Talk:Football/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

split this article?

football and the other kind of football are different. there different in the game, and different in the spelling.. you really need to split this article -- 24.254.14.165 00:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The spelling is the same. The separate football codes do have their own articles.GordyB 00:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Not completely, there is American football and Futbol there are two different names. But you are right that there are two different articles. Azamiz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azamiz (talk • contribs) 22:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

"Futbol" is a Spanish transliteration of "football" which has passed into American English. It is not used by UEFA / FIFA or any organisation that I know of in any official capacity (aside from the obvious Hispanophone). It is an utterly unknown word in the UK and probably the rest of the English speaking world.GordyB (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

public school games and the forward pass

I think that the section on public school games should mention that the forward pass is permitted in rugby (and other school games) when the ball is kicked. This key feature of rugby is often over looked by historians of soccer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballwecan80 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it isn't true. You cannot kick the ball forward to a team-mate, if you did they would be off-side. You can only kick the ball forward and hope that they can run from behind where you are and collect it. That's not a pass by any definition.GordyB 14:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Insulting

Hi, as an Australian I am insulted by the opening paragraph that makes a mention of soccer and actually has the gall to call it football but seemingly forgets to mention that only a few pommy bastards call soccer football and that in the English speaking worlds(discounting Indians and other non-Brittanics) the English are in a tiny minority in their reference to soccer being football which they are actually wrong about. I am not sure that soccer should even be on a page in English wikipedia dedicated to football and think that people should remove it. Afterall, outside of a few imperialists, everyone in Australia hates the d***heads that are trying to call soccer football, and even more importantly, the Americans dont do it either, leaving the English on their lonesome. I tried to change this but I cant for some reason so I would like someone who can to change it. Think about it, football means ball on foot in every English speaking society that is not bitched by the English culturally. In particular, rugby football and its varying splinters stand out as the clearest meaning of the term football. like rugby league football, rugby union, American football, Canadian football. With gayfl, many of the original writers went to the rugby school and they were heavily influenced by the tour of the English football team to Australia in 1877, as well as them being undoubtedly influenced by the culturally superior and more densely populated states of NSW and QLD where rugby football is a religion. With Gaelic football, it was probably influenced by rugby football in the type of its posts. The only mention to soccer should be that it deviated from football in 1863 when it changed the emphasis of the game to kicking, and stopped being football when the average player was no longer allowed to catch the ball on foot and take a "mark". I mean, look in a dictionary at the words that have the adjectival foot- as the beginning of the word and most of them only make sense when you add by, with, in, on, from before the foot, like footmarch means a march on foot, or footnote means a note on foot (of page) whereas football could only mean soccer when you add the verb kick, as in ball kicked by foot/with foot, so it breaks the rule. In other cases like footstep meaning step FOR foot, it still does not give clarification for it meaning soccer ahead of rugby football, as ball for foot is ambiguous and is probably not the origin of the word, as the word was used for a sport originally and ball is not a sport. So that is why soccer should be kicked off the football page and I am insulted in the opening mention to it being the most popular form without giving the clarification that only the pommys call it football(and even than it has only become universal in the past 50 years, whereass before that clubs like Wigan FC definitely didnt play soccer and didnt compromise over the fact that they were a football club). So please change it somebody when they get the chance, and while we are at it, change the name of the soccer article. --Poo thrasher 10:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Soccer isn't played on foot? Go troll somewhere else. JPD (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Not just trolling but also use of a socket puppet User:Oh come on pulease's first two edits (and only two edits) are to revert deletion of this and one other talk page "contribution" by Poo thrasher.GordyB 16:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is acceptable because Poothrasher was blocked for a bad Username. It is encouraged that he (or she) gain a new user name. Woodym555 17:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The insulting part about this article is that it's NOT about Football, but a disambiguation page. As football is called football (plus translations from countless countries) in almost everywhere but some stuck-up countries. Chandlertalk 19:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Not true, as described by many contributers above, "football" is not the universal word used for the sport known as "soccer" in the United states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.52.185 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 8 January 2008

I wonder whether you include Ireland in your list of "stuck-up" countries.GordyB 19:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. just because a tiny overpopulated island in europe calls soccer football, it doesn't make it football. nobody else in the english speaking world calls it football. just because the british are stubborn idiots (see Falklands War) this article shouldn't be influenced by them. Football, canadian football and aussie football are real sports and are called football by far more people than soccer is. i heavily suggest the british bias be taken out of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.221.5 (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Get out of here. I'm Australian and I believe it should be called football. Hey it's actually played using the feet as opposed to others like Rugby League/Union/AFL <--That is their real name. The whole world bar the States, NZ and Aus call it football. We need to step in the right direction. Don't like it get out. Simple as. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mufffin man (talk • contribs) 13:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're Australian and you call it that you are part of a tiny minority. Congratulations. Oh and that tired old argument about soccer being played with the feet??? FFS name a code of football that isn't! Oh sure, the other codes also allow you to play using the rest of your body.... JUST LIKE SOCCER DOES! In soccer you can use your feet, shins, knees, legs, torso, chest, head and the goalie can use his arms and hands! So by your logic soccer can't be called football either! 89.100.101.40 (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation

• Since the British use 'football' in reference to soccer as well, this page should be a disambiguation page which shows options "Football(American)" and "Football(soccer)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.115.144 (talk • contribs)

Please read the article before making this kind of comment. Had you done so then yopu would have realised that your suggestion is completely unworkable.GordyB 19:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The term named football is used for the sport in which the ball is used by your fooot and nothing else, in northamerican football you don't use your foot, you can use your hands. that must be named handball or something, not football. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.57.245 (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Native speakers of English throughout the world know what sport the term "soccer" refers to. However, the term "football" refers to too many different sports to be used in place of "soccer" in an international publication such as Wikipedia.Mathnarg 20:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, read the article! Soccer is one small aspect of this article. Grant | Talk 07:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. this wants so before.. somebody must have changed the page.Dentren | ^Talk 14:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Pommy bastards? Us British invented the modern game of football, so you should be thanking us for giving the world such a glorious game! I'm sorry but who made your country what it is today? Us. And what language do you Australians speak? English.. no clue as to where that came from. I think you should show us a tad more respect next time you start making personal remarks against a whole country. And besides, seeing as we invented the damn thing, we can call it whatever we bloody hell like! And the only reason the Americans call it 'soccer' is because if they called it football, like everyone else, then everyone would think they were talking about American Football! God this debate is annoying me! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Repeated comment.

Do we need:

IMPORTANT NOTE to editors: we have a length problem! That is why there is a Mediæval football article. Please do not add new material to this section unless it is significant -- please put any new material in the Mediæval football article _before_ you add it to this section. Thank you.

Repeated 10 times in the history section, is not once enough at the top of the section? --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 13:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No. People never read the full article before editing it.GordyB 13:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Gordy. I didn't put it there for no reason. Grant | Talk 13:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, 10 times is excessive, the not is till at the top of the section which appears 1st on clicking 'edit' and if people are going to not read they may go and add things anyway. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 14:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You need one comment per subsection, a lot of people just edit subsections.GordyB 14:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you look I left it on the sub section. football#Medieval and early modern Europe--Nate1481( ^t/_c) 14:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The article attracts a lot of interest and one consequence of this is it that it gets a lot of editing from people who don't read articles properly (see the numerous misinformed comments about the content above) and who don't understand understand the norms and style of Wikipedia. Grant | Talk 18:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed splitting off of page

Ever since I found this page a long time ago, I've thought we should split it off. Football should be a disambiguation page, with the main 3 uses (rugby, gridiron, and soccer) at the top. The bulk of this text could go in football (history), and what's left of this page could become a disambiguation. This makes much more sense. 95% of people typing in football are looking for information on one of the specific sports, and if they're interested in reading about the pre-split history, they can click on that in the disambiguation page. The Evil Spartan 00:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

When you say "the 3 main uses" what about Australia where the "main use" would be Aussie Rules football which is just as valid as Association football, Rugby football (which is divided into two anyway, Rugby League & Rugby Union) and American football.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 00:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Then we can have the top 6 uses at the top. I'm more worried about the page split right now than anything. The Evil Spartan 00:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The main uses are all at the top, in the first paragraph? -- Chuq (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death before. Most people who the page splitting up haven't actually read the article. There are dozens and possibly as many as a hundred different "football" games. Even a dismbiguation page would take up loads of space and since nobody would understand it, it would slowly grow until you have something very similar to this article.GordyB 16:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

And yet the fact that it's been talked about before and so controversial shows that it's a real problem. Per WP:DISAMBIG, if a page is confusing, it should be a disambiguation page. To have a history page and a disambiguation page all smushed together is inappropriate. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is "confusing". On the contrary, I think the introduction is perfectly clear. As Gordy has suggested, this article began as a dab page, which became complicated to the point of confusion and uselessness. The historical development of these football games serves to explain why so many very different games are all called "football".Grant | Talk 07:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The "These games involve"

Well I get the impression these are suppose to be what all games involve? it starts of good... but then there are many "in some codes" etc. shouldn't they be removed? I at least thought that list was, things that are the same in all codes of football. Chandlertalk 18:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the points more specific to individual codes would be better removed from the bulleted list. The coudl be written as a pargraph immediately following the list. Leaving them out altogether is not a great idea, as each of the things mentioned is common to a majority of the football codes. JPD (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, all of the points refer to at least three codes. Points 1-5 apply to all of them; point 6 to all except Aussie rules and Gaelic; point 7 to the Rugby codes, American and Canadian football; point 8 to all codes except Aussie rules; point 9 to rugby union, Aussie rules and American football. Grant | Talk 01:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Good edit JPD, I like the new look intro. 02:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant65 (talk • contribs)

Conflicting Years

In 1363, King Edward III of England issued a proclamation banning "...handball, football, or hockey; coursing and cock-fighting, or other such idle games", showing that "football" — whatever its exact form in this case — was being differentiated from games involving other parts of the body, such as handball.

King Henry IV of England gives the earliest documented use of the English word "football", in 1409, when he issued a proclamation forbidding the levying of money for "foteball".[6][7]''

That was taken from this article, but doesn't it seem to be contradictory? If Edward III issued a proclamation banning football in 1363 why is Henry IV's proclamation being referred to as the "earliest documented use of football" if it came more than 40 years later? 157.252.165.109 (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Grant | Talk 17:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

@Grant, this page is protected. Anonymous editors can't edit this page.GordyB (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

When people search for "Football" they are generally looking for a sport, be it Association football, American football, or anything else. They are generally NOT looking for a broad historical analysis of the term. So while I think this article has a lot of great information in it, I think it should start with a nice list of things colloquially called Football. Like a disambiguation page. 134.84.96.142 (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Corrupt

Is the whole of wikipedia corrupt? First the stuff about Jimbo Wales misusing funds and now a football article that seems to be overrun by Victorians. Australian varieties of football?? LOL, AFL is a joke of a sport that was made in England private schools and exported to Australia by students of English private schools, and than it was only popular in half of the nation, in the other half of Australia it is rejected as "foreign". Australian variety of football my arse. --Youknowittoo (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Comparison table

I find this Wikipedia entry is not about football itself, but about the *term* football. It is a linguistic study about the term and what it comes to mean in time and space. At any encyclopedia entry I expect to find the meaning, not merely the term. The article is too history-related, it misses to describe actual football. It is poorly designed too, it is difficult to find the variant of football you're searching for. We get to know there are so much variants, but we don't get accurate descriptions from them... what the number of player is, whether there is or not a goalkeeper, the dimensions of the football ground, the number of referees... Probably a comparison table would help. I think a photograph is strongly needed in order to illustrate every variant, and make it easier to find too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.33.246.185 (talk) 18:56, April 20, 2008

While I don't particularly agree that it's difficult to find information about the specific variants (in all probability, there's a link to your favourite variant in the very first paragraph of the article), I do see the usefulness of some kind of a comparison table. I'm pretty sure someone here would be up to creating one. -- Jao (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Too much details

Why so much attention is given to football. Football is producing stupidness around the world. If Einstein , Newton , Pitagora , etc were playing football in the past now all of us would live in caves. Come on - get serious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.105.209.78 (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Because this is an article about football....Were you expecting an article on astrophysics to be listed under "football"?GordyB (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobel Prize-winning physicist Niels Bohr played football for a leading Danish team, Akademisk Boldklub. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No he played soccer ;) 89.100.101.40 (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Greek interwiki

Please can someone add a link to the Greek article in Βικιπαίδεια (el:Ποδόσφαιρο) —Saltmarsh 08:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate interwiki, as the Greek article is about Association football. It should be (and is) interwikied from Association football, but not this article, which has a different scope. JPD (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Spelling mistake

Quick one: I have only recently signed up to Wikipedia, and so cannot edit the Football page. Noticed that 'innovation' is spelled incorrectly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football#Sheffield_rules Jrwjames (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, I fixed it. And welcome to Wikipedia! -- Jao (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Give me a break

I type in football on an american website, heres my source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia and i see a history about soccer.. then when i type in soccer i get the same damn page.. you cant even find the correct website for FOOTBALL(nfl) someone edit this crap asap or my fellow anons will do this for me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.200.170 (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an American site, it is international. Lympathy ^Talk 11:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but there should still definitely be an article for US/Canada football. If there already is one, it should be much easier to find than it is.--S00porz2 (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There is here. If you did indeed just type in Football you would have found an article that mentions all codes of football with links in the first paragraph. --Michael Johnson (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Much better title

This is a much more inclusive and international article now, covering all the footballs that we know of here in the western world. To me 'football' has always been Gaelic Football, as is the common meaning in Ireland (the GAA being far and away the largest and most popular organisation in Ireland, sporting or otherwise). Internationally, we are tiny. But it's still most definitely 'football', and we are ferociously passionate about it in a way not replicated in other western societies (for historical and cultural reasons). I'm glad the 'American Football' article didn't get the monopoly of the title 'Football' here, even though it is probably what most speakers of English know as 'football', just as I am glad that 'Association Football' didn't keep it. Well done to everybody involved. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Separation

I can't believe the article talks about two different sports at once, we should clearly have two different articles, one for American Football and another one for real Football (where you actually use your feet) instead of mixing both sports into one article. 20:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You're looking for the articles American football and Association football. -- Jao (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wait I just checked and there is an American Football article, so when I tried to look for real Football, I found out that it was named "Association football", what's up with that? it should be simply called Football (since that's how most of the world calls it), and this should be a desambiguation page. Supaman89 (talk)

This has been debated endlessly. This essentially is a glorified diambiguation page for the hundreds (not two) of football varients. Association football is so-named because that is the official name of the sport.GordyB (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"Real football"- you mean, of course, "the garrison game"? I was also looking for "real football" here, but I found it here. I'll get over it. God bless British nationalism and its endless quest to be at the centre of the world. Britain is a nation, not the world. Wikipedia is a world encyclopedia. Sorry. 86.42.104.201 (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You could start an argument in an empty room.GordyB (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is "a glorified disambiguation page" but I think it should be un-glorified and made to look spartan, like all other disambig pages. People coming here for the American football article (most people, I'd claim) are going to think something's wrong with the website. There's no clear link to it up top. Tempshill (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Unlike most disambiguation pages, the histories of the various items that would be listed here are intertwined. There is easily enough justification for the existance of this page in its own right. If people really want a plain disambiguation page then the simple solution would be to create one and link to it at the top of the page.GordyB (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Only certain North Americans would go there expecting American football, perhaps those North Americans would even be so quick witted to realize that football = American football isn't a universal team and when they see "This article is about various sports known as "football"." they'll get that this article isnt about American football — CHANDLER^#10 — 06:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)