Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:54, 26 March 2006

Association football has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Association football" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Football Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:FAOL

/Standard for football club information

Talk:Football (soccer)/(archive 1) (Feb 2003 and earlier)

Talk:Football (soccer)/(archive 2) (Feb 2003 - Oct 2005)

Talk:Football games

Tie-breaking

I have heard that in the past a coin was flipped to decide a tie-break instead of going into extra time or having a penalty-kick shootout. Is it true? Also, what exactly happens if the penalty-kick shootout results in a draw? It is unclear in the article. Thanks Donama 01:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. The most important match to be decided by a coin toss was in a semi-final of the European championships in 1968, Italy beat the Soviet Union to proceed through to the final which they went on to win 1968_European_Football_Championship#Semi-finals. As for penalty shootouts, if there is a tie after the five attempts by both teams it goes to sudden death. i.e. it continues until one side misses and the other scores. Jooler 02:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Jooler is correct regarding penalty shootouts. As there is already an article devoted to the details of a shootout there is no need to duplicate that info here. Cheers, --Daveb 08:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

edited Football is played at a professional level all over the world, and millions of people regularly go to a football stadium to follow their favourite team, whilst millions more avidly watch the game on television. to...

Football is played at a professional level all over the world, and millions of people regularly go to football stadiums to follow their favourite team, whilst millions more avidly watch the game on television. Whilst conjuring up images of a stadium of mammoth proportions capable of accomodating all the world's football fans. Matt. S. 29 December

fair enough stadia will do as well. Though both (stadia, and stadiums) are legitimate plurals. So just use whatever everyone prefers. Not that it's a big thing. Matt. S.

Page move vote in progress

There is currently a vote on to move Football World Cup to FIFA World Cup. see talk:Football World Cup Jooler 11:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Article name

This matter will have been undoubtedly debated and resolved in the past and I have no intention of starting a discussion it. I'm just curious to know: why is the article at "football (soccer)", when "association football" is the official name (and of course it must be distinguished from other forms of football)? (In FIFA, which is from the French abbreviation, the "association" at the end is an adjective of "football", I think.) Britannica uses "Association football", for example, not that we should be following it. "Soccer" is a (minority-used) synonym for "association football", not a subject-field or clarifying descriptor of the word "football".

Anyway, don't take this as an attempt to request to move the page (even though it sounds like one), I'm just curious. Neonumbers 11:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Neonumbers,

You are correct in your assumption that this has been debated before (at length!). I think there were two major issues with association football (my preferred page title):

1) It is debatable whether or not it is the "official" name of the sport: FIFA and IOC both just use football. I understand the association at the end of the French name refers to the associations that form FIFA rather than being adjectival, i.e. rough translation to "Federation of International Football Associations" rather than "Federation of Association Football". Correct me if I am incorrect.

2) Misplaced Pages has a policy of generally naming pages according to common name. I think it is questionable whether the current page title achieves this, but it seems to work well enough.

Cheers, --Daveb 11:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the reply. Makes more sense now. Cheers, Neonumbers 05:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. See the discussion on the FIFA talk page : Can anyone explain why the word "Association" in the federation's name is in singular form? -- Because "association football" is the name of the sport. It doesnt mean International Federation of (lots of) Football Associations. Jameswilson 6 December 2005; Yup. If it was rendered in English it would be International Federation of Association Football. In the French language, the adjective comes after the noun, as in "Football association" Erath 7 December 2005.; --68.96.241.18 14:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

popularity

i havent seen anything on the popularity of soccer. It is the most played sport in the world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.49.208.141 (talk • contribs) 28 January 2006.

It actually says in the main article - it is therefore often claimed to be the most popular sport in the world.

I know wikipedia is meant to take a npov, but it sometimes goes too far. Football just is the most popular sport in the world. Kellster71 00:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue is one of verifiability. Unless someone can cite a reference to prove the claim then we can't really make it. --Daveb 08:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It is pretty clear (as someone who is not a Football supporter and does not play) that Football is also the only really global sport in the world. I have to admit that the football world cup is THE World Cup and it is only in the USA that anyone has not noticed. Misplaced Pages National pastime for example lists it as the most popular sport in far more countries than any other. --BozMotalk 13:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually people in the US do know about it, especially the Hispanics and other foriegners. Tennis Dynamite 02:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move

football (soccer) to soccer. Soccer is a simpler title. Facts&moreFacts 21:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~

• Under no circumstances - Jooler 21:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Under no circumstances Some countries call it football and never ever soccer. Others call it soccer and never ever football. other countries (the US, Ireland, etc call their own local sports football. This name was chosen because it uses all forms used worldwide and was agreed after a detailed debate. FearÉIREANN\ 21:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This must be a joke. You didn't even bother to read the section above this one. This has been discussed and people have found a consensus. --Maitch 21:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not discussed above. Facts&moreFacts 21:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

To quote the section above. "You are correct in your assumption that this has been debated before (at length!)." --Maitch 21:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you go and read the archives listed at the top of the page. You will soon find the discussions... -- Arwel (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose — Americentrism is the only excuse for renaming, and it's not a good one.— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 14, 2006, 22:09 (UTC)
• Support "Soccer" is already in the title to start with, so it shouldn't cause any harm for that to be the full title. The title Football (soccer) is more difficult to type. 64.192.107.242 22:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You're free to link to or write soccer if you want to. You end up here anyway. Sam Vimes 08:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Olessi 22:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Under no circumstances Vanky 08:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Excessively debated before. Sam Vimes 08:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, obviously, and send the move request to BJAODN. — sjorford (talk) 10:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose,this issue was resolved long ago Bob Palin 15:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose: All the reasons have already been stated, and if you do call it soccer, how do you explain FC, FA or FIFA? Internationally committed and promulgated spelling mistakes? MSJapan 22:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: Many don't even know what the word "soccer" stands for. "Football" should be the name. Uapatriot 00:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oh God, not again! Under no circumstances. This has been thrashed out in minute detail many times before. Given that the proposer of the move apparently created the account and made his first edit less than 24 hours before kicking this off, I have a strong feeling that we have been trolled. -- Arwel (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Totally Oppose. If anything this article should be renames "football" Tancred 06:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. I guess our newbie friend Facts&moreFacts haven't seen the previous discussions regarding this subject. Mariano(t/c) 13:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose — and suggest addition of banner at the top of the page saying this has been tried before and has failed. — Gareth Hughes 17:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Arnemann 21:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - will fight this to the death if need be. Now crawl back into your hole. --202.47.51.60 18:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Move vote closed as Strong Oppose. See also previous discussions in the archives, eg here. Rd232 21:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Golden/silver goals

The text now states that the experiments were motivated because the penalty shootout was undesireable.

Wasn't a part of the motivation that the 2x15 minutes of extra time were often drawn out by defensive play if a team had great confidence in their keeper/penalty takers for the penalty shootout? The instant reward of a golden goal was then seen as an incitement for teams to be more aggressive, to go for the decisive goal (with the back-firing result that teams got even more scared of loosing, and more defensive). Poulsen 10:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

3 points and backpasses

I am curious as to when the rules giving three (and not two) points for a win was introduced - around 1992/1993 iirc, but should this be in the rules of the game? Also the penalizing of a goalkeeper picking up a backpass from his own defender with his hands was added in the last 10-15 years as well, should this be included? I'm mainly asking because I'm curious as to when those rule changes occured and haven't seen anything mentioned about it on wiki. Poulsen 10:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that the backpass rule was introduced in the 1994 World Cup, but I'm not totally sure. It may have been the previous season. Back-pass rule is a substub. The introduction of three points for a win varied by country; England introduced it in 1981-82. The number of points for a win will be in the rules for a particular competition rather than the laws of the game. I don't think it should be mentioned in this introductory article, in fact I think the rules section goes too in-depth, and should have some content moved to Rules of football (soccer). At the moment we have the section here, Laws of the Game, and individual articles such as Direct free kick and Throw-in. We should have one article bringing together all the rules IMO. Oldelpaso 19:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I've just looked it up: the backpass rule was introduced in 1992 . Oldelpaso 19:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Oldelpaso,

By the time we brought all the Laws-related (NB Laws, not Rules) articles together we might as well just point to the FIFA website :-)

I agree much of the text on the Laws in the main article could be migrated to the Laws of the Game article to streamline the main article, but I would keep the daughter pages on restarts. --Daveb 09:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The physical contact between players

I've reinserted a shorter phrase on fouls into the "Nature of the game" section. The previous wording was:

The physical contact between players is restricted: holding, tripping, kicking or excessively pushing opponents is not allowed. Such actions (along with handling the ball) are called fouls and are punishable by a free kick (or a penalty kick if commited in the vicinity of the offender's goal; see below for details).

I agree that this information is found elsewhere, but I thought it's important to include this section in the overview (to emphasize difference from rugby, for example). Also, what is incorrect here? Conscious 18:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In the "Nature of the game" section it seems very odd to have a comment that regaining control of the ball can be done by "tackling the opponent who controls the ball"--I've never seen sanctioned tackling in soccer!

Football Needs You

Hello,

You don't know me but i'm a user formely known as User:Jebus Christ. I was blocked some time ago because wikipedia didn't like my username. I've only just now created my current username.

Some of you may be aware that the Football article has been overtaken by a fraternity of Australian Rules supporters. This fraternity includes at least one administrator that i'm aware of. His name is Snottygobble.

Regardless of what you may think of the current vote going on in that article, it is blatantly obvious that the article has a major overrepresentation from Australian Rules fans. The Football article needs more input from people with interests such as yours. This should even out the content a little resulting in an article written from a global perspective (as opposed to the southern australian perspective).

With regards to the current vote, whether you agree or not with the proposal, there are definitely some very twisted tactics being used. Currently, almost every person who has voted differently to that the AFL fraternity has been accused of being a sockpuppet of the person who initiated the vote. Through pure frustration, several users made the same accusation of some of the AFL fraternity. Immediately those people were blocked for 'making sockpuppet accursations in bad faith' by administrator and Aussie Rules fraternity member User:Snottygobble.

I'm not here asking anyone to partake in the vote. What i'd like to see though is more input from people outside of the Assie Rules Fraternity.

Thanks in advance,

Jimididit 13:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Undated GA templates
• Good articles without topic parameter
• Unassessed football articles
• Unknown-importance football articles
• WikiProject Football articles