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?BnS: Fundamentally the sport hasn't changed...so that actually helps prove that point for me.Filho:
No it proves my point. If the removal of contact does not fundamentally change what you readily admit is a contact sport (hockey), then you cannot argue that soccer is non-contact sport because it remains basically unchanged if contact is removed...so no, this proves no point of yours. It proves mine..perhaps you forgot what you wrote. BnS: Is Ice Hockey not a contact sport? Yes it very much is. But as we see...women's ice hockey and youth ice hockey are not. The rules governing them are different. Now if you were to rule out contact in ALL Ice Hockey then in that case it would not be a contact sport. See the difference? Filho: Nope. You're confusing yourself my friend..IT WAS YOU...who introduced the scenario of changing the rules of soccer. YOU SAID that if the rules were changed to remove all contact, soccer would remain basically unchanged. This was one of your supporting arguments that 'proved' soccer was not a contact sport. Therefore logic (your favorite word) should dictate that if contact is removed form hockey and the game remains basically unchanged, then hockey is not a contact sport. BnS: The rules of all Ice Hockey haven't been changed under the scenarios above...but they've been adapted for limited applications to protect women and youths from physical harm. Remove all contact from all hockey (men included) and you fundamentally change the sport b/c contact isn't just accepted, contact is in the rules. Perfectly legal to body check a man who coming up the ice with his head down if you helping break up the attack. Perfectly legal to body check a man off the puck. In football the first incident will get you a card, if not a seat next to the coach. The second...again, yuh cyah body a man off the ball (while in his possession). Now free ball...dai'z ah different story.Filho:
Look at your first statement and look at the bold above. Why should I even carry on? Anyway, we are not discussing the type of contact...just contact. The fact that certain type of tackling is acceptable in hockey and not soccer is absolutely irrelevant. Certain types of tackling in rugby are not acceptable in hockey or american football..that does not make neither of them contact sports. Also, in soccer, it's perfectly legal to head a ball into the goal..it's in the rules. Does this mean that the game is fundamentally changed if you don't head the ball in the goal..NO. Same with hockey..the game is not fundamentally changed if you don't check..and THAT is what we are discussing. And you agreed to that in your first sentence..so the point you make above is not only irrelevant but inconsistent.BnS: In football the object isn't to win the ball at all. The object is to stop the other team first and foremost, and that CAN be accomplished by winning the ball, but you are thought to stop the advancement of the ball first, rather than gamble in hopes of a turnover. You see it all the time, man getting burn b/c he rather go for 'big play'...(continued below) Filho: Again...you contradict yourself. As long as you mention that the fundamental goals of american football CAN be accomplished without contact (which you just did) then you've killed your entire argument..since you emphasize that soccer's fundemantal goals CAN be achieved without contact as a reason for it being a non-contact sport. BnS: ......the object is to stop the ball...hence hitting ah man ah flying tackle is taught at the fundamentally sound way to prevent matriculation of the ball. In football (soccer) you play the ball first, then the man. Meaning in tackling, you go after the ball. In American football, you ALWAYS play man first...then focus on stripping or intercepting the ball.
Filho: We are discussing the fundamantal goals of the game...not fundamental techniques of achieveing those goals. Otherwise I would inform you that in soccer, winning the ball with certain amount of contact are fundamentally sound ways to win the ball. You don't learn in soccer to just tackle the ball. You learn how to use your body to win the ball or shield it..contact-based techniques are also fundamentals in soccer.
BnS: Tackling football and tackling in American football...two different things. In the former, contact is permissible. In the latter contact is absolutely necessary. Why yuh think they duz call it 'tackle football'? Remove contact from that and all yuh have is men playing ketch wid de ball...different sport entirely.
Filho: Again..your intepretation. The game remains FUNDAMENTALLY unchanged. In the end, you have to score points..you have to get from point A to point B. Contact is not necessary. You are the one who laughed at my idea at how stupid soccer would look without contact. You said people's perceptions were irrelevant. Now you are doing the same thing. Again..very inconsistent...what you think the sport would look like without tackling is irrelevant.
BnS: But again...as outlined above...tackling and checking are full contact techniques meant to stop the man.
Filho:In soccer shielding the ball with your body is a full contact technique meant to protect the ball
BnS: No. For the reasons outlined...they will be fundamentally changed. Remember we ent talking about making up special versions of the game, where some people with certain handicaps play be a different rule, we talking about changing the rule across the board. Hockey without checking won't be hockey. Am. Football without tackling is man running arung ketching ball.
Filho: Again..just your opinion and your feeling abot th visual aspects. I say the same for soccer. Without contact..it would be a bunch of clowns running around hardly ever trying to win the ball and the ref will be blowing his whistle every 2 seconds, breaking up any rythm. This is not relevant to our discussion. Besides..that is exactly what YOU PROPOSED in your argument..coming up with a special version of soccer to prove that without contact it was basically the same sport.