NationStates Jolt Archive

Yeah, but... at university? Way to get your education priorities in order.

There are some very good students that are also collegiate football players. One even passed up going pro for the Rhodes Scholarship he was offered this offseason.

Yeah, but... at university? Way to get your education priorities in order.

*shrugs* It's just the way things are done over here. And now that the college ranks have unofficially been the minor leagues for so long, there isn't really a way to take that giant source of income away from them and make a formal minor league. Plus the NFL likes to be able to get 4 years worth of scouting reports for free and not pay a cent of transfer fees.

You know, if we had like, an actual local Soccer team, Id probably support it, even keep up with it if it got to play with the big European teams...

Since when is lacrosse a low-scoring game?

"Go for the fights, stay for the hockey"

You know, if we had like, an actual local Soccer team, Id probably support it, even keep up with it if it got to play with the big European teams...

Don't think Mississippi would ever get a team...

Don't think Mississippi would ever get a team...

Idk, we're getting bigger...

But, may I suggest New Orleans......Maybe Mobile, but we'd probably boycott them out of principle, lol

You know, if we had like, an actual local Soccer team, Id probably support it, even keep up with it if it got to play with the big European teams...

First Biloxi would have to get a team...probably Minor league like the Seawolves were.
Then they would have to win the U.S. Open Cup.
Then they would have to win the Concacaf Champions League
Then they could play a top European side.

Heheh. I'll give the posters here one thing - I've never seen one of these get hijacked into a discussion about fighting in ice hockey. :D

Not exactly true. A 1-0 baseball win can be a classic game, especially if it goes into extra innings. Hockey has plenty of 1-0 games that are fun. Where I do agree with the numbers game is that soccer does not open itself of sheer geekery in the way a lot of other sports can. In baseball you have stats like batting average, WHIP, ERA, Slugging percentage. Football has things like YPC, Yards after catch, QB Rating...

Soccer, seems like you have to watch it. And it's more a sport that has to be explained through visual terms than being able to be broken down into numbers.

Indeed. Although, association football does have stats that can be geeked.

I'll never understand that. If you were here and you said "I'm going to university to play FOOTBALL", they'd laugh at you.

In addition to what Arroza said, there are historical reasons. Gridiron football developed in the colleges and universities of the US, and arguably still has it's strongest hold there rather than on the pro level.

Have you looked at the article on gridiron history that I posted twice above? If you're honestly interested in the historical reasons why the gridiron game is the US version of football as opposed to Rugby or association, that should give you a start.

And one other reason, related to the historical development of gridiron in the colleges and universities is that football scholarship money is seen as a means of gaining an education by some (certainly not all!) players who'd otherwise not be able to afford an education.

Yeah, but... at university? Way to get your education priorities in order.

Blaim the universities and especially the alumi associations, and the history of the game's development.

First Biloxi would have to get a team...probably Minor league like the Seawolves were.
Then they would have to win the U.S. Open Cup.
Then they would have to win the Concacaf Champions League
Then they could play a top European side.

Pretty much.

First Biloxi would have to get a team...probably Minor league like the Seawolves were.
Then they would have to win the U.S. Open Cup.
Then they would have to win the Concacaf Champions League
Then they could play a top European side.

Might tell you something there, Not near as hard for an NFL team to make it into the big leagues...

It would be if gridiron was a world sport.

Why are non-Americans calling it 'soccer'? It's football God damnit!

Association Football.. that's why. It was called that to keep it from being confused with Rubgy (was then was known as Football) Read Wikipedia about it.

As for the main question, there is a short and long one.

Short answer: Americans have short attention spans.

Long answer:
#1: Why Football is the #1 sport in the US? Every quarter is the same length of time. Every play has the same amount of time to take palce, etc. Baseball's innings can last as short as 1-2 minutes or as long as 20-25 minutes, and soccer, while 'claiming' 45 minute halves, never has one that lasts exactly 45 minutes. I'm serious, time the next footy/soccer match you see on TV or in person, the half will not last exactly 45 minutes, even counting for stoppages in play!

#2: Sunday, when the vast majority of NFL games occur (and College games on Saturday), is when most men, and no i'm not trying to be sexist here, don't work and therefore have time to watch on TV or attend in person, while in the US most Soccer games take place on the weekends, (and mid-week), they occur during Baseball season, which more men watch than women. Reverse-sexist statement, women watch more soccer in the US then men. I read that somewhere, but can't remember where at the moment.

#3:While Soccer has been around as long as football in the US, (both were organized in the 1880's) but financial profit was greater of colleges to have Football played, rather than soccer, as Football (before the reformation in the 1910-1920's) usually took only 40 or so minute to complete, while soccer took over an hour. Therefore over the same amount of time, you could have 6 football games or 4 soccer games.

#4: Post WWII, more and more American had more money to spend, and wanted as much action, thrills, etc. for their money (More bang for the Buck). Football fufilled that role more than baseball or any other sport.

#5 (the most important one): TELEVISION! Football is more geared to TV than any other sport. Baseball has too few moments of action per hour. Basketball drags in the last 5 minutes of each half, due to fouls being called every other possesion. Hockey comes close, but along with Soccer provides less scoring per hour than a normal Football game does. Not to mention that commerically, football provides almost 45 to 50 minutes of advertising for 3 hours compared to about 10-15 minutes for a soccer game.

Speaking of baseball...

Anyone know when pitchers and catchers begin to report to spring training?! :D

Speaking of baseball...

Anyone know when pitchers and catchers begin to report to spring training?! :D

Next week. Earliest reporters are on Feb 12th (I think either the Dodgers or Rangers). Red Sox come to Ft. Myers on Feb 13th! Wh00000t!

Next week. Earliest reporters are on Feb 12th (I think either the Dodgers or Rangers). Red Sox come to Ft. Myers on Feb 13th! Wh00000t!

About a week and a half?

That's too far away. :tongue:

Co-capital, along with Stavanger and Sandnes. I may be doing these places a disservice, but a quick glance around the internet doesn't suggest them as exactly bursting out with extraordinary levels of culture.Playing Devil's advocate here

I actually live quite near both Stavanger and Sandnes. There was loads of things happening there all through 2008.

Another thing. American football, they get how many points? 20, 40? You can't possibly be as excited for every goal then, if there in a football match might just be one or two. That's why the crowd is going mental usually, I reckon.

#5 (the most important one): TELEVISION! Football is more geared to TV than any other sport. Baseball has too few moments of action per hour. Basketball drags in the last 5 minutes of each half, due to fouls being called every other possesion. Hockey comes close, but along with Soccer provides less scoring per hour than a normal Football game does. Not to mention that commerically, football provides almost 45 to 50 minutes of advertising for 3 hours compared to about 10-15 minutes for a soccer game.

It's geared to television advertising (Play. Advert. Play. Advert. Turnover. Lots of adverts. Play. Advert. Rinse. Repeat.), rather than television itself. And, as American TV has adverts every 5 minutes, rather than every 10 or 15 as is the case in the UK for instance, it lends itself very well to what the Networks want, which is lots of viewers and lots of advertising revenue.

For me, an American Football match in its entirety is a dull watch because of that very reason, as I can't get immersed in it. Perhaps it'd be a better experience at the stadium, to get a better feel for it.

But then, as a Brit, I'd probably cheer in "all the wrong places", because I'm not used to having a troupe of pretty girls in short skirts telling me when to cheer - something which has always bemused me.

But then, as a Brit, I'd probably cheer in "all the wrong places", because I'm not used to having a troupe of pretty girls in short skirts telling me when to cheer - something which has always bemused me.

What are you, then? Kopite? Blue Mooner? Hammer?

Kopite.

Yay, me too. Well, never been there. >_< But I follow them.

Great stadium to be in. I don't like walking round the surrounding streets at night, but inside it's just lovely.

Lol, pity it's being replaced. Well, at least they're keeping the pitch. And we don't have to share the new ground with the blueshite.

I thought my post would at least incite lulz :(

Fights are started either to get retribution for a cheap shot or to get a team fired up and back into the game at hand. For the sake of post length, I'm going only talk about retribution fights.

These take place when one team or another player feels like his teammate has been wronged. For example, if we were playing hockey, and I tripped and injured your best shooter, possibly taking away your team's chance for victory, merely penalizing me wouldn't do anything. And, if I were only penalized, a teammate of yours would probably take his own sort of cheap shot on one of my players, possibly injuring them. And so on and so forth.

The reason why fights are allowed is because it allows players to basically police themselves as to what cheap shots are or aren't. Take away fighting, and I assure you, you would see something in the order of what happened between the Buffallo Sabres and Ottawa Senators last year.

EDIT: Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAPhqXj_24I


And like I said, that happens in other sports as well. And these other sports manage without turning a blind eye to fighting

And from what I've read I don't think it is just the issue of decreasing tension. People argue for it as the part of hockey they like and shouldn't be clamped down upon. Personally I feel players should be in a game because of their ability to play that game, not because they can fight.

As for the video it proves my point. The refs stand around when it's two guys punching. As soon as they fall over and are getting back up (with skates waving around) or it's not one on one they're straight into the middle of it and break it up. The only reason they don't do it for one on one is because hockey isn't interested in stopping it.

Might tell you something there, Not near as hard for an NFL team to make it into the big leagues...

Well it's a lot harder when all the big leagues are on another continent. But try to get Southern Miss. into the NFL, or even the SEC. It's even more impossible than getting a team to play European sides.

But things like the U.S. Open Cup are great ways for a tiny team (even non-professional sides) to go on a great run and play against some of the top teams in America. And the Concacaf (N. America/Caribbean) Champions League is a tournament that pairs off the best teams from every country in the region. So far 2 teams from the "American" minor league have made it into the Quarterfinals this year (P.R. Islanders / Montreal Impact)

Soccer never caught on because we have football. Europeans, not having football until the advent of NFL Europe, had to make do and pretend to enjoy soccer as best they could.
Footie is great, rugby union is top, don't think much of American Football. It's like Rugby League for people who wear too much padding and all that.

Footie is great, rugby union is top, don't think much of American Football. It's like Rugby League for people who wear too much padding and all that.

What do you think of league?

What do you think of league?
A poorer sport than union.

If no one cares what we think, no one will notice what we're doing. If no one notices what we're doing, we've already won. Count yourselves lucky that Hockey championships are all we take from this frail world.

That's all you guys can really take. :tongue:

Liverpool isn't the only team in the Premier league, other UK teams would be happy to see 26.000 people at every game. And I'm silent about Holland, Belgian, French and even Italian teams.

Yeah like Kings Lynn or Nottingham Forest you know those teams that are four or five flights down from the top.

Why do you care what Americans think?

Because you're scary :tongue:

It would definitely make NFL players earn their salaries.

It certainly would :) Just as a side bar who did win the Superbowl?

It's also that the armour gives them an excuse to hit harder. Ironically, it doesn't make the think them any more manly; I think Australian football and rugby players are tougher.

Well I'm not to sure on the Aussie rules players nowadays they have been getting a lot softer over the past few years. The 70's players now there were players who would keep on playing even with a broken arm.

England has the right idea with cricket, i dont know alot about it but i dont hear much on the news about cricket riots so its a step in the right direction.

That's because cricket is a gentleman's game or at least it was until the Indians corrupted international cricket and the advent of 20/20.

Lol, pity it's being replaced. Well, at least they're keeping the pitch. And we don't have to share the new ground with the blueshite.

Yeah but moving it from the scared ground is just plain wrong.

*Hopes we are talking about the same thing*

As for the video it proves my point. The refs stand around when it's two guys punching. As soon as they fall over and are getting back up (with skates waving around) or it's not one on one they're straight into the middle of it and break it up. The only reason they don't do it for one on one is because hockey isn't interested in stopping it.

Which is why they go in from the side, and when one or both men are down. There is a reduced chance of a skate coming up and catching the linesmen. They never go in from behind, and never get directly between the two.

Yeah but moving it from the scared ground is just plain wrong.

*Hopes we are talking about the same thing*

Don't really have a choice, Anfield is too small.

Don't really have a choice, Anfield is too small.

Upgrade the stadium no need to build a new one. Anyway the owners are pissing me off they are only after building value rather than getting the team to what they really should be and that is getting Liverpool their 19th title. Why is it no longer about the game?

Ice Hockey, Hockey, Soccer, Lacrosse, Field Hockey, etc have low scoring systems.

Americans, especially those of us in states that border Canada, love ice hockey.

Uh...I've been to lacross games where the score was high!

I've been to ice hockey games where the score was high too. Lake Superior State University against University of Toronto. A 15-0 win for LSSU and possible the most boring game I've ever watched.

Another thing. American football, they get how many points? 20, 40? You can't possibly be as excited for every goal then, if there in a football match might just be one or two. That's why the crowd is going mental usually, I reckon.

I think you're a bit confused as to the scoring system in US football. A touchdown, which is getting the ball to the endzone yields 6 points. After a touchdown you have the opportunity to kick the ball through the goal posts for an extra point, with your defensive line being on the two yard line.

You also have the option to attempt to essentially make another touchdown at this time which is worth 2 points.

You can also attempt to kick the ball (with someone holding the ball on the ground, like for the extra point I mentioned earlier) through the goal posts for 3 points.

You also can gain 2 points while on defense by tackling the opposing ball player in his own end zone.

So while the score of the Superbowl was 27-23 the teams actually only scored 9 times.

Key: PIT= Pittsburgh Steelers ARI= Arizona Cardinals.

* 1st Quarter
o PIT – Jeff Reed 18 yard field goal, 9:45. Steelers 3–0. Drive: 9 plays, 71 yards, 5:15.
* 2nd Quarter
o PIT – Gary Russell 1 yard run (Jeff Reed kick), 14:01. Steelers 10–0. Drive: 11 plays, 69 yards, 7:12.
o ARI – Ben Patrick 1 yard pass from Kurt Warner (Neil Rackers kick), 8:31. Steelers 10–7. Drive: 9 plays, 83 yards, 5:27.
o PIT – James Harrison 100 yard interception return (Jeff Reed kick), 0:00. Steelers 17–7.
* 3rd Quarter
o PIT – Jeff Reed 21 yard field goal, 2:11. Steelers 20–7. Drive: 16 plays, 79 yards, 8:39.
* 4th Quarter
o ARI – Larry Fitzgerald 1 yard pass from Kurt Warner (Neil Rackers kick), 7:33. Steelers 20–14. Drive: 8 plays, 87 yards, 3:57.
o ARI – Holding penalty on Justin Hartwig in end zone for safety, 2:58. Steelers 20–16.
o ARI – Larry Fitzgerald 64 yard pass from Kurt Warner (Neil Rackers kick), 2:37. Cardinals 23–20. Drive: 2 plays, 67 yards, 21 seconds.
o PIT – Santonio Holmes 6 yard pass from Ben Roethlisberger (Jeff Reed kick), 0:35. Steelers 27–23. Drive: 8 plays, 78 yards, 2:02.

Here we go steelers here we go!!!!

So while the score of the Superbowl was 27-23 the teams actually only scored 9 times.

I'm figuring 20-something points per side is fairly average, right?

If nine scores per game in American Football was translated to Association Football, a 'close' nine-goal match (5-4, or less even commonly 6-3, but that'd still be considered a hammering) would quite often be the most incredible games, attacking play-wise, that the team(s) played in the whole the season.

Compare that to the much more common occasion of a 0-0 draw playing away from home on a wet Wednesday night in a small, former industrial town in the north of England, and it's footballing heaven.

I'm figuring 20-something points per side is fairly average, right?

If nine scores per game in American Football was translated to Association Football, a 'close' nine-goal match (5-4, or less even commonly 6-3, but that'd still be considered a hammering) would quite often be the most incredible games, attacking play-wise, that the team(s) played in the whole the season.

Compare that to the much more common occasion of a 0-0 draw playing away from home on a wet Wednesday night in a small, former industrial town in the north of England, and it's footballing heaven.

It's fairly average yes, but how you score is much less important than how many times. For example, a couple of years ago my beloved Detroit Lions would quite often score several more times than their opponents but still lose as most (if not all) of their scoring was by field goals, which are only worth half as much as a touchdown.

Unless it's a strategically important field goal, if you're losing 21-20, for example, a field goal is often seen as a concession or insurance. It's a concession if you're not winning but aren't confident in getting a touchdown, for example if it's 4th down and you're on the 20 yard line. It's insurance if you're winning by 7 (a touchdown and an extra point) as it means the opposing team has to score on their next possession, keep you from scoring on your and then score again on their next possession.

Keep in mind that we only stick with REAL sports (chess, football, synchronized wardrobe malfunctions....) :p

Which is why they go in from the side, and when one or both men are down. There is a reduced chance of a skate coming up and catching the linesmen. They never go in from behind, and never get directly between the two.

So when the men are down and their skates are off the ice and waving in the air it's safer for the officials than when they're standing up.

Look at that video at about 1 minute 5. There's about three players fighting and the refs go straight in and stop it. Or at about 2:08 two players are fighting and three refs watch. Then after a while they decide to intervene while the players are still standing up and fighting and break it up pretty quickly. They could have done it in the first place if they'd wanted to.

Upgrade the stadium no need to build a new one
Iirc then Anfield can't be upgraded much more. I wouldn't worry though, at the rate they're going you won't be in the next one for years.

Yeah like Kings Lynn or Nottingham Forest you know those teams that are four or five flights down from the top.

Damn, actual statistics are awesome.

Actual Premiership teams:

Wigan - The JJB. Capacity (25,023)
Portsmouth - Fratton Park. Capacity (20,700)
Hull - Kingston Communications Stad. Capacity (25,504)
Fulham - Craven Cottage. Capacity (26,400)

Teams in the premiership on the last 3 years, or that have a great chance to be in the Premiership in 2009/10.
Reading - Madjelski Stadium. Capacity (24,200)
Watford - Vicarage Road. Capacity (19,900)
Preston North End - Deepdale. Capacity: (24,525)
Wolves - Molineux - Average Attendance:
2007-2008: 23,499 (Championship League)

Tell me again how drawing 26,000 in L.A. is an embarrassment.

And Notts Forest is in the Championship, not 4 or 5 divisions down.

Upgrade the stadium no need to build a new one. Anyway the owners are pissing me off they are only after building value rather than getting the team to what they really should be and that is getting Liverpool their 19th title. Why is it no longer about the game?

Expanding Anfield would be prohibitively expensive; it genuinely isn't possible I believe.

You won't be winning the league anyway. United will, again, because we have a manager who can attack.

Damn, actual statistics are awesome.

Actual Premiership teams:

Wigan - The JJB. Capacity (25,023)
Portsmouth - Fratton Park. Capacity (20,700)
Hull - Kingston Communications Stad. Capacity (25,504)
Fulham - Craven Cottage. Capacity (26,400)

Teams in the premiership on the last 3 years, or that have a great chance to be in the Premiership in 2009/10.
Reading - Madjelski Stadium. Capacity (24,200)
Watford - Vicarage Road. Capacity (19,900)
Preston North End - Deepdale. Capacity: (24,525)
Wolves - Molineux - Average Attendance:
2007-2008: 23,499 (Championship League)

Tell me again how drawing 26,000 in L.A. is an embarrassment.

And Notts Forest is in the Championship, not 4 or 5 divisions down.

Because Reading, Fulham and Watford compete with however many other professional football clubs in London, a city smaller than LA.

The same applies for Forest and Wolves in the midlands, Preston in the premiership suffused North west, and Pompey in Hampshire.

Hull, for that matter, are something of a "new" major club, ensconced firmly in Rugby League territory.

Blouman is largely correct; in a conurbation the size of Los Angeles, to attract 25,000 per week is negligable, reflecting no real incease in fans as much as increased enthusiasm within a consistent fanbase.

That's because cricket is a gentleman's game or at least it was until the Indians corrupted international cricket and the advent of 20/20.

Good form that man. Can't abide Lalit Modi and his ilk, or the composition and atmospher of crowd at 20/20 matches.

Damn, actual statistics are awesome.

Actual Premiership teams:

Wigan - The JJB. Capacity (25,023)
Portsmouth - Fratton Park. Capacity (20,700)
Hull - Kingston Communications Stad. Capacity (25,504)
Fulham - Craven Cottage. Capacity (26,400)

Ten years ago (last time I checked it was the 96/97 season) all of Fulham, Hull and Wigan were in the 4th tier of English football, and Portsmouth were a struggling second-tear team, massively out-performed by neighbouring city Southampton. None of them are clubs of particular historical importance to the game, save for Portsmouth winning the FA Cup the year before World War 2. The capacity of stadia built with 2nd or 3rd-tier football in places, in Hull and Wigan's case, where Rugby League is the dominant spectator sport is not something to wave around as proving your point.

Tell me again how drawing 26,000 in L.A. is an embarrassment.

Seventeen million people live in the L.A. metropolitan area. Compare this to, for instance, 1899 Hoffenheim in Germany's top league, who reside in a village of 3,000 people and have just had to build a stadium to hold 30,000 fans.

Ten years ago (last time I checked it was the 96/97 season) all of Fulham, Hull and Wigan were in the 4th tier of English football, and Portsmouth were a struggling second-tear team, massively out-performed by neighbouring city Southampton. None of them are clubs of particular historical importance to the game, save for Portsmouth winning the FA Cup the year before World War 2. The capacity of stadia built with 2nd or 3rd-tier football in places, in Hull and Wigan's case, where Rugby League is the dominant spectator sport is not something to wave around as proving your point.

Thanks for the history lesson. I wasn't aware of these teams recent rise to prominence. But the entire league that the Galaxy plays in wasn't started until 1996. So as far as team history these teams are on the same level.

Seventeen million people live in the L.A. metropolitan area. Compare this to, for instance, 1899 Hoffenheim in Germany's top league, who reside in a village of 3,000 people and have just had to build a stadium to hold 30,000 fans.

Not enough information. How many people reside in the area near 1899 Hoffenheim. Is it a cornfield, or a small village in a populated area?

Because Reading, Fulham and Watford compete with however many other professional football clubs in London, a city smaller than LA.

The same applies for Forest and Wolves in the midlands, Preston in the premiership suffused North west, and Pompey in Hampshire.

Hull, for that matter, are something of a "new" major club, ensconced firmly in Rugby League territory.

Blouman is largely correct; in a conurbation the size of Los Angeles, to attract 25,000 per week is negligable, reflecting no real incease in fans as much as increased enthusiasm within a consistent fanbase.

Are we talking about an increase in fans or the ability of the small soccer-enjoying part of America to see games? No, the Galaxy hasn't turned non-soccer fans into fans, but neither have most teams in England. They both do the same job, which is to serve the interests of the already present fanbase.

Soccer is the fifth sport in L.A. it's not reasonable for them to expect to draw the same amount of fans that a major sport does.

So when the men are down and their skates are off the ice and waving in the air it's safer for the officials than when they're standing up.Actually, yes. Once they are down on the ice, the skate can only kick up the length of a leg, and only in a small plane. When they are standing, the risk is that they fall and the legs come up, which could happen in any direction, and could come up to neck level.

Look at that video at about 1 minute 5. There's about three players fighting and the refs go straight in and stop it. Or at about 2:08 two players are fighting and three refs watch. Then after a while they decide to intervene while the players are still standing up and fighting and break it up pretty quickly. They could have done it in the first place if they'd wanted to.

Two on one is an unfair fight and is immediatly dangerous to the player. That is why it was immediatly broken up...the risk to the player outweighed the risk to the linesmen.
The second fight was broken up because one player (strangely enough, the goalie) had gained a clear advantage in the fight. Additionally, because of the massive numbers of fights, it was in the best interest to end them immediatly, as allowing one fight to go any longer could have sparked more fights.

In an ordinary hockey fight that is permitted to continue, it is one on one, and only a single fight on the ice. The rest of the team, while riled up, is not fighting, and so there is a level of order. In a situation like this, where just about every player is fighting, it is more important to reinstate order to prevent further fights. It is rare that a ref will break up a fight as that falls to the linesmen. In the event that there are massive numbers of fights, then refs will get involved. 12 men on the ice who could be fighting vs. 2 or 4 men who will be breaking it up.

The methods to break up a fight are well established for both player and linesmen safety. Could they always just flood in? Sure. But it has been seen many times that that can actually make the situation worse. Rather than a somewhat clean fight between two guys, you can end up with a very dirty game or a very dirty fight between many players.

Actually, yes. Once they are down on the ice, the skate can only kick up the length of a leg, and only in a small plane. When they are standing, the risk is that they fall and the legs come up, which could happen in any direction, and could come up to neck level.

Given how tall the players you were mentioning were, those legs are probably pretty long.


Two on one is an unfair fight and is immediatly dangerous to the player. That is why it was immediatly broken up...the risk to the player outweighed the risk to the linesmen.
The second fight was broken up because one player (strangely enough, the goalie) had gained a clear advantage in the fight. Additionally, because of the massive numbers of fights, it was in the best interest to end them immediatly, as allowing one fight to go any longer could have sparked more fights.

Exactly. They can break up fights, but they don't. Fighting is essentially accepted as part of hockey, nothing more than a pretence is made at breaking it up.

And like I said, that happens in other sports as well. And these other sports manage without turning a blind eye to fighting

Like what? Soccer? Football? Baseball? There are 12 men on the ice with items that could possibly be used as weapons, and the only sensible way of keeping the game civil is to let them fight like men. You saw the shot Buffalo's (the blue jerseys) star took - eliminate fighting, or at least attempt to stamp it out, and I assure you that you would see more of that back and forth between teams.

Besides, players that participate in fights are often suspended for their role, anyway. It's not as if referees or even the league ignore it completely.

Even baseball has its own fighting system, even if you don't see many bench-clearing fights. If a pitcher beans or brushes back a player from another team, and that team feels the pitcher or the other team did it maliciously, they do it back. MLB has tried to either stamp it out or reduce it with the warning system, but that just adds to the tension if the umpires use the warning too loosely. You have to let players police themselves in these cases, as gentlemen - else they feel wronged by the system.

Google the feud between the Red Sox and the Rays from last year (particularly, Coco Crisp and James Shields) if you're interested in seeing how teams react to things they feel are wrong.

And from what I've read I don't think it is just the issue of decreasing tension. People argue for it as the part of hockey they like and shouldn't be clamped down upon. Personally I feel players should be in a game because of their ability to play that game, not because they can fight.

As for the video it proves my point. The refs stand around when it's two guys punching. As soon as they fall over and are getting back up (with skates waving around) or it's not one on one they're straight into the middle of it and break it up. The only reason they don't do it for one on one is because hockey isn't interested in stopping it.

For one, they want to keep the fights fair. The 3 Senators players on the one Sabres player was a bit ridiculous, so they attempted to stop that. But as far as one on one, they're keen to stay out of it until one player gains an unfair advantage over the other. Look at the two goalies - there wasn't a ref around, and the Senators goalie essentially sat on the other until he was pushed off. Which was ridiculous, so a teammate of the Sabre's goalie went over to get him back for that. Meanwhile, the rest were fighting because each side went after the other's star player. I mean, you could hear the Sabre's coach say, on the feed, "Don't go after our fucking captain!" That's all he was mad about.

And, sure, hockey fans love the fights. But, if that's all they were going for, no one would be there. There aren't fights like this all the time. For the most part, if cooler heads prevail on each side or the score is fairly tight, you only see maybe one fight a game, if that. So, no, I contend that it is far more a factor of players keeping the game as civil and fair as possible, rather than the league just letting them go at it.

Given how tall the players you were mentioning were, those legs are probably pretty long.
That they are. But a kick to the chest is alot less dangerous than a slice to the throat.

Exactly. They can break up fights, but they don't. Fighting is essentially accepted as part of hockey, nothing more than a pretence is made at breaking it up.

It is also the only sport where you are to take the body instead of the puck/ball. The game is inherently physical. This is what causes the increased tension. Fighting allows it to quickly and relatively safely be vented, rather than leading to boarding, cross checking, and other cheap hits.

Like what? Soccer? Football? Baseball? There are 12 men on the ice with items that could possibly be used as weapons, and the only sensible way of keeping the game civil is to let them fight like men. You saw the shot Buffalo's (the blue jerseys) star took - eliminate fighting, or at least attempt to stamp it out, and I assure you that you would see more of that back and forth between teams

Besides, players that participate in fights are often suspended for their role, anyway. It's not as if referees or even the league ignore it completely.

Even baseball has its own fighting system, even if you don't see many bench-clearing fights. If a pitcher beans or brushes back a player from another team, and that team feels the pitcher or the other team did it maliciously, they do it back. MLB has tried to either stamp it out or reduce it with the warning system, but that just adds to the tension if the umpires use the warning too loosely. You have to let players police themselves in these cases, as gentlemen - else they feel wronged by the system.

Google the feud between the Red Sox and the Rays from last year (particularly, Coco Crisp and James Shields) if you're interested in seeing how teams react to things they feel are wrong.

For one, they want to keep the fights fair. The 3 Senators players on the one Sabres player was a bit ridiculous, so they attempted to stop that. But as far as one on one, they're keen to stay out of it until one player gains an unfair advantage over the other. Look at the two goalies - there wasn't a ref around, and the Senators goalie essentially sat on the other until he was pushed off. Which was ridiculous, so a teammate of the Sabre's goalie went over to get him back for that. Meanwhile, the rest were fighting because each side went after the other's star player. I mean, you could hear the Sabre's coach say, on the feed, "Don't go after our fucking captain!" That's all he was mad about.

And, sure, hockey fans love the fights. But, if that's all they were going for, no one would be there. There aren't fights like this all the time. For the most part, if cooler heads prevail on each side or the score is fairly tight, you only see maybe one fight a game, if that. So, no, I contend that it is far more a factor of players keeping the game as civil and fair as possible, rather than the league just letting them go at it.

Rugby, field hockey, hurling, Lacrosse etc. All physical games, the last three of which with comparable weapons. Fights happen yes, but there isn't any of this enforcer bullshit. Players are picked for the team because they are good at the sport not because they can fight. Fights are comparatively rare and the referee gets in and stops them ASAP when they can.

The point about the video was when the refs, for whatever reason, want to stop a fight they can. The fact they don't do it all the time shows that they accept it as part of the game.

Hockey players in the US fight because they consider it part of the game and are used to the authorities not really trying to stop it.

If the league was interested in stamping it out and ensuring that all the players on the ice were there soley because of their hockey skills, they could have the refs break the fights up and rack up the penalties and suspensions. The number of fights would go down to the levels you see in other sports. Not a situation where one fight per game is considered low.

It is also the only sport where you are to take the body instead of the puck/ball. The game is inherently physical. This is what causes the increased tension. Fighting allows it to quickly and relatively safely be vented, rather than leading to boarding, cross checking, and other cheap hits.

Let's see, off the top of my head

American football, tackling is to the body holding the ball, or blocking is to the body without holding the ball or not.

Rugby, tackling is to the body holding the ball, rucking is to a body not holding the ball etc.

Fighting happens because the authorities aren't interested in stopping it and the players have got used to it being allowed, the rest is just bullshit justification. Clamp down on it and tell the players that if all the other sports can manage discipline then they have to to.

And given that Glorious Norway (iirc) testified to fighting not being allowed in other countries hockey leagues it shows how twisted your 'it's for safety' arguments are.

Let's see, off the top of my head

American football, tackling is to the body holding the ball, or blocking is to the body without holding the ball or not.Offensively, you cannot hit the guy after he gets rid of the ball. In hockey, you can. Blocking is...well, blocking. Not hitting.

Rugby, tackling is to the body holding the ball, rucking is to a body not holding the ball etc.Don't know enough about rugby to comment.

Fighting happens because the authorities aren't interested in stopping it and the players have got used to it being allowed, the rest is just bullshit justification. Clamp down on it and tell the players that if all the other sports can manage discipline then they have to to.The players learned to fight in other leagues...considering around 45% of the league is from Europe, even with claims that fighting isn't a part of European hockey, it clearly is. You don't learn to fight on the fly like that.

It also is penalized. Players have been banned for life, suspended, fined, ejected, and penalized with majors. I'd say being banned for life is a pretty decent penalty.

And given that Glorious Norway (iirc) testified to fighting not being allowed in other countries hockey leagues it shows how twisted your 'it's for safety' arguments are.Actually, the games that I have watched from Europeans are much more dirty. More poking, more pushing the rules to the limits, and more boarding/cross checking/dirty checks.

Fighting isn't allowed under international rules either (Olympics and the like). The reason there is little fighting is the nature of the event...higher caliber play. You also almost never see a fight in playoff season in the US because of this factor.

Rugby, field hockey, hurling, Lacrosse etc. All physical games, the last three of which with comparable weapons. Fights happen yes, but there isn't any of this enforcer bullshit. Players are picked for the team because they are good at the sport not because they can fight. Fights are comparatively rare and the referee gets in and stops them ASAP when they can.

The point about the video was when the refs, for whatever reason, want to stop a fight they can. The fact they don't do it all the time shows that they accept it as part of the game.

Hockey players in the US fight because they consider it part of the game and are used to the authorities not really trying to stop it.

If the league was interested in stamping it out and ensuring that all the players on the ice were there soley because of their hockey skills, they could have the refs break the fights up and rack up the penalties and suspensions. The number of fights would go down to the levels you see in other sports. Not a situation where one fight per game is considered low.

One thing I have to point out is that you're egregiously misunderstanding what I'm saying. I said that hockey fights average AT MOST one a game, not AT LEAST. The Anaheim Ducks have the 2nd-most fighting majors (at 53) and have played 53 games (not including tonight's) at this point in the season. So exactly 1 a game for them. And that's at the maximum. The team with the fewest, the Detroit Red Wings, have a total of 8 fighting majors after 50 games.

And I'll have to take your word as far the other sports you've mentioned. However, from what I've seen from games from the multiple sports that I do watch, overzealous refereeing in a physical game tends to make the game much more chippy and dangerous, rather than less. Especially in the case of hockey games.

Offensively, you cannot hit the guy after he gets rid of the ball. In hockey, you can. Blocking is...well, blocking. Not hitting.
On the offensive side. On the defensive side they smash into players as hard as they can to try and break through the blocks


The players learned to fight in other leagues...considering around 45% of the league is from Europe, even with claims that fighting isn't a part of European hockey, it clearly is. You don't learn to fight on the fly like that.
I am going on Glorious Norway's claim here. Iirc he mentioned a Eurpoean player in this thread who specifically learnt to fight to move to the NHL.


It also is penalized. Players have been banned for life, suspended, fined, ejected, and penalized with majors. I'd say being banned for life is a pretty decent penalty.
Happened for using the stick as a weapon, not fighting.


Actually, the games that I have watched from Europeans are much more dirty. More poking, more pushing the rules to the limits, and more boarding/cross checking/dirty checks.

Don't know enough to comment


Fighting isn't allowed under international rules either (Olympics and the like). The reason there is little fighting is the nature of the event...higher caliber play. You also almost never see a fight in playoff season in the US because of this factor.
So players can manage to play the game without fighting during the playoffs but it'd be dangerous if they tried it in the regular season?

One thing I have to point out is that you're egregiously misunderstanding what I'm saying. I said that hockey fights average AT MOST one a game, not AT LEAST. The Anaheim Ducks have the 2nd-most fighting majors (at 53) and have played 53 games (not including tonight's) at this point in the season. So exactly 1 a game for them. And that's at the maximum. The team with the fewest, the Detroit Red Wings, have a total of 8 fighting majors after 50 games.

And I'll have to take your word as far the other sports you've mentioned. However, from what I've seen from games from the multiple sports that I do watch, overzealous refereeing in a physical game tends to make the game much more chippy and dangerous, rather than less. Especially in the case of hockey games.

I don't know enough to comment. But your quote

There aren't fights like this all the time. For the most part, if cooler heads prevail on each side or the score is fairly tight, you only see maybe one fight a game, if that.
seemed to paint one fight a game as low. But I note that you're talking about fighting penalties, rather than fights.

There's overzealous refereeing, and there's standing around while players exchange punches.

The fact you're trying to explain away the acceptance of fighting in hockey just proves the original point I was supporting, that in US hockey the authorities aren't making a serious attempt to stop it.

Why did soccer never catch on north of Mexico?

Australia never really had that, immigrants always retained aspects of their own cultures. We still eat ethnic food, and follow the old world's sport, soccer.

This is explained by the difference in immigration patterns. During the early era of professional sports (late 19th century, early 20th century), immigrants to Australia were mainly from the British Isles, where professional soccer was well-established. During the same era, immigrants to the US were mainly from Italy and Eastern Europe, where professional soccer was not widespread or popular. Soccer wasn't even part of the old world culture for the immigrants to "retain."

In other words, soccer is the "new" old world's sport. At the time the mass of old world immigrants came to the US, soccer wasn't even popular in the old world yet, so most immigrants to the US had no identifiable "ethnic sport." The result was that most immigrants easily assimilated into baseball. In actuality it was baseball, never gridiron football, that contrasted with soccer in the formative years of professional sports in the national consciousness.

I've noticed that immigrants to the US seem more willing to drop everything about their culture and integrate completely, than immigrants here.

Probably has to do with difference in population size. It's easier for immigrants to assimilate into a country of 300 million Americans, than a country of 20 million Australians.

I think a lot of these answers have merit, but one thing seems to be missing:

When was the last time a soccer game had over 10 points?

Americans care about only numbers.

Ice Hockey, Hockey, Soccer, Lacrosse, Field Hockey, etc have low scoring systems.

Baseball, Basketball, Football have high scoring mechanisms...

It's always about the points.

Compare baseball and cricket

Tell me again how drawing 26,000 in L.A. is an embarrassment.

Other people have explained it to you. Would LA be getting the same attendance if they hadn't decided to shell out $150 million to buy some has-been.

And Notts Forest is in the Championship, not 4 or 5 divisions down.

Really? When were they rising up?

Expanding Anfield would be prohibitively expensive; it genuinely isn't possible I believe.

Well I think it should be possible and they should be keeping it at Anfield make it about the history of the club and respecting the sacred ground.

You won't be winning the league anyway. United will, again, because we have a manager who can attack.

Well I know that, and as I say the owners don't really care about that which has something to do with why they aren't getting their 19th title.

Other people have explained it to you. Would LA be getting the same attendance if they hadn't decided to shell out $150 million to buy some has-been.


Beckham was signed in January 2007. And the Home Depot Center was opened in Summer 2003.

Average L.A. Galaxy Attendence:

Year ↓ Reg. Season ↓ Playoffs ↓

1996 30,129 29,883
1997 23,626 26,703
1998 21,784 13,175
1999 17,632 21,039
2000 20,400 25,033
2001 17,387 28,462
2002 19,047 24,596
2003 21,983 20,201
2004 23,809 20,206
2005 24,204 17,466
2006 20,814 N/A
2007 24,252 N/A
2008 26,009 N/A


As you can see, adding Beckham increased their attendance from roughly 24,000 to 21,000 fans a game in 2004-2006 to 26,000 fans a game in 2008. You can't really tell much more than that from the statistics because the capacity of their stadium is 27,000. I always thought Beckham was more a move to get MLS exposed on TV, not for attendence. Also remember that starting in 2005, Chivas USA was playing soccer in the same arena drawing between 14 to 18,000 people a game.

I think I took this argument in the wrong direction. I wanted to show that soccer is a viable sport in the United States, no matter what anyone else thought of our league, it's attendance, and it's players. I watch Champions League games on TV, and occasionally MLS playoffs. I listened to Premiership Live and 606 on Sirius last year, before the recession. I drove 110 miles each way to see minor league games, so to constantly hear Europeans ask me why we don't give a damn about soccer gets on my nerves.

Do we have the history of Europe? No, MLS has only been going for 12 years. Do we have the same athletic talent, playing soccer? No. The talent is here, but since a lot of schools don't offer soccer as a scholarship based sport (something for a different post), and a lot of athletes don't consider soccer to be a sport where they can earn they type of money that they can in Americanized Football or Baseball, the athletes go where the money is.

At the end of the day, all you can do is play your sport as best you can, and do your best to expose others to it. If someone rejects the sport after watching it or playing it, then there's nothing you can do about it.

Americans have the attention span of a goldfish.

Americans have the attention span of a goldfish.
Yea right :rolleyes:

Americans have the attention span of a goldfish.

Luckily they'll forget you've said that three seconds after reading it, so there are no comebacks on you.

Luckily they'll forget you've said that three seconds after reading it, so there are no comebacks on you.
I pay attention all the time. So there :p

I pay attention all the time. So there :p

So do goldfish; they have to, what with the short memory.

Wait, how did this line of conversation start again? :p

So do goldfish; they have to, what with the short memory.

Wait, how did this line of conversation start again? :p
Because of a comment that we Americans have the attention span of a goldfish!

Because of a comment that we Americans have the attention span of a goldfish!

Oh? Of course. That guy will be in so much trouble, unless it's Americans reading it, because they'll forget it soon after.

You are really funny Starblaydia! Funny like a crutch.

Returning not quite onto topic: So, why did Americans (and Canadians) stop playing Cricket?
The game was certainly played in both of those countries during the first half of the 19th century, in fact they played international games against each other annually for a while...

Returning not quite onto topic: So, why did Americans (and Canadians) stop playing Cricket?
The game was certainly played in both of those countries during the first half of the 19th century, in fact they played international games against each other annually for a while...

They switched to baseball, which is kinda similar.

Returning not quite onto topic: So, why did Americans (and Canadians) stop playing Cricket?
The game was certainly played in both of those countries during the first half of the 19th century, in fact they played international games against each other annually for a while...

After England's latest effort, I might be joining them.

Who here knew that America has finished as high as 3rd in the World Cup?

...Why did soccer never catch on north of Mexico?

The lack of expensive stuff makes it bad for the economy, which is inherently unAmerican.

The lack of expensive stuff makes it bad for the economy, which is inherently unAmerican.

Lack of expensive stuff? What exactly does that mean?

Who here knew that America has finished as high as 3rd in the World Cup?

Joint third - there was no third place playoff match in the 1930 tournament; nor was there a second round - and three of the four first round groups only had three teams.

The United States was thrashed 6-1 by Argentina in the semifinal after defeating both Belgium and Paraguay 3-0 (same score in both matches) in the first round.

The four group winners - Argentina, Uruguay, Yugoslavia and the USA then went straight through to the semis. Uruguay defeated Yugoslavia 6-1, and then went on to beat Argentina 4-2.

The real question is... does Bert Patenaude still hold the record for most goals by an American (4) in a single tournament?

Lack of expensive stuff? What exactly does that mean?

The implication, I believe, is that when all you need to play is a ball, it doesn't help anyone but the ball-makers.

Joint third - there was no third place playoff match in the 1930 tournament; nor was there a second round - and three of the four first round groups only had three teams.

The United States was thrashed 6-1 by Argentina in the semifinal after defeating both Belgium and Paraguay 3-0 (same score in both matches) in the first round.

The four group winners - Argentina, Uruguay, Yugoslavia and the USA then went straight through to the semis. Uruguay defeated Yugoslavia 6-1, and then went on to beat Argentina 4-2.

The real question is... does Bert Patenaude still hold the record for most goals by an American (4) in a single tournament?

Hey, it's still 3rd Arch. It's something we can hang our hat on until we get a real manager who likes to play attacking football and utuilize our amazing youth. The loss of Rossi is a stain on Bradley and the entire USSF :(

As for Bert, I think that is still the record.

Rugby, tackling is to the body holding the ball, rucking is to a body not holding the ball etc.

A ruck, in union, is what happens following a tackle with the ball on the ground. It has nothing to do with tackling or impeding a player who does not have the ball. You can't tackle or impede players without the ball in rugby union.

Offensively, you cannot hit the guy after he gets rid of the ball. In hockey, you can.

No, you can't. That's called interference and is punishable by a minor penalty.

*skips entire thread*

It was because they took the much better game of rugby, but then decided to change some rules to suit their liking. Then they added all that unnecessary protective gear so that they could hit heads harder and feel better when they piled on top of one another.

Hey, it's still 3rd Arch. It's something we can hang our hat on until we get a real manager who likes to play attacking football and utuilize our amazing youth. The loss of Rossi is a stain on Bradley and the entire USSF :(

As for Bert, I think that is still the record.

I'm not convinced you ever stood a chance with Rossi; he was playing in Europe at club level, with the oppurtunity to play for one of the "big" international sides. His decision, however grating, is understandable.

I'd worry more about how Freddy Adu has stagnated, what with his putatively being the next Pele.

I think i figured out what would make soccer more interesting. Make the ball unevenly weighted so when you kick it, it wobbles and curves. Soccer desperately needs some unpredictability that isnt riots to make it more interesting.

I think i figured out what would make soccer more interesting. Make the ball unevenly weighted so when you kick it, it wobbles and curves. Soccer desperately needs some unpredictability that isnt riots to make it more interesting.

If you're any good, you can make it curve without the weights :p

Perhaps because soccer players don't slap each other on the ass after a good play and/or match?
But the women have been known to take their jerseys off. Surely that should count for something.

Hey, it's still 3rd Arch. It's something we can hang our hat on until we get a real manager who likes to play attacking football and utuilize our amazing youth. The loss of Rossi is a stain on Bradley and the entire USSF :(

As for Bert, I think that is still the record.

It is - I checked. Bert also holds a record that can never be taken away from him: he scored the first hattrick in World Cup history.


More seriously, skimming through this thread, I see no mention of an important incident in US soccer history that was crucial in the decline of the first American Soccer League at just the point that professional American Football was establishing itself: the 1928-1929 'soccer war'.

In 1924, the first ASL (there have been two since, one of which lasted for 50 years) was so successful, so well-paying, and had such a high standard of play that the European federations leaned on FIFA to expel the then-United States Football Association (USFA) as the ASL was poaching European players. Only a 1927 agreement on international transfers defused the situation.

Meanwhile, a dispute arose between the USFA and the ASL over participation in the US Challenge Cup, a tournament that - as the US Open Cup - is, amazingly, still with us. The ASL boycotted the 1924 Cup over a scheduling dispute, and then decided to boycott the 1928 Cup over a gate receipts dispute. When some ASL clubs entered the Cup anyway, the ASL suspended them, leading to the USFA and FIFA outlawing the ASL.

The ASL initially tried to defy the USFA and FIFA, hoping that their strong international reputation would give them sufficient leverage to win. But the USFA started a rival league, which the suspended ASL clubs joined. The combination of a competing league and the Great Depression resulted in a severe financial strain on the ASL, and they capitulated in 1929. The ASL and USFA-backed leagues merged, but it was too little, too late, and the league finally collapsed in 1933.

While the USFA and FIFA 'won' the soccer war, and established their pre-eminence over league professional soccer in the USA, many have theorised that the sight of an American sporting body allying with a foreign organisation to undermine a US-based league was a key event in establishing soccer as a 'foreign' sport in American eyes. Certainly by helping to destroy the previously-successful ASL, the USFA and FIFA also helped to destroy the credibility of the league just as US-based sports were coming into their own. By destroying their own successful product, the USFA and FIFA almost guaranteed the eclipse of soccer by homegrown sports.

And that, kids, is the answer to the OP. Soccer did catch on in the US - but thanks to the then-USFA and FIFA, that popularity was eclipsed, and it's never regained quite the same profile since.

Ironic, really, isn't it?

I knew FIFA would ruin the world game, but I didn't know they'd done it already.

I think i figured out what would make soccer more interesting. Make the ball unevenly weighted so when you kick it, it wobbles and curves. Soccer desperately needs some unpredictability that isnt riots to make it more interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h5er4piAfI

Predict that.

I think i figured out what would make soccer more interesting. Make the ball unevenly weighted so when you kick it, it wobbles and curves. Soccer desperately needs some unpredictability that isnt riots to make it more interesting.

That's an Oopie (sp) ball. KFC was making them decades ago. You have a ball with an extra fill area surrounding the inner air-fill area, and this outer area is half-filled with water, so it will slosh around and change trajectory when kicked.

We have a special winter version of it as well, called "Concussion Oopie".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-Gra2NMuqE

or most of these

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-Gra2NMuqE

or most of these

It's amazing what showponies can do when they use their hooves :p

It's amazing what showponies can do when they use their hooves :p

Oh shut up you Liverpool man. Not my fault Rafa always chokes the title away :p

Oh shut up you Liverpool man. Not my fault Rafa always chokes the title away :p

Liverpool always have a bad patch - usually at the start of the season, in recent years - where we blow our title chances. This one has just come halfway through when we had a glimpse of the title, rather than at the beginning to dampen our expectations for the season.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h5er4piAfI

Predict that.

See this is why Americans dont like soccer. This clip has a guy kicking a ball into a net. That kick looked to me just like any other kick and im honestly baffled why people are freaking out other then that might have been that teams one score for the year. I mean, the defence kicked the ball out and he kicked it back in. Where am i supposed to be amazed? Honestly i was expecting some amazing scissors kick that curved 60 degrees or something.

This is why it'll never catch on (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2P8M0RZssE4) (with thanks to Budweiser)

That kick looked to me just like any other kick and im honestly baffled why people are freaking out other then that might have been that teams one score for the year.

Way to completely fail to read the score in the top corner.

I mean, the defence kicked the ball out and he kicked it back in. Where am i supposed to be amazed? Honestly i was expecting some amazing scissors kick that curved 60 degrees or something.

Do you know how hard it is to get the ball into the net from that distance?

We get it, you don't like soccer, and clearly prefer a sport where large men in tight pants crash into each other until one guy breaks loose and runs for his life.

Way to completely fail to read the score in the top corner.

Sorry i was too caught up in the spellbinding action of the game to notice.



Do you know how hard it is to get the ball into the net from that distance?

The defensive guy managed to get the ball away from the net that far just fine, why is it such a huge stretch of the imagination to kick it back the same distance but 3 feet to the right or whatever?

The defensive guy managed to get the ball away from the net that far just fine, why is it such a huge stretch of the imagination to kick it back the same distance but 3 feet to the right or whatever?

Because defenders and goalkeepers move quickly. Because it's hard to hit the ball that accurately.

A ruck, in union, is what happens following a tackle with the ball on the ground. It has nothing to do with tackling or impeding a player who does not have the ball. You can't tackle or impede players without the ball in rugby union.
.

I know. The ball is on the ground. At which point players from each side attempt to drive past the ball so that the other team is (and I'm using a totally random word here) impeded from picking the ball up. The entire principle of a ruck is to impede players who don't have the ball from getting it.

Because defenders and goalkeepers move quickly. Because it's hard to hit the ball that accurately.

Maybe goalies should be required to ride wheelchairs, then someone might score a goal every season or two.

Why was this thread resurrected. We get it. Most Americans don't like soccer and because of it all the Europeans think we're troglodytes. /thread.

Christ. And you wonder why we don't like your sport, when you spend the entire thread calling us backwards rednecks.

Way to completely fail to read the score in the top corner.



Do you know how hard it is to get the ball into the net from that distance?

We get it, you don't like soccer, and clearly prefer a sport where large men in tight pants crash into each other until one guy breaks loose and runs for his life.

Give up. You might as well teach a baboon calculus. Personally, I'd like to try convincing him of the merits of cricket...:D

I know. The ball is on the ground. At which point players from each side attempt to drive past the ball so that the other team is (and I'm using a totally random word here) impeded from picking the ball up. The entire principle of a ruck is to impede players who don't have the ball from getting it.

In general, yes. Given that players can offload before going to ground, a ruck can as regularly be used to deplete the opponent's defence before another phase. However, in a broad sense, yes; the ruck is formed to protect, or seize, the ball by driving the opposition backwards.

Do you know how hard it is to get the ball into the net from that distance?

We get it, you don't like soccer, and clearly prefer a sport where large men in tight pants crash into each other until one guy breaks loose and runs for his life.

Im not denying that it takes considerable skill to do the task.....Its just not very entertaining to watch....Watching large men try to kill one another is far more entertaining, lol...

Edit: And Im not just knockin soccer there either...Baseball doesnt do as good as Gridiron for the same reason, Its not as entertaining to watch on TV...

See this is why Americans dont like soccer. This clip has a guy kicking a ball into a net. That kick looked to me just like any other kick and im honestly baffled why people are freaking out other then that might have been that teams one score for the year. I mean, the defence kicked the ball out and he kicked it back in. Where am i supposed to be amazed? Honestly i was expecting some amazing scissors kick that curved 60 degrees or something.

Many Americans like football anyway. Regardless, if a sport is good only because of how good the actions look aesthetically, then that sport fails, epicly fails. If its good to watch, because you can appreciate the skill, or just how generally remarkable something is, because it actually is (i.e. football), then it wins.

Im not denying that it takes considerable skill to do the task.....Its just not very entertaining to watch....Watching large men try to kill one another is far more entertaining, lol...

Why not just watch wrestling or boxing then?

Why not just watch wrestling or boxing then?

Im more of an MMA kinda guy myself...Wrestling's fake and a little too over-the-top...Boxing...Well, Boxing's just not as interesting as MMA, not as many moves, lol...

Many Americans like football anyway. Regardless, if a sport is good only because of how good the actions look aesthetically, then that sport fails, epicly fails. If its good to watch, because you can appreciate the skill, or just how generally remarkable something is, because it actually is (i.e. football), then it wins.

Not going to disagree with you there...But the question wasnt "Which is the more skilled sport, Soccer or American Football?"...it was, "Why did soccer never catch on in the US?"...

The reason is, it doesnt look as good on TV...plain and simple...

The reason is, it doesnt look as good on TV...plain and simple...

I think it does, I think it looks much better than American football too.

I think it does, I think it looks much better than American football too.

Yeah, but A) I dont remember Londonistan being in the US...and B) even if it was, you dont represent the Lowest Common Denominator of the American Television Viewing Audience...

Personally, I can get into both sports, but, the majority of Americans(i.e the LCD) Need Flashy hard hitting action, or they lose interest...

And if they lose interest, they change the channel...

And if they change the channel, the Advertisements arent being seen...

And if the Advertisements arent being seen, the network loses revenue...

and Bob's your Uncle, Soccer not on Primetime US TVs, lol...

Americans are ghey

Americans are ghey

lmao, to quote a famous American, "Ill accept your Apology" :p...

But yeah, the aforementioned LCD of the US TV Audience, is pretty Gay...the popularity of American Idol should be testament to that:gundge:

Why was this thread resurrected. We get it. Most Americans don't like soccer and because of it all the Europeans think we're troglodytes. /thread.

Christ. And you wonder why we don't like your sport, when you spend the entire thread calling us backwards rednecks.


I didn't. I offered a relatively lucid and coherent historical explanation here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14498149&postcount=338).

But then, I've lived on both sides of the Atlantic, and my brother's a US citizen, so implicitly calling my brother a 'backwards redneck' would have been self-defeating.

There are perfectly sensible historical reasons why soccer isn't currently the dominant sport in the US, but between 1924 and 1928 it could have taken that role, and it's historical accident - based on the self-defeating policies of the relevant governing bodies - that it didn't.

Any modern arguments over which is the best sport are, on either side of the argument, modern cultural justifications of a relatively recent reification of a by no means inevitable social development.

I didn't. I offered a relatively lucid and coherent historical explanation here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14498149&postcount=338).

But then, I've lived on both sides of the Atlantic, and my brother's a US citizen, so implicitly calling my brother a 'backwards redneck' would have been self-defeating.
Sounds like some I'd do:tongue:


There are perfectly sensible historical reasons why soccer isn't currently the dominant sport in the US, but between 1924 and 1928 it could have taken that role, and it's historical accident - based on the self-defeating policies of the relevant governing bodies - that it didn't.

Any modern arguments over which is the best sport are, on either side of the argument, modern cultural justifications of a relatively recent reification of a by no means inevitable social development.

Thank you Mr Fry. Most enlightening.