Talk:Football/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

AFL

Australian Rules has too much representation in this article. Compared to Football, gridiron and rugby, Aussie Rules is very insignificant, yet, it is spread all over this article. Tone it down.Losnyone 06:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I find this ridiculous and I'm not interested in Aussie rules. Compared to soccer all other forms of football are insignificant but that's no reason to gove soccer 90% of the article. Aussie rules is a significant sport and its section is far smaller than the various rugby sections.GordyB 12:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

hmmm...it's been a couple of months since the last sock puppet whistling this same tune came along. I guess it was just about time - you can almost set your alarm clock to it. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 13:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is a problem with the current balance of football codes in this article. But I am wondering why would you label this user a sockpuppet? Outside of Australia, Australian rules football is an insignificant sport. -- Chuq 04:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

History tells me it's a sockpuppet, and you may be right on the other point, on the other hand the AFL attracts around the 5th most spectators of all the football leagues on Earth in any code. Secondly, it has a longer history than most of the football codes on Earth, and thirdly, most of the original VFL clubs are amongst the very oldest of any football code on Earth. Now since this article ostensibly is about the general subject of football - do these facts at least allow it a bit of presence here? πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 06:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with you regarding the "quota" of Aussie rules content in the article - I don't think it needs to be toned down at all. I was just commenting that there are a large number of people on the planet to whom it is insignificant, and therefore it is much more likely that Losnyone is just one of these people, rather than part of an organised group to denigrate Aussie rules on Wikipedia. -- Chuq 08:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Try reading this Talk:Football/Archive 7 (Australian rules debates). It's not an organised group so much as a one man crusade.GordyB 08:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Losnyone says Aussie Rules is "spread all over this article", when it obviuosly isn't, makes it appear quite likely that it is the same old people/person. Whether it is or not, there is no point trying to discuss what counts as "significant" all over again. JPD (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I agree that the person on the archive page was a bit of a nutter, but on first glance (and without having been involved before) the person above doesn't seem to a nutter. I was just making sure that a newbie was not being bitten! -- Chuq 09:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I just changed the headings for football today to more clear and coherent form listing the codes by date of origin. I put it Melbourne Rules 1859-AFL etc. FA rules-all games related to soccer football. RFU rules 1870-all games related to RU, RL, American football, Canadien football etc. etc. Gaelic Rules 1882 for GAA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.225.216.157 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 7 September 2006.

This version seems fairly accurate, although I am not convinced it is better than the previous version. What do others think? JPD (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Since when is Aussie Rules insignificant? Who cares about what the Mayans do in SA or Europe, this is for English speakers and the AFL has the second highest average attendance in the English speaking world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.225.216.157 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 7 September 2006.

Not insignificant but that stat you quote is obviously wrong. The English premier league and the NFL must surely be one and two by attendence.GordyB 15:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think he is looking at the average attendance for each match. In general, Premier League grounds hold less spectators than AFL grounds. JPD (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what I had assumed. According to this List of sports attendance figures, he seems to be correct.GordyB 15:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Forget about the English premier league, just think MUFC. I remember being amazed a few years ago reading that a Manchester United fanzine/fan magazine sold 50,000 copies a week in Taiwan! As this article says: "And Manchester United can count a world-wide fan base of over 50 million zealots recruited to the cause." --Philip Baird Shearer 17:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anybody would seriously suggest that the AFL has the global impact that the English premier league does (or even that of the Spanish or Italian leagues) but the statistic of attendence seems to be verifiable. Still it is a remarkable statistic given the sheer size of Australia (not many away fans except at derbies), the smaller population and the lack of popularity in Queensland and New South Wales.

Mind you the AFL is a franchise system, if the EPL was done on a similar basis some pretty big clubs e.g. Sunderland, Leeds United, Sheffield Wednesday would be included and would boost the average past the AFL. Arsenal's new stadium might do so in any case.GordyB 19:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The Number of football games played globally, from all traditions, and at all levels through the course of history, must be in the hundreds of thousands. The NFL alone is a twenty billion dollar industry giving the US a twenty-something week season chock full of games. As is mentioned above, the NFL does not remotely scratch the total expression involved in "football". The effort, the enthusiasm, the team identification, the bravado rallys forth from weekend to weekend, with games pitted at every level of expertise and age, entire populaces expending enormous amounts on amusements, decor, costumes and food planning for, practicing for and participating in these forays. When you get to the bottom of it though, virtually only a handful of these games, and perhaps that is being liberal, have had any real significance in the history of humankind. It is interesting. You would think with all the stat mills churning out fantasy football picks this would be easy, finding that number. Not so. Not even the NCAA seems to want to openly report the number of Division 1 games played in 2005 in any forum I could find. Why is that. Do they not want you to think about these things? I have spent about four to five hours googling now, trying to find out just what that number is, the total number of football games that have came and went, with all the libation and sweat, and struggle, winners and losers, their meaning lost to the statisical books, and now computers, which will all eventually crumble into entropic bits and pass like all the other quarks into the continuum. And then what shall it all have meant? All that horseness, yelling at the top of one's lungs, Run, Damn it, run!

C. F. Pittenger September 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Argument

I will put the argument here. Why is a clearer and better headlining so offensive?

To present Rules as an Australian and Irish variety is misleading and avoidable, so what is the point of continuing this?

There was no offense to it when it was put up, so why wait for two months to change it?

There seems no less point to putting Rules under a rugby school headline than putting rugby football and American football under a rugby school headline, as the deviant point for American football and rugby football is after the publishment of the RFU rules in 1870 which were different from rugby school rules.

Why continue the obtuse and wrong argument?

I deem that a great idea. 02:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)02:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)02:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)02:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)02:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)02:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)02:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)02:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)02:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)02:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)02:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)02:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)02:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)02:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)02:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)02:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)02:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)02:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC) --Loveingsydney 02:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Licinius or whatever your real name is, did your school reports say "will not play nicely with the other children"? The facts that you refuse to abide by an long-standing and overwhelming consensus, that you can't recognise the relationship between Australian rules and Gaelic football, their shared dissimilarities to rugby football and the fact that rugby is completely British in origin, suggests psychiatric issues. Grant65 | Talk 05:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediæval football and mob football

The reasonably long-standing Mediæval football article covers everything that could conceivably be in Mob football, a more recent addition. I propose that mob football be merged and redirected into Mediæval football, which is a broader term. The main author of Mob football objects to this. Please comment at Talk:Mob football. Cheers Grant65 | Talk 08:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree they should be merged, but should be called medieval football rather than mob football. [Preceding unsigned comment by User:86.132.175.118.]

Irish and Australian varieties ?

The section tries to claim that these sports are united by some common elements. But so are cricket and baseball, you don't find them bundled together though. This claim is probably best left to Sporting Comparison articles such as Comparison of Australian rules football and Gaelic football. --Rulesfan 00:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

We all now know that it is doubtful that there is an historic link between the two, but this section is merely grouping codes of football that share many features, which the two obviously do. While I can see that it might confuse some readers into thinking there is an historical relationship between the two codes, it is not really intending to give that perception, rather, it is just a convenient way of organising the codes. I take the point, though, that the other groupings display far closer familial links amongst the members than does Gaelic and Australian football. Suggestions? πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 01:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pippu, I think you and I have had this discussion before, and I have been having related discussions with Rulesfan on other talk pages. There actually is evidence that the two are related. I think Geoffrey Blainey in particular has been very successful in propagating the view that they aren't. Other historians disagree.

In any case, even if Aussie rules and Gaelic aren't "blood relations", then International rules is the product of a reasonably successful "marriage" which has made them related. Grant65 | Talk 02:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Grant - I accept that it is a convenient grouping, justifiable by both the rules of the respective games and the modern day link. But I seriously doubt there is a strong historical link. You're right that I am influenced by Blainey's book - but the arguments he puts forward stack up quite well in my mind. Ultimately, the clincher for me is that going back to 1858, it was English public school types that were putting together our code - I really doubt that the Irish would have had much of a look in, or at least, knowledge of any pre-existing Irish game would have had no more greater influence than the knowledge they had of Rugby school rules, Cambridge rules, etc. (certainly no disrespect intended to the Irish game either, which I think is a great game) πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

One may state without much contention, if done from honest analysis, that aussie rules is in fact a variation of soccer's forerunner Cambridge Rules. Following rules and variations, such as playing on an oval field, not kicking off(which both soccer hd and rugby still has), the "loser's reward" posts were introduced in Australia. The sheer amount of evidence for this is overwhelming, when considered that most of the original writers were in fact attendants of the cambridge college and the rugby school. Gaelic, on the other hand, seems more a rejection of soccer and rugby. Irish immigrants in Sydney, New York and Manchester all took up rugby with gusto, so there is perhaps more relationship between traditional Irish caid and rugby, though there is no proof or logic to asserting any realistic direct Irish influence on the fundamentals of the Melbourne game, perhaps there is through the webb ellis myth. Webb Ellis's father was stationed in Ireland, so maybe the Aussie Rules founders were influenced through that long line. Hope that helps, cheers --Ehinger222 11:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Always glad to hear a considered opinion, thanks. I think it's easy for us to forget that — as late as the 1870s — there were scores of different kinds of football. The Cambridge Rules certainly were an important influence. In fact, Australian rules did have kicking off until (if memory serves me correct) the 1880s. Possibly the strongest proponent of the view that Irish games did not influence Tom Wills and other progenitors of the Melbourne game is the historian Geoffrey Blainey. However, I had another look at Blainey's book A Game of Our Own today and his coat is slung on a rather more slender logical hook than many of his admirers may imagine: first, he states that those involved in the match/meeting organised by Wills on July 31, 1858 played a variety of football codes. Second, his argument rests on the fact that few Irish Catholics played Australian rules before the 1880s; indeed Blainey states that they preferrred to play hurling and regarded the new code as a "Protestant game". The irony is, that in doing so he affirms that hurling, an Irish sport with no offside rule (like Australian rules and the later Gaelic football) was reasonably widespread in Victoria at an early stage. And if hurling was there, why not caid? Also, it is neither here nor there whether Irish people played Australian rules — Tom Wills & co had only to witness hurling, caid or whatever to be influenced by them. Finally — and I was surprised to notice this for the first time — Blainey provides no references or bibliography in his book! Grant65 | Talk 14:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Proper cites required

Kicking games at Caunton, Nottinghamshire were described by a 15th century English monk: "the players propel a huge ball, not by thowing it up into the air, but by striking and rolling it along the ground, and not by their hands but by their feet." This is particularly noteworthy as it is the earliest description of an exclusively kicking ball sport and for being described as a "game". The game, however, was rough, as shown by the monk's description: "a game, I say, abominable enough . . . and rarely ending but with some loss, accident, or disadvantage of the players themselves." cites - http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/sherwoodtimes/football.htm - I don't think this is sufficient. Jooler 22:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No, now that you come to mention it. Grant65 | Talk 02:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

We really need the citation for the first football game in ireland. There seems to be more evidence for the quotation above than for the Irish one... and yet it has been included. I think some equality is required here...

Football in non-English speaking countries?

This is a very nice article, but I have the feeling that it's lacking information on football in non-English speaking countries - it pretty much deals with England/the UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia, the USA etc. exclusively. Would be nice if someone who knows about these things could add some balance to the article. :) -- Schnee (cheeks clone)

All the sports mentioned in the article evolved in either England, Ireland, Australia, Canada or the USA. As this is just an overview then it is not surprising that the article focuses on these countries. There are plenty of mentions of other countries in the parts talking about other sports e.g. Calcio Fiorentina and plenty in the more detailed articles on the histories of the various different types of football.GordyB 13:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

An article about football which does not mention Brazil, is ridiculous, sorry. 201.17.62.251 07:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are looking for football (soccer). Unless there a code of football which was invented in Brazil? Grant | Talk 08:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Merger request

No idea who put that there. I can only presume whoever did it, did not read this article. It makes no sense whatsoever. If nobody gives a justifcation for this then I will delete it.GordyB 13:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It was put here by Cocoaboy [1]. I agree it makes no sense. 3 minutes earlier Cocoaboy placed "Redirect|American Football" in Football (soccer) [2] (quickly removed). I have taken the liberty of deleting the merge tag. PrimeHunter 14:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Correction: The editor is actually called Cocoaguy. Maybe a mental slipup based on my impression. PrimeHunter 14:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Increasing vandalism

The problem seems to be getting worse. Maybe we should have the page locked to unregistered editors. What do others think? Grant65 | Talk 01:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Football (soccer) was featured on the main page two days ago, and it links here. Maybe that attracted some vandals who will go away soon. PrimeHunter 02:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Whenever an article reaches a certain level of maturity (as this one has) - I am always in favour of partial restrictions as mooted above by Grant. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I am none too keen on unregistered editors at all, so I'd be in favour. The nature of this page is that fans of one game are always vandalising the sections of other sports.GordyB 18:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As many frequent contributors are in favour, or at least do not object, I will request semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, a day or so from now, unless there is a spate of objections. Grant65 | Talk 02:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new main image

In consulation with JPD, who came up with the current main image, I have compiled a new collage from the available licensed images, for use at the top of the article. What do others think? Grant65 | Talk 17:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

File:Football3.png

I was somewhat limited by the lack of suitable images for some of the codes. I can easily make changes to this collage if anyone wants to upload better ones or has any suggestions. Grant65 | Talk 01:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Can't say that excluding rugby union looks very good. Cvene64 06:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair point. The league pic is fairly generic "rugby football", but I will have a look for a decent union pic. However they seem to be mostly poor quality shots of scrums and lineouts, neither of which feature much in other codes. Grant65 | Talk 07:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Second version

Latest version on the lower right, now featuring a rugby union scrum. I don't think we would want it to get much bigger. Grant65 | Talk 14:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I like it. I'd defintiely say it's the best version I've seen so far. JPD (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

OK if no-one objects in the next few days, I'll put it in the article. Grant65 | Talk 15:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed External Link

Editors, please consider adding a link to a popular page...

• The Price of a Point by Paul Niquette

...which may be considered as a challenge to the design of the scoring system for football or suggestive of proportionate game tactics.Paul Niquette 22:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

additional info needed

I think that the evidence for the first reference to football in ireland is too weak. It needs to be cited properly and if it is in a foreign language we need to know what its literal translation is.

Under the FA section I think it should state that this is the first organised soccer organisation in the world and I do think that it needs to say that for this reason it does not have English in front of it. Otherwise it sounds like some kind of international forerunner to FIFA and anyone who does not follow soccer might think that it died out or was replaced... Jeb

The FA don't have 'English' in their title because they were not set up to be the governing body for football in England. Nobody could have known back then that anybody outside the UK would be interested in football and so it was not planned to have any more governing bodies.GordyB 16:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Soccer V Football

Hey fellas. Can anybody educate me here?--Johnhardcastle 11:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the article makes it quite clear.GordyB 16:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Try football (word) and Football (soccer) names. Grant65 | Talk 09:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Page structure and order

I would like to propose that the order be changed. It seems to me that it is natural for the section on Australian rules to come straight after the section on the Football Association and the one on rugby football. This is not because I think soccer is more important... it is just more logical that the split that occurred at the formation of the Football Association and rugby football should follow the info about the Cambridge rules. It is one evolutionary process: public schools.. cambridge rules... fA formation ... others went off to form rugby clubs. This sequence should be kept together and not be broken up by the section on aussie rules.

Nothing personal to the aussies!

Also I think the section on the FA should be entitled: Association Football and the Football Association

thanks

Rick

I don't agree, on several levels. Even if the the evolution did occur as you suggest, this only looks at the English history. The current order is chronological, and expresses the fact that while rugby football and other rules were used in public schools, rules such as the Cambridge, Sheffield and Melbourne rules were also being developed. The attempts to unify the British codes resulting in the FA and it's rules come after the Australian rules, even though they weren't influenced by the Australian rules. The "others" remained rugby-style clubs, rather than went off, and then the RFU was formed. If we were to take a more thematic approach, the further development of the American codes, the rugby codes and global soccer would not be interspersed with each other, either. I think the thematic approach is better left to articles like History of football (soccer). Your suggested header title seems repetitive. Perhaps it would be better to rename the Rugby football section to The Rugby Footall Union. JPD (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with JPD. Australian rules was also influenced by Cambridge and when the FA rules reached Australia people accused them of "plagiarizing" the Melbourne FC rules. Grant65 | Talk 09:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

ok guys, points taken. I think that at the end of the public schools section it should be made clearer that the codes developed at these schools were influential in the formation of the rules that the FA adopted. As it stands at present, it looks as if public school football all ended up as rugby football. The influence of these codes on the FA rules (via committee members who had been at these schools) should be recognized. R —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.138.172.237 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Proposed External Link

Editors, please consider adding a link to a popular page...

• The Price of a Point by Paul Niquette

...which is a challenge to the design of the scoring system for football and also suggestive of proportionate game tactics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul Niquette (talk • contribs) 22:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

While this may be an interesting link for American football (I'm not convinced), it definitely isn't appropriate for this page about football codes in general. JPD (talk) 11:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the observation, with which I fully agree. The link is most appropriate for American football. I am a new wikipedian and will appreciate guidance. Paul Niquette 20:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)