Talk:American football/Archive 3

Advancing the ball

look, you blokes, the first paragraph says at the last sentence—If the offense fails to gain a first down (10 yards) after 4 downs, the other team gets possession of the ball. And that's the end? So you need to point out in the last sentence where play begins! Otherwise I'm left hanging and the next paragraph doesn't tell me. Can you fix it please?Lin (talk) 10:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Done for the moment, but it may be reverted because it is implied that the ball doesn't magically move around. Wherever it is, that is where the other team gets possession of it. It is also implied that getting possession starts at first down. -- kainaw™ 13:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Why is there nothing on the history of this game? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.50.127 (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't figure out how to thread so I'll put this here. The section on halves is incorrect. The team who kicked off in the first half automatically gets in the second. No coin toss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.69.1.244 (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Arena Football League ?

The article states The 32-team National Football League (NFL) is the only major professional American football league. If you look at the bottom of the Arena_Football_League article has it categorized as Major.

(Andrewmarcum 02:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC))

• For defining it as "major" or not, I would be inclined to use a couple of standards. One, how does it stack up with other "major" sports such as the NHL and the WNBA? What kind of TV coverage does it get? Even if those are good, there's a problem: It would be reasonable to assume that the men playing arena football are ex-NFLers or guys who never made the NFL. That, by definition, renders Arena Football a "minor league" in American football. Wahkeenah 03:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

--- Not only is the Arena Football League a minor league, I'm not even convinced it belongs under "American Football". Indoor Football is to American Football what Rugby Sevens is to Rugby Union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.179.174 (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC) --- Going on with the rugby comparison, rugby league and rugby union are two similar yet separate sports. We should treat these two as such. That means not listing it as a major or minor american football league. Rather "the only major arena football league" (and the only one at that). Same with Canadian football.Greecepwns (#1 Red Bulls Supporter) (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

All rather academic now that the Arena Football league is defunct. Any existing indoor football leagues are clearly minor.Wschart (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Rename

Lets move this to gridiron please. Or atleast American football (gridiron).... it is highly confusing for most of the world who play real football, technically what they play in Brazil and Argentina is from the Americas and is football, but isn't gridiron like what is contained within this article. - The Daddy 16:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

By Wikipedia policy, the "English" version of Wikipedia caters to English-speaking people. That means that it does not cater to Brazil or Argentina (or Span, China, Italy, Russia...). Therefore, this is an issue of what the U.S., Canada, U.K., and Australia call "American Football". While some Australians call it "Gridiron", the other countries prefer "American Football". On non-English versions of Wikipedia, feel free to refer to it as Gridiron. --Kainaw ^(talk) 21:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia still has articles about other countries and their sports on the English version of the site, Brazil and Argentina are from the Americas and are world famous as footballing champions, hence why it could cause some confusion to non-yanks if an English speaking person typed in "American football" looking for information on the more well known Pele, Maradona, etc American football and ended up on an article about gridiron.

The term gridiron applied to this sport, is within the context of the English language. Australians and New Zealanders speak English and that is what they call this sport (as do some English), also a major American movie about this sport, uses the word "Gridiron" in its title[1]. - The Daddy 23:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No one in the countries that play American football call it "gridiron," and few would even be aware that some people do. To us the "gridiron" is just another name for the field. Of course, we don't call it "American football" either, but at least we know what that is. You should also realize that you're not going to make many friends by calling soccer "the real football," as if the American game is inferior. -- Mwalcoff 22:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This has been rehashed over and over. If you go back and read the old conversations on the talk page, you will see that there was a very long argument for and against even including the word "gridiron" in the article because it is an unknown term in the U.S. and Canada (where the sport is primarily played). Is the argument basically that all Wikipedia users in the U.S. and Canada need to search and search for football under some strange name they've never heard so a few Wikipedia users in Australia can find the Pele article faster? --Kainaw ^(talk) 01:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Gridiron should redirect here, with a link to a seperate 'gridiron disambiguation' page, and the opening line (not the scond paragraph) should state that 'American football, Gridiron, or simply football blah blah blah'

Why cant we just call the articel Football (American) no one calls it american football unless your a euro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.93.223 (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I thinks it's best to just leave it where it is. Also, "American football" is often used by Americans within the context of discussing Canadian football. - BillCJ 18:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god this bit of a discussion really shows how American centered the english wikipedia is. I'm Belgian and my mother tongues are spanish and french and I use the english wikipedia almost every day as also do many people whose language isn't spoken that much. English Wikipedia shouldn't be considered as made by and for people living in english speaking countries. To this day English has become the international language and thus English wikipedia should be considered as an international encyclopaedia. This article has obviously been written by Americans with the intent to impose bits of their own vocabulary. It is a real shame.

For years I defended this great website against lots of criticism but it has now shown me its real face. As I can't edit the article, I'll have to wait for it to become more neutral, if it doesn't, I'll really have lost a lot of faith in the Wikipeda project.

--Sinekonata (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I (an American, of Belgian and French extraction, among other gene sources) have edited for clarification. But, one cannot really be surprised that Americans might be most interested in editing American football and that American vocabulary might be used to describe an American sport. In fact, anything other than those circumstances would be a surprise, in my opinion. Ruedetocqueville (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:ENGVAR, "The English Wikipedia does not prefer any major national variety of the language. No variety is more correct than another. Editors should recognize that the differences between the varieties are superficial. Cultural clashes over spelling and grammar are avoided by using the following four guidelines. (The accepted style of punctuation is covered in the punctuation section." Point 2 states: "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation." Thus it is entirely appropriate for this article to be written using American English. It has nothing to do with "Americans with the intent to impose bits of their own vocabulary", at least at the article level. We are just following the existing guidelines for WP. - BillCJ (talk) 05:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The sport is called American football. Gridiron is only a very minor usage. It's a sport primarily played in the US. The idea that an article written from an American perspective, particularly about a primarily American activity should be excluded is POV. If someone was looking for an article on Association football in the US, there's a convenient link provided from the disambiguation page.--RLent (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Physicality

Sections stating 'Unfortunately, the injuries that do result tend to be severe and often season or career-ending and sometimes fatal. In previous years with less padding, tackling more closely resembled tackles in Rugby football, with less severe impacts and fewer injuries.' The comparison with Rugby Union is better because Rugby League is a collision sport without the padding. American Football many years ago tackles were much lower. Today American football tackles are much more upright like a league tackle. The section is a little odd as both forms have changed massively and American Football has also gone through changes. Londo06 23:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Country-term matching

For accuracy, I believe it is:

• United States and Canada = football
• Australia = Gridiron football
• United Kingdom = American football

How close is this to being right?? Georgia guy 19:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't know about Australia, but you are correct for the UK.

I am puzzled why the article states that the sport is known as "gridiron" in the UK. The predominant term is "American football", and I suspect that most British people wouldn't know what you were talking about if you mentioned "gridiron".

In 35 years living in Australia, I found the game invariably referred to as Gridiron. In ten years living in the UK, I found the name Gridiron not only unused, but unknown, and I would invariably have to clarify that I was referring to American Football. CaughtLBW 02:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Just look at some UK-only Google searches: "American football" gets 1.2 million results. "Gridiron" gets only one-tenth as many, and almost half of those refer to the movie "Gridiron Gang". If we exclude the movie title (gridiron -"gridiron gang") we get 67,800 results, many of which appear to have nothing to do with the sport (the top result is the "Grid Iron Theatre Company")

TomH 19:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

In Ireland its Gridiron, but there is already two codes of football there so it helps not to have a third code. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainbeecher (talk • contribs) 23:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not true. I'm Irish and I play American Football and the term gridiron is rarely if ever used. We're just smart enough to clarify which version of "football" we're talking about. SexyIrishLeprechaun (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've heard the term "gridiron" used several times on BBC America. I don't believe the commentator was Australian. (167.1.150.237 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"US resident" football?

Folks, imho, there is a STYLE/POV issue here: the first paragraph seems like it is written by an American (read: US resident), for Americans (US residents). I find this too Americano-centric, and thus - bad style. Would someone want to change this nad make it more neutral? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynagar (talk • contribs) 20:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No, we're not going to rename the article "US resident football"! - BillCJ (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree with that, but although USA residents don't have a proper name for their country nor themselves what is done is done the whole world calls them Americans living in America, that's not gonna change right now... So the title should stay unchanged.

The same should apply for the use of the word football, almost the entire world calls football football and american football american football, everyone knows that (including Americans), thus the word soccer shouldn't even be used in the article. Of course American people use football for what the rest of the world calls American football, and so they have another word for football which is soccer all of that is only fair and normal, but by including such vocabulary in an international encyclopaedia, it only has the effect of discrediting the latter.

I have never been so disappointed in wikipedia till this day when I discovered this article and then the football one. It has shown me how much the English wikpedia is american-centered an how much it shouldn't...

--Sinekonata (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

We (Americans) are allowed to name our own sports. Meaning we don't have to ask for permission. Happy that you're disappointed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.122.145 (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Template removal

I've removed the citations template from the top of the article. Inline citations would be inappropriate for most of the article. There may be parts of the article that should have citations, but that's best handled by putting a fact tag at those particular points. -- Mwalcoff 01:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

GA status

I think that this article needs work if it is to retain GA status. According to criteria 2b may need much more inline citations. At the moment there are entire sections that have none. This should probably be fixed. - Shudde ^talk 01:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

I filed a Good Article Review for this article because it has very little references and no section about American football competitions. --Kaypoh 06:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

By a consensus of 7-1, the article was delisted from the GA list. Please see the archived discussion for more details. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Gridiron football merged into here

I think the stub Gridiron football should be merged into this article and the info about Canadian football moved into the Canadian football article. Gridiron football is totally repetitive and could easily be replaced by a short paragraph in each article. If someone feels like doing, then feel free, if not, and as long as there isn't any objections, I will move it in a couple days.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 02:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The Rest of the World

IF the rest of the world considers "American Football" to be called Gridiron football then the article should be merged with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.189.133 (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting this article be merged with Gridiron football, and that American football become a redirect? More silly suggestions like this, and there will have to be an "American language" wiki just to describe American culture with American words! Since when are Australia and New Zeeland considered "the rest of the world"?? The countries I've been to call it "American football", or even "American rugby", but not "gridiron football". According to the Gridiron football, it's mainly used in Australia and New Zeeland. Don't forget to merge Canadian football there too. - BillCJ 01:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should make a template for this question since it reappears every other month. -- kainaw™ 02:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Gridiron football

I disagree with the merge for the same reasons as in February.

Countries outside the US and Canada refer to the game as Gridiron, not American football. The term American football gives the connotation that the game is exclusive to the United States alone. Also, patriotic gridiron fans from non-North American countries do not like to call the game American, due to current world politics and they try to distance this international sport from a specific country. Looking at other articles, if American football, Canadian football and College football each have their separate articles, why does gridiron have to be merged? Sure, the article is in need of expansion and copyediting, but it can still be worked on.

If any merge is to happen American football should merge here into Gridiron football, since it is the correct name. Unfortunately though, this discussion is much like Association football vs soccer in that which region in the world you're from decides on what you call it.--Breno ^talk 02:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• (moved from Gridiron football by BillCJ 04:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

Breno -- "Gridiron football" appears to be a mainly Australian term. In the UK, the predominant term is "American football." Of course, in America, the sport is simply known as "football." But at least Americans know what "American football" is. Most Americans have never heard the term "gridiron football." "Gridiron football" should be merged because it is not a distinct game but simply another term for American football. -- Mwalcoff 00:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe just Australia uses the term "gridiron" and that statement isn't cited on the article. Being Australian myself that's what we call it here, but for other countries I can't speak on their behalf. I also notice that Britannica has a gridiron article though admittedly Encarta does not. --Breno ^talk 09:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It is my opinion that there should only be one article until it is demonstrated that "American Football" and "Gridiron Football" are two distinctly different sports. Then, the name of the article should reflect the name used by the majority of the sport, "American Football". All other terms should redirect to the article. If a handful of Australians can't live with a redirect, there is absolutely nothing stopping them from forming http://aussie.wikipedia.org (assuming that "aussie" isn't an offensive term that I've ignorantly used). -- kainaw™ 14:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Breno is right that there are no sources in the Gridiron football article documenting that the term "Gridiron football" is used only in Australia and New Zealand. But then, there are NO sources whatsoever documenting that the term is used ANYWHERE in the universe! As such, it is really just a glorified DAB page. Without sources, the article should be redirected, and the information deleted, not merged. Proper verifiable sources can be added to back up all the claims in the article; Britannica qualifies as a verifiable source, but I don't know if it covers all the claims, as I'm not a member. I'd support in remaing a separate article, or at least a DAB page, as the term is defined as relating to both US and Canadian football. Once it's proved (by sources) that it's a legitimate term, it makes sense to have at least a DAB page for those who use the term.

There is another possible soulution: To my knowledge, there is no one article presenting an overview of both American and Canadian football. The Comparison of Canadian and American football article does cover rule differnces of both games, and parts of the page, notably the shared history, could be merged here to help expand it. This way, Gridiron football could serve as a basic overview and introduction to both closely-related variants of the game for those familar with the term "gridiron football" (but not much of the details of the game), and with the basic differences between the American and Canadian forms. At this point, I'd favor keeping Comparison of Canadian and American football as a more detailed treatment of the differences for those more familar with one form of the game, but not the other. - BillCJ 22:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the use of the term "gridiron football" to mean "American and Canadian football" is pretty much a Wikipedia neologism and would not be familiar to people who are actually involved in the sport. In North America, the term "football" covers both sports, and the meaning is usually clear from the context. -- Mwalcoff 23:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I was going by the free portions of the Brittanica article, which does covers both forms of the game, so this is hardly a "Wikipedia neologism". Also, the expanded overview page would be geared more towards those who know the term "gridiron football", but not much else about it. Those who actually play the game in other counrties would probably know which version they are playing, and would go to the specific article directly. - BillCJ 23:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This project isn't aussie.wikipedia just the same as it's not unitedstates.wikipedia, following WP:ENGVAR. However, I do agree that they are similar sports and could potentially be merged. I re-wrote the introductory 2nd para to incorporate gridiron into this artice (and for the fact-checker who cn-ed it thankyou). Some of the non-United States Wikipedians might also agree that we could work towards improving the Outside the United States section, hopefully enough to break it out to it's own article someday. I guess I'm more concerned that as an English language article, American football doesn't become too Americanised and not represent a worldwide view of the sport. There are articles out there such as Gridiron in Australia which ties the sport to the history in a particular country, so it would probably be more practical to work on more specific articles. --Breno ^talk 06:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What's next? An American football in the United States article, or would that offend the non-Americans who play the game too? I do hope someone is checking the Australian Rules football article to make sure it's not to Australianized! - BillCJ 07:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with the concensus to the merge/redirect to this article. --Breno ^talk 07:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• DO NOT MERGE. Gridiron is to American football as Rugby union and Rugby league are to Rugby. They are different versions of a similar game, and the Rugby articles are separate and independent. Keeping things consistent (like a good encyclopedia), American football and Gridiron should maintain their separate articles. Truthanado 15:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(Note: Gridiron is a DAB page, so I'm responding as if you meant Gridiron football.) That is NOT what the Gridiron football article says, nor is it what the free access version of the Britannica "Gridiron football" article states. If you have some verifiable sources that back up your claim, feel free to provide them.

To be clear, there are several opinions stated above on what the term Gridiron football actually means:

1. A game similar but not identical to American football.
2. Another term for American football, but presumably not Canadian football
3. A collective term for both American and Canadian football.

The last definition is the one presented in the Wiki Gridiron football, and in the Britannica. I have seen no other sources for the other definitions, so I am assuming they are colloquial or regional usages. - BillCJ 16:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm against merging simply because American football is an introductory article that needs to cover many subjects, and it should not spend two or three paragraphs on this. -- Mwalcoff 00:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The term "Gridiron" is well known in the UK but we usually say "American football". Most people have never heard of Canadian football and so the term only really refers to American football.GordyB 14:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

For a start, we (Australians) say "gridiron" not "gridiron football", and second, it's merely a term we use in place of American football (Canadian too, I guess, should it be applicable). It's exactly the same thing. Is an article necessary to explain this, or does it merely require a footnote somewhere in the American football landscape of WP. The latter, I think.

I thought that Gridiron meant the line markings on the pitch. And in the UK, the only time I have seen it refer to as Gridiron football is in a TV guide. (80.42.250.82 (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC))

STYLE Vs FACTS?

Last night, I was looking for some history on American football. Anyway, I found the History section but at the bottom of the page. Now that's unlike just about any other wiki page (sic SPORTS: football, golf, basketball, baseball etc). The style tsars must have a view on this? 'History' is usually after 'Etymology' (There isn't even on American Football). Hmmm I wonder whether it's because the history article begins:

American football has its origins in varieties of football played in the United Kingdom in the mid-19th century. American football is directly descended from rugby football.

Here are facts that can't be ignored (that the national sport is actually the offspring of another country's) so the whole piece is buried at the end of the article (Section 9). Like the dirty linen that's been hidden out of sight. As Popularity is the first article... NPOV

I DON'T THINK SO!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.139.171 (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Slow down! Not everything is a conspiracy. Sometimes it's just bad writing by inexperienced editors, and sometimes it's just because sections are added haphazardly. If you want the history section first, then propose it in a civil manner. But don't just move it, as this is a well-edited article, and because there may be a good reason why the section is where it is. - BillCJ 17:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the history section should be first by any means. I don't care how other sports articles do it. People should know what football is before they are asked to understand its history. The history section needs a lot of work anyway. It seems like it's been the forum for people to argue their school's importance in football history. -- Mwalcoff 22:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Are most of the people accessing this article already familiar with American Football, and wanting to find out more about it's history and development? Or are they unfamiliar with American Football, and wanting to learn about it's rules and methods of play? If you can answer that question then you have a basis for determing the best order of sections in the article. If you cant answer that question, then stylistic consistency with other articles would seem to be best. Why not just add a Table of Contents? CaughtLBW 03:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There already is a (usually ignored) table of contents. -- kainaw™ 03:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

One problem is that there's now way too much stuff before the Rules section that actually explains how the game is played. A couple of sentences that were part of the introduction have been turned into two or three whole sections. The article is in need of another clean-up, which I'll try to get to ASAP. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the paranoic tone of this suggestion, I think it's good one. It's much more comfortable having a short section on the history of the subject close to the top of the article, certainly before the technical parts. For example, before the technical parts in the Calculus article, theres a short section about its history. 98.199.206.122 (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Tackle eligible

MrMurph101: I appreciate your attempt to add information to the article. However, something as specific as a tackle eligible does not belong in this introductory article. Instead, why not add it to offensive tackle? -- Mwalcoff 03:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I did add it to the Tight end article. I do not think that adding this bit of info puts in too much complexity for an introductory article though. However, I'm sure at some point some consensus was made as to what information can be put in this article versus the more specific in-depth articles. Since I just started editing here, maybe someone can tell me what the prevailing wisdom has been in editing this article. MrMurph101 20:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the prevailing wisdom among longtime editors of this page has been to keep it simple and avoid stuff like one-point safeties (yes, they exist) and free-catch kicks. Considering the relative rarity of tackle-eligibles, I think it's something we can leave out, lest people start adding dime backs, rovers, long snappers and the like. (I see someone's already added long snapper.) The challenge with pages like this is well-intended people add things here and there until you wind up with a page that's way too long. The article needs another cleanup now. Don't get the impression, though, that I don't welcome your contributions to the page, and I hope you can help give it some well-needed improvements. -- Mwalcoff 02:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. Articles do get bloated a lot and need to be managed from slipperly slopes that add more and more info that may look fine individually but as a whole can make things look sloppy. I have seen this happen before. As for this being an introductory article, it may be good to have the note not hidden that this article is such. I know there are "Introduction to..." articles on more complex subjects like relativity. However, I don't know if American football has come to that point yet.

Anyway, I did rearrange the presentation of the defense section here more logically so at least I did something good that no one's reverting. :-) MrMurph101 02:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Article completely messed up

Hey, first contribution, so bear with me :). This article seems completely messed up. It begins with number descriptions, and has the line "J tites is a FAG". I have looked at previous versions, and it seems to have been edited recently, to the definite detriment of the article. I would have reverted to a previous article, but I wouldn't know how to go about it. Cheers

--86.42.217.203 20:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

CFD notice

See related discussion on a category here. heqs ·:. 22:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

False start

In the section on common penalties, it says that both offensive and defensive players can commit a false start. I thought that was a penalty that could only be assessed to the offense. Isn't the defense allowed to move around quite a bit prior to the snap? I'm no expert, so would someone check this? 128.195.112.68 05:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)TravisD

Corrected. Thanks. -- Mwalcoff 05:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Three Tight Ends

The article should not state that there is a type of formation with 3 tight ends. There can't be more than 2. Even the article Tight_End states that "the tight end is the last man on the offensive line". Now I understand that it may be a common term, but the positions for players on the field is identified by where they line up, not by what position the roster says they play.

This incorrect way of identifying players is hurting the public's the understanding of the game of football. I have seen people believe that a player listed as a TE on the roster is an eligible receiver even if he is not on the end of the line. They don't understand that who is an end depends on the formation, not what the roster says.

Another example from NFHS (High School) football has to do with blocking below the waist. Offensive linemen in the free blocking zone can block defensive linemen below the waist on their initial charge before the ball leaves the free blocking zone. Many people do not understand what constitutes a defensive lineman. They don't realize that any defensive player within 1 yard of the ball is a lineman, and therefore can be blocked legally below the waist. It doesn't matter that the team wants to call him a safety or a linebacker.

As you can see changing up what a certain position is called creates misunderstanding. Perhaps the article should make some sort of reference to "3 tight ends" is an incorrect way of saying 2 tight ends and a back lined up near the tight ends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokedadro (talk • contribs) 03:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Smokedadro

Thank you for your contributions to the American football article.

Please understand that it is intended as an introductory article for people completely unfamiliar with the game. We need to favor clarity and simplicity over legalistic certainty. There is no need to explain every possible angle to a rule.

I have an issue with the following sentence you wrote:

"The offense can throw the ball forward only once during a down, only from in or behind the neutral zone before team possession has changed and only before advancing beyond the neutral zone."

This is a very complicated sentence for the article. For one, the term "neutral zone" is not described before this sentence, so we must assume the reader does not know what a "neutral zone" is. We don't really need to define it in this introductory article, in my opinion. While it may be technically correct that the pass must be thrown behind the neutral zone rather than the line of scrimmage, the difference is not really important.

Secondly, the phrase "before team possession has changed" adds needless complexity to the sentence. As I said above, there is no need to explain every possible angle to every rule. It is extremely rare for there to be two turnovers on the same play, so this is not something that would come up regularly -- and therefore not something that needs to be discussed in the article, especially so close to the beginning. -- Mwalcoff 03:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm also going to revert the inadvertent whistle bullet point, since this is also extremely rare. -- Mwalcoff 03:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is obviously not some type of introductory article. I mean do you realize how long the article is? Does someone "completely unfamiliar with the game" need to know what the score was in some college football game from 1869? Do they need to know about 1 point safeties during a try (Inadvertent whistles are a lot more common than safeties during a try but they are in the article for some reason)? Do they need to know that the NFL requires linebackers to wear numbers 50-59 or 90-99? What about NFL Europe, X-League, flag and touch football...I could go on and on. Check out Simplified_baseball_rules to see what an introductory sports article looks like. Look at the baseball article and see how short and simple the concepts are. Now look at the football article. The football article is not at all like that. If you want to go and make a article called Simplified Football or something similar, then do go it, but this article is not a simplified article for someone who is "completely unfamiliar with the game" and you shouldn't try to pretend like it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokedadro (talk • contribs) 04:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree the article has a lot of extraneous information, usually put there by well-meaning people who want to contribute something they know to the article. Much of the information would be better placed on pages with more-specific themes. One of these days, I'll get around to proposing another major cleanup of the article. Thanks for your contributions. -- Mwalcoff 23:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Smokedadro again

Hello Smokedadro,

Please stop trying to insert complex legalistic text into this article. It must be kept simple. If anything is outright inaccurate, it should be corrected, but in a simple, easy-to-understand way. Your description of legal forward passes is far to complicated for an encyclopedia article. This is an encyclopedia, not the rulebook.

As far as your replacement of the word "conversion" with the word "try," it is Wikipedia style to use vernacular terms rather than legalistic ones. It is inappropriate to tell people new to football to use the word "try" for point-after when no one outside of the rule book uses that term. -- Mwalcoff 04:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I am editing out the complex stuff. We can rename this article Simplified American Football. I will start a new article called American football. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokedadro (talk • contribs) 04:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not very constructive, Smokedadro. This is a consensus-based project, and for you to attack this article with a proverbial hatchet and then make your own new one is not conducive to consensus. Please suggest major changes on this talk page and get feedback before making them. -- Mwalcoff 04:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You said above that it would be better placed. Noting is being lost. It is being transfered to a new page. Better yet would be to just start a simplified page and call it simplified football. I will start the simplified article that way we don't really have to change this one much.--Smokedadro 04:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Smokedadro. First of all, relax. There is no need to make any major changes immediately. Let's talk about them first, get the input of other editors and go from there.

The article at American football has to be simple. It is where people unfamiliar with the sport will go to learn about the game.

Putting complicated matter on this page and simpler matter on a subsidiary page is backwards. The page on a basic topic, whether football, atoms or opera, is what should be simple. More-complex matter should go on other pages, such as forward pass, positron or cadenza.

Remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a rule book. Look at the World Book or Encarta article on football. How does it explain the forward pass? Does it use legalistic terms and go into every possible permutation of the rules? Of course not. Anyone who could understand such minutia would not be in need of an encyclopedia article on the sport in general.

As I said before, if anything in this article is factually inaccurate, please point it out, and let's correct it in a way that readers will be able to understand. But let's work together, not work unilaterally and get into a revert war.

Your efforts to improve the article are appreciated. -- Mwalcoff 05:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Whoa!! Slow down please! First you want to make a complex article, now a siplified one. YOu clearly have not thought any of this out,and are just reacting to what you are told. THis article is intended to be an introductory and overview to American football. THe "complex" articles are the ones covering rules, leagues, etc, - These are the ones that go into detail, and are all linked throughout this article. There is no need to duplicate what they cover in another articel, as it would be VERY long. I understnad that you want to try to help here, but it's best if you work within the system that is already set up, rather than trying to come up with a haphazard plan on your own. If you have some ideas to improve this or the other football-related articles, talk about them, and try to gain a consesnus for the changes first. Thanks. - BillCJ 05:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No, this is a very complex article. Remember this article "exists to give people who know little or nothing about the sport a basic understanding of the game. Does that person care what number a kicker in the NFL has to wear? Does this person care about the history of the game? Of course not. They want to try to somewhat understand what is going on in the game that they are watching on TV. The simplified article will cut out all of the stuff that person doesn't care about and this article can remain complex. It will be like simplified baseball rules, nice and short and gives people useful information. This article is very long and full of complex information that the introductory reader does not care about.

Does anyone actually believe that this article isn't complex and is an introductory article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokedadro (talk • contribs) 05:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If the article is too complex, we should fix the parts that are too complex. Let's not try to make it more complex. -- Mwalcoff 05:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that doesn't work. First off most of the article is useless to someone who knows "little or nothing about the sport". Football is complex. An article about football should be complex. The Simplified American Football article will be s less complex introductory article to football. That way this article can remain complex and the person who knows nothing and wants to learn won't have to go through a bunch of stuff which is way to complex for this so called introductory article.

Simplified Football

I have created the simplified article because at least half of the information on the football article is not important to anyone just trying to understand the game. I will place a link to the simplified page on the article. Simplified American Football--Smokedadro 05:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Smokedadro, it would probably be best for you to work on that article in your "namespace." You should move the article to User:Smokedadro/Simplified American football. You can also create a version of what you think American football should look like at User:Smokedadro/American football. When you finish, you can let people know on this talk page, and we can discuss whether we should adopt your suggested split, in whole or in part. If you leave the Simplified American Football article in the main article space, it may get deleted by someone as an incomplete article or as a content fork. I won't suggest it for deletion (at least not now), but someone else might.

The link you put on the American football page was not formatted properly. Also, the Simplified American Football article appears to be a "work in progress." At the very least, we should refrain from linking to your new article until you finish it. -- Mwalcoff 05:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This article shouldn't change. The simplified article will be a simple way of explaining the basics of football. It will take the important stuff about football and tell it in a short and simple way. This article can remain in depth and cover everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokedadro (talk • contribs) 06:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Link to current season

I think it would be a good idea to link to the current season 2007_NFL_season somewhere on the American Football page since someone wanting information on American Football will come here first, but it seems strange to not direct them to the most recent results/fixtures etc. Or perhaps have the list of seasons at the bottom. Anyway - I'll leave it to you guys to decide whether/where.Nev (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Super Bowl Forums External Link

I added the link because it contains game reviews and discussions. I read the content of this site often because it is free and contains good content that may help the people on Wikipedia to understand more about the game especially as it relates to current media.

I apologize if it looks like spam but I am not affiliated with the site I am just a user. TomTtrain88 (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:EL, forums are generally discouraged. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize I still think under certain circumstances sites such as this should be admitted but I agree at the current time.Ttrain88 (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Scoring Section

As was pointed out to me, this is an introduction to American Football, and so discusing all of the ways to score points are not listed. It would be nice to have a disclaimer with that section pointing out that there are other, less comon ways to score points (i.e. a free kick after a fair catch, 1 point safety, etc...). It should also be consistant, very few people will know what a "drop kick" is, and why it's special when it scores points. Even though this piticular score happend just a couple of years ago, it is rare enough that it should probably be included in the same catagory as the free kick after fair catch and 1 point safety.--Tj crockett (talk) 06:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

History section

The history section had turned into a battleground for partisans of different colleges to assert their schools' claim to the invention of football. It also had a lot of information included elsewhere in the article. There is no reason for it to be very long, since there is an article on history of American football. That's where all of the hubbub over who really deserves credit for the game's invention should go. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It is difficult. I have dealt with the same thing on other articles as well. The best I've dealt with it is on Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I reduced the oil section to two sentences that do not have anything controversial in them in any way. Now, it is easy to revert anything anyone adds because the section is so small. Perhaps the same thing can happen here. Reduce it to 3 or 4 sentences and it will become clear that the content is in the other article. -- kainaw™ 22:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

An anon-IP added two more paragraphs, so I took the initiative to reduce it down to two paragraphs in all. I believe that everything I removed is in the sub-article, so I didn't actually delete anything from Wikipedia. I only removed duplicated content. -- kainaw™ 03:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I would concur with the above moves. The shorter section is most appropriate given that all of the relevent information is in the daughter article. See WP:SUMMARY for more information. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly we have an anonymous user using Wikipedia from different computers and trying to insert the same information time and time again. I believe it's time for another semi-protect of the page. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but if it is just one person, it's only happened half a dozen times in the past month, and its easy enough to keep up with. Also, the person may be genuinely trying to improve the article and be unfamiliar with summary style and the use of talk pages to discuss contested changes. I think we should continue to try to steer said person or persons to the talk page. However, there is NOT really a lot of vandalism to this page, and I don't think semiprotecting it will do much. There's really not a need. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I did some more tweaks to the history section. Basically, I moved the lead section (with a few minor changes) over from the History sub article, which is featured, after all. I think this version has a more balanced treatment of the pro and college games, and still gives a good general overview. Again, the entire History sub article can be read for further details, which is the idea behind "summary style". If this article is ever to be featured, we could do no better than to borrow from other featured articles... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

my last edit was an accident

Sorry, i reverted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaruaWA11 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of Defensive Positions

I know we're trying to keep it short, but there's often confusion on assignment of defensive positions. I added a little to clarify re. assignment. --Steve (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

origin of the sport

I find it not at all surprising that the great land of Canada was completely overlooked in this article as the founding nation of "American Football." Someone ought to include in this article reference to the McGill/Harvard game in 1874, a challenge from McGill and the first time what is now known as American Football was played within the United States. The game had already been played in Canada for over a decade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TACO INSURANCE (talk • contribs) 21:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Defensive Back Coach

Hi This is cyclones2 i just started a page on defensive back coaches and i would like to get some input on things i can do or change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclones2 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this kind of misleading?

"Advancing the ball in American football resembles the six-tackle rule and "...

Technically, rugby got the down rule from American football. Also, I agree with whoever said it's not really known as "American" football where it's most popular. It's just football in the USA, association football is soccer to us. Jamesklyne (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the analogy. If a reader knows rugby league but not football, then it gives them a reference point to start from. In that regard, I think it's useful to ease the reader into the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's misleading the way the article says "The forward pass is what distinguishes American Football from other types of football". Except for Rugby, you can "forward pass" in every other version of football I'm aware of, except they are jus called passes... SexyIrishLeprechaun (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be valid to say that's what distinguishes it from the varieties of rugby. To make a blanket statement, it would have to say that throwing the ball forward is what distinguishes it from other types of football, as that would be a foul in rugby (forward pass), soccer (handball), and Australian and Gaelic football (improper disposal/throwing/not a valid hand pass). —C.Fred (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No, a goalkeeper is allowed to throw the ball forward in football as well as all players are allowed to throw it forward on throw ins .— _CHANDLER^#10 — 00:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

defensive back coach

Hi I've been working on a page and i was wondering if anyone one would look at for and maybe give me some pointer's on how to make this page better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclones2 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be glad to look at it. Which page is it? Could you include a link? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Governing body

Perhaps the IFAF should be referenced in the gridiron football article instead, with the NFL considered the governing body here. It seems ridiculous to claim that a group that is almost entirely unknown in the United States should be mentioned as the primary body governing an American sport. Charles 01:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The NFL would at least have to be mentioned as a sister body, if not the higher-standing body, since it does sanction competition outside the US (international games, former NFL Europa). There is not an analog to FIFA in the sport. —C.Fred (talk) 04:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no international governing body in American Football which maintains rules and/or sanctions participation. There are, in fact, 4 which govern US football.: the NFHS for high schools, the NCAA and NAIA for colleges, and the NFL for its own league. Generally, semi-pro and other minor professional leagues use either the NFL or NCAA rulebook. However, there is no single body that has international sanction over top-flight American football, since, well, there is not really an international level of top-flight competition.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

A way to shorten the article (American Football in the US article)

One way the article can be shortened is by removing the "Organization in the US" part and creating a "American football in the United States" article. What do you think? Greecepwns (#1 Red Bulls Supporter) (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There are articles on 'American Football in....' for many other countries, but not for the main centre of the game. Association Football/Soccer has a similar Soccer in the United States article, so I totally back such an idea. I would write it myself if I had the expertise. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Football in Italy

According to John Grisham in the post-script to his novel Playing for Pizza there is, in fact, a National Football League (NFL) of Italy. Please add this to the list of nations with national football leagues.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.63.76 (talk) 02:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Other countries with national leagues

Canada should be included as a country with a national league (see Taco Insurance's note under Origin of the Sport) 38.105.65.130 (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Taco is referring to the origins of the US game (and not quite accurately either, as has been addressed elsewhere). The list is of countries with leagues which play American football that are organized at a national level. The CFL does not play American football, as the editors at the CFL article will be happy to explain, should you choose to place a similar comment on that talk page. They are two very closely related games with intertwining histories, but they are not the same thing. - BillCJ (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, very different sports both with a commong heritage from the British game of football. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, not VERY different sports, but still considered different codes of football with distinct and separate histories. They are similar enough that players can switch between them, but they are different. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The list of countries with national leagues implies that American Football is a major sport in these countries. This is very far from the case. AF in the UK is a tiny minority sport, for example, and this is probably true of all the European leagues. Most of the interest comes from American expats, and a suitable parallel would be cricket in the US. It would be better if the article made this clear. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for American expats??? My team (Edinburgh) has had 3 or 4 in the last 2 years out of 70 odd players and most of the teams we play have a couple if any at all. There is a league limit on the number of North Americans in a team as well (I think it stands at 5 but Premier teams and ones near Airforce bases seem to be the only ones that get close to that). JamesCollins (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Do we need to make so many connections to rugby?

There are so many connections to rugby in this article. This makes it difficult to read. Also if someone was trying to learn the game it would be very confusing. Maybe there should be a section “connections to other sports”. Paraparanormal (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

error

why does the link in the info box concerning the ball use in the sport lead to the soccer ball and not the ball used in American football? Footballplayer40 (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

When you click on the "football" link and go to the following page, there is a scrollbar on the right side of the page. Scroll down and you will see that the article discusses ball shapes used in many sports named "football", including the pointy American Football ball. -- kainaw™ 17:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It may also be an issue with your browser. The link is set up to go straight to the section of the ball article dealing with American and Canadian football footballs. —C.Fred (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

hall of fame

Why doesn't the article have a section about the hall of fame? I thought that was a big part of the NFL!Footballplayer40 (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about American Football, not the NFL. The NFL article is where you go to find information about the NFL. -- kainaw™ 02:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Contact football

We have an anonymous user who feels the need to append "contact football" after every mention of "American football." I left one occurrence in the Outside the United States section so you can see it. Should there be any mention of this (yet another) alternative name for the sport? -- kainaw™ 18:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems like POV-pushing for a minor name that's not that accurate anway. Aren't Rugby and Aussie Rules also "contact" football codes? And soccer could be called that too! The term may be used to distinguish full-contact version of American football from the non-contact versions such as flag and touch (American) football, but I doubt it's used to refer to the sport as a whole, as is being claimed. Without reliable sources to prove "contact football" is a common alternate name for the entire sport of American football, it should be left out. - BillCJ (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Peyton Manning Olympics football

The same user (now registered) feels the need to add a section about Peyton Manning wanting to add football to the Olympics. I've removed this and I've seen others have removed it. -- kainaw™ 18:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As with this user's previous additions, it needs reliable sources, as the organization's own site does not qualify. If the movemnet is truly notable, it will have third-party coverage. As a side comment, baseball and softball have trouble remaining in the Olympics, even though both sports are widely played in many countries, and yet the IOC removed them from the 2012 Olympics (apparantly to spare the British the embarrasment of having baseball played there while Cricket cannot qualify as an olympic sport), so I hardly think American football stanads a chance! - BillCJ (talk) 03:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Protect

The article states The 32-team National Football League (NFL) is the only major professional American football league. If you look at the bottom of the —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.253.11 (talk) 03:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is this article protected?

That is absurd. The majority of article edits are done by IP addresses. This isn't even a "good" article, and we're talking about American Football here. It should be a damn featured article. If this was the case, sure, protect it. However to protect an article that hasn't even achieved "good" status is counter productive and against the very spirit of the project. (case and point; the IP address directly above me) Digital^Ninja 05:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"Brutality" inappropriate

I suggest the word "brutality" in the opening paragraph be changed to "brute force" or something else along those lines.

I think most people would agree that "brutality" isn't supportable. The Wiktionary definition certainly doesn't apply to American football (via brutal: "savagely violent, vicious, ruthless, or cruel"), since American football does have an extensive set of rules limiting the use of force and rules are what separate civilization from savagery.

On the other hand, "brute force" is defined as "a method of accomplishing something primarily by means of strength, without the use of mechanical aids" which certainly does apply to the normal methods of running, blocking, and tackling in American football.

Thanks. 67.164.125.7 (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sport Nutrition

I added this section because it is very important to the sport to stay healthy and hydrated due to the intense physical activity. Please add to this section if you see fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutritionfan (talk • contribs) 06:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Good addition. You might want to take a look at Health issues in American football, and consider adding an expanded section there. That would be the place for more information on this topic. As a note, remember that in American English, the general term is "sports nutrition". "Sports/Sport" isn't really needed in the context of a single sport anyway. - BillCJ (talk) 07:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Dehydration probably does warrant coverage, though maybe more at health issues. I know that most southern states have guidelines for high school programs about conducting practices when (wet bulb) temperatures are above a certain level. —C.Fred (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

HandEgg

Why does handegg redirect to this page? Dumaka (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Now corrected, handegg links to a disamb page including the place called Handegg. It's a term sometimes used outside the US, referring to the shape of the ball and the amount of time the ball is held by the hands in comparison to being kicked by the feet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.183.201 (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"combining strategy with physical play"

the article starts off by stating that american football is a "competitive team sport known for combining strategy with physical play". Can't this be said for many sports, including all sports called football? This isn't a defining feature of american football, so why is it in the first sentence? could someone fix this, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kak Dela? (talk • contribs) 00:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

So fix it. The sentance was put there by someone no different from yourself. If you have something better to say about the subject, edit away. No one is stopping you from making this article better! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

==

Players

In the section "players" it states the following underoffensive players:"The quarterback (QB) receives the snap from the center on most plays. He then hands or tosses it to a running back, throws it to a receiver or runs with it himself." So my qestion is, when the quarterback hands the ball to a running back, does the running back have the choice of either throwing to a wide receiver or running with the ball, or does the quarter back choose to either give the ball to a runningback OR throw it to a wide reciever OR run with it himself. Please edit this section of "American Football" so it could bemore understandable to the reader.

                                        -Shaina

The quarterback has three options: to give the ball to a runningback (handing or tossing), throw the ball to a wide receiver, or keep the ball himself. If the running back subsequently throws to a receiver, that's rare enough that it's a trick play. The wording looks reasonably parallel; I'm not sure how better to clarify that those are all choices of the QB. —C.Fred (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, the running back section adds context: "Running backs (RB) line up behind or beside the QB and specialize in running with the ball. They also block, catch passes and, on rare occasions, pass the ball to others or even receive the snap."^{[emphasis added]} —C.Fred (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

From

Furthermore, some player position references from soccer are used, such as the term "halfback" and "fullback".

From soccer

From the article "Furthermore, some player position references from soccer are used, such as the term "halfback" and "fullback"."

I don't think so, so it needs a source. As the term halfback and fullback can be found in a number of field sports (both positions exist in field hockey, Ausi rules and in Rugby it is likely that the terms existed before the creation of Association Football. --PBS (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

American football rules - cleanup or merge

I found this article on cleanup patrol - American football rules. I don't see any obvious need for this article; it's content seems to be a duplicate of what is already covered here (and it seems inferior to boot). Anyway, if someone with appropriate knowledge can look it over I'd be grateful. Manning (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

American football rules was created as an outlet for editors who insisted on inserting extremely detailed minutiae from the rulebook into American football. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Excessive use of bold

This article currently uses bold text to identify every piece of terminology with its own article. This is excessive; bold should not be used as a general method of emphasis outside the article lede. Instances within the article should either be reduced to italics or de-emphasised entirely. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Women's football

Is women's football mentioned among wikipedia's football materials? -- it doesn't seem to be in this article --06:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.194.50 (talk)

The main article is Women's American football. It probably deserves at least a see also, if not a line like "Although most players are men, there are leagues strictly for women." —C.Fred (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

sportmedia.hu is malicious

In the "Outside the US" section,

"In Hungary, 18 registered teams participate in a the MAFL's two division league structure. The sport has grown significantly since 2004 and with some top Division I teams participating in the CEFL."

The link in that section has a very bad reputation, it may be dangerous to go to. Perhaps a safer site could be used.

http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/sportmedia.hu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.23.157 (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Jim Thorpe

No discussion of the history of American football is complete without mention of Jim Thorpe, the Carlisle Indian School, and the innovations they brought to the game.97.125.21.94 (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thorpe is mentioned several times in the History of American football. This article, however, is an overview. —C.Fred (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

AF IN SLOVENIA

"Hello, can you please add Slovenia to the countries outside US and Canada which play football. It is considered the fastest growing sport in the country, with 4 teams participating in the national league. The national champions, Ljubljana SIlverhawks, also play in the CEFL (central european league) and in the previous season they reached semi-finals." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.176.216.50 (talk) 09:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Is UFL "major" league

The UFL is, undoubtedly, a "professional" league. Is it a "major" league? Everything I see indicates that it is a "minor" league (like Arena football). Yet, some people insist on listing it as a major league in the article. -- kainaw™ 16:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Definitions of "major league" found on the web:

"the most important league in any sport"

"An association of sports teams which plays at the highest skill level of its sport"

Clearly, the UFL is not comparable to the NFL and for it to share the "major league" designation would confuse the meaning of the term. Ruedetocqueville (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The definition "the most important league in any sport" clearly is not correct. There can ofc be more than one major league for one sport. (We don't need to look further than Association Football) chandler 22:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Not major, for the reasons stated above. I think it could be argued that the USFL was a major league, but nothing in the US has come close to that level since. The NFL is the US's lone major football league. —C.Fred (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• • The UFL doesn't even consider itself a major league. It is positioning itself in the early going as a developmental league for the NFL. See this interview with the UFL commissioner. The goal in the first few seasons is to grow brand awareness. The idea is to place its players on NFL rosters as being the way to do that, you know, get anouncers to talk up "So and so played in the UFL last year, and signed to the team this year, yada yada yada." They sound like they have very realistic goals on what its role will be during the short term future. Which is fine. What killed leagues like the XFL and the USFL was the pretense that they could compete on an equal footing with the NFL too early in their history. The UFL seems to be content with moving slowly and building itself into a viable minor league. Right now, there are NO viable minor leagues in American Football. Canadian football and Arena football are actually different sports; there is some crossover between the CFL, the Arena League, and the NFL, but after NFL Europa closed down a few years ago, there has been NO fully professional American football league of any kind besides the NFL. The UFL seems positioning itself in that manner, NOT as a new "major" league. --Jayron32 21:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Intro to Advancing the ball

Why is this "Advancing the ball in American football resembles the six-tackle rule and the play-the-ball in rugby league." the introduction to advancing the ball, a sentence on another insignificant sport that the vast majority of people who read the article won't be familar with. Its locked, so I can't find it, but anyone who's know how to write an article knows you don't put a completely irrelevent and insignificant sentence at the start of the paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.38.251 (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Please remove Malware link.

{{editsemiprotected}}

In the "Outside the United States" section, please change:

"In Hungary, 18 registered teams participate in a the MAFL's two division league structure."

to:

"In Hungary, 18 registered teams participate in the MAFL's two division league structure."

Reason:

The "MAFL" link, "http://www.sportmedia.hu/amerikaifoci/english/", appears to be a malware link. For details on the problems associated with this website, please see http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/sportmedia.hu.

SMS (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Shape of the ball?

Does anyone realize that there is no mention of the shape of the ball in American football in the article? THF (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

However, there is a link to Football (ball)#American and Canadian football in the intro, which describes the ball and has pictures. —C.Fred (talk) 05:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:SOFIXIT. I believe that most of the time, the words "prolate spheroid" generally appear in many of the definitions of the shape of an american football. Search "prolate spheroid football" in google and you should get some good hits for references. --Jayron32 05:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please AGF. I would have been happy to fix it; I didn't know the technical mathematical term, and was hoping someone more familiar with the subject would; the subject arose when I had a lexicographical debate with a friend over whether a football was a "ball" given that it wasn't round, and was hoping to have a handy topological definition here. It just seemed strange that the article goes into flyspeck detail over obscure football rules, but doesn't provide the context for what a football is. THF (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at it from the angle of how much definition of the ball we need to put in the article, since it's covered in its own article. It probably wouldn't hurt to mention the shape. Perhaps change the intro by adding the underlined text?

The objective of the game is to score points by advancing the ball, a prolate spheroid, into the opposing team's end zone.

The problem is that it flows awkwardly, and "a prolate-spheroidical ball" is even worse. I'm at a lack for a suggestion on how to work it into the article. —C.Fred (talk) 05:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of the ball, any thoughts on this edit at [[Handegg}? (This is part of a long-term lowgrade vandal campaign on that page.) To me, the term "hand egg" is a smart-alecky neolgism, and the comments are certainly uncited and OR as written. Also, it's somewhat derrogatory toward Americans, as Canadian football, and Australian rules football and Rugby, which use a similarly-shaped ball with hand play, but seems to be exempt from the vandal edits I've seen. Is there any real notability to this term that would warrnt encyclopedic coverage? - BilCat (talk) 06:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Cute joke, but I've never heard the term. THF (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Can it be compared to a rugby ball shape (i.e. differences) Turkeyphan^t 18:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Considering that Wikipedia aims to be a global resource, I think it is essential to highlight the ball shape as a main feature of this sport, particularly in light of the first sentence in the soccer article, which reads: "Association football, commonly known as football or soccer, is a sport played between two teams of eleven players with a spherical ball." For most non-American readers, the mention of the ball shape being spherical only makes sense when compared to this other variant of football —the one with the egg-shaped ball. My proposal would then be:

"American football, known in the United States simply as football, is a sport played between two teams of eleven with the objective of scoring points by advancing an egg-shaped ball into the opposing team's end zone..." Cristian Opazo (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

American HandBall or American Football

its amazing to see a bunch of usa citizens going to the Association Football article and blaming about it should be called Soccer or another name instead of football. Let me tell you something fellows in Football the 99,9% percent the ball is used with the foot, in American Football the 0,1% of the time the players touch the ball with the foot, it should be renamed to American Handball. Also i see theres no much discussion about this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.243.4.66 (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The sport is called American Football. If it's so objectionable that Americans go to the Association Football article insisting that it be renamed football, why is it not objectionable for Europeans to come here insisting the article be called something else. Both the pot and the kettle are black.--RLent (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Folks can insist all they like about whatever names they like. Until there is consensus in accordance with Wiki policy, the names will stay what they are. At the end of the day, those who call Association Football what it is will know it by that name, and that name is sufficient for 99% of the people interested in it. Those who know American Football (or Gridiron Football) as what that sport is get the same general treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkporter12 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The sports should be referred to by their most common international nomenclatures. Association Football may be called "soccer" by Americans, but the vast majority of the globe calls Association Football just "Football". Similarly, Gridiron Football or American Football, ought to be referred to as "American Football", as it is understood around the world outside the United States. So, Association Football = "Football" and American Football = "American Football". Whether or not the nomenclature is accurate in what it represents (indeed, American Football ought probably not be referred to as 'football', as the foot and the ball rarely meet in that sport), the fact remains that it is still called American Football. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.241.189 (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Each artcile in Wikipedia uses the term most prevelant in the subject's own cultural context. See WP:ENGVAR. Thus, in the article on Association Football, the unqualified term football refers to THAT code, while in this article the unqualified term football refers to American football. Each usage is to be judged within its own context, while also containing enough information in the article title and lead for those outside of the culture to understand the local usage. --Jayron32 21:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME also applies here, as "handball" is almost never used to refer to American football, and is that name of several other sports. The same applies to the more recent "handegg", which is a town in Switzerland. Neither name is used in a serious context to refer to refer to American football, and is almost always derogatory. Further, while I've seen several discussion on WP about this in reference to the US sport, I don't recall ever seeing a post on changing Canadian football to Canadian handball or Canadian handegg, leading me to believe it is more a reaction against the US sport's widespread visibility than a desire to "help" the sport be more accurate, along with a variable dose of ant-Americanism thrown in. Not to mention that Rugby and Aussie Rules also use "eggs" with lots of hand play, yet the vandalism to Handegg is always US-focused. COMMONNAME also applies to the Latin American objection to the use of "American" in "American football", as soccer is also played in "America". The counter is that no one calls soccer "American football/futbol" (at least not more than the other sport). - BilCat (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This is, to be honest a rather strange discussion as Football in itself is a term that, when used in general discussion, very much depends on which English speaking Nation you happen to be talking at any given time. As an example a global traveller walks into a bar in New York and asks to see the football. The barman will put the New York Giants vs New England Patriots on screen. The next day he flies to Cork in Ireland and asks the same question in the same language and is presented with Cork vs Dublin. The folowing day he flies to London where the same question is asked and this time he views Everton vs Manchester United. Two days later he is in Melbourne, Australia where the same question presents him with Collingwood vs Geelong. Now those familiar with International sports clubs will have recognised that the man has asked the same question in the same language in four different cities and been presented with four different sports. Only Rugby's two codes make no direct attempt to be known simply as football while all four other major codes all do. It is for this reason that English speaking Wiki's article on football refers to all the various codes while the individual codes use their longform titles, i.e. American, Association, Australian and Gaelic. I see no reason to change this. Captainbeecher (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a no win debate that's been going on for years. I'd like to shed some light on a few things as a Scottish person with a keen love of both Association Football, American Football and pretty much any other sport I can watch and get into when I have nothing else to do. First of all, this argument only really exists in the Anglosphere. Secondly, it's a popular misconception in the UK that the word "soccer" is an American invention. Actually it was popular slang for Association Football which originated in the UK and was used for decades. Secondly, "football" as a term originated in centuries past to describe a game played on foot rather than on horseback: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football - you can read about the two things I've said here. I always roll my eyes when I hear this debate because it seems to largely be the result of conjecture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexxxicide (talk • contribs) 20:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Tackle football

Who calls American football "tackle football" -- is there any football that does not include tackling? -- PBS (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It's generally used in the US (and possibly Canada, but I don't know) to refer to the main form of the sport with full-body tackling to differentiate it from the non-full-contact variants such as Touch football and Flag football. As written, it was stating it was a name used outside the US, which is more than likely completely wrong. I've removed this from the Lead several times before, but it keeps being re-added, and I missed it the last time that happened. Thanks for catching that (assuming that's what you meant, since you weren't specific.) - BilCat (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Canadian rules slightly or significantly different?

The article disagrees with itself. The introduction states that Canadian rules have "significant differences" with the American rules, but the section on the game outside of the USA calls these differences "slight". Shall we decide which it is? 128.189.117.169 (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Have edited to address this concern. Ruedetocqueville (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Rules: yards and feet

In the rules section, why the wacky mixture of units. The field is 360 feet long but the goal lines are 100 yards apart. You have to think for a short period to work out how they relate. Would it be possible/sensible/permissible to change everything to one basic unit (I would suggest feet since there?)? -- SGBailey (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is measured in feet in football. It is all measured in yards. The field, with the exception of the endzones, is 100 years long. A down starts with 10 yards to go. Even the width of the field and distance between hash marks is measured in yards. I'm not sure why anything mentions feet. 360 feet is 120 yards (the 100 yard field with two 10 yard endzones). -- kainaw™ 15:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, the only thing in the Federation rulebook that I know is measured in feet is the goal assembly: 10 feet high, 23 feet and change wide. The side zones might be specified in feet, but I think even they're specified in yards. —C.Fred (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, at a convenient moment, if noone else has done it, I'll convert it to yards. -- SGBailey (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No, yards doesn't work. there are dimensions that don't convert well (eg 160 feet). Will have to ponder for a while. -- SGBailey (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

160 feet is 53 1/3 yards (which is how it is listed in all NFL rulebooks that I see). -- kainaw™ 18:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to point out that the official NFL rulebook lists the field dimensions in feet. Specifically it says, "The game shall be played upon a rectangular field, 360 feet in length and 160 feet in width." (Rule 1, Section 1) Also, the diagram in the book lists measurements in feet. It is true that other aspects such as distance required to pick up an additional set of downs is indeed in yards. Just providing additional information. AllPurposeGamer (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Federation is the same way, defining the field as "a rectangular field 360 by 160 feet" (1-1-2). The diagram is given in feet; the only items defined in yards are the nine-yard marks, the team boxes between the 25-yard lines, the 2-yard belt, and the chains. I think we're doing the reader a service to give the overall definition in yards. I'm going to try something, and if it works, I'll make a change in how that text is presented to show the equivalents in yards and feet. —C.Fred (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

player with the ball is forced to the ground

Please include definition of "forced to the ground". Is it knee touching the ground? Elbow? Wrist? Head? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.3.223.91 (talk) 03:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It depends slightly on the specific code (High School, College, NFL), but generally a player is considered down when any part of their body other than their hands or feet touches the ground. In college and high School, the player is down as soon as that happens, in the NFL, the player must have been specifically tackled, though the definition of tackled means "Touched by a defensive player immediately before or during being down". Even being grazed by a defensive player is enough to qualify as being tackled. In college or HS, even if a player goes to the ground untouched, they are down. --Jayron32 05:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In the NFL, you can be down without being touched in any way by a defensive player. This is normally called "taking a knee". The ball carrier purposely kneels down on one knee to indicate that he wishes to be ruled down. Also, the NFL rarely uses the phrase "forced to the ground". Instead, it uses the phrase "down by contact". -- kainaw™ 15:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Specifically the ball is dead when a player "declares himself down by falling to the ground and makes no effort to advance" or "any time a quarterback immediately drops to his knee (or simulates dropping to his knee) to the ground behind the line of scrimmage during the last two minutes of a half." Also a runner is down whenever he "declares himself down by sliding feet first to the ground." And like was stated previously, a runner is down when he is "contacted by a defensive player and he touches the ground with any part of his body except his hands or feet..." Just an FYI is anyone wanted the specific language used in the rule book. AllPurposeGamer (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Outside the United States

This section says, "The NFL has attempted to introduce the game to other nations and operated a developmental league, NFL Europa, with teams in five German cities and one in the Netherlands, but this league folded following the 2007 season."

However, the European League (formerly known as the WLAF or World League of American Football) had teams from several other countries as well, including the London Monarchs and Barcelona Dragons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.18.213.36 (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The WLAF only existed for 3 years, from 1991-1993. The NFL shut it down for two years, and reopened it as NFL Europe (later NFL Europa) in 1995, with a smaller number of teams. Only three cities that had teams in the WLAF also had teams in NFL Europe. They are sort-of considered to have a shared history, but this is more by decree than by reality, much like the modern Cleveland Browns, which is declared to be a continuation of the 1946-1995 Browns, even though THAT team is really the Baltimore Ravens. In reality, it may be better to think of the WLAF and NFL Europe as seperate leagues. This is explained at NFL_Europe#History. Though even THAT statement isn't correct, since even under NFL Europe, there were teams in Barcelona and Scotland. I'll tweak it.--Jayron32 03:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Something about Intercontinental Football League — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.92.199.1 (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The main reason American Football has failed to become popular outside the US is its choice to use obsolete units (yards)as its prime unit of length. The world is uncomfortable with yards and prefers metres. Is there any reason there can not be a true metric version of the game for the world? The US experimented with metric football in the '70s and it appeared to be successful even improving the game, but forces of ignorance prevented it from taking hold. See http://themetricmaven.com/?p=837 68.105.199.216 (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

You got a source for that? Or, why does the rest of the world not play Canadian football, as there are provisions in its rulebook to use metric field dimensions—including, if I recall correctly, chains that are 10 m in length. —C.Fred (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

He/she is simply speaking from ignorance of American culture (and Canadian culture too, since Canada is an official metric country, yet most, if not all, instances of Canadian football as played on the field use yards, even though the rules allow for metric.) I think the IP is implying that American football would be more popular if the games played in the US used meters instead of yards. Even if the NFL did use meters, I doubt it would make any significantdifference in its international popularity, which is growing steradily every year anyway. The yard and the meter are close enough that the metric users of the world, who are obviously intelligent since they use the metric system, can understand its usage well enough. Also, the Canadian field is 110 yards long (minus endzones), which is just about 100 meters; the US field is 100 yards, meaning a significant change in the way the game is played, and how the field is laid out. - BilCat (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Gridiron

The first sentence of this page refers to the sport as "gridiron". While this term commonly refers to the field itself, I have never heard it used in reference to the actual sport of football. However, I could be wrong about this- thoughts? 75.185.44.163 (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It's commonly called just "gridiron" in some countries outside the US, especially in Australia and New Zealand. See the Outside the United States section in the article, and also the Gridiron football article. - BilCat (talk) 08:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from MrCab, 4 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Except at the beginning of halves and after scores, the ball is always put into play by a snap

should be replaced with one of the following.

• Except at the beginning of halves, after scores, and fair catch kicks, the ball is always put into play by a snap

or

• Except for free kicks, the ball is always put into play by a snap

reference - http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/fairkick

MrCab 21:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

What about just deleting the word "always"? For instance, the section on the ball becoming dead omits a rare way for the ball to become dead (inadvertent whistle). —C.Fred (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The requested edit is a simple way to make it accurate. I don't see a reason not to make it accurate instead of making it vague by removing "always". The second edit ("Except for free kicks") is certainly the less clunky of the two I proposed, so that edit might be desirable (as kickoffs to begin a half, and after scoring, as well as the fiar catch kcik, ar eall free kicks). MrCab

There is absolutely no way something as obscure as fair catch kicks should be mentioned in this article. This is supposed to be an introduction to American football, suitable for people who have never seen the game before. Mentioning fair catch kicks in this article would be like mentioning pentaquarks in the article atom. In an encyclopedia aimed at the general reader, simplicity should always be preferred over pedantry. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Especially since, at the NFL digest of rules linked above, fair catch kicks are omitted from the definition of a free kick. —C.Fred (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Then replace "always" with "almost always" MrCab 00:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrCab (talk • contribs)

Turns out C. Fred is right about fair catch kicks being free kicks. That discussion is already started on the Talk:Fair_catch_kick page. 2007 and 2008 NFL rule books (the physical copy, since no electronic copy exists to anyone's knowledge) Rule 11, Section 5 Article 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrCab (talk • contribs) 00:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Given the discussion and opposition that this has generated, I'd ask that you discuss it with a few other people before adding it to the article. elektrikSHOOS 04:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Advancing the Ball

"The offense can throw the ball forward only once during a down and only from behind the line of scrimmage."

Isn't it true that you can pass the ball as much as you want? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.56.96 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You can lateral the ball as much as you want. You can pass the ball once. -- kainaw™ 20:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The statement is correct. As of a few years ago, all three codes came into agreement that it's only one forward pass per scrimmage down. Until then, Federation allowed a team to throw multiple forward passes during a down, provided all of them were thrown from behind the line of scrimmage.

A team can throw as many backward passes as they want during any down, but that's a separate matter. —C.Fred (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

What about a flea flicker. Aren't their technically two forward passes in that play? Twinsfan133 (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No. There are either two backward passes, or a handoff and a backward pass, that precede the one forward pass in a flea flicker. —C.Fred (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

There needs to be more explanation on WHEN and HOW the line of scrimmage is moved !! I can't write it, because I don't know the game enough. --Tavernsenses (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

scoring

Could do with an explanation why drop kicked field goals are so rare. Why on earth would they be hard that only two have been scored recently? The rugby equivalent happens all the time. 80.189.65.216 (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's go apples-for-apples with the rugby equivalent. Ignoring Sevens competition, how often are conversion attempts drop kicked after a try? How often are penalty kicks on goal drop kicked? Most kickers prefer to tee the ball up and kick a place kick in those situations. It's the same in football: most kickers prefer to have the ball held on the ground and kick a place kick rather than a drop kick. So, practically all field goal attempts and extra points are place kicks: the ball is snapped to a holder, who holds the ball for the kicker to kick it—as opposed to snapping the ball directly to the kicker, who drop kicks it.

The sorts of open-field kicks where rugby players attempt drop kicks are illegal in American football (and legal but very uncommon in Canadian football).

So, does the article not cover that field goals and PATs are typically place kicks? —C.Fred (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense to me. You say "open-field kicks where rugby players attempt drop kicks are illegal in American football" but the article says they can be used instead of "punts" which seem to be made during open play. You also go out about how drop kicks aren't used because tees can be used instead but the only time tees are mentioned in the article is for kick-offs and, presumably, from a "try". Can you clarify so this can be cleared up in the article? Turkeyphan^t 18:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, most kickers, when attempting a scoring kick in American football, have the kick held by another player—the holder—while attempting a field goal or PAT. (In high school football, the holder may put the ball onto a block—a tee—to elevate the ball, but it still has to be held by a player.) I'll check where use of a tee is covered in the article.

As for punts, they are not open-field kicks. They must be kicked from behind the line of scrimmage. In practice, the kicker stands about 15 yards behind the snapper, catches the snap, takes three steps forward, and kicks the ball. An emerging trend, almost a gimmick play, is the "rugby punter" who catches the snap and begins to run sideways and forward. If he's got a clear path, he might continue to run with the ball and try to get a first down; if he's going to kick the ball, he must still kick it before he crosses the line of scrimmage. If he kicks the ball after crossing the line, it is a foul for an illegal kick. —C.Fred (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm still misunderstanding your terminology. Some of that is my fault but also the article is definitely unclear. Anything that isn't a set piece like a rugby conversion seems to be open play to me. Unless they have a tee, how is a drop-kicked field goal any harder than whatever equivalent there is? I'm obviously very confused about this and I fear others reading this would be too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turkeyphant (talk • contribs) 20:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the article is that unclear. Effectively, every play from scrimmage starts as a set piece. Some are more set than others, like field goal attempts: the play starts with a snap to the holder, the holder places the ball on the ground, securing it upright with his fingertip, and the kicker kicks the ball toward the goal(posts). My use of the term "open-field kicks" actually borrows from Canadian football terminology—where they are distinguished from kicks attempted behind the line of scrimmage. See below for my proposed change. 20:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that makes a bit more sense. However, the article briefly describes it only in the following way: "A field goal (FG) is worth 3 points, and it is scored by kicking the ball through the goalposts defended by the opposition". This implies that an attempt can be made at any time just like in rugby. If this is the case, why don't more people just take a good shot at 3 points when holding the ball by going for a field goal whenever they are within 30-40 yards of the endzone? Turkeyphan^t 21:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Added a very brief note that it is inaccurate. I do not feel that the topic should get sidelined by explaining that placekickers must be nearly 100% accurate to keep their jobs. The best drop-kickers barely break 80% accuracy. In rugby, the environment is different, so accuracy is different. -- kainaw™ 18:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• One other thing to be considered is that this is a top-level summary. More detail about the mechanics of field goal attempts can be found at American football rules#Field goal (3 points). —C.Fred (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

A kicker attempts an extra point.

• The image at right currently appears captioned as shown in the article. Would it be helpful to expand the caption? Perhaps this: "A kicker (#38) prepares to attempt an extra point. The long snapper (#54) will snap the ball back to the holder (number obscured), who is kneeling on the ground. The holder will place the ball on the ground, holding it steady for the kicker. Practically all extra point and field goal attempts are held like this, because these place kicks are more accurate than drop kicks, where the kicker must bounce the pointed football off the ground before kicking it." —C.Fred (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

A caption longer than 1 sentence is too long. Four-to-five lines of text (likely to be about 10 lines when narrowed down to the width of the image) is simply obnoxious. The fact that drop-kicks are even mentioned is a bit ridiculous. -- kainaw™ 23:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Long-winded explanation

Drop kicks used to be common in football. Originally, they used a ball that looked like the one used in rugby. After the legalization of the forward pass, they gradually made the ball easier to throw by streamlining it and making it pointy on both ends. This had the side effect of making drop kicks more difficult, so place-kicking became the norm.

It was not until the 1990s, I think, that the NFL made drop-kicks from beyond the line of scrimmage illegal. However, by that time, such a kick had not been attempted, probably since the early 20th century. It wouldn't make sense in American football to attempt a field goal when a touchdown is still possible. Field goals are only attempted on fourth down, at the end of a half, or in overtime. If it's not fourth down, there's no sense trying to kick a field goal yet, and if it is fourth down, you can set up a placekick, so even when it was legal, there was never a reason to try a "drop goal" like you'd find in rugby.

Personally, I don't think drop kicks out to be mentioned at all in this article, which is supposed to be an introduction to the basics of the sport. There have been no drop-kicked field goals, and only one drop-kicked extra point since World War II in the NFL, and that was kind of a joke. It should suffice to say that field goals are place-kicked, meaning that one player holds the ball against the ground for another to kick. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Missing Info

Has anyone else seen how much this page is missing? First of all it only mentions Walter Camp as the creator of football it should mention Willie Tidwell who was the first one to officially get the idea. The history section is very weak it should mention Walter Camp's birth and death date (April 7 1859 - May 14 1925) it should have more details about Walter Camp coaching football at Yale. I understand that is more about Walter Camp and not the sport of football but he influenced it greatly and you can't talk about the history of football without mentioning Walter Camp and Willie Tidwell. It doesn't have enough superbowl history either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.82.211 (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The information on Walter Camp can be found at his article. Likewise, information about the Super Bowl is better handled by that article, not this one. —C.Fred (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If you have the references regarding TIdwell, gather them together and start editing. Sources I've seen indicate that Walter Camp refined the rules of a game that was devised by consensus between students of Ivy League colleges and McGill University. If it can be documented that the sport was Tidwell's brainchild, then include the information and the source. Dementia13 (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Football in Brazil

Please add a picture of a game played between Joinville Gladiators and Corupá Buffalos on "Kickoff Tournament" in the town of Timbo, Brazil on 04/18/2010.

This tournament has paid the biggest prize in the history of american football in Brazil - 11 Shoulder pads.

Font: http://wp.clicrbs.com.br/intervalo/2010/04/19/titulo-e-equipamentos-para-o-futebol-americano-de-joinville/?topo=77,2,18

This is the link of the image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Torneiokickoff.JPG

--Tavarjr (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed

The sections "Advancing the ball", "Change of possession", "Basic strategy" are unreferenced. There are also numerous other instances where paragraphs are written without a single source. Could someone with intimate knowledge about American football please find the relevant sources. One more point, could someone add gridiron to the introductory sentence? I believe it also the sport is also referred to that way. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 10:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Gridiron is a slang nickname, and it is listed in the infobox as a nickname.

As for sources, strategy won't be covered, but advancing the ball and change of possession are likely covered in the rulebooks, so that's a thought for sourcing. —C.Fred (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Gridiron used to be mentioned in the Lead sentence, bet was removed in Feb 2011. Ive restored the previous version of the Lead that included the info. Alternate names are to be included in the Lead, and "gridiron" qualifies. - BilCat (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is the definition of football. I moved the ever-expanding list of nicknames to the second sentence, but I feel they belong further down. There is a paragraph for "football in the U.S." which is where it can be noted that it is just football in the US. Then, put the gridiron comment in a paragraph about football outside the US. -- kainaw™ 15:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

"Gridiron" is not just a name for American football played outside of the US - it's a name used outside the US for American football played in the US, including the NFL. - BilCat (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The use of football as the name in the US should be covered in the intro and early: it allows us to just call the game football throughout the rest of the article. As for gridiron, I added a note that it is an informal use in the US. —C.Fred (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with using it early, but it was a hard read. It went through three descriptions of the name before it got around to explaining that football was a sport. It could be a dog or a movie or a planet. I feel it should state what it is and then go on about all the nicknames. -- kainaw™ 17:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Gridiron is now included. Now to the sources. Also, there are a fair number of words that are placed in bold face; I think putting " around them will do. I mean, safety, rushingand defense are not another word for American football, is it? ;) Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 01:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Canada

In Canada, "football" with no qualifiers generally means "Canadian football", not "American football". - BilCat (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Now, what do they call this sport in Canada?? I want answers from a minimum of 5 Wikipedians. Georgia guy (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Or what? What if less than 5 answer?? We get a revert war? - BilCat (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

What's your answer, BilCat?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't know? - BilCat (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Football, based on reading the articles and columns at TSN's website. Specific example: "It's that there simply seems to be no market for football in America beyond the NFL or college game."[2] Nowhere does the phrase "American football" appear in that column.

Perhaps we need to modify the sentence in the intro along these lines:

Known in the United States and Canada as football (although in Canada the term is also applied to Canadian football),…

That covers the usage in Canada and provides an indication to the reader that Canadian football is distinct yet related. —C.Fred (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That's far too wordy, and unnecessary. The general answer for WP is been that, unqualifed, "football" refers to the national variety in whatever country is in question, unless it's clear from the context that another variety is in view. I see no reason to claim that "American football" is the national variety in Canada. - BilCat (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

But national variety isn't the question. Common name is, and the common name of four-down football in Canada is football. —C.Fred (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Depending on the context, of course. The statement in the article doesn't exclude anyone in any other country from calling it just "football" - it merely states that it's called "football" in the US. I don't see the need to add Canada here at all, particulary in the Lead. - BilCat (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Context would be a statement such as "football in America", as you quoted above. "American football in America" would be redundant and obvious, and probably silly too. - BilCat (talk)

Coin toss doesn't determine second half?

So...in what levels of football could team A elect to receive the opening kickoff then in the second half end up with team A receiving the opening kickoff of the second half?

I was under the impression that if you got the ball first in the first half, you'd defend first in the second half (with the endzone you defend rotating every quarter)... 67.142.178.21 (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Every level. The team that wins the toss gets first choice of options to start the first half—or to defer their choice to the start of the second half. The team that doesn't get first choice in the first half gets first choice in the second half.

Where you are likely to see it happen is a night where the weather changes. At the start of the first half, the weather is calm. The visitors win the toss and elect to receive. By halftime, a strong wind is blowing from one end zone to another, and it's forecast to continue through the rest of the game. To start the second half, the home team elects to defend the goal the wind is blowing toward—and have the tailwind in the fourth quarter. The visiting team gets the remaining options and chooses to receive. Thus, the home team would kick off twice.

As a practical matter, when I meet with coaches before a game, I ask what they want their captains to do if they win the toss. If a coach say he wants to kick (and it happens at least once a season), I ask "So, you want to kick off to start both halves?" I'll then point out that if they want to receive to start the second half, then if they win the toss, they want to defer their choice to the second half. —C.Fred (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Well...I'll be. I never took the phrase "I'll defer" to mean deferring the choice to the second half, just deferring possession. Thanks for clearing that up so quickly.

67.142.178.21 (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

That's why it's spelled out in the article text: "They may choose to defer the first choice to the other team and have first choice to start the second half." —C.Fred (talk) 05:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the article might be amended to incorporate your explanation above? I'm sure it's a common misconception and you explained it quite well.Fasttimes68 (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not a common misconception, in fact you are honestly the only person I have ever even heard of who proved that they didn't understand this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.124.190 (talk) 07:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Title

Why is wikipedia, an original American website, referring to our countries greatest sport as "American" football instead of football. I don't care if soccer is called football everywhere else in the world. This is an American website and should refer to this as Football. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.124.190 (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia servers may be based in the US but the editors and readers come from a large array of backgrounds, with different tastes and interests. The naming on the two football articles has been much discussed, by the way, and I'm pretty sure baseball is the number 1 sport of the United States. This Encyclopedia is supposed to represent a world-wide view, not an American one (For instance the article on the United States puts more emphasis on there Football rather than "ours") You seem to not understand how this place works very much. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 10:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't bite the newcomers. Anyway, there are several different sports called "football," including the American, Canadian, Association (soccer), Rugby and Australian versions. The use of "American football" on first reference is necessary to point out which version of football it is. (It's much bigger than baseball now in America.) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

téchnique — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.1.108.19 (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I have a solution: Replace the word "football" from the article and call it American Gridiron and Canadian Gridiron.66.108.210.86 (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

We resolved this dispute many years ago - Our actual article on Football is a general article about all the different sports that use the name. We then have a variety of related articles such as Association Football, Australian Rules Football, etc. Manning (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Fix for the first two lines.

Instead of :

American football is a sport played between two teams of eleven with the objective of scoring points by advancing the ball into the opposing team's end zone. Known in the United States simply as football, it may also be referred to informally as gridiron.

Please state :

American Football, simply known as football in the United States, is a sport played between two teams of eleven with the objective of scoring points by advancing the ball into the opposing team's end zone. A football field is sometimes referred to informally as "the gridiron".

This will give it a better flow and disambiguates between what is actually referred to by the gridiron. The terminology is specific to the field, not the sport as a whole. Thanks 1KRock1 (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the sport is refered to "as gridiron", especially in Australia and New Zealand - that's what the Lead is referring to. - `BilCat (talk)

This has been argued over and over for many years. In North America, "gridiron" refers to the field on which the game is played. In Australia/New Zealand, "gridiron" refers to the game. Both are English-speaking countries. Both are represented in the English version of Wikipedia. -- kainaw™ 17:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

How about adding a link

How about adding a link to Health issues in American football? And one (not in Wikipedia) article called "Footballer wages -- Spartacus Educational"? Catlover98 (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a link to the health issues article; check the top of the #Physicality section. As for the external link, without a URL, there's no way to even look at whether it would be an appropriate link. —C.Fred (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistent origin of term "gridiron."

This article currently states that "Because of the arrangement of the lines, the field is occasionally referred to as a gridiron in a reference to the cooking grill with a similar pattern of lines." This is inconsistent with the origin given in the Gridiron Football article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gridiron_football#Origin_of_the_gridiron). I suspect the latter is correct, given that the article has a picture of a diagram of a 1904 American football playing field. At any rate, the two articles should be consistent with one another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.21.198.153 (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Handegg

In the definition section, it should be noted that "Handegg" is another name of this game.--76.31.238.174 (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Not unless you can show widespread usage of the term that's documented in reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I've lived in the US, Australia and the UK and have never heard this term used. We'll need some citations to justify its inclusion, and also a specific idea of in what countries the term is used. Manning (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I have never heard the phrase "handegg" and have lived in the UK for 60 years and followed all football related sports for most of that time. However - I have heard rugby league called "egg chasing" :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.46.175 (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=handegg It's widely used, especially among non-fans and on the Internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.242.117.214 (talk) 18:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

How is urbandictionary.com a reliable source? Dementia13 (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It isn't. "Handegg" is mostly a term used by Europeans who think the only use of the word 'football' is the sport of soccer, and that American football has no right to the word because 'you don't kick the ball enough'. What the term 'football' actually refers to is any sport where there is a ball, and it can be kicked through a goal. Toa Nidhiki05 13:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

"Game Duration"-overtime rules change edit request

The NFL overtime rules that were only applicable in the postseason that allowed both teams to possess the ball unless the first team scores a touchdown have been changed to include regular season games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.43.242.81 (talk) 01:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Source? —C.Fred (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Try http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7747023/nfl-owners-ok-review-turnovers-ot-tweak . -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I put the out-of-date template on the page so that someone will see it and fix it. Ron Newman (talk) 04:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I've had a go at describing the new overtime rules for regular season play. It could probably use a better reference that talks more specifically about this rule. —Al E. ^(talk) 14:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Pigskin.

This just links to the "ball" article in various football games, not particularly helpful, and this is stated as a very rare name for the sport. Most American fans and especially international fans would not of heard of it being named this way. It also doesn't seem to fit in with the lead and reads to me, awkwardly ("Even more rare?" is that even correct?) --Τασουλα (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

New overtime rules adopted for 2.012 NFL regular/preseason

Under the new NFL overtime rules to be adopted for the 2.012 preseason/regular season, each team gets one possession to score, unless one of them scores a touchdown on its first possession. Sudden death rules apply if both teams have had their initial possession and the score remains tied. If after the OT period it remains tied during that time, the game still ends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.52.160 (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't doubt that they've adopted the rule, but do you have a source that's published this? —C.Fred (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's the source used in the 2012 NFL season article: CBS Sports. —Al E. ^(talk) 14:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

History

From the fifth paragraph:

The first Professional "league" was the Ohio League, formed in 1903...

However, National Football League (1902) claims to be the first attempt at a professional league. Granted, it only lasted the one season, and never had any teams outside of Pennsylvania, but it does beat the Ohio League by a year. Is there something I'm missing? —Al E. ^(talk) 14:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Are the rows of inbounds lines perpendicular to the sidelines...?

"Two rows of short lines, known as inbounds lines or hash marks, run at 1-yard (91.4 cm) intervals perpendicular to the sidelines near the middle of the field"

On the picture the rows seem to be much more parallel to the sidelines than perpendicular. But what do I know, I just started reading this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.176.223.175 (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It's awkward. Strictly speaking, the inbounds line run parallel to the sidelines. The inbounds lines are marked by hash marks that run perpendicular to the sideline. So rather than a dashed line, the hash marks are a sequence of crossways lines. To use ASCII, they look like | | | | | | rather than - - - - - -. Make sense? —C.Fred (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Futbal , Football

Why are the names so much alike but such different sports? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingleberry4485 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No, both words refer to several varieties of ball games played on foot. "American football" is Spanish is "futbol americano". - BilCat (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

"American football" vs "football"

The article appears to be full of misleading usage of the word "football" instead of "American football" as the sport is known anywhere outside the United States. All of the articles related to the sport use "American football" in their names and I don't see any reason why we should adhere to a secondary reference when the primary title is predominantly used. We don't have "History of football", "Football rules", "Penalty (football)" and "Football positions", but "History of American football", "American football rules", "Penalty (American football)" and "American football positions". Why the first sentence under "Field and players" says Football is played on ..., when it truly should say American football is played on ...? Do we really need to involve our readers in paragraphs with awkward terms? The first thing that comes to my memory when I see "football" is the "association football", and the same seems to be valid for any other reader who doesn't live in the United States. Even if we consider that most of the readers on the English Wikipedia are from the USA, it doesn't automatically implement new standards in the English language that don't apply in other parts of the world. Please go to the media portals that use English as a secondary language to see that "football" is used to denote "association football" only. But still the article about "association football" uses this awkward naming standard everywhere in the text, while the "American football" is translated simply as "football". There is really no need to use double standards for something that is even far from being generally accepted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The introduction to the article makes it clear that in the article, when no other descriptor is applied, "football" denotes "American football." Where there are made in the article, then it might be useful to refer to it as American: e.g., "Canadian football rules allow 12 players on the field, while American football only allows 11." It depends on the context, also, as it's pretty clear that "the forward pass is legal in football but not in rugby" means American football in the first mention.

The text of the article on association football isn't quite as consistent, but it does use the unqualified term "football" through large portions of the article to refer to association football. I don't see any reason we can't do the analogous thing here. —C.Fred (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that here it's mostly referred simply as "football" even if "football" is "association football" for everybody who lives outside the United States. I don't think it's a proper solution to use something that is even not generally accepted. The article about "association football" uses "football" in much less portions than this one. However, if we have to use the secondary sources to document any name convention, than "association football" should be fully redirected into "football" as the sport is known everywhere. Since we have "association football", "American football", "college football" and other varieties of the sport with the given name, let's use these names in the main contest. Each disperse in the name creates a systematic bias towards a local use of the name. I assure that you won't find somebody who doesn't use American English to say that "football" is "American football". My propose is to change it into "American football" in each contest as it's the case with the other footballs. Else, there is a doubling of standards and systematic American bias.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't start this debate up again, and before commenting in a Talk page please read previous version of it first. (The only cliché you missed was "handegg"). No, it is not true that association football is known only as "football" everywhere outside the United States, whether in English-speaking countries or not. PS - Another advantage of having read the whole page first is that you would have seen the large banner stating that the article is written in American English. Ylee (talk) 10:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems like you don't know much about the use of the word "football" worldwide. I don't say what is meant by football in Australian or Canadian English, but what the media that use English as a secondary language translate under the given name. Furthermore, you cannot rely on the use of American English to say that something is football or not. Many awkward words in American English are unknown outside the area of its speakers and won't help the rest of the readers to catch what is the exact meaning of the phrase.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

First sentence: "American football, known in the United States simply as football," it's well declared in the lead. Adding "American" in front of every occurrence of the term throughout the article is unnecessary and clumsy. How many times have we covered this?--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:American football/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Go Phightins! (talk · contribs) 21:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I will review this page. Go Phightins! 21:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• Unlink yards, meters, and oval per WP:OVERLINK.
  • Done. Toa Nidhiki05 21:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• In order to continue their drive down the field, the offense must advance the ball at least ten yards down the field in a series of four downs; if they succeed they receive a new set of downs to continue their drive, but if they fail they turn the ball over to the opposing team. to In order to continue a drive, the offense must advance the ball at least ten yards down the field in a series of four downs. If they succeed, they receive a new set of four downs to continue their drive, but if they fail, they turn the ball over to the opposing team
• Not a big fan of the long descriptive links. Perhaps you could say something to the affect of "via a touchdown (blah blah blah), a field goal (blah blah blah)" etc. and link the term, rather than the description.
  • Done, but in inverse - I give the term after the explanation. Since this is an introductory article, a quick explanation could be helpful to people who don't understand the sport. Toa Nidhiki05 21:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Gameplay

• This is rather minor, but why is gameplay before history? Usually, history is the first section in an article. Is there some obscure corner of the MOS with which I'm unfamiliar?
  • Moved. Toa Nidhiki05 21:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Unlink oval again.
  • Done. Toa Nidhiki05 21:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Remove "at any one time"; that's unnecessary wordiness, in my opinion.
  • Done. Toa Nidhiki05 21:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Remove "procedure" after "coin toss". Again, that's unnecessary wordiness.
  • Done. Toa Nidhiki05 21:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Do we have a source to substantiate the different tackling rules between high school, college, and the NFL? It seems that oughta be sourced, even if it is just any additional location of an already used reference.
  • I didn't design this section so I have no clue. I've removed it since this is discussed in the American football rules article. Toa Nidhiki05 21:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• What is a "necessary line"? The first down marker? I've never heard the term "necessary line", especially since it's in quotes, perhaps a source for that terminology would be in order?
  • The necessary line is what the line needed for a first down (aka. the first down line) is called in the rulebooks. As they aren't cited, I've removed it. Toa Nidhiki05 21:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Can we make that image float to one side or the other rather than take up all space in the middle of the section?
  • Moved. Toa Nidhiki05 21:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Remove "each type of penalty has its own hand signal", as that's fairly evident from the prior line of text.
  • Removed. Toa Nidhiki05 21:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• A couple of additional sources throughout the section would be nice.
  • I'll work on that. Toa Nidhiki05 21:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Did you find any additional ones?
      • I'm working on it - right now I've shortened the section significantly since so much of the info is already in the Rules section. There isn't nearly as much there to cite, really.

History

• "American football is considered to have evolved from the sport of rugby" by whom?
  • Changed to a flat statement. Toa Nidhiki05 21:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• "The first football game, considered to have played on November 6, 1869 between..." again, who considers this date to be the first modern football game? Considered seems to be moderately peacocky for a GA. Just say that the first modern football game was played on...
  • Done. Toa Nidhiki05 21:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Unlink "feet" again per WP:OVERLINK, units of measurement need not be linked
  • Done. Toa Nidhiki05 21:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• I'm confused, how did the game work if you couldn't run or pass? Elaborate in that section please.
  • It could be kicked; I've noted that now. Toa Nidhiki05 21:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Ahh. Thanks.

Teams and positions

• If you're trying to link to Two-platoon system, you're going to have to link to One-platoon system#2.2 Arguments in support of two-platoon football, but since that really is not helpful, I would suggest unlinking "system" entirely.
  • Done. Toa Nidhiki05 03:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• I think it would be better to call it a tailback, as opposed to a halfback, as if I'm not mistaken halfback is not a running back in the CFL, which plays American football, I think. Not a big deal either way though.
  • The CFL plays Canadian football (very similar to American football in most respects), and a halfback is a defensive player there. I'll add tailback next to HB to be safe.
• Sorry, got sidetracked with an article on uniforms in American football. Anyway, back on.
  • No problem. :P
• "are on the same page", that's an expression that might not be familiar globally; perhaps we could substitute something?
  • Changed to 'doing their jobs', hopefully that works
    • Fine by me.
• ballcarrier to ball carrier in defense
  • Fixed.
• In the linebackers section, could we change "watching the tight ends and backs in the passing game, and covering wide speedy receivers" to "guarding tight ends and backs in the passing game and covering slot receivers"?
  • Sure, done. Toa Nidhiki05 03:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Equipment

• This section is a bit sparse. Perhaps you could add a line on the improvement of helmets due to concussion issues or something of the like.
  • I added a bit on helmets and concussions, as well as a bit about helmets stopping skull injuries. Toa Nidhiki05 03:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Looks adequate.

Formation

• Let me know what you think here, but I almost wonder if that section is even necessary; I think it's contents could be merged with gameplay.
  • Merged with gameplay. Toa Nidhiki05 03:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks.

Rules

• This section looks excellent. Just a couple things:
  • Could we change "try" to "PAT"?
    • I can add a "more commonly known as", since try is the actual term. I'd prefer it be there in some capacity. Toa Nidhiki05 03:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Why don't you do that...
        • I did. Toa Nidhiki05 01:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The field section is almost too referenced...could we edit out a couple of the unnecessary ones. If they're all necessary, OK, but it just seems a tad "overkillish", if that's a word
    • I would have to go back to the rulebooks and rework all the citations there to make it have less. The citations are as specific as possible right now. It would take quite a while though.
      • That's all right.
        • I have reduced it to two groups of three citations now. Toa Nidhiki05 01:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Perhaps this isn't available that you can find, but is there any explanation for why we have orange flags on the goal posts? Wind?
    • I can't source that but yes, that is what they are for. It gives the kicker a little bit of help there, although many kickers also pick up some grass and drop it to see what the wind is like. Toa Nidhiki05 03:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • In the officials section, mention that the umpire was moved into the backfield in the NFL.
    • Done. Toa Nidhiki05 03:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The field goal assignments need some work in that section. I'm pretty sure the umpire and side judge stand about 10 yards behind the line of scrimmage while the back judge and field judge stand under the goal posts. It's pretty ambiguous as is.
    • I'll just remove the mention right now - the Dummies book must have been written before the official location change. Strictly speaking, official location isn't too important to a casual reader. Toa Nidhiki05 03:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Probably true. And that's right; we now have 7 officials, the book could've been written when there were still five, although a side judge didn't exist then, so who knows.
        • Yeah.

Leagues and tournaments

• Perhaps you could give mention to some other leagues that exist in the US (e.g., Arena football, United Football League, etc.) rather than just the NFL and NCAA.
  • I do mention the arena league, in the second paragraph there. I didn't mention the UFL because it is basically insolvent, but I could give a short list of it along with other defunct leagues (like the AFL, AAFC, and USFL). Toa Nidhiki05 03:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Variations and related sports

• Looks fine.

References

• Is there a copy of the NFL or NCAA rule books online that we could link? That might be helpful to read further on some of what is in the article. Go Phightins! 02:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll get to the others in a bit, but they are linked in the "References" subheader, along with the NFHS (high school) rulebook. Toa Nidhiki05 03:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    • All right. Looks good. Just a few loose ends, and then we have ourselves a good article! Go Phightins! 02:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I've passed and listed the article. Good work. I'm supposed to encourage you to review another article in the GAN reviewing instructions, so you are hereby encouraged. (If you'd like, you can review one of my outstanding ones -- 2012 Liberty Bowl 2013 Cotton Bowl Classic but of course you're under no obligation whatsoever to do so) Thanks for all of your work on this article, and congratulations on achieving your 37th, by my count, good article. Go Phightins! 17:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Error in the History Section

In the "History" section of this article there is a small error at the end of the section. The article reads " The field was also reduced to 100 yards long but two 10-yard long end zones were created, and teams were given four yards instead of three to advance the ball ten yards." I believe four yards should be changed to "four downs" because that makes more sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.61.231.191 (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Done Another editor got to it this morning. Thank you for pointing this out! —C.Fred (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Copy Edit

Working on the requested copy edit. Taking a break before I deal with the thick prose in the "History" section. One thing that stands out is that the "History" section here is actually more detailed than that in the main History of American football article. I would move some of this content over there, but it's already at FA status and I don't want to step on it. Thinning this section out will be tricky, as it is well-referenced. This will take some thought. Dementia13 (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

First off, thanks for taking this on - that's an interesting bit, actually. I think it is important to flesh out the history of football, especially the 1869-1970 period before the so-called 'modern era' of play (at least at the professional level), but there are certainly details that can be removed. In comparison to the other two featured articles on individual sports, association football (soccer) and baseball, this would fall more comparatively towards soccer but much less than baseball has. If material is to be removed, it needs to be minor - retain the important bits such as dates, major firsts, and changes in rules or leagues. Perhaps the most important point in the early bits, the longest, is where the sport split from rugby. Toa Nidhiki05 02:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

IMO, the only thing "removable" is whatever duplicates what's in what's supposed to be the "main" history article. Even some of that needs left in for context. From there, I have to figure out what would be excessive detail for an introductory article. That material is probably best rolled over- carefully- into the other article. I'm not about to throw away some well-researched material. That stuff makes _an_ article, though not necessarily this one, a better article. Dementia13 (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I added some subheadings in the "History" section. If you come up with better titles for the subsections, feel free to change them. Just leave the subsections themselves intact, because the article needs them for readability and ease of navigation. Dementia13 (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I have a problem with this ambiguity in "The Professional era": I could probably resolve it myself, but presumably one of you still has access to the cited source:

This was the first time in recorded history any player had been officially paid to play a game

Any player? Any game? In any sport? It that's the case, it's significant enough to be stated more clearly. If this only applies to football, then it needs specified. Dementia13 (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It only applies to football. He was the first American football player (that we know of) to be outright paid for his efforts. Toa Nidhiki05 17:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Done with "postions" and "equipment". I'm taking a break until that above bit about "The professional era" gets cleared up and until there's a third opinion on "Gameplay and rules." Dementia13 (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Getting this bit by bit. My cable modem is intermittent, and there seems to be a pattern in that it drops sync when I edit here. This is startlingly consistent. Maybe there's a techie here who knows whether editing here involves some unusual port that might be confusing my modem? We get a lot of intermittent power-outs here, and it's pretty hard on the electronics. The UPSes died first, and now the stuff behind them is going out. Dementia13 (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: the reversion that says "teams don't switch every quarter:" Do teams not begin the third quarter on the same side of the field on which they began the game? If so, then they had to switch sides between the second and third quarter. Maybe that needs a little more detail. Dementia13 (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Following up on that: The given source states "first and third quarters," but the article context is specifically talking about what happens onfield during play stoppages. Halftime is not part of the subject. Technically, you can say that the teams didn't switch sides because they're coming from the locker rooms, but I think what the reader is interested in is that the teams are moving in different directions between the second and third quarters. Dementia13 (talk) 04:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Remove gameplay section?

I've been thinking it might be a good idea to remove the Gameplay section from the article. As it currently stands, it is a much weaker version of the Rules section, and it doesn't do anything the rules section doesn't already do. Before I do this, however, I want to see what other people think about it. I think a wiser method would be to move the Rules section to just below the History section, and rename it to 'Gameplay and rules', like the baseball article has. Toa Nidhiki05 02:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to discuss one without involving the other, so it's probably best to have a combined "Gameplay and rules" section. I can do this. To whatever extent "gameplay" is separate from "rules," it could include any discussion of strategy. Dementia13 (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree - I would suggest adding a brief description of the on-field battle (ie. the offense wants to advance the ball forward, the defense wants to prevent the offense from doing that) in a paragraph before the "Scoring" subsection. Other than that, everything else in the "Gameplay" section is covered in the "Rules" section. Toa Nidhiki05 17:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for further research

• Flag football is mentioned here. Some context should be provided- there are no professional touch or flag leagues, are there? There should be some mention of what situations use those variants. Minor league, little league, whatever. Dementia13 (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• There is a semipro women's league, is there not? Josie from Top Chef season two was mentioned as playing in such a league. It's worth a mention. There are girls in the Punt, Pass and Kick competition every year, so it's something we'll no doubt see more of. Dementia13 (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Under "The professional era," note how skinny the paragraph about the AFL is compared to the others. It could use fleshed out. The reasons why the AFL succeeded where the USFL, WFL, AAFL, etc. failed deserves some coverage. Dementia13 (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I've fleshed that out a bit - it really just boils down to the AFL getting enough money from television to compete. Toa Nidhiki05 19:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
    • There's a little more: When the Jets won Super Bowl III, it proved that the AFL could compete on an equal footing with the NFL. The best USFL team would likely not have been able to beat the NFL's worst team in a game, although a few more years of play would likely have evened things out. Also, the AFL had a more wide-open, pass-oriented style of play that appealed to fans who found the NFL too conservative. This was likely due to Sid Gillman and a number of AFL coaches who had ties to him. At any rate, the AFL was able to position themselves as a viable alternative. There's a parallel with the way the Arena League presents itself: It doesn't try to go toe-to-toe with the NFL, it tries to offer a kind of fun and excitement that the bigger league doesn't. The XFL tried this as well, but they gambled that they would be able to instantly capture the hearts of viewers, and their level of gameplay wasn't good enough to maintain a fan base. Dementia13 (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• I wrote an article on football history for some crap farm, and one book that was really helpful was a biography of George Halas. I think it was called Papa Bear. That's a great resource if you can find it, because he was an NFL founder who was involved with its activities through the entire middle part of the century. There's an awful lot of relevant information in there. Dementia13 (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• If you want the most important football reference book I have ever found, it would be The Anatomy of a Game by David M. Nelson. He was the longest serving member of the NCAA rules committee (basically, he was the second coming of Walter Camp) and his book is an excellent historical record of basically the first 60-70 years of football as it was played, carefully documenting each change to the rules and gameplay. Excellent work. --Jayron32 20:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • That seems like a fantastic book but it appears I don't have it at any near libraries - there are six in my state that have it, but the closest is over 60 miles away and they are all university libraries. Google Books has an e-book version for 16 dollars, and there is a version online (http://books.google.com/books?id=OmwfnipKuogC&printsec=frontcover&ganpub=k183156&ganclk=GOOG_836798401&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false); it is readable, but some pages are missing. It appears the physical version of the book is out-of-print and can be upwards of 60 bucks for even a used copy. Toa Nidhiki05 00:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, I don't have a copy myself. I've only ever used library copies. But it is a fanstastic book. I'd recommend perusing what is available at Google Books for what you can. If you're just collecting good sources, http://www.profootballresearchers.org/ is a great resource as well. They do have membership fees, but even the free stuff available to non-members is very useful. I used a lot of their stuff directly for History of American football. --Jayron32 01:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
      • PFRA is great, yeah, I used a lot of their sources here - they are all very well researched and give a lot of stuff about the early part of the game, and most of them are free as well. Toa Nidhiki05 01:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Other good sources, more modern and popularly available: Michael MacCambridge has a lot of good sports books out there. I've used several of his sources in sports articles before. His stuff is usually still in print. --Jayron32 01:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Under "Minor Leagues," you have: An earlier minor league, the All-America Football Conference, operated from 1946 to 1949. The AAFC ceased operations after the 1949 season, but two teams from the league, the Cleveland Browns and San Francisco 49ers, are current members of the NFL. I think if you dig around, you'll find that the Baltimore/Indianapolis Colts also have roots in that league. They may have been the Miami franchise. Dementia13 (talk) 04:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Not correct. There was a team called the Baltimore Colts in the AAFC, and it played 1 year in the NFL. That team folded, however. The modern Baltimore Colts franchise is technically an expansion franchise, but it does have teams to which it is historically connected. However, the AAFC Colts is not one of them. The current Baltimore Colts were essentially created to absorb the assets of the Dallas Texans, which had folded after only one year of play and bad financial management. The Dallas Texans themselves had been created to absorb the assets of a prior team which had bounced around a bit, being the Boston Yanks/New York Bulldogs/New York Yanks franchise. The Yanks/Bulldogs team had also, at some point, itself merged with what had been the Dayton Triangles/Brooklyn Dodgers/Brooklyn Tigers team as well. Officially, the Colts were created in 1953 as an expansion franchise, which merely assumed the players and other assets of the failed Texans team, and claim no official historical connection to the prior history of the Texans/Tigers/Yanks/Dodgers/Bulldogs/Triangles, etc. that had merged and moved and folded and whatever to produce the modern Colts. The prior Colts team's sole NFL season was the 1950 NFL season, they had played previously in three AAFC seasons as the Baltimore Colts, and their first year as the Miami Seahawks. However, despite the same name, there is no connection between the two Colts teams. --Jayron32 05:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

One point safety

The scoring section is incomplete! If a team attempts a try, more commonly known as the point(s)-after-touchdown (PAT),and what is scored would normally be a safety, it is called a one-point safety or conversion safety — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.4 (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The one-point safety is such a rare occurrence that it isn't really worth mentioning - keep in mind, this article is just an overview of the topic. The one-point safety is explained in much greater detail in the article on safeties. Toa Nidhiki05 17:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Surely a means of scoring a point is of more significance than other facts already mentioned in the article like field goals being drop kicked? and that is just as rare. Also no mention is made that in college football the defense can return the try to score in any of the same ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.4 (talk) 09:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Scoring / Safety

Correction required: a safety is worth one or two points.

In addition to the circumstances in which a safety is worth two points, a team with the initial possession can register a one-point safety if a defensive player retreats into his own end zone following an interception, fumble, or blocked kick on a conversion attempt and is tackled there. In any of these cases, the tackling team is awarded 1 point. (Similarly, if the converting team retreats into its own end zone and is tackled there, the defense is awarded 1 point, but that end zone is 97 yards away, so this is extremely unlikely.) This rule did exist before 1988, but the defense had no incentive to return a failed conversation, so it had no effect.

As of mid-2013, the most recent example of the one-point safety happened in the 2013 Fiesta Bowl, when Kansas State's Ryan Mueller came up with the ball after the blocked PAT and lateraled it to Allen Chapman, who was tackled in his own end zone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.80.192 (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

That level of detail is covered in the article on safeties themselves, specifically here. While yes, it did happen once in 2013, on the balance the play is so rare and odd that it probably doesn't bear mentioning in this specific article, which is meant to be a general overview of the sport, and where too much trivial detail on the minutiae of rules like this will tend to bog the article down and make it hard for readers unfamiliar with the sport to follow. Not every single rule is covered in this article to equivalent detail, nor does it need to be. The article provides enough information on safeties as it is. --Jayron32 13:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hand Egg

I really think this should be added to the definitions. In the UK that's what we're always called it. I was surprised to find out it was called football.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=handegg

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hand-egg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.231.196.136 (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Neither of which are reliable nor demonstrate significant usage of the term. —C.Fred (talk) 02:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Plus "In the UK that's what we're (sic) always called it" is completely untrue anyway -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It's called football not hand egg. (Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.163.151 (talk) 03:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

To quote Urban Dictionary: "Another word for "American football" err I mean "FOOTBALL." Usually used by retards who don't know basic English. Retarded person: "I think football should be renamed handegg." Non-retarded person: "Why?" Retarded person: "Because they used their hands and its an egg, DUH!" Non-retarded person: "Are you retarded or something? Its called football because its played on foot, and we played it on foot. Besides we do use our foot, it's called a kickoff and an extra point and a field goal and a punt. Do your friggin research before making people think you're a retard. Wait a minute, YOU ARE!""--2425PieMasterBob (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

In response to the gentleman above you are very impolite. You can't call it football because it's played on foot, or every sport without a pool, horse or car would have foot as a prefix. All football games stem from one without rules in medieval England, which was coded in different ways in different countries. And only one, association football, uses foot control and a ball. You head the ball more in football than kick in American football The Almightey Drill (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

We can call it "cameraball" if we want. There doesn't need to be a reason, there only needs to be a consensus. The consensus is that it's called "football," and arguing about that is like fighting the ocean. If you want to change world opinion, 1) certainly you can find a more pressing issue than the name of a sport, and 2) the Wikipedia talk page is not the place to start. Dementia13 (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Why not change "basketball" to "rim-with-a-net ball" since they stopped using actual baskets a century ago? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.87.102 (talk) 06:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Player safety

To avoid getting to an edit war, I am opening up discussion on the 'player safety' section that was recently added to this article. I fully intend to bring this up as an FAC, and in doing so it is important to see what our other two FA articles (Association football and baseball), as well as a comparable good article (rugby union) cover. No mention is made of health or safety issues in any of these articles, even in a very violent contact sport like rugby. Similarly, baseball does not focus too much on steroid outside of its lengthy history section, and association football does not even mention health issues at all despite there being numerous recorded instances of players dying on the pitch from collisions or heart issues. Toa Nidhiki05 01:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Football is generally recognized to have the highest incidence of concussions. Something should probably be added to association football and rugby, because there's a good bit of literature on that too. This seems like a no-brainer to me. --JFH (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

But the fact of the matter is both of those passed peer review without the question even coming up. The issue of health is already covered in Health issues in American football and Concussions in American football. And realistically, what does this add to the article? It focuses entirely on one level of play (NFL), doesn't cover any other safety issues, doesn't explain how concussions occur, and the key point itself - that head injuries can and do happen - is already noted in the equipment section, where concussions and their cause are succinctly explained without going into too much detail. This article is just a basic overview of the game, not a comprehensive overview of everything related to it.' Toa Nidhiki05' 14:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The section could be improved. This is a serious issue at all levels. Concussions and head injuries are the most discussed in RSes. There's a lot to say beyond that concussions happen. The long-term effects of playing football on mental well-being are serious and well documented. --JFH (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but why does it need an entire section here? No other team sports article even has a section on injuries, let alone a moderately lengthy one. Concussions are already mentioned in the equipment section, and all the important information is there - they occur due to upper-body hits, and are a serious injury. In a basic overview of American football, however, you don't need to explain everything about concussions to the reader - especially when most of it is medical terminology and stats which frankly go into more depth than most of the rest of the article does about the sport itself. I think the best thing to do would be to transfer the second sentence of the section to the bit about concussions in the equipment section and remove the player safety section entirely. That would make the equipment section look like this:

Due to the violent nature of the game, football players are required to wear protective equipment. At minimum, players wear a helmet and a set of shoulder pads, but additional padding may be required, depending on the league. This may include thigh pads and guards, knee pads, chest protectors, and mouth guards.[52][53][54] College and high school play require the use of a mouthguard.[53][54] Despite these protections, injuries do occur - particularly concerning are head injuries such as concussions.[55] Though the short-term effects of concussions are usually mild, repeated concussions may increase a person's risk in later life for dementia, Parkinson's disease, and depression.[111] Concussions are most often caused by helmet-to-helmet or upper-body contact between opposing players, although the helmets have prevented other serious injuries such as skull fractures.[56]

That sort of phrasing would give the reader all they need to know - concussions are serious, they are caused helmet-to-helmet and upper-body contact, and repeated concussions increase the risk for degenerative diseases. In-depth statistical analysis is not needed. Toa Nidhiki05 16:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

That seems out of place to me. Head injuries and cognitive impairment aren't just associated with equipment, they're associated with playing the game regardless of equipment. Please know I agree the section needs improvement. The stats can be taken out in favor of a broader view. --JFH (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The 'equipment' section is most appropriate because that is the helmet is what is being partially blamed for concussions. If they are to be explained anywhere, that is the best spot. Alternatively, we could rename it to 'Equipment and safety' and note the role of equipment and common injuries. Toa Nidhiki05' 19:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The subject is important in its own right, not a subtopic of equipment. --JFH (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It isn't important enough to take up an entire section. Combining it with 'equipment' and renaming it to represent both would not make it a subset. Toa Nidhiki05 22:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It is clearly a very important aspect. The article isn't even that long to start with. RSes are claiming that normal play of this game has significant effects on long term neurocognitive well-being, with suicides of pros as well as high schoolers being blamed on the game. This isn't the same as accidents, this is the result of playing the game the way it is supposed to be played. I would argue that safety should be given more space in other risky games, but this one is discussed much more in RSes than any other. --JFH (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Safety/concussions does not warrant an entire section on this page, let alone when half of it is medical terminology that goes more in-depth than most of the rest of the page does about the game itself. I took the relevant part of the information (concussions are bad) and merged it with existing information (concussions are caused by helmet-to-helmet contact), plus more to actually go in-depth on all safety risks (ie. injuries). I have no clue why you reverted this given that it actually expands on it. Toa Nidhiki05 01:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

My thought would be that we could look at this from another angle, to be more specific the history of interventions by the comissioner to shape the game including the late 70s rules to make the passing game more effective to drive up points and tv ratings up through the current focus on player safety. Some of this may already be in the article i haven't read through tht whole thing. Let me know if you think this a reasonable approach.Timothy.lucas.jaeger (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

That might be appropriate for the history of American football, but I don't see why safety should be swept into history any more than equipment. Safety is an important aspect of the game itself, with lots of RSes making a big deal out of it and calling it a serious public health concern. --JFH (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

...And it is not notable enough for an entire section, especially when it only focuses on one safety issue. My change actually works better because it reflects all safety issues.
Also, Timoth.lucas.jaeger, that change would not work here because this is about the sport as a whole, not particular leagues. That is part of the problem with this section - it only discusses pro-level issues, really. That is why a general section on safety - after the section on equipment - makes the most sense. Toa Nidhiki05 18:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If you want to move the section after the equipment section, that's fine, just keep it separate rather than burying it in an only peripherally related section. If you want to add other injuries as well, that's fine too, though I think it's clear that head injuries are the most concerning by far. As for only being pro level, I'm trying to add some on youth, which is probably most important, and there's plenty to be said about college. --JFH (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You don't own this page, stop trying to say what is fine or not. We are supposed to be getting consensus, not doing whatever one side wants. What I am proposing is very simple: merge safety with equipment, rename to 'equipment and safety', keep the important bits on concussions, and note other common injuries. The end result would look like this:

See also: American football protective equipment and Health issues in American football

Due to the violent nature of the game, football players are required to wear protective equipment. At minimum, players wear a helmet and a set of shoulder pads, but additional padding may be required, depending on the league. This may include thigh pads and guards, knee pads, chest protectors, and mouth guards.[52][53][54] College and high school teams require the use of a mouthguard.[53][54]

Despite these protections, injuries can and do occur. Most injuries occur in the lower extremities, particularly in the knee, but a significant number also affect the upper extremities. The most common types of injuries are strains, sprains, bruises, fractures, dislocations, and concussions.[55] Concussions are particularly concerning,[56] as repeated concussions can increase a person's risk in later life for dementia, Parkinson's disease, and depression.[57] Concussions are often caused by helmet-to-helmet or upper-body contact between opposing players, although helmets have prevented more serious injuries such as skull fractures.[58]

This is the best of both worlds - it covers concussions and health issues, but avoids going into in-depth medical information or clinical research studies, which frankly don't add anything to the article and are more complex than the article needs. It also avoids having an entire small section devoted solely to medical issues by merging it with the page's smallest section (equipment), which actually leads quite well into the safety bits. This could obviously be expanded to note efforts to reduce concussions, like the "Heads Up Football" initiative from USA Football and the NFL. Toa Nidhiki05 19:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on American football/Archive 3 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." This is an opinion of that sort. Both editors have made good points here, but I would say that the very fact that there are two other articles about health issues related to American football mitigates in favor, not against, that topic being of sufficient importance to have its own section here. On the other hand, the undue weight policy says that the tail does not need to wag the dog (especially since concussions are something of a hot topic at the moment, which tends to cause the issue to be overemphasized in a general article) and that if there is going to be a separate health issues section that it needs to focus on more than just the concussion issue while at the same time not being so detailed or lengthy that it is disproportionate to the rest of the article. So, while I support the notion of a separate section, I also feel that it needs to be crafted with a great deal of care. What I've seen so far doesn't get there. (And, just in passing, so it does not appear that I overlooked it, I give no weight to what is or is not done in other articles. Unless there is a policy or guideline requiring uniformity, each article at Wikipedia stands on its own.)

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 15:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

PS: Also (and at some considerable risk of bad taste), I have to throw a flag and give a 10-yard penalty to JFH for choosing to use the term "no-brainer" in the course of discussing this topic. . Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

A minor expansion on how Rugby and American Football influenced each other:

The US sport originated from Rugby Union which was played at Yale et al during the late 1860s. 30 years later, American Football returned the favor and influenced the sport of Rugby League.

Rugby League started in Northern England in 1895 following a dispute with Rugby Union over paying players for lost time at work. By 1906, Rugby League featured several distinct features of American Football namely 'downs', a 10 yard minimum gain, a snap-like restart after every tackle, a neutral zone, and a rudimentary Line of Scrimmage. Rugby League did not embrace the forward pass. However, players routinely used short, accurate kicks to advance the ball.

Hotchkn (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)10/8/2013

CTE

Good idea to say few words on CTE ? Ref 1 : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/league-of-denial/ Ref 2 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_traumatic_encephalopathy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.22.23.27 (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I think literally. I'm making the following edit to the Safety section: "Concussions are particularly concerning,^[reference] as repeated concussions can increase a person's risk in later life for chronic traumatic encephalopathy and mental health issues such as dementia, Parkinson's disease, and depression." —C.Fred (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Correct dimensions

The article states in three places that the field is 53.3 yards wide. That would be 159 feet 10.8 inches. I believe the correct dimension is 160 feet, or 53 and 1/3 yards. Please correct. --67.71.99.150 (talk) 07:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

53.3 yards is equal to 160 feet... not sure what the issue is. Toa Nidhiki05 14:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

No, 53.3 yards wide is 53 and 3/10 yards, or 159 feet 10.8 inches. 160 feet is 53 and 1/3 yards. 0.3 equals 3/10, not 1/3. (Same person, different IP address) --70.27.114.68 (talk)

The other issue is that the width, by definition, is either 160 feet or 53 1/3 yards; it's not a rounded conversion from metric. Absolutely if it's the latter, we shouldn't round the figure. —C.Fred (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean here. Changing to 53.33. Toa Nidhiki05 18:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Still not correct. 0.33 is NOT the same as 1/3. The dimensions are properly given with the fraction, not a decimal. --Khajidha (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Sentence Fragment in 'Scoring' Section

In the 'Rules' section, there is a fragment of a sentence at the end of the 'Scoring' subsection. The paragraph reads ...After a safety has been scored, the team that conceded the safety must kick off the ball to the scoring team. The team' The team should be removed because it is obviously an unfinished sentence. Iapalm17 (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Done —C.Fred (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

History

"The last major remnant of rugby was removed in 1888, when tackling below the waist was legalized.[6]"

I'm pretty sure this is incorrect as Rugby Union (and therefore Rugby League) have always allowed tackling below the waist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nzcamel (talk • contribs) 10:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Field and equipment - dimensions of the ball

"short axis of 21 to 21 1⁄4 inches" is wrong. It's the short circumference. --91.141.2.37 (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Elisabeth--91.141.2.37 (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I've changed it accordingly. —C.Fred (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2014

There is an error in the order of "inside and outside". Please change "The primary responsibilities of defensive ends and defensive tackles is to stop running plays on the inside and outside, respectively, to pressure the quarterback..." to "The primary responsibilities of defensive ends and defensive tackles is to stop running plays on the outside and inside, respectively, to pressure the quarterback..." Thank you. Doublecheckthis (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Done Good catch on the non-parallel language. —C.Fred (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

These measurements confuse me...

"Football games are played on a rectangular field that measures 120 yards (110 m) long and 53.33 yards (48.76 m) wide. Lines marked along the ends and sides of the field are known respectively as the end lines and side lines, and goal lines are marked 9 yards (8.2 m) outward from each end line. Weighted pylons are placed on the inside corner of the intersections of the goal lines and end lines."

Wouldn't it be "goal lines are marked 10 yards inward from each end line? If not, could you explain what I'm not understanding?

64.53.251.103 (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC) jerry

Good catch; I have fixed this. Toa Nidhiki05 13:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Date of first Superbowl (even if not called that, at the time)

The article erroneously states that the game began in 1966. In fact, it was held in 1967, following the conclusion of the 1966 season. The text should be amended to clarify.

Sorry... Instructions for editing are very confusing.... I don't know how to "sign" my comment... but I'll try this: TreeDoctor (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Done I've clarified to say it was played at the end of the 1966 season. Anybody who clicks through the link to Super Bowl will see the 1967 date. —C.Fred (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Pre-snap diagram

While I appreciate the effort behind it, the pre-snap diagram is pretty useless. For that matter a simple green background with a line through the center and defense written on one side and offense on the other (in other words, removing the positions) would have done the same thing. What good are the dots and squares if the person reading this article has no idea what they are? I mean, the point of this article is to explain football. Telling a reader who doesn't know what "... is lined up in the 4-3 defense..." means is a complete waste of time. There should be a link that goes to an article about defense and one for offense with diagrams that explain positions and then perhaps what the formations are called. You see, I came here to find out what those defensive far right and far left at the line of scrimmage positions were. The only way to figure it out is to endless look for and click links here. Do you see the problem? Also, is there an acronym list somewhere? Another example, what is a BLK or a XP ATT in stats? This is missing a good deal of information and isn't organized very well. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 19:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You're allowed to click the blue links in the article if any of the terms so linked confuse you. Also, you're allowed to provide links to other articles that explain things you think need more explaining. You can also add more text to this article. Literally no one here has yet tried to stop you from making this article better. --Jayron32 20:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Should the positions on the diagram be labeled?

FS SS (Free Safety/Strong Safety)

LLB MLB RLB (Left Linebacker/Middle Linebacker/Right Linebacker)

LCB LE LT RT RE RCB (Left Cornerback/Left End/Left Tackle/Right Tackle/Right End/Right Cornerback)

WR LT LG C RG RT TE WR (Wide Reciever/Left Tackle/Left Guard/Center/Right Guard/Right Tackle/Tight End/Wide reciever)

QB HB FB (Quarterback/Halfback/Fullback)

If so, should the diagram be wider? Should there be any L/R? Linebackers can be OLB (Outside Linebacker). Half as many labels? The front linemen could be one letter each? Should the officials be shown? Sammy D III (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I just posted and deleted tables showing the player positions. They don't work in the article as tables, maybe someone can use some of this stuff to fix the diagram? Sammy D III (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2015

The BCS arrangement has been controversial, and will be replaced in 2014 by a four-team playoff system.[26]

SHOULD BE

The BCS arrangement proved to be controversial, and as replaced in 2014 by the College Football Playoff system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_Football_Playoff

184.188.184.216 (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Done -Thanks for the correction suggested. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Global perspective

The article skirts around the obvious fact that the sport is only really popular in the US and Canada. Association football, cricket, rugby, baseball or various non-team sports are all far, far more popular in every other country I know of. I'm a bit skeptical to the claim of 45,000 registered players in Germany (quite unclear where The Local got it's figure from), but even if it's accurate, it's tiny compared to a whole bunch of sports including handball, shooting sports, gymnastics, golf, tennis and riding.[3]

There are no figures for any other country except Japan where it seems to be fairly minor as well. But there is the euphemistic, slightly promotional phrase "Europe is a major target for expansion of the game". Doesn't strike me as particularly neutral.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it does, really. The article relegates mention of international play to two subsections; the first, international play, where it notes that "the game has yet to achieve the international success and popularity of baseball and basketball", describes some notable foreign leagues, and notes that it won't be an Olympic sport (even going so far as to include a quote saying as much). The second section, "popularity and cultural impact", focuses the first 50% on US popularity, briefly mentioning it's support in Canada, Mexico, and Japan (the three major countries where football has some sort of presence). Europe is relegated to a tiny section noting fringe support it Switzerland, Germany (45,000 players isn't much, but it is something), and the UK (where it notes support has fallen, not risen). I'm not sure how it skirts around anything, honestly. As for the phrase "major target for expansion", how is that not neutral? I'd say it's true that football planners are targeting Europe for expansion.

And a lack of figures is a concern, possibly, except American football is not like other sports - players don't normally register like in soccer, making it harder to judge support. Germany seems to be the exception here. Support in Japan and Mexico primarily revolves around it being used in public education, as well as support for either a domestic league or the NFL. If there were better stats, they would be given. Toa Nidhiki05 23:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is not stating the obvious. I'd say that the "major target for expansion"-statement even goes a bit beyond that with a positive "it's growing, you know!"-spin, but leaving out the more relevant fact that it's dwarfed by so many other sports, be they team sports or not. The article provides comparisons for the US and Canada, so leaving it out for the rest of the World doesn't seem balanced. We don't need a country-by-country table, but there should be some general examples.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been following this thread for the last couple of days, and I'm not sure what the point or desired change is. Yes, American football is a peculiarly American phenomenon, where it is far and away the most popular spectator sport and the most financially successful professional sport; yes, it is played primarily in the United States, and a very similar, but different game is played in Canada (i.e., Canadian football); yes, many other sports are more popular in countries other than the United States and Canada. All of that can be summed up in a sentence or two, rather than doing a detailed reprise of how it's not particularly popular in every other major region of the world. Like I said, it's an American sport and a peculiarly American phenomenon -- and that's really most of what needs to be said, apart from perhaps mentioning its moderate popularity in Japan and several European countries where it is more of novelty than anything else. Doing a country-by-country table of participants and fan support is a mostly pointless exercise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I was suggesting: state the obvious. If figures are given, like for Germany, there should be some sort of comparison to other sports. Also, it would be preferable if the stat given by The Local was confirmed somehow. It's quite unclear where it comes from.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, the obvious is stated. Multiple times. There's literally nothing in here that suggests football is very popular outside of North America and Japan. Toa Nidhiki05 12:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is very detailed about the US, providing excellent comparisons and context. For other countries, no comparisons at all are given. Even in Japan, it seems quite small. The number of Japanese high school players is stated as 15,000, but that's still tiny compared to the US. Even if adjusted for population differences, it would correspond to roughly 3-4% of US popularity. But the infobox claims that its presence is "Worldwide (most prominent in North America, Europe, and Japan)". Not outright false, but clearly exaggerated. And we still have the slippery "expansion"-phrase regarding Europe.

So definitely not trying to state the obvious. I wouldn't be pressing this if it wasn't for the GA status and that American football is quite unique. How many other sports are such a big deal in one major country, but seen as an oddity elsewhere? Not oven the national pastime is quite as insular.

Mind you, I'm not criticizing football because it's alien to me as a European. I actually followed the NFL for a few years in my youth (including a watching a couple of early 1990s Super Bowls at ungodly hours). I just think the article should be clearer on some things.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

It probably should say "primarily North America". Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding some things. First off, the template says "Worldwide" because that is what the template calls for. The description on the inbox page for that part clearly says:

Geographic area(s) the sport is present. Use the largest geographic area(s) that apply. If, for example, If the sport has presence in every province in Canada, list Canada, do not list each province. Values can be narrow (e.g. a city), sub-national ("Western and northern China", "Texas and Louisiana"), multi-national in several ways ("Latvia and Estonia", "pan-European", "Latin America, Spain and the Philippines", etc.), and "Worldwide" is used for global sports

The sport has registered federations and clubs in each continent of the world, hence the descriptor "Worldwide". The specific countries are given to note precisely where it is 'most popular', in order to avoid the false idea it is popular everywhere. And I still don't see issue with the "expansion" phrase given it is actually true.

As for statistics, the only real stat comparison given is that there are more high school football players than high school basketball players in North America. If there are comparable statistics for registered Japan high school players, and they are given in a single document, I see no reason not to add it. I just don't know where such would exist, partly because I cannot read Japanese. Toa Nidhiki05 00:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2015

Nathanrhodas (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC) please let me edit I would like to add newer info ??

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 09:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2015

In Infobox

venue = [[#Field|Football field]] (also known as the field or the gridiron)

Links to a nonexistent section "Field" instead of section "Field_and_equipment":

venue = [[#Field_and_equipment|Football field]] (also known as the field or the gridiron)

96.46.206.123 (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Amortias (T)(C) 20:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Issue with pre-snap player positions diagram

As an article that may likely be a candidate for WP:Featured article in the future, I think the pre-snap diagrams section is not needed or really that useful. Aside from the fact that it looks low-quality, it also really doesn't add much of value, and it probably violates formatting rules as well. Toa Nidhiki05 02:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

American Football is non existent outside the US

so why is it described as a Worldwide sport? it isn't. heck, it's not even international. There's only ONE pro league. The NFL. I vote to change region to USA only KHLrookie (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Our articles American football in Israel, American football in Australia, American football in Brazil, etc. show that it is known and played throughout the world. True, there is no other professional league, but that is not what "worldwide sport" means. --Khajidha (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

There are way more pro leagues besides NFL. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess that would depend upon how you define "pro league". Can you give me an example of another league where the players make enough money to live on without another job?--Khajidha (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

American Football

The very first modern football games were played in Cambridge, Massachusetts on May 13 and 14, 1874,</ref> between McGill University of Montreal Canada and a squad from Harvard. This “foot-ball” diversion, as Harvard’s Magenta newspaper called it, was still in its infancy, and the rules evolved even as the match progressed. In fact, the Harvard squad so enjoyed the Canadian innovations (running with the ball, downs and tackling) that they introduced them into a match with Yale the following year—and thus, college football took root in America. Although the Redmen and the Crimson no longer butt helmets on the gridiron, the McGill/Harvard rivalry lives on in an annual rugby match for the Peter Covo Memorial Cup, founded in 1974 in honour of the legendary McGill rugby coach and professor. Harvard may have won that first football game (3-0) back in 1874, but McGill leads the Covo series, having won 17 of 30 games.

https://www.mcgill.ca/about/history/features/birth-3-sports — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.9.110 (talk) 05:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Extra Point

In section scoring more information needs to be added about the extra point being moved to 15 yard line for the NFL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spankybones (talk • contribs) 06:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we do need one sentence at the end of the paragraph about PATs, that the NFL moved kick tries back to the 15 to increase the difficulty. We probably also need to cite an article about the rule change. —C.Fred (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2015

please add the nfl standings for 2015 65.175.243.206 (talk) 09:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done - we don't even include those on the National Football League page, you need to see 2015 NFL season - Arjayay (talk) 09:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

American football is NOT a worldwide sport

to suggest it otherwise is ignorant or just wishful thinking. one way establishing if a sport has a world wide reach is the viewership that warrants professional leagues. there is no professional American football league outside north America. and a few token amateur leagues scattered throughout a small number of countries doesn't justify it as a world wide sport. Nezi1111 (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Exactly what part of "According to the template, this section is suppose to list ALL geographic areas the sport is present in the broadest possible terms" do you not understand? This has nothing to do with professional leagues only, nor is it a claim of being a "worldwide sport". It's merely a statement of presence in any form, as is cited in the article. Please stop edit warring until you have a consensus to make changes. - BilCat (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

it's misleading. also, if you look at other sports pages, like Ice hockey, there isn't a problem of not including that, especially since most people now hockey is mostly played on the northern hemisphere. albeit in more counties than american football is played. yet you want to force american football, incorrectly, into the world wide category with no chance of it being questioned or specified. i don't get. it why is it so important to you that there's no room for change? Nezi1111 (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It's fine if you think it's misleading, the problem is in your making changes without bothering to seek a new consensus on the matter first, as you've been asked to do several times. What you're changing it to is even more misleading, as it contradicts what is in the article already. This is how Wikipedia works, and if you don't learn that soon, your time on Wikipedia will soon end. - BilCat (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Most prominent in north america, with some amateur leagues in europe and japan. Ok. how is this misleading? Nezi1111 (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Because that's not what the article itself states. "American football federations are also present in Asia, Oceania, and Pan America, and a total of 64 national football federations exist as of July 2012." That's a far cry from "...with some amateur leagues in europe and japan". - BilCat (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

most of them hardly worth mentioning. they don't have professional leagues or farms systems. Nezi1111 (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not restricted to professional leagues, as the article is about the sport as played at all levels. - BilCat (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• There are no American football professional "farm systems" in the United States or Canada, either. Unlike baseball and hockey in North America, that's not how the sport is organized. Like professional basketball, the major professional leagues (NFL and CFL) rely on college sports for the source of rising young football players. American football and Canadian football are widely played at the high school level, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Is there a reason the original semi-protections should not be reinstated instead of making this page a free for all? ParkH.Davis (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

Sourced content should not be removed. If you disagree with any of this page's content, please discuss it here first before removing any content. ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Most of my changes had nothing to do with the "American football" vs "football" debate. Please stop removing the sourced content which I have added. ParkH.Davis (talk) 03:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

A lot of them were unnecessary or incorrect, as another editor has also noted. You also added new information without citing new or existing sources. - BilCat (talk) 03:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Which one of my changes were either "unnecessary or incorrect"? All of my changes are sourced and verified. ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Simply adding new information and claiming it is sourced and verified is not sufficient. You have to actually cite those sources so that others can verify them. - BilCat (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you please give me examples of the content which you object to before it is decided on whether to remove it or not? ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Why? If you were really interested in knowing that, you would wait to find out before readding it. - BilCat (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Why can't you just give me examples? Which content do you object to so we can discuss whether to remove or not? ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I object to all of it. - BilCat (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

What about my changes do you object to? Which of my changes do you believe to be "unnecessary or incorrect"? You can't just want to change something without a reason for your advocacy. ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not advocating for anything except the status quo before you began editing here. - BilCat (talk) 04:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

What specifically about about my changes do you object to? My changes are minor, and I thought, uncontroversial. This article needed slight changes and clarifications which I added. ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I object to all of them.- BilCat (talk) 04:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

You are responding to tone instead of adressing any substance to your argument. Please give examples of the content which you object to so we can discuss whether or not it should be removed. You should focus on content. ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

While you're reading guidelines, try WP:BRD. WP has a way of doing things, and if you want your time on WP to be long and productive, you need to start by trying to work with other editors rather than against them. Once your edits were reverted, it was up to you to build a consensus to support your changes, not the other way around. Two editors have reverted your changes on several occasions, and whether you understand why they reverted or not, it was up to you not to continually revert back to your preferred version. This was especially true in the matter discussed above, where you were told what the previous consensus is and have refused to abide by it and try to change it through discussion first. I realize that this may seem like a process argument, but it's more than that. Following guidelines and the suggestions of more existing editors whether or not you think you're right, shows your good faith, and willingness to learn and work with others. So, until you stop edit warring and/or revert your own edits, I'm not going to waste my time giving you specifics here. - BilCat (talk) 05:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

For example, one of my changes was to add a space in bewteen the words "place" and "kick" and between "drop" and "kick". What about this change do you object to? ParkH.Davis (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Why does it need to be changed? I appreciate that you want to make edits, but the fact multiple editors here object should tell you something: your copyedit is making things worse, not better. This is a good article, which has been peer reviewed and determined to meet a strict set of criteria, one of which is proper prose. In fact this could well be a featured article nominee in the future (if I have time), so keeping the prose correct is vital. Another aspect that is strictly looked at is claims. Are the claims actually cited by the source? The ones you are adding are not. The sources here are very narrow (usually the relevant pages in rulebooks), so adding information in makes it fail that test. To give an example: you changed the shape of the ball from 'prolate spheroid' to 'oval' with 'tapered edges'. This is not accurate at all - all rulebooks of the sport define it as a 'prolate spheroid' - and even if it was it is redundant. It's like calling a rectangle a 'square with longer sides'. Toa Nidhiki05 14:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

For example, the change which I referred to had to happen as those seperate words from each other. What about my other edits do you object to? Can please give me specifics? I changed it from "oval" to "prolate spheroid", not the other way around. Please actually examine my changes before making random claims about them. I pointed out that the ball is no longer a perfect "prolate spheroid" as in the 1930s the end of the ball were tapered off to make forward passes easier. This is a well cited fact and is present in the Early history of American football article, if you would like a fuller treatment on the relevant history. ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

If you actually examine my changes you'll see that I changed the sentence "The football itself is an oval ball, similar to the balls used in rugby or Australian rules football" to "An American football itself is a prolate spheroid, similar to the balls used in rugby football or Australian rules football, except with tapered points on each end of the ball which were developed in the 1930s to make forward passes easier", because as you said "all rulebooks of the sport define it as a 'prolate spheroid'". ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Another one of my changes added the text: "the receiving player was onside at the time of the kick. This is rare as players on the kicking team rarely line themselves up behind the kicker as a premium is put on blocking to protect the kick from being blocked by the defense. If it is touched or recovered by the kicking team beyond this line, it becomes dead at the spot where it was touched. The ball may also become dead if the receiving team makes no attempt to recover the ball and the ball comes to a complete stop on the field", both of which are discussed in the relevant cited rules.

No, your inserted claim is not backed up directly in the rule. Why is it important to add that? Toa Nidhiki05 04:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I added the word "national" to "Several professional football leagues have been formed as rival leagues to the NFL", as there have been many regional professional leagues which did not attempt to rival the NFL at any time during their existence. The template concerning 'Professional American football' divides professional leagues into 'Major' and 'defunct regional'.

The fact regional football leagues are not discussed here and that has never been an issue raised on anyone should tell you how important they are. WP:OTHERSTUFF does not matter here. Toa Nidhiki05 04:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is supposed to be comprehensive. If there is a distinction between national leagues and regional leagues, then this distinction must be elucidated. ParkH.Davis (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a beginner-level article. Regional football is not significant and is not significant enough to even rival arena football. Toa Nidhiki05 16:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I changed "Time in a football game is measured by the game clock" to "Time in an American football game is usually measured by the game clock, although lower levels may base the game's duration on a limited number of plays" as some youth level leagues measure the length of a game based on a limited number of plays and not on a game clock.

Once again - not backed up by the source you inserted in front of, not particularly relevant to an introductory-level article. There are so many random rules in youth football that it makes no sense to judge anything by them. Toa Nidhiki05 04:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The youth level is the most common level of American football played. It most certainly is relevant to discuss the rules of youth leagues. ParkH.Davis (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I will repeat the claim is not backed up by a source. Considering youth football has no codified rulebook, and the section is discussing the three major levels (pro, college, HS) which have rulebooks, there isn't a good reason to mention it. Toa Nidhiki05 16:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Youth football most certainly has a codified set of rules. Youth football is most certainly relevant as it is played by more people than all of the other three levels combined. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

While USA Football publishes a youth football rulebook, not every league uses it. Many leagues base their rules off of the high school rules with modifications. I'd want to see an independent set of stats for adoption before I said USA Football's rules were the most commonly used for youth. It's no more useful to discuss youth modifications to the NFHS rules in this article than to discuss the Texas UIL modifications to the NCAA rules. —C.Fred (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The question was whether the youth level had a codified set of rules or not. My source settles this question by presenting the editors of this page with a codified set of youth football rules. Not all youth football leagues use USA Football's rules, but then again, not all youth league commisioners are members of USA Football. Pop Warner also has its own set of rules , which are used by over 250,000 youth particiapnts every year. The notion that youth football is irrelevant, is null, as youth football is the most common level of American football being played and most certainly has a codified set of rules. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

That is pretty much the definition of insane troll logic. Why are USA Football rules important enough to be mentioned when every youth league uses different rules? Toa Nidhiki05 12:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Please do not call me a "troll" as per WP:CIV. USA Football's rules are notable because they are widely used by youth leagues across the USA and is the governing body for amateur American football in the USA. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I did not call you a troll, I said you were using insane troll logic (google it) in your claim that it doesn't matter that youth football has different rules in every league, because we can just use the USA Football rules and claim them as the codified youth football rules. You haven't given any sources that the USA football rules are important, let alone that anyone uses them - and even if you did, you haven't given reason that rules for toddler football deserve the same prominence as ones for the three popular and media-covered levels (HS, college, pro). You are trying to use poor logic and shortcuts to justify your poor-quality edits. Toa Nidhiki05' 15:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I changed "If it is scored by what would normally be a touchdown, it is called the two-point conversion" to "Most levels of football allow for the opportunity for a two-point conversion, which is scored via another touchdown from either the two or three yard line depending on the level of play." to both fix the flow of the sentence's syntax and to point out that not all levels of the game allow for a two-point option.

All three major levels of the game, as well as arena football, use two-point conversions. You are fixing a problem that does not exist. Additionally, calling it 'another touchdown' makes no sense because it is not a touchdown - it is scored the way a touchdown is scored, but it isn't another touchdown. Toa Nidhiki05 04:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

First of all, "Arena football" is separate from "American football". They are two different, albeit similar codes of football. Second, American football played at the youth level is the most common form of the game played. It is relevant to point out that many leagues do not have the option for two-point conversions. A "touchdown" is the act of scoring in the endzone. A two-point conversion is scored via a second touchdown after the intial score. ParkH.Davis (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not separate. Indoor football is, as sources later in the article note, a part of American football - a variant with different rules, but not a totally distinct sport. If we were to discuss all rules that are changed so that toddlers can play football, the rules section would be a mile long. The 'rules' section covers codified rules at the three major levels. Youth football has no codified rules. Your edits only add confusion to this topic. Toa Nidhiki05 16:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

"Arena football" and "American football" are two different codes of football. American football is played indoors all the time, but that doesnt make it arena football. Youth football most certainly does have codified rules and youth football is governed by USA Football. My edits agknowledge the existence of youth football, how is that a bad thing? ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The sources disagree. Or is your opinion more important than USA Today and the New York Times? Toa Nidhiki05 12:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

What do my sources disagree about? My change pointed out that some, keyword: some, youth leagues use a finite set of plays as opposed to a clock to keep the game's time. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

With your claim that arena football and american football are different sports. Have you even read the article? Toa Nidhiki05 15:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I changed "A touchdown is scored when a live ball is advanced into, caught in, or recovered in the end zone of the opposing team." to "A touchdown is scored when a live ball is possessed while in the end zone of the opposing team, or possessing the ball while the ball crosses into the "plane" of the endzone." as it is relevant to note that there are two different manners in which a touchdown can be scored; either by the possessing the ball while it is crossing the "plane" or by possessing the ball in the endzone.

Both are already covered by the previous wording. Your edit actually makes it worse by neglecting that a ball can be recovered in an end zone. Toa Nidhiki05 04:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The previous wording made no mention of the endzone's "plane", nor did it mention that a touchdown amy be scored if a player possesses the ball in the endzone. If a player recovers the ball in the endzone, then they are possessing the ball in the endzone as per my wording. ParkH.Davis (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It didn't need to mention planes because it makes it immensely clear what a 'touchdown' is - yours only adds ambiguity and confusion. "A touchdown is scored when a live ball is advanced into, caught in, or recovered in the end zone of the opposing team" is FAR more clear as to what it is than yours is, which is a recurring problem: your edits make short, easy to understand concepts longer and less comprehensible.. Toa Nidhiki05 16:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't clear to me under the previous wording. This article is for people who have little to no prior knowledge of the topic of this article. It should not be assumed that the reader of this article knows what a touchdown is. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't. And your definition makes it much more complicated than it needs to be. Toa Nidhiki05 12:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

What doesn't? My cah ge makes it clearer for people who have no prior knowledge about American football. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Toa Nidhiki05 15:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I changed "In American football, the winner is the team that has scored the most points at the end of the game. There are multiple ways to score in a football game." to "American football employs a system of point scoring, in which teams receive a certain amount of points for scoring in variety of manners. The winner is the team that has scored the most points at the end of the game." to make the syntax clearer.

There is nobody on the face of the earth under the age of 5 that does not understand the concept of point scoring. Your edit actually makes it worse by taking longer to explain the same point. Toa Nidhiki05 04:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Please tell me what about these edits you object to. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The assumption this article must make is that the reader has zero or very little prior knowledge about the topic of this article. As editors, we cannot assume that the reader has any sort of knowledge about any of the topics discussed in the article. My change increases clarity for those who are unfamilar with the concept of point scoring. ParkH.Davis (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you seriously think people do not understand what points are? Seriously? We don't need to hold people's hands like toddlers when your average toddler could explain to you what a 'point' is. Even Basic English Wikipedia wouldn't need to explain what 'points' are. 16:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Why are you assuming that any reader of this article would be familar with the concept of point scoring? The assumption of this article is that thecreader has little to no prior knowledge about American football. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Find me someone with access to the internet over the age of five that doesn't know what a 'point' is. I'll be waiting. Toa Nidhiki05 12:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Why is this necesary when the 'Note To Editors' which every editor of this page is prompted with prior to editing this article tells the editors to assume that the reader of this article "know[s] little or nothing about the sport". It must be assumed that reader does not know what point scoring is in the context of American football. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to know anything about football at all to understand what points are. Once again, please demonstrate to me any person over the age of five with internet access who has no idea what a 'point' is. Toa Nidhiki05 15:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I will recuse myself from editing this page for the time being, as it has become too contentious for a fair consensus to be reached. I support the locking of this page. ParkH.Davis (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

So you are recusing yourself from editing a page that cannot be edited and approve of it (because it preserves your edits), and won't respond to my concerns? Toa Nidhiki05 01:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

This page was locked because of edit warring, not because of my changes. Please stop attacking me personally. It is obvious that the content of this page is a point of contention and obviously my changes have struck a chord. I am recusing my self for the time being to let things simmer down. Do not assume that because I am slow to respond or do bot respond at all that I am not still actively monitoring thise page. ParkH.Davis (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

When did I personally attack you? Criticizing your actions is not criticizing your person. Toa Nidhiki05 16:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as the article has been unblocked and no other editor's support Park's changes, I suggest we revert back to the pre-edit version. Toa Nidhiki05 03:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose There is no consensus. ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You're right, there is no consensus for your edit to stay. Everyone who has seen it does not like it. Toa Nidhiki05 16:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

As per wikipedia policy, if, in a discussion, 10 editors support one side, and 7 support another, this does not mean the side with 10 automatically wins. ParkH.Davis (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

You are correct. However, this whole discussion has only had one person defending the edit: you. How is that consensus to keep it? Toa Nidhiki05 00:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

No consensus e ists for the version without my edits either. No further changes should be made without a consensus. ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Field size

The article had several instances where the dimensions of the field were given in decimalized yards. The figures 53.3, 53.33, and 53.333 were all given in different locations. The problem is that none of these is actually correct. The true figure is 53 1/3 yards. I changed the 53.3 figure, but was unable to change the others as they are in conversion templates. --Khajidha (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)