Whose football wins and why

[Maurepas]

The football code dominant in the US is indeed a descendant of rugby. But rugby, despite what so many people here seem to insist, is not a descendant of association football.

All modern codes of football are based on a medieval game that was a hybrid between a kicking-oriented code (which is the defining aspect of today's Association Football) and a running/passing-oriented code (which defines modern rugby and American football). Both the kicking-oriented codes and the running/passing-oriented codes are descendants of this medieval game and developed in parallel; the running/passing-oriented (rugby and its descendants) codes are in no way a descendant of the kicking-oriented code that became Association Football. In fact, recognizably modern Rugby Union actually predates the code developed by the Football Association that became Association Football.

So the argument of some association football/soccer fetishists that are claiming they are entitled to pre-eminence in the use of the term "football" based on some supposed historical lineage in which Rugby and its descendants (including the American game) are nothing more than descendants of the Association code are rooted in nothing but ignorance.

Which is all well and good but in reality it doesn't really matter. You see, that's the thing with language. If people want to call soccer football that their right. It's just a name. It doesn't matter. You know, for someone who believe in personal freedom you seem awfully invested in telling people what the can and can not call things..

People can and should call soccer football...what they can't and shouldn't do is tell us we can't call gridiron football too.

[Brewdomia]

The football code dominant in the US is indeed a descendant of rugby. But rugby, despite what so many people here seem to insist, is not a descendant of association football.

All modern codes of football are based on a medieval game that was a hybrid between a kicking-oriented code (which is the defining aspect of today's Association Football) and a running/passing-oriented code (which defines modern rugby and American football). Both the kicking-oriented codes and the running/passing-oriented codes are descendants of this medieval game and developed in parallel; the running/passing-oriented (rugby and its descendants) codes are in no way a descendant of the kicking-oriented code that became Association Football. In fact, recognizably modern Rugby Union actually predates the code developed by the Football Association that became Association Football.

So the argument of some association football/soccer fetishists that are claiming they are entitled to pre-eminence in the use of the term "football" based on some supposed historical lineage in which Rugby and its descendants (including the American game) are nothing more than descendants of the Association code are rooted in nothing but ignorance.

It's a sign of the apocalypse, isn't it? It's Archie Manning's second coming...I agree with Bluth on something,

Pfft. I cant believe you guys still remember Archie Manning when Brees just won you a superbowl.

[Maurepas]

The football code dominant in the US is indeed a descendant of rugby. But rugby, despite what so many people here seem to insist, is not a descendant of association football.

All modern codes of football are based on a medieval game that was a hybrid between a kicking-oriented code (which is the defining aspect of today's Association Football) and a running/passing-oriented code (which defines modern rugby and American football). Both the kicking-oriented codes and the running/passing-oriented codes are descendants of this medieval game and developed in parallel; the running/passing-oriented (rugby and its descendants) codes are in no way a descendant of the kicking-oriented code that became Association Football. In fact, recognizably modern Rugby Union actually predates the code developed by the Football Association that became Association Football.

So the argument of some association football/soccer fetishists that are claiming they are entitled to pre-eminence in the use of the term "football" based on some supposed historical lineage in which Rugby and its descendants (including the American game) are nothing more than descendants of the Association code are rooted in nothing but ignorance.

It's a sign of the apocalypse, isn't it? It's Archie Manning's second coming...I agree with Bluth on something,

Pfft. I cant believe you guys still remember Archie Manning when Brees just won you a superbowl.

Bluth is an Indy fan, so, obviously he's the only one who could pull the two of us together on something,

[Bluth Corporation]

The football code dominant in the US is indeed a descendant of rugby. But rugby, despite what so many people here seem to insist, is not a descendant of association football.

All modern codes of football are based on a medieval game that was a hybrid between a kicking-oriented code (which is the defining aspect of today's Association Football) and a running/passing-oriented code (which defines modern rugby and American football). Both the kicking-oriented codes and the running/passing-oriented codes are descendants of this medieval game and developed in parallel; the running/passing-oriented (rugby and its descendants) codes are in no way a descendant of the kicking-oriented code that became Association Football. In fact, recognizably modern Rugby Union actually predates the code developed by the Football Association that became Association Football.

So the argument of some association football/soccer fetishists that are claiming they are entitled to pre-eminence in the use of the term "football" based on some supposed historical lineage in which Rugby and its descendants (including the American game) are nothing more than descendants of the Association code are rooted in nothing but ignorance.

It's a sign of the apocalypse, isn't it? It's Archie Manning's second coming...I agree with Bluth on something,

Pfft. I cant believe you guys still remember Archie Manning when Brees just won you a superbowl.

Bluth is an Indy fan, so, obviously he's the only one who could pull the two of us together on something,

Well, I also went to Purdue...

[Bluth Corporation]

Brees just won you a superbowl.

The New Orleans Satans are pathological cheaters; therefore, they won nothing.

[Maurepas]

Brees just won you a superbowl.

The New Orleans Satans are pathological cheaters; therefore, they won nothing.

[The Zoogie People]

Nobody wins. Sports are pointless and primal.

And yet make billions every year....

Because the ignorant masses are easily amazed and distracted by competitive stupidity.

THat is completely false, some of the most intelligent men on the planet thoroughly enjoy sports.

Like Stephen Hawking, right?

Geez, the dude has a disability.

I honestly don't know what you're getting at. Being academically motivated and accomplished has nothing to do with not liking sports. Plenty of people enjoy both, including top professors at top universities. Being physically active and enjoying athletics is one of the most basic human needs - it's for EVERYONE. I mean, so is being intelligent. I don't get the either-or mentality at all.

[Fnordgasm 5]

The football code dominant in the US is indeed a descendant of rugby. But rugby, despite what so many people here seem to insist, is not a descendant of association football.

All modern codes of football are based on a medieval game that was a hybrid between a kicking-oriented code (which is the defining aspect of today's Association Football) and a running/passing-oriented code (which defines modern rugby and American football). Both the kicking-oriented codes and the running/passing-oriented codes are descendants of this medieval game and developed in parallel; the running/passing-oriented (rugby and its descendants) codes are in no way a descendant of the kicking-oriented code that became Association Football. In fact, recognizably modern Rugby Union actually predates the code developed by the Football Association that became Association Football.

So the argument of some association football/soccer fetishists that are claiming they are entitled to pre-eminence in the use of the term "football" based on some supposed historical lineage in which Rugby and its descendants (including the American game) are nothing more than descendants of the Association code are rooted in nothing but ignorance.

Which is all well and good but in reality it doesn't really matter. You see, that's the thing with language. If people want to call soccer football that their right. It's just a name. It doesn't matter. You know, for someone who believe in personal freedom you seem awfully invested in telling people what the can and can not call things..

People can and should call soccer football...what they can't and shouldn't do is tell us we can't call gridiron football too.

I might get annoyed when americans say "I could care less", you know, because it's silly and makes no sense, but I wouldn't dream of telling you what to call american football. It's football to you and I couldn't care less. It's a silly thing to argue about..

[Bluth Corporation]

Nobody wins. Sports are pointless and primal.

And yet make billions every year....

Because the ignorant masses are easily amazed and distracted by competitive stupidity.

THat is completely false, some of the most intelligent men on the planet thoroughly enjoy sports.

Like Stephen Hawking, right?

As a matter fact, yes.

He was, after all, the coxswain for Oxford's rowing team.

[Maurepas]

The football code dominant in the US is indeed a descendant of rugby. But rugby, despite what so many people here seem to insist, is not a descendant of association football.

All modern codes of football are based on a medieval game that was a hybrid between a kicking-oriented code (which is the defining aspect of today's Association Football) and a running/passing-oriented code (which defines modern rugby and American football). Both the kicking-oriented codes and the running/passing-oriented codes are descendants of this medieval game and developed in parallel; the running/passing-oriented (rugby and its descendants) codes are in no way a descendant of the kicking-oriented code that became Association Football. In fact, recognizably modern Rugby Union actually predates the code developed by the Football Association that became Association Football.

So the argument of some association football/soccer fetishists that are claiming they are entitled to pre-eminence in the use of the term "football" based on some supposed historical lineage in which Rugby and its descendants (including the American game) are nothing more than descendants of the Association code are rooted in nothing but ignorance.

Which is all well and good but in reality it doesn't really matter. You see, that's the thing with language. If people want to call soccer football that their right. It's just a name. It doesn't matter. You know, for someone who believe in personal freedom you seem awfully invested in telling people what the can and can not call things..

People can and should call soccer football...what they can't and shouldn't do is tell us we can't call gridiron football too.

I might get annoyed when americans say "I could care less", you know, because it's silly and makes no sense, but I wouldn't dream of telling you what to call american football. It's football to you and I couldn't care less. It's a silly thing to argue about..

I agree, but, that's prettymuch what this thread boiled down to,

[Hegstoria]

Nobody wins. Sports are pointless and primal.

And yet make billions every year....

Because the ignorant masses are easily amazed and distracted by competitive stupidity.

THat is completely false, some of the most intelligent men on the planet thoroughly enjoy sports.

Like Stephen Hawking, right?

As Bluth Corporation said, he was. Many many many famous intellects were also on some sports team at their Alma Mater.

[South Norwega]

The football code dominant in the US is indeed a descendant of rugby. But rugby, despite what so many people here seem to insist, is not a descendant of association football.

All modern codes of football are based on a medieval game that was a hybrid between a kicking-oriented code (which is the defining aspect of today's Association Football) and a running/passing-oriented code (which defines modern rugby and American football). Both the kicking-oriented codes and the running/passing-oriented codes are descendants of this medieval game and developed in parallel; the running/passing-oriented (rugby and its descendants) codes are in no way a descendant of the kicking-oriented code that became Association Football. In fact, recognizably modern Rugby Union actually predates the code developed by the Football Association that became Association Football.

So the argument of some association football/soccer fetishists that are claiming they are entitled to pre-eminence in the use of the term "football" based on some supposed historical lineage in which Rugby and its descendants (including the American game) are nothing more than descendants of the Association code are rooted in nothing but ignorance.

I think, soccer and Rugby split up finally in the 1860s or 70s, with each going their separate ways from there. The clubs couldn't come to an agreement, and thus the passing ones left. Which gave rise to Rugby. Association Football took a while to get rid of marking and have a crossbar on the goals.

So essentially medieval football was similar to Australian Rules. I declare victory.

[Western cuba]

I was just thinking why don't you just call foot ball ( american ) hand ball but that's already taken to!

[Sun Aut Ex]

So essentially medieval football was similar to Australian Rules. I declare victory.

I think a more accurate way to put it would be "both medieval and Australian football are similar to a train wreck, except replacing the train with a ball".

[Bluth Corporation]

I was just thinking why don't you just call foot ball ( american ) hand ball but that's already taken to!

Because it's a football game.

[Maurepas]

I was just thinking why don't you just call foot ball ( american ) hand ball but that's already taken to!

Because it would disregard the entire etymology of both names?

[The Utopia of Rapture]

I think you mean handegg.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Because it's a football game.

No it's just a game you can call it whatever with enough people calling it the same thing.

[Dyakovo]

American football is actually a fail game just look at it. Football. You don't even use you foot ever

and the ball is not even a ball it looks more like a deformed egg.

Really? It's not?

noun
1. any round, or spherical, object; sphere; globe
2. a planet or star, esp. the earth
3. a) a round or egg-shaped object used in various games
b) any of several such games, esp. baseball
4. a throw or pitch of a ball
5. a) a solid missile or projectile for a cannon or firearm
b) such projectiles for firearms, collectively
6. a rounded part of the body: the ball of the foot
7. SLANG
a) VULGAR a testicle: usually used in pl.
b) daring or courage

I guess you were wrong again...

[Dyakovo]

football is the wuss' game.

Go rugby

...

Rugby's a code of football.

It may be, but rugby is much better than football. Plus the poster said "American football", and personally I've never seen American's playing rugby. I may be wrong though...

You are

[Il grande italia]

Football or soccer is much better than the other football

[Dyakovo]

Football or soccer is much better than the other football

Explain why it is objectively better.

[Maurepas]

Football or soccer is much better than the other football

Explain why it is objectively better.

It's a sacred,moral, and universal truth?

[Blouman Empire]

football is the wuss' game.

Go rugby

...

Rugby's a code of football.

Umm, yes?

[Blouman Empire]

Bord scottish people+picex of wood+gopher holes=Golf

Fixed that for you