Talk:American football/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives

Miscellaneous

What is meant by "historically known as Gridiron Football"? The only place I know of where it's called that is in Australia and New Zealand.

"American football does not much resemble soccer, the sport which most of the rest of the world, with the notable exception of many of the nations in the British Commonwealth, calls "football"."

This is saying that Commentwealth nations do not call soccer football. Is this correct?

Surely the commenwealth *does* call soccer football.

Robin.

Most popular sport? I presume you mean "spectator sport", but in terms of attendances? TV ratings?

Oh, and I understand there's no amateur football competitions for adults outside of colleges. Is that so? --Robert Merkel

This would require actual research :-), but "most popular" in terms of polls of sports fans as to which sport is their favorite (usually phrased as "spectator sport"; I think golf typically registers as the most popular participant sport).

As for amateur adult football, usually this takes the form of touch or flag football. (That might be worth writing about.) -- RjLesch

This is the most "outsider" article I've ever read on football. It sounds like it was written by a Belgian who had attended several British lectures on the history and development of the game, but had never actually seen it played. The words "violence", "collision", "intimidation", and "war" appear nowhere in the article. "Block" and "tackle" each appear precisely once, nowhere near the dainty discussion of the "scrimmage".

I'm the most casual of football fans, but I sure hope some other hands put some meat on these bones.

A quite accurate comment. Intro paragraph should seem more suitable now. Tempshill 22:36, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Just because it isn't organized like Unamerican Football is no reason for this most peculiar non-sequitur:

American football is not a participant sport - there are no organised amateur club competitions.

It is certainly a participant sport. Children start playing organized football at age 13. I played junior-high football, and if you saw my flimsy weak body in my ridiculous uniform, amateur is exactly the word that would have sprung to your lips, assuming you weren't politely stifling a laugh. There are millions of children and adults playing football. There are more than 350,000 high-schoolers playing football in Texas alone.

Besides, there is an intramural club football league at MIT and I believe other colleges and universities, not to mention so-called semi-pro leagues where players get a uniform, three beers, and $10 for bashing each other for four quarters. There are even women's amateur and semi-pro teams.

There are quite a few markup problems in the article as well, and no x-ref to Canadian football, where that same "number 3 rugby ball" will also be found.

Added the comment: "Consequently, American Football is best known internationally as "American Football"." I don't know if that should be considered obvious from context and unnecessary...

Ortolan88 19:40 Jul 28, 2002 (PDT)

Is football really the most popular spectator sport? What about horseracing and NASCAR? -- Zoe

That's a good question. Maybe it depends on how you define it. My guess is that, in terms of the number of people who are actively interested in the games, football is the most popular, but I have no data to back that up, so perhaps I am wrong. I don't think total attendance is a fair comparison, since attendance at a sporting event isn't necessarily reflective of how many people are interested in the sport (by watching games on TV, reading sports articles about it, etc.) Horse racing might have higher total attendance then football (I don't know if it does or not), but it is an all-year sport and the same (small, I think) number of people go to the track. As for NASCAR, its popularity (I think) tends to be focused in the South. Again, I think more people follow football actively than NASCAR. But I have no data to back myself up on that assertion. soulpatch

I have seen many studies that rate football as the most popular sport in the United States. Here's one good example: http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US7/REF/popsport.html - Look near the bottom. They show that football is #2 for popularity in participation. Also, the Super Bowl is the top sports event with College Bowls outranking the World Series. From another viewpoint, there is the television aspect to football. Over the years, it has been designed for television. If you go to a live game, you will hear the officials comment that the game is on hold for a commercial. They have cameras all over the stadium (even hovering over the field on thin wires). All in all, the investment in football for television pays off with increased viewership. Other sports have problems competing. Baseball and golf have a slower pace. Nascar is far more repetitive. Hockey, while fast, is too hard to follow on a television - even when they had a computerized red glow on the puck. Basketball has speed and a ball large enough to see, but lacks in investment. Maybe when they work out a way to stop the game repeatedly for commercials, the networks will make the investment in it and it can compete. Kainaw 20:58, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What about the history of American fotball? Is it derived from Rugby? --zeno 06:37 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, for the most part. What I can tell you is all off the top of my head, so take this with a grain of salt, because I might have some deatils wrong. But from what I know, it was originally a college sport, derived mostly from rugby, with a long series of rules changes that took place in the late 1800s and early 1900s. A few terms that are used in modern American football have their origin in rugby, such as "scrimmage" that comes from the rugby "scrum", and the "touchdown" comes from the rugby score where you actually had to touch the ball down. The number of points you get for a touchdown, and the score for the kick after the touchdown, were also tinkered with a lot back then. At some point the concept of limited length of possession with downs was introduced (I'm not sure when), and the forward pass was added to the sport in the early 1900s after President Theodore Roosevelt threatened to ban the game because so many serious injuries were happening. There are a few obscure rules that are (or at least to be) left over from rugby. I don't know if this particular rule still exists, but I recall that 30 years ago or so the NFL had a rule where you could get a free kick for a field goal after a fair catch, and I think that was some sort of a holdover from rugby even though it was almost never used in modern American football. User:soulpatch

Within the context of the American football article, it would perhaps sound nicer to call it "football" rather than the lengthy phrase "American football" every time. (Note, this suggestion only applies if Mintguy and other fans of REAL FOOTBALL -- or what I grew up calling soccer -- agree that no ambiguity or confusion would result.) --Uncle Ed 15:35 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Oh, wow! No offense, but I'm sorry I read this page. I agree with whoever said (above) that this is the most "outsider" article they've ever read. It seems to have been written by a fan of another form of football. There's no way this article does football justice.

This article needs help! But I guess if I'm not willing to work on this article, I shouldn't be complaining.

Unfortunately I too am primarily a fan of the game "Americans blithly call soccer", so I'm not sure I want to spend the time it would take to salvage a little dignity out of this article, but somebody who is a football fan needs to do it. I mean, come on! "blithly"? About a word that came from England and is used in the US out of necessity. Gimme a break!

I was raised on both forms of football (round ball and pointy ball) and they are BOTH great games. Too bad whoever wrote this article obviously doesn't think so.

I agree with Uncle Ed. In the context of this article, the word "football" means American football, so there's no need to put "American" in front of it every time. It's all about context. The title of the article says it all. I'm sure fans of REAL FOOTBALL wouldn't take kindly to someone putting "Association" in front of every occurance of the word "football" in articles about "the beautiful game".

Flag and touch football essentially the same (except for the flags, of course <g>). And then there's Arena football, which is now national network TV.

And, hey, let's not forget the cheerleaders. <g> Bluelion 08:16 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

This article claims football is the most popular spectator sport in the US. I believe this is incorrect, and that the most popular spectator sport is auto racing. Is there a source for this statement? DanKeshet

Though I've heard the same claim (re racing) I've also heard high school football is the tops, which makes some amount of sense to me. Graft

Auto racing?? NASCAR is regionally popular, but I don't think it compares to even baseball nationally. Any proof that it does??? What other auto racing is there? NHRA? Indy 500? Does that attract over 40% of TV housholds? I seriously doubt it. The Super Bowl does. Added together, I doubt auto racing has reached the popularity of baseball or football. Bluelion 21:56 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

Add high school, college and pro football together, I doubt auto racing is even close. I don't doubt that auto racing claims that it's tops. It's hype. Bluelion

Here's an article that's addmittedly over a year old, in which NASCAR claims to be No. 2 behind, guess what, the NFL. NASCAR: We're No. 2! By Chris Jenkins, USA TODAY Of course, sports executives are supposed to make wild claims. It doesn't mean I believe it. Apparently, David Carter, a sports marketer, wasn't entirely convinced by the numbers in a poll NASCAR conducted. Quoted in the article- I think there's a little bit of grandstanding in those numbers, because they positioned the poll,... A recent ESPN Sports Poll measuring various sports' fan bases ranked NASCAR seventh, behind the NFL, Major League Baseball, college football, the NBA, figure skating and college basketball.

NASCAR's TV ratings are, according to NASCAR, equal to NFL regular season TV ratings. Both NFL postseason games, and college bowl games get better ratings, and the Super Bowl gets much better ratings. In comparing football to auto racing, some wild claims have been made by auto racing marketers. Plain and simple: it's advertising hype. And anyway, are NHRA drag racing, for example, and NASCAR even the same sport? That's about like saying that American football and Association football (soccer) are the same sport.

NASCAR is the fastest-growing spectator sport in the US. There's no real question about that, and their attendance numbers are impressive. NFL and college football aren't growing, but their numbers are impressive, too.

Football is the most popular spectator sport in the US, a claim confirmed by every unbiased article I have read. Bluelion 13:03 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

Football = most popular sport 2002 NCAA football attendance SEC, Big 10 and Big 12 football outdraw NASCAR. The attendance total for Div. I-A football 34,384,264 is about equal to even the wildest claims for all forms of auto racing combined. That's not even counting NFL attendance. And some people seriously question some of the the auto racing numbers. NASCAR, easily the most popular form of auto racing, doesn't publish official attendance figures. Goodyear, which had been tabulating racing attendance figures, no longer does. The last report by Goodyear was for the 1998 season, and showed a total of just over 17 million for all forms of auto racing. CART/ Indy cars appears in serious trouble or, as one pundit put it, in free fall, and NASCAR just a lost a major sponsor, RJ Reynolds tobacco (Winston). As noted before, NFL postseason games and college bowl games get better ratings than auto racing. The 2002 Div.I-A football attendance figures were a record high, BTW. Bluelion 14:17 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)

Needs a "Strategy and Tactics" section.

The beginning reads like an ad. "Every ounce of their strength"? No such measurement is possible to my understanding.

I edited end part of the introduction to read as such:

Although some people claim that American football is played by blacks, run by whites, and is predominantly intended for the entertainment of white America, this is demonstrably false. While it is true that ownership of NFL teams is predominantly white, the NFL received a B rating in the 2001 Racial & Gender Report Card (RGRC) which is a comprehensive analysis the composition of players, coaches and key administrators in the NFL and its member institutions that was put out by Northeastern University. Fans of the NFL generally correspond to the racial makeup of the team's home market.

The previous information was false, racist, and not backed up by any facts. Now I will admit that I don't have any facts to back up the last sentance, which is why I have written it as a generality, but it's something that I know to be true (whatever that means.) If someone can provide some backup statistics that would be great.

jxlenny

That was not necessary. The comment was intentionally racist. Football is not "played by blacks". It is played by all races. It is not "run by whites". There are people of many races that make decisions throughout the administration of American football.

Remember, we are talking about American Football - not just the NFL. So, you cannot claim that, as an example, the Platte City, MO High School football team is "played by blacks". Last I checked, they had one black student and he didn't play football. You cannot claim that Hollywood, SC High School football is "run by whites". It is a mostly black high school with a nearly complete black administration. They didn't ship in some whites to run the program.

The original comment is by a person who specifically wants to start a racial argument. It is very rare that you will ever find a racial argument based on race. It is almost always based on the infinite ignorance of rather stupid humans. Kainaw 22:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Eye black

Can someone please talk about the under eye painting in football. (Black marks painted onto the face just under the eyes.) Purpose? History? Proper positioning?

This is not unique to football. It is common in all outdoor sports where a player is required to see a ball in the air. Without the eye black, the sun can easily glare on your sweaty cheek bones. With the black, much of the glare is reduced, making it easier to see the ball. Some players have experimented with sunglasses, but eye black must be better since more players use it than sunglasses. Kainaw 16:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm, it is probably easier with paintings than glasses in a game, since glasses could fall off or break, and paintings probably are more flexible when you want to look sideways, also, eye painting looks cooler! =P

Eyeblack, the pasty black goo that athletes wear on their cheekbones, has become so ubiquitous that it's almost become invisible. Athletes of all stripes, from the youngest Pop Warner football player to the most accomplished major leaguer, regularly don the substance, believing it will improve their vision. It has become a sports accessory. Smearing the black stuff on your face allegedly reduces the amount of glare that reflects into the eye from the cheekbone, but that has never made much sense. After all, players wear it during night games. They even wear it for games played inside, where glare from the sun is not a factor. After consulting a variety of experts, from athletes to ophthalmologists, I've concluded one thing: Eyeblack doesn't work. Even some makers of the product admit that the benefits of this mixture of beeswax, paraffin, and carbon are more psychological than actual.

Although he has been making and selling eyeblack for 37 years, Curt Mueller, the owner and president of Mueller Sports Medicine, has never seen any studies proving the effectiveness of eyeblack. "I believe some of it is psychological," he says.

Dr. Anne R. Sumers, the team ophthalmologist for the New York Giants and a spokesperson for the American Academy of Ophthalmology, says athletes wouldn't wear eyeblack if they didn't get results. But when pressed, Sumers later conceded, "It's really war paint."

Rooster Andrews sells 2.75-ounce tubes of eyeblack for $7.95. It also sells the patented fabric No Glare Strips ($5.95 for 36 strips) made by Mueller Sports Medicine of Prairie du Sac, Wisconsin. The strips, which are not as messy as the paste, are favored by many professional athletes, including Charles Johnson, the sure-handed catcher for the Baltimore Orioles.

Where did eyeblack come from? Calls to the Baseball Hall of Fame were fruitless. Researchers there could find no discussion or photographic records of eyeblack. Interviews with historians and authors also turned up nothing. Paul Dickson, the author of the Baseball Encyclopedia, says eyeblack is part of the arcana of the game, akin to the path between the pitchers mound and home plate. (In the Thirties and Forties that stretch of real estate was dirt. Then, inexplicably, that same stretch of land was covered with turf.) "All I can say is, it's one of those things. Nobody seems to be aware of it," said Dickson.

Interviews with players and coaches yield apocryphal evidence which suggests that players used to burn cork and then smear the ashes on their cheeks. Researchers at the Pro Football Hall of Fame say the earliest photographic record of eyeblack dates from 1942, when Washington Redskins fullback Andy Farkas wore it in a game against the Philadelphia Eagles.

But how did eyeblack become so common that baseball players like Bobby Valentine are now using it for disguises? Well, there are more questions than answers. But perhaps the best theory is the one posited by Boog Powell, the Orioles' legendary power-hitting first baseman: A couple of years ago, Powell recalls, it wasn't cool to wear sunglasses during games. So he, along with many of his cohorts, opted for eyeblack. "I don't remember it ever doing any good," Powell admits. "If there was any value, great. But in the process you looked cool." --Robert Bryce

Super Bowl audience

"Its championship game, the Super Bowl, is annually watched by nearly half of US television households, and is also televised in other countries. "

The Super Bowl is generally claimed to be the most-watched show on television, worldwide. Can anyone substantiate this easily? Otherwise, I'll try to look it up myself.

This article is still treating football unfairly in some places, and saying that the Super Bowl "is also televised in other countries" when in fact it has a worldwide audience of something like half a billion (I can't remember exactly) is, I think, one of them.

Rereading the paragraph is question, I've changed my mind and I see no need to go into specific audience figures after all. A simple change makes the sentence less dismissive. 150 countries is a conservative estimate, which saves qualifying it with nit-picking about exactly how many countries in each year. That kind of detailed information could potentially be added to Super Bowl.

Deaths in football

I'll provide a reference for the assertion about the number of deaths. i have a 10-year-old reference but hope to find a more recent one. Trontonian 20:36, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The intro paragraph as it stands is very POV and anti-Football. InanimateCarbonRod 00:05, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Ok, having read the piece and now these comments, I'm forced to ask: what are you people smoking, and can *I* have some? I can't quite figure out what you mean by "anti-football"; I certainly didn't acquire any such impression from reading the piece myself. I'm itching to fix two minor thinkos and add a graf about how those medically retired players who won't trash the game certainly got paid well (by the hour) for their work... but anti-football? I thought it was a very clear short intro to the game; appropriate for something like an encyclopedia. Baylink 10:46, 15 Dec 2003 (us:EST)

Injuries in football

This section is broken. It says that there are 8 deaths and 160 concussions a year due to football injuries. Now, I can believe that there are 160 concussions a year in the NFL (that's about 1 per 10 players), and the next sentence suggests that this might be the meaning intended. But no way are there 8 deaths a year in the NFL (that's 1 per 4 teams!) due to playing injuries, but this paragraph taken as a whole doesn't make it clear whether or not that is what is being said.

If those who put the figures in are still around, could they clarify the issue? Onebyone 13:25, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think they refer to all football in America but then they are to low. I found 2002 5 died directly in the game and 10 died of exercise-aggravated disease in youth through pro leagues.[1] 23 died in 2001. Rmhermen 14:21, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

The article says, "injuries suffered in the game", though, which would exclude exercise-aggravated disease. Perhaps it would be better to include those and say something like "died due to injury or illness caused by playing football". Onebyone 16:10, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I've reverted three items introduced by 166.145.74.231, because they don't fit into their context and therefore interrupt the flow and reduce the clarity of the article.

The three reverts are:

(American comedian George Carlin has a classic, and very popular routine about this, called "Baseball and Football".)

Not helpful in a paragraph whose purpose is to give the basics of what American football is. Perhaps it could be added to George Carlin?

New technology from a company called Princeton Video Image provides a visual indication of the line to gain on the field in network television broadcasts; the company is also responsible for virtual advertisements and the 360 degree "Matrix"-like instant replay called EyeVision used in the broadcast of SuperBowl XXXV.

Not relevant to a discussion of the basics (offensive and defensive teams, how many downs). It's interesting and belongs somewhere, perhaps television?

The game is rotated amongst the stadia of the various teams, with sites chosen years in advance; to date, no contender has ever played in a Super Bowl in their home stadium.

I think this belongs in the Super Bowl article. The point of the paragraph from which I removed it is show that football is very popular (look at the first sentence). The interesting fact about home teams won't help.

Opus33 22:50, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

1) I wouldn't call the intro anti-football, but it is very POV. 'Enemy'? How about opponent. Brute strength? Many sports qualify--can anyone say shot put, or wrestling, or, jeez, too many to list. War? Less biased writers would say any team sport qualifies--one group pits its most able-bodied members against another group's, in pursuit of a victory. Personal violence? How about boxing. The 'Injuries' section is also a bit POV--injury reports are also common in baseball and basketball articles. What is the source(s) for the deaths and concussions numbers? Also, could have some discussion/comparison of injuries during the pre-helmet years. The 'Football and drugs' section also seems a bit POV--it ignores the fact that high school and college training programs/equipment are much more prevalent and advanced than in the 1960s. 2) How can anyone question football being the most popular (in terms of total viewers/listeners--in the stands, and TV and radio)? Sure, if you just count people in the stands at regular-season professional meets, autoracing, baseball, and basketball may be close, but when you add TV audiences, playoffs, the Superbowl, and amateur levels (high school and college, let alone pick-up street games), it's a runaway. At many colleges, football revenues fund all the other sports combined. Also, part of the reason baseball and basketball are even close is because they play so many games--baseball teams play close to 100 games per year, compared to 20, tops, for football teams. Pro baseball and basketball games generally have attendances around 10-20,000 people, while pro (and even college!) football attendance is often 60-100,000 per game. 3) Other than my recent, small addition, the article ignores semi-pro football. 4) The article also completely ignores Australian-rules football. Sure, the focus of the article is American football, but if you bring up Canadian football, it only seems fair... 5) No amateur organized meets? Besides college, high school, and even jr high school teams/leagues, there is also http://www.popwarner.com/

Missing Penalty?

What ever happened to unnecessary roughness? --Jerzy (t) 03:19, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)

Should be a personal foul, which is not listed. --- Decumanus 03:22, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Tnx, that quick answer was worth an edit conflict! --Jerzy (t) 03:26, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)

Hopefully my first edit to American football succeeds in reflecting that clarification. But better yet, what about describing the union of the three categories the article enumerates more precisely than as "penalties". Are those besides personals called "technical fouls", or is that just basketball? --Jerzy (t) 08:52, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)

and the league considered by many to be the genesis of modern American professional football,the American Football League (AFL,1960-1969). The NFL merged with the American Football League in 1970, after the AFL began to successfully sign stars from the NFL. After the merger, the NFL adopted innovative features pioneered by the AFL, such as names on player jerseys, official scoreboard clocks (in the NFL, field and scoreboard clocks often did not agree, leading to confusion), and the two-point conversion. Even before the merger, the NFL adopted the AFL's revolutionary concept of network television broadcasts and sharing of gate and television revenues by both the home and visiting teams. Eventually, the NFL adopted virtually every pioneering aspect of the American Football League, except its name.

I removed this section because it is pov and it appears in almost every article on american football. the person who puts this in apperently has some agenda to lionized the AFL.

"Yankball"

The article claims that it's known in some parts of the world as "yankball". Is there any evidence this is the case? Whatever parts of the world that is must not post on the internet, since there are only a handful of hits for the term, some of which are the Wikipedia article. I'm sure many people have slang terms for American football, but is "yankball" a particularly prevalent one or more common than other slang terms? --Delirium 16:37, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

Its what I hear it get called whenever it is mentioned (which is a rarity), I've even heard it coming from a Greek so it seems pretty widespread over Europe at least --Josquius 11:50, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm from Europe and I've -never- heared that term before, so I guess it's not -that- widespread ;) -anon-

Is that derived from Yankee, or...? Since both Yankee and, to a lesser extent, "ball" are internationally widespread words, it seems like a word that could have originated/been used at many similar places simultaneously.

Yes I'd imagine it comes from yankee which to mainstream europe is anyone from the US (its just New England for Americans isn't it?) --Josquius 16:00, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not just New England, but those from north eastern states in general

Yankball actually sounds like something an Australian would say, but that's first time this Aussie has heard of that term. It's just girdiron to us.

It's actually quite commonly called "Yankeeball" here. It's intended as a derogatory term. Simply Googling "Yankeeball" comes up with a first result "Where I come from, we call baseball, not Football, 'yankeeball'", suggesting people are in fact referring to the sport as this.

What it's all about

I agree that this article needs quite a bit of work ... one section that really stood out for me was the "What it's all about" section (starting with the very title and content: football's about George Carlin, doctrine, and scandals? huh?)

The Carlin section either needs to be elaborated or eliminated ... I don't know his routine, but the way it's described now isn't funny or enlightening (baseball and American football are indeed different ... but aren't they supposed to be?)

I'm not sure what the point of the character building section is. The attributes mentioned are unique to neither America nor American football).

These points are just the beginning, but an article like this can only be healed one section at a time. CES 07:49, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This section is just terrible. Would anyone mind if we just deleted it? It adds nothing.--Zakharov 05:12, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would be quite happy to see this section deleted. It seems so out of place and I can't imagine what it adds to the article. Carrp 15:52, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Section deleted. If it can be improved and re-added, I have no objection, but I'm not holding my breath. --Zakharov 20:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Football a metahpor for War

Removed this comment for being silly and irrelevent:

Like most team sports (and individual sports in the context of a meet like the Olympics), American football is often seen as a metaphor for war.

And also, because the paragraph is the unit of composition, and the comment had nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph. - user:TimShell Sep 6 2004

The comment is silly. I have been studying the history of warfare for over 20 years and I've never heard of anyone seriously using football as a metaphor for war. It is the exact opposite. War is used as a metaphor for football. It is plain silly to think of a general telling his troops, "We're going to go out there and complete passes, make yards on the ground, and no turnovers." But, it is common (if a bit sick) to here football players urged to "attack", "fight", and "kill" the "enemy". Kainaw 21:07, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perfect Season

On german wikipedia there is a discussion about the phrase "perfect season", meaning that a team has a perfect season, when it wins all games of a season. My question ist: Is this a commonly used phrase in football (or in US sports general), and does it have this definition? Is it a phrase at all? Strangely, I did not find it in en.wikipedia. 128.97.70.87 00:11, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, "perfect season" (or "perfect record") is used for a team that does not lose a game. This almost never happens, though, so the term isn't used much.

For the record, it's only ever been done once in the NFL, by the Miami Dolphins, and I'm quite sure it's never happened in any other major professional sports league in America (pretty damn hard to win 162 consecutive baseball games...)

The Perfect Season is largely a college football phenomenon, and as generally one team per season has a perfect season, so it is still a valid term for this game. writinguy

It is also rather common for high school football teams to have a perfect season (no losses). So, I agree that perfect season is a valid term for American Football. Kainaw 16:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Linebacker Role

The article has the following sentence: Linebackers often try to break into the offense's backfield or they stay back to defend against the pass or the run. So, what this is saying is that the linebacker may rush or stay back. If they stay back, they may defend against the run or defend against the pass. What is the other option? Running lateral the field while ignoring both the pass and the run? What is the primary function of the linebacker? That is what linebackers often do. This is similar to saying that the center often snaps the ball to the quarterback or to another back or ball holder. That is pretty much true, but it is more correct to word it as The center usually snaps to the quarterback, but there are plays where he may snap to another back or a ball holder. Since I'm not sure what the linebacker usually does, I can't reword the sentence about them in the article. Kainaw 19:43, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The linebackers' job, roughly speaking, is to figure out the play and do the right thing. So if they're blitzing (pass or run), one or more of them may well be trying to make a play in the backfield. How often this happens depends on the team. On anything else, they need to read the play and drop back to support the coverage if there are a lot of receivers running deep (although it's very bad news for a linebacker to be left trying to cover a wide receiver), move up on short receivers (including tight ends and backs) if they look like possible pass targets, and fill any gaps in the line if it's a run. Once they've figured out the play, they "often" do their best to flatten somebody, and that's about the only thing that's true of every play... Onebyone 10:49, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the American_football article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/American_football}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:23, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Breaking this article up into smaller units

Seeing as this article is over 50K in size, I suggest that the penalties and strategy sections be broken off into separate articles, which would make this main article easier to edit and to maintain.

writinguy

I've started by splitting off the strategy section into Football strategy.

--24.103.207.38 07:38, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you're splitting the article, I'd suggest that "American football rules" would make more sense as a new article than "American football penalties". There's plenty to say about football without going into the details of the rules, so the main article wouldn't suffer from removing all of the rules except for the paragraph under The game. Onebyone 13:01, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have started the breakup of the article. I've severely shortened the section called "The game" and moved its original contents to American football rules. I've also tried to edit and reorganize that section. My primary goal in shortening the section in the main football article was to keep the text accessible to people who know nothing about football. I tried to limit the scope to general rules (I got rid of obscurities like the fair catch kick), and eliminate the lengthy paragraphs of rules. Please continue to make improvements and condense this article so that it's no longer a huge block of inaccessible and excessively-detailed text. Aerion //talk 04:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When I say that I would like the article to be accessible to non-Americans, I mean it in the same way that the Cricket article is accessible to Americans. That article is well-structured and contains the appropriate amount of information for the typical curious outsider. Aerion //talk 04:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy that people are working on making this a more condensed and accessible article. I should have mentioned here, I hope we can get it featured soon, so it can be on the main page on Super Bowl Sunday. Baseball didn't get featured in time for the world series, maybe we can get it done with the football article. Rhobite 05:31, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Two minor changes

I reverted daniel11's changes because I believe it's awkward to say that the ball is "kicked off a tee". I don't believe that's proper grammar, we should say it's "kicked off of a tee" or "from a tee". I also think it's important to say that "the team that scores first, by any means, wins". Otherwise people might assume that you need a touchdown to win in OT. I can assure you this isn't the case. :( Rhobite 01:19, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

I like "kicked from a tee," I wasn't suggesting it has to be "off a tee," I was just changing to the first reasonable thing from the horrendous "off of a tee," which is not just wrong but sounds like schoolyard talk ;)

For the other one, I was also just changing it to the first phrase that didn't sound completely wrong, though again we could come up with something better than what I wrote. However, "the team that scores first, by any means, wins" is subject to an awkward misreading, where it sounds like a casual affirmation of something rather than meaning "by whatever method," as it's intended to. I don't really care how we finally go, but I think both of those spots need to be written differently than they are now.

by the way, it's just me, 24.whatever-it-was... I took your suggestion and re-found my username :)

All the Best,

--Daniel11 01:27, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Phrasing in the Introduction

I believe that the "However" in the third sentence of the introduction is not the best word to use. I edited it to read "In addition, it is also a complex game of managerial command and planning.", but this was changed back several times. "However" means "despite anything to the contrary" (dictionary.com), which isn't the point the third sentence is trying to make. The point is that American football requires physical talent in addition to mental skills. I'm going to change it back to "in addition" for now. Carrp 13:15, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's not a very complex sentence, I don't know why you have trouble with the word "however." I won't change it back for now, we should discuss it and agree on something first, but I think you should re-read the line -- and again, if you still haven't understood the use of "however."

--Daniel11 23:18, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I also don't like the however, but I don't think it's major. The implied contrary I think refers to physical v mental; roughly "It's a very physical game. However it's also a very mental game." DJ Clayworth 20:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Injuries

Reading an article about Chad Pennington in today's sports section, I noticed that the NFL has strict rules on the manipulation of injury reports. Does anyone know what they are? Could they be added to the article? --Zakharov 20:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Two point conversion

I can't find a mention of the NFL two-point conversion rule. I'm not gong to add it because I don't know the details. DJ Clayworth 20:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's in the "methods of scoring" section but I think it needs to be clearer. Rhobite 21:04, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

I edited the section. Thoughts? --Zakharov 22:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gridiron

I've heard the term used on more than one occasion, so it should be mentioned in the article. If you know a better place to put it, show us. Lefty 00:41, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

I haven't heard it used outside the U.S., as the intro indicates. I don't hear it much. It's not in the dictionary. It's not essential. Etc., Etc. If you want to keep something rather tangential like that in the article, why don't you find a place other than the intoduction, which is supposed to be fairly concise? I don't see the need for it at all. Also, unless Wikipedia follows some convention I'm not familiar with, the period should be inside the double-quote. All the Best, --Daniel11 12:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First, what does it matter if it is used outside the U.S.? We are discussing American Football, not International Football. I simply don't see how use of the word outside the U.S. makes a bit of difference for a topic about a sport that is primarily popular in the United States.

As for use of the word, Gridiron is an extremely common word for the football field. It is so common that it would be difficult to watch a game and not hear the commentators use the word gridiron at least once. So, it seems very strange to treat it like it is some weird American word for some weird American sport that nobody outside the U.S. knows about.

As for the double-quotes, many Wikipedia users are computer programmers. As such, they despise sticking punctuation inside the double-quotes. Yes, it is grammatically proper, but it is programtically wrong. If the punctuation is not part of the quote, what business does it have being inside the double quotes?

Kainaw 13:17, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The quote thing is not a grammatical rule, but a stylistic one. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks says to put the period and suchlike outsite of the quotes.

As for "gridiron" I'll let my previous comments stand. I won't do any more editing along those lines and accept the consensus.Lefty 15:16, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

I want to humbly appologize. I only scanned the intro before replying before. I didn't read it clearly. I mistakenly thought it was referring to the use of gridiron for the field - not as an alternative name for the sport. I have never heard the sport itself referred to as gridiron, but I cannot say that it is impossible that some country does call it such. I would expect it to be in Asian languages. For instance, it is XuQiu in Chinese (if memory serves), which translates directly to "Lower Leg/Foot", "Spherical Object/Ball". But, they like two-syllable words and could nickname it FangYun (again, going from memory on translating "Grid" "Iron"). However, this is an assumption and I also have to point out that American football is hardly known in Asia except where there is plenty of American military (ie: Japan).

So, I would strongly suggest removing the claim that it is referred to as gridiron outside of the U.S. and replace it with something that states how some people outside the U.S. misuse the nickname for the football field (gridiron) as a nickname for the game itself. I would let that stay until someone can point out either a country that does call it gridiron. If nobody comes forward anytime soon, I'd delete the reference to gridiron all together.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Kainaw 16:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's girdiron in Australia (probably NZ too), if that carries any weight.

High School Football Popularity

I edited the page to reflect that high school football is most popular in the Southern United States rather than just Texas. I haven't found a Southern state to not have quite a bit of popularity for high school football. In fact high school football is more popular in Louisiana than Texas where the championship is played in the Superdome in New Orleans due to large crowds.

POV

It is one of the more physically demanding sports, with a great deal of physical contact occurring on each play, and requiring rare athletic talents in strength, speed, agility, and hand-eye coordination. However, football is also a complex game of managerial command and planning. Rather than say how physically demanding and skilful football is, why not let readers decide for themselves from the description of how it's played?

I agree.

eligible receivers

The article says ineligible receivers in the NFL have a number 50-79 or 90-99. Only defensive linemen and linebackers may wear 90-99, (http://football.about.com/cs/football101/a/bl_numbersystem.htm) and they're eligible, as is the entire defense, so I'll edit that.

Drug testing

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't drug tests nearly nonexistant in College Football and uncommon in the NFL? Perhaps some statistics could be added to this section in regards to testing frequency (and maybe failed test frequency?). Because like with many other pro sports, the doping problems aren't solely about the effectiveness of the tests, but also are about when the tests are done and how often. (Testing doesn't really work if an athlete knows they won't be tested over a particular time of the year, for example.) Just a suggestion! Peoplesunionpro 03:17, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I pay no attention to college ball. In the NFL, drug testing depends on the drug. Drugs that are not intended to improve play (steroids improve play) are tested once a year with plenty of advance notice. When players fail this test, they have a serious addiction. They are told clearly - stop smoking weed for four weeks. Some of them are so addicted that they can't (and then they claim marijuana is not addictive). So, the NFL gives them a second chance to try again four to six weeks later. If they fail again, they are suspended until they go to drug rehab.

I mention marijuana here because that is the problem drug. Other drugs don't come up as much. I believe that it is just too hard to play such a demanding sport and be a slave to the harder drugs. That is also the common sentiment among the players - it is much easier to beat someone who is strung out on some drug, but you still want them to get help for their addiction.

Play-enhancing drugs are a completely different subject. Tests are performed weekly. On the first positive, there is a four game suspension. On the second positive, there is a six game suspension. On the third, there is a season-long suspension.

In my opinion, the road to the NFL includes steroids, but at the high school and college level. Once you get into the NFL, your career can't risk a positive steroid test. Kainaw 12:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Just to elaborate, steriod testing is also random, and the NFL follows Olympic steroid testing standards.

Total rewrite

This article certainly shows a lot of hard, collective work. However, I think it can be greatly improved. I feel it contains a lot of information that someone unfamiliar with the game doesn't really need to know, such as coaches' challenges and arena-football drop kicks. Much of that information belongs on second-level pages -- a process that has begun with the American football rules article (which should have a hyphen in the title).

I originally intended to edit only a couple of paragraphs, but when I started I found it seemed better to rewrite everything between "Popularity" and "Development of the game." (I don't think lists of "other leagues" and "penalties" need to be on this top-level page.) My goal was to write a super-basic description of the sport so someone who has never seen it can visualize it. Rather than just splotch it on the article page and wreck all of your hard work, I've decided to paste my proposed revision here so people can give their opinions. (I don't know which is a bigger breach of etiquette.) So here it is:

Field and players

Football is played on a 100-yard by 53.3-yard field. At both ends of the field are 10-yard-deep end zones, or scoring areas. At the back of the end zones are 18.5-foot-wide goal posts, with a crossbar 10 feet from the ground. Successful kicks must go above the crossbar and between the uprights.

Each team has 11 players on the field at a time. However, teams may substitute for any or all of their players between plays. As a result, players have very specialized roles, and almost all of the 53 players on an NFL team will play in any given game

Game duration

A football game consists of four 15-minute quarters, with a halftime after the second quarter. However, the clock stops after certain plays, so a game can last more than three hours in real time. If an NFL game is tied after four quarters, the teams play up to another 15 minutes. The first team that scores wins; if neither team scores, the game is a tie. College overtime rules are more complicated and are described at Overtime (sport).

The play of the game

The goal of football is to score points by advancing the ball to the other team's end zone to score touchdowns, or to kick it through the other team's goal posts to score field goals.

Advancing the ball

Players can advance the ball in two ways:

By running with the ball, also known as rushing.
By throwing the ball to a teammate, known as passing.

Ending a play

A play, or down, ends, and the ball becomes dead, after any of the following:

The player with the ball is tackled by a member of the other team, the defense.
A pass thrown forward touches the ground before it is caught. This is known as an incomplete pass, and the ball is returned to the spot where the previous play began.
The ball or the player with the ball goes beyond the dimensions of the field (out of bounds).
A team scores.

Changes of possession

The team with the ball, known as the offense, keeps the ball until one of the following things happens:

The team fails to get a first down, that is, move the ball forward at least 10 yards in four downs. The defensive team takes over the ball at the spot where the play ends.
The offense scores a touchdown or field goal. The team that scored then kicks off the ball to the other team. (See Scoring and Kickoffs below.)
The offense punts the ball to the defense. A punt is a kick in which a player drops the ball and kicks it before it hits the ground. This is always done on fourth down, when the offensive team does not want to risk giving up the ball to the other team at its current spot on the field and feels it is too far from the other team's goal posts to kick a field goal.
A defensive player catches a forward pass. This is called an interception, and the player who makes the interception can run with the ball until tackled or forced out of bounds.
An offensive player drops the ball (a fumble), and a defensive player picks it up. As with interceptions, a player recovering a fumble can run with the ball until tackled or forced out of bounds. Lost fumbles and interceptions are together known as turnovers.
The offensive team misses a field goal. The other team gets the ball at the spot where the previous play began (or, in the NFL, at the spot of the kick). If the unsuccessful kick was attempted from very close to the end zone, the other team gets the ball at its own 20-yard line (that is, 20 yards from the end zone).
An offensive player is tackled or forced out of bounds in his own end zone. This rare occurence is called a safety, and the offense must then kick the ball to the other team from its own 20-yard line. (See Scoring below.)

Scoring

Point totals for scoring plays are as follows:

A touchdown is worth 6 points. A touchdown is scored when a player has possession of the ball in the other team's end zone, whether by running in, by catching a pass or by recovering a fumble.
- After a touchdown, the scoring team attempts a conversion. The ball is placed at the other team's 3-yard-line (the 2-yard-line in the NFL). The team can attempt to kick it through the goal posts for 1 point (an extra point or run or pass it in for 2 points (a two-point conversion).
A field goal is worth 3 points. Field goals must be place-kicked, that is, kicked when the ball is held vertically against the ground by a teammate.
A safety, which is described above under "change of possession," is worth 2 points.

Kickoffs

Each half begins with a kickoff. Teams also kick off after scoring touchdowns and field goals. A kickoff is a kick from a tee, which is made from one's own 30-yard line in the NFL and from the 35 in college football. The other team's kick returner tries to advance the ball as far as possible; his team will start with a first down where he is tackled or forced out of bounds. If the kick goes out of the end zone, or if the other team's kick returner elects not to run the ball out of the end zone, it is a touchback, and the receiving team starts from its own 20-yard line. Punts can also result in touchbacks.

Basic football strategy

Main article: American-football strategy To many fans, the chief draw of football is the chess game that goes on between the two coaching staffs. Each team has a playbook of dozens of plays, or directions for what the players should do on a down. Some plays are very safe; they are very likely to get a few yards, but not much more than that. Other plays have the potential for long gains but a greater risk of a loss of yardage or a turnover.

Generally speaking, rushing plays are less risky than passing plays. However, there are relatively safe passing plays and risky running plays. To fool the other team, there are passing plays designed to look like running plays and vice versa. There are many trick or gadget plays, such as when a team lines up like it is going to kick and then tries to run or pass for a first down. Such high-risk plays are a great thrill to the fans when they work.

The players

As noted above, most football players have highly specialized roles. At the college and NFL levels, most play only offense or only defense.

Offense

The offensive line consists of at least five men whose job it is to protect the passer and clear the way for runners by blocking members of the defense. All plays begin with the center handing the ball backwards between his legs, or snapping it, to a teammate, usually the quarterback.
The quarterback receives the ball on most plays. He then either hands or tosses it to a running back, throws it to a receiver or runs with it himself.
Running backs line up behind the quarterback and specialize in rushing with the ball. They also block and sometimes catch passes.
Receivers line up at the end of the offensive line or near the sidelines. They specialize in catching passes.

Defense

The defensive line consists of at least three men who line up across from the offensive line. They try to tackle the running backs before they can gain yardage or the quarterback before he can throw a pass.
At least four men line up as defensive backs. They cover the receivers and try to stop pass completions. Sometimes they rush the quarterback.
The other players on the defense are known as linebackers. They line up between the defensive line and backs and may either rush the quarterback or cover receivers.

Special teams

The units of players who handle kicking plays are known as special teams. Special-teams players include the punter, who handles punts, and the kicker or placekicker, who kicks off and attempts field goals and extra points.

Mwalcoff 06:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Total rewrite

I seem to remember a time when I was planning to do something like this. I suppose I never had the motivation to actually do it. I think this revision makes the article much more accessible. Good work! I'm not sure, though, why you would put a hyphen in "American football," as you've done in American-football strategy and as you propose to do with American football rules. The name "American football" alone is never hyphenated, and although "American football strategy" could possibly be read as "the tactics employed by football players from the United States," I don't think the potential for confusion is really all that high. Mostly, I just think that having the hyphen there looks strange. Aerion //talk 03:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment! OK, this is the old copy editor in me talking, but when two words act as a single adjective, they should be hyphenated, unless there is absolutely no possible confusion. For example, Jerome Pathon is an American-football player, but he's not an American football player -- he's from Canada. (Pathon is a Canadian football player, not a Canadian-football player.) To a British person, Freddy Adu is an American football player, but he's not an American-football player. But I can only guess what other people would find confusing. I could be wrong. Mwalcoff 04:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Scoring rules

One complaint about the re-write, the new scoring section leaves out a lot of information that was previously shown. For example, the new scoring rules do not show the variants of the different leagues. All leagues previously shown qualify as American football, yet only NFL scoring rules are listed. For example, one-point safeties and two-point conversion return scores in college football and 4-point field goals in NFL Europe, etc. Either these should be added, or it should be noted which organization's set of rules is being shown. I'll leave that for someone else to decide. Dhmachine31

My view is that the American football article should serve as a brief introduction to the sport suitable for people who have never seen it before. It does not need to be a comprehensive database of every rule in the book. We certainly don't need to include obscure things like one-point safeties. I am somewhat concerned that since I rewrote the middle of the article it's progressed toward complexity again. Mwalcoff

This is an example of a classic Wiki-situation where there is a need for a new article. Just start American football rules and you can include every little rule imaginable. The main American Football article should contain a brief summary of the rules, but link to the rules article for all of the rules. Kainaw 18:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The same proposal was made something like 10 months ago, and the article you suggest was already created. It's not done yet, because nobody actually wants to maintain the behemoth. Aerion //talk 01:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Resimplification

I have reverted some of the changes made in the past month. There has been a tendency by people to try to "clarify" one point or another over time, and we wind up with an article far more complex than an overview of the sport should be.

I tried to leave in some of the improvements that had been made, but if I took out something that I should not have, I apologize.

Among the changes I undid was the move of the "Kickoffs" section to before the "Advancing the ball" section. While kickoffs come before plays from scrimmage chronologically, they are far less important to a basic understanding of the game than scrimmage plays are.

I also removed the "yankball" sentence. Whether some people call it yankball or not is beside the point. It's not necessary for an overview.

Note that someone appears to be trying to create urban legends here. Someone wrote that the name "football" came from the length of the ball (it doesn't) and that end zones are 11 yards long (they aren't). Mwalcoff 21:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Punting

Unless someone can think of an example in the last 40 years when a punt was kicked other than on fourth down (or a free kick), we should leave it as saying that punts are always made on fourth down. Mwalcoff 00:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

~~It happens very often when there is a few seconds left in the game (or half) and it is too far to attempt a run or pass. Regardless of the down, you punt.~~ I am very sleepy and read this as a field goal attempt, not a punt. I'm sure there is a very strange reason to punt on something other than 4th down - but I have no clue what that would be. Kainaw 00:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

After research, I found:

Pittsburg/Panthers game in 2002. Panthers punted on 3rd down because they were having trouble with the punting team and wanted two tries.
Northwestern/Hawkeyes game. Northwestern surprise punted on 3rd down to do it when the punt returner was on the bench.
Washington/Buffalo in 2003. Buffalo apparently punted on 3rd down - but I have no idea why (mistake?).

It appears that the punt on third down is a play it safe move. Also, it appears from what I read that you are not allowed to punt on first or second down - only third and fourth. Kainaw 00:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess I was wrong; the quick kick on third down is not dead. (I think you've misread the Washington-Buffalo thing if I'm reading what you're reading, but Pitt and Northwestern State did quick kick.) Actually, you can punt on any down you want, but I can't imagine a situation in which you would punt on first or second down.

So in three years, we had one third-down quick kick in Division I-A and one in D I-AA. From 2002-04, there were 2,139 Division I-A games, with an average of 10.6 punts in each game, for a total of 22,673 punts. Of those, one (that we know of) was not on fourth down. Does that mean we haveto say "almost always?" Mwalcoff 02:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, actually, because saying "always" would still be a lie. And lying is bad. --Matt Yeager 04:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)