Talk:Football (ball)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Nomenclature Controversy[edit]

True or false: this article belongs at Soccer ball with Football (ball) being the ball for playing football; this article is about the ball for playing soccer. 23:21, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

False. In most of the world (including the United Kingdom, Australia, etc.), the name of the sport (the one played with the feet and a round ball) is "Football." "Soccer" is used almost exclusively in the U.S.A. (and, I suppose, Canada). If you wish, you may create a redirect from "Soccer ball" to this page. MCBastos 23:31, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I knew it. One thing I have to handle is that even though I say the United States is the most important country on earth, there are plenty of people who think the United Kingdom is. 23:34, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's not a matter of whether the U.S. is the "most important country" or not; the REAL pont is that Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, not an exclusively American one. And in most of the world, the game called "football" (or variations thereof) is what Americans think of as "soccer." On the date you complained the entry already contained both definitions "football", satisfying both U.S. and international viewers. Moving the international definition to "soccer ball" would be a very U.S.-centric decision.MCBastos
Nevertheless, don't we think there should be separate pages for each type of ball? I don't care if you call one Football [BrE] (ball) and the other Football [AmE] (ball), or whatever (I guess there's no easy way to do it without somehow offending someone because you're not specifically mentioning THEIR country). In some languages, like Spanish, Football (American,Australian,etc style) is called American Football, so perhaps we could make Football (ball) and American Football (ball). Any thoughts? 22:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Make an article for each different type of ball and then link them to this "master article".GordyB 09:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Could we just have one article about football where somebody does not make this point? I suggest people read football and football (word) before commenting. Soccer is not an Amrican term and not one used exclusively in the US. It is also false to say that Aussies say 'football' not 'soccer', they do not and have never done so.GordyB 13:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Somebody saw fit to change almost every instance of the word "football" as a reference to American, Canadian, and Australian Football (the games and the balls) to "rugby". I went back and made the appropriate changes, but I find it irritating that people make large scale changes over political semantics Draganta 19:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

And whats the bet that someone who plays rugby changed the rugby ball one because whats a rugby ball called?

ThisMunkey (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


User:Dyfsunctional has edited the measurement units into the form Imperial (Metric) with comment "Wikipedia standard units". There is no such standard (see Wikipedia:Measurements Debate). I have re-edited as follows:

  • Use "<stated units> (or <stated conversions>)" where available. In FIFA's case the conversions are not exact; this is intentional and reflected in all units in the rules.
  • Use "<stated units> (<exact conversions>)" where conversions are not stated. The linked rugby source does not offer conversions; I don't know if the official rules do so; perhaps Union and League differ.
  • Use "about <stated units> (<approximate conversions>)" since if the stated one is approximate there's no point having an exact conversion.
Joestynes 23:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I must've misread something somewhere. Thanks. BTW, the air pressure for the football (soccer ball) is wrong by a factor of 10. I fixed it, but if we're using the FIFA standard, it ought to be in atmospheres and not pascals (unless I'm still too dense to figure out the above!). Dyfsunctional 13:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I also stand corrected, millibars (g/cm^2) being hectopascals, not kilopascals. I vote we leave out atmospheres to avoid having 3 units. Joestynes 19:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Millibars are not grams per square centimeter, nor are they grams-force per square centimeter. In terms of cgs units, a millibar is 1000 dynes per square centimeter, and in SI units, it is 100 newtons per square meter, equivalent to 0.01 newton per square centimeter though not likely to be expressed that way.
If the originals are improperly converted, the best you can do is to figure out which one is the primary measurement; if all else fails, use the numbers listed first. The rugby ones are an example of screwball conversions. It's likely really a 9.5 to 10 lbf/in² original. That would be, to four significant digits, 65.50 kPa to 68.95 kPa (not the 65.71 to 68.75 on that web site), but that is overprecision by any precision that would be actually used in the measurement. Even 65.5 to 68.9 kPa would be stretching it, 65½ to 69 kPa more realistic The only problem is, there doesn't seem to be any consistent error in conversion that would get you to those kPa numbers. The kPa numbers likely come from 0.670 kgf/cm² and 0.701 kgf/cm², with only 3 significant digits rather than 4, but there is no consistent way to get those two numbers when converting from 9.5 lbf/in² and 10 lbf/in². Gene Nygaard 19:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
It is possible, as you suggest, that they started with imperial units, though either way the conversions on that page don't hold up. However, every web page I've found (Google for "IRB Law 2") has the numbers exactly as they are on the page linked. Could it be that the actual standard is incorrectly converted? If so, we're not going to do any better than what we have now. Dyfsunctional 02:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Rugy originally used the Imperial system but switched over to metric which is why in rugby union the 22 metre line holds significance (because it was originally the 20 yard line). If the numbers don't come out as round numbers then it is not surprising.GordyB 06:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Relation to the C60 Fullerene Molecule[edit]

I'm a little unsure of why we need the line about the ratio of sizes between a football and a C60 fullerene molecule. Beyond the numerical issues (neither of the two numbers is anything more than an estimation), I don't think it's particularly poingant, interesting or encyclopedic.

It's interesting because they are the same shape, and because 60C is so new, something that didn't exist when I was in school. Of course, if you go by volume rather than diameter, the soccer ball is 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times bigger. Gene Nygaard 05:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't disagree that the relationship between the shapes is interesting; I just don't get why anybody would care about the relationship between the sizes. For instance, the Magic 8-Ball page doesn't describe the ratio of that ball's size to that of a hydrogen atom, or the perisphere at the 1939 world's fair, or the sun, or any other spherical object. It's just a number (and a dubiously arrived at number at that) that I doubt anybody has any use for. 18:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
It's all to do with getting a near-perfect sphere with reasonably equal deformation regardless of where the ball is kicked, with a minimum number of stitches and panels. The Pentagonal / Hexagonal structure that you see with 60C is pretty much the most efficient way of achieving this - the 32 panel ball has 60 points.

See: the Fullerene article for more. That article suggests the shape of the Fullerene was predicted after someone considered the geometry of a football. I'm bored now. (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Patternsof the soccer ball[edit]

I have heard that they have changed the shape and pieces the ball is made of. That is it is not made out of pentagonal and hexagonal pieces anymore. Anyone who can contribute to this? (unknown editor)

Depends on the competition. UEFA Champions League currently using 32 Panel Nike, whereas FIFA use Adidas, as stated in the article. Not a Nike spokesman but I came to Wikipedia after reading this article: Looks like Nike have enhanced the 32 panel (C60) ball by tweaking the hexagons and pentagons, whilst Adidas' Teamgeist football had 14 customised (i.e. not regular shapes) panels: These two manufacturers seem to have a different approach to creating a near-perfect sphere.

Both appear to have asymmetric patterns on the surface, which according to the Nike article, assists the players with predicting speed of the ball and trajectory, as well as peripheral visibility of the ball. The materials used are also radically different since the 1970's balls, e.g. nitrogen cushioning in the panels, surface patterns to repel water or make aerial movement more "curvy". (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC) (cba logging in/forgotten password)

Divergence of the term 'football'[edit]

News to me. The term has never been applied to Association football exclusively and predates the founding of the Football Association by centuries. How exactly did it diverge? There was never one agreed set of rules that somehow got changed.GordyB 14:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Truncated Octahedron?[edit]

I have removed the claim that the Addidas Teamgeist football produced for the 2006 world cup is "based on a truncated octahedron". The ball is stitched from 14 panels making it topologically equivalent to a truncated octahedron but since each panel is either a wobbly oblong or bizarre three pronged shape (as clearly seen in the included photo of the teamgeist ball) while a truncated octahedron is composed of squares and hexagons then there really isn't much in common with them. Topographical similarity hardly justifies the claim that it is based on it. Kingbenny 20:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

splitting this article up[edit]

I'd like to split this article up so that each ball has its own article. Any objections? Kingturtle (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Should have a conjuction page too or a categoryThisMunkey (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

For Footballplayer40 (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Word Association[edit]

Why write association when you can write soccer? It is a FIFA standard football suggested is it not?ThisMunkey (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

FIFA's official name for the sport is Association football. Soccer is considered slang in the UK.GordyB (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you there Gordy but the association in particular should stand out and I think it's niether FIFA or association on it's own it's International Football Association Board (IFAB)ThisMunkey (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The Americans will argue that the National Football League should also stand out. We aren't supposed to take sides.GordyB (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It actually is refered to as 'association football' on a FIFA document That is not sides Gordy. Soccer is a name used non football countries. Just because people understand the term doesnt mean it is the new football. ThisMunkey (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Football is a term used for soccer in non-rugby countries.GordyB (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
What is a footballs called? Where is 'The Home Of Rugby'? You are arguing that rugby calls itself football and that rugby calls football something else. Theres only one side to that argument. You should be arguing that American football is a form of rugby.ThisMunkey (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Rugby league calls itself football, so does Gaelic football, American football, rugby union, Australian football, various forms of folk football, Candian football etc.GordyB (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Rugby league and union[edit]

Is there actually any difference between the balls used in the two codes of rugby? The measurements sound identical.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It is the shape more than the size. If you look at the two piccies then you will see that the league ball is more "chunky" and the union one more elongated. It is commonly said that the league one is more designed for passing and catching while the union one is easier to kick.GordyB (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I can sort of see what you mean, but the difference is extremely slight, and I don't think anyone would be that bothered if either ball was used in a non-professional, low league context... Mind you, I suppose, if pushed you could play American football with a rugby ball, or rugby with an American ball - but the difference is more noticeable. As an ex-rugby player, I can't say this was ever anything I was aware of, but I never played at high level! I played in several games of League, but we just used the same ball we used for the Union games... Perhaps it would be useful to have the RL and RU balls together in the same image for comparison - would make a useful image in the comparison of the codes. --MacRusgail (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

soccerf balls[edit]

what is the purpose of the mini soccer balls?′22:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC) (talk) What do you use them for?

I think that people really need to get over what a football is. Are you guys idiots or what? at the very beginning of the article it says that a football is one of two balls, used in either American soccer or football (as Americans know it). What's the big deal??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Before calling people idiots, try reading the article, you seem to have totally missed the point of it.GordyB (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

There's an article here which suggests the world's oldest soccer ball was found in the oak-pannelled walls of Stirling Castle, not the roof NL:S

Why not a dab? (Not the hackneyed name controversy )[edit]

FWIW I'm from US and all along have thought the canonical name for the Wikipedia article on the world's most popular sport should be association football. Just getting that out of the way so you don't think I'm rehashing the above. :)

But I just don't understand why this article exists as a fully-formed article, rather than dividing the content out according to the entity being described. My understanding is that WP articles should be about concepts, not words (except obviously when the word is the concept, e.g. Football (word)). So then because various concepts are known by the same word, should it not be disambiguation page helping those looking for info on the association football ball to find what they seek, those looking for an American football ball, etc. etc.? I don't see the point in having all that info about various concepts in one article, and then having separate articles like Association football ball to repeat and expand it. I don't even see one unifying concept behind all the different sorts of "football" balls, just a word, which already has yet another article of its own. Seems like a level of redundancy beyond standard Wikipedia "Main article" protocol. Thoughts? - Cheers, PhilipR (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree. The association football content can be merged into Association football ball. The American football section probably merits its own page whilst the others could be merged into the main pages for the sport. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

most pointless article ever, just have a disambiguation page where people can be directed to the football they're looking for. btw there is no such thing as a soccer ball. thats not a political statement its just pedantry, even if you call it soccer you play with a football (weather you call it a footbal or not). ditto every other code, you play rugby with a football (although people just say ball), you play league with a ball not a 'league ball'. aussi rules is played with a football not an 'afl ball'. id imagaine its the same for both forms of gridiron. seriously most pointless article ever. a similar thing should happen to libertarian page but thats another issue. i posted this on the wrong section before appollogies.

Merge discussion[edit]

I believe that Chip-enabled soccer ball should be merged here. That article doesn't contain any info that wouldn't be out of place here. – PeeJay 07:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is worth to keep it as a seperate article, because the focus is more on the technological aspects. Furthermore, the actual FIFA discussions around the tracking technology behind chip-implanted soccer balls will feed the article for sure soon. - (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Merging makes perfect sence to me. All the information fits perfectly into this article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree that the information would definitely fit right into the main ball article. -- BigDom 07:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Photo of "pre-2006" NFL ball[edit]

Why is the caption on the NFL (American) football noted as a pre-2006" ball? What change was made (if any) in 2006? There is no mention in the article of anything about NFL balls changing in 2006. (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC) y — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Football Term Controversy[edit]

In American and Canadian Football Section, it says the main reason why American Football is called "foot" ball is because the ball measures 12 inches (1 foot) in length. Early American Football, at least in college, is played with a spherical ball. Is there any other reason why it should be called football? User016608 (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Erm, because association football (soccer) is only one type of football, and until association football was codified in the late 19th century, most forms of football involved handling and passing? Soccer may have appropriated the term "football", but it is not the only kind, and having a mainly kicking game involving a spherical ball is not representative of football codes in general.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Australian football photo[edit]

Can we get a proper Sherrin on Wikipedia rather than a soft toy one? --Hoever06 (talk) 05:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Association football[edit]

Given that we have the separate article association football (ball), do we really need this much detail here? --Khajidha (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 12:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Football (ball). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I found that in this article there are some things that could have been changed and/or added. One thing that was underrepresented in this article is the history of the ball, it does mention how the ball evolved but only briefly and could be expanded. For example, having a visual representation of the ball at each stage it has gone through, along with how it was made, why, and why they made the changes from the past football model could aid the reader understand the process of making a football, and it's history better. Something that I feel was underrepresented, and could have some addition information is the history of the different sports and how that influenced the differences of the balls. It would be interesting to see where, how, and why the originating sport diverged into many paths which resulting in many different sports. Mlecole (talk)


@Mlecole: Very good, Martin. Alfgarciamora (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Football (ball). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)