text:
Indian Motorcycle

Indian Motorcycle (or Indian) is an American brand of motorcycles owned and produced by American automotive manufacturer Polaris Inc.

Originally produced from 1901 to 1953 in Springfield, Massachusetts, United States, Hendee Manufacturing Company initially produced the motorcycles, but the name was changed to the Indian Motocycle Company in 1923. In 2011, Polaris Industries purchased the Indian motorcycle marque, moved operations from North Carolina merging them into their existing facilities in Minnesota and Iowa. Since August 2013, Polaris has designed, engineered, and manufactured many lines of motorcycles under the Indian Motorcycle brand reflecting Indian's traditional styling.

The Indian Motorcycle factory team took the first three places in the 1911 Isle of Man Tourist Trophy. During the 1910s, Indian Motorcycle became the largest manufacturer of motorcycles in the world. Indian Motocycle’s most popular models were the Scout, made from 1920 to 1946, and the Chief, made from 1922 until 1953, when the Indian Motorcycle made Manufacturing Company was declared bankrupt. Various organizations tried to perpetuate the Indian Motorcycle brand name in subsequent years, with limited success.

Early years – Hendee and Hedstrom

The "Indian Motocycle Co." was founded as the Hendee Manufacturing Company by George M. Hendee in 1897 to manufacture bicycles. These were initially badged as "Silver King" and "Silver Queen" brands but the name "American Indian", quickly shortened to just "Indian", was adopted by Hendee from 1898 onwards because it gave better product recognition in export markets. Oscar Hedstrom joined in 1900. Both Hendee and Hedstrom were former bicycle racers and manufacturers, and after building three prototypes in Middletown, Connecticut, they teamed up to produce a motorcycle with a 1.75 bhp, single-cylinder engine in Hendee's home town of Springfield. The motorcycle was successful and sales increased dramatically during the next decade.

The first Indian prototype was then built and completed on May 25, 1901, by Hedström at the old Worcester Cycle Manufacturing Company in Middletown, Connecticut, and the first public demonstration was held on Cross Street in Springfield, Massachusetts at 12:00 noon on Saturday, June 1, 1901.

In 1901, a prototype and two production units of the diamond-framed Indian Single were successfully designed, built and tested. The first Indian motorcycles, having chain drives and streamlined styling, were sold to the public in 1902. In 1903, Indian's co-founder and chief engineer Oscar Hedstrom set the world motorcycle speed record of 56 mph. In 1904 the company introduced the deep red color that would become Indian's trademark. Annual production of Indian motorcycles then exceeded 500, rising to a peak of 32,000 in 1913. The engines of the Indian Single were built by the Aurora Firm in Illinois under license from the Hendee Mfg. Co. until 1906.

Aurora produced engines under license for Indian from about 1901 to 1907. Aurora was also allowed to sell Indian design engines to third parties and pay Indian a fee. After 1907, Aurora could make its own complete motorcycles, which it did as Thor, and Indian began manufacturing its own engines.

Competitive successes
In 1905, Indian built its first V-twin factory racer and in following years made a strong showing in racing and record-breaking. In 1907, the company introduced the first street version V-twin and a roadster styled after the factory racer. The roadster can be distinguished from the racers by the presence of twist grip linkages. One of the firm's most famous riders was Erwin "Cannonball" Baker, who set many long-distance records. In 1914, he rode an Indian across America, from San Diego to New York, in a record 11 days, 12 hours and ten minutes. Baker's mount in subsequent years was the Powerplus, a side-valve V-twin, which was introduced in 1916. Its 61ci (1000 cc), 42 degree V-twin engine was more powerful and quieter than previous designs, giving a top speed of 60 mph (96 km/h). The Powerplus was highly successful, both as a roadster and as the basis for racing bikes. It remained in production with few changes until 1924.

Competition success played a big part in Indian's rapid growth and spurred technical innovation as well. One of the American firm's best early results came in the Isle of Man TT in 1911, when Indian riders Oliver Cyril Godfrey, Franklin and Moorehouse finished first, second and third. Indian star Jake DeRosier set several speed records, both in America and at Brooklands in Britain, and won an estimated 900 races on dirt and board tracks. He left Indian for Excelsior and died in 1913, aged 33, of injuries sustained in a board track race crash with Charles "Fearless" Balke, who later became Indian's top rider. Work at the Indian factory stopped as DeRosier's funeral procession passed.

Oscar Hedstrom left Indian in 1913 after disagreements with the board of directors regarding dubious practices to inflate the company's stock value. George Hendee resigned in 1916.

Lightweights 1916–1919
Indian introduced the 221 cc single cylinder two-stroke Model K "Featherweight" in 1916. The Model K had an open cradle frame with the engine as a stressed member and a pivoting front fork that had been used earlier on single-cylinder motorcycles but had mostly been replaced on other Indian motorcycles by a leaf-sprung trailing link fork.

The Model K was manufactured for one year and was replaced in 1917 by the Model O. The Model O had a four-stroke flat-twin engine and a new frame, but retained the pivoting fork at the front. The Model O was manufactured until 1919.

World War I
As the US entered World War I, Indian sold most of its Powerplus line in 1917 and 1918 to the United States government, starving its network of dealers. This blow to domestic availability of the motorcycles led to a loss of dealers from which Indian never quite recovered. While the motorcycles were popular in the military, post-war demand was then taken up by other manufacturers to whom many of the previously loyal Indian dealers turned. While Indian shared in the business boom of the 1920s, it had lost its Number One position in the US market to Harley-Davidson.

Inter-war era
The Scout and Chief V-twins, introduced in the early 1920s, became the Springfield firm's most successful models. Designed by Charles Franklin, the middleweight Scout and larger Chief shared a 42-degree V-twin engine layout. Both models gained a reputation for strength and reliability. In 1930, Indian merged with Du Pont Motors. DuPont Motors founder E. Paul DuPont ceased production of duPont automobiles and concentrated the company's resources on Indian. DuPont's paint industry connections resulted in no fewer than 24 color options in 1934. Models of that era had Indian's famous war bonnet logo on the gas tank. Indian's huge Springfield factory was known as the Wigwam, and native American imagery was much used in advertising.

In 1940, Indian sold nearly as many motorcycles as its major rival, Harley-Davidson. During this time, Indian also manufactured other products such as aircraft engines, bicycles, boat motors and air conditioners.

Scout

The Indian Scout was built from 1920 through 1949. It rivaled the Chief as Indian's most important model.

The Scout was introduced for 1920. Designed by Charles B. Franklin, the Scout had its gearbox bolted to the engine and was driven by gears instead of by belt or chain. The engine originally displaced 37 cuin; the Scout 45, with a displacement of 45 cuin, became available in 1927 to compete with the Excelsior Super X. A front brake became standard on the original Scout early in 1928.

In 1928, the Scout and Scout 45 were replaced by the Model 101 Scout. Another Franklin design, the 101 Scout had a longer wheelbase and lower seat height than the original. The 101 Scout was well known for its handling.

The 101 Scout was replaced by the Standard Scout for 1932. The Standard Scout shared its frame with the Chief and the Four; as a result, the Standard Scout was heavier and less nimble than the 101.

A second line of Scouts was introduced for 1933. Based on the frame of the discontinued Indian Prince single-cylinder motorcycle, the Motoplane used the 45 cubic inch engine from the Standard Scout while the Pony Scout had a reduced displacement of 30.5 cuin. In 1934 the Motoplane was replaced by the Sport Scout with a heavier but stiffer frame better able to withstand the power of the 45 cubic inch engine, while the Pony Scout, later renamed the Junior Scout, was continued with the Prince/Motoplane frame. Between the introduction of the Sport Scout in 1934 and the discontinuation of the Standard Scout in 1937 there were three Scout models (Pony/Junior, Standard, and Sport) with three different frames. The Sport Scout and the Junior Scout were continued until civilian production was interrupted in early 1942.

Chief

Introduced in 1922, the Indian Chief had a 1000 cc engine based on the Powerplus engine; a year later the engine was enlarged to 1200 cc. Numerous improvements were made to the Chief over the years, including the provision of a front brake in 1928.

In 1940, all models were fitted with the large skirted fenders that became an Indian trademark, and the Chief gained a new sprung frame that was superior to rival Harley's unsprung rear end. The 1940s Chiefs were handsome and comfortable machines, capable of 85 mph in standard form and over 100 mph when tuned, although their increased weight hampered acceleration.

The 1948 Chief had a 74 cubic inch engine, hand shift and foot clutch. While one handlebar grip controlled the throttle the other was a manual spark advance.

In 1950, the V-twin engine was enlarged to 1300 cc and telescopic forks were adopted. But Indian's financial problems meant that few bikes were built. Production of the Chief ended in 1953.

Four

Indian purchased the Ace Motor Corporation in 1927 and moved production of the 4-cylinder Ace motorcycle to Springfield. It was marketed as the Indian Ace in 1927.

In 1928, the Indian Ace was replaced by the Indian 401, a development of the Ace designed by Arthur O. Lemon, former Chief Engineer at Ace, who was employed by Indian when they bought Ace. The Ace's leading-link forks and central coil spring were replaced by Indian's trailing-link forks and quarter-elliptic leaf spring.

In 1929, the Indian 401 was replaced by the Indian 402 which received a stronger twin-downtube frame based on the 101 Scout frame and a sturdier five-bearing crankshaft than the Ace, which only had a three-bearing crankshaft.

Despite the low demand for luxury motorcycles during the Great Depression, Indian not only continued production of the Four, but continued to develop the motorcycle. One of the less popular versions of the Four was the "upside down" engine on the 1936-37 models. While earlier (and later) Fours had inlet-over-exhaust (IOE) cylinder heads with overhead inlet valves and side exhaust valves, the 1936-1937 Indian Four had a unique EOI cylinder head, with the positions reversed. In theory, this would improve fuel vaporization, and the new engine was more powerful. However, the new system made the cylinder head, and the rider's inseam, very hot. This, along with an exhaust valvetrain that required frequent adjustment, caused sales to drop. The addition of dual carburetors in 1937 did not revive interest. The design was returned to the original configuration in 1938.

Like the Chief, the Four was given large, skirted fenders and plunger rear suspension in 1940. In 1941, the 18-inch wheels of previous models were replaced with 16-inch wheels with balloon tires.

The Indian Four was discontinued in 1942. Recognition of the historical significance of the 1940 four-cylinder model was made with an August 2006 United States Postal Service 39-cent stamp issue, part of a four-panel set entitled American Motorcycles. A 1941 model is part of the Smithsonian Motorcycle Collection on display at the National Museum of American History. Single examples of both the 1931 and 1935 Indian Fours are in the ground vehicle collection of the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome.

World War II

During World War II, Chiefs, Scouts, and Junior Scouts were used in small numbers for various purposes by the United States Army and were also used extensively by British and other Commonwealth military services, under Lend Lease programs. However, none of these Indian models could unseat the Harley-Davidson WLA as the motorcycle mainly used by the US military.

An early war military design by Indian was based on the 750 cc Scout 640 (and was often compared to Harley-Davidson's WLA), but was either too expensive or heavy, or a combination of both. Indian's later offering, the 500 cc 741B was not selected to gain a US Military contract. Indian also made a version based on the 1200 cc Chief, the 344. Approximately 1,000 experimental versions mounting the 750 cc motor sideways and using shaft drive, as on a modern Moto Guzzi, the 841, were also tried.

Indian made a prototype of a lightweight bike, called the M1 light motorcycle for the World War 2 Airborne forces. The lightweight design could be airdropped with the troops. The design never made it past prototype.

841
During World War II, the US Army requested experimental motorcycle designs suitable for desert fighting. In response Indian designed and built the 841. Approximately 1,056 models were built.

The Indian 841 was heavily inspired by the BMW R71 motorcycle (which, though not used by the German Army later was the basis for the Soviet M72, which is the basis for the Ural and Chiang Jiang motorcycle) as was its competitor, the Harley-Davidson XA. However, unlike the XA, the 841 was not a copy of the R71. Although its tubular frame, plunger rear suspension, and shaft drive were similar to the BMW's, the 841 was different from the BMW in several aspects, most noticeably so with its 90-degree longitudinal-crankshaft V-twin engine and girder fork.

The Indian 841 and the Harley-Davidson XA were both tested by the Army, but neither motorcycle was adopted for wider military use. It was determined that the Jeep was more suitable for the roles and missions for which these motorcycles had been intended.

Post-war decline and demise
In 1945, a group headed by Ralph B. Rogers purchased a controlling interest of the company. On November 1, 1945, duPont formally turned the operations of Indian over to Rogers. Under Rogers' control, Indian resumed production with only one model, the Chief, for 1946 and '47. 1947 was also the year the Indian-head fender light, also known as the "war bonnet", was introduced. In 1948, they added two rebadged import models, the Czech built CZ125b, and the Brockhouse Engineering produced Corgi Scooter. The Scooter, a novel 100cc vehicle developed for paratroopers during World War II, was rebadged the Papoose. Indian also produced a limited number (appx. 50) 648 model Scouts for racing.

In 1949, they discontinued the Chief, as they began domestic manufacture of two lightweight motorcycles, the single-cylinder 220 cc 149 Arrow and the twin-cylinder 440 cc 249 Scout. The Scout was offered in various trim levels. The initial shipment of lightweights developed a reputation for unreliability, often associated with a rush to market. Later shipments were reported by publications of the time to have resolved most reliability issues by the following year.

The 1950 lineup brought back the Chief, with telescopic forks. It also saw the introduction of the twin-cylinder 500 cc Warrior model, which received both a standard and high pipe sporting TT trim. On the Corporate side, Rogers would step down as CEO of Indian to take employment at Texas Instruments. Replacing Rogers was hand-picked successor John Brockhouse, President and owner of Brockhouse Engineering. Unfortunately, new management did not bring new fortune, and production of all models wound down in 1952, with most 1953 Chiefs built from remaining parts. All product manufacturing ended in 1953.

Brockhouse Engineering (1953–1960)
As Rogers liquidated Indian in 1953, Brockhouse Engineering acquired the rights to the Indian name. The Indian Sales Corp continued to support the rebranded Papoose Scooter (which would cease production in 1954) and the Brave, a European-styled 250 cc lightweight bike with a four-stroke side valve engine. All other models were abandoned after reducing inventory. The Brave had been designed prior to the acquisition, and produced by an English subsidiary owned by Brockhouse. Indian had imported these outsourced models since 1951, when Brockhouse was then-President of Indian under Rogers Ownership. Outside these two models that directly benefitted Brockhouses umbrella industries, ISC also sold a variety of rebadged imports, including Vincent, AJS, and Matchless from various dates until solidifying their import models line-up to a single manufacturer.

From 1955 through 1960, they imported English Royal Enfield motorcycles, mildly customized them in the United States, and sold them under Indian branding. Almost all Royal Enfield models had a corresponding Indian model in the US. The models were Indian Chief, Trailblazer, Apache (all three were 700 cc twins), Tomahawk (500 cc twin), Woodsman (500 cc single), Westerner (500 cc single), Hounds Arrow (250 cc single), Fire Arrow (250 cc single), Lance (150 cc 2-stroke single) and a 3-wheeled Patrol Car (350 cc single).

Associated Motor Cycles (1960–1963)
In 1960, the Indian name was bought by AMC of the UK. Royal Enfield being their competition, they abruptly stopped all Enfield-based Indian models except the 700 cc Chief. In 1962 AMC, facing financial issues, withdrew from all marketing of the Indian brand name, as the company chose to focus exclusively on their Norton and Matchless brands.

Floyd Clymer (1963–1970)

From the 1960s, entrepreneur Floyd Clymer began using the Indian name. He attached it to imported motorcycles, commissioned to Italian ex-pilot and engineer Leopoldo Tartarini, owner of Italjet Moto, to manufacture Minarelli-engined 50 cc minibikes under the Indian Papoose name. These were successful so Clymer commissioned Tartarini to build full-size Indian motorcycles based on the Italjet Griffon design, fitted with Royal Enfield Interceptor 750 cc parallel-twin engines.

A further development was the Indian Velo 500, a limited-production run using a Velocette single-cylinder engine with various Norton, and Royal Enfield drivetrain components, and Italian Chassis parts. This included a lightweight frame from the Italjet company, Marzocchi front forks with Grimeca front hub having a twin-leading shoe brake, Borrani aluminium rims and quickly-detachable tank and seat, resulting in a weight-saving of 45 lb compared to the traditional Velocette Venom.

The project ended abruptly due to Clymer's death and the failure of Velocette, with 200 machines shipped to US and a further 50 remaining in Italy, which were bought by London Velocette dealer Geoff Dodkin. When roadtesting, UK monthly magazine Motorcycle Sport described it as "British engineering and Italian styling in a package originally intended for the American market", reporting that Dodkin would supply his bikes with either a standard Venom engine specification, or, at higher cost, a Thruxton version.

Alan Newman ownership (1970–1977)
After Clymer's death in 1970 his widow sold the alleged Indian trademark to Los Angeles attorney Alan Newman, who continued to import minicycles made by ItalJet, and later manufactured in a wholly owned assembly plant located in Taipei (Taiwan). Several models with engine displacement between 50 cc and 175 cc were produced, mostly fitted with Italian two-stroke engines made either by Italjet or Franco Morini.

In 1974, Newman planned to revive large-capacity machines as the Indian 900, using a Ducati 860 cc engine and commissioned Leo Tartarini of Italjet to produce a prototype. The project failed, leaving the prototype as the only survivor.

Sales of Newman's Indians were dwindling by 1975. The company was declared bankrupt in January 1977.

American Moped Associates & DMCA (1977–1984)
The Indian Trademark was purchased from bankruptcy court for $10,000 in late 1977 by American Moped Associates, who would employ the Taiwanese manufacturing plant to make a new moped using licensed patents from Honda's discontinued PC50-K1. The result was the Indian AMI-50 Chief. This moped was offered from 1978 until late 1983, as the trademark was purchased by Carmen DeLeone's DMCA (Derbi) group in 1982, who discounted the remaining moped stock, and discontinued manufacture. Derbi-Manco would offer Badge engineered go-carts utilizing the '4-stroke Indian' moniker, before the Indian name disappeared from all motorized vehicles in 1984. The right to the brand name then passed through a succession of owners and became a subject of competing claims in the late 1980s.

Other attempts at reviving the marque (1984–1999)
By 1992, the Clymer claim to the trademark had been transferred to Indian Motocycle Manufacturing Co. Inc. of Berlin, a corporation headed by Philip S. Zanghi.

In June 1994, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Wayne Baughman, president of Indian Motorcycle Manufacturing Incorporated, presented, started, and rode a prototype Indian Century V-Twin Chief. Baughman had made previous statements about building new motorcycles under the Indian brand but this was his first appearance with a working motorcycle.

Neither Zanghi nor Baughman began production of motorcycles. In August 1997, Zanghi was convicted of securities fraud, tax evasion, and money laundering.

In January 1998, Eller Industries was given permission to purchase the Indian copyright from the receivers of the previous owner. Eller Industries hired Roush Industries to design the engine for the motorcycle, and was negotiating with the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians to build a motorcycle factory on their tribal land. Three renderings, one each of a cruiser, a sport cruiser, and a sport bike, on frames specified by suspension designer James Parker, were shown to the motorcycling press in February 1998.

Eller Industries arranged a public unveiling of the cruiser prototype for November 1998, but was prevented from showing the prototype by a restraining order from the receiver, who said that Eller had failed to meet the terms of its obligations. The contract was withdrawn after the company missed its deadline to close the deal and could not agree with the receiver to an extension on the deadline. Other conditions, including payment of administrative costs and presenting a working prototype, were also not met by Eller Industries. Based on this, a Federal bankruptcy court in Denver, Colorado, allowed the sale of the trademark to IMCOA Licensing America Inc. in December 1998.

Indian Motorcycle Company of America (1999–2003)
The Indian Motorcycle Company of America was formed from the merger of nine companies, including manufacturer California Motorcycle Company (CMC) and IMCOA Licensing America Inc., which was awarded the Indian trademark by the Federal District Court of Colorado in 1998. The new company began manufacturing motorcycles in 1999 at the former CMC's facilities in Gilroy, California. The first "Gilroy Indian" model was a new design called the Chief. Scout and Spirit models were also manufactured from 2001. These bikes were initially made with off-the-shelf 88 cubic inch S&S engines, but later used the 100 cuin Powerplus (bottlecap) engine design from 2002 to 2003. The Indian Motorcycle Corporation went into bankruptcy and ceased all production operations in Gilroy on September 19, 2003.

Indian Motorcycle Company (2006-2011)
On July 20, 2006, the newly formed Indian Motorcycle Company, owned largely by Stellican Limited, a London-based private equity firm, announced its new home in Kings Mountain, North Carolina, where it restarted the Indian motorcycle brand, manufacturing Indian Chief motorcycles in limited numbers, with a focus on exclusivity rather than performance. Starting out where the defunct Gilroy IMC operation left off in 2003, the "Kings Mountain" models were continuation models based on the new series of motorcycles developed in 1999. The 2009 Indian Chief incorporated a redesigned 105 cuin Powerplus V-twin powertrain with electronic closed-loop sequential-port fuel injection, and a charging system providing increased capacity for the electronic fuel injection.

Polaris Acquisition (since 2011)
In April 2011, Polaris Industries, the off-road and leisure vehicle maker and parent company of Victory Motorcycles, announced its intention to acquire Indian Motorcycle. Indian's production facilities were moved to Spirit Lake, Iowa, where production began on August 5, 2011. In March 2013, Indian unveiled their new 111 cuin "Thunder Stroke" engine, and began to sell their newly designed motorcycles based on it in August 2013.

Current production
On August 3, 2013, Polaris announced three all-new Indian-branded motorcycles based on the traditional styling of the Indian marque, along with the Thunder Stroke 111 V-twin engine. The motor has a triple-cam design with a chain-driven center cam turning front and rear cams via gears, permitting parallel placement of the pushrods to give a similar appearance to older Indian designs. It is air cooled, with large traditional fins and an airbox in the cast aluminum frame. All Indians using the Thunder Stroke 111 engine share this aluminum frame design, though the wheelbase and front end rake vary depending on model. The integrated transmission is also gear-driven.

Since 2013, Indian has expanded its line up to five models, currently offered in 23 trim levels. Of these, twelve have the Thunderstroke 111 engine. Five offerings use the smaller engine displacement, liquid-cooled Scout engines. The Scout has four trims in its line featuring the 69.14 cuin engine, while the Scout 60 has its eponymous 61 cuin variant. Indian offers 3 distinctions of their FTR 1200, a sportier cycle introduced in 2019. And as of 2020, the Challenger Bagger featuring the all-new Indian PowerPlus liquid-cooled 60-degree V-twin has been introduced, with three variations.

Chief Classic (2014–2018)
The standard Chief Classic has the valanced fenders and the lighted "war bonnet" on the front fender. Cruise control, antilock braking system, keyless starting, and electronic fuel injection are standard on this and all other models. It has a six-speed transmission and manually-adjustable single-shock swingarm.

Chief Vintage (2014–2020)
The Indian Chief Vintage shares the chassis, drivetrain, and styling of the Chief Classic, and adds tan leather quick-release saddlebags, matching tan leather two-up seat, additional chrome trim, quick-release windshield, and a six-speed transmission.

Super Chief (2022– )
Indian introduced the Super Chief in 2022. The Super Chief carries the same Thunderstroke 111 motor as the Chief Bobber, but includes floorboard, windscreen and saddlebags standard. The Super Chief Limited also has an all-chrome Thunderstroke 116 engine, cruiser handlebars, and the bluetooth-capable Ride Command digital gauge system.

Springfield (2016– )
The Springfield was introduced in March 2016 during Daytona Bike Week. It is named after the birthplace of Indian Motorcycles, Springfield, Massachusetts. The Springfield is a bit of a hybrid bike, sharing steering geometry and hardbags with the Chieftain and RoadMaster models but is equipped with a quick detach windshield like the Vintage. It also boasts an adjustable rear air shock like the other touring models.

Chieftain (2014– )
The Indian Chieftain touring motorcycle is the first Indian model with front fairing and hard saddlebags. It has a stereo with speakers in the fairing, Bluetooth media players, tire pressure sensors, air-adjustable rear shock, and motorized windshield adjustment. Initial reports from the press were favorable for styling, performance, and handling. The Chieftain was named 2013 Motorcycle of the Year by RoadRunner Motorcycle Touring & Travel magazine.

Scout (2015– )
The Indian Scout was introduced at the 2014 Sturgis Motorcycle Rally as a 2015 model. The 2015 Scout is a cruiser with a 1133 cc over head cam V-twin engine and a frame formed by multiple aluminum alloy castings bolted to each other and to the engine. The Indian Scout was named 2015 Motorcycle of the year by Motorcycle.com.

Scout Sixty (2016– )
The Indian Scout Sixty was introduced in November 2015 as a 2016 model. The Scout Sixty is a cruiser with a 999 cc V-twin engine. The new Scout Sixty has many of the same features as the 2014 Scout, but with a smaller 999 cc engine.

Roadmaster (2015– )
The Indian Roadmaster was introduced at the 2014 Sturgis Motorcycle Rally shortly before the Scout. The Roadmaster is a Chieftain with an added trunk, front fairing lowers, heated seats, heated grips, LED headlights, passenger floorboards, and a rear crash bar. The Roadmaster had been developed before the Chieftain. Cycle World recorded 72.4 hp @ 4,440 rpm and 102.7 lbft @ 2,480 rpm at the rear tire. They also recorded a tested 1/4 mile time of 13.91 seconds at 94.44 mph and a 0 to 60 mph acceleration at 5.2 seconds, a 60 to 0 mph braking distance of 125 ft, and fuel economy of 35.9 mpgus.

Chief Dark Horse (2016– )
The 2016 Indian Dark Horse was introduced on Valentine's Day 2015. It is based on a Chief Classic painted in flat black, with the driving lights, oil cooler, analog fuel gauge, passenger pillion seat and passenger pegs removed.

Chieftain Dark Horse (2016– )
The 2016 Indian Chieftain Dark Horse was introduced in May 2016. It has a full fairing and hard saddlebags, and carries the same accessories and features of the standard Chieftain. It has a claimed 119.2 lbft @ 3000 rpm and a dry weight of 803 lb.

Chieftain Limited (2017– )
The 2017 Indian Chieftain Limited adds more of a bagger style to the Chieftain. The front fender was opened up to show off 19" custom wheels, and a limited coloring scheme. This model also boasts the full ride command touch screen display that the Roadmaster also uses.  It has the upper fairing with power windscreen and optional passenger seat.

RoadMaster Classic (2017–2018)
The 2017 Indian Roadmaster Classic was introduced in February 2017, and discontinued before the end of 2018. It has the traditional styling tan leather bags and trunk along with heated seats, heated grips, LED headlights, passenger floorboards, and rear crash bars. It does not have the hard front lowers found on the original Roadmaster.

Springfield Dark Horse (2018– )
For 2018 Indian offers the Springfield in Dark Horse flavor. Open front fender with 19" cast front wheel.

Scout Bobber (2018– )
The Scout Bobber is a factory-modified version of the Scout that features style components taken from the "bobber" community of motorcycles, hence the name. These modifications include chopped front and rear mud guards, bar end mirrors, low seat, low handlebars, and a side-mounted license plate holder.

FTR 1200 (2019– )
The FTR is a standard motorcycle that takes its inspiration from the flat track racing heritage of Indian.

Challenger (2020– )
The Challenger is the first fixed fairing bagger crafted by Indian Motorcycle. It embeds the new Indian PowerPlus liquid-cooled 60-degree V-twin engine that produces 122 horsepower and 128 foot-pounds of torque. The front suspension uses an inverted 43mm fork, which provides 5.1 inches of travel and rear suspension is provided by a hydraulically adjustable rear shock.

Challenger Dark Horse (2020– )
The Indian Challenger with the Dark Horse flavor is powered by the PowerPlus liquid-cooled 60-degree V-twin engine that produces 122 horsepower and 128 foot-pounds of torque. The front suspension uses an inverted 43mm fork, which provides 5.1 inches of travel and rear suspension is provided by a hydraulically adjustable rear shock.

Land speed records
Between 1962 and 1967, Burt Munro from New Zealand used a modified 1920s Indian Scout to set a number of land speed records, as dramatised in the 2005 film The World's Fastest Indian. In 2014 Indian had a similar custom streamliner built, the Spirit of Munro, to promote their new 111 cubic-inch engine and challenge speed records.

Bicycles
Both Hendee and Hedstrom had built bicycles before they met, and Hendee had marketed his under the Silver King and Silver Queen names. They continued to manufacture bicycles after their motorcycles became successful and even made bicycles designed to resemble their motorcycles.

title: Indian Motorcycle


text:
USS Alabama

At least seven United States Navy ships have been named Alabama, after the southern state of Alabama.

 * USS Alabama (1819), a 74-gun ship of the line, laid down in 1819, though never completed as such. She was eventually launched in 1864 as the storeship USS New Hampshire.
 * USS Alabama (1838), a sidewheel steamer transferred to the Navy in 1849 that served as a troop transport during the Mexican–American War.
 * USS Alabama (1850), a sidewheel steamer merchant vessel that was commissioned in 1861 during the American Civil War.
 * USS Alabama (BB-8), a pre-dreadnought battleship commissioned in 1900 and scrapped in 1924.
 * USS Alabama (SP-1052), a 69-foot motor boat inspected by the Navy in the summer of 1917 and assigned the designation SP-1052.
 * USS Alabama (BB-60), a South Dakota-class battleship (1939) battleship commissioned in 1942, converted to a museum ship in 1964 and now docked in Mobile, Alabama.
 * USS Alabama (SSBN-731), an Ohio-class submarine currently in service.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: USS Alabama


text:
Talk:Transport Layer Security

Authentication Algorithm fields
Can someone please add Authentication Algorithm section in the Algorithm heading? This's a separate thing which's negotiated during the handshake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DE logics (talk • contribs) 04:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Do others believe this is still relevant? If so, anyone want to provide content? I'm assuming the unsigned request was for a new sub-section under Algorithm. - Dyork (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Mail clients
There should be a table listing email clients and supported ssl/tls versions, similar to the one about browsers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.106.59.183 (talk) 09:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

 * While I agree such a table could be useful, creating the table and keeping it up to date would involve a LARGE amount of effort. A critical question, too, would be how to scope the number of email clients (although perhaps it could be limited initially to Microsoft Outlook, Apple Mail (for Mac and iOS), Thunderbird, Android mail, and whatever others people add). There would need to be substantial interest from other editors to take this on. Anyone interested? - Dyork (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

GA nomination
I think this would make a good nomination for a GA. Does anyone have any strong feelings on this? If not, I'd like to put it forward. FalconK (talk) 07:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Are you still interested in nominating this page for GA? Since you asked this question in 2016, there were not any responses one way or the other. I have not personally been involved with a GA nomination and so don't have an opinion yet. - Dyork (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Dealing with Man in the Middle Attacks
This subsection was always of tenuous value. I note that another editor has now deleted the sub-subsection on DNS Chaining. This leaves two sub-subsections: Certificate Pinning and the Perspectives Project. The former mechanism was deprecated by the Google Chrome team in late 2017 because of its complexity and dangerous side-effects. The text really doesn't tell the reader anything useful about TLS (thought there is a WP article on it that can be linked to under See Also). The latter (Perspectives) hasn't gone anywhere since it was tentatively introduced circa 2014.

I'm hesitant to delete the "Dealing with Man-in-the-Middle Attacks subsection without further feedback, but it may be time to ask: is it time to delete this subsection?  It doesn't really give the reader any useful information about contemporary TLS and its historical value is rather picayune (though the "See also" link to certificate pinning could be important to ensure comprehensive coverage).

Ross Fraser (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I note another editor has edited the "Perspectives Project" write-up into the past tense, as this project no longer exists. As per my comments above, I think it's time to delete the whole "Dealing with Man in the Middle Attacks" subsection and replace it with a link under "See also" to Certificate Pinning (i.e., HTTP Public Key Pinning). Unless anyone objects here, I'll delete the section in another week or two. Ross Fraser (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 * ✅ Noting that Ross Fraser made this change in an edit on 17 March 2019. - Dyork (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Incomprehensible
This article is incomprehensible. I don't see how any nonspecialist can understand it.

If you don't already know what this is, you won't find out here. ---Dagme (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

 * I do agree that this text is very dense. Do you have any suggestions for making it easier to understand? - Dyork (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Article split
The article was and remains far too long. I have split it up a bit but more could be done.Tuntable (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

 * This needs MUCH more discussion by editors of this article before it is summarily cut up into several ancillary articles. Quite apart from the issues of whether the article is too long (itself debatable), there is the issue of which sections should be moved to their own WP pages. For example, I'm not at all convinced that the very essence of TLS -- its security, which has continued to evolve and change in response to threats -- should be moved into an article with the confusing title "Transport Layer Security Security."

 * I think there may be a reasonable case to be made for your split off of adoption. It is mostly a long table and the ongoing adoption of various TLS versions by various browser vendors is distinct from TLS itself. I'd like to hear whether other editors think this is a good candidate for splitting off into its own article.

 * Please discuss proposals here before making more large-scale edits.
 * Ross Fraser (talk) 05:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

 * I raised this before and no response. So there comes a time to act, otherwise nothing gets done.  So will YOU talk put back at least the adoption?  As to the article size, see .  It is way too big.  Tuntable (talk) 01:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I might add that while a general discussion of security is good, a list of every known vulnerability could easily be forked. But I do not really care.  Propose a different split up.  But do it.  Don't just revert other people's contributions. Tuntable (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

 * Well Ross Fraser, I don't see much talk going on. So much easier to revert than to contribute.  But if you are going to be a revert artist then do it properly.  Fix the duplicated adoption page as listed below. Tuntable (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

 * Transport_Layer_Security_Adoption

 * I have fixed duplication with Transport Layer Security Adoption. (I changed it to be a redirect and merged in the only relevant edit to that article into this article.) I'm open to discuss this article split, but only if there is a proper discussion and no premature contested content moves. Anton.bersh (talk) 08:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

JA3 SSL Fingerprint tracking
WTF? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.172.153 (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

 * Given that this is a comment from an unsigned IP, it's hard to find out exactly what they think should be added. I had to do a web search on "JA3" and I see that it seems to refer to this technique: TLS Fingerprinting with JA3 and JA3S. There is also ja3er.com that is "a project about collecting and sharing JA3 hashes." There is also GitHub repo with a sample implementation. As best I understand this after quickly skimming the article, I gather that the fingerprinting would allow an IT team to potentially identify connections from malware applications, even without being able to decrypt the actual TLS connection. It seems to me, though, that this could also have privacy ramifications. Perhaps it might make sense to have a new sub-section about Fingerprinting under Transport_Layer_Security or Transport_Layer_Security. Clearly some sources need to be found that explain this mechanism and the ramifications of it. Anyone else have any ideas around this? - Dyork (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

the word data should include all bits
As this is a network protocol, the word data should include all bits that are physically detectable between the 2 computers. "The server and client negotiate the details of which encryption algorithm and cryptographic keys to use before the first byte of data is transmitted" refers to an action which is 0 bits of "data". 75.130.143.161 (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

 * I am not sure I understand the concern. I gather the person thinks the use of "data" is inappropriate here, but I'm not sure how they would suggest it be changed. Are they perhaps saying that in truth "data" IS being exchanged in the handshake happening between the server and client? But the "data" used in "the first byte of data" is actually the "payload" of the packet after the TLS handshake has been finalized? I'm not clear on what exactly they think needs to be fixed here. I suppose I can see a nuance there, but I also think it reads fine as it is. - Dyork (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Has anyone considered adding the old 'locked' and 'unlocked' padlock images that show on URLs on some browsers to the main content page?
This might be a useful addition. (Undated and unsigned)

Created new Archive 2 page due to length of this page
This Talk page was so long and had so many sections from back in 2012-2015 that it was incredibly difficult to understand what were current issues. Following the WP:ARCHIVE process, Talk:Transport_Layer_Security/Archive_2 is now available and searchable from the header at the top of this page. I moved over most of the Talk content prior to 2019 and retained a few items that seemed to still be open issues. If anyone believes something I archived should still be on this main Talk page, please feel free to move it back. -Dyork (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

update text of deprecated, add date
"now-deprecated predecessor" I need know, when deprecation start. Add year of date or full date this event. In php documentation i not found lot informations. Only, start-tls working from php7. But php7 is actual version! (not old as php3, php4, php5). This is mystify magic, create function for php7, and next day is deprecated? :) https://www.php.net/manual/en/function.ldap-start-tls.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:718:2601:258:4DBC:3838:5A25:F2E0 (talk) 07:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Hi there. If you look at the history timeline and chart, you will see that the last version of the protocol formally known as "Secure Sockets Layer" or "SSL" was SSL 3.0, announced in 1996 and deprecated in 2015. Starting in 1999, the protocol has formally been called "Transport Layer Security" or "TLS".

 * However, it is very common for people and companies to still talk about "SSL", even now in 2020, although formally that protocol is now called "TLS". There are many code functions and libraries that still have "SSL" in the name (ex. OpenSSL). And some web hosting companies still talk about getting you a "SSL certificate". Even though they all talk about "SSL", the protocol that is actually being used underneath it all is now the TLS protocol. - Dyork (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

TLS 1.0 and 1.1 Removal
Most web browsers are now removing support for TLS 1.0 and 1.1 because they are not secure. Should the browser history of TLS support table be changed so supporting TLS 1.0 and 1.1 is red instead of green? Herbfur (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Hmm... that's a good point about the deprecation of TLS 1.0 and 1.1. I'm not sure changing it to red makes sense, though, given that this is really a historical view of the development, and the point of the chart is to have a historical timeline of whether browsers supported different versions of TLS - and when. I do see that newer versions of browsers now have yellow squares with "Disabled by Default" in them. This seems like perhaps the better approach. Over time we will hopefully see that for all the new releases. - Dyork (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocking obsolete TLS, cypher suites, and key exchange mechanisms
Parking lot - no time to incorporate now, but NSA just provided recommendations on blocking obsolete TLS versions, cypher suites, and key exchange mechanisms to improve security. https://media.defense.gov/2021/Jan/05/2002560140/-1/-1/0/ELIMINATING_OBSOLETE_TLS_UOO197443-20.PDF RookWolf (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Remove Opera from table of web browsers?
Someone at an IP address removed Opera from the table in the section on web browsers with this edit summary:

 * remove opera as very minor marketshare, else many other browsers with minor marketshare have to be added.

As that is a rather large change, and there would also be changes needed in the supporting text, I have reverted this change for the moment and am asking here. '''Do editors agree that Opera should be removed from the table of web browsers with support for TLS? (Please comment with 'Keep'/'Remove')''' - Dyork (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

 * Keep - My vote would be to keep Opera listed. While it may be small in market share, I think it is useful to understand the degree of TLS support that it includes. - Dyork (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep – A look at statscounter.com for January 2021 (not very scientific, but fast) shows Opera at 2.62%, above IE (1.95%), but below Edge (7.79%) and Firefox (8.1%). Besides, I dislike hit-and-run deletions (i.e. without discussion). Cheers! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 22:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - My vote would be to keep Opera listed as well. It has a small market share, and is it Wikipedia's place to effectively promote certain browsers?
 * Keep - A case could be made to delete everything except Chrome, Safari, and Edge, but as UncleBubba points out, deleting a particular browser without specific criteria for exclusion doesn't seem helpful. Plain Text (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (Comment) Or, we could set (and document clearly) the criteria a browser must meet to be listed. If it's a marketshare threshold, I think the limit would need to be very low, numerically, because 1/10 of 1% on the Internet is still a really big number. Cheers! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 19:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

 * not contact NirawatPuechpian1123 (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Shorter Intro
I have made an attempt to shorten the introduction by moving some of the expansive details to the "description" section. While the change seems big, the content and detailed information is preserved in the more appropriate section.

Also worth noting: the RFC magic links seem to be cleaned up. So, it may be a good idea to verify and remove it from that hidden category. ILMostro (talk) 05:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

 * What hidden category are you referring to? (I was not aware there could be hidden categories) - Dyork (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant material in History and development
Why are SDNS, an obscure corner of the failed OSI project, and SNP, a proposed secure socket API that's more in line with IPsec than TLS, listed as if they were part of the history of SSL? Neither have anything to do with SSL, or at least more to do with SSL than a dozen other random things that could be thrown in.

On the other hand it completely omits to mention PCT, which was a direct part of the history of TLS, being one of the major motivating factors for both the creation of TLS and its name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 806f0F (talk • contribs) 04:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Article is too large, should be split up
This article prose is over 300kB long, while WP:LENGTH says that articles over 100 kB "almost certainly should be divided". I propose spliting out section "Applications and adoption" into a separate page (and writing short summaries of these sections here).

This treatment would be consistent with other articles on other protocols: Secure Shell Protocol is separate from Comparison of SSH clients and Comparison of SSH servers; Simple Mail Transfer Protocol is separate from List of mail server software and Comparison of mail servers; Hypertext Transfer Protocol and HTTP/2 are separate from Comparison of web server software; File Transfer Protocol is separate from Comparison of FTP client software and Comparison of FTP server software packages... and many more. Virtually all protocol articles on Wikipedia follow this convention.

There is also a problem of "Security" section being duplicated by Security of Transport Layer Security. I believe the best way forward is to reconcile the two versions into one in this article, then fix it, and move it to a permanent location.

Courtesy ping to and.

Anton.bersh (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

 * I agree that this article is too long, particularly with the very lengthy - but very useful - tables with comparison of TLS implementation in different web browsers and applications. I know people who have been referencing the tables here, particularly for the web browsers, but it does make for an extremely long page. Your proposal makes sense to me. - Dyork (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: I agree that the tables are very useful, I do not propose to alter them in any way. I propose only to move them to dedicated pages for ease of use. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Should Windows SChannel / SSPI be added?
Question for editors who work with Microsoft Windows - should something be added to this article about TLS support in "SChannel / SSPI" in addition to IE?

On 17 Oct 2021, an IP editor added a reference to 'SChannel' near the Internet Explorer references. The reference pointed over to Security Support Provider Interface. The editor said in their summary "(Add info about SChannel to highlight that these infos are not related to browsers only)."

I reverted the change because the link was added to areas specifically about web browsers and so didn't make sense to me. I don't use Microsoft Windows nor know much about its recent interfaces.. but would it make sense to add something about SChannel / SSPI to this article? I defer to those editors who know more about Windows. -Dyork (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Nearly all on Windows (MS own products) use SCannel, like IE, IIS, (old)Edge, Office etc
 * So in real data shown in Table reflect the SCannel config not the behavior by IE (excapt some special case in past)
 * Therefore i would keep it. Maybe next Windows 11 will not contain IE anymore, but SChannel still base of many other stuff.
 * 87.123.164.213 (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Sure, but SChannel is not a "web browser". It's an API, correct? The section it is being added into is a table for web browsers. SChannel is already listed in the section on Libraries, which is more appropriate, in my opinion. - Dyork (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

 * I will note that I reverted the reversion of my change as an IP editor was again adding the SChannel text back into the table about web browsers when SChannel is not a web browser and is already listed in the table of libraries. Hopefully between this note here and my long edit summary for the revert, the editor will understand that SChannel is already listed in the article and does not need to be in the web browser table. - Dyork (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

If no API should be inside, whole Android Section would need to be removed too.87.123.175.26 (talk) 10:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the word "SChannel" should be explained. "Support for TLS 1.3 was first added to Schannel with Windows 11 and Windows Server 2022.[44]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.192.193 (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The page is broken
Who made it look like code in a monospace font at the beginning of the page? 207.81.187.41 (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

 * Seems to be OK now. ~Kvng (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Layer of operation
The summary states that TLS runs in the applications layer but this seems to have no citation and doesn't seem accurate based on sources I've chanced upon. Other sources I've read describe that TLS technically operates between the transport and application layers but is generally considered a transport layer protocol. It would surprise me if a protocol called "Transport Layer" Security didn't actually operate in the transport layer. EditorPerson53 (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

 * The problem is even harder with the OSI model. This article claims it belongs in the presentation layer, which is debatable. 80.31.41.157 (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

TLS v1.3 new alert code and major spec change
A new alert code `no_application_protocol` was introduced with code 120 or 255

According to TLS v1.3 RFC and it is always fatal like other TLS 1.3 alerts This article needs to be updated.

"All the alerts listed in Section 6.2 MUST be sent with AlertLevel=fatal and MUST be treated as error alerts when received regardless of the AlertLevel in the message. Unknown Alert types MUST be treated as error alerts. " 4n0nymou2 (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

YouTube.Com
Google.com m.youTube.com and youtube.com di account private sutrisnaagung466@gmail.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:448A:1164:1BED:A4AC:31DC:928F:ACD (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Split the Cipher table into three types instead of two
The current classification does not align with the TLS protocol inself. Section 6.2.3. of RFC 5246 defines three types:

6.2.3.1. Null or Standard Stream Cipher

6.2.3.2. CBC Block Cipher

6.2.3.3. AEAD Ciphers

The classification in the table is very confusing for readers trying to understand TLS and HTTPS. HTTP/2 and TLS 1.3 forbids ciphers of type block cipher and stream cipher. I suggest moving ChaCha20-Poly1305, GCM and CCM to a third type called AEAD. Coffeevortex (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Endianness
In the Protocol Details it describes the bit order for the length as (bits 15-8) (bits 7-0). Is there a precedence in using 'bits' to denote the exponents, rather than establishing that [TCP/IP]/TLS uses big-endian? (The value 02 00 [512] seems like it could be interpreted as 00 20 [32] under the current scheme) ItsSharples (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Remove the OSI model classification, or clarify the problematic in assigning TLS to a layer
In the TCP/IP model shown in the right bar, TLS appears correctly classified as Application layer. However in the second paragraph of the article it says:

It runs in the presentation layer

This claim is dubious. The problem is that this protocol, as many others (eg.: QUIC) don't fit well in the OSI model. TLS performs encryption, which traditionally has been associated with the presentation layer, but it is not a mere translation of a stream of data provided by the previous layer. In particular, TLS also does a handshake and negotiates the maintenance and termination of a secure connection between two points. This can be seen as belonging in the session layer (layer 5).

I recommend entirely avoiding the OSI model classification in this article. 80.31.41.157 (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Transport Layer Security


text: Talk:HTTPS

title: Talk:HTTPS


text:
Offside (association football)

Offside is one of the laws in association football, codified in Law 11 of the Laws of the Game. The law states that a player is in an offside position if any of their body parts, except the hands and arms, are in the opponents' half of the pitch, and closer to the opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent (the last opponent is usually, but not necessarily, the goalkeeper).

Significance
Offside is judged at the moment the ball is last touched by the most recent teammate to touch the ball. Being in an offside position is not an offence in itself. A player who was in an offside position at the moment the ball was last touched or played by a teammate must then become involved in active play, in the opinion of the referee, in order for an offence to occur. When the offside offence occurs, the referee stops play, and awards an indirect free kick to the defending team from the place where the offending player became involved in active play.

The offside offence is neither a foul nor misconduct as it does not belong to Law 12. Like fouls, however, any play (such as the scoring of a goal) that occurs after an offence has taken place, but before the referee is able to stop the play, is nullified. The only time an offence related to offside is cautionable is if a defender deliberately leaves the field in order to deceive their opponents regarding a player's offside position, or if a forward, having left the field, returns and gains an advantage. In neither of these cases is the player penalised for being offside; instead they are cautioned for acts of unsporting behaviour.

An attacker who is able to receive the ball behind the opposition defenders is often in a good position to score. The offside rule limits attackers' ability to do this, requiring that they be onside when the ball is played forward. Though restricted, well-timed passes and fast running allow an attacker to move into such a situation after the ball is kicked forward without committing the offence. Officiating decisions regarding offside, which can often be a matter of only centimetres or inches, can be critical in games, as they may determine whether a promising attack can continue, or even if a goal is allowed to stand.

One of the main duties of the assistant referees is to assist the referee in adjudicating offside —their position on the sidelines giving a more useful view sideways across the pitch. Assistant referees communicate that an offside offence has occurred by raising a signal flag. However, as with all officiating decisions in the game, adjudicating offside is ultimately up to the referee, who can overrule the advice of their assistants if they see fit.

Application
The application of the offside rule may be considered in three steps: offside position, offside offence, and offside sanction.

Offside position

A player is in an "offside position" if they are in the opposing team's half of the field and also "nearer to the opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent." The 2005 edition of the Laws of the Game included a new IFAB decision that stated, "In the definition of offside position, 'nearer to his opponents' goal line' means that any part of their head, body or feet is nearer to their opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent. The arms are not included in this definition". By 2017, the wording had changed to say that, in judging offside position, "The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered." In other words, a player is in an offside position if two conditions are met:

 * Any part of the player's head, body or feet is in the opponents' half of the field (excluding the half-way line).
 * Any part of the player's head, body or feet is closer to the opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent.

The goalkeeper counts as an opponent in the second condition, but it is not necessary that the last opponent be the goalkeeper.

Offside offence
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is touched or played by a teammate is only penalised for committing an offside offence if, in the opinion of the referee, they become involved in active play by:
 * Interfering with play
 * "playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate"

 * Interfering with an opponent
 * "preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
 * challenging an opponent for the ball or
 * clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to them when this action impacts on an opponent or
 * making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball"

 * Gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has
 * "- rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar, match official or an opponent
 * – been deliberately saved by any opponent"

In addition to the above criteria, in the 2017–18 edition of the Laws of the Game, the IFAB made a further clarification that, "In situations where a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball."

There is no offside offence if a player receives the ball directly from a goal kick, a corner kick, or a throw-in. It is also not an offence if the ball was last deliberately played by an opponent (except for a deliberate save). In this context, according to the IFAB, "A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless the goalkeeper within the penalty area)."

An offside offence may occur if a player receives the ball directly from either a direct free kick, indirect free kick or dropped-ball.

Since offside is judged at the time the ball is touched or played by a teammate, not when the player receives the ball, it is possible for a player to receive the ball significantly past the second-to-last opponent, or even the last opponent, without committing an offence, since an onside player is free to run to any position after the ball is played.

A player who was offside when their teammate played the ball (and therefore liable for an offside offence should they interfere with play) but becomes onside when the ball is played by another player then ceases to be liable for an offside offence. That is, the determination of offside is reset each time the ball is played by a different onside player.

Determining whether a player is "involved in active play" can be complex. The quote, "If he's not interfering with play, what's he doing on the pitch?" has been attributed to Bill Nicholson and Danny Blanchflower. In an effort to avoid such criticisms, which were based on the fact that phrases such as "interfering with play", "interfering with an opponent", and "gaining an advantage" were not clearly defined, FIFA issued new guidelines for interpreting the offside law in 2003; and these were incorporated into Law 11 in July 2005. The new wording sought to define the three cases more precisely, but a number of football associations and confederations continued to request more information about what movements a player in an offside position could make without interfering with an opponent. In response to these requests, IFAB circular 3 was issued in 2015 to provide additional guidance on the criteria for interfering with an opponent. This additional guidance is now included in the main body of the law, and forms the last three conditions under the heading "Interfering with an opponent" as shown above. The circular also contained additional guidance on the meaning of a save, in the context of a ball that has "been deliberately saved by any opponent."

Offside sanction
The sanction for an offside offence is an indirect free kick for the opponent at the place where the offence occurred, even if it is in the player's own half of the field of play.

Officiating
In enforcing this rule, the referee depends greatly on an assistant referee, who generally keeps in line with the second-to-last opponent, the ball, or the halfway line, whichever is closer to the goal line of their relevant end. An assistant referee signals for an offside offence by first raising their flag to a vertical position and then, if the referee stops play, by partly lowering their flag to an angle that signifies the location of the offence:
 * Flag pointed at a 45-degree angle downwards: offence has occurred in the third of the pitch nearest to the assistant referee;
 * Flag parallel to the ground: offence has occurred in the middle third of the pitch;
 * Flag pointed at a 45-degree angle upwards: offence has occurred in the third of the pitch furthest from the assistant referee.

The assistant referees' task with regard to offside can be difficult, as they need to keep up with attacks and counter-attacks, consider which players are in an offside position when the ball is played, and then determine whether and when the offside-positioned players become involved in active play. The risk of false judgement is further increased by the foreshortening effect, which occurs when the distance between the attacking player and the assistant referee is significantly different from the distance to the defending player, and the assistant referee is not directly in line with the defender. The difficulty of offside officiating is often underestimated by spectators. Trying to judge if a player is level with an opponent at the moment the ball is kicked is not easy: if an attacker and a defender are running in opposite directions, they can be two metres (6') apart in less than a second.

Some researchers believe that offside officiating errors are "optically inevitable". It has been argued that human beings and technological media are incapable of accurately detecting an offside position quickly enough to make a timely decision. Sometimes it simply is not possible to keep all the relevant players in the visual field at once. There have been some proposals for automated enforcement of the offside rule.

Motivation
The motivations for offside rules varied at different times, and were not always clearly stated when the rules were changed.

According to the anonymous author of a November 1863 newspaper article in the Sporting Gazette, "[f]or a player to place himself nearer his opponent's goal than the ball, and to wait for it to be kicked to him, is not anywhere recognised but as being decidedly unfair". Curry and Dunning suggest that offside play was considered "highly ungentlemanly" at some schools; this attitude may have been reflected in the use of terminology such as "sneaking" at Eton and "loiter[ing]" at Cambridge.

In general, offside rules intend to prevent players from "goal-hanging"–staying near the opponent's goal and waiting for the ball to be passed to them directly. This was considered to be unsportsmanlike and made the game boring. In contrast, the offside rules force players not to get ahead of the ball, and thus favour dribbling the ball and short passes over few long passes.

Traditional games
A law similar to offside was used in the game of hurling to goals played in Cornwall in the early 17th century: "[H]ee who hath the ball [...] must deale no Fore-ball, viz. he may not throw it to any of his mates, standing neerer the goale, then himselfe."

School and university football
Offside laws are found in the largely uncodified and informal football games played at English public schools in the early 19th century. An 1832 article discussing the Eton wall game complained of "[t]he interminable multiplicity of rules about sneaking, picking up, throwing, rolling, in straight, with a vast number more", using the term "sneaking" to refer to Eton's offside law. The novel Tom Brown's School Days, published in 1857 but based on the author's experiences at Rugby School from 1834 to 1842, discussed that school's offside law: "My sons! [...] you have gone past the ball, and must struggle now right through the scrummage, and get round and back again to your own side, before you can be of any further use"

The first published set of laws of any code of football (Rugby School, 1845), stated that "[a] player is off his side if the ball has touched one of his own side behind him, until the other side touch it." Such a player was prevented from kicking the ball, touching the ball down, or interfering with an opponent.

Many other school and university laws from this period were similar to Rugby School's in that they were "strict"—i.e. any player ahead of the ball was in an off-side position. (This is similar to the current offside law in rugby, under which any player between the ball and the opponent's goal who takes part in play, is liable to be penalised.) Such laws included Shrewsbury School (1855), Uppingham School (1857), Trinity College, Hartford (1858), Winchester College (1863), and the Cambridge Rules of 1863.

Some school and university rules provided an exception to this general pattern. In the 1847 laws of the Eton Field Game, a player could not be considered "sneaking" if there were four or more opponents between him and the opponents' goal line. A similar "rule of four" was found in the 1856 Cambridge Rules and the rules of Charterhouse School (1863).

Club football
Most surviving rules of independent football clubs from before 1860 lack any offside law. This is true of the brief handwritten set of laws for the Foot-Ball Club of Edinburgh (1833), the published laws of Surrey Football Club (1849), the first set of laws of Sheffield Football Club (1858) and those of Melbourne Football Club (1859). In the Sheffield game, players known as "kick-throughs" were positioned permanently near the opponents' goal.

In the early 1860s, this began to change. In 1861, Forest FC adopted a set of laws based on the 1856 Cambridge Rules, with its "rule of four". The 1862 laws of Barnes FC featured a strict offside law. Sheffield FC adopted a weak offside law at the beginning of the 1863–64 season.

J. C. Thring

J. C. Thring was an advocate for the strictest possible offside law. A resident master at Uppingham School from 1859 to 1864, Thring criticised most existing offside laws for being too lax. The Rugby laws, for example, were at fault because they permitted an offside player to rejoin play immediately after an opponent touched the ball, while Eton's rule of four allowed "an immense amount of sneaking" when the number of players was unlimited.

Thring expressed his views through correspondence in the sporting newspapers such as The Field, and through the publication in 1862 of The Simplest Game, a proposed set of laws of football. In The Simplest Game, Thring included a strict offside law which required a player in an offside position ("out of play", in Thring's terminology) to "return behind the ball as soon as possible".

The influence of Thring's views is evidenced by the adoption of his proposed offside law from The Simplest Game in the first draft of the FA laws (see below).

The F. A. laws of 1863
On 17 November 1863, the newly formed Football Association adopted a resolution mirroring Thring's law from the Simplest Game: "A player is "out of play" immediately he is in front of the ball and must return behind the ball as soon as possible. If the ball is kicked by his own side past a player he may not touch or kick it, or advance until one of the other side has first kicked it or one of his own side on a level with or in front of him has been able to kick it."

This text was reflected in the first draft of laws drawn up by FA secretary Ebenezer Morley.

On 24 November, Morley presented his draft laws to the FA for final approval. That meeting was, however, disrupted by a dispute over the subject of "hacking" (allowing players to carry the ball, provided they could be kicked in the shins by opponents when doing so, in the manner of Rugby School). The opponents of hacking brought the delegates' attention to the Cambridge Rules of 1863 (which banned carrying and hacking): Discussion of the Cambridge rules, and suggestions for possible communication with Cambridge on the subject, served to delay the final "settlement" of the laws to a further meeting, on 1 December. A number of representatives who supported rugby-style football did not attend this additional meeting, resulting in hacking and carrying being banned.

Although the offside law was not itself a significant issue in the dispute between the pro- and anti-hacking clubs, it was completely rewritten. The original law, taken from Thring's Simplest Game, was replaced by a modified version of the equivalent law from the Cambridge Rules: "When a player has kicked the ball any one of the same side who is nearer to the opponent's goal line is out of play and may not touch the ball himself nor in any way whatever prevent any other player from doing so until the ball has been played; but no player is out of play when the ball is kicked from behind the goal line."

The law adopted by the FA was "strict"—i.e., it penalised any player in front of the ball. There was one exception for the "kick from behind the goal line" (the 1863 laws' equivalent of a goal kick). This exception was necessary because every player on the attacking side would have otherwise been "out of play" from such a kick.

Three-player rule (1866)
At the first revision of the FA laws, in February 1866, an important qualifier was added to soften the "strict" offside law: "When a player has kicked the ball, any one of the same side who is nearer to the opponents' goal line is out of play, and may not touch the ball himself, nor in any way whatever prevent any other player from doing so, until the ball has been played, unless there are at least three of his opponents between him and their own goal; but no player is out of play when the ball is kicked from behind the goal line."

At the FA's meeting, the alteration "gave rise to a lengthy discussion, many thinking with Mr Morley that it would be better to do away with the off side [law] altogether, especially as the Sheffield clubs had none. It being found, however, that the rule could not be expunged without notice, the alteration was passed."

Contemporaneous reports do not indicate the reason for the change. Charles Alcock, writing in 1890, suggested that it was made in order to induce two public schools, Westminster and Charterhouse, to join the association. Those two schools did indeed become members of the FA after the next annual FA meeting (February 1867), in response to a letter-writing campaign by newly installed FA secretary Robert Graham.

Early proposals for change (1867–1874)
Over the next seven years, there were several attempts to change the three-player rule, but none was successful:

Offside was the subject of the biggest dispute between the Sheffield Football Association (which produced its own "Sheffield Rules") and the Football Association. However, the two codes were eventually unified without any change in this area; the Sheffield Clubs accepted the FA's three-player offside rule in 1877, after the FA compromised by allowing the throw-in to be taken in any direction.
 * In 1867, Barnes FC proposed that the offside rule should be removed altogether, arguing that "a player did not stop to count whether there were three of his opponents between him and their own goal".
 * It was also proposed that the FA should revert to its original "strict" offside rule. This change was introduced in 1868 (Branham College), 1871 ("The Oxford Association") and 1872 (Notts County).
 * There were attempts to introduce the one-player rule of the Sheffield Football Association in 1867 (Sheffield FC), 1872 (Sheffield Football Association), 1873 (Nottingham Forest), and 1874 (Sheffield Association).

Offside in own half (1907)
The original laws allowed players to be in an offside position even when in their own half. This happened rarely, but was possible when one team pressed high up the field, for example in a Sunderland v Wolverhampton Wanderers match in December 1901. When an attacking team adopted the so-called "one back" game, in which only the goalkeeper and one outfield player remained in defensive positions, it was even possible for players to be caught offside in their own penalty area.

In May 1905, Clyde FC suggested that players should not be offside in their own half, but this suggestion was rejected by the Scottish Football Association. It was objected that the change would lead to "forwards hanging about close to the half-way line, as opportunists". After the Scotland v England international of April 1906 ended with the Scottish wingers being repeatedly caught offside by England's use of a "one back" game,  Clyde again proposed the same rule-change to the Scottish FA meeting: this time it was accepted.

The Scottish proposal gained support in England. At the 1906 meeting of the International Football Association Board, the Scottish FA announced that it would introduce the proposed change at the next annual meeting, in 1907. In March 1907, the council of the [English] Football Association approved this change, and it was passed by IFAB in June 1907.

Two-player rule (1925)
The Scottish FA urged the change from a three-player to a two-player offside rule as early as 1893. Such a change was first proposed at a meeting of IFAB in 1894, where it was rejected. It was proposed again by the SFA in 1902, upon the urging of Celtic FC, and again rejected. A further proposal from the SFA also failed in 1913, after the Football Association objected. The SFA advanced the same proposal in 1914, when it was again rejected after opposition from both the Football Association and the Football Association of Wales.

Meetings of the International Board were suspended after 1914 because of the First World War. After they resumed in 1920, the SFA once again proposed the two-player rule in 1922, 1923, and 1924. In 1922 and 1923, the Scottish Association withdrew its proposal after English FA opposed it. In 1924, the Scottish proposal was once again opposed by the English FA, and defeated; it was, however, indicated that a version of the proposal would be adopted the next year.

On 30 March 1925, the FA arranged a trial match at Highbury where two proposed changes to the offside rules were tested. During the first half, a player could not be offside unless within forty yards of the opponents' goal-line. In the second half, the two-player rule was used.

The two-player proposal was considered by the FA at its annual meeting on 8 June. Proponents cited the new rule's potential to reduce stoppages, avoid refereeing errors, and improve the spectacle, while opponents complained that it would give "undue advantage to attackers"; referees were overwhelmingly opposed to the change. The two-player rule was nevertheless approved by the FA by a large majority. At IFAB's meeting later that month, the two-player rule finally became part of the Laws of the Game.

The two-player rule was one of the more significant rule changes in the history of the game during the 20th century. It led to an immediate change in the style of play, with the game becoming more stretched, "short passing giv[ing] way to longer balls", and the development of the W-M formation. It also led to an increase in goalscoring: 4,700 goals were scored in 1,848 Football League games in 1924–25. This number rose to 6,373 goals (from the same number of games) in 1925–26.

Attacker level with second-last defender (1990)
In 1990, IFAB declared that an attacker level with the second-last defender is onside, whereas previously such a player had been considered offside. This change, proposed by the Scottish FA, was made in order to "encourage the attacking team" by "giving the attacking player an advantage over the defender".

Parts of body (2005)
In 2005, IFAB clarified that, when evaluating an attacking player's position for the purposes of the offside law, the part of the player's head, body or feet closest to the defending team's goal-line should be considered, with the hands and arms being excluded because "there is no advantage to be gained if only the arms are in advance of the opponent". In 2016, it was further clarified that this principle should apply to all players, both attackers and defenders, including the goalkeeper.

Defender outside the field of play (2009)
In 2009, it was stated that a defender who leaves the field of play without the referee's permission must be considered to be on the nearest boundary line for the purposes of deciding whether an attacker is in an offside position.

Halfway line (2016)
In 2016, it was clarified that a player on the halfway line itself cannot be in an offside position: part of the player's head, body or feet must be within the opponent's half of the field of play in order to be considered offside.

Unadopted experiments
During the 1973–74 and 1974–75 seasons, an experimental version of the offside rule was operated in the Scottish League Cup and Drybrough Cup competitions. The concept was that offside should only apply in the last 18 yd of play (inside or beside the penalty area). To signify this, the horizontal line of the penalty area was extended to the touchlines. FIFA President Sir Stanley Rous attended the 1973 Scottish League Cup Final, which was played using these rules. The manager of one of the teams involved, Celtic manager Jock Stein, complained that it was unfair to expect teams to play under one set of rules in one game and then a different set a few days before or later. The experiment was quietly dropped after the 1974–75 season, as no proposal for a further experiment or rule change was submitted for the Scottish Football Association board to consider. It was briefly experimented again in the 1991 FIFA U-17 World Championship, in Italy.

In 1972, the North American Soccer League adopted a variation of the offside rule in which it added a line on the field 35 yards from each goal line; a player could only be offside within that area of the opponent's half. The rule was dropped in 1982 at the insistence of FIFA which threatened to withdraw recognition of the league if it did not apply all of the official rules of football.

Goal kick
Since the first FA laws of 1863, a player has not been penalised for being in an offside position at the moment a teammate takes a goal kick. (According to the "strict" offside law used in 1863, every player on the attacking side would automatically have been in an offside position from such a goalkick, since it had to be taken from the goal line and a player could be in an offside position even when in their own half.)

Throw-in
Under the original laws of 1863, it was not possible to be offside from a throw-in; however, since the ball was required to be thrown in at right-angles to the touch-line, it would have been unusual for a player to gain significant advantage from being ahead of the ball.

In 1877, the throw-in law was changed to allow the ball to be thrown in any direction. The next year (1878) a new law was introduced to allow a player to be offside from a throw-in.

This situation lasted until 1920, when the law was altered to prevent a player being offside from a throw-in. This rule-change was praised on the grounds that it would deter teams from "seeking safety or wasting time by sending [the ball] into touch", and thus reduce stoppages.

Corner kick
When first introduced in 1872, the corner kick was required to be taken from the corner-flag itself, which made it impossible for an attacking player to be in an offside position relative to the ball. In 1874, the corner-kick was allowed to be taken up to one yard from the corner-flag, thus opening up the possibility of a player being in an offside position. At the International Football Conference of December 1882, it was agreed that a player should not be offside from a corner-kick; this change was incorporated into the Laws of the Game in 1883.

Free kick
The laws of football have always permitted an offside offence to be committed from a free kick. The free kick contrasts, in this respect, with other restarts of play such as the goal kick, corner kick, and throw-in.

A 1920 proposal by the FA to exempt the free-kick from the offside rule was unexpectedly rejected by IFAB. A further unsuccessful proposal to remove the possibility of being offside from a direct free-kick was rejected in 1929. Similar proposals to prevent offside offences from any free-kick were advanced in 1974 and 1986, each time without success. In 1987, the Football Association (FA) obtained the permission of IFAB to test such a rule in the 1987–88 GM Vauxhall Conference. At the next annual meeting, the FA reported to IFAB that the experiment had, as predicted, "assisted further the non-offending team and also generated more action near goal, resulting in greater excitement for players and spectators"; it nevertheless withdrew the proposal.

Offside trap
Pioneered in the early 20th century by Notts County and later adopted by influential Argentine coach Osvaldo Zubeldía, the offside trap is a defensive tactic designed to force the attacking team into an offside position. Just before an attacking player is played a through ball, the last defender or defenders move up field, isolating the attacker into an offside position. The execution requires careful timing by the defence and is considered a risk, since running up field against the direction of attack may leave the goal exposed. Now that changes to the interpretations of "interfering with play, interfering with an opponent and gaining an advantage" mean a player is not guilty of an offside offence unless they become directly and clearly involved in active play, players not involved in active play cannot be "caught offside", making the tactic riskier. An attacker, upon realising they are in an offside position, may simply choose to avoid interfering with play until the ball is played by someone else.

Manager Arrigo Sacchi was also known for using a high defensive line, with distance between the defence and midfield lines never greater than 25 to 30 metres (yards), and the offside trap with his teams. He introduced a more attacking–minded tactical philosophy with A.C. Milan, which was highly successful, namely an aggressive high-pressing system, which used a 4–4–2 formation, an attractive, fast, attacking, and possession-based playing style, and which also used innovative elements such as zonal marking and a high back–line line playing the offside trap, which largely deviated from previous systems in Italian football, despite still maintaining defensive solidity.

Liverpool F.C. under Jürgen Klopp, a noted follower of Sacchi, have been known for their highly effective offside trap. It involves playing a high defensive line with quick centre-backs like Virgil van Dijk and Ibrahima Konaté who can move forward quickly to catch opponents offside. In the 2021–22 Premier League season, they caught 53% more the amount of opponents offside than the next best team (144 times compared to Manchester City's 94).

title: Offside (association football)


text:
USS Baltimore

USS Baltimore may refer to:

 * USS Baltimore (1777), was a 12-gun brigantine that served in the Continental Navy from 1777 to 1780.
 * USS Baltimore (1798), was a 20-gun ship built in 1798.
 * USS Baltimore (1861), was a side-wheel steamer captured in 1861.
 * USS Baltimore (C-3), was a protected cruiser commissioned in 1890.

 * The Baltimore crisis, an 1891 diplomatic incident involving USS Baltimore (C-3)

 * USS Baltimore (CA-68), was a heavy cruiser commissioned in 1943.
 * USS Baltimore (SSN-704), was a Los Angeles-class nuclear attack submarine, decommissioned on 10 July 1998.

title: USS Baltimore


text:
Santa Barbara City College

Santa Barbara City College (SBCC) is a public community college in Santa Barbara, California. It opened in 1909 and is located on a 74 acre campus.

History
Santa Barbara City College was established by the Santa Barbara High School District in 1909, making it one of the oldest community colleges in California. The college was discontinued shortly after World War I, and its work largely taken over by the Santa Barbara State Normal School, which became the Santa Barbara State College, and later, the University of California, Santa Barbara.

SBCC was reorganized by the high school district in the fall of 1946. Called Santa Barbara Junior College from its inception, the Santa Barbara Board of Education formally changed the name to Santa Barbara City College in July 1959. Also in the summer of 1959, the institution moved to its present and permanent location on the Santa Barbara Mesa, former site of the University of California, Santa Barbara. Situated on a 74-acre bluff, the campus overlooks the harbor and Pacific Ocean. Passage of a 1969 construction bond issue and a 1973 land acquisition bond issue ensured that the college would have a single, consolidated Mesa campus.

In 2013, Santa Barbara City College was awarded the Aspen Prize for Community College Excellence.

Academics
The School of Media Arts (SOMA) was established in 2001 to focus on applied communication, visual literacy and digital media. The school covers many areas of interest, including film studies, film production, photography, and computer and multimedia arts.

The music department at features several performance groups, including three jazz ensembles, large and small vocal ensembles, a concert band, and a full symphony orchestra.

The automotive program has been certified by the National Institute for Automotive Service Excellence (ASE) as a master training institution, having met industry standards in all eight of the automotive specialty areas: engine repair, engine performance, heating and air conditioning, electrical systems, automatic transmissions, manual transmission and axle, and brakes and front end.

Santa Barbara City College's Marine Diving Technologies Program is the only community college degree program in the nation which is accredited by the Association of Commercial Diving Educators (ACDE), the International Diving Schools Association (IDSA), and the National Association of Underwater Instructors (NAUI). The program trains and certifies for all levels of SCUBA diving.

The Cancer Information Management Program at Santa Barbara City College offers two types of degrees: An Associate in Science in Cancer Information Management and the Certificate of Completion in Cancer Information Management. It is one of the few Cancer Information Management programs in the nation to currently offer an associate degree which is required to sit for the National Exam to become a Certified Tumor Registrar with the National Cancer Registrars Association starting in 2009.

The student newspaper is named The Channels.

Athletics
The college's athletic teams are known as the Vaqueros. Santa Barbara competes as a member of the California Community College Athletic Association (CCCAA) in the Western State Conference (WSC) for all sports except football, which competes in Southern California Football Association (SCFA). City College offers intercollegiate athletic competition with nine men sports and eleven women's sports.

Santa Barbara City College has won 11 CCCAA State Championship with the women's water polo team being the most recent winner in 2017. Under the leadership of Athletic Director Rocco Constantino in 2017–2018, the Vaqueros finished tenth in the state of California in the NATYCAA Cup Standings, which measures the overall success of the athletic program on the state level. They were the highest ranking Western State Conference school in these standings. This represented the best showing for SBCC in the Cup's history. In 2017–2018, the Vaqueros won a WSC-leading six conference championships. The SBCC Vaqueros soccer and football teams play at the 10,000-capacity La Playa Stadium in Santa Barbara.

A number of SBCC alumni have gone on to play professional sports in America. This group is highlighted by Jesse Orosco, Tyler Gilbert, Dylan Axelrod, Delwyn Young, Gary Woods, Lemmie Miller and Scott Randall (Major League Baseball), Larry Moriarty, Mitch Wishnowsky and Booker Brown (National Football League) and Don Ford (National Basketball Association). Orosco is a member of the CCCAA Hall of Fame, along with former SBCC coaches and administrators Pat Moorhouse and Bob Dinaberg. In 2019, the Santa Barbara City College established the SBCC Vaqueros Hall of Fame to recognize athletes, coaches, contributors and teams from their past. The inaugural Hall of Fame Class of 2019 includes former head coaches/administrators Bob Dinaberg, Pat Moorhouse and Bud Revis, student-athletes Booker Brown, Gary Woods, Marina Gomez and Debbie Ekola and the 1977 State Champion Women's Track & Field team.

Notable alumni

 * Jaime Ambriz, retired professional soccer player
 * Ron Anderson, NBA
 * Dylan Axelrod, Major League baseball player
 * Eion Bailey, American actor
 * David Crosby, American folk rock musician
 * Tyler Gilbert, Major League Baseball player
 * Phillip Gonyea, drummer for Los Angeles heavy metal band Before The Mourning and former percussionist for alternative rock band Against All Will
 * Ben Howland, American basketball coach of the UCLA Bruins
 * James Kiffe, professional soccer player
 * Ozzy Lusth of Survivor: Cook Islands and Survivor: Micronesia
 * Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates and minister of presidential affairs
 * Randolph Mantooth, American actor, writer, and producer
 * Airin Older, bassist of Sugarcult
 * Jesse Orosco, major league baseball record-holder for career pitching appearances
 * Katy Perry, American singer/songwriter
 * Chris Plante, television reporter, host of eponymous radio show
 * Elliot Rodger, perpetrator of the 2014 Isla Vista killings
 * Mark Andrew Smith, graphic novelist
 * Matthew Landy Steen, American political activist, co-founder Weather Underground
 * Grace Tame, 2021 Australian of the Year
 * Das Williams, California State Assembly member
 * Mitch Wishnowsky, football player for the San Francisco 49ers
 * David Woodard, conductor
 * Delwyn Young, baseball player for the Los Angeles Dodgers

Notable faculty

 * Kathryn Ish, acting teacher

title: Santa Barbara City College


text:
Offside

Offside, off-side or off side may refer to:

Sport

 * Offside (sport), a rule in a number of field team sports restricting where players may position themselves
 * Offside (association football)
 * Offside (American football)
 * Offside (bandy)
 * Offside (rugby)
 * Offside (ice hockey)
 * Offside (field hockey)
 * Off side, a side of the field in cricket fielding

Media

 * Offside (TV series), Scottish football programme
 * Offside (manga), a Japanese football manga from Natsuko Heiuchi
 * Offside (2000 film), a 2000 Turkish comedy-drama film
 * Offside (2005 film), German film
 * Offside (2006 Iranian film), Iranian film
 * Offside (2006 Swedish film), Swedish film
 * Offside (magazine), Swedish football magazine
 * Offside (book), Spanish novel from Manuel Vázquez Montalbán
 * Off Sides (Pigs vs. Freaks), 1980s American film starring Eugene Roche, Grant Goodeve and Tony Randall

Other uses

 * Offside, the side of the car furthest from the curb; See Right- and left-hand traffic
 * Off-side rule, an interpretation for indentation in some computer programming languages

title: Offside