Talk:Football

Archives
Talk:Football/Archive 1 Talk:Football/Archive 2 Talk:Football/Archive 3 Talk:Football/Archive 4 Talk:Football/Archive 5 Talk:Football/Archive 6 Talk:Football/Archive 7 (Australian rules debates) Talk:Football/Archive 8 Talk:Football/Archive 9

AFL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Argument

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

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

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

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

Why continue the obtuse and wrong argument?

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

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

Mediæval football and mob football

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

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

Irish and Australian varieties ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proper cites required

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

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

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

Football in non-English speaking countries?

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

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

Merger request

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

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

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

Increasing vandalism

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed new main image

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

File:Football3.png

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

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

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

Second version

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

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

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

Proposed External Link

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

• The Price of a Point by Paul Niquette

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

additional info needed

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

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

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

Soccer V Football

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

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

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

Page structure and order

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

Nothing personal to the aussies!

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

thanks

Rick

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

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

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

Proposed External Link

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

• The Price of a Point by Paul Niquette

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

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

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

Popularity and globalisation

Could something more be said about the remarkable popularity and global appeal of football games, in particular soccer? The article currently doesn't account for the following distinctive features of football:

1) As a proportion of the world's population, the viewing figures for the (soccer) World Cup Final are staggering, dwarfing any other sporting event - Where does this global appeal come from? What features of the game generate such massive spectator interest, even in countries such as Japan and Thailand where there is little or no history of professional football?

2) Throughout Europe and South America, interest in soccer is far greater than for any other sport, including other types of football - Why is this?

3) In most English-speaking parts of the world, if soccer isn't the dominant sport then another code of football is either top or in the top tier of culturally important sports - Why is this? Does it provide a visual spectacle that other team sports don't perhaps?

4) Why are sports of British origin such as cricket and non-soccer football games so popular in former British colonies at the relative expense of soccer, whereas throughout the rest of the world soccer has been a far more successful export? Did other games arrive first and crowd out soccer?

Also,

Early history

Throughout the history of mankind, the urge to kick at stones and other such objects is thought to have led to many early activities involving kicking and/or running with a ball. Football-like games predate recorded history in all parts of the world, and thus the earliest forms of football are not known.

should be deleted - it's not only unsourced, but also (by definition) entirely speculative.

--Will129 13:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Will129

1) and 2) should be in the Soccer article not here 3) speculative and point of view 4) arrived first, the discussion of whether cricket is popular at the expense of soccer in India etc is quite out of the scope of this article.GordyB 13:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Gordy's right. FWIW I think point 4 is the key to the others. When soccer, cricket and rugby were invented in the late 19th century, the British Empire was the leading economic, military and cultural power. Victorian Britain was also a culture which highly valued recreation and physical exercise. It's a little like the spread of American movies and music in the 20th century. Soccer had practical appeal in that it could be played in a few hours (unlike cricket) and did not usually result in severe injuries (unlike rugby, especially the early forms). The injury issue was a big thing as most sports were strictly amateur or poorly paid and players could not afford to take time off work. India was an old British colony and the first recorded cricket game there was in 1721, which probably gave it head start of 150 years on soccer. Grant65 | Talk 19:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Victorian Britain valued sport more than other cultures because back then Britain was sufficiently developed that even working class people had leisure time whereas Poles, Italians, Mexicans etc did not.

Cricket is well adapted to the climate of India (ironically England has one of the least cricket-friendly climates), but soccer and rugby are not.GordyB 21:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Soccer is very popular in a lot of former British colonies, especially those in Africa.These were the countries colonized after the invention of association football in 1863.

Those colonies didn't receieve a lot of British settlers. Most Ghanians probably never saw a Briton. It is not surprising that they didn't adopt the British sports of cricket and rugby union. Rugby union was invented after soccer so its popularity in NZ etc has nothing to do with the date of colonization.GordyB 14:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, there were a lot of European settlers in southern and east Africa but those countries are at least as famous for rugby as soccer. Also, Rugby was invented before soccer, since it was codified at Rugby School in 1845. From memory there were already something like 75 rugby clubs in Britain when the RFU was founded in 1870, not to mention some in other countries. See Oldest football club.Grant65 | Talk 17:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Anglo settlers were more interested in cricket than rugby. Kenya and Zimbabwe don't have all that much of a rugby culture, the popularity of rugby in South Africa is because the Afrikaaners took it up.GordyB 21:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hybrid Codes

As far as I knew, International rules football was a hybrid code, just like Austus and Universal football. What makes it belong in the Irish and Australian varieties of football. it has been around for less than 50 years and has no leagues or clubs of any substance. --Spewmaster 01:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It belongs there because it is a hybrid of Gaelic and Aussie rules, which are the main games in that "family". The reason why it has no clubs or leagues it that it exists only for games between the two codes. Its significance is had to dispute when you consider that this year it set a crowd record for international sport in Ireland, with 82,127 people at Croke Park. Grant65 | Talk 03:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Replace 1850s section

Would anyone object to the "Other developments in the 1850s" being replaced with a section on the rise of club football. I suggest this because it has become a poor section where general facts about the decade seem to collect. Meanwhile the rise of club and inter-club football is completly ignored. It was clubs which subsequently pushed for common codes, created the FA and gave rise to paying spectators and ultimatly professionalism. Documenting this specific part of the culture rather than a random decade would improve the article. josh (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the facts collected there are important, and would be totally opposed to them being deleted. They could possibly be better organised. The rise of clubs is covered pretty well by Oldest football club and the earliest clubs in each code are also mentioned in this article. Grant65 | Talk 15:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

soccer versus Association Football

I've changed 'soccer' to 'Association football' in quite a few places. Association football is the official name of the sport whereas soccer is just a name some people use. A lot of people especially in Britain dislike the word 'soccer' or at least, like me, feel that it is not an encyclopaedic word. I don't think that Americans would like 'gridiron' as a heading.GordyB 15:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It's beside the point whether Americans would like gridiron as a heading; the fact is, a lot of people, both those who know the game simply as "football" and those who know the game simply as "soccer", have never heard of "Association football". Soccer is both the official name and the common name in the USA and Canada, and many people in those and other countries would be bemused to be told that the word is "slang " or somesuch. Hence the formulation "football (soccer)". We need to bear in mind the terms that many of our readers know. 17:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the problem with an international Wiki, but i must agree with the point above, the article formation should remain 'Football (Soccer)'.--81.153.228.84 12:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is the Wiki page on Football all about Soccer? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.144.62.37 (talk • contribs) January 17, 2007.

Not much of the article is about soccer. Grant65 | Talk 06:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Because Football IS Soccer. Soccer is just a different name. You hit the ball with your sock/foot/shoe in soccer don't you? Go to England and go watch a football game. I personally despise the sport, I'm not complaining about it's existance am I? (No offence intended) --Michael Betts 17:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Soccer is not the name of the sport. The sport is called 'Association football' by any UK encyclopaedia or similar work and that is its official name. If as Grant says this name is not well known in some countries then I will accept that and let the matter drop.GordyB 18:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What nonsense are some of you speaking on here? seriously? soccer is NOT football. The sport is founded and created as FOOTBALL. soccer is what the americans and canadians call it in ignorance. you notice all the FOOTBALL clubs all have FC in their names? Manchester United FC,FC Internazionale,Real Madrid CF etc.

Also note that FIFA contains no 's'.Recently a very stupid person has told me the F in FIFA stands for federation. Very good sunshine what do you think the other F stands for? FOOTBALL FIFA is the world governing body and they never use the s word. Look at Europe as well. UEFA not UESA. Infact all the other federations in the world use football barring 2.

It really doesn't matter if an Englishman came up with the word 'soccer' he didn't invent the sport and thus he cannot change the name of it. Worse yet no one in England or the UK uses it anyway. So please do not tell me any rubbish about 'soccer' is football. If you are an american or canadian frolicking in the ignorance and calling it soccer then that is very sad but the sport is called football.

No one calls hockey,curling,basketball or any of those lesser sports any other name. So show respect to the world's greatest sport and call it by its ONLY and PROPER name of FOOTBALL.

vNistelrooy9 21:05, 18 January 2007

It is not true that nobody in the UK uses the word 'soccer'. I do so from time to time, I just don't think it an encyclopaedic word. Also in the North of England, 'FC' are often rugby league clubs e.g. Hull FC whereas the local soccer team are Hull City A.F.C.. A lot of Northern clubs are 'AFC' to avoid confusion with rugby which was called 'football' by Victorians. The official name of the sport is 'Association football', FIFA means internation federation of association football.GordyB 07:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You are also wrong about 'hockey', what we in England call 'hockey' is 'field hockey' in lots of other countries to avoid confusion with 'ice hockey'.07:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr van Nistelrooy - if I'm not mistaken, FIFA is an acronym of a French name, and this is actually the English wikipedia. Now even if Canadians and Americans are as ignorant as you claim, the mere fact that they continue to use the term soccer is quite relevant because of the sway they have in the English speaking world, remembering that this is an English language wikipedia. Gordy is correct that that the official name of the sport in England was always Association Football. Finally, I give you this quote from the Macquarie dictionary (Australian usage):

football

  /'footbawl/.
  noun
      1. any game in which the kicking of a ball has a large part, as Australian Rules, Rugby Union, Rugby League,
  soccer, American football, etc.
      2. Chiefly WA, SA, Victoria and Tasmania Australian Rules football.
      3. Qld, NSW
            a. Rugby League.
            b. either Rugby League or Rugby Union.
      4. Chiefly British soccer.
      5. the ball used in any of these games.
      6. Colloquial an amphetamine pill.
  Also, Colloquial, footy.
  Usage: While it is still the case that in general use soccer is the preferred term in Australia for what most of
the   world calls football, the fact that the peak body in Australia has officially adopted the term football for 
this   sport will undoubtedly cause a shift in usage.

In short, rather than discuss your own personal beliefs and preferences, you have to discuss what is actually used right across the English speaking world, remembering that this is the English language wikipedia. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 07:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Soccer I think barely falls under the football category but does for one tiny reason. Goalkeepers keep the ball on foot for some point in time. Obviously it is certainly not a commen name for it outside of Britain in the English speaking world, and even in England, it is only in the past 50 years that football has come to mean exclusively soccer upon most mentions of the word. [3] Never had much contact eh? --Nomoreofthat 09:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Nomore, what is the reason for the reference to my talk page? Just curious, cheers Grant | Talk 05:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

vNistelrooy9, as the "very stupid person" who pointed out to you that the first F of FIFA stands for federation, I would like to remind you that I only did this because you said "it's not sifa". Since you were so keen to call North Americans ignorant, I thought you should bother to get it right yourself. I also pointed out to you that FIFA is in French, and so not relevant to the English language, but you seem to have ignored that. Do you think we shoudl call swimming "natation" becaus there is no S in FINA?

The fact is that many English speakers in different parts of the world don't jsut call it "football". If you read the article, you will learn that association football was never the only game that used the name football. That means that other names need to be used. Association football is the most formal name, soccer is another. It is not "incorrect", it is simply another name. While many people may be ignorant, the name "soccer" is used even by those who seem to know more than you, and in some places is not the slang word it is in England (where I have seen it in newspaper headlines), but used in official names.

Finally, please stop and look at what you are doing to the article. You are not only removing uses of "soccer" in the text and replacing it with the ambiguous "football" rather than "association football" which would be a reasonable change, you are also blindly undoing other people's improvements to the article which have nothign to do with this issue, and worst of all, removing "soccer" from link targets that don't even show up in the text, meaning that links are broken, wrecking the article. JPD (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

yea yea yea you fucking dunce. since the first F in FIFA doesnt stand for football what does the second one stand for? you fucking ignorant pig shit. and dont try that bullshit about the word 'soccer' came from England. so what? do they or anyone else bar the ignorant canada and us use it? NO. so shut the fuck up and don't bring that horse shit arguement to me. the sport is FOOTBALL so take your rinky dink arguements and shove it you cunt. Whether association football or football its still NOT soccer so please do not bring that garbage to me or to anyone else.

whoever brought up the HULL AFC great its still not soccer and that word is still not acceptable. Football International Federation Association bitch. the word 'soccer' is not used by intelligent people to describe the sport but clearly some of you here are not.

vNistelrooy9

I would have thought that someone who was calling two whole countries ignorant would bother to get their facts straight and actually read what other people have written. You're still getting FIFA wrong, haven't answered my question about FINA, and are ignoring the fact that some English people and many Australians, New Zealanders and who knows who else do use the word "soccer". You haven't yet given one reason why "that word is not acceptable", even though others have managed to give a reasonable argument. Saying that intelligent people don't use it just displays your own ignorance, as does the fact that you haven't discussed this in a civil way, and still haven't learnt how to make your changes to the article without destroying it. JPD (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm an Aussie soccer fan. Virtually all Aussies (outside of soccer administrators, some journalists and Euro expats) call it soccer. The same goes for New Zealand. South Africans usually call it soccer, but also call it football. Ireland is split between people calling soccer "football" and those that call Gaelic football "football". It is almost certain that a majority of people who speak English as a first language say "soccer", especially since there are 300 million people in the USA, as opposed to 60 million in the UK.

And Federation International de Football Association means "International Federation of Association Football", not "International Football Federation" Grant | Talk 14:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously only unintelligent people can read French.GordyB 15:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What's the problem with football (soccer)? Clear and unambiguous, everyone knows what it means (unlike association football), and follow a general rule of first use being the unambiguous name for the code and all further uses can be simply "football" as we should all by then know what the article's about? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dibo (talk • contribs) 22:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Oh, and GordyB - you just called about 175 million people unintelligent! :P Dibo ^{T | C} 22:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wedderburn

I have added the original latin and the original english translation of the whole Wedderburn quotation to the page on British public schools. I have altered the sentence on the main football page because the original latin states "strike it here" (huc percute) and "strike again" (repercute). That is to say that the word "pass" is not used explicitly. (one might want the ball to be hit here for other reasons than the modern concept of passing the ball during play). It should also be noted that Carew's account of Cornish Hurling categorically described passing the ball from player to player (dealing) and this predates Wedderburn.

The 1602 Carew quote also refers to goalkeeping, which again predates Wedderburn.