Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:And yet you watch Cricket?

Strange.

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.

Wait, it takes you 40 seconds to make 3 legal bowls?

That's how long it takes professional football players to start the second down, from tackle to snap, by rule.

Perhaps you don't know what you're 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.

Perhaps you two would be better-off not having yet ANOTHER argument....

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?

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.

No, I never said that cricket lacked for continuous play.

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.

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.

dogma wrote:

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.

dogma wrote:

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.

If you dislike American football for that reason, baseball or golf would send you to the hospital...

Well I have never seen a game of baseball in my life but I'll take your word for it and yes golf is utterly boring to watch.

Golf is utterly boring to play unless you've got a cozy relationship with the Beer girl and an open tab.

Tyyr wrote:Golf is utterly boring to play unless you've got a cozy relationship with the Beer girl and an open tab.

Yep, so is cricket and baseball. In fact I find most sports boring to actually watch.

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.

Frazzled wrote:

Tyyr wrote:Golf is utterly boring to play unless you've got a cozy relationship with the Beer girl and an open tab.

Yep, so is cricket and baseball. In fact I find most sports boring to actually watch.

I think the main reason American Football is popular is because you can leave for half an hour and not miss much

And everyone always walks out 20 minutes before the game ends

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.

Look Dogma and whatwhat are at it again!



Actually, that photo is suitable for an American football thread as well!

I think that we can all agree that football is awesome(ambiguous enough for both sides of the atlantic to think that their version is awesome).

I would like to say that cricket is a mix between golf and baseball however.

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.

Indeed. Injuries = Bad

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.

Best article on football ever:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281204575002852055561406.html

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...