Talk:Association football/Archive 7

message: I have suggested this article for use on the Main Page as Today's featured article. Please feel free to add your comments here. Kingjamie 20:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today's Featured Article suggestion 

message: Can the article be unprotected now? Conscious 21:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotect? 

message: Maybe I'm missing something, but why is the article named in such a US-centric manner? Surely it should be at association football and have this as its primary name in the article lead? Chris Cunningham 09:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. This has been discussed over and over and over again, and there is consensus to use the term "football (soccer)" when needed to avoid confusion. – Elisson • T • C • 16:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: And the lead contains "association football" in bold text. Conscious 17:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the talkpage archives, this has been discussed so thoroughly that any thought or concern you may have is probably already answered there. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 04:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed extensively, arguably thoroughly. However, no concerns you may have were already answered there in any valid way - except by arbitrarily asserting that "soccer" is good and "association football" isn't. The fact that "football" is the common name used by well over a billion people, and that "soccer" is used by about 300 million, almost all of whom don't play or watch it, is ignored. 139.163.138.14 02:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of weather the term soccer is used by 300 million people who neither play nor watch the sport, regardless 300 million + people use the term.  The article is named in a way that both American and everyone else can easily understand.  - Wmgries
I don't understand this claim of US-centrism at all. If the title were Soccer, it might be argued to be US- and Australia-centric. Calling it Football (soccer) is thoroughly un-American! Also, it's simply untrue to say Americans neither play nor watch the sport. Millions of Americans play or have played soccer -- just not once they're older than 17 or so! And of course millions of Americans have watched soccer -- just not on TV, but rather live at the game in which their own child is playing. —Angr 17:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting stat on the question of Americans playing football: According to FIFA's statistics, 18 million Americans play soccer -- not counting children and "occasional players" -- more than any other country! —Angr 18:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Please read the boilerplate stuck on top of this talk page. – Elisson • T • C • 19:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, consensus can change. Well, if you really, really, really want to waste your time as well as the time of other football article editors, please go ahead and propose the change (which of course would affect some thousand articles and categories under :Category:Football (soccer) that also use the term "football (soccer)" as disambiguation) on the talk page of the Football WikiProject, which is the most proper place to do so, as such a name change affects not only this page. – Elisson • T • C • 22:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: I suggest you read Football (soccer)#Names of the game. Cheers! – Elisson • T • C • 22:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is the origin of the name "soccer"? 

message: Fascinating.  This page is getting hit very hard.  I suggest it be locked against edits by new users, at least for a while. --Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫♦♫ 01:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every "Today's Featured Article" gets hit with a lot of vandalism. Just revert it and move on. Please read WP:NOPRO for why Today's Featured Article shouldn't be protected (or even semi-protected) except under highly unusual circumstances. —Angr 16:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: If you are talking about soccer in Spanish, it is actually spelled "futbol"( with an accent over the "u" ). If you use the spelling "football" then it refers the the American sport.
75.51.222.217 02:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am pretty sure that you are talking about the spanish word "futbol"  

message: The intro paragraph includes the following: "The ball game is played on a rectangular grass field, or occasionally an artificial pitch, with a goal at each end." I believe a distinction should be made between the professional game and the amateur, as one of the biggest attractions of the sport is the ease with which it is adapted to the environment. Xiner 02:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its still played on a rectangular pitch with a goal at least at one end, however, amateur football in this context (by association rules) has two goals, one at either end. Playing with, say, one goal like you do as kids doesn't use Association Rules, and therefore isn't soccer- its just another form of football Jonomacdrones 19:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Playing surface 

message: An excellent article, glad to see it as today's FA.  I have a quibble with the caption "The striker (wearing the red shirt)".  This seems to use the term "striker" to mean "person shooting at goal" rather than as a specific position.  The player in question may well be a striker, but that is not obvious, by any means, from the picture.  For a non-fan, this could be confusing.  Using "A striker" or merely "An offensive player" might be less able to misinterpret. Boomcoach 13:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Picture Caption 

message: Should the high chance of traumas in the game be addressed? I have two friends who had been very good soccer players before they got injured. Anyone who watch soccer could notice how often players get traumatized. And it is not just due to foul play, the nature of the game itself makes the players prone to knee injuries, muscle/ligament tears etc. I admit this may be true for many sport activities. We could have a section on traumas in this article with a link to an article on traumas in all sports. What do you think? (Igny 14:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never ever heard of a "high chance of traumas" for people playing football. – Elisson • T • C • 17:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Robbie Fowler a few years ago suffered medical trauma, Eric Cantona visited medical trauma on a fan when he dropkicked into the crowd (See Here, 2nd Paragraph), and many footballers have claimed to have suffered mental trauma at such times as Hillsborough and other times. I'm sure there're better, more relevant examples, but those are the ones i could think of. Jonomacdrones 19:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I do not deny that footballers have suffered traumas. I just never have heard that footballers have a "high chance of traumas" compared to other sports, or activities. – Elisson • T • C • 22:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  traumas 

message: Someone should delete this now, unless it is a gay sport. Which is unlikely, you can find it in the beginning of the article.
:Thanks for noticing the vandalism! You can revert vandalism yourself, which takes no more time than leaving a note on the talk page asking someone else to do it! :-) —Angr 17:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Gay Sport"???? 

message: Please tell me what I'm missing here  ... Naconkantari 19:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe he takes offence at use of the  template because it requires the reader to deduce that "for other uses of honey see honey (disambiguation)" doesn't mean "for other uses of honey" but "for other uses of the word honey".  See Template talk:Otheruses.  Similarly, then, he presumably objects to the "for other uses" bit in  for the same reason.  --RobertG ♬ talk 19:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe he means it metaphorically, as in the template "offends common sense." I don't know. <shrug> Simões (talk/contribs) 22:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect template offensive? 

message: When I clicked on the article, it said "jack snow was here" or something like that. When I refreshed the page, it was normal. What happened?
: Someone vandalised the article, and someone else restored it. – Elisson • T • C • 19:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack Snow? Who's he? 

message: Until I deleted it the article said "Indeed, FIFA has acknowledged China as the "birthplace of football".[4]" citing http://www.fifa.com/en/history/history/0,1283,1,00.html - this page makes no such claim. I remember deleting almost the exact same wording about 6 months ago. Jooler 22:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mistakenly switched the links with the previous sentence, which is why the "birthplace of football link" led to this history one and not the right one.  Here is the page that makes the claim: http://www.fifa.com/en/history/centennial/index/0,1282,106995,00.html?articleid=106995
I hope that settles it.  Someone should've checked the NEW link before removing my second change. Bssc81 17:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The new link still does not say that FIFA regards China as the birtplace of football, or that FIFA has acknowledged China as the birthplace of football, it only says that "China is regarded as the birthplace of football", by whom, I ask? As long as the article does not specify who, we should not include anything unverifiable, such as stating that it is FIFA that regards China to be the birthplace. – Elisson • T • C • 15:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What more authoritative source of information can there be for football besides FIFA? If you have a problem with the source, take it up with the publishers of that source. Ceros 20:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a problem with people considering China to be the birthplace of football, if you would have read the article, you would have noticed that it cites FIFA saying the "very earliest form of the game for which there is scientific evidence was an exercise of precisely this skilful technique dating back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries B.C. in China." What I have a problem with is people putting words in other's mouths. We shouldn't have the article stating "Indeed, FIFA has acknowledged China as the "birthplace of football".", as FIFA hasn't acknowledged anything like that, at least not in the source that was provided. – Elisson • T • C • 20:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I totally concur with Elisson and that is precisely the reasons why I removed the text (both recently) and when I did so in the past. The remark in the article is totally unattributed. In any case the remark is uneducated. Games with feet and a ball were played all over the world in ancient times. If China was the birthplace of football then it would have to have originated there (and only there) and have travelled from there to the rest of the worl and AFAIK there is no such trail to follow. Okay the Chinese played a game with the feet and a ball 2 thousands years ago, big deal so did other people, it just happens to be that someone in China wrote about it, that's all. There's no proven historical connection between that game and the modern game of football we all love. This article should not try to mislead the reader by making a false claim that there is such an historical trail and it should certainly not try to do so by falsly attributing an off-hand remark by some unknown person as some kind of official proclamation from the organization. Jooler 22:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "birthplace of football"

message: how the heck do I get to real football, none of this soccer stuff, I want football, How can you call soccer football on a bloody encyclopedia that also has football on it.  I realise soccer is also called football and I digress but instead of having a link that states "for other uses of soccer see this shouldn't it say for other uses of foottball see this list here.  If I type in football and cannot even get to a football disambig page how lame is that.  
sincerely Angry real football fan.
:If you actually bothered to type in football, you would indeed find a disambiguation page. Have you even tried? Poulsen 09:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the note at top of this page. – Elisson • T • C • 15:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WTF

message: Football was not codified in England, except insofar as the domestic game was concerned.  Football was codified internationally by the International Football Association Board, which consisted of the FAs of all four of the Home Nations).  Hence, it be be only fair to state that it was codified in the United Kingdom. Bastin 14:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The code is so strongly associated (hehe) with formation of The Football Association and vice versa that I don't know how anyone could say it wasn't codified in England. Grant65 | Talk 16:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FIFA says otherwise. Whatever associations the average person makes between the FA, the Cambridge Rules, and the ultimate codification of the game, the fact remains that the FA codified the rules in England alone, and that the other Home Nations (and, indeed, overseas teams) played by different rules.  The game was not properly codified in the United Kingdom until the International Board was established, and not across the rest of the world until FIFA was established and accepted the IFAB as the ultimate arbiter.  Even after the IFAB came into existence, there were disagreements over the fundamental rules of the game (some of the early minutes are truly enlightening), hence its raison d'être. Bastin 10:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: When the Irish FA was founded in 1880 it explicitly used the Scottish FA's rules. jnestorius(talk) 10:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that Pelé was brilliant, but so were Ferenc Puskas, Diego Maradona, Garrincha, Johan Cruijff and several more.  There is no player who is far better than everyone else so think we should leave the article as it is. (Chorleypie 13:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Codified in England?

message: User:Gwernol's vandalism revert is the first edit of 2007 --Donald Goldberg 00:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First edit of 2007

message: Getting tired of this being contantly in my top five on my watchlist. Chris Cunningham 11:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection requested 

message: This article says that although the Laws are in metric, Imperial units are popularly used. This is firsthand knowledge, so don't consider it fact, but as an American soccer player I can tell you that we use the metric system almost exclusively, except for the 16.5 meter box, which we call "the eighteen" (as in 18 yards). According to my team's German exchange student, penalty kicks are called "11-meter kicks" in Germany, not "12-yard kicks." Therefore, my hypothesis is that traditional units are often used in Britain (especially by the older generations) but not in the United States because soccer took hold here long after soccer became defined in metric. Regardless, more research is required before we can make a conclusion.
SteveSims 19:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In Germany, only the TV reporter would use the official term "Strafstoß" (= penalty kick). People usually call a penalty an "11 meter" ("Elfmeter" in German). 84.133.22.61 22:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not the "18 yard box", it's the PENALTY AREA Phobal 06:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You never hear that it's a "11 meter kick", but the penalty kick if from 11 meters ;) and ofc its the penalty area, never ever heard someone say "18 yard box" :D Chandlertalk 01:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: In Romania, the same term applies , a "11 meter shot" being the commonly used phrasing, even for reporters. "Penalty shot" is also used, but more rarely. Honestly, although I lack facts, I doubt anyone on the continent uses Imperial units in sports ( the vast majority of football-watching but culture-lacking people wouldn't even know what a yard IS ) . It's just not done, and I've watched matches in a few countries while on vacation, and never heart anything Imperial.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.136.155.218 (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Metric vs. Imperial

message: The infobox  was once on this page and I note that several editors have put it back only to have it continually removed.  Can someone please explain to me why this is the case.  Every single other code of football (and almost all other team sports) have this very useful nav box at the bottom of the page.  Is is because soccer wikipedians so insecure of other football codes ?  The other articles don't seem to share the sentiment.  If someone can't give me a reason for its exclusion then I will keep adding it.  --Spewmaster 00:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for exclusion has been given in the edit summary several times. There is no need for a team sport navbox on the page when we have a category to do the job for us. – Elisson • T • C • 17:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Team Sports Infobox