Wikipedia says
Can anybody back this up, cite-wise?
Mostly I want to look cool to my boyfriend who doesn’t know the origin of these words.
Wikipedia is correct - the terms come from Rugby (no idea why Scottish rugby was specifically highlighted, perhaps they held on to the older names for longer - you used to have players like five eighths etc.).
See here: Rugby Football History
Well, if it helps any, the “backs” on a rugby team are named as follows - scrum half, fly half, inside centre and outside centre, left and right (or blindside and openside) wings, and fullback.
The centres are sometimes called three-quarters (really), and the scrum half is called a half-back in some regions. There’s no position called a quarter(-)back, though, at least not in modern parlance… and the fullback doesn’t really correlate very well with an American Football fullback.
Also, as far as I know, Scottish rugby uses more or less exactly the same terminology as English rugby.
I’m Scottish and I like rugby but I’ve never heard of “Scottish Rugby” unless they just mean rugby that happens to be played in Scotland. I’ve also never heard of a quarterback in rugby although I don’t know what the names of the positions were in the early days when rugby was 20 a side. It’s puzzling to me because there’s no one between the forwards and the half backs - “quarterback” implies being in front of the half backs, which would be offside nowadays.
I don’t know if it matters, but I was asking about the American football positions. Do those names coincide with the distances from X point (and what is the X point, exactly), or are they just old-fashioned rugby names that have since become moot with regard to being any distance from anything?
The offensive line, i.e., the players who line up parallel with the scrimmage line and directly across from the defensive line.
I’m sure the term quarterback will have originated in some form of rugby type game at some point in Britain in the 19th century (you also get half backs and full backs in soccer), but I was just getting geeky about how it relates to modern rugby.
There is a logic to the naming; in rugby the higher the fraction (half, five-eighth, three-quarter, full), the further back the player stands on the pitch. My puzzlement is that in rugby, backs aren’t allowed to stand in front of the half back, so there’s no place for a quarterback, unless the quarterbacks were actually forwards. Sorry, I’m boring myself now, never mind everyone else.
The X point would likely be the center who snaps the ball.
In really really old American football, like 19th century, the T formation was the most common since the game was almost entirely about running, not passing.
The T formation has the QB line up under center, with the FB behind him and two HBs, one to the left of the FB and one to his right. Often, the FB would be a step back from the two HBs, as well. These days you see this formation deployed very rarely as a “full house” set - I think I’ve seen the Eagles do it a few times in the past couple of seasons.
So, just to be clear, this old-school formation looks like this:
XX XX C XX XX
QB
HB FB HB
Or, sometimes like this:
XX XX C XX XX
QB
HB HB
FB
The second one makes it kind of clear how the QB is a quarter-back from the center, the HB is halfway back, and the FB is the deepest back.
Incidentally, this is the origin of a couple of other terms you see thrown around. The right halfback was usually responsible for blocking, and was called the “wingback.” Eventually, this position moved up to the right end of the line, becoming the tight end. The left halfback was the main runner, called the “tailback.” The fullback was responsible for power-running and blocking, a tradition that has lasted until today (although some would argue that the FB is going out of style).
How Chad Kroeger fits into this is anybody’s guess.
In America, the term apparently goes all the way back to 1879. See Online Etymology Dictionary.
Try this link if the other isn’t working
If you want to look smarter than your boyfriend when it comes to football ask him what state the follwing teams play their home games in:
Kansas City Chiefs: Missouri (a lot of people say Kansas)
Carolina Panthers: North Carolina (this is a 50/50 and some people say South Carolina)
New York Jets: New Jersey
New York Giants: New Jersey
New England Patriots: Massachusetts (unless your from the northeast a lot of people don’t know what state it’s in)
Washington Redskins: Virginia (a lot of people say Washington)
That’s no coincidence. The rules of American football were set down between 1876-1880, so the standardization of position names dates from the same period.
It appears that there is some support for the idea that the term “quarterback” was used in Scotland to describe a Rugby football position. See, for example, About Sevens Rugby…, which uses some prose explanation that is found parroted at numerous sites, the origin of which I cannot yet track down.
Actually, doesn’t the term “quarterback” predate the straight T formation? Earlier formations (or at least more popular) were the Single Wing formation and its variants. In the Single Wing, the quarterback is the farthest back.
As much as it greaves me to say so, the Redskins play in Maryland. They used to play in Washington, D.C. when they didn’t suck so much.
I don’t think Single-wing formations predated T-formations. Single-wing became popular in the early 20th century, up into the 40s, if I’m not mistaken.
A bit of googling confirms it.
Cite (emphasis mine):
On the other hand, this might be more complicated than I thought. I see a link from my earlier cite that contradicts the cite (see bottom of page). It shows the tail back as the farthest back, with the quarterback just behind the line.
On my team it was strong side and weak side wings.
In present day American football, “halfback” is outdated, and “fullback” is rare. At Purdue University, “fullback” was dusted off for Mike Alstott. Every morning, he pushed his Jeep up a hill, and he was nearly unstoppable on short runs.
Now, you’ll see “running back” and “wide receiver.”
Ah, many thanks. I guess I had always associated “T-formation” with “modern,” and “Single wing” with “old fashioned.” (Although I do thoroughly enjoy watching the rare single wing team).