I assume that you are also making the same comments on all sports related articles? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Not all sports are characterised by such an arid faith, such a waste of money and such a fanatism as football is. ARrohetMeZemer 14:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

ARrohetMeZemer, consider the following:

"To say that these men paid their shillings to watch twenty-two hirelings kick a ball is merely to say that a violin is wood and catgut, that Hamlet is so much paper and ink."

— J. B. Priestley, The Good Companions, 1928.

Very interesting! This quote preserves the opinion some people had regarding football, back in 1928, when the game was not yet a massive paranoia. Nowdays the madness is widespreaded, thats why voices against football are not heard anymore. But NPOV does not represent only the nowdays stream. NPOV also represents the idea and the opinion past people had. Thats why I think that it is NPOV to mention into the main article that football passion may be considered also as a contemporary massive prevalent madness. ARrohetMeZemer 16:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Should we call reading novels "a massive paranoia"? Listening to music? Playing computer games? Contributing to Wikipedia? – Elisson • Talk 14:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad example. Violin is not only wood, it is also an instrument playing music. And Hamlet is not only paper and ink, it is also a play. But twenty-two hirelings kicking a ball ARE twenty-two hirelings kicking a ball. Or is it something else? Is it a religion maybe? *sigh* ARrohetMeZemer 15:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad example? Broken into pieces, as you seem to handle football, Hamlet is only paper and ink. A violin is only wood and catgut. Football is only twenty-two hirelings kicking a ball. But when you look at it as a whole, Hamlet is a play, violin is an instrument, and football is a game. All three are entertainment, occupation, and for some, life. I see no difference. – Elisson • Talk 15:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

We are not talking about just an entertainement like any other is. We are talking about an entertainment that massively leads people into fanatism, into violence, into bankruptcy. We are talking about an entetainment that subtitutes the meaning of life, for people who dont find any. Do you remember a fan from korea, who burned himself, in order to become a ghost and help his country to win? ARrohetMeZemer 15:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

And women commited suicide when Rudolph Valentino and Jim Morrison died. And people burned Beatles albums when John Lennon said they were bigger than Jesus. So what? Jooler 16:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The number of women who commited suicide when Valentino or Morrison died can not be compared to the number of people who died or got injured due to football. The deads, the injured or mad about football are so many , that it worths mentioning them. ARrohetMeZemer 16:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Lennon could have got away with saying the football is bigger than Valentino. And Wikipedia is big enough to have articles about football violence, see Football (soccer) culture#Violence & Football (soccer) culture#Accidents and disasters & Football hooliganism Jooler 16:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Although I would like to see an article refering not specifically to Football hooliganism and violence, but also to football prevalent madness and compair it to any other prevalent madness that appeared during human history. ARrohetMeZemer 16:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

How is a love of football a madness? Passion is not madness, you are not attacking this with an unbias view. Bear in mind a lot of football fans are brought up in this type of environment that promotes Football from a young age. You could, I suppose, compare football to a type of propergander drilled in by a government. You wouldn't call people who fall prey to propergander mad would you? If you would, then you lack a proper understanding.--Tiresais 18:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Novels? Music? Games? Is reading novels, listening to music or playing computer games characterised by such an arid faith, such a waste of money and such fanatism by so many people, as football is? I dont think so. Any human pursuit may turn under several circumstances into madness, or into prevalent madness, but hopefully not all of them are currently turned ARrohetMeZemer 15:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever seen a book crazy person's house? Have you ever been at the front row of a rock concert? Have you ever been at a LAN party? That football attracts much larger crowds than these other things just tells us one thing, it is more likely football that is the sane thing in the world, while other entertainment is madness... – Elisson • Talk 15:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The latter, definitely. Conscious 14:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I knew that would be said. ;P – Elisson • Talk 14:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

But all sports are, by your definition, meaningless and thus madness. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Naming

I skimmed through all the discussion on the naming of this page. But i didnt notice (maybe i missed) anyone suggesting that the title be "Association football (soccer)". This seems to be logical as it keeps football in the name, however still has soccer which is the common name in places like America and Australia.--Krabby me 04:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Soccer is a shortened version of Association Football, so it wouldn't really make sense to have the article named as such. The people most likely to search for the sport probably already know it is called both Football or Soccer, but less likely (however strange that may be) to know it as Association Football.--Tiresais 10:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Association football

Some may recall that 2 and a half months ago I described this debate as "ridiculous". But people's opinions change you know. I think we should move this page to Association football.--M W Johnson 10:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think we should have a page just about Soccer/Football/Association Football, all the names and where they come from, who uses what, why etc. judging by the volumous discussion on this talk page (and no doubt all the archived ones) regarding naming. - Matthew238 07:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Football (word) covers most of that. Oldelpaso 17:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If any changes are made, it should be to Football. Nobody uses the term "association football" and for starters you only have to look at the how the word is used throughout wikipedia, let alone the rest of the world, to realise this. --202.47.51.241 02:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"s****" is a disgusting term, and should be removed from the title. A small minority of the world that plays the sport, lacks the knowledge of its history to call it something so repugnant. - Deathrocker 04:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Opening Phrase is perhaps backwards

Hi,Don't worry this aint another comment about a name change, more just one about common sense. The current opening phrase of this article reads "Football (also known as association football or soccer)". As far as i know this version of football is formally called Association Football so should the above phrase not read "Association Football (also known as football or soccer)"? This phrase though isin't very smooth so it would probably better phrased "Association Football (often shortened to football or soccer)". This phrase isin't pefect either though and I'm sure you can come up with a better on but it's a step in the right direction. TheEnlightened 21:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

What is technically a goal?

Is it when the ball crosses the goal line, or is it when a ball touches the ground after passing the goal line? For example, if a player kicks a ball and it passes the goal line, and then the goalie blocks the shot (from behind the goal line), is it still considered a goal, or is that a save? I just thought that might be an interesting point to clarify.  QuizQuick  14:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

From the Laws of the Game:

A goal is scored when the whole of the ball passes over the goal line, between the goalposts and under the crossbar, provided that no infringement of the Laws of the Game has been committed previously by the team scoring the goal.

Ball does not need to touch the ground, so the situation you describe is a goal. Conscious 12:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Penalty kicks

If a team only had nine players and the game went to sudden death, would one player be allowed to kick again?  QuizQuick  14:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

See Penalty shootout (football)#Procedure, last bullet. Conscious 12:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Banners in football arenas

How do people see underneath those huge banners that cover a large portion of a section in the crowd? It seems that the banner is held by the people, so do people see anything under it? Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.57.58.57 (talk • contribs) .

They don't see anything. But the banners are usually not up for very long and often before the match or in half-time. – Elisson • Talk 13:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, could you make reference to Cambridge University Association Football Club in this article? They are oldest club, having been formed in 1855/56, and are currently celebratign their 150th anniversary.

Re-write needed

Hi, could you make reference to Cambridge University Association Football Club in this article? They are oldest club, having been formed in 1855/56, and are currently celebratign their 150th anniversary. jamiebrown10 17.06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph:

The rules of football as they are codified today are based on mid-19th century efforts to standardise the widely varying forms of football played at the public schools of England. However this theory has been challenged after the finding of a book written in 1633 in Scotland some 200 years before the FA was founded.[4] This new finding has the ability to completely rewrite the history of football, however according to previous belief the Cambridge Rules were the first to resemble the modern game. They were produced at Trinity College, Cambridge in 1848, at a meeting attended by representatives from Eton, Harrow, Rugby, Winchester and Shrewsbury schools, but they were not universally adopted. During the 1850s, many clubs unconnected to schools or universities were formed throughout the English-speaking world to play various forms of football. Some came up with their own distinct codes of rules, most notably the Sheffield Football Club (formed by former pupils from Harrow) in 1857, which led to formation of a Sheffield FA in 1867. In 1862, John Charles Thring of Uppingham School also devised an influential set of rules.[5]

could use some help. The word "theory" doesn't seem applicable IMO, since it should denote an effort to explain a phenomenon not completely understood. The paragraph is also a little disjointed. I'm not knowledgeable about soccer and lack the time at the moment.Nodoremi 20:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Changed things around. Borrowed a paragraph from the larger Football article. Borrowed a couple of sentences from Global Friends of Scotland blog. It could probably use some more work.Nodoremi 04:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The term "soccer" should be used as seldom as possible, not to establish it more than it already is. We (i.e the "free" world of football) must not surrender the term "football" to the americans, but call real football football and let their variety be called "american football" or whatever. They don't kick the ball that much, or even use a ball. So - call it football!! Nothing else!

Good point. Do the Brits ever use the term "soccer" any more?Nodoremi 21:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes we understand the term soccer definitely, but we believe that this is the real football!

I think that the part about Wedderburn's quote and passing back forwards needs changing. This is the original translation below:

[l]et’s pick sides. You have first choice. Those who are on our side, come over here. How many are there in the other team? Kick off, so that we can begin the match. Pass it here. You keep goal. Get hold of the ball before he does, if you can manage it. Go on, intercept him. Charge him. Pass the ball back. Well done! You’re slacking. To score a goal. This is the second, this the third goal. Keep him out, otherwise the other side wins. If you’re not careful, he’ll score in a minute. If we don’t play better, we’re done for. Hi! You’re the winners. Hurrah! He’s a very good player. If it has been for him we should have won. Come on, help me. We still have a better side?

Basically it says "pass back" and not forward. The comment on forward passing needs to be deleted. Unfortunately this does not leave much similarity with the cambridge rules and I think that this should be acknowledged.

I certainly have no objections. I'm more or less editing wp articles as a passtime and to keep my writing "skills" up to date. Also, this is a pretty interesting subject from a foreigner's standpoint. I get over to England every so often. A few years ago I watched a couple of hours of a pan-Britain (including Ireland) darts championship and found it fascinating. Once I came across a few gentleman playing a skittles with a large discus-shaped wooden "ball". Can't remeber the throwing-object's name. They said the game was similar to the one referred to in Hawthorne's "Rip van Winkel". Nodoremi 20:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)