New name for american futbol

[ThreeName]

So, I suggest we call "American Football" simply "Football" and "Soccer" can be "Nap Time".

You got those backwards; the game that pauses every 5 seconds because extended bursts of activity are apparently too hard for so-called "professional athletes" who also need half a Humvee in body armour to protect their delicate little selves should be "Nap Time".

OT: Aussies tend to call it "Gridiron". Soccer is generally soccer despite it being "officially" changed to football some years ago (it didn't really catch on). "Football" here refers to one of two incredibly manly sports depending on where you're from; AFL, probably one of the most athletic team sports on the planet, or Rugby, one of the most hard-hitting team sports on the planet.

 

[PhiMed]

You could call if "ConcussionBall". Thats how I refer to it whenever the topic of children playing the sport comes up.

Doesn't soccer carry some serious risks, especially as kids are encouraged to head the ball?

I assume that you're being facetious, but I have to run with the "but other sports have risks" angle. Yes, other sports have risks, but in most other sports, you don't have fifteen people at 200+ pounds smashing their entire body masses into each other twice a minute. The severity and occurance of soccer injuries absolutely pale in comparison to that football injuries. Hell, so much so that there's basically four sports I'm not permitting my future children to play until they're old enough to consent: Football, cheerleading (lots of severe injuries), wrestling, and gymnastics (these last two due to the expectation that competitors starve themselves). Hell, youth boxing has a better track record when it comes to injury prevention than football does.

There are more head injuries in baseball than football, both in terms of total numbers and per capita.

Your information on soccer is incorrect. Knee injuries occur twice as often in soccer than in football. As far as concussions? I don't know. No one's funding multimillion dollar research projects to examine soccer, because not enough people play it in the states for it to make front page news.

There are twenty-two people on a football field at a time, not fifteen, and most of the heaviest people "throwing their entire body mass at each other" are close enough to each other, and collide after such a short period of acceleration, that they very, very rarely suffer a concussion. The people who get concussions a lot are the smaller people, because they're moving at full speed. Kinetic Energy being proportionate to mass and the square of velocity and whatnot. But I'm probably wasting my time telling you about football, physics, and logic, because you seem to dislike all those things.

 

[PhiMed]

Oh, for those people who want to compare Football to Rugby and mock the players for wearing protective gear, keep in mind that even with that gear many players get injured pretty badly. Some of them even have long term issues as I stated above. There's a reason for the equipment and rules. And that's to keep players safe, but even then, it only works so well. Especially when players are expected to "walk it off" and get back on the field.

I have a sneaking suspicion that that gear is responsible for many of the brain injuries though. Why? Because people are more reckless and aggressive when wearing it. It's like the difference between gloved and bare knuckle boxing. Someone won't hit you as hard if they have to worry about their own injury as much, and the equipment adds a lot of weight to the impact.

Yeah, you're right. Back in the early 20th century, people didn't get concussions playing football, because they wore these thin leather helmets. Instead of getting a concussion, they just died, instead.

 

[Ratty]

Oh, for those people who want to compare Football to Rugby and mock the players for wearing protective gear, keep in mind that even with that gear many players get injured pretty badly. Some of them even have long term issues as I stated above. There's a reason for the equipment and rules. And that's to keep players safe, but even then, it only works so well. Especially when players are expected to "walk it off" and get back on the field.

I have a sneaking suspicion that that gear is responsible for many of the brain injuries though. Why? Because people are more reckless and aggressive when wearing it. It's like the difference between gloved and bare knuckle boxing. Someone won't hit you as hard if they have to worry about their own injury as much, and the equipment adds a lot of weight to the impact.

Yeah, you're right. Back in the early 20th century, people didn't get concussions playing football, because they wore these thin leather helmets. Instead of getting a concussion, they just died, instead.

There's a difference between no helmets and all the armor football players wear now. Obviously helmets save lives (though not all, we still see deaths from football games every year) but the heavy set of armor players wear now has made their tactics change into ones that are ultimately more dangerous, particularly long term.

 

[Promethax]

Well, in America, Football is called Football and what everyone else calls Football is called soccer.

Since saying "American football" can be a bit of a mouth full in some languages, we could always call it Freedomball.

 

[shootthebandit]

You'd think the world could just do that as well and not have to worry about coming up with alternate names for things.

Calling football soccer in the UK is like punching someone's sainted grandmother in the tit. If you are american you will be excused but for a native its a massive social faux pas. I dont know why this is the case it just is

I think soccer is a better name for the sport to be honest. I mean calling soccer "futbol" is like calling a toaster a "bread burner" or a car a "Place taker"

I also think that considering (according to quite a few resources) the etiology of "soccer" coming from well to do British folk, maybe we can just stop caring about who calls what what.

Its just one of these things. Because football is culturally engrained in the UK any change is seen as a threat. Im personally not as militant as I mentioned in my comment although I would never call it soccer myself, those who do I dont really mind (ill still laugh at them)

It also comes down to the fact that football is ours and up until a few years ago we had slowly started to adopt american culture and football was always ours but now we have given you guys one direction 😨in retaliation for all your dreadful music and weve given you frost and pegg, sherlock and many many more. I think at a time when we were adopting american culture so much it was nice to have football as something we could hold onto (not literally because then it would be american football)

 

[Albino Boo]

All I'm seeing is the seat belts make people take more risk argument. The energy of impact remains the same, in one case a person has padding and in the other its does not. You need to stop and think logically for a second, which is more dangerous being hit by 220 lb weight while wearing padding or being hit by the same weight while not wearing padding.

Your logical summation is based on a false premise, that the way impacts occur and the force and speed of said impacts are the same in football and rugby. I played both games in my youth and can tell you that the way you approach and tackle and the way you block and finish in each sport is different. But I do not expect you to take my word or my anecdotal evidence into account, so here's a research paper done for the NFL Player's Association that covers six years of injury metrics.

http://www.esquire.com/cm/esquire/data/Dangers-of-the-Game-Draft-Esquire.pdf

From the paper: Teams averaged 3.2 injuries per week (games are played once a week). 59% of players suffer some injury each year. Nearly 40% of injuries are severe enough that the player misses at least one game. 10% are severe enough that the player is placed on IR (Injured Reserve, this essentially means the player misses the entire rest of the season). A direct comparison of this information to that in the article about rugby that was linked would not be sensible, but a 20% chance per game of there being an injury is nothing compared to the 6.4 injuries expected per game (3.2 per team) in Gridiron.

Edit - A significant addition of information here regarding England Rugby Premiership injury data, which should be much more comparable to that in the NFLPA study.

http://irbplayerwelfare.com/?documentid=75

The ERP study's metrics are significantly different, so it's hard to make direct comparisons but the one that jumps out is that there were 1.9 injuries per match for the EPR compared to 3.2 for the NFL. So about a 40% increase in injuries per match/game in the NFL over the ERP.

KE= 1/2 mv^2 does not change is law of physics. All this nonsense about I can prepare its utterly false. The only way to change the energy of the collision is to lessen the forward velocity, so unless you turning round and running away from the impact it wont make a difference.

 

[Mr_Spanky]

?
What are you talking about?
The sport with the tackling and touchdowns is called "Football".
The sport with the kicking and lack of arm-use is called "Communist Kickball".

Annnd we have a winner!

I don't really get why this has to be such a contentious issue.

Particularly once people realise that the reason American football is called "football" is because the ball (originally at least) was 12 inches - or 1 foot - long in imperial units.

Thus anyone complaining about it being a silly name because it's a game mostly NOT played with the human foot is barking up the wrong tree.

Let everyone call it what they want tbh - it's pretty easy to know which game is being talked about from the context and the people you're talking to.

Although "Hand-egg"and "Communist Kickball" I think are my favorites so far

 

[laggyteabag]

Everybody that I know, myself included, just refers to it as American Football, but sometimes when I want to take the piss/ make a point about the name, I call it Handegg.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

?
What are you talking about?
The sport with the tackling and touchdowns is called "Football".
The sport with the kicking and lack of arm-use is called "Communist Kickball".

Annnd we have a winner!

I don't really get why this has to be such a contentious issue.

Particularly once people realise that the reason American football is called "football" is because the ball (originally at least) was 12 inches - or 1 foot - long in imperial units.

Thus anyone complaining about it being a silly name because it's a game mostly NOT played with the human foot is barking up the wrong tree.

How long is an actual football then? A Basketball? What about volleyball? Oh, it seems they're all around 1 foot. Let's call them all football then, shall we? Also, why don't we call tennis "2-inch-ball" and golf "potato-ball"?

OT: Aussies tend to call it "Gridiron". Soccer is generally soccer despite it being "officially" changed to football some years ago (it didn't really catch on). "Football" here refers to one of two incredibly manly sports depending on where you're from; AFL, probably one of the most athletic team sports on the planet, or Rugby, one of the most hard-hitting team sports on the planet.

Ehh... manly? Every time I watch an AFL game there are all these niggling fights where one player pushes another in the face and the other retaliates, then the whole team joins in. Not really what I'd call manly. A man would uphold his honour and sportsmanship and ignore little niggles that aren't in the spirit of the game. Not that very many football players do that either.

 

[Gorrath]

All I'm seeing is the seat belts make people take more risk argument. The energy of impact remains the same, in one case a person has padding and in the other its does not. You need to stop and think logically for a second, which is more dangerous being hit by 220 lb weight while wearing padding or being hit by the same weight while not wearing padding.

Your logical summation is based on a false premise, that the way impacts occur and the force and speed of said impacts are the same in football and rugby. I played both games in my youth and can tell you that the way you approach and tackle and the way you block and finish in each sport is different. But I do not expect you to take my word or my anecdotal evidence into account, so here's a research paper done for the NFL Player's Association that covers six years of injury metrics.

http://www.esquire.com/cm/esquire/data/Dangers-of-the-Game-Draft-Esquire.pdf

From the paper: Teams averaged 3.2 injuries per week (games are played once a week). 59% of players suffer some injury each year. Nearly 40% of injuries are severe enough that the player misses at least one game. 10% are severe enough that the player is placed on IR (Injured Reserve, this essentially means the player misses the entire rest of the season). A direct comparison of this information to that in the article about rugby that was linked would not be sensible, but a 20% chance per game of there being an injury is nothing compared to the 6.4 injuries expected per game (3.2 per team) in Gridiron.

Edit - A significant addition of information here regarding England Rugby Premiership injury data, which should be much more comparable to that in the NFLPA study.

http://irbplayerwelfare.com/?documentid=75

The ERP study's metrics are significantly different, so it's hard to make direct comparisons but the one that jumps out is that there were 1.9 injuries per match for the EPR compared to 3.2 for the NFL. So about a 40% increase in injuries per match/game in the NFL over the ERP.

KE= 1/2 mv^2 does not change is law of physics. All this nonsense about I can prepare its utterly false. The only way to change the energy of the collision is to lessen the forward velocity, so unless you turning round and running away from the impact it wont make a difference.

The energy in a collision is not the only thing that matters; how that force is delivered plays a huge role in whether said force causes an injury or not. Secondly, you are again assuming that the impacts in both games are the same, that players hit one another with equal force with and without pads. Unless you can demonstrate this is true, you are simply assuming it, and I have no reason to believe it is. You asked for resources and I provided them, so simply trying to distill the whole thing down to a physics equation is silly or disingenuous.

 

[Mr_Spanky]

?
What are you talking about?
The sport with the tackling and touchdowns is called "Football".
The sport with the kicking and lack of arm-use is called "Communist Kickball".

Annnd we have a winner!

I don't really get why this has to be such a contentious issue.

Particularly once people realise that the reason American football is called "football" is because the ball (originally at least) was 12 inches - or 1 foot - long in imperial units.

Thus anyone complaining about it being a silly name because it's a game mostly NOT played with the human foot is barking up the wrong tree.

How long is an actual football then? A Basketball? What about volleyball? Oh, it seems they're all around 1 foot. Let's call them all football then, shall we? Also, why don't we call tennis "2-inch-ball" and golf "potato-ball"?.

This statement is totally irrelevant isn't it?. I'm not talking about what things *could* have been called. I'm talking about what they *are* called. So what's you're point of your post? That people should have said a long long time ago that this was an inappropriate name for the sport? Maybe you're right. It's still irrelevant because we live now not then..

In answer to your question though - I have no idea. I don't know what the modern standards are. I'm merely stating that's the origin of the term. If you have something factual to tell me please do - I'm perfectly willing to accept new information. But telling me that basketball/volleyball etc should be named differently because of what I just said is only confusing to me.

If you have something to the contrary of what I've said then please present it. Otherwise though I'm not really sure of what the point is that you want to get across?

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

?
What are you talking about?
The sport with the tackling and touchdowns is called "Football".
The sport with the kicking and lack of arm-use is called "Communist Kickball".

Annnd we have a winner!

I don't really get why this has to be such a contentious issue.

Particularly once people realise that the reason American football is called "football" is because the ball (originally at least) was 12 inches - or 1 foot - long in imperial units.

Thus anyone complaining about it being a silly name because it's a game mostly NOT played with the human foot is barking up the wrong tree.

How long is an actual football then? A Basketball? What about volleyball? Oh, it seems they're all around 1 foot. Let's call them all football then, shall we? Also, why don't we call tennis "2-inch-ball" and golf "potato-ball"?.

This statement is totally irrelevant isn't it?. I'm not talking about what things *could* have been called. I'm talking about what they *are* called. So what's you're point of your post? That people should have said a long long time ago that this was an inappropriate name for the sport? Maybe you're right. It's still irrelevant because we live now not then..

In answer to your question though - I have no idea. I don't know what the modern standards are. I'm merely stating that's the origin of the term. If you have something factual to tell me please do - I'm perfectly willing to accept new information. But telling me that basketball/volleyball etc should be named differently because of what I just said is only confusing to me.

If you have something to the contrary of what I've said then please present it. Otherwise though I'm not really sure of what the point is that you want to get across?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your response (the one I replied to) was to people who WERE arguing why American Football shouldn't be called football. So now you have me wondering what the point of YOUR post was - why point out the origins of the word? That's not an argument against people who are suggesting the game's name should be changed. Just because a word's origin make sense (not that I'm conceding that it does - no other sport is named after the dimensions of the ball...) does not justify the word - even moreso when the word we're talking about is 150(?) years old.

 

[Riff Moonraker]

Isn't there already "Grid Iron" as a name for American Football?

Or better yet, how about something more accurate?

Sir, you have just posted up a picture of my favorite football player of all time, and the greatest running back in the history of the NFL. Emmitt Smith. He was a warrior, let me tell you.

 

[Riff Moonraker]

Thanks for the help guys, but a lot of you missed some points: 'soccer' may be correct for real football in the us/NA areas, but we're a groupd of people about 50 strong that met on various games and we often talk in parties of 3-15 online(vocie comms) and we try to comprimise, because we're all from different places.

So they won't use 'soccer' and I don't use 'handegg'. They've also went off 'american football'. So I was looking for a shorter substitue that made sense.

People also missed the fact I brought up the origins of the word 'soccer' but it's use is heavly exaggerated(I recall asking my great grandfather and he said it was only used by a smalls ection int he north of england).

I noticed 1 response in particular from spartan: "So, it's insulting call futbol soccer, even though it is a propper name for it, but it's not insulting to invent an entirely new name for football with no greater purpose than to make it more convenient for you? Do you realize how self-centered and even xenophobic that is?"

It's a proper name in your area, yes. However we are not all in your area and it is very incorrect in other areas(to the point of being insulting). It's called a comprimise and is what mature people come up with. We'll all call our own things however we like around others from that area, but when together we try to be kind ro all of us. I'll ignore your insults, because you didn't understand.

I'm surprised they never brought up gridiron, I might use that.

Anyway thanks for the help. Disappointed at some of the anger in here though.

Actually, truth be told, Gridiron is more of a reference to the field itself, more than the actual sport. Its an NFL slang, along with alot of other words you will generally only see tossed around during a game.

For example, you will hear things such as:

Grid Iron
Hail Mary
Spiking the football
checking your opponent
razzle dazzle
field general
pigskin

and I could go on, and on... if you want explanations for those, I would be glad to fill you in on what they mean.

 

[shootthebandit]

I think yankball, redneck rugby, freedom ball, eagle ball, george washington ball, martin luther king ball (seriously everything in america is named after him. He was a great guy so I cant blame you), coke ball, pepsi ball, ford ball, GMC ball or McBall should all be considered

If football is communist kickball then american football should be fascist football