Talk:Football

Template:V0.5 i like cookes

This article uses British English dialect and spelling. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

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 Talk:Football/Archive 10 Talk:Football/Archive 11

Gaelic Football

Sections 2.2.10 and 3.1 ought to be ammended. Firstly, Ireland ought to be included in those countries listed whereby football (often) refers to another sport other than Association Football (Soccer). In rural areas, the term Football soley refers to Gaelic Football and the Irish media use a convention whereby Association Football is referred to as 'Soccer' and Gaelic Football as just that.

The origins of Gaelic Football predate the 19th Century as the post implies. This addition ought to be made:

The first mention of football in Ireland is found in 1308, where John McCrocan, a spectator at a football game at Newcastle, County Dublin was charged with accidentally stabbing a player named William Bernard.

The Statute of Galway of 1527 allowed the playing of "foot balle" and archery but banned "'hokie' [sic] — the hurling of a little ball with sticks or staves" as well as other sports. However even "foot-ball" was banned by the severe Sunday Observance Act of 1695, which imposed a fine of one shilling (a substantial amount at the time) for those caught playing sports. It proved difficult, if not impossible for the authorities to enforce the Act and the earliest recorded inter-county match in Ireland was one between Louth and Meath, at Slane, in 1712.

The first references to the nature of play was in 1670: the ball may be held and struck either hand or foot. Often referred to as peil (see modern Peil Gaelach).

Football was thought to have been introduced into Ireland by the Normans in the 12-13th centuries and was predominantly played in the south and east of the country. There were no references to Football in the Brehon Laws (Fénechas).

Caid refers not to a specific code of football but the equipment used i.e. the ball. The Field Game as it was played in Kerry was the principal basis for that code of football played by the Limerick club, Commercials, upon which Maurice Davin is thought to have drawn inspiration. It was a pitch-based, field game composed of two opposing teams that took turns defending a 'goal', which comprised the boughs of two stripped trees tied to one another in the characteristic 'H'. Different scores were indicated depending upon whether the ball was driven above or below the bar.

Gaelic Football is similar to Australian-Rules Football, although their common origin is disputed. What is not in dispute, however, is that the Irish of Victoria played football (noted in 1843). Also, most Irish convicts at that time were either Rebels (or their descendents) from the 1798 Rebellion and thus predominantly from the south-east of Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martan32 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong

Please do not feed the trolls.

"football" is used in english-speaking countries to refer to a sport. The greater percentage of that population lives in the USA or Canada - where "football" means the contact sport involving two teams of 11 players each. Thus, because this is in the English Wikipedia, this page should explain that sport - not soccer. Failing that, a disambiguation page should be used.

i aggree with this. there should be two pages

Olulade (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing quite like flogging a dead horse is there? Grant | Talk 14:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely correct...this is a dead horse issue, but those "soccer" fans contuinue to argue that here at Wikopedia, soccer should be known as football. Not disgraceful of course, but annoying! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.114.80 (talk • contribs) 28 December 2007

When an english speaking user types in "football" - chances are (due to population numbers) he/she is not looking for soccer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.36.112.169 (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Did you look at the article first or just jump right in with the vandalising? It's actually about all types of football not just soccer. Also Canadian football has 12 players not 11. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The comments posted by 68.36.112.169 (talk) should be disregarded for a number of reasons.

• The number of english speaking people on this planet exceeds the number of people in english speaking countries, so the relative numbers of people in North America is not a reasonable indication of anything.

• Large numbers of people in the EU use english as a second or third language and if a subject is not adequately covered in sources available in their first language, they will will use the english wikipedia as a reference. They would not expect a Wikipedia page on football to only cover American football.

• The same goes for people in China, Japan, South America, etc. I wonder how many countries user 68.36.112.169 has visited and did he/she have to learn the language of that country, or did he/she find that there were people in those countries that spoke english?

Well, feel free keep wondering, but keep it to yourself. Please refrain from spamming your random musings on talk pages. 75.0.66.253 07:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Even if english speakers in North America (who may or may not be football fans) were the majority of english speakers, the English Wikipedia does not mean, The wikipeda for people from english speaking countries and all those funny people from countries that speak funny languages and eat funny food and worship funny gods should stay away... In wikipedia we must write articles from a Neutral point of view, which includes freedom from systemic bias, including Geographical Bias.

• User 68.36.112.169 is a vandal who has vandalised the Football page 5 times on 10 February 2007 (UTC), and is now attempting to put foward an argument to excuse his vandalism.

Disclaimer: Football does not generally mean association football (soccer), in my county either, but it would be absurd to have an Wikipedia article on Football without including association football (and others). --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 05:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Both arguments are quite strong. However:

While it is possible that there are more speakers of British English (and other forms that prefer "football = soccer"), this would only be the case if we were counting non-native speakers. And while I'm all in favour of the English Wikipedia being useful to non-native speakers, there is no logical reason why they should decide the location of articles ahead of native speakers. I mean even if I spoke/wrote fluent French or Japanese, I would still be hesitant to suggest how the French or Japanese Wikipedias could be better organised.

As far as English speakers in the EU are concerned, it is a myth that they overwhelmingly favour British usage. For instance, in German-speaking countries, soccer is füssball and "football" is used for American football. Similarly, if you Google for "soccer" on English language pages on .de, .fr, .it (etc) sites, you will get quite a few hits, because U.S. English is not uncommon in Europe.

I don't see how it REALLY matters. Seems like this whole discussion is not about names, but rather it's just a pretext for a fight between nationalities and sports. Everyone knows 'soccer' is the world's most popular sport, dwarfing American football by enormous numbers. The point about 'fussball' and 'football' is irrelevant: 'fussball' came first, then they needed a word for the american sport. It's true this is an English language encyclopedia, but it seems like it should be a factor that the majority of the world's languages' words for football are based on that word, rather than soccer.

And, to the comment above, you chose the country that's most influenced by American culture in Western Europe, that enjoys basketball and is even very remotely interested in American sports. I assure you that most countries would use the word that's most similar to their own language - FOOTBALL, and so would Germans if they didn't already have a word for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.84.215 (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

China is debatable, but I am reliably informed that Japanese speakers of English favour U.S. usage, and the Japanese word for association football is sakkaa (derived from soccer). I suspect that South Americans have also mostly learnt U.S. English, so the same goes there.

There is simply not enough information/evidence about non-native speakers to decide either way, which is part of the reason why this page is not simply about American football or soccer, and never will be. Grant | Talk 07:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am someone who spent over five years working in that particular industry and just because someone prefers 'movie' over 'film' and 'elevator' over 'lift' does not mean that they will favour 'soccer' over 'football'. The choice is mostly down to their first language, Spanish speakers are likely to say 'football' not 'soccer'.

It's still no reason to change the page, if the page was given over to one sport or another, we would still need to find a new name for this page. What better name exists for this page other than football?GordyB 13:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's an easy one...."soccer"!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.52.185 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I suspect it varies from country to country. Bear in mind the German usage of "football" I have quoted, and let me point out that someone who says fútbol or futebol in their own language, does not necessarily mean soccer if they say "football" when speaking English. Taking Google hits of Latin American sites as an example: "542,000 for soccer" site:.br" and "296,000 for football site:.br"; "206,000 for football site:.ar"; "189,000 for soccer site:.ar" and "199,000 for soccer site:.mx" and "90,500 for football site:.mx".

That says to me that Brazilians and Mexicans are likely to call the game "soccer" when speaking English, whereas Argentinians favour British usage. Some might consider that odd and/or ironic, but Argentina was long considered an anglophile country, prior to a certain disagreement in 1982. Grant | Talk 14:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Internet usage tends to be commercial. A lot of the 'soccer sites' seem to be trying to sell things to Americans. As for Argentinians, the old joke is that an Argentinian is an Italian who speaks Spanish and would like to be English.GordyB

Interesting info. "Fußball" is literally "football" in German, meaning soccer, whereas they have taken the English "football" into German as a "foreign word" for American football. There is or was a tabletop soccer game call "foosball" that was popular in the USA a couple of decades ago. "Fútbol" is what soccer is called in Spanish, a "spanishized" transliteration of "football", and the foreign word "football" is also used in Spanish. In French, supposedly "football" as a foreign word is used for soccer, and "football americain" is used for American football. If there isn't already such a section or article, maybe there could be one, of the different names for this family of games in various languages. Wahkeenah 10:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

See football (word) Jooler 10:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

And football (soccer) names. Grant | Talk 15:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Roger. It occurs to me there's a fair amount of overlap in those articles, as well as with the football article. Seems like overkill somehow... too many words. Maybe that situation will fix itself over time. Wahkeenah 15:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It also occurs to me that this is vaguely analogous to the term "corn". Cereal grains are grown all over the world, and the main grain of a given country is usually called "corn". In the US it's varieties of maize. In the UK, as I understand it, it's wheat or rye... and so on. Basically you have the same situation. "Football", by itself, is the predominant version of football in a given country. In the US, it's American football. In Canada, it's Canadian football. In the UK and Europe and Latin America and so on, it's "soccer football", a longer version of the term that isn't used much nowadays, but it serves to distinguish the name. I guess poor li'l old Rugby isn't the predominant football game in any country. That's the way things go. Wahkeenah 15:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Rugby union is the national sport in Wales, New Zealand and many of the Pacific Islands. Grant | Talk 16:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Whenever I think of Rugby, I think of a couple of bumper stickers I used to see around campus: "Give blood... play Rugby!" and "To play Rugby you need leather balls!" Why the women's Rugby team had that second one, I don't want to know. Wahkeenah 16:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not vote? Leotolstoy 22

17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this not a pretty irrelavant string to this conversation. Officially there is not one single sport on the planet that can be called true football. The original game fragmented as it spread around the world. The term football, as the article correctly points out, refers to a collection of sports which each have their own codes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainbeecher (talk • contribs) 23:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As to whether or not Football should be called Football or Soccer, I think that it should be called the latter. Football was a name given to the sport long before soccer and as the Americans didn't even invent the sport I think that they should not be allowed to start naming it. The only logical reason as to why they call it soccer is because using football in their country would suggest 'American Football'. Well sorry but I'm not bloody American and I don't play/watch American Football so I'm going to continue to use Football. Europeans seem to share a similar frame of mind when choosing which name, German's (as mentioned above, somewhere.. ##!?) call it Fussball, literally translated as Foot ball. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

More flogging of a dead horse: A. Americans represent an absolute majority of native speakers of English, so whatever you, I or the whole of Wikipedia does is not going to affect the way that most native English speakers us the language; B. its not just Americans who call it soccer anyway; C. an Englishman invented the word soccer; D. Germans are a bad example for your case, as they also use "football", as a loanword, for American football (see German Football League). Grant | Talk 20:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fully agreed, I use football and don't like the word soccer. However, I also fully realise that it is not just the United States that uses soccer. It's not as if the word is not even used in the UK. See Soccer AM and Soccer Saturday. But as you point out this is flogging a dead horse, and not only that a dead horse whose carcass is infested with worms. The last real debate in this topic took place nearly a year ago.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Rugbys not a footballThisMunkey (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You are simply wrong, rugby (both kinds) does call itself football and I'll give you as many references as you like.GordyB (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it's absurd to say that rugby or rugby league are not called football. The reason that "soccer" is used instead of "football" in New Zealand and Australia is precisely for that reason—there are several codes that can go by that name. - Shudde ^talk 22:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to acknowledge how mistaken I was about what rugby gets called and its very obvious that these uses of the word football will continue but that doesn't mean they are being represented correctly on this wiki page.
Acknowledging information correctly is next on order of importance as providing information at all which is a blindingly obvious importance on this talk page where every one has something to say about the name of football. That has to indicate some thing unclear. Leotolstoy suggests a vote and my opinion is that undisputed information can be made out without the dispute.
I am pointing out the absurdity (thanks to the Shudde for the word) of misleading description. You might not appreciate it.
The game of Gaelic Football closely follows a foot ball game being that the foot and the ball are required in the game play. The rules are to carry the ball but you must use your foot. It is basically a high contact, hand ball game but the foot is required by rules and is most commonly used to attempt scoring but the contact rules are much less permissive than other rugby style games. Aussie rules might be in between Gaelic and Rugby regarding contact rules(or at least they seem to be when they are playing Gaelic rules).
Who knows the rules of rugby and would finish a try with the ball on your foot? No you wouldn't know the rules then. Hand ball is not only permitted but the rule is hand on ball or no score. I didn't have to look it up. I learnt it. Foot is allowed and free kicks seem to be taken with the foot but aside of mobility, foot is not such an essential part of the game play otherwise. I don't know if you can score between the bars with out a free but that will be irrelevant for this. The other rugby style games also require foot in some large part but are primarily hand ball wrestling games. This is relevant in any description therfore should be acknowledged on this page (it is not and that lacks something fundamental).
The fact they display their inspiration from football in the sport names and even the name of the ball should not be misrepresented or discarded as it is like displaying their colours and those games are a big part of sport as we know it.
Football is, surprisingly, unique in this variety of football games that it uses the foot and the ball primarily with rules governing contact and obstruction. This is considered extremely distinctive and requires ackowledgement. Hands are allowed in football for goal keeping but this fits into the game without lessening the basis distinguishing the styles.
Football is the primary of these sports in popularity and history (look through the page for instance) and so inspiring in this regard that hand based ball sports worldwide are most often named (regional) foot ball. Some exceptions including basketball (with the basket), baseball (bases), volleyball (volley the ball), cricket (er..ribbet), and handball itself. It is an indicator of fond the esteem of the football basis and should be treated as such and acknowledged boldly.
Some refer to a game of football and some refer to a game with a football. Rugby style football games are based on a form of wrestling. It seems that until these sort of facts are acknowledged around this page people are going to dispute its contents. Wrestling with a football - it's as valid as any other style of game I can think of, wrestling, football, or anything bar racing. I can't imagine any lovers of these games being dissapointed with that description of them and the disputes here dont go much into wether or not football is football but rather wether rugby or such is football. That school of thought also has a place in acknowledgment on a correct and concise page (if not what is the point?).
The brief description 'These games involve:' does not acknowledge the contact style which distinguishes the games for any fan. That is absurd and incitful to provocation. Some people hear that obvious information is kept back and they fight and die hoping to correct it.
As for refering it as 'Association Football' it has to be acknowledged that these days that is old hat and it is and will be FIFA football (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) since a long time back and will be as far as anyone beleives so in this opinion. FIFA being represented only by a mention of 5 a side on this page only is not only piss poorly disappointing but it is misleading like the rugby relation. What about Masters Football? If these facts were made out correctly there would be less gripes on the page and it would be more apparent that soccer was a name to suit a non football area where football was not seen as the more common football sport. Grant should know that only the English can represent the vast majority of native English speakers and that the English language includes the word greeble picked out at random.
The issue of naming football as soccer only applies to informing people that football is the more widely accepted name. (or fus or fut or etc)
I am going to leave a quote from the FIFA page before considering minor interference in both pages regarding the language (just a little) and the lack of mention of FIFA (a very important addition not included) which would be much more suited to some moderator who is a good football boffin which I am not but it's nice to see the right links and the major stuff on the wiki pages.
And quote from the FIFA page:-
""FIFA Anthem

Since the 1994 FIFA World Cup like the UEFA Champions League FIFA adopts a anthem composed by the German composer Franz Lambert. This anthem also known like Fair Play Hymn term used by the Mexican TV sport commentator Enrique Bermudez de la Serna known like El Perro Bermudez. The FIFA Anthem or Hymn is played at the beginning of FIFA structured matches and tournaments such as international friendlies, the FIFA World Cup, FIFA Women's World Cup, and FIFA U-20 World Cup.""
 :::I am not saying that the wolf is on the dog page. I am sayin that the munkeys are bein called apes by the scientists.ThisMunkey (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You are labouring under several illusions, one is that the other types of football are derived from soccer - this is not the case; another is that football played with the hands was not in the original concept of football (which it was), thirdly you seem to think that the English have consistantly applied the word "football" to soccer which they have not and even today don't. I suggest you read the article from start to finish.

Your argument is what we would describe as original research which Wikipedia doesn't do. We aren't here to judge which sport deserves the name "football" and which does not.GordyB (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Gordy but read the wopping big comment I worked on or don't bother remarking as I put a deal of thought into it and below in addition are some quotes from respectable sites about the knowledge of ancient football games not corroborated here and I know of at least one definite respected part of human footballing history that is definitely not chronicled on this page but I wont mention any more I do not get a worthwhile reference to online.ThisMunkey (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to tell you more clearly that you are wrong than simply you are wrong. Football has never referred solely to soccer in any Anglo country even England. This has been debated to death in the past, you are hardly the first person to make this point. However the consensus has always been that neither "soccer" nor "American football" will have sole use of the term "football" on Wikipedia.GordyB (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is incorrect Gordy as it doesnt distinguish the styles of play and no matter what you call it football is very unique. That is more important on the page than wether or not to call rugby or american football. It doesnt acknowledge FIFA or the IFAB and the ancient histories of kicking a football as sport are at least incomplete. Football also fills the largest followings of any other sport in the world which is not plaeced importantly on the page. The page is biased against the existence of football with no hands in the gameplay although that is the dominant sport of the entire world. Who thinks it is not neccesary to include these things on the page?ThisMunkey (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Read original research.GordyB (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

And what you mean to say is that football has never refered solely to football. You may beg to differ but it boils down to the fact that the English did not invent the foot or the ball or the idea of kicking it. I have more respect for my feet and my balls than I do for protecting the pride of modern institutions when absolutely unnessecary. Neither FIFA or the IRB need to pretend they invented the foot or the ball. Come down off the horse and give it some hay.ThisMunkey (talk) 07:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC) http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/history/game/historygame1.html ThisMunkey (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"Football is an ancient game. Some 2,500 years ago the Chinese played a form of it called Tsu chu, in which they kicked a ball of stuffed leather. Natives of Polynesia are known to have played a variation of the game with a ball made of bamboo fibres, while the Inuit had another form using a leather ball filled with moss. However, much of the game's development came about in England where it was first known in the 12th century. It became so popular that kings, including Edward II and Henry VI, tried to ban it on the grounds that it distracted men from the necessary military duty of regular archery practice. Such edicts had little effect.

Varieties developed in England and in Europe (in 14th-century Florence there was a form called calcio). A traditional version in England was known as Shrovetide football, common in the Midlands and the north of England for centuries. Such games might involve hundreds of men on each side and were usually a free-for-all between sections of a town, villages, or adjoining parishes that would often develop into a brawl. Many schools played football and some, notably Eton, Harrow, Winchester, and Rugby, evolved codes of their own, particularly Rugby, which established a code from which others (American football, for example) developed. During the 19th century there were concerted efforts to organize and structure the different forms and provide acceptable rules. "
http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570265/Football.html /br>"The Greek 'Episkyros' - of which few concrete details survive - was much livelier, as was the Roman 'Harpastum'. The latter was played out with a smaller ball by two teams on a rectangular field marked by boundary lines and a centre line. The objective was to get the ball over the opposition's boundary lines and as players passed it between themselves, trickery was the order of the day. The game remained popular for 700-800 years, but, although the Romans took it to Britain with them, the use of feet was so small as to scarcely be of consequence. "

http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/history/game/historygame1.html
"Tlatchi was a game played by the Aztecs and some individuals have claimed that it is over 3000 years old. We cannot verify this but it is quite possible that the game was being played around 500 BCE. This would make it older than the Chinese game of Tsu Chu. However Tlachtli was more a mix of basketball, volleyball and football rather than just a forerunner of football. One key rule was that players could not use their hands, although they could use their heads, elbows, legs or hips(?).

The ruins of almost every ancient city include a walled court for the sacred game of Tlachtli. The courts were often close to temples, reinforcing the spiritual nature of the game. Tlatchi has been described as a spectator sport, an astrological study and a political engagement all at the same time. 

The sense of astrology comes from the fact that the Aztecs and particularly the priests felt that the movement of the rubber ball during the game symbolised the future path of the sun.

Great prominence was given to the mystic similarities between ball and sun.Only the ruling elite were allowed to watch the game and gambling on the outcome of the game was very popular. Money, clothes and even slaves were bet on games.

Tlachtli was played in a sunken stone walled court surrounded by fans. The court was normally an 'I' or 'H' shape with one stone ring at each end of the court. (The stone rings were similar to basketball hoops and were 8-10 feet off the ground. The actual hole was less than 30 cm wide.

The actual game involved passing the ball from side to side without it touching the ground. If the ball fell to the ground on the other side your team would win a point and vice versa (similar to volleyball.) If you struck the ball with an incorrect part of your body you could lose points for your team.

However the real purpose of the game was to get the ball through the hoop at each end. The team that did this first won, irrespective of the current score of the game.

Players were given kneepads and helmets to protect them from the heavy rubber ball, although this was only a temporary measure as the losers of the game were sacrificed to the gods!

"
http://www.footballnetwork.org/dev/historyoffootball/earlierhistory_3.asp
ThisMunkey (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Just one thing, someone previously said that in México Association football is called soccer, that is a lie, in Mexico and latinoamerica (in other countries I'm not as sure as I'm about Mexico but I'm quite sure) Association football is called futbol pronunced football, it may sound stupid but futbol is actually a correct and accepted word and is more often used to name Association football than soccer. This is a link to the royal academy of the spanish language dictionary http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltGUIBusUsual?TIPO_HTML=2&TIPO_BUS=3&LEMA=futbol that shows I'm telling the true, also if tou use google Mexico (searching in Mexican pages only) you'll find 262,000 results of soccer and 486,000 results of futbol. I don't know if this informations deserves to be in the article. I'm mexican and I'm sorry if made a mistake, my english sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.194.252.218 (talk) 04:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

They called it Flashball in 1974 but what do you call it?

So far as I can tell, the game they had us play in our physical education class in Clackamas High School in the North Clackamas School District in Oregon was called Flashball, and it doesn't seem to be discussed anywhere in Wiki, so I might as well pipe up here, and ask if anybody knows a game similar to it.

The game was superficially similar to American Football because of the use of the single prolate spheroid football, and the idea that points could be had, by taking it to the other side of the rectangular field, somehow, and getting it over the goal line. However, it permitted bouncing the ball, rolling the ball, passing the ball, smuggling the ball, and wrestling for the ball. 'Wrestling' means you had to punch or pry the ball out of the bearer's arms, sometimes with the assistance of a team member trying to twist the guy's arm away, to make him let go, and you only had up to the count of ten to do so. Tackling and tripping was permitted. It was a good idea to wear a helmet because it was a little rough. You didn't have to be the guy carrying the ball to be in danger of being tackled, as anybody could tackle anybody, even members of your own team. As for Rugby, I don't exactly understand the terms ruck or maul, so I will simply leave that term to others, so they can go back to those articles so they can describe those terms better.

For one thing, does Rugby or Gaelic Football have Referees who are supposed to count to ten (very loudly) when a battle for possession begins? Flashball does.

To start the game, the opposing teams lined up on opposite ends of the field. Then the Referee would walk out and into the middle of the field, and throw the football towards the team that had fewer team members (thus allowing uneven numbers of players to play against each other). Anybody could snatch it up, and take off running with it, hopefully making it through the opposing team as they gathered to take him down. More often than not, one or more opposing team members would take him down and attempt to bury the ball. But he could pass or bounce the ball out of harm's way, such that his comrades could pick it up, and take off running with it. The ball has to be buried till the count of ten, at which point the Referee declares which team was in "possession" of the ball. It helps to have reversible T-shirts because the Referee would say something like, "Blue has the Ball" or "Red has the Ball" depending on who had the ball more firmly immobilized. If the ball rolls out of the mass of wrestling players, the Referee shouted "Ball in Motion." If the ball comes to rest without any players in possession of it, then the Referee (after counting to ten) shouts out the name of the team most properly (that is, previously) in possession of the ball.

Aside from the initial throw of the ball by the Referee to the team that needed a break, the rest of the game was played by lining up the team members and hiking the ball, and then running it to the other side of the field. You generally don't line up to "hike the ball" until the Referee blows on his whistle, after which, any players who are still wrestling in some other part of the field (not realizing that they were no longer in possession of the ball) are supposed to stop what they are doing, and come line up for the hike.

As I understand it, dropping the ball and kicking it over the goalie line doesn't count for any points. You actually had to physically transport or carry the ball over the goal line for it to count.

If opposing players were to rush the ball before it was hiked, the Referee had authority to penalize that team, and make them backup 5 yards, and everybody had to line up again. Unnecessary roughness (like punching somebody in the ribs, when you were simply trying to punch the ball out of somebody's arms) was another reason for a penalty. (And similarly for "accidentally" spraining somebody's fingers when he won't let go of the ball, and two or three people are simultaneously trying to make him let go. If you have that many people wrestling for the ball, any sane man will toss the ball before it comes to that.)

It was okay to tackle anybody you wanted, this being an interesting ploy for a more numerous team to employ against a less numerous team, inasmuch as two players could be taken down for the price of one. Unlike Rugby, there was no duty to move away from the ball after tacking the bearer. The game goes fast enough, that it isn't always immediately clear which player has the ball. Having one Referee is mandatory, but having two Referees is even better. As I seem to recall, eight touchdowns (carrying the ball physically over the goal line, and touching it to the ground) made a game. 198.177.27.22 04:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your contribution. From a quick Google, the places where it was/is played seem to be pretty limited. Anyway, if you have good, reliable information on it, feel free to write a separate article and link it from the "Modern inventions and hybrid games" section of this article. Grant | Talk 11:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it is played at Clackamas High School anymore, as I was a graduate of the Class of '76. My gut feeling, however, is that the perception of tort liability on the part of the public school system (resulting from a student's suffering grievous harm) led to the game's eventual demise. Darn shame, as I really wish video records of the game had been made so they could be preserved for posterity, and maybe re-broadcast on cable tv. 198.177.27.11 06:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

In South America we keep it simple; Football for the real one, American Football, Australian Football. The name Soccer just sounds ridiculous. The English they teach here is the correct one (British) not American

Meterials

The football is made of mostly pigskin. Inside the football, there is a small but strong magnet. The magnet's purpose is to make sure the football never hits the feildgoal camera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.146.101 (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Association football

Can I have a reference from FIFA that shows that the name of the game is 'Association Football'? I dont trust British sources to be unbiased. If you guys dont have a source from FIFA, it would be more accurate to call the game Football.Rosiethegreat 21:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

We do not need a source to call the sport 'Association football', after all the NFL don't call their sport 'American football'. We can't exactly call both of them 'football'. But in any case FIFA stands for 'International Federation of Association football' (only in French).GordyB 21:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

From FIFA's Statutes (http://www.fifa.com/documents/static/regulations/statutes_08_2006_en.pdf): "Association Football: the game controlled by FIFA and organised in accordance with the Laws of the Game." and "Each Member of FIFA shall play Association Football in compliance with the Laws of the Game issued by IFAB."ReadingOldBoy 13:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

FIFA's Statutes are now at (http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/fifa_statutes_0719_en_14479.pdf)58.109.103.235 03:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No , FIFA stands for 'Fédération Internationale de Football Association' .If the Association actually came before the Football , it made some sense .But it doesnt - so the point of 'International Federation of Association Football ' is moot .

Coming to American football , only people in North america call it 'football ' .While I agree the official name of that sport is also football , the reality is that people outside of North America call it 'American Football ' to distinguish it from the more popular football .

Irrelevant, as it happens that this English language version of Wikipedia originates in the USA.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.52.185 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

i am still wondering where do people get the theory that 'Football' is called 'Association Football ' .Without a FIFA reference , its completely unacceptable to come up with such a name .Rosiethegreat 21:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not. One only needs a dictionary but since you insist I shall find a reference though it will not necessarily be a FIFA reference. As for your point about French - French word order is different to English. It's pointless defining French words in terms of English grammar. THe translation is correct as I gave it.GordyB 22:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the US Embassy to London[1] Association football is correct.GordyB 22:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Rosie - In FIFA It is not 'Associative football'. 'Association' is a noun in English. 'Association football' is a compound noun formed of two nouns like 'post office' or 'dinner guest'. In French it is also a compound noun but the order is reversed. CONCACAF stands for the 'Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean 'Association Football, The Football Association (after whom the sport is named) publish a book called Laws of Association Football, many clubs use AFC (for Association Football Club) in their names like Sunderland A.F.C. and Leeds United A.F.C. and hundreds of amateur clubs. Believe me there's more than enough "evidence" for this "theory". Jooler 23:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So now the big fight is why or whether or not soccer in parts of Europe is called Association Football. Who cares? As far as the relevant conversation (fight) is concerned, it's whether or not to use "football" in it's international usage (for "soccer"), or to resolve to use of "football" for the meaning of American football.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.52.185 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Associative Football - not to be confused with Commutative Football or Transitive Football. :) Wahkeenah 02:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Disassociative football? ;-) Grant | Talk 04:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a question maybe not entirely related but... it was brought up here. What do other countries refer to american football as? I mean you said they don't call it football, obviously, so do they just call it american football? XXLegendXx 15:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Usually yes, or Gridiron. In some countries in Europe, such as Germany, they use a local calque for soccer, such as fussball and use "football" for American football, as in Deutscher Fussball-Bund and German Football League. Grant | Talk 16:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe that people are asking for a reference in relation to the term "Association Football" - grab any reference book, dictionary or encyclopaedia - and it most likely will have at least once reference to Association Football. Look up any historical work that investigates the origins of the football codes and you will find a reference to Association Football. I have to be blunt here, it strikes me as incredibly stupid that anyone would question the validity of the term Association Football. For what it's worth, here is the entry copied directly out of the Macquarie Dictionary (unadulterated):

• • Football Association

  /'footbawl uhsohsee.ayshuhn/.
  noun
  the body responsible for the organisation and administration of association football in England.

πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 21:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The only people who want it changed from football to association football or soccer are people who hate the sport or resent its popularity. Aussiball Rules stats are completely insignificant in this debate anyway. There are only 16 professional teams on the entire planet. --202.47.51.73 19:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Not true. It has never been 'football' to my knowledge on Wikipedia. I like the status quo and I'm a Leeds United supporter.GordyB 20:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed? It has always been called soccer in American English, Australian English, Canadian English, Irish English, New Zealand English, and South African English. I'm an Aussie soccer supporter. I support the Socceroos. Grant | Talk 01:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Here in the USA we call it soccer because we already have a game called football. I'm neutral about soccer, but a lot of Americans love soccer, and they call it soccer for the reason just stated. Wahkeenah 02:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, this article is not for the purpose of debating which is the biggest, best and brightest form of football - it's about football in a generic sense. It covers the history of the football codes, most of which have a common or shared origin, and discusses where we are today in a generic sense - and it does it very well. Only people with a barrow to push would argue that that's not what should happen here. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 06:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, except that the debate over terminology speaks to article content. Wahkeenah 13:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Going back to the first point about the quantum of professional teams, I think there are no Gaelic Football professional teams on this planet - that does not mean it doesn't deserve a mention as a unique form of football. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 10:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Gaelic football is interesting in that the GAA strongly upholds amateurism in Ireland, but the New York GAA's domestic competition is semi-professional. Grant | Talk 04:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Native speakers of English throughout the world know what sport the term "soccer" refers to. However, the term "football" refers to too many different sports to be used in place of "soccer" in an international publication such as Wikipedia.Mathnarg 20:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What happened to this page

The previous format of this page was great and lots of people put a lot of work into it.... so what happened. I think it should be reinstated. Jd

That was vandalism. I restored it. Whythis page is the subject of so much vandalism is beyond me. Jooler 23:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It has become a football. Wahkeenah 03:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Anybody know how to get the page protected? The amount of vandalism is crazy.GordyB 07:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Saw this request on my watchlist, and I've semi-protected for a week. Requests for protection can be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (WP:RFP). Oldelpaso 09:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've requested semi-protection.GordyB 09:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, should have said future requests. I've already semi-protected it. Oldelpaso 10:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like permanent semi-protection because the vandalism is on-going and done by many different anonymous users. The content of this page is fairly near complete other than a lack of referencing and it is not really controversial. I've read the protocols on the page you've linked to but I can't see any way of getting permanent protection. Should I just request it after your temp protection expires or do I need to request temporary protection every week?GordyB 13:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) No, there's no permanent protection. Some high profile vandal-magnets (e.g. George W. Bush) are de facto permenantly semi-protected, but they are very much exceptions. I've not been an admin for long so I don't have much experience with protections, but if (or more likely when) the vandalism gets heavy again, you could probably request that it should be protected for a longer time, citing the previous history of vandalism. Oldelpaso 17:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've semi-protected it for 14 days, to have a little peace and quiet. -- Arwel (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

We finally have indefinite semi-protection!GordyB 22:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment on intro attribution to England

I had a minor concern on the following statement at the end of the first paragraph.

Many of the modern games have their origins in England, but many peoples around the world have played games which involved kicking and/or carrying a ball since ancient times.

I realize this statement is intended to be politically correct. Certainly it is true that England did not uniquely invent this type of sport and even England's inventions derive from sports originating in other places (this can be said of almost anything in any country). Nevertheless, my understanding is that everything in the world called "football" in English (and referred to by a phonetically similar word in other languages) came from England, at least indirectly. So it seems to me that this statement is unfairly politically correct, unless there is some aspect of the history that I am not aware of. Maybe the statement should be something like the following.

Although, games involving kicking and/or carrying balls have existed in many cultures, all modern games known in English as "football" derive from games that originated in England.

Just my opinion ... --Mcorazao 03:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The subject of the article is all football games and there were many traditional/pre-modern games which fed into the present day codes, although the extent of their influence is controversial. Grant | Talk 04:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your argument. What do you mean by "all football games"? Do you mean "all games that involve feet and balls"? Or "all cames that anybody in the world has ever called football"? Or "all games that are recognized by some some official body as football"? With any term you can find ambiguity. I tend to believe that, for the encyclopedia to be coherent, it should stick with definitions that are widely used and widely accepted. That is not to say it should be limited only to the single most widely used definition, but it should neither try to include every conceivable definition ever used in the history of mankind (except perhaps to make small mention of some of the alternatives in a small section at the end of the article). I believe the term "football" is widely accepted as referring to the games of English derivation (including the North American game, of course). Although occassionally some similar sports in other cultures are called "football" in very localized circles I have never heard of such a game being widely associated with this term.

Anyway, probably not important enough to make such a big deal about. I am not English, by the way, if it is not obvious from the way I write. I was just trying to be culturally respectful. --Mcorazao 16:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually my dictionary's definition starts with "any game in which the kicking of a ball has a large part". The thing is that saying the games "originated in England" is a very strong statement about games whose earliest history and influences are both complicated and obscured by time. We have to ask did the English forms of football strictly originate in England, or were they derived from games imported from other parts of Europe, even before considering how any effect of Marn Grook on Australian football fits in with such a statement, and so on. JPD (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Mob football probably did not originate in England but nobody knows for sure. The article I think does deal with this. Other than Gaelic and Australian rules, it is quite clear that football games were codified in England or in the case of North American varients were derived from English games. Aussie rules may well have had an English origin (controversial) and at the very least we invented the pitch. There is some suggestion that Gaelic football incorporates English style rules as well.GordyB 17:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The point I was alluding to is that the Irish-Australian "family" of codes has both English and non-English antecedents. I think everyone would agree with that, although the exact antecedents, and the nature of their contributions to each of the family members is controversial.

So I think that makes the present statement "Many of the modern games..." concise and correct. Grant | Talk 04:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As to Ozzie Rules, I am pretty sure that upon comparing the first known rules of Melbourne Football Club Rules with its contemporaries in England, notably the 1863 association rules, Cambridge Rules, Rugby rules and Sheffield football club rules, as well as the acknowledgement that the writers of the rules attended the most prestigious English private schools, notably Cambridge college and Rugby school, any sane and rational person would conclude that at least 95% of the original game has its origins solely in England. That is not exactly controversial. As examples, the original goalposts were identical to the goalposts in Cambridge Rules and the original soccer rules, the pitch dimensions (that now to seem to individualise Ozzie Rules) were originally in the dimensions Cambridge Rules, running with the ball was like such in Rugby and the marks were a universal feature of all the football codes at that point in time. There have been a good many innovations since, but I think the establishment of the game was almost entirely and conclusively English. So I therefore think that football of all codes has a finite origin in England(except maybe Gaelic, but I am unconvinced about Gaelic being "caid"). --144.132.216.253 10:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Though the history of the game of Football can be traced back to Europe, the game evolved in the U.S.A. and there is no mention of the advances in the game accredited to Americans.

What on Earth are you talking about?GordyB 23:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Further divergence of the two rugby codes

With the advent of full-time professionals in the early 1990s, and the consequent speeding up of the game, the five metre off-side distance between the two teams became 10 metres, and the replacement rule was superseded by various interchange rules, among other changes.

Which code is this referring to and is it true? --Philip Baird Shearer 12:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Rugby league (though the first part is only true of England; Australia already had full-time professionalism).GordyB 14:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't be, It was Union that became professional in early nineties. League had been professional in England for decades. Dainamo 12:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Union went pro in 1995 (about the same time as Super League). Rugby league permitted professionalism but only Wigan and Leeds had the money to be full-time professional; other teams had some pro players and others on part-time contracts.GordyB 14:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me clear that obvious one up. Rugby union paid their players through shamateurism etc. and rugby league with contracts. Neither of them were full time professionals except for mega teams like Brisbane. When Rupert Murdoch started the superleague concept, the payments guaranteed the players full time professionalism across the board for the first time. The NSWRU was forced to act because on this basis they would of lost all of their players as it was the first time that rugby league had the money to put the under threat. So within 2 weeks(from memory, maybe it was a little bit longer) of the super league war breaking out, the NSWRU declared that they were now professionals. Full time professionalism changed how rugby league was played as players were fitter and fitter and replacement rules were used in a more and more complex way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.249.40 (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference to UK

I was intrigued to see that the change from England to UK has passed unchallenged. As far as the UK home countries go I do not think there is much evidence for football development in Wales or Ireland (later NI). Certainly there is a long history of football in Scotland, but the origin of the modern codes was in England (Eton/Harrow/Winchester etc, Cambridge rules, Sheffield rules, football association). Although there were significant scottish players, I believe that their contribution took place within England. I think that it should be changed back to England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballfan3000 (talk • contribs) August 1, 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I've changed it back to the way it has been since almost the first version of this article. Jooler 07:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

S'funny, I thought England was part of the UK. Or is this post-devolution English nationalism expressing itself? The article is not purely about modern codes and there were many codes/forms of folk/traditional football in Britain before the modern era, quite literally from John O'Groats to Land's End. The public school codes did not spring out of thin air in the 19th century and the older games undoubted influenced them. Grant | Talk 08:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The way things are in the UK is that the English are forced to be British; the Scots and Welsh are always Scots and Welsh and the Northern Irish have either a bizarre definition of British or are violently opposed to it. Without looking I can guess that the article on golf will mention that it was invented in Scotland, the UK will not be mentioned. I think the treatment of the sports and constitutnet nations should be equal. If golf, shinty, curling etc are decibed as "Scottish" (and I have no doubts that they will be) then Football ought to be English rather than British.GordyB 12:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Grant. The English public school games gave rise to the rules of most of the modern games which is what the para says. I can't see how this is controversial. If the motive is to be all-encompassing then saying UK leaves out Southern Ireland. Jooler 20:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Not at the time that the sentence is referring to. As for the sentence, it is purely about the origin of the modern codes, so the question is whether there was enough non-English influence to mean the statement that "Most fo the modern codes have their origins in England" is not good enough. The difficulty is that it is fairly vague anyway. JPD (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't generalise without being vague. It's impossible to make a statement like "all modern codes were started in Coventry on 9 May 1867 just outside the Red Lion pub" because it wouldn't be true.GordyB 11:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course. But the result is that the disagreement is going to be subjective to some extent. JPD (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really, all the major codes can be traced to England (except Gaelic and that's controversial). One can debate the relative contributions of Irish, Aboriginal and English sports to Aussie rules but there definitely is an English contribution.GordyB 13:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone generally agrees with what you have said, even if some would add more. The subjective disagreement is over whether the vague statement "Most of the modern codes have their origins in England" is an appropriate summary. It's not at all black and white what "have their origins" means, let alone "most". JPD (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay that's a bit clearer. I would say that "has their origins in" means that they were codified from games played at private schools which ultimately came from folk forms of football.GordyB 15:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The Term

Please add or correct the following to the introduction:

The most popular of these world-wide is association football or "football" for short. The word "football" for association football is used basically in all the countries and languages around the world, including United Kingdom, all far east countries and Arabic countries. The exceptions are North American English and Italy where it is called Soccer and Calcio respectively.

I think is too late to leave the clarification of the term to the "Football Today" section.

Please read the article, what you say simply isn't true.GordyB 18:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Blank?

Why is the page blank?

-This article sometimes appears blank Archael Tzaraath 19:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

split this article?

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

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

public school games and the forward pass

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

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

Insulting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disambiguation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repeated comment.

Do we need:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed splitting off of page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "These games involve"

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

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

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

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

Conflicting Years

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

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

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

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

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

Disambiguation

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

Corrupt

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

Comparison table

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

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

Too much details

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

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

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

Greek interwiki

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

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

Spelling mistake

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

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

Give me a break

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

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

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

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

Much better title

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

Separation

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

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

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

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