Talk:Association football

FIFA did not 'officially' Recognize Cuju

If you're referring to the 2004 news article about Cuju on FIFA Magazine, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say FIFA recognized it as the earliest form of football. It was not an editorial or an official document, and was written by a professor of Oriental Studies (the German Helmut Brinker) as a piece of trivia and entertainment. The same can be said about the current article calling Britain the "home of football", which is certainly more accurate, but still, not an editorial by FIFA, just a piece of news trivia.

This English Wikipedia about Association Football also alleges that FIFA recognized it as the earliest form of football, but the given reference page is broken, and I couldn't find any screening on "Wayback Machine" of a previous version showing it.

That said, I think we should be aware that every sport is a potential object of geopolitical dispute, which includes the creation of those foundational myths. Neither the east-asian nor the mesoamerican sports were football, and calling them so is an anachronism.

Regardless, I think the "officially recognize" part should be deleted. Because it is not, and it is embarrassing to have this on the Wikipedia article of the most relevant sport on Earth.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2021

it is missing some details on her past life POlopgman (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Arising independently across multiple cultures

Kicking ball games arose independently multiple times across multiple cultures. The Chinese competitive game cuju ... resembles modern association football. ... Other games included kemari in Japan and chuk-guk in Korea.

This seems a little problematic, as the implication is that the multiple examples are ball games that "arose independently multiple times across multiple cultures", especially given that the Korean and Japanese games are given separately from the Chinese one with no reference to the possibility of a single Chinese origin. I don't actually know a lot about this topic so I recognize the possibility that these games were all developed independently, but their names seem to be identical in writing, and given the lack of substantial written records in either Korea or Japan until well after the Han Dynasty (206 BCE – 220 CE), [when] cuju games were standardised and rules were established it seems difficult to prove one way or the other.

So wouldn't it be better to specify at the top that the section lists examples of football-like games in various cultures regardless of whether they developed independently, or at least name the Japanese and Korean ones in the same paragraph as the Chinese one?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the point about the Japanese and Korean games is that they developed independently of association football. Too many people think that soccer is based on cuju, so we need to specify that it’s an unrelated but similar game. – PeeJay 11:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020 review and FA concerns

Hi editors, I reviewed this article for WP:URFA/2020, a working group dedicated to reviewing and fixing up older featured articles. I am concerned that this article might not meet the featured article criteria in its current state and needs some updating. My concerns are outlined below:

• The history section does not have many events from the 2000s, and no 2000s events for women's football. Are there major events in association football that should be included?
• I found this statement: "At a professional level, most matches produce only a few goals. For example, the 2005–06 season of the English Premier League produced an average of 2.48 goals per match." Is this still the case in 2022?
• There are lots of sentences at the end of paragraphs and sometimes whole paragraphs that do not have citations. For example, the first and second-to-last paragraphs of the international section are uncited, and the last sentence in "Off-field" needs a citation.

Is anyone interested in addressing these concerns? Z1720 (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Going to leave a few items from the 20th and 21st centuries that need to be covered:

• Substitutes officially added to the Laws of the Game in 1958; allowed in World Cup beginning in 1970
• Red and yellow cards introduced in 1970
• Penalty shoot-outs introduced in 1970, later experimented on in the U.S. by NASL and MLS
• Reforms to the offside rule in 1990
• Back-pass rule added in 1992
• Golden goal's short-lived existence from 1993 to 2004
• Goal-line technology and VAR sanctioned in the 2010s
• Increased player valuations and the need for financial limits on European clubs
• COVID's effects on the sport, including the fifth substitute and rescheduled tournaments

Not sure if I'll have time to add these in, but I figured it'd be useful to have some notes for someone else to start on fixing the section. SounderBruce 21:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

"Football(soccer)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Football(soccer) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 6#Football(soccer) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• For commenters, note that this relates to the redirect Football(soccer) with NO SPACING. Not Football (soccer). Nanonic (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Editorial Error

“The objective of the game is to score more goals than the opposition by moving the ball beyond the goal line into the opposing side's a rectangular framed goal.”

Should be changed to:

The objective of the game is to score more goals than the opposition by moving the ball beyond the goal line into the opposing side's rectangular framed goal.

The omitted “a” is a grammatical error and needs to be removed. 24.9.184.48 (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2022

Please remove this statement:

Goal line technology is used to measure if the whole ball has crossed the goal-line thereby determining whether a goal has been scored or not; this was brought in to prevent there being controversy.

and add this one:

Goal line technology is used to measure if the whole ball has crossed the goal-line thereby determining whether a goal has been scored or not; this was brought in to prevent controversy.

"there being" makes the sentence sound unusual. It sounds like the sentence says that the technology exists to prevent controversy arising, and "there being" is unnecessary for that. 175.39.61.121 (talk) 09:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done 💜  melecie  talk - 10:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2022

balls are normaly size 5 Jarrayeet (talk) 07:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Whose goal is it, really?

The article says "The two teams compete to get the ball into the other team's goal". To Association football fans, this will seem perfectly correct and logical, but when looked at from outside the game, it's actually quite confusing. In normal English, YOUR goal is something you are aiming for. The opposite is true in football language. You aim for what is described as your opponent's goal. You try to stop the ball going into your own goal. This a global encyclopaedia. We should write in language that is clear to someone not used to the jargon of the game. There must be a better way of writing that sentence at the beginning of this comment, but I'm struggling. HiLo48 (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it's clear enough, as in this case "goal" isn't alluding to an unspecified objective, but to the literal goalposts of each team. In that sense, if one team were to say "defend our goal" they would be referring to their own goalpost and not to the opponent's. It follows that the other team's goal must be the goalpost they're aiming to get the ball into. Even if you take the literal definition of "goal", the sentence would make no sense as you can't "get a ball" into some shared abstract objective that is also the place the other team is aiming for. What would that look like, like playing basketball with only one basket?

Maybe rephrasing to the opposite team's goal would help a bit? Or clarifying that each team has a goal of their own, in the sense of the structure consisting of two posts and a bar located at the end of their side of the playing field. Of course, such a description that tries to get rid of every possible ambiguity could get quite lengthy. NicoSkater97 (let's talk!) 03:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

"Each team attempts to get the ball into a goal defended by the other"? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Let's not overthink this. The current wording hardly takes an above-average IQ to decipher. – PeeJay 14:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Really? Because, I agree with Hi-Lo, if I am trying to get something into somewhere, that somewhere is my goal. Not someone else's. Is soccer (or sports in general) really this illogical? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)