Talk:American football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the American football article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Good article American football has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Info Important note: This is an introductory article to American football. It exists to give people who know little or nothing about the sport a basic understanding of the game. Information that does not fall under that description should go under American-football strategy, American football rules, etc.
To-do list for American football: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh

Contents

[edit] vandalism

I saved the page from some loser who put "The bears will roll over everyone in their way mother ******"--Nytemunkey 20:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Positions

What is everyone's opinion on making an article just for positions in football, break it down by offense, defense, and special teams. Also have diagrams and maybe even discuss players that are in the hall of fame for certain positions. --Stang281 21:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

good idea...I long for a good reference to point to any time I hear some barely intelligeble comment from someone about 'such-and-such player needs to blah-blah-blah', like "Roy Williams needs to pick his big ugly head up and learn to play some pass coverage." Last I checked Strong Safety is primarily a hard-hitter focused less on pass coverage than he is on the run defense. But I could be wrong and there is much evidence to suggest that I am. A problem that may arise when defining 'roles' for positions is the fact that said roles will vary depending on the coaches/ coordinators scheme or philosophy. It will also vary depending on the abilities and temperament of the player. Also, a player's "role" may change abrubptly despite a coaches philosophy, say for instance, if another key player is injured. His role might change to fill a gap. Trying to define clearly and relatively simply a certain positions 'role' may in fact end up turing into an endless list of "what-if" suppositions, and what started out as a virtuous endevour will become mired in debate between half-knowledgable super-fans and forgotten ex-varsity heroes. Or maybe it should be a more marginalized description, leaving out the minority exceptions. But such a thing would hardly be worth the effort. Also, who would the experts be to define the positions?--micah


I personally think that this would be a good Idea!! It would give people an extention and learn more in-depth abot this sport, if they wish.

Reckrap 13:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reckrap

[edit] Clarification

I just want to say I'm really glad that the term American football is now replacing National Football League when it comes to identifying football players or teams on their wiki pages. It presents a more worldly view on the subject rather than just identifying the rank of the team or player in terms of what league they play in. It's more important to identify the sport they play first. Jimmy Mac 04:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • The NFL is one form of American football. College football is another. High school football is another. Although the sports are very similar, there are subtle differences in the rules that impact the flow of the games. Wahkeenah 09:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct, but instead of saying John Smith is a CFL player or a Penn State player or an Eagles player, it's better to say John Smith is an American football player who PLAYS for the CFL's Argonauts. Rules variances or no, it's still American football. Jimmy Mac 10:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

However, it's correct. That's how most other sports profiles work. Random examples- David Beckham, Los Angeles Lakers, Eric Lindros. That's how its supposed to look.

[edit] Football And Drugs

"Contemporary football players are larger than their predecessors of only 30 or 40 years ago. It is quite normal, for instance, for all the members of the offensive line of a major college or professional team to weigh more than 300 pounds (136 kg.), whereas in the 1960s linemen who weighed only 270 pounds were common."

If that were the case - Steroids being the cause for size increase - nearly anybody could play football and scouting NFL players wouldn't be a multi-million dollor trade. Players from the previous generations where steroids were legal cannot be considered relevant to players in professional leagues today. Furthermore the knowledge of nutrition was terrible in the 1960's and is no way comparable to the knowledge of nutrition and excersise today. I will request that section to be removed or re-written.

You are welcome to rewrite the section as you see fit. -- Mwalcoff 00:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I was going to try, after reading the entire "beyond entertainment and recreation" section all I could do is roll my eyes at all the false and biased information there, when writing pages like this its best to keep in mind that with the growing international interest in football many people who know nothing about the sport will come here to learn, they don't care about the so called debate of academics vs athletics in american colleges, and there is no steroid controversy in football, thats baseball. Wether or not steroids are widely used, or have ever been widely used in the NFL is unknown, speculation. Currently 300+ pound O-linemen and DT's are not gigantic dianabol muscle-men, they are fat, it is their mix of muscle and fat that make them weigh as much as they do, I am 6'0, 230 lbs - i've never touched a steroid. Whoever wrote that section sounds like a 130 pound nerd who's mad that he had to pay to park in highschool so the football team he hated could have equiptment. I'm deleting it for now, eventualy somebody with factual information without bias can decide to re-write it or something similar.
  • Ooh... someone's upset. Is that the 'roids talking? Deletions reverted. 86.128.188.154 23:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't revert it again, it's biased and contains false - non factual - information as well as information completely irrelevant to the game of american football. Mithotyn
  • You should refute these claims on this page to allow the community to come to agreement rather than deleting sections wholesale. That section did not read as especially inaccurate to me, so it's not as if it were vandalism that should be reverted without discussion. However, the unsigned rant above does sound inaccurate. Make your case and let others decide. --Tysto 21:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not that devoted I just don't like the idea that the popularity of American football is growing internationaly and articles like this exist to explain the game of American football to curious people interesting in learning it so they know whats going on the next time they see a football game, but instead get to read a bunch of political American BS that has nothing to do with the game of football itself, therefor irrelevant. if you want to talk about the history of the game or the "scandals" that you claim exist in American football than start a new article specific to it. Mithotyn
  • You say you're not devoted, yet all but two of the contributions under your IP address of 71.10.17.198 have been American football related. That seems devoted to me. The sections shouldn't be removed just because you want to put a gloss on your beloved sport. 86.128.188.154 01:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Its better now, not perfect but much better, great job matt. Mithotyn

Thanks. Feel free to improve it--I just thought I'd give you guys a starting point. Matt Yeager 20:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revert of my edit

An anonymous user from the Netherlands reverted my previous changes, so I thought I would provide my rationale for them here, giving him or her a chance to defend the revert.

1. The sentence:

"The ball can be advanced by carrying the ball, throwing it, or a lateral handoff, from one teammate to the other"

is gramatically inconsistent. "Carrying" and "throwing" are gerunds, so the third thing in the list should be as well.

2 The sentence:

"Points can be scored in a variety of ways, including carrying the ball over the goal line, throwing the ball to another player past the goal line (known as a forward pass) or even kicking the ball held by another player on the ground through the goalposts (also known as uprights), which is also called a field goal. The team with more points when time has expired wins."

is problematic in several respects. First, a "forward pass" is any pass thrown forward, not just one into the end zone. Secondly, there is no reason for the word "even" there, since it's hardly a surprise. Third, the part of the sentence about kicking is too long and confusing; a link to "placekicking" is preferable. Four, "uprights" are just the sides of the goalposts. Finally, the last sentence should be in the present simple to match the rest of the section.

3. "Outside of the United States, the sport is referred to as American football, ameriball, or sometimes 'Grid-iron' to differentiate it from the more familiar rugby football and the very different game called football which dominates around the rest of the world."

Canadians don't call it "American football." (If they needed to differentiate American football from its Canadian counterpart, they would say "NFL football" or "NCAA football" or whatever.) "Ameriball" has only about 120 Google hits. Rugby is only more familiar in countries that play rugby. Finally, soccer does not dominate in the entire rest of the world. It's not that popular in India, for example.

Unless our friend in Holland can argue why my edit is unnecessary, I will unrevert it. Mwalcoff 19:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

'English-speaking countries' is redundant. For one, only in two (I believe) of those countries is it referred to in that way, Australia and New Zealand. Secondly, non-English speaking countries don't call it 'American football' anyway, for example the French call it 'football américain'. It is never called 'grid-iron' in most English-speaking countries, the way you had worded it made it seem otherwise.

As for ameriball, just because YOU haven't heard of it referred to in that way doesn't mean it is 'nonsense'. The simple reason why it doesn't come up with many Google hits is because the type of people who refer to American football in that way are the type of people who don't talk about it often. In my experience, it is fairly well-known.

86.128.188.154 08:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I travelled around a bit much in the military and I am an avid football fan. I never once heard it referred to as Grid-Iron - even among the Aussie Navy that I worked with. The Royal British Marines called it "American Football" when being polite, but normally called it "Footican" to be rude. In rare cases, "American Football" was shortened to "Ameriball". However, those who liked to shorten it like that would actually say "merb'l" (like gerbil) as a 1.5 syllabel word, not "A-mer-i-ball". However, I'm sure it is called everything from "yankball" to "that stupid sport they play over in the U.S.", but that doesn't mean we have to include every nickname for the sport in the article. Kainaw 19:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
We got rid of "yankball," and that has far more Google hits than "ameriball," even though people who say "yankball" wouldn't talk about it much, either. Maybe all of these synonyms could be fit into the article Football (word). -- 70.27.57.22 00:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


I like that idea of a little alternative names section with a bit if information about where they are used and all that. --Josquius 11:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Powder-puff football

I have removed the line about powder-puff football for two reasons:

  1. We don't explain what it is or link to an article that does.
  2. It is a very minor phenomenon in the scheme of things.

If you want to write about powder-puff article, why not start an article on it and then link to it in the "Professional, college, and other leagues" section?

Mwalcoff 00:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Safeties

I have shortened the section on safeties by eliminating the part about strategy, which I think is inappropriate for the paragraph. I put a message on User:Cshay's talk page to try to work out something he would accept but did not hear back from him.

I also removed the acreage from the field dimensions; I don't think it's necessary. -- Mwalcoff 22:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Both edits are good. Far too much of this article is wasted translating measurements. Nobody cares that a yard is three feet when playing football. The point is that you need to move 10 of them to get a first down - regardless of how many feet or meters a yard is. Also, there is an NFL article for NFL rules and strategies. Too much of it gets added to this article. --Kainaw (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rugby Shmugby

Why all the references to rugby? I know even less about the sport of rugby than I do football, so to say certain elements are similar to rugby means nothing to me. If you're looking to slim down the article, how about killing the rugby references? While we're at it, you could kill the Canadian football references, too, since the article is about American football. Make a separate article about Canadian football. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.134.201.222 (talk • contribs) 3 January 2006.

I didn't include the rugby references, but my guess is that many of the people who read this article are people from rugby-playing countries. Comparisons to rugby can help them understand football. There are only a few references to Canadian football in the article, and I don't think any of them are too irrelevant. -- Mwalcoff 03:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore the two sports seem to have farily common roots.--Daveb 03:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
They don't 'seem' to have commom roots, they have common roots. Without the English forms of football, most notably the rugby version, there would be no American Football.
Also, there is a separate article on Canadian football. We're probably dealing with a thirteen-year-old or something here. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 21:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two questions

  1. Should we really list some common penalties in the Penalties section? I suppose it would be helpful for people to know about them, but we list them before we even list the positions. Should we put the list in a separate article?
  2. The positions section has gotten really complicated. Do we need to metion the difference between a flanker and split end? Most fans don't even know the difference. -- Mwalcoff 00:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
My thoughts:
  1. Yep, definitely. Watch a football game for a quarter, and you're definitely going to see several of the yellow flags. We've got to tell people about them. I wouldn't argue with the section being moved down, though.
  2. I think we should mention the difference. The rarity of knowledge has little correlation with its value. It's an article about American football, and as such we should have a bunch of information about it. Why not make the article as full as it can be? (I know that you're just using that as an example, but so am I. Rephrasing, sorting, moving to daughter articles (to a limited extent) is one thing--deletion of information is another.) Matt Yeager 04:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, certainly the difference between flanker and split end should be somewhere, but should it be in an introductory article? Or should it just be on the article on wide receivers and other daughter articles? (It should be noted anyway that the difference between X and Z receivers isn't as great as it used to be.) -- Mwalcoff 05:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other

American Football is known as Football in Canada as well. Why keep removing it from the article? It's almost as if people want to consider it an "American" game, even though it was invented by Canadians at McGill University in Montreal, Canada.

Really? I don't think so... =/ Matt Yeager 22:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's true. Look up McGill University here on Wikipedia and the article makes a reference to it. Sorry.

Well, one could argue that Canadian Football is known as Football in Canada and is very similar to American Football. Some of the crucial innovations that distinguish American and Canadian Football from other football codes, like rugby and soccer (both of which were played in North America) were indeed invented at McGill. Some others were invented when Canadians and Americans got together to play each other.
I don't think the term "American" necessarily means "from the United States" as it's sometimes thought. North and South America are continents, so the people on them are [North or South] Americans. It's ok to call the sport 'American Football' since the majority of the people playing it are from the North American continent. tnek46 20:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Lol, true. I think if we were allowed to be 100% technically and geographically correct, it could be called North American Football? -- 81.208.160.164 18:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  • "America" by itself is a pseudonym for the USA. Otherwise, Mexico is part of the North American continent, and isn't soccer more popular there than American Football? Wahkeenah 18:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope that Mexico comment was ironic!! Soccer is just a LITTLE more popular there (and throughout Latin America) than any other variety of football!!!!!!!Mralph72 11:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Usually Mexico is considered part of latin America, even though technically its North American. And saying it could be called Canadian Football because it was invented by a Canadian is like calling basketball Canadian basketball because it was invented by a Canadian, or calling hamburgers German food because it was made in Germany.

[edit] Officials, challenges, playoffs?

Little is said of referees/umpires/line judges, the distinctions between them, their duties and placement on the field, except occasionally in passing. It would be good to solidify that a bit. Also, a bit about challenges would be very helpful: the procedure of challenging a play, which plays can be challenged, official-initiated challenges, etc. And the playoff procedure should be addressed. Cheers all; nice work so far. !mAtt™ 19:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The goal of this article, I believe, is to be a simple introduction to the sport for people who don't know anything about it. I don't want to leave anything out, but I'd like to put all of those things you mentioned in second-level articles, such as Rules of American football. -- Mwalcoff 23:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Images out of context

The two images of the football stadiums, Image:Cincinnati-paul-brown-stadium2.jpg and Image:DSCN4567_clevelandbrownsstadium_e2.jpg are out of context on this page. I suggest they be removed. --Nv8200p talk 04:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Player Positions Image

The questions I am asked more than any other when it comes to football is, "Who is the (fill in position here)?" I decided to make a rough draft of a graphic showing the common positions with name labels. It is at [1]. Please let me know if I made any mistakes, if there is any vagueness, if I need to add a position, or if this is a complete waste of time. I would like to have a simple graphic that can be placed inline with the positions section of the main article so a person can look at the picture and quickly see where everyone lines up. --Kainaw (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's great (and a great idea), with a few issues:
  • You only have five offensive players on the line of scrimmage. The tight end and the wide receiver on the opposite side of the field must be on the line.
  • The fullback plays in front of the halfback, not behind him.
  • The tight end usually plays on the right side.
  • The position of the running backs is a bit strange. I would put them in a straight I formation.
  • The wide receivers and cornerbacks seem to be a bit close to the middle of the field.
  • You might want to consider using X's for defense and O's for offense (and a square for the center), which is how plays are typically represented.
  • It looks like the word "Outside" on the left outside linebacker refers to the left defensive end.

Mwalcoff 00:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll make those changes. I'm rather surprised. I always thought the fullback was behind the halfback. --Kainaw (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
That would be logical semantically, but for some reason the fullback plays between the halfback (tailback) and quarterback. -- Mwalcoff 02:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Semantically I have no idea why the "full"back lines up in front of (in the I at least) the "half"back (which may be why the more generic term "running back" was formulated), but tactically it's because the fullback is a blocking back and the halfback is a ball carrier (main functions).--Buckboard 22:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Strong Safety usually plays closer to the line than the Free Safety. It does vary, though, so it might not matter. --71.225.229.151 22:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I finally got around to making the changes suggested. See the image again. You may have to hit reload if you aren't getting the one with X's and O's. --Kainaw (talk) 01:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to nitpick, the image is a very good idea. It is still an illegal formation however. There are only 6 men on the line of scrimmage. In order to correct this, move the "left" wide reciver onto the line of scrimmage (this makes him the SPLIT END, which is the official name).. the "right" wide reciever is positioned correctly.. (off the line of scrimmage, which makes him a FLANKER, the official name)

I think it's a great idea though, great thinking. Just figured it should be 100% accurate. FYI, the reciever on the tight end side in your formation can be lined up on the line of scrimmage.. HOWEVER, that makes the tight end an ineligable receiver, (and actually makes the left tackle eligible, or LT actually BECOMES the tight end) So you would have on the line of scrimmage from left to right: Split end (WR), Tight End (TE), Left guard(LG), Center (C), Right Guard (RG), Right Tackle (RT), Tight End ineligable (TE) serving as an ADDITIONAL right tackle <---this is a formation that is irregular, but is used particularly in a "trick play" type of situation. Complex and should be avoided obviously for this article, but thought I'd mention it.

To keep it simple in your formation, technically called an "I-split right" ("I" Formation, split recivers, Tight end Right), just move the left wide receiver up on the line of scrimmage (again, making him the split end) making the right wide reciever the flanker.<--- the flanker becomes the wide reciever that can go into motion before the snap if designed Cowboy357 16:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


Since we're nitpicking, you may want to designate what kind of offense or defense we're looking at. For intance what we see is the "typical" 4-3 defense [which is becoming less and less typical], and the offense is variation of the, once again, "typical" I-formation. As a general diagram for listing the player positions it works great, though it could be noted that positioning or "formations" often do vary somewhat drastically. Or maybe I'm picking too many nits.--micah

[edit] Moved positions detail

The "players" section was getting out of hand, so I moved all the detail to American football positions. The only things I took out of here that I didn't include on the new page were the descriptions of flankers and split ends and nickel, dime and rover backs. Those things are or can be explained on the pages about wide receivers and defensive backs.

I'm still concerned about the list of penalties. I don't think it makes sense to be talking about illegal contact and whatnot before we tell them what a wide receiver is. I think we ought to just tell them to go to American football rules or an article specifically on penalties if they want more information. -- Mwalcoff 01:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

League selection need clean upp.


[edit] Sports franchising

As a naive Limey, I thought I'd come here to see if there are any Americans who could elaborate the sports franchising page? If you look at its Talk, you'll see that we would like it to be expanded so we can relate the few cases of what has been labeled 'franchising' in the UK to what franchising actually is. Basicially, I think the page could do with a history of how the practice developed, how popular it is and what relationship between club and league allows it. Cheers Robdurbar 13:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Canadians don't call it "American football"

Until recently, the article began "American football, known in the United States and Canada simply as 'football'". Some misguided person changed that to just "United States" with the HTML comment viewable in the source that "the word 'football' in Canada means Canadian football", which simply isn't true. I am Canadian, and when my friends and I talk about "football", we usually mean the NFL. We don't qualify it at all. The NFL is more popular than the CFL in Canada. If you don't believe me, refer to the Association for Canadian Studies survey (PDF file). If I were talking about Canadian football it would be clear from context; we don't qualify it either way. I reverted the intro paragraph back to the way it was and added a note a little further along that "football" in Canada may refer to either of the two codes. 24.199.113.113 00:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Texas and high school football

I have removed the "most especially" characterization of the popularity of high school football in texas. As I understand it, there is no fair basis for claiming that high school football is more popular in texas than in any of the other listed states.


  • I agree with this point. Until there is statistical proof, there is no need for this stereotype to be included. Tnek46 16:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As a Texan I will say that football is extremely popular here. The number of high school football temes in Texas dwarfs the number in other states and Texas is known by locals as the football state.


There are stats that will back up the claim about Texas. I'll get them for the article. Cowboy357 16:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I live in California, and high school football is immensly popular here as well. I don't think that there's any state in the nation where high school football isn't popular. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 21:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe Texas has the most high school football teams, but it's also the 2nd biggest state in terms of population, and thus the number of schools.


We are tEXANS. We like things bigger and harder, and therefore, yes, we like football more than you. Okay, I can't back that up besides with personal anecdotal info. Lived in more than one state and football is king here. But who cares? It's not factual or even that interesting unless you're from Texas...or if you just moved here and are put off by our fanaticisms. The truth of the matter is [probably] that we don't like football more than anywhere else, only that we like football more than other sports, and therefore place more emphasis on it, whereas a yankee from Arkansas mayhap enjoy baseball, knitting, curling, and football equally. While I, being from Texas, consider him a lesser being, it's not necassarily true that I like football more than he/she.--micah

[edit] Added more penalties

Including clipping, delay of game, spearing, and illegal procedure.

[edit] Help needed

I needed some help with some articles on this subject and didn't see an obvious project page to put it on, so I'm putting the request here: 63.173.47.193 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is a highschool IP which has been making a large number of vandal edits but some productive ones as well. Recently, a large number of edits have occured to articles about football players, especially draft prospects, and I don't know enough to judge whether or not the information contained in them are correct. If someone else would take a look it would be appreciated. Thanks. JoshuaZ 16:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some mention of the "chain crew," the sideline officials (sometimes volunteers) who hold the down marker and the sticks and chains connecting them that are used to calculate the distance required to gain a first down?


[edit] History

In this, the Candian Football article, and the Comparisons article, it is stated that Football was introduced to American by Canada. This claim is unsourced and I have not been able to find any verification elsewhere on the internet. Can this be sourced? If not, it should be removed, because there are conflicting stories on the internet. Jiggz84 05:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drop kick

I previously reverted a newly created section on the drop kick as a method of scoring field goals. This seems to me a topic obscure enough to warrant not being included in a introductory article on football. Drop kicks are mentioned briefly in the scoring section in this article, and given their rarity, that is the correct depth at which they chould be discussed in this article. The information was subsequently readded. Just looking to develop a consensus. --D-Rock (commune with D-Rock) 18:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. A big problem with this article is that new users keep adding stuff about things like drop kicks and one-point safeties that do not belong in an introductory article. Keep up the vigilance! -- Mwalcoff 23:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit to college football paragraph

I removed the following from the paragraph about college football: " — which regularly sell out. Even high school football games can attract five-figure crowds, especially in football hotbeds like Alabama, Pennsylvania, Nebraska, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, Georgia and Texas. The weekly autumn ritual of college and high-school football — which includes marching bands, cheerleaders and parties (including the ubiquitous tailgate party) — is an important part of the culture in much of smalltown America" There are no citations or references anywhere in this verbage and much of it, particularly the "football hotbeds" part, is POV. --ElKevbo 22:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have partially reverted your elimination for now. With the exception of the ever-growing selection of states, there is nothing controversial about the paragraph. It would seem pedantic to cite official attendance figures here. Regarding the part about the impact of football and smalltown culture, this is not something you'll find studied scientifically, but it again is a no-brainer to anyone who has lived in a Midwestern factory town, for example. What should we do -- cite Friday Night Lights? I'm a big supporter of WP:CITE enforcement, but this is not the kind of thing that, IMO, requires a citation, since it is not really arguable. I have, however, kept out the mention of the individual "hotbeds," since every user seems to think his state is one. -- Mwalcoff 23:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Tackleball"

"Tackleball" is not a synonym for American football. A Google search for "tackleball" comes up with only 572 hits. Most of the top hits are tongue-in-cheek suggestions from non-Americans about what the sport should be called. -- Mwalcoff 22:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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.

The result of the debate was no consensus for move. Joelito (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

American football to football (America). Better title. Voortle 03:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Strongly Oppose per WP:MOS it is better known as American football here in the United States and most other places. Jaranda wat's sup 03:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not a better title at all, I'm afraid. Don't fix things that aren't broken. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As above. - BalthCat 03:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per WP:DAB do not use a parenthetical disambiguation where a non-parenthetical one is available, especially if it's the most common usage (in this case, the most common way to distinguish them is already "American football"). --Dhartung | Talk 04:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Does that mean that battery (electricity) should be moved to electric battery? Voortle 21:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, of course, you'd want to bring that up over at Talk:battery (electricity), but I would be OK with making that move. Johntex\talk 21:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Moving South Carolina there would be stupid as "South Carolina" is never referred to as just "Carolina". However, "American football" is is referred to in North America as "football", just like "electric batteries" are referred to as "batteries", hence why it's battery (electricity) and not electric battery. Voortle 21:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
From a global perspective, there are a whole lot more people who refer to it as "American football" than "football" (which, as I'm sure everyone here knows, is what Americans refer to as "soccer"). --ElKevbo 21:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
OK - then it should be Carolinas (South). North and South Carolina are often referred to as the Carolinas. My point is that this move is not being done to make the article easier to find. I'm simply not sure why it is being done. As an American, I type Football in the search and I get a disambiguation page that points me to American Football. If it pointed me to Football (America), that would be confusion. Football (American) would be less confusing, but silly looking - just as silly as Carolinas (South). --Kainaw (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
You realize that I agree with you, right? :) BTW, an article on "The Carolinas" could actually prove to be pretty interesting with both history and contemporary uses of the phrase to describe the region... --ElKevbo 00:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was just keeping up with the indentation while responding the post above yours. The historical article is at Colonial period of South Carolina - just in case you are interested. --Kainaw (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Dhartung. --ElKevbo 21:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the excellent reasons provided above. Vegaswikian 05:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - nobody calls this sport Football (America) so why name the article that? The name American football is the most common name for this sport other than 'football'. An article named Football (America) would appear to many to be about soccer in the US.GordyB 20:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is known as American Football or to a lesser extent Gridiron everywhere. For example: in Australia Australian rules football is known just as football in the southern and western states. I would definitely not advocate 'Australian rules football' be moved to 'Football (Australian)'. – Axman (☏) 09:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. per all of the above. Terrible idea.--Looper5920 10:23, 30 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.

[edit] Ball

Need a section on equipment etc. 66.90.182.183 01:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Rutgers v. Princeton as the "first" game

Rephrased the 1869 soccer game as a parenthetical: it is worth mentioning because the Rutgers athletics website continues to describe it as the first American football game, but it does not belong ahead of the origins of American football in the Harvard-McGill game. Wakonda 20:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please add referee hand signal images

Please add referee hand signal images or links to such. Thanks.

[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 21:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time to simplify again

[edit] Simplification

It's time for another rewrite after several months of complicating edits. Here is what I have to suggest. If no one objects, I'll go ahead and make the changes after a few days.

[edit] Intro

Eliminate the paranthetical clause in the first paragraph. Eliminate everything after "other games" in the second paragraph.

[edit] Popularity

Replace the first sentence with the simple "Football is the most-popular spectator sport in the United States." Move the sentence on NFL Europe to the end of the second-last paragraph. Eliminate the last sentence ("It is a long standing...") in the third paragraph.

Has anyone not noticed this line in the Outside of the United States section?

"mnay beleive the players to be weak themselves, owing to the pads which they where. Any comparison with rugby is totally false as rugby players and he game of rugby itself requires skills far greather than show evident in American football, without the help of large pads."

This seems to violate NPOV. Just thought I'd point that out.

It also violates English. But I don't see it in the article. Wahkeenah 22:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed it when I saw it. -- Mwalcoff 22:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Kudos. Wahkeenah 22:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rules

Eliminate all but the first two sentences in the fourth paragraph (the one that starts with "At the back of each...").

Eliminate the last sentence in the fifth paragraph.

[edit] Game duration

Tighten the first sentence by saying "...quarters, with a halftime intermission...." Eliminate the second-last sentence.

[edit] Advancing the ball

Replace "a backwards pass is mandatory" with "only backwards passes are permitted."

In the second-last paragraph, eliminate the word "then" and replace "(the down)" with "1st."

[edit] Scoring

Eliminate the last two sentences in the subsection describing conversions. Add "although drop kicks are almost unknown in the modern game" after "drop-kicked."

[edit] Kickoffs and free kicks

Eliminate the sentences about fair catches, which are rare on kickoffs.

[edit] Penalties

This section is way too long, especially considering how we can simply link to a list of penalties. I recommend scrapping the whole section with the following:

  • False start: An offensive player illegally moves after lining up for the snap.
  • Offsides: A defensive player is on the wrong side of the ball at the start of a play.
  • Holding: Illegally grasping or pulling an opponent other than the ball-carrier.
  • Pass interference: Illegally contacting an opponent to prevent him from catching a forward pass.
  • Delay of game: Failing to begin a new play after a certain time from the end of the last one.

[edit] Players

Eliminate everything after "and extra points."

[edit] Basic strategy

Eliminate the last paragraph.

[edit] Phisicality of the game

In the second paragraph, eliminate all but the second and third sentences.

In the third paragraph, replace the opening phrase with "however," eliminate "due to its physical nature" and eliminate the last sentence.

Eliminate the last two paragraphs

At the end, add, "The danger of football and the equipment required to reduce it make regulation football impractical for casual play. Flag football and touch football are less-violent variants of the game popular among recreational players."

[edit] History

Because this section now only describes the early history of the game, I recommend we delete everything after the first paragraph and insert the following:

McGill University athletes, who had learned rugby from the local British Army garrison, introduced the sport to the U.S. with a game against Harvard University in 1874. The game quickly spread to other Ivy League colleges.

Encouraged by Yale University's Walter Camp, the schools began to adopt rules that would differentiate American football from rugby in the 1880s. The scrimmage was introduced in 1880 and the system of downs in 1882.

By the turn of the 20th century, football had become notoriously dangerous; 18 college players died in 1905 alone. Colleges responded with a series of rule changes to open up the game, most importantly the forward pass.

The game had achieved its modern form by 1912, when the field was changed to its current size, the value of a touchdown increased to 6 points, and a fourth down added to each possession. Originally dominated by the Ivy League, football soon captured the interest of colleges nationwide. By 1916, when the Rose Bowl game matching eastern and western teams became an annual event, football had developed a national following second only to baseball among team sports.

Professional football developed in the mill towns of Pennsylvania and the American Midwest in the early years of the 20th century. The NFL was founded in 1920 in Canton, Ohio.

Pro football remained a largely regional sport of secondary importance until after World War II. Television broadcasts greatly enhanced NFL football's national appeal, and the pro game surpassed both college football and baseball in popularity in the 1960s. The first Super Bowl, between the champions of the NFL and the rival American Football League, was played in 1967, and the two leagues merged in 1970.

[edit] Problems

Eliminate this section and move the link Issues in American football to the "See also" section.

[edit] Leagues, organizations and associations

Eliminate all U.S. regional semi-pro and recreational leagues. Move the four listings in "Alternate rulesets" not already mentioned to the "United States" section. Eliminate the "Canada" section, since they play Canadian football. Eliminate the entry for the three-team Israeli Football League. Remove duplicate mentions of the German Football League and Arena Football from the "See also" section. Remove link to 1903 movie. Mwalcoff 01:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. --SodiumBenzoate 02:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basic Strategy Section

Have removed the Citation Tag for the sentence regarding the suggestions that it is most similar to war. There is simply a plethora of possible sources for this citation, but it's more of an understood thing and the sources are not military (and as such wouldn't be qualified to make the comparison). Actually, I'm not one to make a deletion before discussion so I'll throw it back up until we talk about it, sorry bout that. However, you can find pretty much ANY announcer, many coaches, many players.. really a TON of people that make the Football/war comparison from a strategic standpoint quite regularly... although admittedly the references are a bit less than they used to be so as not to be insensitive to those who are currently in the military and fighting in an ACTUAL war. It's a metaphorical (sp) comparison, that is made regularly and is generally accepted as strategically similar. When the aspects of teamwork, discipline, deception, overwhelming force, BLITZing lol, Ground attack, Air Attack, causing confusion, exploiting gaps created in frontlines... there are so many comparisons the list could go on forever. It's certainly not literal... and no one would claim it is. Just at a tactical level the comparison is common and accepted by many. Cowboy357 17:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broken template

Template:NFL player seems to be broken. Does anybody have a clue how to fix it? --Guinnog 10:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civil Engineer III's edit

This may sound a bit hypodcritical, since I've removed so much "superfluous" stuff from the article. But I think some of what Civil Engineer III removed should be restored, albeit perhaps in a better-written way. He (I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that an engineer who shuns gender-neutral language and likes football is a man) removed a section about down and distance, but I think this is one of the things that confuses foreigners the most. He also removed the penalty example, which may be of use to someone unfamiliar with the game. I'm open to rewording these things if they're poorly written, but I think these topics should be covered in the article.

Also, the "see XXXXX below" items may help readers navigate through the article more easily.

Mwalcoff 22:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overtime

I shortened the "Game duration" section because we need to keep out extraneous detail if we want to keep this article a reasonable length. Extra detail can go on a subsidiary page like Overtime (football).

If you think it's absolutely essential to mention NFL playoffs and college/high school, I'm open to suggestions. But it's misleading to compare the college system to soccer shootouts, and there's certainly no reason to go into the 1972 playoff game on this page, let alone so early in the article.

Mwalcoff 02:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Citation needed"

Someone's put "fact" templates in the following section:

"Super Bowl Sunday, the day of the game, has become an unofficial February holiday in the U.S.[citation needed]

"College football is also extremely popular throughout North America. Four college football stadiums seat more than 100,000 fans, which regularly sell out. Even high school football games can attract more than 10,000 people in some areas. The weekly autumn ritual of college and high-school football—which includes marching bands, cheerleaders and parties (including the ubiquitous tailgate party)—is an important part of the culture in much of smalltown America.[citation needed] It is a long-standing tradition in the United States (though not universally observed) that high school football games are played on Friday, college games on Saturday, and professional games on Sunday (with an additional professional game on Monday nights).[citation needed]"

The facts tagged here are common knowledge in the U.S., not challengable assertions. Putting footnotes after them wouldn't look professional -- it would look like something done by amateurs trying to look professional.

I'm going to seek some guidance from Wikipedia policy pages for help here. -- Mwalcoff 00:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the [citation needed] tags are a little extreme, but I don't think there is anything wrong with providing footnotes for this. Each of them could benefit from some work. For instance:
  1. What does "unofficial holiday" mean - its already a Sunday. Do businesses close? (no, not really) Do we eat a lot of food? (I guess so) Special food? (not really) Send cards? (Definitely not).
  2. "extremely popular" is a weasel phrase. Compared to what? Better to to strike the word "extremely" I think. "Popular" is still relative but looks less POV on its own. The football stadiums are factual so citing them will be easy.
Also, keep in mind not all readers are from the US. This is the English Wikipedia, not the US Wikipedia. I think we can do better and then remove the [citation needed] tags. Johntex\talk 00:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, you removed the word "extremely," and I cut the questionable sentence about the Super Bowl. Can we remove the fact tags now? -- Mwalcoff 01:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
There is certainly no need for a fact tag on when high school, college and pro games are "normally" played, as every American football fan knows it, and it is easily verifiable by looking at any major newspapers over a weekend. It is also easy to verify that football at all levels is a very traditional sport followed in many places in America. The part about Super Sunday being an unofficial holiday is suspect, not because it's a Sunday (Easter is on Sunday, and Christmas and July 4th and New Year's can be on Sundays also), but because it sounds like overkill hype. It's sufficient to point out that many people host Super Bowl parties (if the article doesn't say that, it should) and it verifiably has a large TV audience. But the line as stated was POV-pushing of a sort. Wahkeenah 01:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I added the four biggest college stadiums into the sentence. WP:CITE says that links to internal articles that themselves have sources cited can be treated as a sort of citation. The sentence about High School on Friday, College on Saturday... strikes me still as a sentence we should do something with. If it is easy to verify, then we should verify it for the reader by placing a reference in the article. I'm actually finding it a little hard to verify in terms of finding on succint source that says this. Johntex\talk 14:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
It is easily verifiable by checking NFL schedules, college schedules, and high school schedules. Whoever thinks it needs a citation is jerking us around. Wahkeenah 21:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
If it's easily verified then please cite your sources. If one really has to look through a whole bunch of other documents and draw a conclusion from those documents then it's clearly original research. Surely someone interested in this topic has access to a few books that can provide a suitable reference? Merely waving your hands and stating that "everyone knows that!" is insufficient, particularly in light of Wikipedia's international character.
Moreover, shouldn't something be mentioned about the (perceived, perhaps falsely) growing trend of college games on days other than Saturday? A good argument could be made (and has been made by some) for the growing popularity and ranking of West Virginia's program due to their many Thursday night games which do not compete for viewership with any other games. --ElKevbo 21:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to conclude that you know nothing about American football. I can cite the schedules on NFL.com that show that nearly all the games are on Sunday; I can cite an NCAA site that would carry schedules and would show that most of the games are on Saturday; I could cite as many high school websites as I can find that show that most of the games are on Friday. Would that be sufficient??? Wahkeenah 22:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
No, that would be original research, IMHO. And please refrain from personal attacks on other Wikipedia editors. --ElKevbo 22:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
(After edit conflict) Well, some of our readers will know nothing or next to nothing about the sport. You could look at it the other way, if we are writing for people who know about the sport, then why include these facts at all??
While I reiterate my opinion that the [citation needed] tags are a little extreme for this case, I have to agree with ElKevbo that we can push ourselves and do a better job of citing this. Wahkeenah, if you can find 3 sources, as you say, then yes, that should be sufficient. We can make the sentence say "Generally, most high school varsity games are played on Friday,[1] most college games are played on Saturday,[2] and most pro games are played on Sunday.[3] There is also one pro-game on Monday that is given special attention as the Monday Night Football game of the week. Johntex\talk 22:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
(After edit conflict) - ElKevbo - I disagree with you that this would be original research. WP:OR is intended to prevent people from posting novel theories and the like. It is not meant to prevent us from looking at a list and saying "there are 10 things in the list" or "80% of the games in this list are on Friday". That is not original research. That is basic understanding of the sources we are citing. Johntex\talk 22:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
But you're not citing *any* sources supporting the statement. None. --ElKevbo 22:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say I had already done it. I see it would be sufficient and that it would not be original research. Future tense. Have patience, it will get done. Johntex\talk 19:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I have not made any personal attack. If someone thinks it is not obvious that the games are played on this schedule normally, then it is a logical conclusion that they do not follow American football. Wahkeenah 22:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with what I or anyone else "thinks is obvious." The standard for inclusion in a Wikipedia article is verifiability, not truth. I believe the statement is true and I have no intention of removing it, cited or not. But it should be supported by citations from a reliable source. I don't understand why this is even controversial or worthy of discussion; it's one of the core tenets of Wikipedia. In the time it has taken us to hold this discussion someone could have likely found multiple sources supporting the statement. --ElKevbo 22:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, Mr. Citation, let's look at the rest of the article: "American football, known in the United States and Canada simply as football..." Where's the citation for that? "...is a competitive team sport." Where's the citation for that? "The object of the game is to score points by advancing the football into the opposing team's end zone." Where's the citation for that? Or is it "obvious"? Wahkeenah 23:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
What does that have to do with the topic at hand? Take a deep breath, walk away from the computer, and come back when you can behave like a civil person. {{fact}} templates are not an effront to your honor or a personal insult. Once again, please cease the personal attacks. --ElKevbo 00:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The topic at hand is citing stuff that isn't obvious. That's what your complaint is. But it's selective. So I am pretty well convinced that you are trolling or trying to "prove a point". Nonetheless, I'm working on citing stuff about the scheduling, for those who are unfamiliar with American football. Wahkeenah 01:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that I wasn't the one who added these citation requests but if it makes you feel better to blame me then ok. --ElKevbo 03:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I've cited a few things. If it's insufficient, I don't know what to tell you. Wahkeenah 03:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the paragraph at issue to what it was before the addition of the fact templates for now. The person who added those fact templates has not responed to this debate. I will put a note on his talk page. If he returns and explains why he added those tags -- if he is really questioning the sentences -- we can work out a way to address his or her concerns. -- Mwalcoff 23:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

  • OK, I'll let you take over this tempest-in-a-teapot. At least now you have some citations in the history that you can fall back on if Mr. Citation continues to have a problem with it. Wahkeenah 02:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Cease the name calling and hostility. It's unnecessary and unwelcome in Wikipedia. --ElKevbo 02:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem is, someone griped about needing citations for observations which, in the opinion of myself and others, were too obvious to require a citation. Finally, I took the time to find some citations. Then someone else reverted it as being unneeded. This is getting very annoying. You and the others can figure this out. I've had enough of this for now. Wahkeenah 02:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I put the fact tags in, and I apologize that I haven't been part of this discussion until now. I was away for the weekend. At any rate, my feeling was just that this didn't qualify as general, assumed knowledge. This is the English Wikipedia, not the US one, as Johntex already said. I'm from the US, and I'm a football fan, and I really don't consider these to be well-known facts that don't require verification. Calling anything "unofficial" CERTAINLY requires some kind of citation to back it up, and I think the assertion that anything is a tradition also requires some kind of source. I don't think citing sources makes us look like amateurs, I think it makes us look like a well-researched encyclopedia. Best, Dan. Djdickmutt 06:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Addition Also, to assert that something is an important part of the culture of smalltown America implies a keen understanding of exactly what comprises that culture. I don't want to chafe anyone anymore than I already have . . . but why should I take your word for it on the culture of smalltown America. Those are the reasons that I felt strongly enough about the citations to tag them. I hope you don't take offense, I simply felt it would make the article stronger. -- Djdickmutt 06:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I personally don't take any offense at all. Note that we have changed the Super Bowl sentence. However, I disagree that adding a citation to the culture thing would improve the article. You know the statement is true; I know the statement is true. But what could we cite? Friday Night Lights? -- Mwalcoff 12:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
That would be a good one to cite. Then find about 50 other websites (one for each state's high school athletic association) and several hundred university websites, along with the NFL site, to prove when football is typically played and that it's popular. Wahkeenah 13:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
If only there were some books written about this obscure subject... --ElKevbo 13:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I bet we could find one or two, gathering dust in a used book store. Wahkeenah 13:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Or the periodic lengthy writeups on this subject in Sports Illustrated. Such articles are usually not in the "swimsuit issue", so they should be easy to find in that same book store. Wahkeenah 13:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
No need to be snarky. I think the culture statement does require verification, because it IS such a hard-to-verify statement. Sports Illustrated issues do not verify that this is a large part of small-town America's culture, because SI isn't about small-town America. If you want to cite Small Town America Monthly (oh, how I wish that existed) then I might be convinced. Djdickmutt 18:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
No response? I guess everyone feels the assertion of small-town America's culture deserves to stay? I'd rather not be ignored. Djdickmutt 08:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Silence implies consent. And anyone who thinks this is not true need only turn on any TV station's sports segment on their Friday night news hour. Wahkeenah 13:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, this isn't my article, and I have the feeling that if I put the fact tag back, it would just be removed again. However, I strongly believe that you either need to review the way in which you make that assertion, or find a way to legitimately back it up. Telling me to turn on my Friday night news sports segment is NOT a valid representation that this is common knowledge. First of all, if I lived outside of the US, American Football wouldn't be mentioned on my TV. Second of all, if I live outside of small-town America, high-school football won't be mentioned on my TV. Third of all, even if I live in small-town America, your assertion that you and everyone else understands the intricacy of my culture without any kind of research would certainly rub me the wrong way. I won't put the fact tag back, because I don't need the headache, but this article will always seem immediately amateurish until you fix it. Djdickmutt 19:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
We don't need any more citations that American football is popular in America. Wahkeenah 23:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold, and insert a couple of citation requirments in here. And before anyone responsed with a request to watch the TV news on a Friday night, I can assure them that I have never seen an item giving the times/dates of regular games of American Football, or the popularity of attending a game. This may have something with not living in the USA, or Canada or any of the other countries where the sport is popular. Markb 12:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Since you admit to knowing nothing about American football, I have treated your changes accordingly. Wahkeenah 13:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I may know little about American football, but I know that your revert is incorrect. There needs to be a citation to back up the claim that American Football is the most popular spectator sport in the US (for example, I'd thought that some motor sport events attract larger crowds), and there needs to be a citation to back up the claims that is the most popular sport in the US (note, NOT America, I doubt if Brazilians, Mexicans etc. have the same favourites as the US). It is incorrect to state that the super bowl gains the highest ratings on American TV, possibly so for US TV. I hope you realise there is a big difference between the continent and a country. Rather than enter into a petty revert war, I await your comments. Markb 10:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
What kind of reference do you want? This is an old topic that has been beat around repeatedly. For example, you can have this and this and this and this ... but still there are people who want to argue about it. It isn't a case of not being able to find a citation. It is a case of finding a citation that everyone can agree on. --Kainaw (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
They all look pretty good to me - I'm guided by those who know about the subject. Looking back over this matter, I don't understand the emotional reaction of some. If American Football is the most popular sport in the US, and one is able to verify this, jolly good update the article accordingly. If not, the claim should be withrawn. I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Markb 12:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem to me is that this is just not the kind of thing that should be cited. No academic would ever put a footnote after the sentence "American football is the most popular spectator sport in the United States." It would look amateurishly pedantic. Now when it comes to a specific, measurable claim, like saying a certain sport has the highest attendance or TV viewership, it should have a citation. This is what we've done. The general claim is backed up with two cited facts regarding TV viewership and popularity surveys. (Comparing attendance among different sports doesn't really help, since some sports have fewer events and bigger stadiums than others.)
Regarding the US/America issue, please note that this has been argued ad infinitum on Wikipedia. The overwhelming opinion is that in English (but not necessarily in other languages), "America(n)" generally means "U.S.," while "The Americas" refers to the continents of North and South America. It's not our job to change the English language into something more rational. I'm afraid you'll get a largely negative reaction if you try to push this issue in Wikipedia. -- Mwalcoff 23:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on whether verifying the claim "American football is the most popular spectator sport in the United States" is pedantic or not. As no one seems able to back this claim up, I'll just just assume it is incorrect and move on. I think I've found out enough about the sport already so I won't loose any sleep over the matter. As a bonus, I've also had an insight into some it's followers as well, maybe it's their over-bearing arrogance that have kept the sport as parochial as it is? Markb 12:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where should the command "Hike" be explained?

I created a redirect Hike (American football) to this article and edited Hike to use it per WP:MOSDAB. In the process, I removed the following informative sentence:

This article doesn't explain the term "hike", as it is used in American football, but I don't know enough about the article to add this information to it. --Jtir 18:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed the redirect to link to Snap (football) and tweaked the wording in Hike. --Jtir 19:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Q: Why did the annoying water boy go into the game as quarterback?

A: Because the regular quarterback told him to take a hike.

Wahkeenah 23:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Football Pads

It would be helpful if someone who knew about football could include (or create a separate article/link to) something on American football pads. There is a stub on shoulder pads, but I think that information on the whole kit of armor (at least current, if not historical) would be helpful. Sorry that I don't know enough to create it myself.

BaikinMan 17:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The word "vary"

An editor replaced the sentence:

"Not all of these types of players will be on the field for every offensive play. Teams can vary the number of wide receivers, tight ends and running backs on the field at one time."

with this:

"Not all of these types of players will be on the field for every offensive play. Teams can vary the number of wide receivers, tight ends and running backs on the field before a huddle (or lining up in a no-huddle offense)."

I reverted the change pending discussion here. I think the editor, who said the first sentence made no sense to him, misunderstood the meaning of the word "vary" in this context. "Vary" in this sense is a stative verb, not a dynamic verb like "change" would be. Compare the sentences:

  • "Your results may vary."
  • "Your results may change."

The first sentence means that you may not lose 50 pounds like the person in the commercial for the Thighmaster. The second sentence means that you may start losing weight but then stop later on.

If this is unclear, we should change the sentence in the article, but we need to keep the focus on the personnel on the field during the play, not when substitutions can be made. -- Mwalcoff 23:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't think they misunderstood "vary", but they put a little too much detail into it for the casual user to understand. As you note, it suffices to say that the number of WR's, TE's and RB's can be different from play to play. Wahkeenah 03:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've already changed this once and it was reverted. Someone please explain to me what this inept use of English is supposed to mean: "Teams can vary the number of wide receivers, tight ends and running backs on the field at one time." I feel that the person who wrote it thinks that it means the offense may be changed once only until a huddle or play begins - which is what I changed it to. However, what it really means is that the offense may be changed once and only once. In fact, it doesn't even mean it may be changed once per game - it means once and only once in the entire history of football. That is completely incorrect. So, please toss out suggestions since my suggestion that "the offense be changed to the official NFL rule of being able to change the offense until a huddle or, in the case of a no-huddle offense, the players line up" was reverted. --Kainaw (talk) 04:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten that paragraph so that hopefully it's a little clearer. Modify it if it's still unclear or if I've got any facts wrong. Wahkeenah 14:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I've added a rather clunky image of typical offensive and defensive formations to the positions section. Anyone more-adept at making graphics is welcome to improve or replace it. -- Mwalcoff 03:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Your diagram may not be a Picasso, but it subtly highlights a point I was trying to make in the writeup about the offense, which you or someone altered. Unless they've changed the rules and I missed it (which is possible) there have to be exactly seven players in the offensive line, no more, no less. Notice that on your offensive line there are the usual center, guards and tackles, along with one tight end and one wide receiver (or split-end in the old-old terminology). The second wide receiver is technically an offensive back, not a lineman, and is positioned a step back from the line, to comply with the rules. Wahkeenah 03:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, I made sure to put the flanker one yard back. NCAA rule 7-1-3-b-1 ([2], p. 90) says at least seven players must be on the line of scrimmage. I suppose the reason you never see eight or more players on the line is because there would be no point -- you'd lose an eligible receiver. One possible objection to my graphic is that the tight end is lined up next to the left tackle rather than the right tackle. Ordinarily, the TE lines up on the right. But sometimes, he lines up on the left. -- Mwalcoff 00:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I've posted a similar image [3] a long time ago. It didn't appear that anyone felt it was useful for the article. --Kainaw (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] End run

Should an article about the play called end run be added? Badagnani 17:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • As it's a red link, how about describing it right here first? Wahkeenah 17:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Also known as an "end around run", it is a play in which a back tries to run the ball around the end of the defensive line. There isn't much there to be an article since it is so easily summed up with one sentence. --Kainaw (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, that's what I thought he meant, but you never know what someone will come up with. Wahkeenah 02:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I can see an article on end arounds, but there's no need to mention something so specific in the American football article. -- Mwalcoff 23:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Only if there is stuff about other specific plays, like the reverse, the draw play, etc., etc. The specific plays could have a separate article, though not one for each one, which be significant overkill. Wahkeenah 02:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] injuries

In football players are getting hit hard in the head damaging the petuitary gland, can someone halp fit this in —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mets4117 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

What is the reference for this claim? --Kainaw (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
It could charitably be called "original research". Wahkeenah 12:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Outside the Lines:First Report. a show on ESPN. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mets4117 (talk • contribs).

More details needed than just that. Wahkeenah 01:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you have an actual (and accurate) quote from the show? Do they have online transcripts? --Kainaw (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No --Mets4117 02:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Regulatory Body

I've been looking through the American football pages and I get the impression that theres no recognised governing body. (Like FIFA, the IRB, the ITF or the ICC.) Is the sport just a popular American pasttime with a few organised businesses (read 'leagues') that do a good job of making money out of it? I don't mean to be harsh or incendiary, but thats pretty much the impression I'm getting. - aheyfromhome 01:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

American sports generally lack regulatory bodies like FIFA. Every professional league, collegiate association, state high-school athletic association, sandlot league, city youth league, etc., can make its own rules. Same with baseball, basketball and ice hockey. To an American (at least this one), the concept of a "regulatory body" with power over everything from the top professionals to children's leagues seems centralist and undemocratic. -- Mwalcoff 02:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Interesting way of looking at it. Thanks for the reply. - Aheyfromhome 20:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tackleball

Tackleball is a different game, usually played at parties. Hence, I changed the tackleball page.

[edit] Outside U.S.

You should be kidding.. nobody plays this thing in Europe. --Ciao 90 21:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding? How can you claim NFL Europe does not exist? --Kainaw (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a completely pointless comment. We could claim no one claims cricket or rounders or rugby in the US (though of course a few people do) - that would not make the sports irrelevant to those who care about them. Let's not feed the trolls. Johntex\talk 00:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History, dangers, GAMBLING AND FIXED GAMES

I have an excellent source to cite about American Football in the 1800's that mentions gambling and "fixed" games, the rules of the game and includes sketches made at that time about the game. The section on history does a good job of covering the general football topic for the purpose of the football articles so I don't think my information should be added there—anyone have a place where this could be added? Nielnat

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/m/e/Talk%7EAmerican_football_d5b4.html"