Talk:American football

fotbaal likes pizza bobgaMES NIPAL cfdsfdfdffg;gffg;'L'

gfpT?TCFGgggggge4km8d #REDIRECT [[lm#REDIRECT [[d#REDIRECT [[dwadsds]]]]]]

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)

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)