What I don't understand is why so many Americans get so up in arms about what things are called. They're called what they're called because thats what the people who invented them called them. Take American football. A game invented in the United States. When speaking about the game, Americans say it is played on a field. You score a touchdown in the end zone. So everyone else says that too. Why? Because thats what the Americans say when talking about the game they invented. Baseball is played on a diamond. The pitcher pitches the ball from the mound, where the batter tries to hit a home run. He runs round the bases. Everyone in England says that too. Why? Because thats what the Americans say when talking about the game they popularized. So why the need to change the terms of a game invented in England to suit the American market? THAT causes divisions amongst English-speaking members of the global football community. Really, the ONLY valid distinction which needs to be made is the soccer/football thing, to avoid confusion between American Football and Association Football. American Football is, and likely always will be, more popular with the US public, so its NEEDS to be made to be properly understood. But the English use the word soccer too, so I don't see what the big deal is there either.
I completely understand what you are saying,and have the utmost respect for the English and the game they invented.That being said we dont use those words when we refer to any of our existing sports. I dont say "Pennington looks like rubbish on the pitch"lol. If I were in England I would use their terms out of respect. Like I said I feel that we dont use those terms in any other sport so why would we use them for soccer? My beef isnt with the English with this,it is with Americans who use them.But in the end we are all fans of the sport and that is all that matters. We all have to work to raise the profile of the sport here in the America.
Southpaw - thanks for your opinion. I don't agree and here's why. It's a game which has been played in this country since the 1600s. It's rules were first formalized in England in 1863. Why should we use terms which are used for other sports. These are more unique to our sport. Gridiron football grew out of rugby football which grew out of football (played with foot). Gridiron decided they didn't want to play a game with their foot but wanted too carry and throw an oblong ball. Over the years they shortened the term gridiron football to football in effect stealing the name from the sport to which it belongs. Screw them - I'm calling "soccer" by it's correct name football and other game by it's correct name - gridiron It's like the term used in this country when the game was played here in previous century. It helps separate it from other sports. Plus, this is a global sport with modern rules originating in England. If you call it a field - it's ok with me but I prefer calling a pitch. I like to call call it a kit for the same reason as above. It helps to communicate with out fellow English speaking fans and players. In German its Fußball Kit, in French it's Kit de football, in Italian it's Kit di calcio, in Spanish it's Kit de fútbol. I refer to football kits as kits, uniforms, shirts, jerseys. Nill was used in the U.S. for a long time. Many American's like to watch the English Premiere League. These games are frequently feeds by English announcers who will be using these terms. In the U.S. it helps set the sport apart from others. I personally like it because it helps make this sport more unique but if you prefer to use the term zero it's ok with me. I often use the term nil but also use zero.
I assuming you're referring to Jets QB Chad Pennington? And of course you wouldn't say "Pennington looks like rubbish on the pitch" - a) because American's don't use the word 'rubbish' in that context, and b) because American football isn't played on a pitch. It's played on a field. And that's because the 'field' is what the inventors of the game deemed the playing surface to be called. Soccer, however *is* played on a pitch, because the 'pitch' is what the inventors of THAT game deemed the playing surface to be called. It doesn't matter whether you're English or an American. We're all speaking the same basic language. An Englishman talking to an American about American Football would, most likely, talk about the field; therefore it stands to reason that an Englishman talking to an American about Association Football would talk about the pitch. See where I'm going with this? Because soccer and baseball and basketball and baseball and American football and hockey and tennis and every other sport in the world are DIFFERENT from each other, and have different terms for the specifics of the game, as specified by the people who invented and/or popularized the game. Take tennis, for example. The word "love", meaning zero, comes from the French word "l'oeuf", meaning "egg". Cos the number 0 looks like an egg. I don't hear American tennis fans wanting to change the scoring system of the game because it doesn't sound like the scoring system for racquetball or squash or badminton. Why not? Because the history of the sport of tennis has always used the word in the English language scoring system and thats what everyone understands. Does the use of that word make it more difficult for the game to be understood in America, or make American tennis fans feel alienated from the rest of the American sporting landscape because they don't say zero or nothing? Of course not. So why should the word "nil" have that effect for soccer? Or take rugby, for example - probably the closest game to American football, in terms of the way it's played. In rugby, you score a try. In American football, you score a touchdown. In American football, you have 'downs', In Rugby League specifically, you have 'tackles'. The English don't try to impose rugby terms on American Football games, because they're totally different games, even though the vast majority of English people are more familiar with, and will likely understand better, the rugby terminology. I just don't see why some Americans can't simply accept that, in the English language, the sport has perfectly good names for things which have been around since the 1890s-1910s, and don't need to be changed! (I agree with your last point about us all working for the greater good of the game though )
I guess this should be pissing game? IMO, this is a pretty stupid discussion. I've been playing this game since I was 6 y/o in NY which was 34 years ago. I've played the game with guys from across the world. If I have picked up a way of saying something, am I to feel guilty and change it to satisfy you and those like you? I always call myself the goalkeeper or keeper, I always have. To me, that's what my position is. Should I call myself a catcher to Americanize it? I may even say 2 - nil on occasion, as I have heard many other people say. So what? Is it ok that I say it with a New York accent? I certainly add my own American phrases when I play, like if a Forward has something to say to me, my New York upbringing may respond with a hasty" ******** you, you PriK" or something to that effect. The way I see it, we can all add a little something to the Beautiful Game. Oh, Oh, is it ok to call it that?
Actually, that's not quite true. The sport is called "football" not because you play it WITH your feet, but because you are ON your feet (as opposed to on horseback). So ALL forms of football - Association, American, Gaelic, Rugby, Australian Rules etc etc - can all be correctly called 'football'. Soccer is just an abbreviation of the word 'Association', coined by upper-class ENGLISH schoolboys in the late 1800s who had a habit of shortening words and adding "-er" on the end, in the same way that Rugby Football became 'rugger'. So, to call our game football is correct. But calling it soccer is correct too.
Pretty sure American football evolved from Rugby. Practically positive Baseball evolved from Cricket.
Right... EVOLVED FROM, not the same as, thereby effectively creating a brand new sport requiring new terminology, directed by the people who evolved/popularized/invented the new sport. Soccer in the US and soccer everywhere else in the world is exactly the same, so the terms when using in the English language should be the same - as directed by the people who originally invented the sport.
I've used the phrase "dump and chase" to describe Route 1 style soccer to parents more familiar with hockey, which is the American term for the sport that Canadians call "hockey".
Maybe we ought to evolve Soccer to American rules Soccer. Throw a couple of uprights on the goalposts and every shot over the top of the goal can count as 3 points. Every goal can count as 7 points. Every corner kick given up can be 2 points to the other team. Then we can have scores like 31-12 or higher. We can also stop the clock after all these points and have commercials. Unlimited subs. Pads. Steroids. You name it! That oughta Americanize it. Yes, I'm kidding. Although, it might be fun to watch as a goof, you never know.
I have no idea what a Rounder are those are big time card sharks no? I saw the movie "Rounders" I said from cricket because they play nine innings and three outs an inning. They use a bat and a ball that sounds like cricket to me.
Since we are talking the meaning of terms and expressions. English expressions "bloody" amd" and "Dogs breakfast" what do they mean? How about this a non english expression what does this mean "selling you a wolf ticket" Another what is a "Zip Gun"?
the common mistake is to assume that the games of today are more or less the same as the ones played 140 years ago. They weren't. All football games evolved from the common elements of football-type games of the period, which were very different to now. The only one which can truly be said to have evolved from another is rugby, which was an offshoot from football when some disagreed with the rules - more to do with tripping and hacking than passing with the hands - and handling the ball was quite legal in soccer early on. other than having a bat and a ball and the idea of innings, the games aren't very similar. Again though, they are probably derivatives of non-codified ball games played at the time. There was a game called baseball (in England) mentioned before any reference to rounders, although this original baseball isn't thought to be that similar to modern baseball.
bloody is just "polite" swearing. Its true meaning is not commonly known. I'm sure a quick wiki search would probably throw up a few suggestions, but unlike other swear words its meaning has ceased to be relevant. A Dog's breakfast (or dinner) is just an implication of something being a shambolic mess, rather like a dog's dinner which is often just scraps from various meals chucked together.
There's no problem with using terms on how you learned the game, but I do see far too often that soccer fans in the US go out of their way to use English terms for the game. Most of the time these it sounds like these people are just using certain words to prove that they are more sophisticated and know the game better than us common folk. I use keeper or goalie interchangeably, I also use pitch or boots on occasion. But I try not to use those terms when talking to those who do not know much about soccer. It's similar to the jargon for anything else. I'm a chemist, but I do not use scientific terms when discussing my work with non-scientists. It would be foolish to do so because they are less likely to understand what I'm saying. IMHO, those who go out of their way to use jargon with others who are unfamiliar with a subject are merely playing a child's game to make themselves appear to be an expert. Of course instead they end up alienating themselves and actually demonstrate how little they know about a subject. Those who can explain a subject well to someone who is unfamiliar with it actually demonstrate how much they know. Basically the main problem lies with those who go out of their way to use English footballing terms instead of just speaking naturally. As stated earlier, the English language is beautiful and diverse. When you limit yourself in attempt to appear superior, you end up demonstrating how little you actually know.
But, we're not talking about soccer terms here. Nobody's arguing that people should call the penalty area anything else, or the goal anything else, or a free kick anything else. As has already been posted, the word "football" does not derive from being played with the foot, it comes from being played ON foot. But, American football isn't any more or less football than soccer or rugby. You are apparently one of those who can't seem to grasp that there is more than one kind of football. Then, you prefer to call it something that isn't unique to soccer, as you seem to think, but unique to British idiom. If you cared to be consistent, you'd also call fields on which cricket and rugby and American football and lacrosse and every other field sport a "pitch." The word is NOT a soccer term, no matter how many time you say it is. Do you also refer to basketball kits and athletics kits (known in the US as "track uniforms") and baseball kits? And, if it was still used in a sporting context here to denote "zero," it would be appropriate to use it here for soccer. But, it simply isn't part of the American sporting idiom, although, perhaps thanks to soccer, I have heard it used in other sports occasionally lately, so maybe this one will have to be removed from the Europoser list soon. But, why should we set the sport apart from all others? There are several decent reasons not to, but I have yet to hear a good reason why soccer should be set apart from all others, in terms of vocabulary.
You can be as sarcastic as you want, and your opinions are yours. More power to you,im not saying that people who use these terms should be banished to the far reaches of the world. Im just saying many use them just to feel superior to others. Another one is a derby,yes for the English that makes sense. I have never,not once in my life referred to Yankee/Met games as a derby. We have our OWN terms for the ENGLISH game,thats all im saying. Its not about making the game more American,the game is what it is. Its about using our language(especially announcers)to help bring the game to Americans.
That's just wrong. "Pitch" isn't a word for a soccer field, it's a British term for ANY field. They use the term to describe what American football is played on, because, to them, it simply means "field." But to us, it does not. Sure. But, when Americans are talking to Americans, why should you use a British term that is not in use in America? When Americans talk to the English about cars, they may also use the British terms "bonnet," "windscreen" and "petrol" and so on out of courtesy, but would they then turn around and use those same terms when talking to other Americans? Do you talk about basketball and baseball and football matches? Because, the English do. And again, nobody is advocating dumping words specific to the individual sports. It's just that "pitch" and "kit" happen not to be unique to soccer. Because "love" IS unique to tennis, but "nil" is NOT unique to soccer. That's why the comparison is wholly invalid. They refer to American football matches on pitches, since those are the established idioms. What about this is so hard to understand?
I use nil when talking to other soccer fans. How many American sports have 1-0, 2-0, 0-0 scorlines on a regular bassis. Nil is a soccer term. Pitch is a word I only write on message boards, I feel like an idiot saying it, but don't look down on others for using the word. I say kit when admiring a uniform, but say jersey when bitching about the price.
Hahaha I honestly didnt mean to seem as if I am in the superior position with this argument. In fact I am reacting to what I feel is a certain "snobbery"<<<is that a real word lol....from people(mostly announcers)using these terms.As others stated, they feel that they are superior b/c they are using Brit terms. Like I said we are all united in the fact that we love the sport, I just feel that in order to push it to our public we have to keep our identity.