Cue the snow: Bears-Vikings take it outside
By PATRICK CONDON, Associated Press
24 minutes ago
ShareretweetEmailPrintMINNEAPOLIS (AP)—The snow is falling again on the University of Minnesota’s TCF Bank Stadium as the Minnesota Vikings and their fans prepare for a return to outdoor pro football in the Twin Cities.
The Vikings and the Chicago Bears are scheduled to kick off their Monday night game at 7:30 in the open-air Gophers stadium. They were forced across town after heavy snow caused the Metrodome’s roof to collapse earlier this month.
Campus officials spent the last week clearing snow out of the stadium, but it was falling again Monday afternoon with 3 to 5 inches forecast by game time. Fans with tickets are expected to start lining up by 4 p.m. to get a general admission seat.
The Vikings played their last outdoor game in Minnesota exactly 29 years ago.
I don't think you understand. It's not the snow. There will be no beer sales allowed at the game. That's worse then snow. Also the bathrooms are open air (no doors) and the pipes are not winterized. The bathroom pipes can freeze and there will be no toilets. No beer, no toilets and oh by the way the stadium seats 50,000, but there are 63,000 season ticket holders in Minnesota. 13,000 will be turned away.
Football players play sufficiently fast and hard to sustain substantially more injuries than rugby players, despite the armor.
Darthdiggler's point about how hardcore American football FANS are is also well taken. Rugby and soccer fans don't (as a rule) have the tolerance for snow and cold that a fair number of Americans take for granted.
DarthDiggler wrote:I don't think you understand. It's not the snow. There will be no beer sales allowed at the game. That's worse then snow. Also the bathrooms are open air (no doors) and the pipes are not winterized. The bathroom pipes can freeze and there will be no toilets. No beer, no toilets and oh by the way the stadium seats 50,000, but there are 63,000 season ticket holders in Minnesota. 13,000 will be turned away.
I still have no idea why they built an open air football stadium in Minneapolis. Near and sub 0 temperatures are not uncommon, not even in early-mid November when the stadium was planned to be essentially closed.
DarthDiggler wrote:I don't think you understand. It's not the snow. There will be no beer sales allowed at the game. That's worse then snow. Also the bathrooms are open air (no doors) and the pipes are not winterized. The bathroom pipes can freeze and there will be no toilets. No beer, no toilets and oh by the way the stadium seats 50,000, but there are 63,000 season ticket holders in Minnesota. 13,000 will be turned away.
I still have no idea why they built an open air football stadium in Minneapolis. Near and sub 0 temperatures are not uncommon, not even in early-mid November when the stadium was planned to be essentially closed.
Mr Mystery wrote:No. It's a gakky little tagnut on the arse end of europe that used to actually run the world.
Sounds like a relatively small, relatively warm place to me. I'm sure it's nicer than your sales pitch makes it out, though. It's got cool places like Stonehenge and the Imperial War Museum in it.
Mr Mystery wrote:-And doesn't need girly armour for contact sports!
Psst. If you give them a little bit of armor, they hit each other even harder. Might want to try it.
dogma wrote:I still have no idea why they built an open air football stadium in Minneapolis. Near and sub 0 temperatures are not uncommon, not even in early-mid November when the stadium was planned to be essentially closed.
College football season generally ends before the weather turns nasty. And Autumn in Minneapolis is supposed to be nice from what I understand.
Proper football is a cold weather sport, I love the fact that they'll be playing a superbowl in NYC. All those rich look-at-me's who show up for the party..errrrrrr....superbowl might actually have to deal with some weather, and not just sit there drinking Cerveza in San Diego.
The outdoor field was actually built for the Minnesota Twins. Hence why all season long the Vikings have played in the Dome.
But with the Dome collapse and no other venue to play at (last week the game between the Vikes and Giants was moved to Detroit's Ford Field) it was either postpone the game (which is a headache as far as scheduling) or play outdoors.
The outdoor field IS closed for the winter as it was primarily built for baseball, which ends in September. It just so happens it's the only place other than Chicago to play and obviously the Vikings are going to want to keep a home game @ home.
@that pic of 1" of snow. Yeah, that's not snow. 1" of snow is 2 hours of snowfall in Mn.
Fateweaver wrote:The outdoor field was actually built for the Minnesota Twins. Hence why all season long the Vikings have played in the Dome.
They are playing at TCF Bank Stadium. Where the University of Minnesota Gophers play. Not The Twins, who play at Target Field. Hence the alcohol restrictions and the 13k seat shortage for the Viking game.
Mr Mystery wrote:No. It's a gakky little tagnut on the arse end of europe that used to actually run the world.
Sounds like a relatively small, relatively warm place to me. I'm sure it's nicer than your sales pitch makes it out, though. It's got cool places like Stonehenge and the Imperial War Museum in it.
Mr Mystery wrote:-And doesn't need girly armour for contact sports!
Psst. If you give them a little bit of armor, they hit each other even harder. Might want to try it.
Armour = more injuries. Some of the worst Football and Hockey Injuries are from the so-called "padding."
Mr Mystery wrote:No. It's a gakky little tagnut on the arse end of europe that used to actually run the world.
Sounds like a relatively small, relatively warm place to me. I'm sure it's nicer than your sales pitch makes it out, though. It's got cool places like Stonehenge and the Imperial War Museum in it.
Mr Mystery wrote:-And doesn't need girly armour for contact sports!
Psst. If you give them a little bit of armor, they hit each other even harder. Might want to try it.
Armour = more injuries. Some of the worst Football and Hockey Injuries are from the so-called "padding."
Football should be like 40k, covered in spikes, sporting skulls, and grimdark as hell. We don't hold any illusions about their actual skill at football, but thats not really the point.....
Lint wrote:
College football season generally ends before the weather turns nasty. And Autumn in Minneapolis is supposed to be nice from what I understand.
I played college football in St. Paul for four years, autumn in Minneapolis isn't that nice; particularly late autumn.
Lint wrote:
Proper football is a cold weather sport, I love the fact that they'll be playing a superbowl in NYC. All those rich look-at-me's who show up for the party..errrrrrr....superbowl might actually have to deal with some weather, and not just sit there drinking Cerveza in San Diego.
Having played for 10 years, I couldn't disagree more. Snow makes the game slow down to a crawl, significantly increases the number of injuries, and and generally makes for a game that's boring to watch and play. Its not as bad as heavy rain, but it still sucks something awful.
Lint wrote:
College football season generally ends before the weather turns nasty. And Autumn in Minneapolis is supposed to be nice from what I understand.
I played college football in St. Paul for four years, autumn in Minneapolis isn't that nice; particularly late autumn.
Lint wrote:
Proper football is a cold weather sport, I love the fact that they'll be playing a superbowl in NYC. All those rich look-at-me's who show up for the party..errrrrrr....superbowl might actually have to deal with some weather, and not just sit there drinking Cerveza in San Diego.
Having played for 10 years, I couldn't disagree more. Snow makes the game slow down to a crawl, significantly increases the number of injuries, and and generally makes for a game that's boring to watch and play. Its not as bad as heavy rain, but it still sucks something awful.
Indeed, slick fields wind up pulling more groins and hamstrings than anything else. I pulled my quad on slick field turf, not fun.
Stormrider wrote:Having played both sports, American Football is much more violent than rugby. The speed of the game is the killer.
I disagree with this as well. Rugby, in general, is a more physical game with a significantly quicker pace at all but the lowest levels; where the number of infractions often slows the game to a crawl. Football is all about set plays. The hits are harder, but generally less painful due to the pads, and often fail to land at all due to the present obsession with hitting hard at the expense of proper tackling; especially at the NFL level.
Part of the issue is that the majority of people that can make direct comparisons tend to be comparing a game they've practiced for at least 4 years (football) to one they probably just picked up in college (rugby). The latter seems slower simply because everyone is unfamiliar with the protocol of play. It would be like playing a football game in which a flag was thrown after every play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormrider wrote:
Indeed, slick fields wind up pulling more groins and hamstrings than anything else. I pulled my quad on slick field turf, not fun.
At the end of my college career I was playing strong inside linebacker in a rain game on a turf field. There was nothing I hated more than having to break on the run out of zone coverage, except taking on guards that had 70-80 lbs on me.
I played Football and Rugby, too. Football in High School and Rugby in college. My college team was really good, 3rd in the nation and our Hooker went on to play for the Eagles. We never could beat Cal though, those guys were crazy good. Airforce kicked most peoples' asses, too.
Football definitely is the more painful sport, no question. Rugby was more bumps and bruises with the occasional big injury. Football was far more big injuries.
The reason why was in Football you hit SO much harder than you do in Rugby. You simply can't drop a shoulder running at 4.5 forty speed into another guy going the same speed in Rugby and walk away from it. You would kill each other. Rugby was more about form tackles, although it was a plenty violent sport and after every match I looked like I got in a street fight.
The pads in Football are weapons, too which a lot of my buddies from other countries don't get. The helmet and facemask are deadly.
But, all that said, Rugby was more fun, IMO. It was more about improvisation and reaction than performing set plays. It was about the team working as a group and adapting to changing conditions and flowing into and out of plays. Whereas in football you performed your role as told with little deviation unless you were a Quarterback or Free Safety.
Rubgy is a great game, as is Football, I loved playing both. Nothing better in Rugby though than seeing a big man get the ball and run some fools over! The linemen in football did the grunt work and got no glory, which was a shame. IN Rugby everyone gets to run the ball which I think is good fun.
Reecius wrote:The reason why was in Football you hit SO much harder than you do in Rugby. You simply can't drop a shoulder running at 4.5 forty speed into another guy going the same speed in Rugby and walk away from it. You would kill each other. Rugby was more about form tackles, although it was a plenty violent sport and after every match I looked like I got in a street fight.
Yeah, in rugby the focus is more on grappling in the tackle, as opposed to grid iron where you're looking for the impact hit as much as the tackle.
In the geek world of 'violent is cooler' this somehow makes grid iron the better game, but it is actually something the game needs to look at, and is looking at with the current helmets. All those hard surfaces make players believe they're invincible, and the result is a lot more broken bones and head injuries than you really need. Pulling that back, shifting to soft shell helmets and the like won't make the game any poorer, but it will help the best players play longer careers, and have fewer medical issues in later life.
Basically Rugby players have to have a lot more respect for each other becasue they cannot just slam into each other. It hurts to hit people - unless you got some pads.
It's like boxing. Boxing gloves are not there to protect the other guy's head. They're there to protect your hand so you can hit the other guy in the head harder.
300 pound 6'4" man running 71 yards, american football defies logic.
Stupid 2nd string quarterback not knowing time management, we could've won. He did a fantastic job though seeing as though I was expecting a total blowout in favor of the Patriots.
Wasn't that awesome to see the big man going to the house? I was hoping he'd score! But it sucks that that is so rare that when it happens it makes the highlight reel! In rugby the big dudes run the ball frequently.
@Sebster
Yeah, no doubt. You still knock the gak out of guys in Rugby but like you said, you just can't have the collisions as in Football as it would break bones every time.
@KamikazeCannuck
It's funny that you make the comparison between boxing and football as the same thing happens in both sports: the pads meant to keep you safer actually makes the sport more dangerous.
Boxers get destroyed, they get hit in the head so many more times than bare knuckle or MMA glove fights and it ends up rattling their brains and giving them long term brain injuries, just like in football. Players use the pads as weapons and they are so big and fast that they end up hurting each other more than if they had not been wearing pads in the first place.
Stormrider wrote:What school did you play at dogma? Weber St?
I played D3 at Macalester College. One of the worst D3 teams in the nation my first two years there, and one of the worst mediocre D3 teams in the nation my last two.
Stormrider wrote:
BTW, I was one of those Guards LB's hated dogding (HS of course, too short to make it in D-1 college)
Ditto in hockey. There has been more and more concussions the bigger the pads get. They have these hard elbow and shoulder pads that are really just weapons. Hitting somebody at high speeds on skates is risky for the hitter and the hittie but with the pads to can just obliterate people with your shoulder "protection" without fear. Protection my ass.
Reecius wrote:
Football definitely is the more painful sport, no question. Rugby was more bumps and bruises with the occasional big injury. Football was far more big injuries.
No question that there are more big injuries in football, but after a football game I could usually walk to my car and drive home without much difficulty. After most rugby games I was lucky to be able to turn the key with one hand, let alone actually keep my eyes straight ahead without pronounced effort, or walk without a pronounced limp.
Though I played short flanker and fly half , so I took and dished out tons of hits every game; mainly because our scrum had no concept of when it was a bad idea to send the ball down the line. I also may have a bad read on the matter since I only ever suffered one severe injury in football.
Reecius wrote:I played Football and Rugby, too. Football in High School and Rugby in college. My college team was really good, 3rd in the nation and our Hooker went on to play for the Eagles. We never could beat Cal though, those guys were crazy good. Airforce kicked most peoples' asses, too.
Football definitely is the more painful sport, no question. Rugby was more bumps and bruises with the occasional big injury. Football was far more big injuries.
The reason why was in Football you hit SO much harder than you do in Rugby. You simply can't drop a shoulder running at 4.5 forty speed into another guy going the same speed in Rugby and walk away from it. You would kill each other. Rugby was more about form tackles, although it was a plenty violent sport and after every match I looked like I got in a street fight.
The pads in Football are weapons, too which a lot of my buddies from other countries don't get. The helmet and facemask are deadly.
But, all that said, Rugby was more fun, IMO. It was more about improvisation and reaction than performing set plays. It was about the team working as a group and adapting to changing conditions and flowing into and out of plays. Whereas in football you performed your role as told with little deviation unless you were a Quarterback or Free Safety.
Rubgy is a great game, as is Football, I loved playing both. Nothing better in Rugby though than seeing a big man get the ball and run some fools over! The linemen in football did the grunt work and got no glory, which was a shame. IN Rugby everyone gets to run the ball which I think is good fun.
This may in fact be the best comparison of the two I've ever seen.
Reecius wrote:
Football definitely is the more painful sport, no question. Rugby was more bumps and bruises with the occasional big injury. Football was far more big injuries.
No question that there are more big injuries in football, but after a football game I could usually walk to my car and drive home without much difficulty. After most rugby games I was lucky to be able to turn the key with one hand, let alone actually keep my eyes straight ahead without pronounced effort, or walk without a pronounced limp.
Though I played short flanker and fly half , so I took and dished out tons of hits every game; mainly because our scrum had no concept of when it was a bad idea to send the ball down the line. I also may have a bad read on the matter since I only ever suffered one severe injury in football.
I have to agree with this.
I've played American Football a few times (our school was trying it out for an extra sport for a little while), and I was generally fine whilst playing it. People could get more injuries, but fewer pains.
In Rugby, I damaged my knee so badly, I haven't been able to play sports in years.
Mannahnin wrote: Darthdiggler's point about how hardcore American football FANS are is also well taken. Rugby and soccer fans don't (as a rule) have the tolerance for snow and cold that a fair number of Americans take for granted.
So two years ago I was in Pittsburgh for the divisional round playoff game against the Chargers. The temp at game time was between 10-15 degrees, IIRC. Since it was a night game, we didn't even get any sun on our faces. But we just bundled up properly (layers!) and we were fine. Heck, my wife even came along on that one and she was fine. Then again, she comes from strong Korean stock and doesn't mind the cold much. On a side note, 10 degree weather keeps your beer amazingly cold.
The funny thing is that our hotel happened to be where the Chargers were staying. The night before the game, my wife and I got into the elevator after walking back from dinner. It was probably a balmy 25-30 degrees at that point. The elevator stops one floor up, where all the conference rooms are. On the elevator steps a big guy...obviously one of the Chargers. He said hello, then asked how cold it was outside. After we got off the elevator, I told my wife we had the game in the bag already if the SoCal boys were worried about a little cold.
Albatross wrote:I'm not sure I understand this whole 'yeah? Well in (sport x) people get really badly injured!' - like that's a good thing?
People get terribly injured in car-crashes too. Doesn't look like much fun.
Car Crashes? Now thats a real sport! I drive in New Jersey all the time it seems some of the drivers with the best padding (semi truck/ SUV) are some of the worst drivers
Rugby and Football are both appropriately violent. I think we can all agree that it's baseball players who are wimps. They cancel games if there's a chance of light rain.
As is proper, the Bears beat the Vikings last night, which means I shall get another opportunity to sit in sub-freezing temperatures for four hours like a true fan when we host a playoff game!
Albatross wrote:I'm not sure I understand this whole 'yeah? Well in (sport x) people get really badly injured!' - like that's a good thing?
People get terribly injured in car-crashes too. Doesn't look like much fun.
Car Crashes? Now thats a real sport! I drive in New Jersey all the time it seems some of the drivers with the best padding (semi truck/ SUV) are some of the worst drivers
Albatross wrote:I'm not sure I understand this whole 'yeah? Well in (sport x) people get really badly injured!' - like that's a good thing?
People get terribly injured in car-crashes too. Doesn't look like much fun.
Car Crashes? Now thats a real sport! I drive in New Jersey all the time it seems some of the drivers with the best padding (semi truck/ SUV) are some of the worst drivers
Jersey driving doesn't qualify as a sport because there are no real *rules*. Or at least the rules are so arcane, a la 43-man Squamish, that they're largely irrelevant.
@dogma
I separated my shoulder, had a few concussions in football, but like you said, most games afterwords I felt pretty much OK.
After Rugby it was pain all over, not injury pain, but beat up and exhausted pain (Rugby is FAR more cardiovascularly demanding than Football).
Ha, the one time my Mom watched a match, I got kicked in the face getting up from a ruck and blood sprayed everywhere! She never came to another match! She loves Football though which is funny. I think that as the pads cover the evidence of the violence, it makes it seem less scary to the spectators.
I played Loose Forward. God damn, I have never run so much in my life! For those who don't know the game, it is like a strong safety/Free Safety and running back. Good fun because you get the ball a lot and get a lot of tackles, but you literally sprint almost the entire game.
@Owain
Thanks, I am glad my explanation seemed cogent.
@Albatross
You are not alone, a lot of people can't understand why some guys (and girls) like violent sports. It is the raw competition of it I think. There is no bs, it feels like pure competition and a little bit of animal aggression. Some people need that outlet, some think it is stupid. I can understand both sides of it, but know where I stand.
Give me my MMA, Football, Boxing, Rugby, Muay Thai all day!
Strangely I also like watching Track and Field, Cycling and Triathlons, which are much more civilized! And, you can do those sports even as you get older, which is clutch. Can't play Football for that long, really.
Reecius wrote:@Albatross
You are not alone, a lot of people can't understand why some guys (and girls) like violent sports. It is the raw competition of it I think. There is no bs, it feels like pure competition and a little bit of animal aggression. Some people need that outlet, some think it is stupid. I can understand both sides of it, but know where I stand.
Give me my MMA, Football, Boxing, Rugby, Muay Thai all day!
Strangely I also like watching Track and Field, Cycling and Triathlons, which are much more civilized! And, you can do those sports even as you get older, which is clutch. Can't play Football for that long, really.
I think he's refereeing more to the dumb idea that one sport is better than the other because more people get injured.
I have tried watching American football and it's like watching a film where the dvd is so scratched up it keeps skipping every ten seconds. It seems as if the rules which exists in British sports (football, rugby league, cricket etc) made to encourage and enforce continuous play just don't exist in American football and the whole nature of the game is designed to let you see as little actual play as possible. 60 minutes play over a 3 hour period? Crazy (and yeh I know you get a bit more with your "timeouts").
Why couldn't it have snowed in perth Australia last weekend.
whatwhat wrote:It seems as if the rules which exists in British sports (football, rugby league, cricket etc) made to encourage and enforce continuous play just don't exist in American football...
Excellent perception, as they do not.
whatwhat wrote:
...and the whole nature of the game is designed to let you see as little actual sport as possible. 60 minutes play over a 3 hour period? Crazy (and yeh I know you get a bit more with your "timeouts").
Sport only involves that which players do during 'play'? I would have though that anything occurring during a sporting event, on the part of sanctioned parties, might be considered to be sport.
Reecius wrote:@Albatross
You are not alone, a lot of people can't understand why some guys (and girls) like violent sports. It is the raw competition of it I think. There is no bs, it feels like pure competition and a little bit of animal aggression. Some people need that outlet, some think it is stupid. I can understand both sides of it, but know where I stand.
Give me my MMA, Football, Boxing, Rugby, Muay Thai all day!
Strangely I also like watching Track and Field, Cycling and Triathlons, which are much more civilized! And, you can do those sports even as you get older, which is clutch. Can't play Football for that long, really.
I think he's refereeing more to the dumb idea that one sport is better than the other because more people get injured.
That I am. I don't have a problem with robust physical exchanges in sport, but the competition is more important to me than than the number of injuries the sides rack up. Unless it's Argentina vs Italy or something, in which case I will happily sit watching them kick lumps out of each other all day.
dogma wrote:Sport only involves that which players do during 'play'? I would have though that anything occurring during a sporting event, on the part of sanctioned parties, might be considered to be sport.
Ok so the people standing round in-between play is sport then. Certainly isn't worth watching from what I can see. My point really had nothing to do with what is and what isn't sport.
Albatross wrote:
That I am. I don't have a problem with robust physical exchanges in sport, but the competition is more important to me than than the number of injuries the sides rack up. Unless it's Argentina vs Italy or something, in which case I will happily sit watching them kick lumps out of each other all day.
Whilst sipping sherry.
The trick is to say, to your your French opponent, that you are a savage...in Latin.
By the time your American football chums have decided to start the second down after finish the first the average bowling side would have got half way through an over. There are also penalites given if teams don't bowl anough overs in a certain time period. Put simply, you don't know what you are talking about.
In most forms of cricket you are expected to bowl two balls in a minute. So near enough. Your assesment that cricket is a similar pace to american football is what indicates you don't know what you are talking about, but that's par for the course with you. A fielding side takes noway near 40 seconds to get a ball back to the bowler in cricket.
It's his fault for making a point that cricket suffers from a lack of continuous play. Besides he loves it.
dogma wrote:So, a cricket team is expected to bowl once per 30 seconds, but the fact that a football team must play once per 40 seconds is not comparable?
You do understand that 40 seconds is a limit right?
Erm do you understand that play is happening within those 30 seconds, right? While what your talking about is a gap between play.
If you want to put it on equal terms I'd say if a cricket team didn't bowl their next ball within ten seconds of play stopping, they'd be heading towards a penalty for bwoling too few overs. So 10 seconds vs 40 seconds, hmmm.
whatwhat wrote:
Erm do you understand that play is happening within those 30 seconds, right? While what your talking about is a gap between play.
If that's what you think ,then you've never watched an American Football game with any sort of critical eye.
Play always goes on, even if its merely substitutions and rushes. I mean, that's the base of no-huddle.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whatwhat wrote:
dogma wrote:No, I never said that cricket lacked for continuous play.
Then your statement...
dogma wrote:And yet you watch Cricket?
Strange.
After I stated my dislike for American Football due to lack of continuous play seems fairly pointless.
I assumed you meant slow play, because any sportsman would know that play only stops when the field is left; especially given things like delay-of-game penalties.
whatwhat wrote:
Erm do you understand that play is happening within those 30 seconds, right? While what your talking about is a gap between play.
If that's what you think ,then you've never watched an American Football game with any sort of critical eye.
Play always goes on, even if its merely substitutions and rushes. I mean, that's the base of no-huddle.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whatwhat wrote:
dogma wrote:No, I never said that cricket lacked for continuous play.
Then your statement...
dogma wrote:And yet you watch Cricket?
Strange.
After I stated my dislike for American Football due to lack of continuous play seems fairly pointless.
I assumed you meant slow play, because any sportsman would know that play only stops when the field is left; especially given things like delay-of-game penalties.
Maybe in your sport, most sports add time on at the end of a game to make up for lost play.
whatwhat wrote:
Maybe in your sport, most sports add time on at the end of a game to make up for lost play.
Yes, this happens in American Football as well; its merely that we standardized the time added, and grated increments to each team.
Not to mention left the officials with carte blanche to enforce their discretion through official time-out.
So you consider the time between play as play yet still add on play to recover lost play. o rly.
Basically my point was I dislike the stop start nature of American Football. If your comparison between football and cricket in regard to that relies on the idea of time between downs being considered as play then it really doesn't mean much in regards to what I'm talking about. As I don't consider any of that interesting.
You know what I'm getting at, the play, action, whatever you want to call it, is very stop start in football and delays just make the game unwatchable for me. The fact that you wonder why I like cricket on that basis only tells me you know little about cricket. As it isn't an issue in cricket.
whatwhat wrote:
So you consider the time between play as play yet still add on play to recover lost play. o rly.
No...
In American Football there is an official play clock. It contains 40 seconds in the NFL, and D1 College. In the NFL this clock denotes time between legitimate play (set to tackle), but the actual game clock does not stop unless otherwise signaled (measures, etc.).
You're thinking of it like Soccer, but that's not what it is. The time keeping is similar, but announced in real time.
whatwhat wrote:
Basically my point was I dislike the stop start nature of American Football. If your comparison between football and cricket in regard to that relies on the idea of time between downs being considered as play then it really doesn't mean much in regards to what I'm talking about. As I don't consider any of that interesting.
You know what I'm getting at, the play, action, whatever you want to call it, is very stop start in football and delays just make the game unwatchable for me. The fact that you wonder why I like cricket on that basis only tells me you know little about cricket. As it isn't an issue in cricket.
I could, and do, say the same about you as regards American Football.
For someone so smart this is taking a long while to get into your head.
Lets just for the purposes of my point consider that "action" is the period from which the ball is given to the qaurterback until the time it is touched to the ground.
My point is that I dislike American football because of the delays between the "action". Get it now?
As you say teams are allowed 40 seconds between periods of action. In cricket once the batsmen cease to run or the ball hits the boundary, etc. it goes straight back to the bowler, perhaps in test cricket one or two practice throws between fielders (5 or so seconds worth, thas all), then play commences again.
Are you still in wonder how I can like cricket and dislike American football on that basis, or should I make a feature length documentary to explain it to you.
Baseball isn't too bad when you go to the game because you can relax, chat up who you're with, crowd watch, etc. On TV there's none of that. Just two announcers trying to fill the air up with blather so you don't realize it's been five minutes and the same guy is still batting.
I've never left a game early. The very first game I ever attended, my team came back from a two touchdown deficit in the last two minutes of play, and won in overtime.
Knowing how those people who left felt, to not have been there and see that and celebrate afterwards, it's just not worth it to get a minor head start to the parking lot. You stay until the final whistle blows, that's what it means to be a fan. Even in 0 degree weather.
Redbeard wrote:I've never left a game early. The very first game I ever attended, my team came back from a two touchdown deficit in the last two minutes of play, and won in overtime.
Knowing how those people who left felt, to not have been there and see that and celebrate afterwards, it's just not worth it to get a minor head start to the parking lot. You stay until the final whistle blows, that's what it means to be a fan. Even in 0 degree weather.
Yeah pretty much that right there.
That and given how much you have to pay for a ticket I'll be damned if I leave my seat before I have to.
Redbeard wrote:I've never left a game early. The very first game I ever attended, my team came back from a two touchdown deficit in the last two minutes of play, and won in overtime.
Knowing how those people who left felt, to not have been there and see that and celebrate afterwards, it's just not worth it to get a minor head start to the parking lot. You stay until the final whistle blows, that's what it means to be a fan. Even in 0 degree weather.
Fair enough i just find it a little disheartening when i see a load of people leave before the game is over, and i wonder how some of the teams must feel sometimes
Tyyr wrote:Baseball isn't too bad when you go to the game because you can relax, chat up who you're with, crowd watch, etc. On TV there's none of that. Just two announcers trying to fill the air up with blather so you don't realize it's been five minutes and the same guy is still batting.
This. Baseball is great at the park.
Football makes the leap to TV better IMO just because it's such a complex and strategic game, and (in theory) the broadcasters have plenty to blab about that. And actually, for that reason the best way to watch football might be at the stadium while listening to the radio broadcast.
American Football and Cricket both look terribly boring to someone who doesn't understand them, and what's happening in the "pauses".
I know very little about cricket, but developed an appreciation for football as an adult, after having the usual nerd kid's disregard for it (I did Fencing and Aikido) growing up, so I can appreciate the perspective of the folks who aren't into it.
Once you get into football, you appreciate the situations, can anticipate and make guesses about what's about to happen and what kind of play you'd call if you were the coach, coordinator, quarterback or defensive captain. The pauses in many cases actually serve to increase enjoyment, causing dramatic tension to build and letting you savor it. Some of the pauses (TV timeouts, in particular) do still get annoying, though.
Alby, no one is saying that their sport is BETTER because there are more injuries. I raised the point in response to the sterotypical jab that Rugby is more "manly" because the guys don't wear armor. Which is silly. As noted, that armor actually causes quite a lot of injuries as well, and it (and the culture of the game) encourages the players to hit each other a lot harder and more violently than in almost any sport. No one is saying that's a good thing, but if we're having a "Macho-off", I'll take your average football player over your average rugby player.
My point for intitially posting was the whole foot of snow thing. I have fond memories of watching a game where the Bears were playing at Soldier Field. The snow was so intense you could barely see the players.
I remember reading that when it came out. It's interesting, but I think most sports are similar, in other ways.
For example, in Nascar, you get long stretches of people driving in a circle. I can do that. It's broken up periodically by a few times when people pass each other, and a few times when people crash, but mostly, it's driving in a circle.
In golf, you have 18 holes, typically at par 3 or 4. Actually hitting the ball takes 5 seconds or so. So, per golfer, you're looking at six minutes of action, probably less, and a lot of walking around and lining things up.
Same thing in Baseball. A throw and swing doesn't take long, and a hit and base run takes only a little longer. There's lots of watching a pitcher try to fake out a runner, or getting signals from a batter, but little actual action.
Okay, so what about the 'continual action' sports? Basketball has a lot of action, but each shot amounts to roughly 2% of the final score. Just because they're moving doesn't mean it's relevant. Soccer's goals are more relevant, but there's a lot of running-back-and-forth-accomplishing-very-little. Hockey is probably the best, because the goals are relevant, and the field is smaller (and they move faster) so the action is pretty non-stop. Of course, you have to watch that Zamboni thing every twenty minutes...
Redbeard wrote: Hockey is probably the best, because the goals are relevant, and the field is smaller (and they move faster) so the action is pretty non-stop.
Yes! Finally scientific proof of what every Canadian knows!
I'm 5"11, (ok, not that small) and 130 pounds (I'm also scrawny, I do not look like a rugby player ). I played winger for my schools rugby team for 3 years. (our other winger was 5"2, and weighed just about 100 pounds at the time)
So my games were against 14-16 year olds, most of which had at least 50 pounds on me and a great deal more muscle. In my career, a horrendous number of injuries were caused.
Injuries inflicted by me:
Broken ankle
6 headbuttings (2 ended with concussions)
1 knee to chest (cracked rib)
1 knee to hip
2 punches to face
1 punch to body
16 studs-into-soft-bits
Injuries inflicted on me:
1 tooth smashed out
4 studs-into-soft-bits
1 punch into back of head
1 clothes lining
3 bitings
1 epic faceplant after having my ankle hooked by another player.
And one guy lost most of his lip torn off after he was kneed in the face and bit through most of his face.
Yes, American Football is meant to be played in the worst conditions imaginable, preferably snow, but a good hard rain or fog work well. Indoor stadiums should be illegal for any sport other than Basketball or Hockey. Although, seeing Hockey played outside at Wrigley Field was pretty cool...
My personal opinion is that all these teams in warm weather climates should be moved to Canada, or Siberia.
Yes, American Football is meant to be played in the worst conditions imaginable, preferably snow, but a good hard rain or fog work well. Indoor stadiums should be illegal for any sport other than Basketball or Hockey. Although, seeing Hockey played outside at Wrigley Field was pretty cool...
My personal opinion is that all these teams in warm weather climates should be moved to Canada, or Siberia.
Yeah, ice-football (and ice-rugby) is awesome and I agree with Grakmar.
Apologies for completely forgetting the point of the topic.
whatwhat wrote:For someone so smart this is taking a long while to get into your head.
Lets just for the purposes of my point consider that "action" is the period from which the ball is given to the qaurterback until the time it is touched to the ground.
My point is that I dislike American football because of the delays between the "action". Get it now?
I understood your meaning, I simply considered your justification to be poor because your I considered your definition of "action" to be inadequate, and irrelevant.
whatwhat wrote:
As you say teams are allowed 40 seconds between periods of action. In cricket once the batsmen cease to run or the ball hits the boundary, etc. it goes straight back to the bowler, perhaps in test cricket one or two practice throws between fielders (5 or so seconds worth, thas all), then play commences again.
Are you still in wonder how I can like cricket and dislike American football on that basis, or should I make a feature length documentary to explain it to you.
I don't know what cricket matches you've been watching, but "straight back to the bowler" doesn't seem like a particularly valid description of periods between action. You also have to consider time between dismissals, which can extend to 3 minutes by law, and time between bowls, which has no governing law that I'm aware of, but tends to be much longer than the 5 seconds you describe. In that sense cricket reminds me of baseball, as the time between instances of play is generally regulated by the sensibilities of officials.
My ultimate point being that "time between periods of action" doesn't have a lot to do with how boring a sport is to watch. Golf involves near constant "action" when broadcast, because the action is more than simply hitting the ball, and most people find it extremely tedious to watch.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Redbeard wrote:
Okay, so what about the 'continual action' sports? Basketball has a lot of action, but each shot amounts to roughly 2% of the final score. Just because they're moving doesn't mean it's relevant. Soccer's goals are more relevant, but there's a lot of running-back-and-forth-accomplishing-very-little. Hockey is probably the best, because the goals are relevant, and the field is smaller (and they move faster) so the action is pretty non-stop. Of course, you have to watch that Zamboni thing every twenty minutes...
Exactly. What constitutes action varies from sport to sport, and those actions will always be of varying significance.
Its perfectly acceptable to not like a certain sport, but "it's too slow" is usually not a particularly good justification for doing so. In almost every case the real reason that someone dislikes a sport is either simply a lack of understanding with respect to it, or a general dislike for watching sports.
Of course, admitting that one does not understand a thing is much more difficult than simply saying that thing is bad, so it isn't usually what is offered when pressed for a reason behind a dislike.
whatwhat wrote:For someone so smart this is taking a long while to get into your head.
Lets just for the purposes of my point consider that "action" is the period from which the ball is given to the qaurterback until the time it is touched to the ground.
My point is that I dislike American football because of the delays between the "action". Get it now?
I understood your meaning, I simply considered your justification to be poor because your I considered your definition of "action" to be inadequate, and irrelevant.
Um? Okay watch a game of rugby and a game of American Footbal and tell me which one has more action in the same time period. No matter what your definition of action is can you at least agree that rugby has more of it?
Redbeard wrote:I've never left a game early. The very first game I ever attended, my team came back from a two touchdown deficit in the last two minutes of play, and won in overtime.
Knowing how those people who left felt, to not have been there and see that and celebrate afterwards, it's just not worth it to get a minor head start to the parking lot. You stay until the final whistle blows, that's what it means to be a fan. Even in 0 degree weather.
Yeah pretty much that right there.
That and given how much you have to pay for a ticket I'll be damned if I leave my seat before I have to.
I stay after to "acquire" expensive commemorative cups. I'll be damned if I am going to pay 8 bucks for cup that had beer in it. Plus it helps the trash crew.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Redbeard wrote: Hockey is probably the best, because the goals are relevant, and the field is smaller (and they move faster) so the action is pretty non-stop.
Yes! Finally scientific proof of what every Canadian knows!
Gibbsey wrote:
Um? Okay watch a game of rugby and a game of American Footbal and tell me which one has more action in the same time period. No matter what your definition of action is can you at least agree that rugby has more of it?
Well, if my definition of action is "people doing things related to the sport" then as long as there is a game going on there is action.
To put it another way, is the prevalence of significant events important, or is it "action"?
Do you care about every pass in a rugby game? Every ruck? Every shot in basketball?
Gibbsey wrote:
Um? Okay watch a game of rugby and a game of American Footbal and tell me which one has more action in the same time period. No matter what your definition of action is can you at least agree that rugby has more of it?
Well, if my definition of action is "people doing things related to the sport" then as long as there is a game going on there is action.
To put it another way, is the prevalence of significant events important, or is it "action"?
Do you care about every pass in a rugby game? Every ruck? Every shot in basketball?
Movement at least rugby is fluid,American football halts the action stops so often.
Hey i guess its so you guys have a nice break for commercials.....
Stormrider wrote:
I stay after to "acquire" expensive commemorative cups. I'll be damned if I am going to pay 8 bucks for cup that had beer in it. Plus it helps the trash crew.
I was once thrown in the drunk tank for doing that. Security thought I was going for beer after sales had stopped.
Stormrider wrote:
I stay after to "acquire" expensive commemorative cups. I'll be damned if I am going to pay 8 bucks for cup that had beer in it. Plus it helps the trash crew.
I was once thrown in the drunk tank for doing that. Security thought I was going for beer after sales had stopped.
What stadium was that? I have done that at Arrowhead in KC multiple times and had no issues at all.
Now that makes sense, maybe it's the average clientelle their concerned about and you happened to be caught in a case of mistaken identity. I know Bears fans are pretty much like Eagle fans, drunk, loud and almost immune to the cold (or sportsmanship, or taste, alright my anti-Eagle bias is showing ).
).