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.

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!

Rugby is brutal, especially for us little guys.

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.

I love how rugby is ridiculously violent.

I've forgotten what my point was.

S_P

Back to the original topic:

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.

Grakmar wrote:Back to the original topic:

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.

S_P

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.

dogma wrote:

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?

Tyyr wrote:

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!

Soccer on ice? Okay.

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?

dogma wrote:

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.

dogma wrote:

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.

Soldier Field.

dogma wrote:Soldier Field.

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 ).