Talk:Football/Archive 9

"merged with the FA rules"
It's not clear waht this sentece in the "other developments in the 1850s" section is trying to say. Clearly the clubs didn't merge with the rules. Did the Sheffield FA merge with the FA? Did the clubs simply adopt FA rules? JPD (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sheffield Rules merged with the FA rules (refered to as London Rules at the time). josh (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * AFAIK Sheffield agreed to adopt the FA rules, or are you saying that was there a new revision published combining the rules? Jooler 14:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In "The History of the Football Associaiton" (1953) - page 54 - it says "Meanwhile The Football Association had taken an enormous stride forward in furthering its authority when, in 1877, the oldest of these [regional] Associations, Sheffield, agreed to bring their own laws of play in line with the F.A." - Jooler 14:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "Football in Sheffield" states "One set of laws, that promulgated by the Football Association, was at last accepted. However, the Sheffield Association had the satisfaction of knowing that finality was only achieved after the incorperation of ideas from Sheffield". I'm going to add the Sheffield Rules published in 1970 to that article and they are already very similar to todays game. josh (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have serious problems with the paragraph as it stands. It implies that the Sheffield clubs played their own version of football for 20 years then swaped over to the FA rules. This is a gross inaccuracy. Many of the features of the Sheffield game were incorperated into the FA rules in the years leading up to 1978, including free kicks, crossbars, corners and the abolishment of hacking. While it is accurate to say that sheffield clubs adopted the FA rules in 1978, this ignores the previous 8 years of compremise between the 2 organisations. josh (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is interesting Josh, but we need a credible source which gives specific details of which elements of the Sheffield rules were incorporated into the FA rules. (On a similar note, after the FA rules reached Australia, c1864 someone wrote a letter to a newspaper in Melbourne alleging that the FA had plagiarised the Melbourne Football Club rules of 1859.) Grant65 | Talk 10:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Assuming there is a good source for this claim, would it be sufficient to add something like "by which time many of the differences between the codes had been removed"? I really don't like the use of the word "merge" for sets of rules - "converge" might be an alternative. JPD (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "Converge" might be better - we have to accept that at the time (mid 1850s) there were a variety of rules, there was a fair bit of cross-fertilisation, and the modern codes of football that emerged soon after were often influenced by more than one of the earlier codes (that is certainly the case with both aussie rules and association football).  Rugby is the only one to have grown from its own earlier code with the same name, but given the amount of common terminology that exists across all the modern codes, it too would have been influenced by other codes, even if to a lesser extent.  Sheffield rules is just one of the codes that predates association football and which shared some common rules with it.  We have to also understand that the FA rules of the early 1860s represent a completely different game to that which was to emerge the following decade.  Far more handling of the ball was allowed, and this was eventually reduced to just the goal keeper.   ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  23:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sheffield were just one (albeit the oldest) of many regional associations. Sheffield had their own rules as did Cambridge and others. Some played by the FA (or London) rules, whilst others played by the code of a particular public school. The Scottish FA had their own rules. In January 1882 there was a dispute regarding the off-side rule as published by the FA and that played in Scotland. (cite: HoTFA 1953; pg 75). The FA tried to establish their supremacy but it was only with the establishment of the IFAB in December of 1882 that a general acceptance of a single set of rules became widespread. Jooler 13:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's some passages from Football in Sheffield.


 * "From the latter [Sheffield Rules] certain details which were subsequently adoped in the national code may be noted. There should, stated Sheffield, be a crossbar; a player of a defending side need not stand behind his goal-line in the event of a free kick being taken within six yards of the goal-line; a goal could not be scored direct from a free kick (the origin of the 'indirect free kick'); and umpires should be appointed to 'enforce the rules'."


 * "On Febuary 28 this proposal was accepted, and the corner kick, devised by the Sheffield Association, became a feature of the general game."


 * "The impracticability of the situation was by now apparent to the most conservative, particularly since Sheffield took part in the F.A. Cup Competition and was represented internationly, and in April 1877 after the publication of powerful letters from Stuart G. Smith (captain, Manchester Association F.C.) and W. S. Bambride (Marlborough College) in The Field (March 10) final submission was made. One set of laws, that promulagated by the Football Association, was at last accepted. However, the Sheffield Association had the satisfaction of knowing that finality was only acieved after the incorporation of ideas from Sheffield."

I haven't any reliable sources yet but it also seems that Sheffield Rules were also played by a number of teams outside south Yorkshire, which is why having the two codes became such a major issue. The article currently seriously underplays the influence of the Sheffield Rules. josh (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "was only achieved after the incorporation of ideas from Sheffield" - and lots of other people. The rules that the IFAB promulgated were had many influences. Primarily Thring. Jooler 17:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The part you quote refers to the final agreement between the two associations. The overall impact of the Sheffield Rules was much more significant. The main problem I have with the article as it stands is that it implies that the Sheffield clubs played an irrelevent game for 20 years before 'falling in line'. This, like many books on the history of football, completely ignores the influence of the Sheffield version of the game. To say that the two codes merged doesn't deny the fact that there were other influences. The Thring/Cambridge Rules are given an entire section, while the Sheffield Rules are passed off with a short paragraph with no comment on their significance. josh (talk)

A possible link

 * Within the article of medieval football, the first description of football in England is mentioned. Could it not be useful to make a link to Wlliam Fitzstephen? I also believe that in his last name, the s is not capitalized. This is according to the brief article on him, and Wikipedia could look more proffessional if the name given in an article is the same throughout all of Wikipedia.Tigereye 53 13:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit
I saw the edits changing Australian to Victorian and have warned the user about that. At this point I am going to Assume good faith and take it no further unless they persist in the change. I would ask that nobody start putting sockpuppet notices on their talk/user page. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Episkyros photo
The creator of this article: Add this photo where you mention old Episkyros http://www.expertfootball.com/history/history/greek.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ellinas arkas (talk • contribs) 18:44, 3 July 2006.

Moved comments
I have a doubt .i know this must be discussed numerous number of times over here .But since when has football (for the non American users) has ever been referred to as 'Association football'?According to the article, one is bound to think that if somebody goes to England and decides to see an Arsenal game , he will be watching an Association football game?

Come on guys, be less biased .i know there will be a lot of American users overe here in wikipedia which is why we see such an inherent bias in the article .But lets be realistic .You go to any part of the world and say you want to play football , it means only one kind of football and thats the one which had its world cup in Germany recently.

i would recommend a page like this for the article on football.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket

Especially this part 'For the insect, see Cricket (insect). For other uses, see Cricket (disambiguation)'

Change that sentence to 'For the American version, see football (America). For other meanings, see football (disambiguation)'

And talk about football/soccer for the rest of the article.

Hahahaha1 21:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * First, you are quite wrong to say that "You go to any part of the world and say you want to play football, it means only one kind of football and thats the one which had its world cup in Germany recently." Read the first paragaraph. It says: "The English language word football is also applied to Rugby football (Rugby union and Rugby league), North American football (American and Canadian), Australian rules football, and Gaelic football". There are also the many different varieties of older football games which preceded the modern football games, as described in the article.
 * Second, cricket (the game) and cricket (insect) are not related to each other by anything except the word. The subjects covered in this article ("Football") are all related. Grant65 | Talk 03:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Even in the UK the term 'soccer' or 'Association football' is used by some. Many who follow rugby league refer to 'football' in this way, so do certain public schools such as Eton who use 'football' to refer to their own version of the rules. 'Association football' is the correct official name for the sport, it is not much used except in formal publications such as encyclopaedias (which this just happens to be). Again 'soccer' is not an American term, it is a term that comes from England and it is not used only by Americans (the Irish, the Candians, the Aussies etc refer to their own sports as 'football').GordyB 12:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Full support to both Grant and Gordy - the generic subject of football, including the shared history of the various offshoots, clearly needs its own article - and the article has every right to be called plain "football".   ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  12:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly where did you all get the idea that Association football is the correct official name for the sport .It might be the official name for that sport in America just like how in the rest of the world, the official name for the kind of football played in America is American football.

But obviously rest of the world is a bigger domain than America - so the general consensus should be what most people in the world feel.

Secondly people do refer to football as soccer in UK - no one is denying that .But if people say that they are going to watch a football match, it obviously means a soccer match - not a rugby match.

Just because a very small minority in the world feels football refers to some other sport- why should we insult the beautiful game by not devoting the page on football to football as the world knows it?

Majority of the world refers to Osama Bin Laden as a terrorist .But there are still many people in the world who refers to Osama as a freedom fighter .So does that mean we say Osama Bin Laden is a freedom fighter? No.

When you have 6 billion people in the world and more than 5 billion refer to football as the FIFA version which is a very very large majority (the fact that FIFa has more members than the UN and the fact that FIFA has the word football in it should justify that fact), then shouldnt the general consensus swerve towards the majority.

Anyways nice to know that we have a lot of American users here.

Hahahaha1 20:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * None of us are American. The RFU (rugby union), RFL (rugby league) and AFL (Australian football) all have F for football in them as does the NFL (American football) and the CFL (Canadian football).GordyB 20:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * UK Guardian article which gives the official name of soccer as 'Association football'. The fact that most of the world uses 'football' to mean 'soccer' is irrelevant, it is only relevant what Anglophone countries say. We are discussing what the world means in English not French or Spanish.GordyB 21:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Gordy is correct, none of those who have responded to you are "American" (a word which is as ambiguous as "football" by the way, since it could mean a Mexican, Brazilian, etc).


 * Not many people, even in countries where soccer is king, realise that FIFA stands for Fédération Internationale de Football Association or "International Federation of Association Football" &mdash; in French the noun and the adjective are reversed &mdash; so, even FIFA refers to soccer as Association Football, to distinuish it from other forms of football. Grant65 | Talk 04:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Who, in the progressive, rich, prosperous, enlightened and most intelligent, English speaking countries refers to soccer as football apart from the brainwashed and easily manipulated English and Scottish peasants? who having been oppressed by the class system for a hundred generations, mimick the absurd mutations of football and its playing, created by the FA lords and private school boys in 1863.

We, in the free nations of Australia, U.S.A., Canada, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, with real football, know what football is. Why should we allow this absurd English cultural imperialism to be forced onto us by a minority with no concept about football and possession?

If anything, in line with the majority of the world's Anglo-Celts who invented football, we should demand that soccer(that poofter's game) should be removed entirely from the football section, as only an insignificant rump of Anglo-Celtics would even consider that game lacking any real concept of possession or courage as football. Unlike Rugby or Australian Rules or American football or Gaelic football which the majority of Anglo-Celt English speakers could easily understand upon watching as a type of football, that aberration that can only be described as "Volley-kick-ball", a perversion of football to reinforce the class system. 05:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Scottish passing and running/combination game
I notice that this style of football is not mentioned in the history section on football: (from Football in Scotland)

There was a distinct clash of styles in 1872 when Scotland drew 0-0 with England in the world's first football international. England played a 1-1-8 formation, in which whoever had the ball would dribble at the opponents and kick it up field before he was tackled. One of the seven forwards, following behind, would then chase the ball.

Scotland played with a 2-2-6 system, with three banks of forwards divided into pairs. Each pair of players - in defence, midfield and attack - knew who their partner was and their job was to pass to them when possible. This revolutionary tactic of 'passing and running' was known as the combination game

The rules of football in England were decided in the public schools where individualism was an important factor. In Scotland, it was a societal thing. There was no class bias in football and everyone grew up playing the game in the streets. Queen's Park were made up of 13 young men from between Aberdeen and Inverness who came to Glasgow to get white-collar work in banks and commerce. They formalised the team in July 1867, a time when Clydeside was producing one quarter of the world's ships and railways.

After the game, English players returned home to tell of Scotland's combination game. Soon hundreds of Scots - known as 'Scotch Professors' - were playing in England. Preston North End fielded eight Scots in one team while Liverpool were founded in 1892 with eleven Scots.

I'd like to add this somewhere as it seems like it was a fairly important development in the sport. Does anyone have any suggestions where it should go in the article? I would also like to see some references which are sorly missing. -- OoberMick 12:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is about the history of football in a general sense. I think what you have is best suited to the history of Association Football.  There may even be a narrower history than that floating around, where you would have a lot more opportunity to drill down to the area you wish to cover.   ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  13:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no move. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 12:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move
Football to football (games). This should be moved to football (games) and football should become a disambiguation page referring to the various meanings of the word "football". Voortle 13:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~ 
 * Please don't start voting on subjects before we've had a chance to discuss the issue.
 * I know of no other meanings of the word football that are not derived from the meaning as a game (or the ball used in the game). The 'political issue' definition, the 'nuclear codes' definition, are derivative. I can't think of any other meanings offhand. What other meanings did you have in mind? DJ Clayworth 13:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am of the belief that there is too much complexity surrounding the word 'football' to be tackled neatly by a disambiguation page, I think that the dismbig page would rapidly turn into something like Football (word).GordyB 13:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Almost every time someone mentions 'football' it means one of the games. When that is the case, but there are other possible meanings, we leave the main article with the main name and add "for other meanings see Football (disambiguation)". That's what we should do here. DJ Clayworth 14:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There must be a least twenty different types of football with their own article, merely listing them would make an article in itself. Pointing out the difference between them would be a reqrite of this article. How is anybody supposed to know the difference between Australian rules football (known simply as 'football' or 'footy' in Australia) and Rugby league (known simply as 'football' or 'footy' in Australia). What is 'international rules football'? etc.GordyB 14:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose re DJ Clayworth --Robdurbar 16:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose the proposal - the word football refers to a bunch of related games with a shared history - and that is precisely what this article is about. If people learn that basic fact by coming to this page - that's great - afterall, it's an encyclopedia!  Just to make sure, I've just done a quick check of my Macquarie dictionary:
 * football
 * /'footbawl/
 * noun
 * any game in which the kicking of a ball has a large part, as Australian Rules, Rugby Union, Rugby League, soccer, American football, etc.
 * ...and that's what this article is about. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  23:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As others have said, any disambiguation page would be massive. Grant65 | Talk 00:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Makes more sense to have a disambguation page with clear and logical headings. Toight 01:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This pages already works well as a disambig page. josh (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Why remove a well placed, on topic article?  Football is a major topic that clearly reflects this and the only name for that article is Football.  There is a discussion on a related move at American football. Vegaswikian 20:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The page works well as is, there is definitely no need to move it. – Axman (☏) 10:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. For the reasons I gave above.GordyB 21:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Oh, dear. Sebastian Kessel Talk 01:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Yep, there's nothing wrong with this page, at all! jkm 20:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Football inter-wiki
I was wondering if there had ever been any previous problems with inter-wikis, as Football on the English wiki is a page which focuses on a number of varieties, whereas a lot of other wikis would just have Football as purely soccer article, so has there ever been a mix-up between where the interwikis should goto? I'm just asking because I believe there is a problem like this at rugby football...in a lot of places around the world, rugby means rugby union. This is a problem because there are currently only 8 other wikis at rugby union, but well over 20 at rugby football. This cannot be right, as the Rugby (union) World Cup has double the amount rugby union has. I have checked a few out, and some of them are actually about rugby union not rugby football, but some do mention rugby league and rugby sevens at the bottom or something...so to get to the point, has there ever been any similar problems...and yeah. I may not have been totally clear as to what Iam saying, but I have posted this in other places, and no one really said anything, so if anyone knows how to deal with this kind of thing, any comments would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. Cvene64 15:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think English is about the only language where 'football' is an ambiguous term. In pretty much every other language 'football' (or similar) means soccer and only soccer. Hence it is unlikely that any similar article exists in another language.GordyB 15:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There was a problem such as Cvene64 describes, but I sorted through the interwikis. The ones left now are articles about football in general although the German article seems to specifically be about the meaning of the English word, which seems to be used in German for the American/Canadian/Gaelic/Australian varieties, but doesn't really mention soccer. JPD (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah ok. Thanks for the replies. What do people think of the rugby situation? As, this page appears to be fine, so what should be done over at the rugby pages? Any ideas..? Cheers. Cvene64 16:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would try to remove all the links to articles that are only about union, and put them in the union article, but it is perhaps a bit harder to sort them out in this case, with a few grey areas. I don't see any problem with an interwiki link appearing in both rugby football and rugby union if the target mentions more than one type of rugby, but doesn't have separate pages for them. JPD (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

French rl club that refers to itself as a football club http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9zignan_Sangliers, might be relevant.

Difficult
I'd just like to say that it was VERY difficult to find links to U.S. and Canadian football in this article. They were hidden in the first paragraph and in that section near the bottom or wherever it is. --MPD01605 (T / C) 05:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is more difficult than for any other sport. They appear in the first paragraph what more could you ask for? They are not 'hidden'. They also appear under a section called 'North American football' which is pretty clear cut and again at the end of the article.
 * I don't think there is anywhere else that links could be reasonably be placed. If you have a specific suggestion then make it.GordyB 13:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Bold text