Talk:Football

---

Blokjesvoetbal/Flesjesvoetbal

Was there any reason for a redirect to the talk page of the Association football article?

Anyway, what I really wanted to discuss: school kids in the Netherlands play a game called blokjesvoetbal (lit. 'block football') or flesjesvoetbal (lit. 'bottle football'). It is typically played by three players or more, although more than, say, 7 players is unusual.

The playing field needs to be fairly level: on it, bottles or bricks are placed, or anything not too big that can topple over. The objects are usually placed in a wide circle. Each player gets to guard exactly one brick. Points are scored by shooting the ball against a brick so that it falls flat on the field. The defender has to put the brick back up and the game resumes. As with Three sided football, alliances can be made on the spur.

What I wanted to ask: is this game at all known outside the Netherlands? Is it a form of 'football', or should it be listed elsewhere?

Triskelion and Scuffleball

Made some changes to this page. Please be patient concerning the new links I've put in - triskelion and scuffleball and the like. I will provide more information on them soon. - Scooter 07:46, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Warwickshire?

I don't think it's correct to include Gaelic football or Australian Rules Football under "Warwickshire", unless there is some cource which says that Gaelic took it's inspiration from previous varieties being played in Warwickshire, which I doubt!

Although there is no proof of the link between Gaelic and Australian Rules, the similarities are strong (reflected in the cross over of players and the International Rules matches), and the original influence of Rugby on Aussie Rules has now all but disappeared. So these games should be grouped together. (Grant; March 2, 2004.)

---

I have now created a separate "family" of Irish and Australian football. Secondly, I don't know if anyone knows which game was the first "football" to have an official set of rules, but Aussie Rules was definitely codified before the FA existed, so I have mentioned it in a new paragraph in the history section. Also, the FA's first set of rules was not "Association football" as we now know it --- in fact there were a lot of similarities to modern Rugby (see the Rugby football article for more on this). I have re-worded the history to reflect this. (Grant; March 3, 2004.)

Cambridge, Sheffield, Australian Rules & Gaelic football

The Cambridge rules (which formed the basis of the FA rules) were drawn up in Cambridge in 1848. Mintguy (T) 09:59, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

You are right, although the original Cambridge rules have not survived and they seem to have had as much, if not more, in common with modern Rugby. (Likewise the Sheffield rules (1857) are also often said to have contribued to soccer, although to me they seem to have shared a common ancestor with Aussie Rules, i.e. the ball could be caught by any player (marked) from a clean kick and there was no offside rule at all.) Anyway, I guess the main point is that the Cambridge rules should mentioned as the forerunner of both soccer and Rugby.

I'd also be interested to hear whether rugby (football) really has anything to do with "Warwickshire football", or was really the creation of the Rugby School and other public schools. (Grant; March 7, 2004)

Everybody played by whatever rules they liked (even in Australia) as there was no official body to declare that one rule was right and another wasn't. The FA was formed with the express purpose of providing that official body and they attempted to establish a single code. The Blackheath team were party to the formation of the FA but withdrew at the last minute because the FA outlawed hacking (kicking an oponent in the shins). Blackheath went on to form the RFU and ironically later lobbied succesfully for hacking to be banned from the Rugby code. The modern game of Rugby was created by the RFU. Mintguy (T) 16:23, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've merged the History of football article back into this one, it wasn't receiving much attention where it was and the size of the history section in this article seemed to be growing. The History of football article was really only half an article anyway; ending at the Highways act of 1835 banning the game on the public Highway and which led to the development of the game on a pitch sepcially laid out for the purpose. I had written more on later developments but got bored with the subject, I'll have to find my notes. You may notice that the history section has sometihing to say about the possible origin of Aussie Rules. Mintguy (T) 10:52, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good job, well done Mintguy. For clarity's sake, I've broken up some paragraphs, rearranged some, added a par about Canadian & American football, inserted some bits about rules to show how the Cambridge rules (etc) differed from Association football and made many other small changes. Hope you approve. (Grant; March 9, 2004)

A few points. Firstly the FA is not a league. The FA only organised a league with the formation of the FA Premiership in 1992. It's impossible to say that the game ""not banned" in Ireland resembled Gaelic footbal or anything else, There is no evidence. Gaelic Football itself is an invention of the GAA, You cannot say "Although Gaelic football had been played in Ireland for centuries..." There was no such thing as Gaelic Football, it was an uncoded form of football like everywhere else. The 1848 rules are lost, but there is apparently little difference between them and the ~1856 version in Shrewsbury School's libray. These rules are taken from "The History of the Football Association" (1951) They are as follows -

Cambridge Rules of 1856

1. This Club shall be called the University Foot Ball Club.

2. At the commencement of play, the ball shall be kicked off from the middle of the ground; after every goal there shall be a kick-off in the same way or manner.

3. After a goal, the losing side shall kick off; the sides changing goals unless a previous arrangement be made to the contrary.

4. The ball is out when it has passed the line of the flag-post on either side of the ground, in which case it shall be thrown in straight.

5. The ball is "behind" when it has passed the goal on either side of it.

6. When the ball is behind, it shall be brought forward at the place where it left the ground not more than ten paces, and kicked off.

7.· Goal is when the ball is kicked through the flag-posts and under the string.

8. When a player catches the ball directly from the foot, he may kick it as he can without running with it. In no other case may the ball be touched with the hands, except to stop it.

9. If the ball has passed a player and has come from the direction of his own goal, he may not touch it till the other side have kicked it, unless there are more than three of the other side before him. No player is allowed to loiter between the ball and the adversaries' goal.

10. In no case is holding a player, pushing with the hands or tripping up allowed. Any player may prevent another from getting to the ball by any means consistent with this rule.

11. Every match shall be decided by a majority of goals.

I've highlighted 8 as this is the reference to the 'mark' (clearly this is the only time the ball can be handled) and also the part about loitering in 9 because this is effectivley an offside rule. Thus these rules clearly favour the kicking gameMintguy (T) 13:56, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Here are the

Sheffield Rules of 1857

1. The kick from the middle must be a place kick.

2. Kick Out must not be more than 25 yards out of goal.

3. Fair Catch is a catch from any player provided the ball has not touched the ground or has not been thrown from touch and is entitled to a free-kick.

4. Charging is fair in case of a place kick (with the exception of a kick off as soon as a player offers to kick) but he may always draw back unless he has actually touched the ball with his foot.

5. Pushing with the hands is allowed but no hacking or tripping up is fair under any circumstances whatever.

6. No player may be held or pulled over.

7. It is not lawful to take the ball off the ground (except in touch) for any purpose whatever.

8. The ball may be pushed or hit with the hand, but holding the ball except in the case of a free kick is altogether disallowed.

9. A goal must be kicked but not from touch nor by a free kick from a catch.

10. A ball in touch is dead, consequently the side that touches it down must bring it to the edge of the touch and throw it straight out from touch.

11. Each player must provide himself with a red and dark blue flannel cap, one colour to be worn by each side

Do you have the first Aussie rules for comparison? Mintguy (T) 13:56, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Origins of Australian Rules

Now I'm confused. In looking for these original Aussie rules. I get that - Thomas Wills, William Hammersley, James Thompson, and Thomas Smith came together on May 17, 1859, to draw up a set of rules. What have thse two guys you mention got to do with it? And I still can't find a copy of these original Aussie rules. Mintguy (T) 14:14, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh can can you please create an accoutn and log in. It would make life easier. Mintguy (T) 14:16, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok I've found a site with the first Aussie Rules of May 1859. http://www.fullpointsfooty.net/melbourne.htm. Interestingly the site ays ".. 1858 witnessed both the famous 'grand football match' between teams of forty a side from Scotch College and Melbourne's Church of England Grammar School, traditionally regarded as the fledgling code's first manifestation ... the establishment of the Melbourne Football Club was a definite event which can be precisely located chronologically, the earmarking of 1858 as the year in which Australian football was 'born' is a mere convenience, with nothing substantive to back it up. Football of various sorts had been played in Melbourne for at least twenty years". Thus the first rules of May 1859 is the watershed. Mintguy (T) 14:30, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

General comments on Cambridge, Sheffield & Australian rules

I agree with some of the above comments, but would like to make a few points:

1. A "league" can be a generic word meaning an organisation, as in the Temperance League, the Anti-Nazi League or the Canadian Football League, rather than necessarily being a competition. The fact that there was no Premier League prior to 1992, does not mean that that there was no "league" in the generic sense.

Fair enough. dictionary.com says - League - An association of teams or clubs that compete chiefly among themselves. However, to me league suggests a league competition as opposed to a knockout competion, and this didn't appear until the formation of The Football League.

2. Re. the game "not banned" in Ireland: I take your point, but the original par speculated that it was a Norman game, which cannot be said with any certainty either.

True. Fair to take out the Norman reference altogether. Although I'm sure that I read somewhere about a possible Norman link that led me to write it in the first place.

3. Being very familiar with both Aussie Rules and soccer, I can say out of the 10 substantive Sheffield Rules, only four are at all similar to present day soccer, whereas six are identical or partly similiar to Aussie Rules (not counting the one about caps, although they were worn by Aussie Rules in the early years :-). Of course it doesn't prove a direct link between Sheffield and Aussie Rules, but that's not what I said in the text.

Ok, ignoring rule 11 about caps, 1,2,6,7,9,10 are all akin to rules in the Association game. Rule 8 can be interpreted as either allowing brief touches of the ball or as banning holding the ball whilst running. For sure these rules could be said to be ancestral to all subsequent games, but they definitely favour the kicking game, but they are a bit of a distraction as far as the Association game is concerned as the rules of Thring and other people at Cambridge were used by the FA.

Comments: 1. But it's the absence of offside which makes the Sheffield Rules so different to soccer. 2. Aussie Rules is both "handling" and "kicking".

4. The fullpointsfooty.net site is an excellent, if still-developing source, in regard to the later history of Aussie Rules, and it's true that the game between Scotch College and Melbourne Grammar is a historical red herring. However, Geoffrey Blainey's (1990) A Game of our Own: The Origins of Australian Football (Information Australia, Melbourne) is regarded as fairly authoritative. I don't have a copy with me at the moment but Blainey describes a trial game played by Tom Wills and friends at the "Richmond Paddock" in Melbourne on July 31, 1858. There had to be provisional rules for that to occur. Wills (1836-72) had been educated at Rugby and had played cricket for Cambridge, so he would have been familiar with many varieties of football played in England in the early 1850s. H.C.A. Harrison was Wills's cousin, they were close in 1858, and they were named in 1906 as official "fathers of the game", but that does appear to have been generous to Harrison. I will do some more digging on him.

[1] has this to say about the Richmond Paddock game - "There were few rules, just men determined to have a kick. Some had experience of football from English public schools, some had no football experience at all. On the same day, Melbourne Grammar School played football against a group of men who called themselves the St Kilda club and the lack of rules caused a fight that ended the game.". I think this match can be pretty much ignored as far as being a significant date is concerned. It's only real significance is that Wills was involved in it and he was obivously the real driving force behind the development of the Australian game. His influence as you quite rightly point out would have almost certainly been from his experiences in England. Any allusion to a connection between Aussie and Gaelic football is in my opinion a complete red-herring. Aussie rules main influence was clearly the English public school rules, through Wills and presumably others (you yourself point out the similarly between the Aussie rules and the Cambridge rules). I think you definitely have to look at May 1859 with the most significance. In a similar way I have not brought up the fact the Thring and de Winton (both ex-Shrewsbury) established a club with some old Etonians in 1846. They would presumably had some agreed rules to play by. Mintguy (T) 22:45, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

PS: What exactly are the advantages of creating a user account?

Grant65 (T) March 9, 2004.

With an account you get access to certain features that anonymous users don't see Wikipedia:Why create an account?. Mintguy (T) 20:06, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm aware of the MCG site -- it's sketchy at best, and overall I don't think it's as factually reliable as it should be. You may interested to know that Blainey also decries the influence of Gaelic (and Marn Grook) on Aussie Rules. However (a big however), the similarities are as plain as the nose on your face, as demonstrated by the "International Rules" compromise -- a compromise between either of these games and either rugby or soccer would be impossible. If you represent the history as a dichotomy between "kicking" v. "handling" then the above games appear as nothing more than compromises between the two tendencies. However, what contrasts them to the other games more than anything is the total absence of an offside rule; a huge difference. And I'm not aware of anyone explicitly suggesting the opposite: i.e. that the 1884 Gaelic rules came from nowhere, or were influenced by Aussie Rules, Sheffield rules or one of their public school predecessors! Thats would be unlikely, considering the political implications. To me it is far more logical that localised Irish games influenced one or more of the English public school games. (Since the Irish peasantry would not have been as well-travelled as English schoolmasters.) Of course there is probably no way of proving this.

People like simple solutions to historical questions: "A led to B", but few questions can be answered so simply. Some can't be answered at all. Grant65 (T) March 10, 2004.

Firstly please create an account. Mintguy (T) 10:40, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think by "handling" we mean running whilst carrying the ball. As I understand it you can't do this in Aussie rules.

You should note that the original 1863 FA rules still included the concept of "a fair catch" and a "mark" - 8. If a player makes a fair catch, he shall be entitled to a free kick, providing he claims it by making a mark with his heel at once; and in order to take such a kick he may go back as far as he pleases, and no player on the opposite side shall advance beyond his mark until he has kicked.

Offside (lack of in Australian, Sheffield and Gaelic rules)

I take your point about offside. I had not recognised the significant fact that both Aussie and Gaelic football lack offside rules. The drafting and interpretation of the offside law has always caused problems. The Cambridge off-side rule of 1848, required three players in front of goal. It is significant that the original FA rules of 1863 stipulated only one. When a player has kicked the ball, any one of the same side who is nearer to the opponents' goal line is out of play and may not touch the ball himself nor in any way whatever prevent any other player from doing so until the ball has been played, but no player is out of play when the ball is kicked from behind the goal line. By 1866 the FA had reverted to the Cambridge rule of three players (it remained as such until 1925). The 1857 rules were only adhered to by Sheffield, and apparently the lack of an offside rule was only a temporary state of affairs. According to The History of the Football Association (1951) an 1866 game between Sheffield and an FA side from London caused problems because the FA wanted to use the three players rule whilst the Sheffield side were using the one player rule. In the end they played two legs with different rules in each game. The published rules of Sheffield FC from 1870 (in the appendix of the above book) show a rule specifically labelled "offside". So it appears that the Sheffield 1857 rules (lacking offside) were soon abandoned. Thus the lack of offside in the Sheffield rules is a bit of an anomaly. The club was formed by players from Harrow and Harrow had an offside rule. By 1878 they agreed to not use their own rules anymore and stick with the FA rules. But offside was still causing problems in thr mid 1880s when England played Scotland.

For sure, now it would be difficult to imagine a compromise set of rules between the association game and rugby, despite the common ancestry, and the similarlity between Aussie rules and Gaelic football is striking. But I just cannot see that there is a real connection. There are so many similarities (right up to the specific wording of the rules) between the first Aussie rules and the early rules devised in England (even the first FA rules include taking a"mark"), that there can be little doubt that the public school rules were the major and perhaps exclusive influence. Is the similarly between Gaelic and Aussie footbal simply a case of parrallel evolution. I wonder if the English game had developed without offside would that too have evolved along the same lines as those two games.

So the question is, why did Wills et al not have offside in their game? He was from Rugby and Cambridge and would have been exposed the offsde rule. Are you suggesting that the Irish in Australia influenced Wills, so that he didn't include offside? I might suggest that since offside is such a contentious and difficult rule to interpret he thought it better to leave it out. As for the Irish game, the "folk game" had all but disappeard by the time the GAA drew up their rules (much like the "mob" football in England). Their intention was to create a game different to the "foreign" (read English) games of rugby and association football, what better way to do this than to avoid the offside rule. You dismiss Gaelic football's connection to the early English games, but Michael Cusack (founder of the GAA) played rugby before becomming disillusioned with the protestant domination of the 'English' games. Mintguy (T) 10:40, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

GAA rules of 1887

1.There shall not be less than 15 or more than 21 players a side.

2. There shall be two umpires and a referee. Where the umpires disagree, the referee's decision shall be final.

3. The ground shall be at least 120 yards long and by 80 yards in breadth and properly marked by boundary lines. Boundary lines to be at least five yards from the fences.

4. Goal-posts shall stand at each end in the centre of the goal-line. They shall be 15 feet apart, with cross-bar eight feet from the ground.

5. The captains of each team shall toss for choice of sides before commencing play and the players shall stand in two ranks opposite each other, until the ball is thrown up, each man holding the hand of one of the other side.

6. Pushing or tripping from behind, holding from behind, or butting with the head shall be deemed foul and players so offending shall be asked to stand aside and may not afterwards take any part in the match, nor can his side substitute another man.

7. The time of actual play shall be one hour. Sides to be changed at half-time.

8. The match shall be decided by the greater number of goals. If no goal is kicked, the match shall be deemed a draw. A goal is scored when the ball is kicked through the goal-posts under the cross-bar.

9. When the ball is kicked over the side-line it shall be thrown back in any direction by a player of the other side. If kicked over the goal-line by a player of the other side, the goal-keeper whose line it crosses shall have a free kick. No player on the other side to approach nearer than 25 yards of him till the ball is kicked.

10. The umpires and referee shall have, during the match, full power to disqualify any player or order him to stand aside and discontinue play for any act which they may consider unfair as set out in Rule 6.

---

Hmm, I have created an account and as far as I know I was logged in last time I edited, so I'm not sure what else you want me to do, or why(?)

The short answer to your questions is that I don't know, and I don't think anyone does. The offside thing could be parallel evolution, but there are too many other similarities between Gaelic and Aussie Rules. Watch one of each and you will see what I mean. Both of them allow handling/running with the ball under certain conditions (bouncing and/or kicking it to oneself). One of the main differences between the two is the absence of tackling in Gaelic (which causes problems in the International Rules games), but Gaelic did allow tackling in its early years. Cusack may have been disillusioned with rugby, but where did he get such a radically different game from, if not from traditional Irish games? That was what the Gaelic Athletic Association was all about.

There were very large numbers of Irishmen in Victoria in the 1850s, following the Famine of 1847-51 and the Australian goldrushes (see Australia#Demographics) from 1851. Wills may have seen them playing their own varieties of football. But, as I said above: "To me it is far more logical that localised Irish games influenced one or more of the English public school games. (Since the Irish peasantry would not have been as well-travelled as English schoolmasters at least before 1847.) Of course there is probably no way of proving this." That is, the relationship may have occurred indirectly, by way of now-forgotten public school games, based on Irish versions of "football". I think the anomalies of the Sheffield rules support this idea to an extent. But I don't know. Grant65 (T) March 11, 2004

Hi. If you look at the history of this page, you'll see that your last edit was the only one where you were logged in. If youy want to sign you don't have to do it manually, just put ~~~ for your name and ~~~~ for you name and the datestamp.

I've never doubted that there were plenty of Irish in Australia at the time. But because the "traditional" game had virtually died out by Cussack's time, I sorely doubt that they were all ardent football enthusiasts, over and above their English contempories. Football on the public roadways had been suppressed in Britian by the Highways act and this would have affected Ireland too. It seems to me bizarre to suggest the the GAA rules were in anyway a model of the "folk games" played in Ireland, any more than the public school rules were were a model of the traditional mob games in England. I suspect the English mob football and the Irish folk games were indistinguishable. Aside from this the rules of this time are so flimsy as to be open to a great deal of interpretation, the GAA rules in particular seem to have very little to say about the actual play. Mintguy (T) 16:27, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

There is no offside rule in hurling either. And although their rules were not officially codified until 1870, it is a very old game and this adds some weight to the idea that it was an Irish tradition to have players from both teams roaming freely on a playing field. Especially as there are offside rules in the related sports of ice hockey and shinty (which is also very old).

I don't see why it's a "bizarre idea" that individual Irish villages couldn't come up with their own local rules. And if traditional Irish football games had "virtually died out" by 1884, it's still not the same thing as actually dying out.

Also, I wouldn't like to assume that all of the English medieval games were "mob games" and/or had no rules to speak of. Just because there were no written rules, or few written rules it doesn't means that there weren't any unofficial rules, accepted practices/standards of play, something which still happens in many sports today.

Anyway, I'll go to the library in the next few days and have a look at some histories of Aussies Rules and Gaelic to see if there is more light to be shed on this. Grant65 14:50, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Generally the only rule in mob football was that you had to get the ball to some marker by any means possible. The number of players were unlimited. This is certainly how the games that remain and are still played on Shrove Tuesday are played. Engravings from the period certainly suggest that this was the case. You have to remember that we are talking about the early 19th century. Generally working class people had to work six days a week often for 12 hours a day and had neither the time nor the inclination to involve themselves in sport as we know it. This is why the mob games of England were generally played on special days like Shrove Tuesday. It wasn't until the Factories Act of 1850 the people were given a half-day holiday on saturday afternoons. This is why football games in Britain, generally start at 3pm on a saturday afternoon. The only place where people had the leisure time or inclination to "create" and play modern type games with strict rules were in the priviledged schools. The English public schools were the breeding grounds for these games. If some form of game with strict rules developed amongst the peasantry in Ireland it would be unique in the world. Mintguy (T) 19:00, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Grant, please see the comment on your talk page. Mintguy (T) 14:44, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Amateurism

Grant, I like you recent edits BTW, these are things I meant to get around to, but like everything else I didn't. As you've added about Rugby League's formation coming as a result of the pressure of professionalism, and the RFU rejecting professionalism, it might be worth mentioning how the FA embraced professionalism (at first relucatantly) making the game what it is today, but I'm not sure where best to put this. Mintguy (T) 13:20, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Glad you approve. Professionalism is obviously more relevant to the split in rugby, but if you can see a way to include it (economically) in relation to soccer, I think that would be fine. Possibly the best place would be at the end of the section on the FA(?) Grant65 (Talk) 16:39, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

Well I would have added it at that point but it breaks the chronology of the whole article. This is significant! The Amatuer Football Federation objected to the increasing professionalism of the game and broke away from the FA in 1907 (taking with them many of the public school teams) and became the Amateur Football Association (AFA). The AFA were refused admittance to FIFA in 1908 and the organization limped along until just before the First World War. The increasing professionalism had the effect of making many of the public schools reject the Association game as a game for the working classes, and hence adopted the strictly amateur Rugby Union code. Meanwhile the professionalism in the Association game meant that the standard of play became much higher, the game attracted a larger following with 'star players'. Basically the game exploded. Mintguy (T)

My feeling at the moment is that the stuff about amateurism in soccer would be more relevant to the the Football Association page, but I still have an open mind about this...Grant65 (Talk) 04:28, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)

Development of association football in Australia

BTW just found this in the History of the FA book.

The first reference to be found to an oversea organization in the Minutes of The Football Association is on November 5th 1883, when C.W. Alcock read a letter to a Special Committee Meeting held at 28, Paternoster Row. It came from the Anglow-Australia Football Club of Melbourne, and in reply Alcock was instructed to convey to this body the "gratification of the FA Committee at the development of the Association game in the Colonies." ... The Anglo-Australian Association was admitted to Membership of The FA in 1884.

1887: Mr Crawley of the Anglo-Australian Association of Melbourne attended a Council Meeting at 51 Holborn Viaduct, and asked the patronage of The FA for a match to be played at the Oval in aid of the funds of his Association. The Council resolved that they could not see their way to assist.

1900: Letters received from The Football Association of Western Australia and the New Zealand FA asking The FA to send out teams to play exhibition matches with the view to popularizing the game.

1901 (February) Upon the report od the International Selection Committeee, The FA Council decided not to entertain the Australian and New Zealand proposal; also that a suggestion should be made to them that they should take steps to perfect their organization.

... there's more, but less interesting stuff about the Aussie and New Zealand assocations trying to get tours aranged, but it appears that the FA thought they were a bit Mickey Mouse. But then in 1924 we have this.

1924: Challenge Cup presented by The FA to The Australian Football Association. The Following letter was received by the FA:

To The Secretary,
The Football Association
Dear Sir,

  I beg to acknowledge receipt of your communication in which you
convey the information that you Council has generously donated to
Australia a challenge Cup for Competition on Inter-State lines.
  I am directed by my Executive to convey to your Association the
best thanks of the Football community of Australia.

                                      Yours failthfully
                                      E.S. LUKEMAN
                                           Secretary
                                               Australian F.A.

Mintguy (T) 22:16, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Interesting. I guess the FA perceived that they had "lost the war" in Australia by the 1880s.Grant65 (Talk) 04:33, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)

Link to Association football and American football articles

This article is a little bit bogus in that it's a good academic treatment of all these kinds of football, but to most people today, "football" means one of two things, American football (in the US) or Soccer (elsewhere). Those games have good articles of their own and that terminology should be briefly explained and those articles should be linked in the very first paragraph of the "football" article.

If you think that needs adding then add it. However, your statement most people today, "football" means one of two things, American football (in the US) or Soccer (elsewhere), is just wrong or pehaps "a little bit bogus" - because it ignores Australia, Ireland and New Zealand. Mintguy (T) 08:24, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with what this anonymous commentator says; in fact the article is rather "soccer-centric", but that is justifiable because it's the most popular game by far, world-wide. I don't believe that many people outside the US (which has 5% of the worlds's population) mean American football when they say "football". Grant65 (Talk) 03:48, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

I think that Jao's edit addresses the complaint quickly. I do think that it used to be kind of ridiulous. If someone came here looking for information on 'football' quickly, the first section availble is something about medieval sports. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:07, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't this just link to diffrent countries versions of football? Rather than trying to explain all versions of it on one page (as it is kind of confusing)

Nope. That would provide a good deal less information that this current format does. Football codes do not exist in isolation and (IMO) this article does an excellent job of bringing the worldwide football movement into focus. There is plenty of scope for expanding on the individual codes, each within its own article. Tannin 13:19, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, okay.

American football and Rugby League

I think though we do need a mention of later developments in American football, such as the introduction of the forward pass (c.1905?).

There should also be a separate par (at least) on Rugby League, which is a significant code (played professionally in at least three countries) and has become a quite different game to Rugby Union (In fact RL has borrowed from the US game.) But I lack the in-depth knowledge to do this right now. Grant65 (Talk) 04:05, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

I have since done most of this, but there is room for a bit more on later developments in Rugby League.Grant65 (Talk) 06:37, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

Relationship of Gaelic and Australian Rules

I discovered that Thomas Croke, one of the founders of the GAA, was Archbishop of Auckland in the early 1870s, a time when Aussie Rules (or "Victorian Rules" as it then was) was at least as popular in New Zealand as rugby or soccer.[2] This adds a little weight to the idea that Aussie Rules had a significant influence on the development of Gaelic football.

PS I added sub-headings because the page is getting somewhat unwieldy. How do we break this up into editable sections? Grant65 (Talk) 04:28, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I see it's been done automatically.Grant65 (Talk) 04:38, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)

I have found an article called "The Shaping of Victorian Rules Football", by B.W. O'Dwyer in Victorian Historical Journal, v60, no1, March 1989. O'Dwyer says that Australian Rules has always been differentiated from rugby by the absence of any offside rule, the need to bounce/toe the ball while running, punching the ball rather than throwing it, and a few other things. "These are all elements of Irish football. There were several variations of Irish football in existence, normally without the benefit of rulebooks, but the central tradition in Ireland was in the direction of the relatively new game [i.e. rugby]...adapted and shaped within the perimeters of the ancient Irish game of hurling. This involved punching the ball rather than throwing it, bouncing and toeing it in the process of running ... [and] having no limitation on ball movement or team placement in the absence of any offside rule. They later became embedded in Gaelic football. Their presence in Victorian football may be accounted for in terms of a formative influence being exerted by men familiar with and no doubt playing the Irish game. It is not that they were introduced into the game from that motive [emulating Irish games]; it was rather a case of particular needs being met..." I haven't as yet been able to track down a good book on the history of Irish/Gaelic football to verify this. Grant65 (Talk) 06:37, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

Greek error

There is an error in the transliteration of the Greek word "αρπαστον" in the Ancient Games sub-heading. It's given as "episkyros", but the actual transliteration of that sequence of Greek characters is "arpaston". "episkyros" would be "επισκυρος". I don't know whether the Greek should change or the transliteration. Deadlock (Talk) 16:43, Jul 08, 2004 (UTC)

Hi. It's been a very long time since I wrote that part of the article and I can't remember what the orignal source was. Searching on google for "αρπαστον" brings up a site which has a mirror of the Village pump when I asked a question about those sequence of letters. My question was "Anyone speak Greek? I need to know for a wiki article if 'αρπαστον' would equate to 'pheninda'?" - The respoonse I got said. "I think I've found that it equates to 'episkyros', but could 'pheninda' be a Romanisation of this? " Looking in my EB11 it talks about "επισκυρος". So I'm sure this is correct. It also mentions that the Roman Harpastum is derived from the greek verb "αρπαζω" (I seize), so I think i muddled these two up. Thanks for your help. Mintguy (T) 17:55, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome. For the record a direct transliteration of 'pheninda' would be 'φενινδα'. Deadlock 17:30, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

let's bring this up to featured status

I would like to bring this article up to featured status. To help with this I think we really need some decent pictures. Has anybody got any opinions on what kind of pictures would be good? Mintguy (T) 14:27, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Mintguy. Yes, it badly needs pictures, probably at least three, considering the size. Unfortunately I don't have a lot of time on my hands at the moment. I think the main difficulty with modern pictures is going to be copyright, since we would be dealing with professional sport, and most pics are owned by photojournalists, news services etc. So what I suggest is that we might concentrate on historical illustrations/photos instead, as most of these will be out of copyright, and can therefore be scanned from books etc. Grant65 (Talk) 23:58, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

If we wanted a complete article and had the room then I would like to see a picture of Kemari, perhaps one of Marn Grook, one of mob football, (Alnwick or something), a picture of Calcio Storico some prints of football from the 18th and early 19th century or earlier and some pictures of the early FA and Rugby Aussie Rules and American football teams. Mintguy (T) 17:04, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've modified /addded to the further reading section and made it references. References and sources are required for articles to have featured status. Mintguy (T)

"Most other english speaking countries"

I noticed that my edit was instantly reverted, so I assume that this has been a controversial issue before, and I'll bring it up here. I found that statement slightly incongruous with the rest of the section. It states that "In the United Kingdom, as well as most other English speaking countries, "football" refers to Association Football". However, this is nested in a section that clearly states that Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and US (four very prominent, populous English speaking countries) all use the word to refer to something else. Can this be resolved somewhat? I'm sorry if I'm treading already trodden territory, but it definitely sounds a little odd when you read it in that context. Could this be changed to "many other english speaking countries", or removed entirely? The fact about FIFA is nice, but a little out of place, as most of the other members of FIFA are not "english speaking countries". - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:52, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many associations are affiliated to FIFA but it's probably over 100. The article quite clearly states:- "Of the 48 national football associations affiliated to FIFA, in which English is an official or primary language, six (Australia, Canada, the Marshall Islands, New Zealand, Samoa and the United States) use "soccer" in their name whilst the rest use "football". " For the details behind this statistic see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Football_%28soccer%29#More_about_the_name_2 Mintguy (T) 20:27, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ohhh, I thought that it meant that the official or primary language of FIFA was English, because of the comma placement. Thanks for clearing that up. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:13, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

The name of Australia's official football body is called Football Australia. It was once called Soccer Australia but they changed their name. - Yama 11:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

It's Football Federation Australia; it's already in the article.Grant65 (Talk) 12:34, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

True, but the name has not even remotely found any widespread use... to any Australian residents, it is clear that soccer is the name for association football. StuartH 21:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, see my comments at the bottom of this page.Grant65 (Talk) 02:57, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Chronology

Well done grant for restoring the order of the article. Mintguy (T) 15:21, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Title for Association Football section

I think that as Americans, New Zealanders and Australians read this page, the title The Football Association should include (soccer) in the title as school children in those countries may not know that "Association Football" is the formal name for the beautiful game. As it stands there is no mention of soccer in the table of contents. Philip Baird Shearer 12:10, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The title of that section is called "The Football Association" because it is about the organization called "The Football Association" and not about the sport of Association football. When the FA was founded the word soccer didn't exist and there was no such distinction about there being a speciific sport called soccer. The goal of the Football Association was not to create a distinct game separate from other football games, it was to bring together the disparate rules that existed at the time. Ther other games only existed in formal terms with the creation of specific organizations decicated to following a set of rules distinct from the FA rules. Mintguy (T) 12:34, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What about Fifa?

No history of Association Football is complete without a mention of FIFA and its role in developing the game. A brief mention of history of relationship between FIFA and the home unions should also be included. BTW the start of the FIFA history page is quite elegent and the style would improve this page

The contemporary history of football spans more than 100 years. It all began in 1863 in England, when rugby football and association football branched off on their different courses and the world's first football association was founded - The Football Association in England. Both forms of football stemmed from a common root and both have a long and intricately branched ancestral tree

Philip Baird Shearer 12:10, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This page is intended to be an overview of all sports called football and their shared history. The history of Association Football as a specific sport with official rules begins in 1863 and this is the point at which the article ceases to concentrate on that thread of the history of football. The history of Rugby, the split in the codes, and the development of American football and Canadian football, neccesitate some further detail in those areas, but it is not intended that they should go into these specific areas in great detail. That specific history should be elsewhere. Mintguy (T) 12:49, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If this article is going to be consistent with what you say in the proceeding paragraph, then perhaps the paragraphs in the sections American and Canadian football and Rugby League which refer to developments after 1900 should be moved elsewhere. Philip Baird Shearer 18:52, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rugby

Why lumped Rugby with North American football? Rugby should be under one section with subsections on Rugby Union and Rugby League. At the moment the events may be in chronological order but most people who wish to know the history of Rugby will find it annoying to have 28+ lines of North American football history in the middle of the history of Rugby.Philip Baird Shearer 12:10, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There should also be a mention of the:

• founding of the IRFB - In 1884 England had a disagreement with Scotland over a try with England arguing that as they made the Law, if they said it was a try then it was. After a messy dispute which pulled in the Irish and Welsh Unions on the side of Scotland, it was agreed with England in 1890 that in future the International Rugby Football Board(IRFB) would oversee the games between the home unions.
• 1987 New Zealand won the first Rugby Union World Cup competition held in Australia.
• 1995 Rugby Union became professional
• 1998 The International Rugby Football Board dropped the 'F' to become the IRB.

Philip Baird Shearer 12:10, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See above. Mintguy (T)

I think that for clarity integrating and separating the current Rugby text in this article from North American Football (NAF) is desirable. After all the the NAF section not only mentions Rugby but FA rules as well, it also includes dates which pre-date and postdate both! Does anyone have any objections to that? Philip Baird Shearer 19:08, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Although I have been persuaded that post schism history of footable codes , should not be included in this page because of space. I think that removing any mention of the RU/RL schism (and so any mention of Rugby League) is not desirable. Why did you do it User:Grant65? I'm going to restore the change until you explain why. Philip Baird Shearer 11:58, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

As said on your talk page, I was in the middle of editing the page, no text has been lost (except repetitions).

By the way, the fact that the Canadian Football League was originally called the Canadian Rugby Football Union, when it was founded in 1884, suggests why the North American codes should be "lumped" with the Rugby codes, but I'm fairly happy with the structure, as long as the chronology is maintained.Grant65 (Talk) 12:29, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

This is an important point. In these early years, some teams played various codes interchangebly. When association football became professional in 1885 many clubs opted to drop playing rugby because it was more lucrative to stick to the asociation code. Mintguy (T) 20:31, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Details on the history and development of specific sports

This is quite a long article and I don't think it should be going into any more detail about specific sports. Those sports have their own pages, and should if neccesary have links to other page which go into the history and development (subsequent to the formalisation of the rules) of those specific sport. I can't think of a catchy title though "Development of association football", for example, sounds a bit naff. Mintguy (T) 13:15, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Mintguy, one page can't do everything --- the separate pages on football (soccer), rugby football, rugby union, canadian football, rugby league, Australian rules football, are the right places for an explanation of the development of each code. Football is the place for an explanation of the relationship between the different codes. Grant65 (Talk) 16:38, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that for most people a detailed history of the sport is of much interest, so only a summary of the history is desirable in the main article of a football code. Details of the history of that code should be on a seperate page. For example: History of association football

Early history

Playing football has a long tradition in England...

Founding of the Football Association

...

or History of rugby union –– Philip Baird Shearer 18:42, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Poll for modern codes sub-headings to be by code or cronology

At the moment Rugby is a mess (two interpretations edited in at the same time).

1. Should the article be by chronology and then code:
   • Australian Rules Football
   • The Football Association
   • The Rugby Football Union
   • American and Canadian football
   • The split in rugby football
   • The reform of American football
   • The two rugby codes diverge further
   • Gaelic football
2. or have one section per code with chronology of events for that code in those sections:
   • Australian Rules Football
   • Football Association
   • Rugby Football
   • American and Canadian football
   • Gaelic football

By Chronology

• Mintguy (T) 20:21, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Grant65 (Talk) 23:44, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

By Code

• Philip Baird Shearer 17:52, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comments or other choices

The options in this poll are in alphabetical order. Philip Baird Shearer

Pictures

I don't think the picture that has just been added is appropriate. It's too modern. Mintguy (T) 21:50, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You mean (from the history of the page) "19:30, 26 Aug 2004 Chmouel (The Football Association - add picture)". I agree Philip Baird Shearer 22:05, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• • Removed then - Chmouel 23:11, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

FIFA declared ancient Chinese football to be origin of modern football?

I've come across a claim by a Chinese editor that FIFA declared in 2004 that ancient Chinese football was the origin of modern football. I'm a bit skeptical and wonder if anyone has heard of this claim and whether there's any evidence to back it up? A-giau 19:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also see Talk:Football_(soccer)#Chinese_history_of_the_game. A-giau 19:15, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like someone's playing politics whilst trying to promote the sport in Asia rather any kind of serious historical research. Mintguy (T)

Interesting links for wikifootyologists

The rl1908.com site has some interesting links at http://rl1908.com/Rugby-League-News/index.htm

"Football" (From the Pall Mall Gazette, Nov 14 1867)

[About the English public school games.]

http://rl1908.com/Rugby-League-News/Football.htm

"Rugby tradition based on a fable" Wednesday, 24 September 2003 The Canberra Times http://rl1908.com/Rugby-League-News/AFL-history.htm

"FOOTBALL IN SYDNEY BEFORE 1914" M. P. SHARP, Sporting Traditions Vol 4 No 1 Nov 1987 http://rl1908.com/Rugby-League-News/Sydney.htm

quote: "The SRFU's decision not to play intercolonial matches with Victoria prompted the supporters of the Australian game in Sydney to action. A meeting of the game's supporters at Woollahra in June 1880 was well-attended and, according to the Sydney Mail's football writer, 'Leather-stocking', a clear indication of the dis-satisfaction with rugby among Sydney footballers: It is pretty well understood... that there are scores of footballers ... who play the Rugby game under protest as it were, and who would gladly welcome a radical change in the present method of playing football. A week later over 100 footballers formed the New South Wales Football Association (NSWFA), to play under the VFA's [Australian] rules. The president of the new body was Philip Sheridan, the Irish born manager of the Association Cricket Ground.

The following month another group of footballers met to form an association to play under English Association rules, and, although soccer would not threaten either rugby or the Australian game (although it did in Newcastle [New South Wales]), the meeting is of interest here in that it reflects the antipathy of rugby supporters toward the Australian game. Senior rugby officials warmly welcomed the introduction of soccer which they believed would improve the skills of rugby players. Indeed, there was only one dissenter at the meeting, a committeeman with the NSWFA, F. Lyons. In a speech he declared that: as the colonies in many matters, political and social, had struck out a path for themselves, he did not see why the same line of conduct should not be adopted in the game of football. While averring that he had as much respect for British institutions as anyone else, Weiss claimed that people in New South Wales were 'quite as capable of judging the merits of the game as they were in England'."

[A great demonstration of the struggles over, and flux of, the word football, that in Sydney in 1880, it could mean three different games!]

Cheers, Grant65 (Talk) 12:03, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Rutgers Vs. Princeton, 1869

(Copied from User_talk:Grant65)

I'm having a slight difference of opinion with ExplorerCDT about whether the Rutgers/Princeton game was American football, rugby, or soccer. He says it was nothing like soccer. I disagree, I say it's more like soccer than today's American football, but there also may have been elements of rugby in there. So I put down "football (or soccer) " in place of "football", and we got into a dispute about it (even though I'm a Rutgersman myself). Rickyrab 06:50, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you should do some research, like I did long ago. Being a Rutgers student, you should know well enough where to find things in Alexander. Do you see any mentions of "soccer" as the inspiration for "football" on the Rutgers timeline (check the link on the RU article)? NO. Why? Because "soccer" had nothing to do with the founding of the game. If you read newspapers, histories of the event, all of them point to Rugby, and that the rules were altered from English Rugby rules. You will also see in those sources accounts of the game that to any simpleminded reader would say "Hey, this isn't soccer."

To Rickyrab (and for the edification of Grant65)...The Princeton/Rutgers rivalry in football died in 1980. They haven't met on the gridiron since. So you are DEAD WRONG in saying it "continues" in your edit on the Football article. ExplorerCDT 07:30, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ExplorerCDT, I think I'm unbiased because I knew nothing about this particular match in 1869 until several months ago. Then I did a lot of research, on the web and in books, before writing the section on US/Canadian football. Nothing I've seen suggests they were playing a game like American football as we know it, or rugby either. For example, the feature which identifies rugby and US football as "cousins" is the players being allowed to hold the ball and run with, it as far as they like. Nothing I've seen says they were allowed to do that in that college game of 1869. Grant65 (Talk) 08:59, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

See also Talk:Rutgers University#Football --Philip Baird Shearer 12:00, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Rutgers Athletics official web site: page on the "First Intercollegiate Game" states

William J. Leggett, captain of the Rutgers team who later became a distinguished clergyman of the Dutch Reformed Church, suggested that rules for the contest be adopted from those of the London Football Association. Leggett's proposal was accepted by Captain William Gunmere of Princeton, who later became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

--Philip Baird Shearer 15:29, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

New Names of Sports

Has anyone (not at Wikipedia, but somewhere on earth) come up with a system of names to use to refer to sports to avoid regional differences?? For example:

• NFL for football in the United States
• CFL for football in Canada
• AFL for football in Australia
• SL for soccer in these countries and football in the United Kingdom

66.245.109.94 00:08, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Opinions wanted

Contributors to this page and interested readers, please help adjudicate the controvery at Talk:Rutgers_University. Thanks.Grant65 (Talk) 08:36, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Historical football pictures

Someone asked for historical football pictures. I found this video from 1903 from the Library of Congress, here. Will this work? JesseW 23:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Its a big d/l if you dont have broadband, but I don't see a problem with listing it with the other links at the bottom.Grant65 (Talk) 05:00, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

I was assuming it was wanted as still pictures for the article. I don't have the technical skill to pull out frames, but I hoped someone would. I wasn't intending to list it in External links, but you're welcome to do so if you wish. JesseW 05:59, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rugger and Soccer

I think a historical note on the origins of the words "rugger" and "soccer" would be useful in this article. Despite the contribution of the British punk band, Wat Tyler, soccer is a word that is used in Britain. At the moment the article reads as if soccer is an American English word, which it is not. When I was at school, one was invited to play a game of RUGger or SOCCer. This was probably because the emphasis is on the first syllable and so the second syllable could be mumbled -- something which teenagers tend to do, and this is harder to do with rugBEE and FootBall (hence another slang terms like "footer" and "footy" ).

Perhapse Charles Wreford-Brown deserves a mentioned even if only along the lines of William Webb Ellis. How accurate are these descriptions and how well known is the history of the word soccer?

http://worldsoccer.about.com/od/soccercoaching/l/bl_sochist.htm

Football or Soccer? - In the 1880's, Oxford University students used slang which involved adding an "er" to the end of words they had deliberately shortened. "Rugger," was slang for Rugby Football. A student, named Charles Wreford Brown, was asked if he liked to play rugger. 'No soccer!' Was his witty reply He had shortened asSOCiation (football) and added "er." The term was coined!

http://www.rsssf.com/rssbest/whysoccer.html

Near the end of 1863, Charles Wreford-Brown, who later became a notable official of the Football Association, was asked by some friends at Oxford whether he cared to join them for a game of "rugger" (rugby). He is said to have refused, preferring instead to go for a game of "soccer" - a play on the word "association". The name caught on. English public schoolboys love to nickname things, then as much as now. The tendency is to add "er" to the end of many words. Rugby [Union] Football became "rugby", and then "rugger". Association Football was better know as "assoccer" and naturally evolved into "soccer" which is much easier for a schoolboy to say... Therefore, the word "soccer" has been used in the mother country of all football-type games since at least the mid-19th century. The word "football", however, was more descriptive of the game (i.e. kicking a ball with the feet!) and was the term more frequently used.

--Philip Baird Shearer 15:42, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Name change

Considering that by and large, the world use of the term "football" isnt anywhere as disambiguous as this article presents, given that this article goes heavily into lesser used variants... Proposed:

move  Football  >>  Football history
move  Football (Soccer)  >>  Football

The real reason is simple categorization. Category:Football is too much of a mess to be useful at this point, and most of the world does not use the term Soccer at all.

-==SV 18:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do not and will not support any such move. The point is not use of the word "soccer" but use of the word "football". For millions of English-speaking internet users, "football" does not mean association football/soccer. (See Football#The_use_of_the_term_"football"_in_English-speaking_countries.) Attempts by soccer-philes to hijack the word are bitterly resented in those countries. The fact is there are several games with a historical right to the word. And another fact is that all of the modern games now called football have common origins. Hence this page. Secondly, much of the content actually did used to be on a page called "history of football" or something like that, which suffered from the same ambiguity. I don't see anything wrong with the category, except the misconception that it should only deal with soccer. Grant65 (Talk) 01:57, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation note

The disambiguation note at the top of the article (whatever it is named) is there to help the casual reader who may be looking for another page. We cannot assume that reader is familiar with sports jargon or other specialized terminology. "Football codes" is not clear to the casual reader. I have attempted a couple of different ways to word that which I think would be more clear, but it is always reverted. There must be other wordings which, which while equally correct, avoid that jargon. Can other editors help suggest alternate phrasing? Jonathunder 22:56, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

When we wish to speak of different sorts of duck we refer to different species. When we wish to speak of different methods of recording video information we refer to different formats and when we wish to speak of differently formulated sets of rules for playing the game of football we refer to different codes. The call for the word code to be replaced appears to be coming from a user from the insular looking United States, where one code of football greatly overwhelms all others. In other parts of the world where rival codes are more prominent the word is probably used more often, but it is not unknown in the USA and indeed our own Wikipedia article on Amercan football (which I have not edited) refers to "the rugby code". Code is simply the correct word to use. Jooler 00:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Codes" is technically correct and I think the reference in the first sentence to "sports around the world known as "Football" " is probably sufficient to clarify this.Grant65 (Talk) 00:52, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

"Codes" may be technically correct, but it's jargon. It's probably fine for the body of the article where there is room to explain what is meant. But for the disambiguation note, we are helping casual readers know whether they are at the right article, without having to read several sentences or look for a definition. Obviously United States readers are not the only users of this page, but they are a significant number.

I've looked through pretty much the whole history of this article. For most of its history, the disambiguation text called them "types of football" or "kinds of football" games. Those terms are quite understandable. Jonathunder 01:22, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

"United States readers are not the only users..." as are other nationalities, but we have to wade through references to "sidewalks, gas stations movie theaters, rutabaga, zucchinis, cilantro etc.. and figure out what is meant all on our own. As Grant has stated the context in which the word is used in that sentence is quite clear. "Code" is the correct word and it is no more "jargon" than "species" and "format" or "language" or a host of other words used to differentiate specific types of things from one another. Would you have us dumb down our articles and replace all those words with "type" or whatever? If this is what you are looking for then may I suggest you look at simple:. Jooler 01:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If "code" is the only "correct" word any you'll permit no other, why were "type" and "kind" acceptable for most of the article's history? I'm trying to find something for the opening that IS clear to unfamiliar reader. And I'd have no problem with equally clear words in the opening of the other articles you mentioned. In fact, the opening sentences should be accessable. Jonathunder 02:01, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

While I agree that "code" is certainly not jargon, it is also simply not the correct word to use, since most people who play football and speak English would not refer to many of the variations listed as different "codes," some of them don't even have standardised rules. Changing it to say, "varieties of football" would not be "dumbing down," it would simply be in better faith. --Headisdead 14:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(elliptical)

Does anybody know what this Football (elliptical) business is about? I was thinking that if it is not used it could be deleted, but when I checked the what links here, a whole bunch of articles were linked to it, but I could not find where. If there are no objections, I'd like to {{vdf}} it. Let me know. -Moogle 07:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please do. It is the worst kind of "wiki-ism" possible. Who the hell talks about "elliptical football"? Grant65 (Talk) 16:13, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear Football

Hi, I noticed the revert by Daveb to my addition of the Nuclear Football disambiguation [3], with the explanation "Last disambig edit not appropriate here (is itself a specific long-form term)." However, I don't agree with this explanation because the "nuclear" football is actually more commonly referred to as just "the Football" without any qualification. The "nuclear" qualifier was added ex post facto in order to differentiate it from the normal sense of the word. I thought it would be useful to have the disambiguation at the top because people may run into this usage of the word but not know what it referred to. Specifically looking for the term "Nuclear Football" is not readily apparent for someone who is not familiar with this usage. What do people think? --Umofomia 07:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Umofomia,

When users look up football, one can safely assume they are looking for information on a some form of football game. It is extremely unlikely that someone from Wikipedia's international audience would look up the specific entity "nuclear football" (the colloquial term for a briefcase carried by an aide of president of one country) using the generic term "football". I put it to you that a person looking for information on the "nuclear football" that they would search it using that term. If we were to place a link to every colloquial term containing the word "football" we would have more disambig than introduction!

Cheers, --Daveb 12:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Agree with DaveB. Jooler 14:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely disagree. It is the norm on Wikipedia to contain disambiguation notes at the top of articles for cases just like this. Another option, however, would be to have Football (disambiguation) contain the link to Nuclear football as well as this article. Then we could link to Football (disambiguation) at the top of this article.

Note: the Football (disambiguation) article was shouted down at VfD about a month ago, but that was by VfD regulars and not the people who edit this page. I would have no problem with resurrecting it. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 14:33, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

But this is not a disambig for another meaning of the simple word "football", as "nuclear football" is its own complete term. Just because a term contains the word "football" as part of it does not qualify it as being an alternative use of that single word. There are probably dozens of colloquial terms containing "football", and I don't see the point in listing every single one as a disambig. --Daveb 14:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

See Brown, for example, which has a note at the top linking to Brown (disambiguation), which contains links to all sorts of things with the word "brown" in their names. This is the norm on Wikipedia. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 15:49, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

See also the example specifically given by the Wikipedia:Disambiguation page, which I think pertains exactly to this situation:

For example, the poker article covers the card game; it's likely that most people visiting that article are interested in the game rather than in fireplace pokers. For this reason, we link to fireplace poker from the existing poker article instead of moving that article to "Poker (game)". In many cases, there doesn't even yet exist an article on the less popular subject.

...which is why I would like to see my original disambiguation note restored. The alternative is to restore the Football (disambiguation) page, though I don't think this alternative is as desirable since it would have few entries (essentially just Football and Nuclear Football). The Wikipedia:Disambiguation page notes:

if one meaning is clearly predominant, it remains at "Mercury", the general title. The top of the article provides a link to the other meanings, or if there are a large number, to a page named "Mercury (disambiguation)".

The original reason why I made the disambiguation edit in the first place was because I didn't even know the term "Nuclear Football" and only heard it being called "the Football." Only after using Google to find out that it was also called the Nuclear Football was I able to find the Wikipedia entry about it. This is why I added the disambiguation notice so that other users wouldn't have to go through the trouble of finding it otherwise. --Umofomia 18:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

In the absence of any further response, I have restored the Nuclear Football notice. I opted to do this rather than use a football (disambiguation) page because the only other thing on that page would be Nuclear Football. If someone still insists on removing it, I will list it on RfC. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 03:00, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

No response doesn't mean we suddenly agree, it means there is no point in further discussion because the page did not have that disambig. Jooler 03:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Now that I re-added the disambig, then you should see a point in further discussion. Or would you rather just revert war? Why don't you respond to the arguments Umofomia and I have made? Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 05:03, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the point of having a major argument over this. I stand by my points above, and state that I do not think the disambig is really in keeping with the spirit of the MOS. However, TacoDeposit and Umofomia clearly feel strongly about the matter, and at the end of the day it is not a big issue. The article Football has bigger issues - it is in need of some serious cleaning up and streamlining. --Daveb 07:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

No point in arguing, you hve your point of view. Take it to Rfc. Jooler 09:16, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I have added it to RfC. I am a little disappointed that the only discussion Jooler has done here is to say "Agree with DaveB" but that he is so keen to revert; and have mentioned that on RfC. But I won't revert any more for now; if enough other people want the disambig in they can add it. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 12:13, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I saw this on RfC. I don't believe anyone will search for Nuclear Football by typing "Football" into the search box. The football already redirects to Nuclear Football. There's nothing to disambiguate here. Kind regards, jguk 12:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

(Just coming in from RfC) Agreeing with Daveb and jguk, I think that few people will search "football" if they want "nuclear football". If there comes a need for a Football (disambiguation) page, it should go there. — Asbestos | Talk 21:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• include the link to Nuclear Football... how can adding an additional disambig item hurt? Feco 22:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • do not include.Grant65 (Talk) 00:20, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Didn't the Greeks invent football

On the run up of the euro 2004, the BBC Radio 1 claimed that the origins of football was in Greece, since there was a statue found. This statue is replicated on most medals... it resembles the position a footballer has moments before shooting the ball.

Everyone "claims" to have invented football, but kicking a ball is so natural that to claim its invention (before rules were codified) is like claim to have invented running. The article mentions possible Greek origin. Jooler

Different Cultures, Different Style of Football

AS you may know, different countries play different style of football. For example, in Brazil, the emphasis is put on the attack, whereas in Italy, the defence is key to success. You may wonder why? Well, I do not think anybody knows the true reason why. I will talk more about the different cultures different styles. In South America, there is a variation of emphasis of the two main football nations; Brazil is attack, Argentina is defence. However, Argentina still puts a massive amount of emphasis on attack. Other countries like Peru, Uruguay and Colombia also like to concentrate on the attack, even though there ability may not be as good as Brazil and Argentina. Another trait of South American football is the word 'showboating'. This is when players show off with what that can do with the ball, even though it may not be effective, however the fans love to see this. However in countries such as England, Italy and the countries of Scandanavia, showboating is not that favoured. These European countries prefer to see effectivness, i.e. a goal, even if it is not a good goal to look at. In western Europe, i.e. Portugal and Spain, the style is very similiar to that of South America. These western European countries also love to see the showboating, it is an integral part of their football culture. It is quite strange how the two languages of these countries (Portuguese and Spanish), are also spoken in South America, whereas English, Italian and Scandanavian are not primarily spoken in South America. Which brings me back to the earlier question....Why do different cultures play with different styles? It is possibly the hardest question you could get asked about in football.

There are two main possibilities which I will talk about:

1. Idols - it is possible that older generation players, played a certain way, and all the young kids on the streets of their country tried to copy them. For example, there could have been a player for Brazil who did lots of tricks. The kids on the streets would see this, and everybody would copy, so it is a like a constant circle. 2. Weather - the countries who play with the showboating style, i.e. Brazil, Portugal, Spain etc. all have good weather, so subsequently they will play football on the pitch. As you know, it is not always possible to have a football match on the beach, as it is too crowded. So people tend to stand in a circle, kick the ball to each other but keep the ball off the ground. This generates technical ability which allows players to showboat.

===It does make you wonder.....=== Personally, I feel the best way is to 'showboat'. It shows you are having fun, and not just going out to win, which is what people are doing more and more nowadays, which is almost taking away the pleasure of playing football. I will leave you with that question again; why do different cultures play different styles of football? I would love to know the true answer.

You should be posting all this on Talk:Football (soccer), if anywhere. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 03:01, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Ireland

"In the Republic of Ireland, "football" is somewhat ambiguous. Whilst it often refers to Gaelic football, the word "football" is also used when referring to Association football, particularly at the international level (as in the Football Association of Ireland the official national body) and also with a large number of Association football clubs using the initials "FC" (Football Club) in their name. The word "soccer" is often used to avoid confusion. "

There are a few issues here i'd like to discuss. Firstly, the official name of this country is 'Ireland'. The country 'Ireland' consists of 75% of the Island of Ireland. The north eastern quarter is 'northern ireland'. However, there is no need to differentiate the country and the island in this context because gaelic football is played in all counties of the Island of Ireland. There is no such place as 'Republic of Ireland'. That's just a term the brits use.

Secondly, the divided use of the word 'football' in Ireland is much the same as the divided use of the word in Australia. Whereas in certain areas of Australia rugby league is football and in other areas Australian Rules is football, in Dublin, the word football is ALWAYS taken to mean soccer. In rural areas (particularly western counties), the same word is used to denote gaelic football. In dublin, i've only ever heard people use the term GAA (Gaelic Athletic Association) to refer to gaelic football. GAA is the governing body for both Gaelic Football and Hurling... so it is ambiguous. If specifics are required, the term "GAA football" is used. Also, i've only ever heard the term 'Gaelic Football' used outside of ireland.

I'm not sure how the cities of Galway, Cork, Limerick, Kilkenny and Belfast use the word football though. Perhaps someone else can help?

"There is no such place as 'Republic of Ireland'. That's just a term the brits use." Sigh. Please see Names_of_the_Irish_state and Republic_of_Ireland_Act. Jooler 22:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I know there are sensitivies about such issues. I don't know what Wikipedia policy is on this but, as the Ireland article is about the whole island rather than a particular political entity, and since both codes are popular in both of the actual states within the island, I guess "Ireland" can be used without confusion :-) Grant65 (Talk) 10:11, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Grant. Did you read the article on Names_of_the_Irish_State? Can I direct you to this part... "state's official title under the Irish constitution is simply Ireland". 'Republic of Ireland' is a legal term. Necessary to disambig when referring to the nation in legal documents.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. We don't always respect official titles, when we need to avoid ambiguity. That's why we have articles named (e.g.) Roman Senate or Football (soccer) even though the proper names have no qualifiers (i.e. "The Senate" and "Football"). But I don't think there's any problem in using the word "Ireland" in this case. The Ireland article is an article on the whole island and both soccer and Gaelic football are popular in parts of both states within the island. Therefore the word "Ireland" will do in this case. Even if we were saying (e.g.) "Gaelic football is more popular in Ireland than in Northern Ireland", I think it would be clear what was meant. Grant65 (Talk) 13:09, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

"There is no such place as 'Republic of Ireland'. That's just a term the brits use."

You my friend are wrong for saying this, The Republic of Ireland is a title that a war with England was fought for and then a Civil war was bitterly fought exactly over the difference between the Republic status and Dominion status. Many Irish people lost their lives during the years of these wars, these lives were lost so that they could help Ireland acheive independance from Britain and the right to be called a Republic, Do not throw it away with daft comments like that. Ireland is a Republic, its official name is the Republic of Ireland, Yes quite often now the name 'Ireland' is used as the name for the country, but this does confuse people in other countries and has led to a massive increase of the term 'Southern Ireland' which is a horrible name, the word Republic should be used with pride, this is what makes us, this is what made Ireland, It is the only difference between having a president or the english queen as head of state.

In the UK and Most Other English Speaking Countries???

"In the United Kingdom, and in most other English-speaking countries, "football" usually refers to Association football."

After listing Canada, USA, New Zealand and Australia, and explaining that none of these countries refer to soccer as football, the above statement seems to be blatantly incorrect. Where are all these 'other' english speaking countries?

Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Cameroon, Dominica, Fiji, The Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malaysia, Malawi, Maldives, Mauritius, Namibia, Nauru, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Zambia, Zimbabwe. -- Arwel 12:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh and this...

"Of the 48 national FIFA affiliates in which English is an official or primary language"

Is a cop out.

Firstly, they can get away with referring to all EU countries, for instance, as english speaking countries because the EU official language is English. That doesn't make them english speaking countries.

And Finally, there are 3 types of lies. White lies, big lies and statistics! The above statistic is a carefully designed to make it look as though most of the english speaking world don't use the word soccer. How about a stat showing the sum of the populations of all english speaking countries (countries who's people speak english primarily) who use the word soccer in comparison to those that don't?

Well, soccer is not my favourite kind of footy, but....I think the person who wrote that passage is correct. According to a quick count of the list on pp.100-102 of my battered Collins Concise Atlas of the World, in 1984 there were about 50 countries in which English was an official language, a figure which did not include the EU countries you mention. Neither does it include countries like India and the Philippines, where English is the de facto common language and "football" is soccer. (I wonder how many people realise that the Philippines has more English speakers than the UK does?) So it can safely be said that "football is soccer" in all but a handful of English speaking countries and also for the vast majority of English speakers. Grant65 (Talk) 11:51, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

NOBODY claims all the EU countries as English speaking - all national languages of EU states, except Irish, are official languages; English, French and German are most commonly used for official business of the EU. English-speaking FIFA affiliates within the EU (completely different things) are England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, Malta, and Cyprus. In most other EU countries the sport is referred to as e.g. "Voetbal", "Fussball", "Boldspil", "Fotbal", "Football" etc. Apart from "Calcio",you may notice that all are literal translations of "football" or "ball game", but in any case, they are in the local language, not English. -- Arwel 12:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Secondly the same paragraph seems to ignore the fact that Australian people use the term 'soccer' and so do Irish people.

As an Irish person, I can tell you that most Irish people refer to the sport by its proper name: Football. The term 'soccer' is a shortening originating from 'AsSOCiation Football' Therefore, no matter what other names it has, Football is the correct and original name, and 'Soccer' refers to Football.

Yep. I live in Dublin and can concur that some Irish people obsess over that game as much as the english do. However, take a drive to the west side of the country and that all changes. That's where football is GAA football and if you want to talk about soccer it has to be qualified with the word 'soccer' or some other form of explanation. Dublin isn't Ireland. Factoid Killer 19:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Depends where you are in each country. Did you notice that the Australian Soccer Association changed its name to Football Federation Australia last January 1st? -- Arwel 12:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No. Because i'm Australian and therefore don't follow the sport or call it football.

In the interests of clarity, and because I hate to see existing posts broken up, I've just returned my last post and the preceding paragraph to the place where they they started. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that the decision to use the name "Football Federation Australia" is misguided, and probably futile as it flies in the face of at least 130 years of "football" meaning either rugby or Aussie rules. Probably less than 10% of the population mean soccer when they say "football", and while popularity of the sport may increase, I think its hard to see use of the word changing.Grant65 (Talk) 13:57, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

>Depends where you are in each country

Not in Australia. The vast majority of people who attend soccer matches in Australia are immigrants or the children of immigrants. No matter where you are in Australia, Soccer is not football.

• I could debate this with you at great length but this is not the place. Many people in Australia call soocer - football.

I lived in Australia for 25 years of my life and have not once heard anybody refer to soccer as football unless they were explaining the fact that in England it is called football.

I have to agree. The only people I have heard referring to soccer as "football" are first generation immigrants, and not all of them do either. It's a very safe assumption that "football" means either Aussie rules or rugby league, depending on where exactly you're standing.Grant65 (Talk) 11:45, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Most football people in Australia do call the sport football, not soccer. I hear it called football all of the time. This will all be irrelevant soon as the national association is now called Football Federation Australia and most of the major media outlets are falling into line.

I made a change "In UK, and in most other English speaking countries 'football' refers to association football" to "... and in most countries not otherwise mentioned here..." because otherwise the section contradicts itself. I'm assuming that what I wrote is what the original author actually meant. DJ Clayworth 17:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Most football people in Australia do call the sport football, not soccer. I hear it called football all of the time. This will all be irrelevant soon as the national association is now called Football Federation Australia and most of the major media outlets are falling into line.

This is a debate I've heard through-out the world where more than one football code is played. To clarify the Irish POV, the word football is used contextually. If for example, I where to say "I've got football practice tonight" the people I'd be talking to would either know that gaelic training for me is on a Friday or would ask if it was soccer. Usually when comparing sports the terms gaelic, soccer or rugby are used. To contradict someone above, Gaelic football is often refered to as GAA, pronounced as in the ga in gag; there is no confucion with Hurling. Very rarely is rugby called football, though you may describe a ruby player as a good footballer. Soccer is only used to differentiate it from gaelic. The other "foreign" codes are usually given their full titles like American Football and Aussie Rules. Afn 10:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Most soccer people in Australia do call their game "football" now, but they are a relatively small minority, following the third or fourth most popular sport in terms of spectators. A TV audience of four million nationwide watched the Sydney Swans' AFL grand final win. In Sydney, which is not reknowned as an AFL city, one million watched. But "football" in Sydney usually means National Rugby League, and their grand final tomorrow will probably get comparable figures. I have to doubt that a Sydney United game would do as well. Personally I doubt that many media outlets will ever "fall into line", as you put it — showing your soccer bias — because the usage of the word to mean other games, or a variety of games, is so dominant and has more than 140 years of history behind it. For example, Melbourne Football Club (Aussie Rules) was founded in 1858 and Sydney University Football Club (rugby union) in 1863. Grant65 (Talk) 04:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Harvard and the forward pass in American Football

Added a minor anecdote in the "reform of american football" section that i originally learned from an english professor and harvard alum teacher of mine and provided an external link to a harvard website to site. Unsure if thats the purpose of external links but i felt that the note itself was relevant and factual.

Portal

A wikiportal (Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Association football) has been started by Johan Elisson. -- Phoenix2 21:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ameriball

I just ran a google query on "Ameriball". None of the hits returned in the first 2 pages pointed to this sport.

I think that qualifies as "nobody refers to it that way".

--Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I just ran this [4] on Dictionary.com

--Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Confusing

The convention decided that, in the US game, four touchdowns would be worth one goal; in the event of a tied score, a goal converted from a touchdown would take precedence over four touch-downs. Clarify by what converted means... -Iopq 11:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

vandalism

I don't know why, but this article seems to be underseige by vandals atm. Every day I check my watchlist someone is reverting vandalism. What's going on? Does this article need to be protected for a few days? Jooler 23:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's just people surfing in, a sign that the page is being visited a lot compared to other pages. I have wondered if there is anywhere that we can see the number of visitors to specific Wikipedia articles, but I haven't been able to find such a resource. Grant65 (Talk) 03:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

"Footy" in the USA

A query regarding the most recent edit: is it really the case that the word "footy" is commonly used in the USA to mean only Australian rules? And not other codes? Grant65 | Talk 11:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. "Footy" isn't used at all, at least not where I live. I would not think that someone was talking about Aussie rules if they said "footy". --71.225.229.151 17:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Split up the article

Football incorporates an enormous number of sports, which can be extremely confusing due to the country where the word is used. In the US, it refers to American football; in Europe and South America it refers to soccer; in Australia it refers to Australian rules football. I think the content should be merged into different articles, and the page should be deleted and replaced with a disambiguation. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

There are already large articles for each of the major codes of football, each of which contain the detailed information for that sport. This article deals with the development of football codes in general, and includes a note pointing readers to the disambig-of-sorts at the end of the article. It's clunky, but it seems to work well enough. Cheers, --Daveb 02:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't split it. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 03:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

No way. Among other things, the article is about the shared history of the many different kinds of football. It reduces the "confusion" by pointing out the many different codes to which the name football applies. Followers of particular codes may be uncomfortable with this, but the games are all related and descended from "common ancestors". Grant65 | Talk 07:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

As the others have implied, the reasons given for splitting it are actually reasons not to do so. I will remove the notice. 62.31.55.223 08:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Football game on foot

I've read this thing about football, being originally called that because it is played on foot rather than with the foot before, but frankly I don't believe it, and I think I may have even read something refuting it. Any reliable source for this? Jooler 07:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I must admit, this is the first place I've ever seen this definition. as this is placed near the head of the article I really would like see a reference to back this up. Markb 12:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

There was a similiar query a few months back at Talk:Football (word); I posted responses there, including the following:

There is nothing new about this etymology of "foot ball", there are many references to it on the web, e.g. this one from a US soccer referees' email list:

"Paul Gardner wrote in The Simplest Game

Soccer people like to claim that the word football should really be applied only to soccer. What else whould you call a game played with the feet and with a ball? Logical enough, but the argument is flawed. The word football came into use in England in the mid-fourteenth century to describe a game played not with the feet but on foot, in order to distinguish it from pastimes that were played on the horseback.'"[5]

This is interesting as well, from The Every-Day Book (1825-26) by William Hone:

FOOT-BALL.

This was, and remains, a game on Shrove Tuesday, in various parts of England.

Sir Frederick Morton Eden in the "Statistical account of Scotland," says that at the parish of Scone, county of Perth, every year on Shrove Tuesday the bachelors and married men drew themselves up at the cross of Scone, on opposite sides; a ball was then thrown up, and they played from two o'clock till sun-set. The game was this: he who at any time got the ball into his hands, run with it till overtaken by one of the opposite part; and then, if he could shake himself loose from those on the opposite side who seized him, he run on; if not, he threw the ball from him, unless it was wrested from him by the other party, but no person was allowed to kick it. The object of the married men was to hang it, that is, to put it three times into a small hole in the moor, which was the dool or limit on the one hand: that of the bachelors was to drown it, or dip it three times in a deep place in the river, the limit on the other: the party who could effect either of these objects won the game; if neither won, the ball was cut into equal parts at sun-set.[6]

(Emphasis added.)

Hone's account shows that the name "football" was applied to games which specifically outlawed kicking, long before the modern codes existed.

If there is a "refutation" of the "on foot" etymology out there, I would like to read it. I have looked high and low for such a beast, but have never been able to find it. Grant65 | Talk 13:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The first reference from Paul Gardner refers to it's usage in the 14 C in England, the 2nd to an account of a game being played in Scotland 5 centuries later. As I'm sure you are aware there were many local games played around Britian with local rules , and nowhere in Sir Frederick Morton Eden's account is that paticular game called football.

BTW, I would be interested to know what games were actually played on horseback in 14th Century England anyway, so that such a distinction had to be made. Even better would be a genuine reference from the period, not a claim made on a internet mailing list. It would be helpful, for example, if someone could come up with an account of a game, with the ball being played with the foot, that was not called football. Markb 15:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The sports played on horseback in the 14th C would have been things like hunting, jousting, etc. It is not Eden but Hone who is referring to the Scone game as (quote) FOOTBALL (unquote), in 1825/26. Hone understood a game that outlawed kicking as being "football", that is the point. And why would it be helpful if someone could come up with an account of a game, with the ball being played with the foot, that was not called football? The article is about usage of the word football. Grant65 | Talk 07:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

your explanation, backed up with only two references, still doesn't make sense. You claim that the word originated to describe a ball game played on foot, as opposed to what - jousting? Name any other game that was played 'on foot' that that could be confused with one that was on horseback? I think this is a POV usage to justify the use of the name for other games. Why not just accept that the word 'football' is used to describe several games played around the world, with a common root in 19th Century England? Markb 19:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see yor reply until now. I'm not sure where you're coming from. POV? My objective is the truth or the best explanation, whatever that may be. "Only two references?" How many do you want for an explanation that is extremely common? Find me a source which states that "football = "foot kicking ball". The word doesn't have a root in 19th century England; the word goes back to the 14th century at least. And I have no idea why you are asking for another "game that was played 'on foot' that that could be confused with one that was on horseback..." There were clearly plenty of games that we played on foot, many of which were referred to as football, regardless of whether they involved kicking a ball. I'm reverting your deletion; I will try to reword the paragraph in a way that makes more sense to you and anyone else who is confused.Grant65 | Talk 08:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the re-word. I think its a big improvement.Markb 10:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Victorian Rules picture

Victorian RUles is a relatively minor and small variation of football. I suggest that another image should be used for people trying to understand the bigger international variations like Rugby(both codes), soccer and American football.

06:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)60.225.202.61

The picture is a generic/iconic one, it could be almost any kind of football being shown and that is why it is there.Grant65 | Talk 06:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that a picture of a world cup final(either code of Rugby or soccer), a champion's league final or a super bowl would be a better image than an Australian's Rules image. Aussie Rules is a relatively minor regional code of football and would be unintelligible for non-Australians. It is also a suggestion that football began in Australia. I am sure there are better images that could be used.

13:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)60.225.202.61

I feel the montage is a superlative idea. Maybe NRL/Super League grand-final or state of Origin, AFL grand final, Union world cup final, NFL superbowl, Soccer world cup, FA cup, champion's league final, South American champion's league, futsol world cup, Gaelic all-Irish champions or whatever it is, Canadien football cup,

I think that that would be a good round-up.

04:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)60.225.202.61

Victorian rules descent

Australian Rules very obviously comes from Victoria. The variation is a Vicotrian variation. I am not questioning that its name is Aussie Rules, just that it is a game whose rules variation originated from Victoria like the two rugby codes originated from Rugby school, and soccer originated from its annagram association football. All the best.

06:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)60.225.202.61

What is your point? Rugby league started in Yorkshire, but we don't call it "Yorkshire rugby" or "Yorkshire football". Australian rules football is the common name worldwide. Grant65 | Talk 06:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

But wasn't RL for a time quite commonly in the England as "the Northern game" or "the Nothern Union"? Albatross2147 04:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The above two comments are irrelevant since nobody is trying to name rugby league after a country that didn't exist at the time of its. The idea of it being a 'victorian' game and not an 'Australian' game becuase the 'country' of Australia didn't exist during the creation of the game is flawed too. Australia was still the name given to the continent of Australia. The british colony of Victoria was located on that continent. He name 'Australia' wasn't invented in 1901, just the self governing country.Factoid Killer 10:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Minor aside - ironically the name 'rugby league' was coined in Australia.GordyB 21:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't waste my time with this anti-Aussie rules troll. Take a look at the Australian rules football attendance records and compare them with rugby in Australia and it's no wonder you are jealous of Aussie rules' continued growth and increased standing. Rogerthat ^Talk 11:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Re:

Rugby League started at Rugby school and not at Yorkshire. The split-away governing body than started to make rule changes that differentiated it from the IRB code, but it is inarguable to say that it did not start at Rugby school. I beieve you have the wrong conception of Rugby League. It was just a professional code of the game that over time developed its own distinct rules. Neither Rugby Union or Rugby today really resemble the nature of game when it was first codified.

11:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)Licinius

I am not arguing that that it does not call itself Aussie Rules, what I am saying is that it is a distinctly Victorian version of the game. To call it an Australian variation as opposed to this would be misleading for non-Australians who do not understand the regional nature of both Rugby and Aussie Rules. Nor am I disputing that it is more popular as you mistakenly concluded and decided to leave on my discussion page. I just feel that to refer to it as a Victorian variety is better for international users who are trying to understand the differences in Australian football sports. All the best

13:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)60.225.202.61

Whatever. The Australian Football League calls it "Australian Football". The common name of the game is Australian rules football. That is what it is called around the world. No one has called the game "Victorian rules" at an official level for more than 100 years and I doubt that many non-Australian readers of the article would even have heard of the "Victoria" in question. The game has travelled the breadth and width of Australia in the last 150 years and is popular in all States and Territories, to varying degrees. The point about its origins in Melbourne, Victoria is made in the article.

I also think we need a picture at the top of the page. The picture is generic in the sense that it's a group of people in a park with a ball. We don't have any better pictures. Possibly we could have a montage like the one at World War II. Would you care to organise a better picture?

And in future please log in before you edit. Grant65 | Talk 17:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Now please do not be silly, it is hardly played in Sydney etc., to say it has travelled the breadth of Australia is an exaggeration. But my point is that it is a Victorian variation of football, not an Australian variation. As I will reiterate, it is misleading for non-Australians visiting the page to say that it is an Australian variation because it is simply no more an Australian variation of football than Rugby League.

03:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Licinius

Silly? You are trying to teach me to suck eggs. Australian rules has been the most popular winter sport in Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania, and the Northern Territory for more than 100 years. It has had what might be described as a cult following in New South Wales and Queensland for as long. It is simply untrue to say that Australian rules is "hardly played in Sydney etc." I have researched this extensively when contributing to articles such as Soccer in Australia:

Soccer, known in most countries simply as "football", is less popular in Australia than rival football codes. However support is growing: for example, in November 2005, a national television audience of 2.4 million people watched the match in which the Australian team qualified for the 2006 World Cup, including 924,000 in Sydney and 797,000 in Melbourne[1]. By comparison, the 2005 Australian rules football Grand Final was watched by 3.3 million, including 1.2 million in Melbourne and 991,000 in Sydney [2]; the National Rugby League Grand Final was watched by 2.5 million, including 1.1 million in Sydney and 506,000 in Melbourne[3].

Grant65 | Talk 03:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah Grant65, once again you make sweaping comment that are not factual. Aussie Rules is not "popular" in Sydney, nor in most of NSW. Also the night we qualified for German 2006, thousands of people filled Sydney's streets until the next morning. This has never happened for Aussie Rules or Rugby league in Sydney. And many people in Sydney would totally understand the term "Victorian Rules' Tancred 06:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact remains that the names of the game, to most Australians, are Australian rules football or Australian football. Soccer supporters filled the streets in Sydney on that particular night because many of them had actually been to the game. Of course the supporters of a national team were going to outnumber Wests Tigers and Sydney Swans supporters on the streets, after their respective grand final wins. Nevertheless the AFl and NRL grand finals beat the Socceroos in the TV ratings. It will be interesting to see what how many watch the Soccer World Cup finals matches. Grant65 | Talk 10:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on. Please. One decent t.v. rating does not amount to considerable interest etc., it is hardly played in Sydney. It is not really an Australian game per se, though it is played exclusively by Australians. It is a Victorian variety of football.

All the best

04:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)60.225.202.61

And rugby league is a British variety of football, at least in its origins. So what? It seems that that you have taken stock of rugby league's poor following outside NSW and Qld and simply assumed that the reverse is also true for Aussie rules, which it is not. The Sydney Swans, Brisbane Lions, West Coast Eagles, Adelaide, Fremantle and Port Adelaide get crowds exceeding 20,000 at every home and away games. But how many NRL teams are even based outside NSW and Qld? Answer: two, and the Melbourne Storm's home ground has a capacity of 18,500, which is miniscule by the standards of Melbourne sporting venues. Grant65 | Talk 10:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected this article because of the edit wars. So use talk page to find a solution. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone agree with Licinius, a.k.a. 60.225.202.61? Grant65 | Talk 03:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody agree with Grant65?

05:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)60.225.202.61

I've looked at a few things, but the whole argument seems stupid. I was born and lived my life in NSW. Does that mean I should stop calling myself Australian, because I have not visited and lived in most parts of Australia? Same goes for Australian Rules. It's rules where formed in Victoria and it is the codes spiritual home. But for those living under a rock, Victoria is a state of Australia. Thus, saying that Australian rules is a distinct Australian form of football is correct. Perhaps for accuracy sake it should say something like 'an distinct Australian form of football invented/codified in Victoria?' POds 07:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No the idea was that the country/federation we call 'Australia' didn't exist until 1901. This person is trying to claim that australia didn't exist when the game was invented because it was invented prior to 1901. This is flawed because the continent was called 'Australia' and thus before Australia was federated, a person in victoria could still say they were in Australia. Factoid Killer 10:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

What is being said is that is a Victorian variety of football like how there were Rugby varieties of football and soccer being the acronym for association rules. It is no more an Australian variety of football than Rugby League. Therefore I think it is misleading for non-Australians, to refer to it as an Australian variety of football because it is both historically and presently a predominately Victorian type of football as opposed to Rugby in the northern states. It has nothing to do with whether Australia was a continent or not, just emphasis that it both originated in Victoria, and is still a regional game in Australia even today. Therefore I feel to refer to it as an Australian variety of football is a little incoherent, factually incorrect, especially when there is a more apt manner to refer to it as, Victorian football.

Therefore I am unreservedly for the change of the name to a Victorian variety of football.

11:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)60.225.200.50

I feel that it is a Victorian variety of football and should be referred to as such in the disputed entence "Australian and Irish varieties"

11:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)The man from OZ

• Agree with Grant65:
  • "Rugby" is called "Rugby Union" in this article, despite no official name change to avoid confusion, calling something "Victorian" is bound to be confusing for most people as the main meaning is the Victorian age not place. I watched Italy playing England at "Rugby" yesterday and the pundits at half time talked about "football" and "soccer". In context they meant "Rugby Union Football" and "Association Football". I am imagine that when pundits are talking about a game of "Australian Rules Football" at half time they drop the "Australian Rules" and talk about football. In context the meaning is clear. This is an article about all codes of football so full clear names are needed to distinguish the various codes even if they are not the official names. As they are not the official names common names should be used. As most people involved in a code of football do not need to distinguish it from other "football codes" (see my Italy v. England example), it is the common name used by others which should be used in this article. "Australian (rules) football" is the more common name than "Victorian (rules) football" so lets stick with "Australian (rules) football".
  • Also the removal of "points" in the sentence "In all football games, the winning team is the one that has the most goals when a specified length of time has elapsed." makes the sentence false because games of Rugby football are decided on point not goals.

--Philip Baird Shearer

I was talking very specifically about it being referred to a "Victorian variety" in the sentence disputed. I am not disputing it being called Australian Rules, please don't count me there, I just felt that in that sentence Victorian variety is more apt, as my understanding of the dispute is.

12:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)The man from OZ

I think it's unnecessary to seperate Victoria from Australia in such a way. Whilst "Australian rules football" was originally called "Melbourne rules" and "Victorian rules", and undoubtedly was created there, in terms of the scope of the article (a sport played throughout the entire world), it is like saying Pétanque is a Provence variety of lawn bowls. "Irish varieties" is used without issue, whilst Gaelic football was developed in a certain area (from the article, County Kerry) before it spread to the country. Why should Australian rules be any different? If you were writing about football in Australia, you would obviously mention that Aussie rules was a Victorian variant and rugby league was more common in NSW, but in terms of football in the world, Victoria is just another part of Australia. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 12:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This is largely about weather the game can be referred to as 'Australian'. Perhaps other arguments have been put forward aswell but it has been specifically suggested that the game is victorian because it was invented in the colony of victoria before that colony was part of Austalia. Pointing out that the colony of victoria was part of Australia is more than relevant. Please view the comments left on my talk page Factoid Killer 09:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's clearly untrue to say that there was no conception of "Australia" before federation in 1901. As is often pointed out the Australian cricket team predates Australian federation by 24 years. And Tom Wills, who had strong family ties to both NSW and Queensland, did not set set out to create a "Victorian" code of football. Grant65 | Talk 09:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand the problem. I agree that Victorian football sounds like a reference to the Victorian era. I don't understand why Australian Rules Football can't be called 'Australian Rules Football'. Even if the federation didn't exist at that time, it does now and the AFL have the right to choose their own name. I'd object to rugby league being called a Yorkshire form of rugby.GordyB 21:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand your confusion Gordy. I think the controversy results from a long history of two codes of football (Australian rules and rugby league) both being dominant, on a regional basis. However, in the last 20 years or so, both codes have made significant attempts to win converts in each other's territory, as have the less-popular codes of soccer and rugby union. For various reasons, the others have had some success, while league has declined somewhat. Understandably some league supporters feel aggrieved about this. One reaction is denial, such as the insistence that Australian rules is a purely "Victorian" game, when in fact it has been the dominant code in most states/territories for more than 100 years. Grant65 | Talk 09:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Similar story in England with union and league.GordyB 21:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Your argument regarding aussie rules being dominant in 'most states/territories' for 100 years means nothing seeing as more than 50% of Australia's population resides in NSW and Queensland. I agree it is the most popular code now and I have no idea for how long this has been the case, but state counting is not evidence of national popularity. Aussie rules Australia's most popular sport because Rugby Leage, as a Working MAN's sport doesn't attract followers such as women and private school boys. Also, Aussie rules is more popular in Qld and NSW than Rugby League is in Vic, SA, WA and Tas Factoid Killer 13:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It also has something to do with the fact that victorians don't seem to enjoy living in their own state and prefer to live in NSW or Queensland where they spend their days whinging about how much better victoria is. Factoid Killer 13:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Lead picture

Does anyone apart from Licinius/60.225.202.61 think that the current picture is not the best one available? I have searched, but haven't found anything better in illustrating football games in general, than the current one. As I have said before, a better solution is that we get someone with the technical ability to do a collage like the one at the top of (e.g.) World War II. But until (and if) we have a better pic, I think the current one should stand. Grant65 | Talk 18:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be more appropriate to have an image that better represents the multitude of football codes or at least what the majority of ppl in the world consider to be football. I'd be happy for someone to replace it with a better suited picture however, the current picture is way better than having nothing at all. I am totally against the image being removed without replacement. Factoid Killer 14:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Victorian Rules Football

I did not really make my argument very coherent, so I shall put it here as succintly as possible.

I believe the heading "Australian and Irish variations" should be changed to "games descended from Melbourne club rules and Gaelic rules". This is in line with the previous entries "games descended from rugby school rules" and "games descended from fa rules".

I feel that this is a better representation of not only the Victorian game but also a clearer outline of its support within Australia. I also feel that it is more inline with how the article was presented.

All the best

08:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Licinius 08:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"A clearer outline of its support within Australia"? You need to get out of the Shire a bit more often, mate. I suggest you go to Arnhem Land, the South West region of Western Australia, or Hobart and ask people in those places why they are playing a "Victorian game". Not to mention the 100s of 1,000s who go to see the Sydney Swans and Brisbane Lions every year, or the people playing it at Cazaly's Stadium (named after a Tasmanian, Roy Cazaly), in Cairns. Aussie rules is the most popular spectator sport in Australia, both in terms of bums on seats and in terms of TV audiences. It is also the most popular in a majority of states and territories. This seems to rankle with you, but those are the facts. You might also like to consider the many (and increasing numbers of) great players of the game, including Haydn Bunton Senior, Wayne Carey, Jason Dunstall, Michael Voss and Jason Akermanis, who have been born and bred in NSW and Qld. Next you'll try to tell us that they weren't good enough to play league or union. Grant65 | Talk 10:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Licinus,

That is not what you were saying at all when you sent me this message...

'The Victorian Rules folk ar trying to claim that Aussie Rules is an Australian variety of the game when it is very distinctly a Victorian variation of the football and was codified in Victoria many years before the beginning of Australia. If you share the same opinion I would love for you to come to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Football and give your opinion.

All the best

03:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Licinius '

I'm a Queenslander and a Rugby League/Union supporter. In fact I don't care much for aussie rules at all but trying to tamper with a page out of pure hatred for the game makes you no better than those British Rugby fans who were trying to have the Rugby League article removed through claims that it was a minor sport. Aussie rules is more popular in Australia and always will be. That's because of the religious nature of its following. Also because the game transcends gender and socio-economic barriers. Rugby League will always be the greatest game on earth but it will never be the most popular.

Factoid Killer 14:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes there are many reasons I dispute the right of the game to be called "Australian", but that is it. That is the disputed piece. I am not great arguer. haha

and I am not trying to have the AFL removed factoid killer, please be reasonable and thnk about the actually disputed piece. Grant never mentioned it and continually accused me of motives I never had.

Grant I do not care about them or dispute the AFL is the most supported league in Australia. But it is a Victorian game and it is supported in the Southern states.

06:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Licinius

Victoria may be dominant, (modulo the latest grandfinal) but the sport is wider than Victoria. Very strong in SA and WA and a reasonable following in QLD, NT. (And Tas, I think.) Some following in NSW, and growing. It's arguable that the AFL is really just the VFL plus a few teams taken from/exported to other states, but the rules of the game are national, not Victorian. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Could someone from Sydney please take a walk to Trumper Park in Paddington, on the pavillion they will see the year that the East Sydney Bulldogs were formed - it's something like 1888 - I can't remember exactly - perhaps a Sydney sider could confirm for me. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 05:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Licinius, this "southern" thing is nonsense. Australian rules has been the dominant code in the NT for generations. The support for rugby league is far more limited, in geographical terms. And since there are no other major football codes that originated in Australia, I can't see the problem with Australian rules being referred to as an "Australian code" etc. Unless you think Victoria is somehow not part of Australia. Grant65 | Talk 05:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The conversation about which code is most supported in various cities/states is a red herring. The game is an Australian game, invented in the continent of Australia, with most of its history and present-day existence in that continent. Describing it as Australian does not in any way imply that it is or isn't popular throughout Australia. It could be understood to imply that it doesn't have much presence outside Australia, but no one is disputing that. If the article suggested that Aussie rules was the only type of football in Australia, it would be a problem, but it doesn't do that. JPD (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The game is called Australian rules, and I don't know why we're arguing about what it should be called. That said, it may be that it was once called Victorian rules, or that Australian rules was derived from something called Victorian rules, so Victorian Rules might be the right label when talking about the origins of the game. That's all dependant on Victorian rules being what the game was actually called, rather than just being a 'more accurate description'. I guess I'd like to see a cite. Regards, Ben Aveling 16:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC) PS. The Australian Natives Association was founded in 1871. Don't assume the word Australia was invented in 1901.

To be fair, the dispute isn't about what the game should be called, it is about the section heading which categorises the game, and so is describing it. While Licinus has used the very old terminology "Victorian rules" on this talk page, he hasn't suggested that it should be used in any articles. JPD (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

True, but it makes no sense to you use it in a heading, because of the possibility of confusion with the Victorian era and because hardly anyone outside Australia has heard of Victoria, Australia. Grant65 | Talk 23:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well Grant, despite your attempts to malign me, you are correct. It should be referred to as a game descended from Melbourne Rules. That is clear enough and in line with the presentation of the article. Though it is debatable that it deserves a mention as a game descended from Rugby rules or miscellaneous due to the fact that it is a relatively minor Southern Australian regional game that was pretty much a copy of rugby and Sheffield Rules, (unlike the international codes of Rugby, the American football and of cause soccer) for the present moment I feel that it should be "Games descended from Melbourne Rules ....".

Please stop trying to attribute sentiments that I do not have, Grant, you have accused me of bad faith from the beginning and it reflects on your bias.

To call it a game descended from Australian variety is as silly to call it a game descended from Oceania variety, Australasian variety or outhern hemisphere variety. It is very distinctly a Victorian game and as such it should be referred to as Melbourne Rules.

12:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Licinius

Licinius said: 'To call it a game descended from Australian variety is as silly to call it a game descended from Oceania variety, Australasian variety or outhern hemisphere variety'... Aren't we getting a little petty here? Why leave it at melbourne. Whoever wrote down the rules must have been in a specific suburb of melbourne! Even a suburb is pretty general, why not write down the address in which the original rules were written down. Why not call it 10 launceston dve, St Kilda, Melbourne, Victoria, Australian rules? Why stop there? Lets get the exact GPS coordinates! Factoid Killer 12:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Licinius, are you mixing Grant up with someone else?

Aussie rules is a variety of football. It is Australian, and describing it as Australian is the most informative geographical description to most readers, as well as being the description used in the common name. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to call it an Australian variety of football.

The next question is whether it is the best heading in the context. The context is a list of many different varieties of football, in groups of related or similar codes. The first two groups both originated as distinct codes in England, and so are distinguished by their FA or Rugby school origins. The next group contains codes that originated (and are mostly played) in Australia or Ireland, and so they are described as such. There are obvious reasons to put these codes in one group, yet they are not all clearly descended from a distinct set of rules, so it is best to describe them as Australian and Irish varieties. This is about providing a general categorisation of a group of forms of football, not giving the detailed history, which is in the text earlier in the article.JPD (talk) 12:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Does "Aussie Rules" deserve its own heading in this specific section at all? This whole page is far too Victorian and needs to be completely be re-edited by someone with a clear perspective, good record and proven integrity. AFL has far more prominence that it should rightly have on a page dedicated to "football". In the interests of more coherent descriptions, I feel that this page should be rewritten to put the different codes of football in a better perspective. It is not good enough to say that the "AFL" game is a generic picture of football from the era because modern football was mostly an English creation(all codes). I see plenty of better pictures throughout the page that could be used instead of it.

In the specific line, I personally feel it is indisputable not to refer to it as "Australian" per se because it is simply not an Australian game any more than Rugby. The heading I feel should be a clear indicator of the origins of the networked games just as the others are. Also the games from the AFL are more than superfluous and if it was done with the precedents created in the AFL section, there would be far too many games under both the Rugby and soccer areas.

Also there is far too much on the origins of AFL compared to the games of higher precedence like Rugby, American football and soccer. Remember people this is not just an Australian page, it is for all people who speak English who wish to know about "football".

13:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)The man from OZ

I have to admit, I was very surprised to arrive at this page and see it dominated by Aussie Rules. I agree with replacing the image with something more appropriate. I know the victorians have that major inferiority complex to get over but this isn't their page. Factoid Killer 13:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

"Aussie rules" doesn't have it's own section. It is in a section with Gaelic football, various compromise rules and Marn Grook. This section is (rightly) after the sections for the more prominent soccer and it's derivatives and the rugby family and before even more obscure varieties. I can see more reason for another section for the north american versions, than for removing this section. If there are articles on rugby derivatives equivalent to the very minor rec footy and so on, then these should be added to the list - the list is meant to include all the variations that have articles.

Aussie rules simply is Australian, regardless of whether rugby also is. In some very obvious senses (origins, geopgraphically concentrated) it is more Australian than union or league. In other senses it isn't (as they are also important parts of Australian sporting culture), but the article doesn't imply anything about Australian sporting culture, etc.

Montage

There is no picture of an AFL game in the article. The picture of the game in Melbourne is, in my opinion, no better or worse than any of the others on the page. As the differences between the codes were less obvious then (and even less obvious in the pictures!), it doesn't really matter which one is used, although as many people have said a montage of modern pics would be better. Apart from the picture, I don't see why you say Aussie rules is given prominence. The article as a whole describes the evolution of english football - soccer and rugby, with short sections on the Australia, American and Irish varieties. Of these, Aussie rules has the shortest section. The only problem I see with that aspect of the article is that two of the sections dealing with the rugby codes should be expanded.

Apart from these sections, the article seems to do a good job of describing the history of many forms of football in the correct perspective. If it were too Australian-focussed, a non-Australian might be best placed to comment. And at the risk of making the Victorians' inferiority complex even worse, I'll point out that Victoria doesn't have a monopoly on Aussie rules anyway. JPD (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Man from Oz, so the many contributors to the page so far do not have a "clear perspective, good record or proven integrity"? Personal attacks are not within the rules or the spirit of Wikipedia.

The article is about the development of football codes in general. Australian rules has an important place in that history, as the second oldest surviving code after rugby union. Next you'll be telling us that Gaelic football and Canadian football get too much space...in fact you would really have to, since neither of them has the number of followers that Aussie rules does. But I wouldn't agree with you.

And I'm sorry, but Australian rules is an Australian game in a way that neither code of rugby will ever be, because it was invented in Australia. It is also the most popular spectator sport in Australia and is the most popular sport in the most States and Territories. Please note that I said sport and not just code of football.

According to the logic employed by you and Lucinius, Ned Kelly was a Victorian, and not an Australian. It is just crap to say that Australia did not exist in 1858 or that Tom Wills set out to create a Melbourne/Victorian game. You seem to think that Qld and NSW (minus those "AFL"-playing infidels in the Riverina and Broken Hill) are the only genuine parts of "Australia". I'm here to tell you that you are wrong.

"The games from the AFL are more than superfluous"? Well, the idea of encyclopedias is to provide full information. Feel free to add some superfluous ones derived from other major codes.

"I see plenty of better pictures throughout the page that could be used instead of it." Such as? In my opinion we need an action picture at the top of the article and it just so happened that the Australian rules pic was the most generic one that I could find. Once again, I challenge the rest of you to find a single picture which captures "football" of all codes in action as well as that picture does. As opposed to one which is clearly of soccer, rugby or whatever and will cause further arguments. But as I have said before, my preferred option would be to have collage of different pictures, representing different codes, such as the one at the top of World War II. If I didn't have to waste so much time on this stupid argument, I might have organised it by now. Grant65 | Talk 16:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Football ( Soccer )

I want to chip in with my opinion on the use of the term football.

English has become an international language, and millions of people, regardless of their mother tongue, speak it for a variety of uses, such as surfing the 'net. In most languages other than english, I assume, football is that sport which is played with the feet. Usually this word is not translated, but rather, adapted phonetically to the speakers' native language; for example, in spanish: futbol. I think that the correct terminology for this sport should be football. However, in my opinion, it should always be qualified with the soccer term in parenthesis to avoid confusion.

Interesting concept, but that's why we have disambiguation pages. The underlying link should indeed point to Football (soccer), but the title should reflect the correct word (ie: "football" in Manchester United, but "soccer" in Los Angeles Galaxy). This particular page, Football, discusses all types of football (including Australian Rules and American), the one that belongs to what is known as "soccer" in the US is located, as you said, in football (soccer). Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 21:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What if someone from the US who isn't aware of british use of the word is reading the article? We already had this problem in the London article where soccer was referred to only as 'football'. If caused some confusion to at least one reader. The reader in question wasn't aware that any sport other than american football was referred to as football and was asking about football in Lodon. Factoid Killer 09:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

JPD's montage

That's a good start JPD. I would like to see a bigger/clearer portion representing American/Canadian football. And given the different colour balances, maybe the whole thing would look better in black and white? Grant65 | Talk 00:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the representation of Australian rules football in that montage is pretty poor - wait till the season comes around (ie, this weekend) and we'll get together some more relevant photographs. Rogerthat ^Talk 11:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the best person for making iamges like this. I just wanted to get the balling rolling using the iamges that were already available. The Aussie rules part could definitely do with a better quality image. The American pic is already the second biggest in the montage - does anyone have a clearer image? I'm not that keen on black and white, but I could change my mind if somenoe does a better job of converting it than I just did. I guess the other thing is that it shoudl probably be saved at a lower resolution - that file is quite big. JPD (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Forms of football

The introduction of the article should state, in absolute black and white, the different forms of football. The opening phrase could be a list of all football types, including:

• Association football
• Australian rules football
• Gaelic football
• International rules football
• Rugby football

Thoughts on this? Rogerthat ^Talk 11:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

They are listed in the first paragraph already. The opening sentence is fine as it is I think. That only leaves the fact that prominence is given to soccer, which is probably fair enough. JPD (talk) 12:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What hapenned to American football and Canadian football? Factoid Killer 12:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

do they count? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

and while I'm at it, I just can't believe that Australians would argue so hard to not refer to our only indigenous code of football as not being Australian. It's simply unbelievable. Why does it deserve some prominence? Try these facts: rules codified in 1859; Melbourne Football Club formed in the same year - older than 99.9% of all clubs the world over of all football codes. The VFA, the precursor to the VFL was formed in 1870 (if my memory serves me well) - do you all think these are trivial facts in the context of this article - get real! The game deserves all the prominence that can be spared, and any Australian who is not proud of that prominence needs to look in the mirror and sort out a few personal issues. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Aussie Rules, Gaelic and International are all relatively small games compared to the NFL, international rugby of both codes and most of all soccer. Should they realistically have more than a minor page dedicated to them?...

I am sorry, I am new to this program. I meant a smaller area of the page as compared to the major sports in order to better certify their relative size compared to the codes I mentioned.

Do the arguments above make sense to anyone?...

13:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)J is me

Surely this montage needs futsol which is much bigger than AFL or Gaelic, a better differentiation between Rugby Union and Rugby League(the scrum is irrelevant in League and their are many differences of style between both forms of Rugby). To be honest, it is a bit much to have AFL or Gaelic in it. What is wrong with the people here? We need more Europeans and Americans to contribute to this. AFL is a joke compared to the major codes. What the hell is going on here?

13:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)J is me

Yes they do. The problem here is that people from Victoria in Australia have major inferiority complex. This is because their capital city, melbourne, is not the largest city in the country and lost its place as the capital. It also doesn't have anywhere near the prominance of Sydney either nationally nor internationally. As a result they are an extremely vocal minority when it comes to talking up their sport, their state and their capital city. That is the only reason Aussie rules has been placed in this article with such prominance and backed up by so many people. Yes everything you are saying makes sense. Australian rules football is a very minor sport on the global scale and the suggestion that American football should be removed is just yet another brainchild of the comunal Inferiority Complex eminating from Victoria, Australia.

The scrum isn't irrelevant in league but Rugby League and Rugby considered as separate sports are also much bigger sports than Aussie Rules.Factoid Killer 13:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, you need a pretty severe bias to think Rugby and League should be grouped as 1 sport and then list Aussie Rules and International rules as separate sports. This is the level of Inferiority Complex we're dealing with here.Factoid Killer 13:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's be a bit sensible here, and focus on the page rather than each other's motives. The article is quite reasonable, the bias (on both sides) is on the talk page. I agree that leaving out the north american codes and lumping the rugy codes together displays bias, probably in the form of ignorance, but noone has actually suggested removing American football. The main reason that there is only one picture in the montage representing the rugby codes (apart from the fact that they are hard to distinguish by means of a photograph, as opposed to video footage) is that there aren't any pictures at rugby league that could be included! It would be good for all the league fans here to put a bit more effort into improving that article.

There aren't any pictures of Futsal, either, but even if there were it would be harder to justify considering it separately from soccer.

Anyway, the idea is to improve the article. If you have better pictures for the montage - upload them, and ff you have a specific criticism of some other part of the article, bring it up and stick to discussing that issue, rather than responding to whatever silly comments someone on either "side" has said on the talk page. JPD (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, there are barely any contributors to this talk page that are from Melbourne. JPD is in fact from Sydney, I'm from Canberra and I think Grant is from somewhere else again. There are some silly comments here, but JPD, not from me, surely!? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 20:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Factoid killer,

The scrum might not be irrelevant(arguably) but a scrum with breakaways is not Rugby League.

More and more people are seeing that the Victorian football supporters have a strange attitude to this which is not constructive to wikipedia.

"Aussie Rules" is no more an Australian variety of football than Rugby or Union and they seem to refuse to accept it. The montage, as J is me pointed out, is a farce.

Grant seems to be unable to make any sound argument above the AFL is the most popular League in Australia as far as I can understand which is at best only mildly relevant, and now a whole host of contributors are surely just taking the piss. I second fellow shire boy, the man from oz and say that we need to employ the services of a non Australian administrator interested in all forms of football to sort this out reasonably. All the best to all contributors

05:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Licinius

OK, let me repeat my opening comment: "The opening phrase could be a list of all football types, including:". Including is the key word. Now read the start of this argument again. Rogerthat ^Talk 11:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Conduct of the anti-Australian rules fraternity

It's interesting how Licinius, "Man from Oz" and "J is me" all make the very same mistake with their signature. If these "individuals" all try to vote in a poll, I will report it to administrators as a suspected case of sockpuppets. Along with any others I suspect of abusing user registration.

Pippu, you're right, I'm from Perth.

I bet the kids in Bomber or Lions jumpers in strongholds of the game like Hobart, Alice Springs, the Tiwi Islands, Papua New Guinea and Nauru couldn't give a fat rat's clacker where their game originated. And they certainly don't call it "AFL", "Victorian rules", "Melbourne rules" or any such name. Australian rules football is the full name recogised by both those who follow it (who outnumber the followers of any other sport in Australia) and by non-followers in other countries. If the detractors of Australian rules have a coherent argument against the international historical significance of Australian rules, I have yet to hear it. I will argue with them when they come with something other than the fact the game originated in Victoria. Grant65 | Talk-

A Game of Our Own

For those who doubt that Australian rules football does not deserve a decent mention in this article, allow me to quote from the renowned Australian historian, Geoffrey Blainey: Of the main codes of football played in the world, Australian Rules is one of the oldest. By the normal definition of age, it is older than American football or Gridiron, older than Rugby League, older than the modern version of Gaelic Football from which it is widely said to have been descended, a little older than Association Football or Soccer, but younger than Rugby. Few of the world's famous football clubs, irrespective of the specific code they play, are as old s the senior Australian football clubs such as Melbourne, Geelong and Carlton. Even young clubs in the Victorian Football League such as Fitzroy and Footscray are older than any football club in such celebrated sporting nations as Italy and Germany and Argentina.

I know from personal experience that rugby diehards from either rugby code have trouble with this notion: they have trouble believing that Aussie rules was codified in 1859 and that Melbourne Football Club, formed in the same year, is older than virtually every other football club of any code on Earth. So for an article that is about the origins of the modern football codes, and their early inter-connectedness, Aussie rules has an important place in that. Also, remembering that the initial tension of the early forms of football was between running with the ball and kicking it, Australian and Gaelic football occupy an interesting middle road between these two early footballing philosophies, and thus a discussion on football generally is not complete without them. But don't take my word for it, I encourage you to do your own research. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 09:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I would dispute your comment, older than rugby league-It should be older than "the" rugby league. Which is irrelevant anyway. Age is no indicator of prominence otherwise there would be a section dedicated entirely and purely to the Sheffield club. It is no more Austrlaian football than Rugby, though rugby be international and supported.

12:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Licinius

Anyway the issue is that AFL is too prominent and needs to be downgraded. It is irrelevant for the most part to the developement of the more popular international codes of football and the NFL, which is what most English speakers associate with the word football and is what this article should be more about. Again I call for a non-Australian person interested in all codes of football to help re-write this.

12:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Licinius

• Please do some research on the state of football in the 1850s, and then come back and chat here because you will soon understand the prime position Australian rules has in the history of the modern football codes. This is an article about football generally - it is not an article about the world's most popular football (which we all accept is soccer). Association Football has its own article. The genesis of all the modern football codes is in what was happening amongst the English public schools of the 1850s and the tension between the two main philosophies. Aussie rules is a direct child of this period - its founders were all educated in the English public school system so they brought back with them some knowledge of all the various rules, including Rugby, and it shows - that is what makes it of interest in a history on football (generic term). I simply ask you to compare what was happening in 1859 in terms of Aussie rules (codification of the rules and formation of the Melbourne Football Club - events of which original documents survive to the present day) and what was happening anywhere else in the world regarding any football code you care to mention. That's what makes Aussie rules of historical interest. If you can find anything else of interest happening in 1859 - please include it in this article - we will eagerly accept it! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 13:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• I have just had a reread of this article and I do not understand why you think Aussie rules is so prominent - I simply cannot see it. In terms of the history of football, it rightly makes and early appearance after the public school forms I have mentioned - but that is its rightful spot in terms of history. And can you honestly tell me that it is a large section? Please reread the article and tell us which parts are too prominent. As for the picture - it shows a football game from 1866, and as someone else has rightly observed, a representation of any football game from that period would look similar - none of the early versions are anything similar to their modern counterparts. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 13:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)