Now cut me some slack this morning, as they say. I am but a mere female, and I understand not that of which I speak…
I always understood the origins of football to lie in the mystic veneration with which a person’s head was held – it was somehow believed to contain the soul. Thus we gained the tradition of impaling that important part of the body on the pales of yon ancient fortress. When you ran out of pales, the surplus heads of your enemies were given to the young men to kick around to further signify the contempt in which you held your enemies. ‘Head kicking’ being abandoned at some point (although still alive and well in parts of Glasgow and Liverpool, where the local police culture dictates that they must at minimum be still attached to the body) a pig’s bladder was substituted.
From which I deduce that taking the ‘head’, pig’s bladder, or modern ‘FIFA approved’ hand stitched ball, away from the enemy still contains elements of tribal warfare. The key to success still appears to be proving your superiority over the enemy. By proving your superiority, you effortlessly prove his inferiority. Was that not the reason the Fabian’s tried so hard to remove all competitive sports from schools? That they were essentially the art of humiliating the ‘other’?
What could each team’s supporters do to assist their gilded youth? No more than try to help distract/humiliate/demoralise the other team. I assume that even in medieval times the crowd would chant such helpful memes as ‘may all your cow’s be barren, you sheep shagging farriers’. Later, as the industrial age took hold, the cry would go up ‘you useless candle wick trimmers’, or ‘gerrit’orf’im you big girl’s smock’. Since everybody knew each other/was related to each other/shared the same moon-faced features, these references to occupation or known wimpish unwillingness to tackle that big bloke from the iron foundry, such reference to physical or psychological traits was essential so that the crowd knew who was being insulted. All part of the fun – and purpose – of the game.
Once the population begun to move around the country, and strangers from foreign lands impregnated local girls, more distinguishing features entered the picture, fortuitously as it happens, for by that time the ‘players’ were no longer usefully employed as candlewick trimmers or farriers, so only their physical characteristics or known wimpish unwillingness to tackle that big bloke from Real Madrid could be used to single them out. Thus the bloke with the big nose became ‘Shylock’, the one with the impossible surname to pronounce became ‘that sheep shagging Mother fu**er from the valleys’ and the poor blighter who had to shadow the big bloke from Real Madrid became ‘you big girl’s blouse’, smocks being a long forgotten item of apparel by this time.
Nobody ever suggested that referees should be placed amongst the crowds to ensure that all candlewick trimmers were not labelled as ‘useless’ nor that all farriers were being insulted by the suggestion that they were overly given to a sexual infatuation with mutton dressed as anything.
Now I see that ‘You big girl’s blouse’ could be taken as an indication of derogatory comments towards a player who displays visible wimpishness, Like rolling on the ground clutching his leg because another player passed within six inches of him; since it is a derogatory comment, and identifies what might be seen as feminine characteristics now that women have taken to rolling on the ground clutching their lawyers phone number if another male passes within six inches of them, then it is obviously homophobic. This is akin to racism and ‘must be stamped out’ – by positioning additional referees in the crowd to ensure that players are not identified by anything which might offend them?
I’m baffled. A game that started with stamping on your opponents head ends with stamping on identifying your opponent verbally?
What is the point of football now? Can anyone explain?
Since you have your homework set for the day explaining the point of football, can I set an additional question for an extra ten points?
I speak as a dog owner. Well, it looks like a dog, but it talks rather than barks (for evidence, speak to any of my visitors, it does bloody talk!) and it is intelligent enough to have figured out that if you throw your head back when you have a ball in your mouth and you are facing a steep bank, and then let go, the ball will hit the bank and bounce back at you. You can then catch it again to multiple admiration – both for catching it, and for figuring out how to throw it without pestering the humans to get out of their deck chair and play ‘games’ with you. Apart from that it is bloody useless; I should know, I’ve been pouring dog food in one end and clearing the result from the other end off the lawn for years now.
Now I understand that the dog ownership game originated from something called a ‘guard-dog’ which was designed to bite anything that it didn’t recognise as having permission to access its can opener whilst the normal can opener operator was asleep. Some people, not I unfortunately, are lucky enough to own a direct genetic descendant of one of these guard-dogs.
They still play by the original rules. “I go to sleep, you bite anything that comes in the house”. Apparently the rules have been changed today. The dog has to be tied up to prevent it biting anything that goes bump in the night.
So for an additional ten points – what is the point of a dog that’s not allowed to bite burglars?