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

[Bakes]

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

"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.

[Bakes]

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.

[WestCoast]

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

[Trini Madness]

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.

[Filho]

"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  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 

[pecan]

this thread remind me of another nonsensical thread from last year

dat one went three pages and dis one seems to be on track

 

click below

shark and Bake or bake and shark

seems appropriate ,   

[WestCoast]

this thread remind me of another nonsensical thread from last year
dat one went three pages and dis one seems to be on track
 
click below
Shark and Bake
seems appropriate ,   

I had to change dat fa you
NOW I real hung gree

[saga pinto]

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

[Peong]

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.

[kicker]

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

[Socafan]

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!!? 

Doh study it allyuh, I on kicks.

[Bakes]

"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  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?

[Bakes]

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.

[Peong]

Nascar lol

FIFA Laws of the Game
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.

[Bakes]

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.

[Bakes]

Nascar lol

FIFA Laws of the Game
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.

[Peong]

So it's only a contact sport if the game rules say you must make contact?



A sensible person would look for what is normal and accepted, and within the rules.

Ah really done now!!

[dinho]

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...

[Bakes]

So it's only a contact sport if the game rules say you must make contact?



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?

[dinho]

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??

[Bakes]

BS.. now I'm almost absolutely certain you're a lawyer or aspiring lawyer.

Lol...  


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.

[Bakes]

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.

[dinho]

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??

[Filho]

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

[Bakes]

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.

[Bakes]

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

Long goodbyes are unnecessary.

[Marcos]

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.

[Peong]

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.

[Marcos]

well said

[dinho]

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!