Baseball is a more "MANLY" sport than Football(soccer) !!

[kicker]

Let's see how many more pages this thread goes before people realize that B&S jess on chain up....

football/soccer is a contact sport- the world (including Bakes) accepts it. The man is putting his own twist on the definition of a contact sport, and antagonizing people to provoke an argument. I'm sure that this argument has been had before by other people, and maybe some day the generally accepted definition of a contact sport might change to exclude games like football/soccer (don't see it happening...but then again I didn't see this thread reaching beyond 3 pages).... The fact remains that to date- football/soccer is generally considered a contact sport.

And as much as you might fight down Bakes for saying that it isn't, a thread like this actually serves to show how mainstream thought and generally accepted ways of thinking are very difficult to break.
Eg- The first thing that I did after my initial argument was refuted was to post a link of a "definition" of a contact sport.....What if the definition of a contact sport from day one disqualified all but full contact sports such as boxing...and I tried to argue that football/soccer was a contact sport, people would probably watch me like I was insane....and I would probably be subject to alot of abuse. I remember arguing with friends in favor of head to head instead of goal difference b4 it was a rule, and getting heat for it....now it's a rule and the same people who gave me sh*t for it probably accept it with no issues....

I stand by the notion that football is a contact sport because in my opinion, the reality of the game speaks for itself (and yes we have generally accepted definitions to back it up)......Bakes' argument to me is still a little far fetched and hence unconvincing.....but at the end of the day, if the man who defined "contact sports" from day one took the view of Bakes (little more refined and thought through  ) and set the definition in stone........the common view held here on the board today (and in the world) as we know it, would be considered the insane minority.....hard to perceive it, but i'm pretty sure it's the truth.....next topic.

[Bakes]

As I said in a previous post, I hope you are a youth because I know students (former and current) from the green machine who would be embarrassed to be associated with your illogical and honestly, quite immature arguments.

They should however rest assured knowing that noone considers you or your comments a reflection of that fine institution.

This bullshit is laughable.  If you want to categorize the name-calling as immature then you might have a case. There has been nothing immature about my arguments...

as for the rest of guano you typed...I guess  you must honestly think I give a rat's ass about people's opinions, lol.  "oh gawwwwd, yuh shaming 'Gustine"  Gimme a facking break. Gustine cyah shame more dan Downer dun shame it.

It is obvious to anyone who has played or watches football regularly that contact is part of the game. The fundamental act of making a tackle is quite difficult (but not impossible) to achieve without some sort of contact. Furthermore, the mere fact that all physical contact is not considered a foul should clue you to the idea that football, at some level, is indeed a contact sport.

All that says is that contact is an acceptable part of the game...not that it's an intrinsic and necessary part.  But anyways, thanks fuh yuh contributions but argument done.

You just keep posting in hopes of I guess, outlasting everyone else and having the last laugh. Little do you realize that you lose more credibility with each successive post.

I could give two facks about the last laff really...thing like that is what people like you with evident arrested development worry about.


Fuh ah second there yuh actually approximated independent thought.

[Bakes]

The line of thought being promoted is that contact is integral to the sport...if it's integral it should be in the rules, no?

The only person who thinks contact has to be integral, required, necessary, AND so stated in the rules for it to be considered a contact sport, is YOU.

The sport does not actually have to meet these requirements for it to be considered a contact sport because these are merely your personal requirements, not actual requirements from the real world.

Logic dictates it saddis'...not me.  That's like saying golfing is an athletic event...simply b/c in golf yuh have tuh walk and walking raises yuh heart rate...and duz cause yuh leg tuh pain yuh when yuh go home and...blah blah blah

Take this argument to any objective forum (and by that I mean 'a group of people') and they'd quicker accept the argument.  Here is a bunch of football loyalists...and allyuh cyah let allyuh 'loyalty' tuh de sport accept logically sound arguments.  Well some ah allyuh at least.  Dai'z why I duz just shake my head and chuckle at the type ah groupthink I duz see on this site.  Sheep following sheep, lol.

God forbid allyuh should be challenged to think fuh yuhselves.

[pecan]

Then tennis, NASCAR and cycling are also contact sports. Next you'll be arguing that the earth is flat.

FLAT EARTH SOCIETY

[Bakes]

Aren't you doing the EXACT same thing by presenting a hypothetical possibility that there could be a football game with no contact??

Nope.  I actually outlined for you how it could happen, with a change in the rule where ANY contact would be ruled a foul...eventually the teams and players would adapt.  May not be a feasible possibility, but it's a logically it is.

The penalty box is also a very small place when 22 players are occupying it competing for a corner kick, and some contact (even if incidental) is sure to happen.


Yeah...and they'd call a foul when that happens...eventually players will stop fouling.

Right now breds yuh getting continuously rap on the pads, and it have some strong shouts for LBW.... Yuh not looking too convincing in your defence..

Step it up man!

defence?  What I defending?  I stated my position and providing a logical reasoning for it...I cyah force allyuh tuh accept it.  At any rate

It probably would suffice to say that it's inconclusive either way...but I could concede on that.

I already conceded de argument...so dunno what else yuh want nah dred.

[Bakes]

Let's see how many more pages this thread goes before people realize that B&S jess on chain up....

football/soccer is a contact sport- the world (including Bakes) accepts it. The man is putting his own twist on the definition of a contact sport, and antagonizing people to provoke an argument. I'm sure that this argument has been had before by other people, and maybe some day the generally accepted definition of a contact sport might change to exclude games like football/soccer (don't see it happening...but then again I didn't see this thread reaching beyond 3 pages).... The fact remains that to date- football/soccer is generally considered a contact sport.

And as much as you might fight down Bakes for saying that it isn't, a thread like this actually serves to show how mainstream thought and generally accepted ways of thinking are very difficult to break.
Eg- The first thing that I did after my initial argument was refuted was to post a link of a "definition" of a contact sport.....What if the definition of a contact sport from day one disqualified all but full contact sports such as boxing...and I tried to argue that football/soccer was a contact sport, people would probably watch me like I was insane....and I would probably be subject to alot of abuse. I remember arguing with friends in favor of head to head instead of goal difference b4 it was a rule, and getting heat for it....now it's a rule and the same people who gave me sh*t for it probably accept it with no issues....

I stand by the notion that football is a contact sport because in my opinion, the reality of the game speaks for itself (and yes we have generally accepted definitions to back it up)......Bakes' argument to me is still a little far fetched and hence unconvincing.....but at the end of the day, if the man who defined "contact sports" from day one took the view of Bakes (little more refined and thought through  ) and set the definition in stone........the common view held here on the board today (and in the world) as we know it, would be considered the insane minority.....hard to perceive it, but i'm pretty sure it's the truth.....next topic.

I ent read it...but ah sure is ah pack ah ass.




Lataz when ah get home from class maybe.

[Bakes]

Then tennis, NASCAR and cycling are also contact sports. Next you'll be arguing that the earth is flat.

FLAT EARTH SOCIETY

So what...you take solace in the fact that there are other foolish people out there?


I'm trying to understand what that link was for...

[saga pinto]

Can't believe ah getting involve in this,but as far as I'm concern I play football/soccer three days a week and if soccer is'nt a contact sport I must be the f**king invisible man and all pain ah feeling after most games is my imagination running wild,not the knock ah sustain from ah bad tackle or a clash of heads defending ah corner kick,how much more manly can you get than that apart from rugby where man grabbing at yuh balls during ah group hug,if yuh ask me that's a bullerman sport,but daiz another discussion............ 

The incidence of contact in a sport does not in itself make the sport a contact sport...already discussed.

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.

...is there as much contact in these sports compared to football, of course not, but that's not the point.  Wherein the rules of these sports, football included, does it STIPULATE contact?

Where in the FIFA rule book does it say that there must absolutely be contact between players?  So if the rules don't stipulate contact then that logically means that the game can be played (without violating the rules) without contact.

The aesthetic appeal of such a game/sport is peripheral to the discussion once you look at it that way.

If yuh remove all contact from football, then yuh removing all tackles from the game.
99% of tackles involve contact, and sometimes it is heavy contact.
Winning the ball will only consist of intercepting passes, or waiting for the opposition to give you the ball.

Is it possible to tackle and get all ball?  If so then that disproves your argument.

So no, the game will NOT be basically unchanged.

go look up the definition of basically.

Edit:
Ah realise ah shouldn't even argue the point above.
Forget "If all contact is removed blah blah blah".
The fact that THERE IS CONTACT in the sport is all we need to consider to decide if it is a contact sport.
Pure faggitry.

Then tennis, NASCAR and cycling are also contact sports.  Next you'll be arguing that the earth is flat.

I have one question for you, WHAT?

[Peong]

Claiming to use logic is different from actually using it.
A claim should be made at the start of a discussion, and not as proof of one's credibility.
Anybody could make a claim.

[elan]

Since when is soccer a non contact sport?  I can't see how a 41 year old man can be considered a top athlete and a major star in his sport. Especially when he looks overweight and tired.

C. Ronaldo = D. Jeter.


I don't think other athletes can compare to soccer player as per athleticism and adaptiveness. Let take the best athletes from each sport who has never been formally trained in any of the other competing sports and see how each match up.

I am pretty sure soccer players can shoot a basketball, throw a strike or hit a home run, run a 100m, score at least a 10 over, catch a touch down or tackle and be pretty okay at the different sports.

The other athletes however will find it very difficult to get past - lets say Rio, to stop Rooney, score against Van Der Sar or hit a pin point 50 yard ball, receive a driven 40 yard ball on their chest, or score a corner with Oliver Kahn coming at you.

I know this is a little simplistic, but I believe it's very accurate.

When it comes to sport soccer is the great equalizer.

[pecan]

Then tennis, NASCAR and cycling are also contact sports. Next you'll be arguing that the earth is flat.

FLAT EARTH SOCIETY

So what...you take solace in the fact that there are other foolish people out there?


I'm trying to understand what that link was for...

well .. yuh commented about de man arguing dat the world iis flat

so i tort dat I would point de way do the Flat EartH Society

and ....

never mind ....

jess look up de word FACETIOUS    

[kicker]

The line of thought being promoted is that contact is integral to the sport...if it's integral it should be in the rules, no?

The only person who thinks contact has to be integral, required, necessary, AND so stated in the rules for it to be considered a contact sport, is YOU.

The sport does not actually have to meet these requirements for it to be considered a contact sport because these are merely your personal requirements, not actual requirements from the real world.

Logic dictates it saddis'...not me.  That's like saying golfing is an athletic event...simply b/c in golf yuh have tuh walk and walking raises yuh heart rate...and duz cause yuh leg tuh pain yuh when yuh go home and...blah blah blah

Take this argument to any objective forum (and by that I mean 'a group of people') and they'd quicker accept the argument.  Here is a bunch of football loyalists...and allyuh cyah let allyuh 'loyalty' tuh de sport accept logically sound arguments.  Well some ah allyuh at least.  Dai'z why I duz just shake my head and chuckle at the type ah groupthink I duz see on this site.  Sheep following sheep, lol.

God forbid allyuh should be challenged to think fuh yuhselves.

Yeah but this is not a question of logic- this is a question of varying definitions. Logic is the use of sequential statements to form a conclusion via some kinda deductive/inductive reasoning.....as long as you define "contact sport" then you can use varying logic to get from point A to point B:

Definition- A contact sport involves physical contact between opponents
Assertion- In football/soccer, there is physical contact between opponents
Conclusion- Football/soccer is a contact sport

Perfect logic.

or according to you

Definition- A contact sport involves physical contact between opponents which is central/integral to the game
Assertion - In football/soccer physical contact is not central/integral to the game
Conclusion- Football/soccer is not a contact sport.

Once again Perfect logic.

The difference is in the definition of a contact sport and in the interpretation of whether physical contact is central to football. Your reasoning(logic) that contact should be integral to the game to be considered a contact sport, and hence stated in the rules of the game is inconsequential if one's pattern of logic/deductive reasoning is based on the first sequence- because it's merely an extension or explanation of statement 2 in the second sequence. The first sequence hence exists perfecly independent of such.

In sum, no one is disagreeing with your logic- people are disagreeing with basis upon which you form the statements in your logical sequence.

Just because a conclusion is logically sound doesn't mean it's correct or that it has to be agreed with..In fact many debates focus not on the logic, but on the (factual) accuracy or credibility of the logic's basis......inaccurate or incredible statements can be combined to make perfect logic.

This thread is like a drug....

p.s. Just because you follow mainstream thinking doesn't mean you're a sheep...as long as the mainstream thinking makes sense.....A sheep follows mainstream thinking regardless of whether or not it makes sense.

[saga pinto]

The line of thought being promoted is that contact is integral to the sport...if it's integral it should be in the rules, no?

The only person who thinks contact has to be integral, required, necessary, AND so stated in the rules for it to be considered a contact sport, is YOU.

The sport does not actually have to meet these requirements for it to be considered a contact sport because these are merely your personal requirements, not actual requirements from the real world.

Logic dictates it saddis'...not me.  That's like saying golfing is an athletic event...simply b/c in golf yuh have tuh walk and walking raises yuh heart rate...and duz cause yuh leg tuh pain yuh when yuh go home and...blah blah blah

Take this argument to any objective forum (and by that I mean 'a group of people') and they'd quicker accept the argument.  Here is a bunch of football loyalists...and allyuh cyah let allyuh 'loyalty' tuh de sport accept logically sound arguments.  Well some ah allyuh at least.  Dai'z why I duz just shake my head and chuckle at the type ah groupthink I duz see on this site.  Sheep following sheep, lol.

God forbid allyuh should be challenged to think fuh yuhselves.

Yeah but this is not a question of logic- this is a question of varying definitions. Logic is the use of sequential statements to form a conclusion via some kinda deductive/inductive reasoning.....as long as you define "contact sport" then you can use varying logic to get from point A to point B:

Definition- A contact sport involves physical contact between opponents
Assertion- In football/soccer, there is physical contact between opponents
Conclusion- Football/soccer is a contact sport

Perfect logic.

or according to you

Definition- A contact sport involves physical contact between opponents which is central/integral to the game
Assertion - In football/soccer physical contact is not central/integral to the game
Conclusion- Football/soccer is not a contact sport.

Once again Perfect logic.

The difference is in the definition of a contact sport and in the interpretation of whether physical contact is central to football. Your reasoning(logic) that contact should be integral to the game, and hence stated in the rules is inconsequential if one's pattern of logic/deductive reasoning is based on the first sequence- because it's merely an extension or explanation of statement 2 in the second sequence. The first sequence hence exists perfecly independent of such.

In sum, no one is disagreeing with your logic- people are disagreeing with basis upon which you form the statements in your logical sequence.

Just because a conclusion is logically sound doesn't mean it's correct or that it has to be agreed with..In fact many debates focus not on the logic, but on the (factual) accuracy or credibility of the logic's basis......inaccurate or incredible statements can be combined to make perfect logic.

This thread is like a drug....

p.s. Just because you follow mainstream thinking doesn't mean you're a sheep...as long as the mainstream thinking makes sense.....A sheep follows mainstream thinking regardless of whether or not it makes sense.

Well said kicker,here's a quote from Aristotle:It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

[trinbago]

The line of thought being promoted is that contact is integral to the sport...if it's integral it should be in the rules, no?

The only person who thinks contact has to be integral, required, necessary, AND so stated in the rules for it to be considered a contact sport, is YOU.

The sport does not actually have to meet these requirements for it to be considered a contact sport because these are merely your personal requirements, not actual requirements from the real world.

Logic dictates it saddis'...not me.  That's like saying golfing is an athletic event...simply b/c in golf yuh have tuh walk and walking raises yuh heart rate...and duz cause yuh leg tuh pain yuh when yuh go home and...blah blah blah

Take this argument to any objective forum (and by that I mean 'a group of people') and they'd quicker accept the argument.  Here is a bunch of football loyalists...and allyuh cyah let allyuh 'loyalty' tuh de sport accept logically sound arguments.  Well some ah allyuh at least.  Dai'z why I duz just shake my head and chuckle at the type ah groupthink I duz see on this site.  Sheep following sheep, lol.

God forbid allyuh should be challenged to think fuh yuhselves.

Yeah but this is not a question of logic- this is a question of varying definitions. Logic is the use of sequential statements to form a conclusion via some kinda deductive/inductive reasoning.....as long as you define "contact sport" then you can use varying logic to get from point A to point B:

Definition- A contact sport involves physical contact between opponents
Assertion- In football/soccer, there is physical contact between opponents
Conclusion- Football/soccer is a contact sport

Perfect logic.

or according to you

Definition- A contact sport involves physical contact between opponents which is central/integral to the game
Assertion - In football/soccer physical contact is not central/integral to the game
Conclusion- Football/soccer is not a contact sport.

Once again Perfect logic.

The difference is in the definition of a contact sport and in the interpretation of whether physical contact is central to football. Your reasoning(logic) that contact should be integral to the game to be considered a contact sport, and hence stated in the rules is inconsequential if one's pattern of logic/deductive reasoning is based on the first sequence- because it's merely an extension or explanation of statement 2 in the second sequence. The first sequence hence exists perfecly independent of such.

In sum, no one is disagreeing with your logic- people are disagreeing with basis upon which you form the statements in your logical sequence.

Just because a conclusion is logically sound doesn't mean it's correct or that it has to be agreed with..In fact many debates focus not on the logic, but on the (factual) accuracy or credibility of the logic's basis......inaccurate or incredible statements can be combined to make perfect logic.

This thread is like a drug....

p.s. Just because you follow mainstream thinking doesn't mean you're a sheep...as long as the mainstream thinking makes sense.....A sheep follows mainstream thinking regardless of whether or not it makes sense.

And we will now stand for the national anthem and the closin prayer !!......All Rise !!.....................

[ribbit]

i surprised no one used the term "expectation" in any of these definitions of "contact sport". e.g. a contact sport has the expectation of contact. bake n' shark, i see your point that a football match could theoretically be played without contact - but can you cite an actual case of this? i mean, you have to go looking at some special olympic wheelchair qualifier to find something like this. i doubt you could find a case like this (consider that a challenge). do you understand the concept of "expectation" or this need a definition as well ?

[MEP]

Then tennis, NASCAR and cycling are also contact sports. Next you'll be arguing that the earth is flat.

FLAT EARTH SOCIETY

So what...you take solace in the fact that there are other foolish people out there?


I'm trying to understand what that link was for...

Ah cyar believe you takin part in this argument....like yuh bored....unbelievable that there are 4 pages of this drivel..

[WestCoast]

Since when is soccer a non contact sport?  I can't see how a 41 year old man can be considered a top athlete and a major star in his sport. Especially when he looks overweight and tired.
C. Ronaldo = D. Jeter.
I don't think other athletes can compare to soccer player as per athleticism and adaptiveness. Let take the best athletes from each sport who has never been formally trained in any of the other competing sports and see how each match up.
I am pretty sure soccer players can shoot a basketball, throw a strike or hit a home run, run a 100m, score at least a 10 over, catch a touch down or tackle and be pretty okay at the different sports.
The other athletes however will find it very difficult to get past - lets say Rio, to stop Rooney, score against Van Der Sar or hit a pin point 50 yard ball, receive a driven 40 yard ball on their chest, or score a corner with Oliver Kahn coming at you.
I know this is a little simplistic, but I believe it's very accurate.
When it comes to sport soccer is the great equalizer.

If you take
Ronaldinho and put him to play with the Cavaliers in the NBA.
C.Ronaldo and put him with Anaheim of the NHL
Beckham and put him with the Cardinals of MLB.
Camara and put him with the All Blacks of new Zealand
Rooney to run against ATO in his prime.
Carlos Edwards and put him to play with the WICB.
and you will find that your theory does not hold water.

[elan]

 

Posted by: WestCoast
Insert Quote

Quote from: elan on Today at 03:32:58 PM
Since when is soccer a non contact sport?  I can't see how a 41 year old man can be considered a top athlete and a major star in his sport. Especially when he looks overweight and tired.
C. Ronaldo = D. Jeter.
I don't think other athletes can compare to soccer player as per athleticism and adaptiveness. Let take the best athletes from each sport who has never been formally trained in any of the other competing sports and see how each match up.
I am pretty sure soccer players can shoot a basketball, throw a strike or hit a home run, run a 100m, score at least a 10 over, catch a touch down or tackle and be pretty okay at the different sports.
The other athletes however will find it very difficult to get past - lets say Rio, to stop Rooney, score against Van Der Sar or hit a pin point 50 yard ball, receive a driven 40 yard ball on their chest, or score a corner with Oliver Kahn coming at you.
I know this is a little simplistic, but I believe it's very accurate.
When it comes to sport soccer is the great equalizer.

If you take
Ronaldinho and put him to play with the Cavaliers in the NBA.
C.Ronaldo and put him with Anaheim of the NHL
Beckham and put him with the Cardinals of MLB.
Camara and put him with the All Blacks of new Zealand
Rooney to run against ATO in his prime.
Carlos Edwards and put him to play with the WICB.

[/b]

In those cases yes my theory is no good. BUt in the sense of just attempting another sport to see the athletic ability, no pressure. Give C. Ronaldo a basket ball and ask him to dribble down the court doing basic moves as oppose to giving A Rod a soccer ball and let him dribble down the field doing basic moves.

[Bakes]

Claiming to use logic is different from actually using it.
A claim should be made at the start of a discussion, and not as proof of one's credibility.
Anybody could make a claim.

From the time pardna made the claim that baseball is not a contact sport I countered with my claim "if you dismissing baseball as a contact sport, you also have to dismiss football".  I then attempted to show from a logical standpoint why the two sports are similar with regards to the contact.  The majority of you then seized upon the fact that I deign to discredit football by claiming it's not a contact sport.  Some of you made valid points, some responded with hormonal hubris about pain in dey two-knee after kicking ball all kinda thing.

[Bakes]

Since when is soccer a non contact sport?  I can't see how a 41 year old man can be considered a top athlete and a major star in his sport. Especially when he looks overweight and tired.

C. Ronaldo = D. Jeter.


I don't think other athletes can compare to soccer player as per athleticism and adaptiveness. Let take the best athletes from each sport who has never been formally trained in any of the other competing sports and see how each match up.

I am pretty sure soccer players can shoot a basketball, throw a strike or hit a home run, run a 100m, score at least a 10 over, catch a touch down or tackle and be pretty okay at the different sports.

The other athletes however will find it very difficult to get past - lets say Rio, to stop Rooney, score against Van Der Sar or hit a pin point 50 yard ball, receive a driven 40 yard ball on their chest, or score a corner with Oliver Kahn coming at you.

I know this is a little simplistic, but I believe it's very accurate.

When it comes to sport soccer is the great equalizer.

This is what most erudite orators would refer to as unmitigated bullshit.

[Bakes]

well .. yuh commented about de man arguing dat the world iis flat

so i tort dat I would point de way do the Flat EartH Society

and ....

never mind ....

jess look up de word FACETIOUS    

Arrite...I get you, shots was coming in fast and furious so ah was just firing back, lol

my bad.

[kicker]

This is what most erudite orators would refer to as unmitigated bullshit.

  hoss you iz really something else yuh know....this hour o' de nite ? Lawd...I eh able.

[Bakes]

Yeah but this is not a question of logic- this is a question of varying definitions. Logic is the use of sequential statements to form a conclusion via some kinda deductive/inductive reasoning.....as long as you define "contact sport" then you can use varying logic to get from point A to point B:

First smart thing you've said in a while..

Definition- A contact sport involves physical contact between opponents
Assertion- In football/soccer, there is physical contact between opponents
Conclusion- Football/soccer is a contact sport

Perfect logic.

or according to you

Definition- A contact sport involves physical contact between opponents which is central/integral to the game
Assertion - In football/soccer physical contact is not central/integral to the game
Conclusion- Football/soccer is not a contact sport.

Once again Perfect logic.

The difference is in the definition of a contact sport and in the interpretation of whether physical contact is central to football.

It's not an interpretation.  You insist on seeing it as an interpretation.

Left alone, your definition of a contact sport is sufficiently broad as to almost render useless the definition.  Why?  Because by your definition almost ANY sport becomes a contact sport...because in dang near every sport there is contact, no?  

Hence the need to reign in the definition.  It stands to reason that to define a sport not as "a sport with contact", but as a "contact sport", the adjective "contact" qualifies the noun "sport".  The adjective is the quality by which the activity is defined.  

So as a consequence of the primacy of "contact" in the description, it stands to reason that contact must be of some key significance to the sport.

If contact is of key significance thus...the sport cannot be played minus contact.  

So it's not an interpretation...as you so dismissively tried to couch it.  Lack of contact is inimical to a contact sport.  Simple reasoning.

Your reasoning(logic) that contact should be integral to the game to be considered a contact sport, and hence stated in the rules of the game is inconsequential if one's pattern of logic/deductive reasoning is based on the first sequence- because it's merely an extension or explanation of statement 2 in the second sequence. The first sequence hence exists perfecly independent of such.

It is NOT inconsequential...it is absolutely necessary so as to provide a working definition, a base from which to start.  With so broad a definition one renders it useless.  What if I asked "what's a RAINY DAY?"... and you respond with "ANY DAY in which it RAINS" Does that really make any kinda sense?  If so then any drizzle would qualify the day as being rainy...which we both know is nonsense.  Same with your "any sport in which there's contact" definition.  Because as I've already shown...tennis and pitch would qualify as contact sports.

If that works for you then the argument is over.

In sum, no one is disagreeing with your logic- people are disagreeing with basis upon which you form the statements in your logical sequence.

And that basis is 100X firmer than the one from which YOU and your cohorts propose to start from.

Just because a conclusion is logically sound doesn't mean it's correct or that it has to be agreed with..In fact many debates focus not on the logic, but on the (factual) accuracy or credibility of the logic's basis......inaccurate or incredible statements can be combined to make perfect logic.

This thread is like a drug....

p.s. Just because you follow mainstream thinking doesn't mean you're a sheep...as long as the mainstream thinking makes sense.....A sheep follows mainstream thinking regardless of whether or not it makes sense.

"as long as the mainstream thinking makes sense"....yeah but mad people never know that they are mad.  Of course allyuh think allyuh making sense, lol.

[Bakes]

i surprised no one used the term "expectation" in any of these definitions of "contact sport". e.g. a contact sport has the expectation of contact. bake n' shark, i see your point that a football match could theoretically be played without contact - but can you cite an actual case of this? i mean, you have to go looking at some special olympic wheelchair qualifier to find something like this. i doubt you could find a case like this (consider that a challenge). do you understand the concept of "expectation" or this need a definition as well ?

Nah...I cyah provide citation fuh it actually ever happening.  Doh see it happening either, unless there is some disincentive to the players making contact.

Define "expectation"...














j/k 

[Deeks]

I cyan believe this. Why is this blog so important?  We have a doh-doh head making we second guess we MANILYNESS.

[Bakes]

This is what most erudite orators would refer to as unmitigated bullshit.

  hoss you iz really something else yuh know....this hour o' de nite ? Lawd...I eh able.

I arguing serious...but everything else is kicks, these men and dem juss providing de fodder.

[Bakes]

I cyan believe this. Why is this blog so important?  We have a doh-doh head making we second guess we MANILYNESS.

Whatever "MANILYNESS" is...I sure you'z de only one here suffering from it.

[Deeks]

MANLY!!!

[WestCoast]

In those cases yes my theory is no good. BUt in the sense of just attempting another sport to see the athletic ability, no pressure. Give C. Ronaldo a basket ball and ask him to dribble down the court doing basic moves as oppose to giving A Rod a soccer ball and let him dribble down the field doing basic moves.

Man, there is a fella, from the city i am now living in, called Steve Nash, by chance do you know him?  and he had a great interest in playing Football (Soccer) so again you really have to use a different tact.
I personally was not very good at batting but my fielding and bowling was ok in cricket, and when I moved to Canada i was much better at softball than i had been at cricket.
In football, My dribbling skills were terrible and that is why I became a 'Keeper in high school.
I also played rugby in high school as a result of a few of my friends played on the team.
It all depends on the person and what their sports interests were.

[Filho]

BnS

Ice hockey at junior level and the women's game in college do not allow checking. But the game is stilled played and by your standards the game is basically unchanged. Players still move the puck up and down the ice, score goals, skate on blades, wear pads..yadda yadda. The removal of contact does not fundamentally change it. Is ice hockey not a contact sport?

The same for American football. You do not need to tackle the man to win the ball. The rules can be changed to say that only interceptions and tapping the ball while in an opponents arms are considered fair ball winning techniques. Any other contact in trying to do so is incidental. The game remains basically unchanged...get the ball from point A to point B in 4 tries. Is American football not a contact sport? You ask if it's possible to tackle in football and win all ball...same with football, rugby and hockey and any other team contact sport

You state that soccer is not a contact sport because if you created a rule to remove all contact in soccer, the sport remains basically unchanged. Well in that case, I'm curious to know if you consider sports like american football, hockey or rugby contact sports. After all..you get no points for tackles, or checking. You get points for getting the ball to the end zone/ puck in the goal..Tackling and checking are ways to win the ball/puck. There are versions of each game that remove the contact and the game remains fundmentally unchanged (Flag football, women's college ice hockey). Sure the appearance and maybe appeal of the game to the average fan game changes..but it can be played without basically changing the games' fundamental goals.

Yes or no?

Ok..couldn't stay away