Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum
Sports => Football => Topic started by: trinbago on June 10, 2007, 11:11:17 AM
-
Today I was told Baseball is more "MANLY" than Football(soccer)....i.e. real men play baseball......men who play football are skinny and girly!!!
before I talk about the rest of the converstion with this baseball fan and my rebuttal I would like to here your thoughts.....
-
Today I was told Baseball is more "MANLY" than Football(soccer)....i.e. real men play baseball......men who play football are skinny and girly!!!
before I talk about the rest of the converstion with this baseball fan and my rebuttal I would like to here your thoughts.....
STUPES.. I hope you slap the person..
-
My advice would be to just overs the discussion.
No way you going to convince a baseball fan that football is more manly or vice versa.
If the man really pushing the head that one is more manly thean the other just ignore him unless yuh really have time to waste.
I follow both sports and can see "manly" attributes in both and in any case what defines "manly" is very subjective.
-
Today I was told Baseball is more "MANLY" than Football(soccer)....i.e. real men play baseball......men who play football are skinny and girly!!!
before I talk about the rest of the converstion with this baseball fan and my rebuttal I would like to here your thoughts.....
Pop some knowledge on him. Like the fact that Baseball evolved out of rounders...ah sport only played by Primary school girls. Same thing with Basketball and Netball.
-
i wouldnt think a thread about baseball would pop up on this forum. well i am one trini (probably de only one) who does play baseball (semi-pro ;D). i love the sport but when it comes to "manlyness" football is wayyyy past baseball. and to be honest i cant watch a baseball game....too slow and too boring i have to be playing. but for football i can watch de full 90 mins.
ah think i sense FF and them fellas coming to crack jokes on meh... ::)
-
I follow both sports and can see "manly" attributes in both and in any case what defines "manly" is very subjective.
I too am curious as to how one would 'measure' the supposed manliness of a sport...what they propose, having fellas line up and see who could piss de furthest?
Pop some knowledge on him. Like the fact that Baseball evolved out of rounders...ah sport only played by Primary school girls. Same thing with Basketball and Netball.
Same would have to be said about cricket...so I wouldn't be too quick to push that foolish argument.
i wouldnt think a thread about baseball would pop up on this forum. well i am one trini (probably de only one) who does play baseball (semi-pro ;D). i love the sport but when it comes to "manlyness" football is wayyyy past baseball. and to be honest i cant watch a baseball game....to slow and too boring i have to be playing. but for football i can watch de full 90 mins.
ah think i sense FF and them fellas coming to crack jokes on meh... ::)
No need to shame man...and congrats on de semi-pro gig. Hopefully fate and time still on yuh side and yuh'll get ah opportunity to move up the system.
I'm a huge sports fan that find degrees of enjoyment in even Ice Hockey...and I love baseball, even though I too find it difficult to watch unless some team i rooting for playing.
-
I break it down like this...firstly when people throw around the word unmanly with regard to sport, I take it to be somewhat of an insult to the sport and moreso an underhanded remark to the "man" who plays the sport in question....which is messed up to begin with.....
If baseball were to be played by women they would have to decrease the size of the outfield, infield, and decrease the distance from the mound to the hitter, decrease the distance between bases etc because girls just aren't as strong and athletic as guys and the game would just not be the same ....(I was told this by a pro baseball player...I know nothing about baseball)...so in that regard, you can argue that baseball is more manly that football (soccer)....
Then again, you could argue that for women's soccer the goal & fields should be a bit smaller because the women's game is alot slower, plays take abit longer to be made and female goalkeepers are not as agile and athletic yadda yadda....those adjustments are however not made.....I'm the biggest football fan, and I don't consider myself to be chauvinist, but I do not find women's football (soccer) to be nearly as interesting or entertaining as the men's game.....it's a newer sport and it lacks the sophistication, physical nature and other elements of history & passion that make the men's game what it is.....so in that regard you can argue that football (soccer) is definitely as manly a sport as any...add to that the fact that football, unlike baseball is a contact sport....
End of the day, "manly" should not be taken to mean "good"...There is nothing inferior about sports such as tennis, swimming, track & field, volleyball, gymnastics, field hockey etc...where the women's version appears to be as competitive and entertaining as the men's...(to the ignorant non-follower such as myself)... and therefore calling football/soccer an "unmanly" sport should only be regarded as an insult if one endorses beliefs of female inferiority...and that's a whole other conversation. :beermug:
In sum, does it really matter which sport is more "manly" ?
-
I follow both sports and can see "manly" attributes in both and in any case what defines "manly" is very subjective.
I too am curious as to how one would 'measure' the supposed manliness of a sport...what they propose, having fellas line up and see who could piss de furthest?
Pop some knowledge on him. Like the fact that Baseball evolved out of rounders...ah sport only played by Primary school girls. Same thing with Basketball and Netball.
Same would have to be said about cricket...so I wouldn't be too quick to push that foolish argument.
Yeah, but yuh don't see anybody talking about the "manliness" or "unmanliness" of cricket, so yuh outta timing.
-
I break it down like this...firstly when people throw around the word unmanly with regard to sport, I take it to be somewhat of an insult to the sport and moreso an underhanded remark to the "man" who plays the sport in question....which is messed up to begin with.....
If baseball were to be played by women they would have to decrease the size of the outfield, infield, and decrease the distance from the mound to the hitter, decrease the distance between bases etc because girls just aren't as strong and athletic as guys and the game would just not be the same ....(I was told this by a pro baseball player...I know nothing about baseball)...so in that regard, you can argue that baseball is more manly that football (soccer)....
Then again, you could argue that for women's soccer the goal & fields should be a bit smaller because the women's game is alot slower, plays take abit longer to be made and female goalkeepers are not as agile and athletic yadda yadda....those adjustments are however not made.....I'm the biggest football fan, and I don't consider myself to be chauvinist, but I do not find women's football (soccer) to be nearly as interesting or entertaining as the men's game.....it's a newer sport and it lacks the sophistication, physical nature and other elements of history & passion that make the men's game what it is.....so in that regard you can argue that football (soccer) is definitely as manly a sport as any...add to that the fact that football, unlike baseball is a contact sport....
End of the day, "manly" should not be taken to mean "good"...There is nothing inferior about sports such as tennis, swimming, track & field, volleyball, gymnastics, field hockey etc...where the women's version appears to be as competitive and entertaining as the men's...(to the ignorant non-follower such as myself)... and therefore calling football/soccer an "unmanly" sport should only be regarded as an insult if one endorses beliefs of female inferiority...and that's a whole other conversation. :beermug:
In sum, does it really matter which sport is more "manly" ?
Yuh took it slightly out of context.....they didn't mean they were comparing to if a man plays it or woman plays it ............they meant it takes a "real man" to play baseball where as the football players come across as girly.....
By the way...the person who I was having this conversation with is an avid sports fan and thus follows a lot of different sports but their favorite sport is baseball.....but the kicker is she is a very hot 27 year old !!
So imagine a hot woman who know about sports sayin football (soccer) is girly!!...in other words when she saw the games on TV a couple times the men are not macho!!
Here are some interesting questions that came up:
1. What is the average age of football players compared to baseball players?
2. Which has the earlier average retirement age?
3. Which requires the person to be more fit?
4. Which earns more money per person?
5. Which earns more money as a team?
6. Which is more popular?
7. What are the viewership comparisons?
8. Which is more a global brand Yankees or Manchester United?
-
I break it down like this...firstly when people throw around the word unmanly with regard to sport, I take it to be somewhat of an insult to the sport and moreso an underhanded remark to the "man" who plays the sport in question....which is messed up to begin with.....
If baseball were to be played by women they would have to decrease the size of the outfield, infield, and decrease the distance from the mound to the hitter, decrease the distance between bases etc because girls just aren't as strong and athletic as guys and the game would just not be the same ....(I was told this by a pro baseball player...I know nothing about baseball)...so in that regard, you can argue that baseball is more manly that football (soccer)....
Then again, you could argue that for women's soccer the goal & fields should be a bit smaller because the women's game is alot slower, plays take abit longer to be made and female goalkeepers are not as agile and athletic yadda yadda....those adjustments are however not made.....I'm the biggest football fan, and I don't consider myself to be chauvinist, but I do not find women's football (soccer) to be nearly as interesting or entertaining as the men's game.....it's a newer sport and it lacks the sophistication, physical nature and other elements of history & passion that make the men's game what it is.....so in that regard you can argue that football (soccer) is definitely as manly a sport as any...add to that the fact that football, unlike baseball is a contact sport....
End of the day, "manly" should not be taken to mean "good"...There is nothing inferior about sports such as tennis, swimming, track & field, volleyball, gymnastics, field hockey etc...where the women's version appears to be as competitive and entertaining as the men's...(to the ignorant non-follower such as myself)... and therefore calling football/soccer an "unmanly" sport should only be regarded as an insult if one endorses beliefs of female inferiority...and that's a whole other conversation. :beermug:
In sum, does it really matter which sport is more "manly" ?
Yuh took it slightly out of context.....they didn't mean they were comparing to if a man plays it or woman plays it ............they meant it takes a "real man" to play baseball where as the football players come across as girly.....
By the way...the person who I was having this conversation with is an avid sports fan and thus follows a lot of different sports but their favorite sport is baseball.....but the kicker is she is a very hot 27 year old !!
So imagine a hot woman who know about sports sayin football (soccer) is girly!!...in other words when she saw the games on TV a couple times the men are not macho!!
Here are some interesting questions that came up:
1. What is the average age of football players compared to baseball players? - football players are much younger
2. Which has the earlier average retirement age? football
3. Which requires the person to be more fit? - football.....though from a pitchers point of view we do alot of running compared to infielders or outfielders.
4. Which earns more money per person? - baseball.....can u believe people getting 1 mil just to sit?
5. Which earns more money as a team? - baseball
6. Which is more popular? - football by far
7. What are the viewership comparisons? football....de whole world watches it.
8. Which is more a global brand Yankees or Manchester United? see now there are certain countries that know about the yankees for example the countries that have baseball leagues in europe (spain, denmark, germany, italy, russia, czech republic...thats all i can think of right now)......almost everyone knows about manchester united
-
Yeah, but yuh don't see anybody talking about the "manliness" or "unmanliness" of cricket, so yuh outta timing.
As is the usual case with you, your logic or lack thereof betrays you.
If you are going to argue the merits of what defines manliness based on where the game is derived then many of our sports would rank relatively low. Rounders may be a game most common with young women, I'll have to take your word for it since the last time I played I was still in primary school. Fact is, it was a game devised by men, for men...that eventually grew into baseball in the US...and cricket in the British empire...there is nothing inherently "unmanly" about rounders.
-
Manliness is in de eye of de beholder
If dis hot 27 women like men with the typical baseball physique, den dat is her perogative
soccer players have different physiques and conditioning because the demands are different
anyway, if you trying to score points wit she, den you should answer the question to maximize yuh chance (without sacrificing your values) ;D
-
Here are some interesting questions that came up:
1. What is the average age of football players compared to baseball players?
2. Which has the earlier average retirement age?
3. Which requires the person to be more fit?
4. Which earns more money per person?
5. Which earns more money as a team?
6. Which is more popular?
7. What are the viewership comparisons?
8. Which is more a global brand Yankees or Manchester United?
1. Dunno, but youth is more of an asset in football, so football players are younger on average.
2. Football
3. Football...more running.
4. Baseball...not even close.
5. Hard to say...but my guess is that the larger fan base makes for more retail and marketing opportunities...so I'll give Football the nod here.
6. Football
7. On what scale...globally or within the country? Probably football.
8. My guess is Man U. but the Yankees are huge as well.
-
I break it down like this...firstly when people throw around the word unmanly with regard to sport, I take it to be somewhat of an insult to the sport and moreso an underhanded remark to the "man" who plays the sport in question....which is messed up to begin with.....
If baseball were to be played by women they would have to decrease the size of the outfield, infield, and decrease the distance from the mound to the hitter, decrease the distance between bases etc because girls just aren't as strong and athletic as guys and the game would just not be the same ....(I was told this by a pro baseball player...I know nothing about baseball)...so in that regard, you can argue that baseball is more manly that football (soccer)....
Then again, you could argue that for women's soccer the goal & fields should be a bit smaller because the women's game is alot slower, plays take abit longer to be made and female goalkeepers are not as agile and athletic yadda yadda....those adjustments are however not made.....I'm the biggest football fan, and I don't consider myself to be chauvinist, but I do not find women's football (soccer) to be nearly as interesting or entertaining as the men's game.....it's a newer sport and it lacks the sophistication, physical nature and other elements of history & passion that make the men's game what it is.....so in that regard you can argue that football (soccer) is definitely as manly a sport as any...add to that the fact that football, unlike baseball is a contact sport....
End of the day, "manly" should not be taken to mean "good"...There is nothing inferior about sports such as tennis, swimming, track & field, volleyball, gymnastics, field hockey etc...where the women's version appears to be as competitive and entertaining as the men's...(to the ignorant non-follower such as myself)... and therefore calling football/soccer an "unmanly" sport should only be regarded as an insult if one endorses beliefs of female inferiority...and that's a whole other conversation. :beermug:
In sum, does it really matter which sport is more "manly" ?
Yuh took it slightly out of context.....they didn't mean they were comparing to if a man plays it or woman plays it ............they meant it takes a "real man" to play baseball where as the football players come across as girly.....
By the way...the person who I was having this conversation with is an avid sports fan and thus follows a lot of different sports but their favorite sport is baseball.....but the kicker is she is a very hot 27 year old !!
So imagine a hot woman who know about sports sayin football (soccer) is girly!!...in other words when she saw the games on TV a couple times the men are not macho!!
Here are some interesting questions that came up:
1. What is the average age of football players compared to baseball players?
2. Which has the earlier average retirement age?
3. Which requires the person to be more fit?
4. Which earns more money per person?
5. Which earns more money as a team?
6. Which is more popular?
7. What are the viewership comparisons?
8. Which is more a global brand Yankees or Manchester United?
Nah I realized that the thread wasn't really directly commenting about how manly the sport was, but more about the macho-ness of the male athletes who play the different sports.....I was just giving a view from a different perspective because like I said in my first few lines when people attack/criticise the manliness of a game, its usually an underhanded comment about the sport, or about the "men" who play it (afterall the whole idea of the degree of manliness would not exist if the female gender didn't exist- the less manly one is, is the more woman-like that person is (so to speak), so to compare the manliness of the athletes you have to take a step back and compare the manliness of the sport by asking- is the woman's version of this sport comparable to the mens? the more comparable the two versions are, the stronger your argument against the manliness of the athlete- ya dig ?...just one way to look at it- I chose that way)
but like I say, whether you look at it on a "macro" level (critique/compare the sports as opposed to the athletes)....or a "micro" level (critique/compare the athletes), it comes down the same point- manliness is subjective, the argument of manliness is contingent on the connotation that goes along with the word...and at the end of the day there is no right or wrong answer....interesting topic though :beermug:
-
if she is saying baseball is a more manly sport than football it is based solely and ONLY on the physical appearance of the players and not the actual sport itself..
I.E.
Compare Cristiano Ronaldo: he of hair blowing in the wind, shaven legs, pretty boots and socks, diving, crying, whining, passing his hand thru his hair primadonna....
against
Mark McGwire, brute force, all muscle, bussing dem tight pants, chewing tobacco and spitting it out, cussing, rough cut figure...
-
Baseball uniform leave a lot to remark . Its not a contact sport. Also tell you friend that about 15 years ago baseball player were around 150-190 in weight. Baseball just recently started fine player of taking drugs. in football you get a year ban first offence.
-
Baseball uniform leave a lot to remark . Its not a contact sport. Also tell you friend that about 15 years ago baseball player were around 150-190 in weight. Baseball just recently started fine player of taking drugs. in football you get a year ban first offence.
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. You always play the ball, not the man when defending...you can't just chop down man in hopes of getting the ball, but you play the ball and if in the process you HAPPEN to make contact with the man, then good officiating chalks that up to incidental contact.
Now, if you seriously think baseball is not a contact sport, then clearly you've never seen a man round first base and deliberately run into the second-baseman in hopes of preventing the double-play. In this case the man running into the defensive player knows that he's out, so he sacrifices his body by hurling himself at the defender to prevent the defender from throwing to first base and throwing out his team mate who's trying to get to first.
Another example...plays at home plate. Man rounds third trying to score, catcher fields the throw from the field and blocks the plate. It is entirely within the rules of the sport for the player attempting to score to completely run over the catcher in hopes of dislodging the ball and thus, scoring. One infamous incident of this happening was Pete Rose running into Ray Fosse during the All-Star game many moons ago (1976?). The ensuing collision resulted in the end of Ray Fosse's career. Given that it was an All-Star game, many were upset with Pete Rose...since you don't normally play that hard-nosed in these games...but he recieved no sanction b/c it was completely within the rules (if not the spirit) of the game.
-
She jes like de steroid look. Dat is all.
-
All major sports hard ,tough and good ,and fun to play .Just have to have an open mind.
-
tell him take he baseball bat and shove it where d sun doh shine :devil:
-
Baseball uniform leave a lot to remark . Its not a contact sport. Also tell you friend that about 15 years ago baseball player were around 150-190 in weight. Baseball just recently started fine player of taking drugs. in football you get a year ban first offence.
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. You always play the ball, not the man when defending...you can't just chop down man in hopes of getting the ball, but you play the ball and if in the process you HAPPEN to make contact with the man, then good officiating chalks that up to incidental contact.
Football has a lot more contact than baseball..incidental or any other kind. So you are required to take more of a beating. In the end, I believe that is the gist of that point.
In any case, the person in question seems really to be judging the physique of soccer players vs baseball players. It's a matter of personal preference and not even worth discussing. So what if she feels that way. Tell her to each his/her own and she'll respect you for that. Fight it down and you just look insecure and you will look like yuh lacking manliness yuhself.
-
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. You always play the ball, not the man when defending...you can't just chop down man in hopes of getting the ball, but you play the ball and if in the process you HAPPEN to make contact with the man, then good officiating chalks that up to incidental contact.
Now, if you seriously think baseball is not a contact sport, then clearly you've never seen a man round first base and deliberately run into the second-baseman in hopes of preventing the double-play. In this case the man running into the defensive player knows that he's out, so he sacrifices his body by hurling himself at the defender to prevent the defender from throwing to first base and throwing out his team mate who's trying to get to first.
Another example...plays at home plate. Man rounds third trying to score, catcher fields the throw from the field and blocks the plate. It is entirely within the rules of the sport for the player attempting to score to completely run over the catcher in hopes of dislodging the ball and thus, scoring. One infamous incident of this happening was Pete Rose running into Ray Fosse during the All-Star game many moons ago (1976?). The ensuing collision resulted in the end of Ray Fosse's career. Given that it was an All-Star game, many were upset with Pete Rose...since you don't normally play that hard-nosed in these games...but he recieved no sanction b/c it was completely within the rules (if not the spirit) of the game.
Football IS a contact sport
Just because you can't chop someone down doesn't mean that it's not a contact sport....you are allowed to make full physical contact with a player on a challenge for a ball, so long as you touch the ball FIRST. Also when sheilding the ball, a fair amount of contact is allowed...Shoulder to shoulder contact is also allowed 50/50 challenges....football is quite a physical game and only someone who has never played the game would be of the opinion that physical contact is merely tangential and not part of the game....When you play against a very physical team, the difference is very very clear....it has a huge impact on the game....football without physical contact would be a totally different game......not even debatable
I agree that certain plays in baseball do result in some physical contact, but there is no debate, none what so ever that baseball is more of a contact sport than football(soccer)...
-
That person is ignorant. Don't even comment on such dotish talk. Don't give him the light of day.
-
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. You always play the ball, not the man when defending...you can't just chop down man in hopes of getting the ball, but you play the ball and if in the process you HAPPEN to make contact with the man, then good officiating chalks that up to incidental contact.
Now, if you seriously think baseball is not a contact sport, then clearly you've never seen a man round first base and deliberately run into the second-baseman in hopes of preventing the double-play. In this case the man running into the defensive player knows that he's out, so he sacrifices his body by hurling himself at the defender to prevent the defender from throwing to first base and throwing out his team mate who's trying to get to first.
Another example...plays at home plate. Man rounds third trying to score, catcher fields the throw from the field and blocks the plate. It is entirely within the rules of the sport for the player attempting to score to completely run over the catcher in hopes of dislodging the ball and thus, scoring. One infamous incident of this happening was Pete Rose running into Ray Fosse during the All-Star game many moons ago (1976?). The ensuing collision resulted in the end of Ray Fosse's career. Given that it was an All-Star game, many were upset with Pete Rose...since you don't normally play that hard-nosed in these games...but he recieved no sanction b/c it was completely within the rules (if not the spirit) of the game.
Football IS a contact sport
Just because you can't chop someone down doesn't mean that it's not a contact sport....you are allowed to make full physical contact with a player on a challenge for a ball, so long as you touch the ball FIRST. Also when sheilding the ball, a fair amount of contact is allowed...Shoulder to shoulder contact is also allowed 50/50 challenges....football is a quite physical game and only someone who's never played the game would be of the opinion that physical contact is merely tangential and not part of the game....When you play against a very physical team, the difference is very very clear....it has a huge impact on the game....football without physical contact would be a totally different game......not even debatable
I agree that certain plays in baseball do result in some physical contact, but there is no debate, none what so ever that baseball is more of a contact sport than football(soccer)...
If again football is the most dangerous game in the world ! ,i ve had 5 very swollen sprained angles ,twised ahkilles tendon .dislocated wraist .pegs galore 2 busted kness ,busted toes,kicked up shins what the f**k ..
-
Yeah, but yuh don't see anybody talking about the "manliness" or "unmanliness" of cricket, so yuh outta timing.
As is the usual case with you, your logic or lack thereof betrays you.
If you are going to argue the merits of what defines manliness based on where the game is derived then many of our sports would rank relatively low. Rounders may be a game most common with young women, I'll have to take your word for it since the last time I played I was still in primary school. Fact is, it was a game devised by men, for men...that eventually grew into baseball in the US...and cricket in the British empire...there is nothing inherently "unmanly" about rounders.
Oh good lord, why do you have to take every little effing thing so seriously??? Steupssss As though anybody would SERIOUSLY argue about which sport is more manly than the other. ::)
-
Football IS a contact sport
Just because you can't chop someone down doesn't mean that it's not a contact sport....you are allowed to make full physical contact with a player on a challenge for a ball, so long as you touch the ball FIRST. Also when sheilding the ball, a fair amount of contact is allowed...Shoulder to shoulder contact is also allowed 50/50 challenges....football is quite a physical game and only someone who has never played the game would be of the opinion that physical contact is merely tangential and not part of the game....When you play against a very physical team, the difference is very very clear....it has a huge impact on the game....football without physical contact would be a totally different game......not even debatable
I agree that certain plays in baseball do result in some physical contact, but there is no debate, none what so ever that baseball is more of a contact sport than football(soccer)...
Saying that there is contact allowed in Football and saying that Football is a contact sport....two completely separate things. Everything you said there only underscores the point that I made about men playing the ball first and the man second...and that good officiating acknowledges that as being tangential and not central to the play.
I shudder at the state of our public schools.
-
If again football is the most dangerous game in the world ! ,i ve had 5 very swollen sprained angles ,twised ahkilles tendon .dislocated wraist .pegs galore 2 busted kness ,busted toes,kicked up shins what the f**k ..
"Football is the most dangerous game in the world"...I have officially heard it all now.
-
Oh good lord, why do you have to take every little effing thing so seriously??? Steupssss As though anybody would SERIOUSLY argue about which sport is more manly than the other. ::)
You right...nobody taking this seriously.
Your hystrionics aside.
-
Ey u ever play in trini . First american sports all have protection . U ever get ah hard swinging shin on shin from ah player from lavantile ,it is feel like kicking motherc**t iron .f**k that, it really dangerous doh fool yourself.
-
Football IS a contact sport
Just because you can't chop someone down doesn't mean that it's not a contact sport....you are allowed to make full physical contact with a player on a challenge for a ball, so long as you touch the ball FIRST. Also when sheilding the ball, a fair amount of contact is allowed...Shoulder to shoulder contact is also allowed 50/50 challenges....football is quite a physical game and only someone who has never played the game would be of the opinion that physical contact is merely tangential and not part of the game....When you play against a very physical team, the difference is very very clear....it has a huge impact on the game....football without physical contact would be a totally different game......not even debatable
I agree that certain plays in baseball do result in some physical contact, but there is no debate, none what so ever that baseball is more of a contact sport than football(soccer)...
Saying that there is contact allowed in Football and saying that Football is a contact sport....two completely separate things. Everything you said there only underscores the point that I made about men playing the ball first and the man second...and that good officiating acknowledges that as being tangential and not central to the play.
I shudder at the state of our public schools.
???
I welcome your definition of a contact sport
Here's one of many from the web that say the same thing
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:Contact+Sport&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
Would you argue then that physical contact is more central (less tangential) to the sport of baseball than it is to football ?
football/soccer is a contact sport- there is no debate about that....if you choose to be a statistical outlier by thinking otherwise- feel free.
I reserve judgment on your comment about the statement about public schools as it is tangential to this thread and undermines the spirit of the message board...
-
???
I welcome your definition of a contact sport
Here's one of many from the web that say the same thing
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:Contact+Sport&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
Would you argue then that physical contact is more central (less tangential) to the sport of baseball than it is to football ?
football/soccer is a contact sport- there is no debate about that....if you choose to be a statistical outlier by thinking otherwise- feel free.
I reserve judgment on your comment about the statement about public schools as it is tangential to this thread and undermines the spirit of the message board...
I not into reading Tarot cards, playing wid Ouija boards or holding hands in Seance and thing...so all this "spirit of the message board" thing is really beyond me. Let me know what else de spirits telling yuh.
If you making YOUR point by re-stating, damn near verbatim what I said in refutation of your original statements...den boss I can only conclude dat you cyah read. Sorry if dat hits home...ah was trying tuh be less pointed, but in de process I impugned the smarts of public school students all arung.
Now...
As for "Contact Sport"...sports where contact is a central and accepted part of the game:
Ice Hockey
Rugby, American Football, Aussie Rules...etc..
Lacrosse
Boxing
UFC
...not complete, but it's a start. My guess is that you'll bristle at football being left off, but that's your prerogative.
As far as being a ''statistical oulier'', lol...you would have to provide statistics in support of your claim in order to first denounce me as being in the minority. Now if you're saying that my opinion is in the minority ON THIS WEBSITE...then no scenes, I'll take that to mean that I'm in good company, because the vast majority of de regular posters here are babbling idiots, plain and simple.
I go mash plenty corn wid dat one dey but objective posters who sift beyond the over-patriotic hubris that passes for "loyalty" on here would know that it's the truth.
Apologies in advance if ah bruise some sensitivities, lol.
-
Ok B&S, you're a smart fella/girl (no assumptions ;D) 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...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
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.....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........
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..
Now, if you seriously think baseball is not a contact sport, then clearly you've never seen a man round first base and deliberately run into the second-baseman in hopes of preventing the double-play.
Examples of non contact sports.....
Tennis
Volleyball
Swimming
Track & Field
gymnastics
cricket
Sports that involve no physical contact between opponents. My guess is that you'll bristle at football being left off, but that's your prerogative
:beermug: :beermug: :beermug:
-
never discuss sports with americans,their games are de most exciting and in their opinion needs balls guts and glory to play.its typical american mentality.if they didnt invent it its no good.thank god de REST OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD SEES IT DIFFERENTLY.
-
Ok B&S, you're a smart fella/girl (no assumptions ;D) 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
Refutation #2
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. :beermug: :beermug: :beermug:
-
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.
oh goouud, allya "splitting hairs"
;D ;D
buh I understan wha you mean ;)
-
Ey u ever play in trini . First american sports all have protection . U ever get ah hard swinging shin on shin from ah player from lavantile ,it is feel like kicking motherc**t iron .f**k that, it really dangerous doh fool yourself.
not in baseball...the only piece of protective equipment in the game is the helmet.....and some people choose arm guards or one shin guard thats optional. but for a pitcher or infielder or outfielder theres no protection. taking a line drive in the back hurts like a b**ch. (after the ball is pitched the ball is hit right back at u and is coming twice the speed) say if u throw 90 mph the ball coming right back at u at 190 mph. so that gives u 0.1 - 0.2 seconds to react.
-
Today I was told Baseball is more "MANLY" than Football(soccer)....i.e. real men play baseball......men who play football are skinny and girly!!!
before I talk about the rest of the converstion with this baseball fan and my rebuttal I would like to here your thoughts.....
How do we define "manly" so that we can make a determination as to which is more "manly"?
-
I cant agree with this..
First and foremost in baseball dem fellahs get to catch with a bigass glove while in cricket that ball could get hit back same speed to the bowler and he have to catch with bare hands..
the catcher have chest guard box, big pads-guard something, armguards, helmet, grill.. On top of that the ball softer than a cork ball and when you take a lash, you get to walk to first base, but in cricket, when you get lash the most you get is some ice and a pat on the back from the wicketkeeper if you lucky..
-
oh goouud, allya "splitting hairs"
;D ;D
buh I understan wha you mean ;)
lol...
breds, dai'z de problem when yuh have ah schupid question to begin with...all the subsequent arguments become a twisted game of Reductio ad absurdum...until at de end all ah we siddung looking at each other like "wait...wha' it is we arguing again???"
(http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/lachen/laughing-smiley-004.gif)
-
How do we define "manly" so that we can make a determination as to which is more "manly"?
well dis is THE qualifier for sure and when you take into account people's bringing, culture, and what sports that they are familiar with, then you have just as many opinions.
lol...
breds, dai'z de problem when yuh have ah schupid question to begin with...all the subsequent arguments become a twisted game of Reductio ad absurdum...until at de end all ah we siddung looking at each other like "wait...wha' it is we arguing again???"
(http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/lachen/laughing-smiley-004.gif)
BUT wait for the inevitable TANGENT, ;D in which direction the arguement takes off with no resolution in sight.
-
i wouldnt think a thread about baseball would pop up on this forum. well i am one trini (probably de only one) who does play baseball (semi-pro ;D). i love the sport but when it comes to "manlyness" football is wayyyy past baseball. and to be honest i cant watch a baseball game....too slow and too boring i have to be playing. but for football i can watch de full 90 mins.
ah think i sense FF and them fellas coming to crack jokes on meh... ::)
yes stick to baseball ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Off topic...but to settle Bake and Sharka nd Kicker's tangential discussion. It seems like Kicker's definition of contact sport is right and it includes football/soccer as it is called in this def...Depends on how much faith you want to put in the Committee on Sports Medicine and Fitness, American Academy of Pediatrics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_sport
-
The assness of the statement does not deserve a debate >:( >:( >:( >:(
-
Off topic...but to settle Bake and Sharka nd Kicker's tangential discussion. It seems like Kicker's definition of contact sport is right and it includes football/soccer as it is called in this def...Depends on how much faith you want to put in the Committee on Sports Medicine and Fitness, American Academy of Pediatrics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_sport
The default answer to any B&S post is "take win"
Only someone trying to win an argument would disqualify football/soccer as contact support on account of how tangential/central physical contact is to the game.....as long as the sport involves physical contact btw opponents it's contact sport- a plain & simple definition known by all most. Noriega had to be rushed to hospital with head injuries on a play in which there was no foul by any individual- Petr Cech nearly lost his life earlier this season in a risky yet possibly non-malicious play- yet football/soccer is not a contact sport ??? wateva.......As I said b4 it's not even debatable....
but you're right, that discussion was tangential to the thread....so we overs it :beermug:
-
Off topic...but to settle Bake and Sharka nd Kicker's tangential discussion. It seems like Kicker's definition of contact sport is right and it includes football/soccer as it is called in this def...Depends on how much faith you want to put in the Committee on Sports Medicine and Fitness, American Academy of Pediatrics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_sport
The very link you provide undermines your position by claiming that A full-contact sport is similar to a semi-contact sport, but which contains physical contact between the combatants with the aim of causing a knockout or otherwise rendering the opponent unable to continue the match
there is even definition of a semi-contact sport A semi-contact sport is typically a combat sport involving striking and which contains physical contact between the combatants simulating full-power techniques
Now with respect to football, here's what brainiac's link says
Current medical terminology in the United States uses the term collision sport rather than contact sport to refer to American football, lacrosse, and ice hockey. The term contact sport is used to refer to sports, such as basketball and association football that allow limited contact. For example, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2001 entitled "Medical Conditions Affecting Sports Participation" that included the following definitions:
“ In "collision" sports (eg, boxing, ice hockey, football, and rodeo), athletes purposely hit or collide with each other or inanimate objects, including the ground, with great force. In "contact" sports (eg, basketball and soccer), athletes routinely make contact with each other or inanimate objects but usually with less force than in collision sports. ”
— Committee on Sports Medicine and Fitness, American Academy of Pediatrics, [1]
This terminology may have evolved from a quote from Vince Lombardi, who is reported to have said, "Football isn't a contact sport; it's a collision sport. Dancing is a contact sport."
So which is is brainiac...is it the Committee's statement or the one that precedes it? We love to villify the Americans, particularly with respect to anything related to "Association" football...but here dey say football is contact sport so we running tuh de mountain tops with it.
Clearly the case is at best undecided...yet you opine that Kicker's is "right".
Go figure.
-
i wouldnt think a thread about baseball would pop up on this forum. well i am one trini (probably de only one) who does play baseball (semi-pro ;D). i love the sport but when it comes to "manlyness" football is wayyyy past baseball. and to be honest i cant watch a baseball game....too slow and too boring i have to be playing. but for football i can watch de full 90 mins.
ah think i sense FF and them fellas coming to crack jokes on meh... ::)
yes stick to baseball ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
see what i mean :-[ ;D ;D ;D :beermug:
-
So which is the more manly sport ? ;D ;D ;D
-
they arguing about which is the more "manly" sport by trying to define and determine which is a contact sport and which isn't.
Before allyuh run to allyuh sources, journals, degrees and wikipedia and start to eschew and espouse..
Just to come back to simple terms..
Shouldn't the more manly sport be the more physical demanding one??
I know in football man does cover all kinda 8000m plus a game easy. In baseball you could take a 3 swing and sit down and the fittest baseball player is probably not as fit as the below average soccer player.
In my opinion, any professional sport where a pot belly man can earn a salary should not market itself as a "most manly" sport.
-
they arguing about which is the more "manly" sport by trying to define and determine which is a contact sport and which isn't.
Before allyuh run to allyuh sources, journals, degrees and wikipedia and start to eschew and espouse..
Just to come back to simple terms..
Shouldn't the more manly sport be the more physical demanding one??
I know in football man does cover all kinda 8000m plus a game easy. In baseball you could take a 3 swing and sit down and the fittest baseball player is probably not as fit as the below average soccer player.
In my opinion, any professional sport where a pot belly man can earn a salary should not market itself as a "most manly" sport.
The contact sport argument was a side argument......
-
Off topic...but to settle Bake and Sharka nd Kicker's tangential discussion. It seems like Kicker's definition of contact sport is right and it includes football/soccer as it is called in this def...Depends on how much faith you want to put in the Committee on Sports Medicine and Fitness, American Academy of Pediatrics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_sport
The very link you provide undermines your position by claiming that A full-contact sport is similar to a semi-contact sport, but which contains physical contact between the combatants with the aim of causing a knockout or otherwise rendering the opponent unable to continue the match
there is even definition of a semi-contact sport A semi-contact sport is typically a combat sport involving striking and which contains physical contact between the combatants simulating full-power techniques
Now with respect to football, here's what brainiac's link says
Current medical terminology in the United States uses the term collision sport rather than contact sport to refer to American football, lacrosse, and ice hockey. The term contact sport is used to refer to sports, such as basketball and association football that allow limited contact. For example, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2001 entitled "Medical Conditions Affecting Sports Participation" that included the following definitions:
“ In "collision" sports (eg, boxing, ice hockey, football, and rodeo), athletes purposely hit or collide with each other or inanimate objects, including the ground, with great force. In "contact" sports (eg, basketball and soccer), athletes routinely make contact with each other or inanimate objects but usually with less force than in collision sports. ”
— Committee on Sports Medicine and Fitness, American Academy of Pediatrics, [1]
This terminology may have evolved from a quote from Vince Lombardi, who is reported to have said, "Football isn't a contact sport; it's a collision sport. Dancing is a contact sport."
So which is is brainiac...is it the Committee's statement or the one that precedes it?
Clearly the case is at best undecided...yet you opine that Kicker's is more accurate.
Go figure.
hahahahahahaha. ok..this is too funny. are you for real? ..the definitions of full contact sport and semi contact sport are pretty clear in wikipedia. Full-contact and Semi contact are tyeps of contact sports. Soccer is considered an extreme semi-contact sport according to wikipedia. Wikipedia then goes on to state the exact same definition as brainiac (oh..you conveniently left that out) and includes soccer as a contact sport. Football, hockey, rugby etc.are considered collision sports. It's all simple..soccer is considered a contact sport anyhow you take it. Sure the degree of contact is different from ohter sports, but football is clearly a type of contact sport according to all defintions here. If you want to be more specific, then you can call it a semi-contact sport. Kicker says football (soccer) is a contact sport..you said it is not. I really doh care, but you pushing the bound of sanity if yuh asking people to read the wikipedia link and pretend it does not flow into the brainiac defintion. With a little common sense you can put 2 and 2 together.
yuh really on a mission today bredz ;D
-
Seriously,
You could show the man a million definitions and he'll still disagree. He's just a contrarian, but entertaining nonetheless
-
football is a more manly sport than baseball because in the world today more man play football than baseball. ;)
-
Seriously,
You could show the man a million definitions and he'll still disagree. He's just a contrarian, but entertaining nonetheless
yeah..but a contrarion makes you think
this just making me laugh
-
FOOTBALL IS NOT A CONTACT SPORT
It is a non-semi-incidental-contact sport.
Real babbling idiots roun here.
-
FOOTBALL IS NOT A CONTACT SPORT
It is a non-semi-incidental-contact sport.
Real babbling idiots roun here.
yuh forget tangential ;)
-
Why are we debating that tou-tou head?
-
Anybody who has played football at any level including as basic as sweating in the park would know that football is a contact sport without having to refer to wikipedia.
-
Shouldn't the more manly sport be the more physical demanding one??
I know in football man does cover all kinda 8000m plus a game easy. In baseball you could take a 3 swing and sit down and the fittest baseball player is probably not as fit as the below average soccer player.
In my opinion, any professional sport where a pot belly man can earn a salary should not market itself as a "most manly" sport.
I agree with this statement: which ever is more physically demanding I think is one of the answers: when yuh yuh passing 32-33 years old, its considered you are passing your prime age in football.....there are are not that many people over 38/39 in football. The avg age is way younger compared to baseball.
In baseball however, some men in their 40's are considerd to still be in their peak: take Clemens or Valentine...there are a lot more older players still playing in baseball compared to football....
Plus I look at some of these guys in baseball aside from the youngins...but many of them are overweight in my opinion (don't confuse overweight with being fat or obese).
-
no need to reply to the baseball man. The baseball man is a buller-man. Best to avoid that man before he try to play fight with you or something.
-
Ok, I now see that the baseball person is actually a woman. Well Trinbago, maybe dee woman just teasing you and want you to show her the manliness of a football player...lol
-
hahahahahahaha. ok..this is too funny. are you for real? ..the definitions of full contact sport and semi contact sport are pretty clear in wikipedia. Full-contact and Semi contact are tyeps of contact sports. Soccer is considered an extreme semi-contact sport according to wikipedia. Wikipedia then goes on to state the exact same definition as brainiac (oh..you conveniently left that out) and includes soccer as a contact sport. Football, hockey, rugby etc.are considered collision sports. It's all simple..soccer is considered a contact sport anyhow you take it. Sure the degree of contact is different from ohter sports, but football is clearly a type of contact sport according to all defintions here. If you want to be more specific, then you can call it a semi-contact sport. Kicker says football (soccer) is a contact sport..you said it is not. I really doh care, but you pushing the bound of sanity if yuh asking people to read the wikipedia link and pretend it does not flow into the brainiac defintion. With a little common sense you can put 2 and 2 together.
yuh really on a mission today bredz ;D
"An extreme semi-contact sport"...what the fack is that? How does that differ from a "moderate semi-contact sport". The reasonings and definitions are becoming more and more convoluted...but rely on that if yuh want.
All argument aside...I don't see how you can make a case for a sport being a 'contact sport'...if you remove contact from the sport and still be able to play the game basically unchanged. I guess it's possible to play a contact sport w/o contact...in this parallel universe of yours.
-
Seriously,
You could show the man a million definitions and he'll still disagree. He's just a contrarian, but entertaining nonetheless
You actually haven't shown shit...even when afforded the opportunity. Instead, like a facking sheep after it's shepher yuh rather run around carrying man nuts in yuh hand throwing word from de sideline. You are seemingly incapable of independent thought and are only capable of throwing basket like some erstwhile washer-woman.
Why are we debating that tou-tou head?
Last I check you were not part of any debate...just another bitch-ass basket thrower come down from the peanut gallery to pitch word from over man shoulder.
-
You actually haven't shown shit...even when afforded the opportunity. Instead, like a facking sheep after it's shepher yuh rather run around carrying man nuts in yuh hand throwing word from de sideline. You are seemingly incapable of independent thought and are only capable of throwing basket like some erstwhile washer-woman.
Last I check you were not part of any debate...just another bitch-ass basket thrower come down from the peanut gallery to pitch word from over man shoulder.
S&B, you ent easy at all :devil:
-
no need to reply to the baseball man. The baseball man is a buller-man. Best to avoid that man before he try to play fight with you or something.
i thought u was talking about me for a second until i saw the second post. i does play both baseball and football.
-
"An extreme semi-contact sport"...what the fack is that? How does that differ from a "moderate semi-contact sport". The reasonings and definitions are becoming more and more convoluted...but rely on that if yuh want.
hahah..you eh lie ;D funny terminology..but one thing for sure..it eh fall into the non-contact sport category. Anyhow, I'm just posting the definition. All the while..catching some good kix. people in the end will call it what they want, but it defined as a contact sport. seems that the reasoning is because there is frequent contact that is allowed. and as kicker said, some teams are more physical than others, which can affect an opposing teams tactics and also have a bearing on the result. do you disagree with that? so it really not hard to see why it could be considered a contact sport. Football with no contact would not even be worth watching honestly. It would look really lame. Here is a solid fact...Noone who has ever played football will say that if you remove contact the game will remain basically unchanged...which is what you are saying. That is true for non-contact sports like tennis and badminton. You have obviously never played the game at any organized level..or thought about how lame the game would look if you removed all contact. cuz yuh eh talk sense there at all..that is where your argument falls apart. Sorry, but I will be very surprised if you could find one (serious) person who really thinks the game without contact is basically the same as the game as it is now.
man..I'm still part of this thread ???
-
this thread remind me of another nonsensical thread from last year
dat one went three pages and dis one seems to be on track
:devil:
click below
shark and Bake or bake and shark (http://www.socawarriors.net/forum/index.php?topic=19445.msg201046#msg201046)
seems appropriate , ;D
-
this thread remind me of another nonsensical thread from last year
dat one went three pages and dis one seems to be on track
:devil:
click below
Shark and Bake (http://www.socawarriors.net/forum/index.php?topic=19445.msg201046#msg201046)
seems appropriate , ;D
I had to change dat fa you ;)
NOW I real hung gree ;D ;D
-
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............
-
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.
So no, the game will NOT be basically unchanged.
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.
-
All argument aside...I don't see how you can make a case for a sport being a 'contact sport'...if you remove contact from the sport and still be able to play the game basically unchanged. I guess it's possible to play a contact sport w/o contact...in this parallel universe of yours.
You have obviously never played the game if you think that removing all contact from the sport would leave the game basically unchanged.
1- A foul is a huge part of the game. Many fouls are intentional- some teams step on to the field with the mindset that committing niggling fouls could disrupt the other team from it's game, upset their rhythm etc.... Removing contact from the game would erase all fouls, which means way fewer free kicks- are you telling me that the game would be unchanged without freekicks ? Next time you watch a game, count how many restarts come from freekicks, and then tell me if they didn't impact the game...Hell David Beckham might not even have a career....
2- Even without fouls "incidental" contact in football is a huge part of the game....most times it's not even incidental. Teams win games sometimes based on the degree of their physical presence....Marvin Lee lost his life because of contact on the field (and from what I remember it was incidental)........you tell his parents that the game would be no different without physical contact...
There was a time when T&T footballers were "technically" superior to Jamaica's and it was no secret that their way of beating us was to dominate the physical aspect of the game...go into tackles hard, throw some elbows here and there, step on ankles, bump shoulders, put their weight in screens and sometimes just get down right nasty with their challenges.....
Without contact, the rhythm of football would be altered significantly- the pace of the game, the way players go into tackles, the way they protect themselves, protect the ball etc...would be very very different- so much so that I don't think the game could even exist the way we know it without contact.
I refrain from the name calling etc of yesterday, but you are seriously misguided or simply ignorant to the game if you think that removing physical contact from football will leave the game basically unchanged.....a matter of fact- you hadda be on kix and just trying to provoke discussion. That's my conclusion
-
Seriously,
You could show the man a million definitions and he'll still disagree. He's just a contrarian, but entertaining nonetheless
You actually haven't shown shit...even when afforded the opportunity. Instead, like a facking sheep after it's shepher yuh rather run around carrying man nuts in yuh hand throwing word from de sideline. You are seemingly incapable of independent thought and are only capable of throwing basket like some erstwhile washer-woman.
Why are we debating that tou-tou head?
Last I check you were not part of any debate...just another bitch-ass basket thrower come down from the peanut gallery to pitch word from over man shoulder.
LOL....Some man get boof...allyuh takin dat!!? ;D
Doh study it allyuh, I on kicks. :D
-
"An extreme semi-contact sport"...what the fack is that? How does that differ from a "moderate semi-contact sport". The reasonings and definitions are becoming more and more convoluted...but rely on that if yuh want.
hahah..you eh lie ;D funny terminology..but one thing for sure..it eh fall into the non-contact sport category. Anyhow, I'm just posting the definition. All the while..catching some good kix. people in the end will call it what they want, but it defined as a contact sport. seems that the reasoning is because there is frequent contact that is allowed. and as kicker said, some teams are more physical than others, which can affect an opposing teams tactics and also have a bearing on the result. do you disagree with that?
No I don't...but from a logical standpoint what you describe doesn't make contact (for the purposes of this discussion, physical play) central to the game. Case in point...England and Brazil playing and heavy rain fall and mud up the field. Clearly England, slower afoot, long ball specialists will benefit. Brazil, which relies more on speed short, crisp passes will have there speed and passes negated by the heavy sod.
So in this scenario the weather conditions bestows on England a clear advantage...affecting tactics and bearing on the result. Are we going to next argue that weather is central to football...or more ludicrously, call football a 'weather sport'?
and so it really not hard to see why it could be considered a contact sport.
Yeah...and most Americans consider it a 'boring' sport too...perception never should trump reality.
Football with no contact would not even be worth watching honestly. It would look really lame. Here is a solid fact...Noone who has ever played football will say that if you remove contact the game will remain basically unchanged...which is what you are saying.
Whether noone says it or not is not my concern. I'm sure you don't see me arguing in favor of removing contact, so arguing your point on the basis of practical applicability, or even popularity is disingenuine. Whether fellas want to agree with it or not, the game would still be BASICALLY, unchanged. Like people need mih tuh provide ah link to the definition of 'basically'. At it's most basic, football is about moving the ball from your end of the field to your opponents and trying to get it in goal, using every part of the body but the hands...while preventing your opponent from doing the same to you. I'd really love to see you mount an argument that this absolutely CANNOT be done without contact between players....because we've all seen it done before.
That is true for non-contact sports like tennis and badminton. You have obviously never played the game at any organized level..
I just refuted this nonsense above.
or thought about how lame the game would look if you removed all contact.
Nonsense. Tangential to the discussion.
cuz yuh eh talk sense there at all..that is where your argument falls apart. Sorry, but I will be very surprised if you could find one (serious) person who really thinks the game without contact is basically the same as the game as it is now.
man..I'm still part of this thread ???
How did my argument fall apart again?? because man like contact and wouldn't want to see football with no contact? This is the logical basis on which my argument falls apart?
-
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.
-
Nascar lol
FIFA Laws of the Game (http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/lotg2006_e_1581.pdf)
Sorry, Page 72
The best way to view this is to do a search for fifa laws of the game in google, then click "View as HTML."
"Football is a competitive sport and physical contact between players
is a normal and acceptable part of the game, however players must
play within the Laws and respect the principles of fair play."
I done, is only so much a babbling idiot like me could take.
-
You have obviously never played the game if you think that removing all contact from the sport would leave the game basically unchanged.
Help yuhself to a definition of "basically". If yuh still confused then try substituting "fundamentally" instead. If yuh still confused have a three-year old explain it to you.
1- A foul is a huge part of the game. Many fouls are intentional- some teams step on to the field with the mindset that committing niggling fouls could disrupt the other team from it's game, upset their rhythm etc.... Removing contact from the game would erase all fouls, which means way fewer free kicks- are you telling me that the game would be unchanged without freekicks ? Next time you watch a game, count how many restarts come from freekicks, and then tell me if they didn't impact the game...Hell David Beckham might not even have a career....
Find the part of the FIFA rule book that STIPULATES fouling in the game. Since it's so huge a part of the game it should be mandated right? Your argument is pointless.Fouls happen, end of story. Fouls are not central to the sport, but a by-product of how the game is played. Same for physical contact. You don't HAVE to foul a man in order to win a ball...just like you don't HAVE to make contact to win a ball. That is the point. Some contact/fouling might be inevitable because of the practical aspects of how the game is played. Simple
2- Even without fouls "incidental" contact in football is a huge part of the game....most times it's not even incidental. Teams win games sometimes based on the degree of their physical presence....Marvin Lee lost his life because of contact on the field (and from what I remember it was incidental)........you tell his parents that the game would be no different without physical contact...
What does Marvin Lee's death or his parents have to do with the argument?
There was a time when T&T footballers were "technically" superior to Jamaica's and it was no secret that their way of beating us was to dominate the physical aspect of the game...go into tackles hard, throw some elbows here and there, step on ankles, bump shoulders, put their weight in screens and sometimes just get down right nasty with their challenges.....
Without contact, the rhythm of football would be altered significantly- the pace of the game, the way players go into tackles, the way they protect themselves, protect the ball etc...would be very very different- so much so that I don't think the game could even exist the way we know it without contact.
could you still move the ball up and down the field and score goals using every part of your body but your hands?
I refrain from the name calling etc of yesterday,
Please spare mih de 'high road' bullshit...yuh "refrain from the name calling etc." only when the words are convenient to you.
but you are seriously misguided or simply ignorant to the game if you think that removing physical contact from football will leave the game basically unchanged.....a matter of fact- you hadda be on kix and just trying to provoke discussion. That's my conclusion
...and I conclude that you are an illogical jackass...chances are we're both right.
-
Nascar lol
FIFA Laws of the Game (http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:YZZMUyL8fQEJ:www.fifa.com/fifa/handbook/laws/2004/LOTG2004_e.pdf+fifa+rules&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a")
Sorry, Page 72
Football is a competitive sport and physical contact between players
is a normal and acceptable part of the game, however players must
play within the Laws and respect the principles of fair play.
I done, is only so much a babbling idiot like me could take.
"Acceptable"...not necessary.
Let me know when you find a rule stipulating contact...draft some ah de other babbling idiots if yuh need help.
-
So it's only a contact sport if the game rules say you must make contact?
(http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa133/peong21/bs-meter.gif)
A sensible person would look for what is normal and accepted, and within the rules.
Ah really done now!!
-
BS.. now I'm almost absolutely certain you're a lawyer or aspiring lawyer.
Look a man just quote a FIFA rule alluding to contact being a part of the game, yet you looking to break it down to basic interpretation of english to refute that and support your point...
If we want to get technical, then I can show you that a boxing match can take place without contact.
and since we all agreed Boxing is a contact sport..
Lets say i was able to knock out my opponent by constantly evading him in the ring making him so tired he passed out.. without touching him, would I be awarded the win by the judges or would I be disqualified based on the fact that i made no contact henceforth breaking the basic and fundamental necessity of contact in boxing??
Just to provoke a thought...
-
So it's only a contact sport if the game rules say you must make contact?
(http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa133/peong21/bs-meter.gif)
A sensible person would look for what is normal and accepted, and within the rules.
Ah really done now!!
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?
-
Cmon man make up your mind please..
Does contact need to be acceptable, integral or necessary for it to be deemed a contact sport??
Because your earlier posts said it has to be NECESSARY for the sport to take place, and also you said the rules should STIPULATE contact..
where INTEGRAL come from now??
-
BS.. now I'm almost absolutely certain you're a lawyer or aspiring lawyer.
Lol... :applause:
Look a man just quote a FIFA rule alluding to contact being a part of the game, yet you looking to break it down to basic interpretation of english to refute that and support your point...
come now...look at the initial question raised at the start of the thread...everything in here is for pure argument sake. What is the point of offering an opinion if yuh can't substantiate it? At the end of the day I personally couldn't care who think baseball is manly or not..and I certainly doh care whether football is classified as a contact sport or not.
But we having a debate and I want to see who could provide a logical basis for their answer. Is not about "my" point or what not, is about what makes the most logical sense. If people find it too silly then they free to stop posting whenever they want.
If we want to get technical, then I can show you that a boxing match can take place without contact.
and since we all agreed Boxing is a contact sport..
Lets say i was able to knock out my opponent by constantly evading him in the ring making him so tired he passed out.. without touching him, would I be awarded the win by the judges or would I be disqualified based on the fact that i made no contact henceforth breaking the basic and fundamental necessity of contact in boxing??
Just to provoke a thought...
Good example...
Hypothetically it might happen...but this would have to be aberrant. Because of the nature and RULES of the sport, it is extremely unlikely that such a scenario would come to pass...and even if it did, less likely that it happen again in other matches. However it is entirely withing the realm of possibility for there to be no contact in football.
How? Follow me for a second (mind you, I ent advocating this and I ent saying de game would be pretty...before men run up in here complaining again).
FIFA rules that ALL contact must be eliminated. Any contact is a foul an two fouls mean a red card. Its only a matter of time before the players adapt to the rules...and before you know it men kicking ball without making contact with their opponent.
Now..
Would that require a change in the rules? Yes.
Would that be a very good brand of football to play/watch? Probably not.
Would the game be unchanged? No.
...but fundamentally, the game would be the same. You can't say that for boxing, which fundamentally is about beating your opponent into submission...utilizing contact.
-
Cmon man make up your mind please..
Does contact need to be acceptable, integral or necessary for it to be deemed a contact sport??
Because your earlier posts said it has to be NECESSARY for the sport to take place, and also you said the rules should STIPULATE contact..
where INTEGRAL come from now??
STIPULATE and NECESSARY mean the same thing...as does INTEGRAL. If the rules stipulate it, then it MUST happen. If it must happen then it is necessary. If it is integral, that also means that it is necessary.
Different words, same meaning.
-
Agreed that it is probably a more likely possibility for there to be a "contactless" game in football than in boxing but if i'm not mistaken, most of your arguments were geared at arriving at an absolute conclusion...
To summize, you were arguing:
It is possible to have a game of football with no contact, thus contact is not a necessity for a football game to take place. However it is not possible to have a bout of boxing without contact, thus making contact a necessity for a boxing bout to take place.
I just put forward an example showing that a boxing bout can occur without contact (however unlikely it is, it is possible you have to agree). As long as the judges would award the victory in such a circumstance, it absolutely confirms that boxing is not wholly, fundamentally or basically a contact sport.
So its not an argument of likeliness, but rather absoluteness, and since I have negated the absoluteness of contact in boxing i have henceforth refuted the veracity of your argument.
Agreed??
-
I had one long reply all written and saved..then i realized that this is such a waste..I deleted it. If anyone quotes it in their reply before I got a chance to delete..that cool. But this thread is no longer amusing or interesting. Please continue this jokey discussion in my absence :beermug:
-
Agreed that it is probably a more likely possibility for there to be a "contactless" game in football than in boxing but if i'm not mistaken, most of your arguments were geared at arriving at an absolute conclusion...
To summize, you were arguing:
It is possible to have a game of football with no contact, thus contact is not a necessity for a football game to take place. However it is not possible to have a bout of boxing without contact, thus making contact a necessity for a boxing bout to take place.
Possible within the rules of the sport, not possible in the most far-fetched of scenarios. Unless we frame the discussion within the bounds of reason we'd have to concede that anything is a possibility.
I just put forward an example showing that a boxing bout can occur without contact (however unlikely it is, it is possible you have to agree). As long as the judges would award the victory in such a circumstance, it absolutely confirms that boxing is not wholly, fundamentally or basically a contact sport.
So its not an argument of likeliness, but rather absoluteness, and since I have negated the absoluteness of contact in boxing i have henceforth refuted the veracity of your argument.
Agreed??
You actually haven't negated the absoluteness of contact in boxing...you showed a hypothetical possibility. I cannot disprove the possibility of your scenario happening, thus you claim it as truth...that's commonly called a [ur;=http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html]Burden of Proof Fallacy[/url].
So I disagree that you've refuted "the veracity" of my argument. The ring is a finite and relatively small space...some contact (even if it does not result in a knockout...even if incidental) is sure to happen.
It probably would suffice to say that it's inconclusive either way...but I could concede on that.
-
I had one long reply all written and saved..then i realized that this is such a waste..I deleted it. If anyone quotes it in their reply before I got a chance to delete..that cool. But this thread is no longer amusing or interesting. Please continue this jokey discussion in my absence :beermug:
Long goodbyes are unnecessary.
-
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
well said
-
Agreed that it is probably a more likely possibility for there to be a "contactless" game in football than in boxing but if i'm not mistaken, most of your arguments were geared at arriving at an absolute conclusion...
To summize, you were arguing:
It is possible to have a game of football with no contact, thus contact is not a necessity for a football game to take place. However it is not possible to have a bout of boxing without contact, thus making contact a necessity for a boxing bout to take place.
Possible within the rules of the sport, not possible in the most far-fetched of scenarios. Unless we frame the discussion within the bounds of reason we'd have to concede that anything is a possibility.
I just put forward an example showing that a boxing bout can occur without contact (however unlikely it is, it is possible you have to agree). As long as the judges would award the victory in such a circumstance, it absolutely confirms that boxing is not wholly, fundamentally or basically a contact sport.
So its not an argument of likeliness, but rather absoluteness, and since I have negated the absoluteness of contact in boxing i have henceforth refuted the veracity of your argument.
Agreed??
You actually haven't negated the absoluteness of contact in boxing...you showed a hypothetical possibility. I cannot disprove the possibility of your scenario happening, thus you claim it as truth...that's commonly called a [ur;=http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html]Burden of Proof Fallacy[/url].
Aren't you doing the EXACT same thing by presenting a hypothetical possibility that there could be a football game with no contact??
So I disagree that you've refuted "the veracity" of my argument. The ring is a finite and relatively small space...some contact (even if it does not result in a knockout...even if incidental) is sure to happen.
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.
It probably would suffice to say that it's inconclusive either way...but I could concede on that.
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!
-
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 ;D) 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Then tennis, NASCAR and cycling are also contact sports. Next you'll be arguing that the earth is flat.
FLAT EARTH SOCIETY (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm)
-
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.
-
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 ;D) 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.
-
Then tennis, NASCAR and cycling are also contact sports. Next you'll be arguing that the earth is flat.
FLAT EARTH SOCIETY (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm)
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...
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Then tennis, NASCAR and cycling are also contact sports. Next you'll be arguing that the earth is flat.
FLAT EARTH SOCIETY (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm)
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 :devil: ::)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 !!..................... ;D
-
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 ? ;)
-
Then tennis, NASCAR and cycling are also contact sports. Next you'll be arguing that the earth is flat.
FLAT EARTH SOCIETY (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm)
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..
-
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.
-
Posted by: WestCoast
Insert QuoteQuote 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :devil: ::)
Arrite...I get you, shots was coming in fast and furious so ah was just firing back, lol
my bad.
-
This is what most erudite orators would refer to as unmitigated bullshit.
:rotfl: :rotfl: hoss you iz really something else yuh know....this hour o' de nite ? Lawd...I eh able.
-
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.
-
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 :D
-
I cyan believe this. Why is this blog so important? We have a doh-doh head making we second guess we MANILYNESS.
-
This is what most erudite orators would refer to as unmitigated bullshit.
:rotfl: :rotfl: 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.
-
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.
-
MANLY!!!
-
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.
-
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
-
Filho, you bring up a good point and i would like to add Flag Football.
-
MANLY!!!
Well doh make me make yuh second guess yuh MANLY dey fadda...
I juss here debating whether football is ah contact sport.
Man insecure about he manly and dem, oui....lol
-
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?
Fundamentally the sport hasn't changed...so that actually helps prove that point for me.
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? 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.
The same for American football. You do not need to tackle the man to win the ball.
Wrong.
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)
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.
Uhm no. because 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. Now if you have a clear shot at the ball then you're expected to make a play on it, but you position yourself to play the man and not gamble...because by gambling on the interception you expose your teams defense, especially when pardna outjumps you and run into the end zone...and you on de grung looking like "damn...almost had it". Same for try to strip a man. Instead ah wrapping him up or knocking him down...you trying to strip ball, he fend yuh off and run extra yardage...if not all the way. I dunno how much yuh know Am. football, but this is why the FUNDAMENTAL rule for defenders when defending the 'Hail Mary'...is to KNOCK IT (the ball) DOWN, rather than go for the interception.
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
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.
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.
But again...as outlined above...tackling and checking are full contact techniques meant to stop the man. In football (soccer) "stopping the man" don't mean stopping him physically as it does in those two sports. Instead, it means stopping his advance with the ball...key is that he must have the ball for the play to be legal...and you must get at least part of the ball in your "tackle". Soccer, Field Hockey. to block or impede the movement or progress of (an opponent having the ball) with the result of depriving the opponent of the ball.
. Note that tackling in soccer isn't the true application of the term 'tackle' but a specially adapted definition. A truer definition of tackle an act of tackling, as in football; a seizing, grasping, or bringing down.
Taken From (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tackle). Doing thing like dat (bolded) will get yuh cyad on de pitch.[/color]
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?
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.
Ok..couldn't stay away
Lol..no scenes. I frustrated that I ent convince allyuh too, but dai'z all part of the fun in rhetoric. We dun chase 'way nuff man (bet plenty ah dem reading still doh) because the sad truth is that debate is a lost art and not too many of us put any effort into developing that skill. They rightly conclude that all ah dis is nutten but ah set ah ole talk...but it's good skills to hone nonetheless.
-
5 f**king pages to this shit topic?
steups.
It should be in general discussion too. it have no right in here!
-
5 f**king pages to this shit topic?
steups.
It should be in general discussion too. it have no right in here!
truetrini...you cool wid me only b/c yuh cool wid mih boy Slates...but really and truly, if it ent for you yuh free to pass it by, nobody forcing yuh to come in and read.
5 pages, 50 pages...it eh go crash de site, moderators could move it too if they so inclined.
-
5 f**king pages to this shit topic?
steups.
It should be in general discussion too. it have no right in here!
truetrini...you cool wid me only b/c yuh cool wid mih boy Slates...but really and truly, if it ent for you yuh free to pass it by, nobody forcing yuh to come in and read.
5 pages, 50 pages...it eh go crash de site, moderators could move it too if they so inclined.
lol
ok pardner..ok.
By de way tell dat f**ker to call meh...ah jes come back from Trinidad, and we moving right ahead..full steam!
-
5 f**king pages to this shit topic?
steups.
It should be in general discussion too. it have no right in here!
truetrini...you cool wid me only b/c yuh cool wid mih boy Slates...but really and truly, if it ent for you yuh free to pass it by, nobody forcing yuh to come in and read.
5 pages, 50 pages...it eh go crash de site, moderators could move it too if they so inclined.
lol
ok pardner..ok.
By de way tell dat f**ker to call meh...ah jes come back from Trinidad, and we moving right ahead..full steam!
boy you need appointment tuh get in touch wid dat man...calling he is ah study in voicemail, you know dat, :rotfl:
but I'll try and pass word.
...and doh worry, talk almost done ;D
-
Bake none of what you write means an NFL player MUST hit a man.
It is simply the best way.
-
slates say yuh damn lie....he eh come for de calalloo las night becasue he was cleaning house fuh de move.
lol
-
Bake none of what you write means an NFL player MUST hit a man.
It is simply the best way.
We could agree tuh disagree on that one, but I'll concede that there's probably nothing in the rule to say "the defender MUST make contact with..." etc. :beermug:
slates say yuh damn lie....he eh come for de calalloo las night becasue he was cleaning house fuh de move.
lol
Yuh notice we had tuh use callaloo as bait doh, right?
Lol...
-
Bake none of what you write means an NFL player MUST hit a man.
It is simply the best way.
We could agree tuh disagree on that one, but I'll concede that there's probably nothing in the rule to say "the defender MUST make contact with..." etc. :beermug:
Similar to the absence of stated necessary contact in the FIFA rules.
-
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?
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.
-
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?
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.
Aye...you win dred
leh we move on :beermug:
-
Aye...you win dred
leh we move on :beermug:
Ahh..under 6 pages. Talk done. And a good night to all :beermug:
-
Aye...you win dred
leh we move on :beermug:
Ahh..under 6 pages. Talk done. And a good night to all :beermug:
There were some things you said that I had answers all ready for...and started to type them. Much I still disagreed with, but you also raised some credible arguments and for me to continue arguing them would be both disingenious and counter-productive...so I figured now was as good a time :beermug: