Talk:Association football/Archive 6

message: It seems strange to name the article football (soccer), naming the sport twice. Why not call it by its neutral and official name association football? I would like to move this article to association football. Does anybody agree or disagree?--Sonjaaa 14:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it useful to use Football (soccer) in my bios. e.g. "Slumgum (born 1908 in Europe) is an English football (soccer) fan." It is clear to all, and completely unambiguous.  But "association football" is the dutiful name of the beautiful game. I personally don't mind - either of the two will do. I think it's clear though, that neither "football" or "soccer" alone will be acceptable.   SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  18:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Some of the more recent votes on this subject can be found at Let's move it to soccer, Let's move it to football and How about Association Football?. -- Alias Flood 19:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason this keeps coming up is that people are dissatisfied with the current name, and I doubt that will change. The common name/MoS argument is fair enough but it there was a similar agument about what to call records and eventually the less common but more accurate/archaic gramophone record was chosen. For similar reasons I also favour association football Jooler 21:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble is, hardly anyone else on the planet does because they don't use that term, and it breaks the most common rule requirement on Wikipedia, so it is a non-runner. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "hardly anyone else on the planet does" - well that's hardly true. Jooler 21:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, neither Americans or Canadians do. That's a fairly significant percentage. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 21:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Renaming

message: A hobby I've seen among soccer players and often entertainment besides playing at matches is having someone who is preficient at keeping the ball up in the air alone using knees, kicks, their head, standing, moving or lying down. It is similar to what is done in football/hacky sack in movements, though probably more difficult due to the size/weight and circular bounciness making controlling the ball more difficult.
I would like to know if there is a Wikipedia article on this, and if so, can it be linked to on this page more obviously so that those interested can find it? I think it's actually a very important part often done in soccer training. Tyciol 13:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keepie uppie?  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  14:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean with football? American football? Canadian football? Please use correct terminology here, otherwise things could get very confusing. (Also, maybe I misunderstood you, but keeping an american football in the air by kicking clearly seems more difficult than a regular "soccerball"...) 惑乱 分からん 23:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, it's called good old Keepie uppie or ball juggling - tricks with a football both skilful and mesmerising. -- Alias Flood 23:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think is should be clear what is meant by "football" when asking on this page. Conscious 06:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suppose so, but Tyciol appears to be canadian and the phrasing is ambiguous, first he mentions "soccer ball" and "soccer player", and later he writes:
 It is similar to what is done in football/hacky sack in movements, 
 though probably more difficult due to the size/weight and circular bounciness 
 making controlling the ball more difficult.
惑乱 分からん 13:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly a sloppy typo for "footbag". It confused me. 惑乱 分からん 14:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Soccer ball tricking, like [[footbag]]

message: Just highlighting this slightly obscure BBC article about how football may have been invented in the 17th Century in Scotland in case nobody sees it. Would someone like to incorporate it into the football (soccer) article under history? Ninja-lewis 19:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it would be suitable for use in History of football (soccer), but not here. Oldelpaso 11:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noticed that it was in the lead. Even if it were to be included here rather than the history article, it shouldn't be in the lead, and I've removed it. Oldelpaso 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Football invented in Aberdeen, Scotland, 200 years before foundation of the FA

message: Personally, I am not happy with the paragraph related to the history of this game. It shall be re-worded and made less particular to the national game names. Anyway, I like this far more than what I see in this article
The origin of football can be found in every corner of geography and history. The Italians, Chinese, Japanese, Egyptians, Ancient Greeks,Ancient Egyptian linen ball found in a tomb Toltecs, Native American Indians, Persians, Central Americans, Scottish Clans, Vikings and Assyrians played a ball game long before our era. Later, the Roman harpastum, using a bull's bladder, reached the shores of the Atlantic when the legions conquered Gaul. This game led the way to soule, considered together with the Florentine calcio which emerged during the Renaissance, as the real ancestor of football.
found at []--IvoJovo 23:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the game 

message: What about all the issues of racism that are very prevelant, but largely ignored?  Don't European fans often use racial slurs  and other insulting gestures (such as throwing bananas at black players).  Apparently this is a huge issue in the sport and I think that it should have some attention paid to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.166.255.16 (talk • contribs) 
:Perhaps that should be in a new article.  It's not an integral factor of football, it's something that has manifested itself on football, not from it.  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  02:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Ethnicity and football. -- Alias Flood 02:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Racism

message: Last week I looked for football strategy information on wikipedia. I looked at 'football strategy', it was a redirect to american football strategy. I looked at 'soccer strategy', the article did not exist. I looked in the soccer article, there was not even a strategy section. I concluded that there are no football strategy articles on wikipedia.
Today I learned that there are, in fact, articles about football strategy. There is the excellent Formation (football), the good Football (soccer) positions, and the decent Football (soccer) tactics and skills. The problem is that these articles are very well hidden. 
I tried to remedy this by creating an article "soccer strategy" that linked to the existing articles. However, this article was speedy deleted because it only linked to other articles. Now, soccer strategy and football strategy (via a disambig) link to this article. I have created a section here 'strategy' that links to our strategy articles but its a crutch.
I think the real solution would be a 'mother article' on strategy that could be placed at football (soccer) strategy or something similar, but for now, this is a problem.
S Sepp 16:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have redirected soccer strategy to football (soccer) tactics and skills (it links to formation (football) and football (soccer) positions). I think the latter should be developed into a better article (possibly split into two) and give better overview of the subject. BTW, what's strategy? Is it the same as tactics in the context of football? Conscious 17:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the redirect. I don't know of a difference between strategy and tactics in football. With strategy I just meant the, umm.., total of theory on how to play S Sepp 17:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Visibility problem of football strategy articles

message: I skimmed through all the discussion on the naming of this page. But i didnt notice (maybe i missed) anyone suggesting that the title be "Association football (soccer)". This seems to be logical as it keeps football in the name, however still has soccer which is the common name in places like America and Australia.--Krabby me 04:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Soccer is a shortened version of Association Football, so it wouldn't really make sense to have the article named as such. The people most likely to search for the sport probably already know it is called both Football or Soccer, but less likely (however strange that may be) to know it as Association Football.--Tiresais 10:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: Some may recall that 2 and a half months ago I described this debate as "ridiculous". But people's opinions change you know. I think we should move this page to Association football.--M W Johnson 10:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Football (word) covers most of that. Oldelpaso 17:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Association football 

message: Hi,Don't worry this aint another comment about a name change, more just one about common sense. 
The current opening phrase of this article reads "Football (also known as association football or soccer)".
As far as i know this version of football is formally called Association Football so should the above phrase not read "Association Football (also known as football or soccer)"? This phrase though isin't very smooth so it would probably better phrased "Association Football (often shortened to football or soccer)". This phrase isin't pefect either though and I'm sure you can come up with a better on but it's a step in the right direction. TheEnlightened 21:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Phrase is perhaps backwards 

message: If a team only had nine players and the game went to sudden death, would one player be allowed to kick again?  QuizQuick  14:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Penalty shootout (football)#Procedure, last bullet. Conscious 12:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penalty kicks 

message: How do people see underneath those huge banners that cover a large portion of a section in the crowd? It seems that the banner is held by the people, so do people see anything under it? Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.57.58.57 (talk • contribs) .
: They don't see anything. But the banners are usually not up for very long and often before the match or in half-time. – Elisson • Talk 13:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banners in football arenas 

message: Hi, could you make reference to Cambridge University Association Football Club in this article? They are oldest club, having been formed in 1855/56, and are currently celebratign their 150th anniversary. jamiebrown10 17.06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
This paragraph:
:The rules of football as they are codified today are based on mid-19th century efforts to standardise the widely varying forms of football played at the public schools of England. However this theory has been challenged after the finding of a book written in 1633 in Scotland some 200 years before the FA was founded.[4] This new finding has the ability to completely rewrite the history of football, however according to previous belief the Cambridge Rules were the first to resemble the modern game. They were produced at Trinity College, Cambridge in 1848, at a meeting attended by representatives from Eton, Harrow, Rugby, Winchester and Shrewsbury schools, but they were not universally adopted. During the 1850s, many clubs unconnected to schools or universities were formed throughout the English-speaking world to play various forms of football. Some came up with their own distinct codes of rules, most notably the Sheffield Football Club (formed by former pupils from Harrow) in 1857, which led to formation of a Sheffield FA in 1867. In 1862, John Charles Thring of Uppingham School also devised an influential set of rules.[5]
could use some help. The word "theory" doesn't seem applicable IMO, since it should denote an effort to explain a phenomenon not completely understood. The paragraph is also a little disjointed. I'm not knowledgeable about soccer and lack the time at the moment.Nodoremi 20:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "soccer" should be used as seldom as possible, not to establish it more than it already is. We (i.e the "free" world of football) must not surrender the term "football" to the americans, but call real football football and let their variety be called "american football" or whatever. They don't kick the ball that much, or even use a ball. So - call it football!! Nothing else!
Good point. Do the Brits ever use the term "soccer" any more?Nodoremi 21:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I certainly have no objections. I'm more or less editing wp articles as a passtime and to keep my writing "skills" up to date. Also, this is a pretty interesting subject from a foreigner's standpoint. I get over to England every so often. A few years ago I watched a couple of hours of a pan-Britain (including Ireland) darts championship and found it fascinating. Once I came across a few gentleman playing a skittles with a large discus-shaped wooden "ball". Can't remeber the throwing-object's name. They said the game was similar to the one referred to in Hawthorne's "Rip van Winkel". Nodoremi 20:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-write needed