Ok B&S, you're a smart fella/girl (no assumptions ) fella with a good sense of humor and you can read....but you're still missing my point....
The question is not necessarily whether physial contact is central or tangential to football, because that is all relative and hence subject to interpretation and opinion...
I'll refute you quick and simple...by the very definition you provided:
because my definition (and the generally accepted definition) of a contact sport is "any sport that involves physical contact with the opponent"
In football...is it necessary
to make contact with the opponent in order to play the game as defined by the rules? Of course not. Eliminate all
contact and yuh could still play de game.
It is however my opinion that physical contact IS central to the game of football, regardless of good officiating and how much contact is allowed etc...because the degree of physical play can play a very very big part in the outcome of a game and the success of a football team- at most if not all levels....that is what I was getting at
Physical play can take on a central role in the game, but isn't central to the game itself. If that were the case then the more physical teams would win all the time. Teams from leagues like La Liga and Serie A where the degree of physical play is minimal relative to say the EPL, would perennially fail when going up against more physical squads, such as a Man U., a Liverpool or even a Newcastle. Physicality isn't central to the game, it's tangential...meaning it can influence the outcome of the game, but physicality itself won't determine the game. If being physical were central to football then there would be some sort of standard mandated in the rules dictating it's scope...that is, what is the minimum allowed? What is the maximum? Instead we have a tacit recognition that it is part of the game...an inevitability. Since phyiscal play is inevitable we (the rules committee) will define what becomes excessive...aka fouls. And you and I know that what's "excessive" is fairly subjective and determined by the officials on the field. My point being, there's no hard and fast gauge on this thing you insist is central to the sport. If tomorrow an official in the Gold Cup decides he's blowing the whistle on ANY physical contact, the game can still be played with sacrifice to neither the letter nor spirit of the game. That is to say...one can still matriculate the ball downfield and into the opponent's goal...rule out physical contact and you still have football (it may not be a fun game, but still football)
Compare that to other contact sports such as boxing or wrestling etc...rule out physical contact and there is no sport. Period. Central to football is balance, speed, dexterity and other essential footballing skill. Ability to play physical is an asset on the field but it's not an absolute necessity otherwise lithe and diminutive players (Latas for instance) won't stand a chance on the field.
My point though (which you missed) is that regardless of the above, I consider football to be a contact sport, because my definition (and the generally accepted definition) of a contact sport is "any sport that involves physical contact with the opponent" whether incidental or not.....
I dunno where you get yuh definition from, but I'm willing to bet that "whether incidental or not" is your own addition to the definition. There is no way such a broad and sweeping definition could ever be functional, because then
Tennis (I have seen "incidental" collisions at the net)
cycling (tons of crashes when men 'incidentally' bump bikes)
distance running (ever see man trade elbows near de end of ah 1500m race?)
NASCAR (nuff cuff pelt on de infield grass arready cuz man bad drive next man)
Pitch aka Marbles (when you and yuh pardna stoop down by de ring tuh pick up allyuh tau and allyuh knees 'incidentally' bounce up.
...I could go on making the list even sillier, but I think you get my drift.
A more functional definition of a contact sport in my mind would be "any sport which necessitates contact in order for it to be played"...or take the contrapositive of that definition, "any sport that MINUS physical contact, cannot be played". Clearly football doesn't fit that criteria, does it?
and even if by implying that the definition of contact sport is contingent on how central physical contact is to the game, then there is still no argument that baseball is more of a contact sport than football is (which you seemed to imply in your previous post below)whilst there is physical contact in baseball as you point out....it's a stretch to say that physical contact in general is central to the game of baseball........
You misconstrue my argument spectacularly. It was never my intent to engage in the silly-ass debate about the inherent manliness of either sport, because I have an appreciation for both...football by a mile, but still love mih baseball, tuh de point dat even mih mammy an all love it now b/c ah me.
I would never call baseball a contact sport, but I would also never say that it is NOT a contact sport. Seemingly contradictory? Sure. But examine the facts: In baseball there are rules that allow for more than incidental contact. A runner is absolutely
allowed to 'truck' (run him over like ah steamroller, for those of you following de conversation at home) a fielder in hopes of dislodging the ball. I doh know de FIFA rule book inside out, but please find me a similar rule in football if you can. One that comes to mind is the 50/50 ball situation, but I'd still like to see the wording on that.
So in sum, no..it is not my point that baseball is more or less a contact sport than football. My point is that to rule out baseball as a contact sport, one would similarly have to rule out football as a contact sport, therefore that criterion cannot be used in the silly-ass debate on the manly merits of either sport.
Not a contact sport? Neither is football.
Contact in football is incidental and tangential to the game, not a part of the game otherwise there would be no such thing as a foul. .
very weak argument/logic- a foul is called against illegal contact, not just any contact...fouls are called in American football too for certain types of contact- A.F. is undoubtedly a contact sport....we can at least agree on that..
Even what is "illegal" isn't well-defined though. I think is more that fouls are called on "excessive" contact, b/c you and I both know that what some refs call others wouldn't. So there's no hard and fast "illegal" contact. Just what some jackass in pinstripes or ah yellow shirt decides is "too much".
You and I both know it have plenty contact in football and we like it dat way. We just disagree on how central that contact actually is to the game as defined by the rules. I know real man reading dis and rolling dey eye but I can appreciate a good debate same way.