Football (why do the the yanks insist on calling it soccer?) - Page 3

May 17, 2002, 22:43

Quote:

Originally posted by faded glory
Football came around the 1870's. A few people would toss around pig skin stuffed with dirt or cotton. It didnt catch on till around 1910, when actual teams where formed

USA Football started officially Nov 6, 1869 with a game between Rulgers and Princeton. The game used modified London Football Assoc. rules. During the next seven years, rugby gained favor with the major eastern schools over soccer, and modern football began to develop from rugby. Quotes from 1996 Record and Fact Book of the NFL.

Lung · May 19, 2002, 19:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Aeson

The fat girls waving their pom poms at my high schools... no way.

At least their finally getting some excercise

faded glory · May 19, 2002, 22:14

Lung you die and go to hell. I was right, late 1800's! We added our rules.

As for your location, since you wussied your way out of CTP. Ill have to wait to kick your ass in Civ3. *sob*

Imran Siddiqui · May 19, 2002, 22:27

Quote:

USA Football started officially Nov 6, 1869 with a game between Rulgers and Princeton.

RuTgers, thank you. And we won too over those namby pamby Ivy Leaguers

.

Lung · May 20, 2002, 01:08

Quote:

Originally posted by faded glory
Lung you die and go to hell. I was right, late 1800's! We added our rules.

I was talking about the origin of Rugby, you drunken moose-porn-loving wally!!! Seeing as Gridiron evolved from Rugby, i was right right and you were wrong!

Quote:

As for your location, since you wussied your way out of CTP. Ill have to wait to kick your ass in Civ3. *sob*

Not quite, loser! If you can cut the mustard, you may meet me in the semis of the unofficial CTP World Championship, the Lungmatch! tournament. If you don't play me again in CtP, it will be because you're not good enough

TCO · May 20, 2002, 10:44

keep that kind of spam to the on topic forums...silly gamers!

faded glory · May 20, 2002, 12:54

Just an age old rivalry.

Ill get you lung. In fact, I should roll your ass in swissy2, If we werent allies. Unfortunately, Mobius might take advantage of that, and do some rolling himself, at me.

Hey, and lungmatch is rigged to much in spains favor! Mobius has all the mountains! Basterd..... But if i can gt fascists first..... Just a few more turns my boy

faded glory · May 20, 2002, 13:01

Back to the orignal topic. If you look at rugby and football, there really not similiar at all. Rugby consists of running around. Where as football is a tad more civilized, Scrimage, downs, sequence plays. More of a strategic game. Rugby is more like what we call smear the queer. Or basically, beat up the guy who has the football.

Dauphin · May 20, 2002, 14:27

Quote:

Originally posted by faded glory
Where as football is a tad more civilized,

Rugby is more like what we call smear the queer. Or basically, beat up the guy who has the football.

So it is more civilized to beat up everyone, rather than the guy with the ball?

Rugby has strategy and skill. Have you ever played it, because you seem not to appreciate its finer points.

SKILORD · May 20, 2002, 14:43

rugby rocks ... so does footbal (soccer) Amarican Football fails to be worthwhile though

Kropotkin · May 20, 2002, 14:48

Although there's some esoteric level of tactics involved in american football no one not raised with it seems to be able to understand that part 'cause the game is so slow that one loses interest before that. Rugby on the other hand is a fast and furious game that I would like to see more of if I could.

Also, american footballers lose out in the estetic departement as they look ridiculous in those outfits.

TCO · May 20, 2002, 15:35

American football is one of the most strategic games and has many parralels to war.

George Patton said that "football is as close as you can get to war
without killing people."

Rugby is quite rough but is not as strategic as football.

Dauphin · May 20, 2002, 16:35

I think thats just cultural belief. People who play/enjoy a sport know it well, and so see the strategy that a bystander would not notice.

Quote:

George Patton said that "football is as close as you can get to war without killing people."

You can say that about many games, including Tic-Tac-Toe. Ever seen Wargames (?) with Mathew Broderick?

faded glory · May 20, 2002, 16:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin

So it is more civilized to beat up everyone, rather than the guy with the ball?

Rugby has strategy and skill. Have you ever played it, because you seem not to appreciate its finer points.

The concept of pads and helmets for one. I can name a few others. But thats good enough.

I watched Aussie rules football. That is some serouis stuff. I think the average of the players careers is less than 10 years!

TCO · May 20, 2002, 16:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
I think thats just cultural belief. People who play/enjoy a sport know it well, and so see the strategy that a bystander would not notice.

Quote:

George Patton said that "football is as close as you can get to war without killing people."

You can say that about many games, including Tic-Tac-Toe. Ever seen Wargames (?) with Mathew Broderick?

But tic tac toe and computer war games, do not have a physical apsect or a team aspect (including leadership, followership, etc.) Any team sport will have these aspects as well as some strategic aspects.

Dauphin · May 20, 2002, 16:49

Rugby has those aspects. So why do you say it is less strategic in that sense.

Dauphin · May 20, 2002, 16:52

Quote:

Originally posted by faded glory

The concept of pads and helmets for one. I can name a few others. But thats good enough.

I watched Aussie rules football. That is some serouis stuff. I think the average of the players careers is less than 10 years!

What has that got to do with rugby?

And how does dressing up in excessive equipment make it more civilized. They could dress up in full body armour, how would that imply being more civilized?

Imran Siddiqui · May 20, 2002, 16:55

Quote:

Rugby has those aspects. So why do you say it is less strategic in that sense.

Cause rugby doesn't have the intricate plans that sometimes resemble war plans in their detail

.

Quote:

And how does dressing up in excessive equipment make it more civilized. They could dress up in full body armour, how would that imply being more civilized?

The reason the equipment is there is because in the 1900-1905, there were many fatalities in American Football. President Roosevelt threatened to ban the game if it wasn't made more safe.

Dauphin · May 20, 2002, 16:59

But that does not make it more civilised than any other sport. Just less dangerous than IT used to be.

Arrian · May 20, 2002, 17:01

I think GP's referring to the set piece plays in American football. Insane amounts of time are spent dreaming up all sorts of variants of passing and running plays. Rugby has strategy too, no doubt, but given the fluid, fast-paced nature of the game, it seems more tactical than strategic.

I'm not getting in the middle of this debate. I don't really enjoy either game much. Baseball (yeah, Rounders to you, Sag), Soccer and Ice Hockey for me.

-Arrian

TCO · May 20, 2002, 17:04

You're fast today, finance-weenie. Of course. You should note that I said ALL team sports have that aspect.

It's a 2 by 2 matrix. Strategic choices is one axis. Physical demands and leadership is the other axis.

I assert that Football is high, high. Computer games are high, low. Rugby is medium, high.

The turn-like nature of football, the intermediate objectives (first downs), the greater specialization of players, the more complicated plays, more complex rules, make football more strategic in nature (IMHO). Not meant as a slam or anything.

Rugby is a fun sport. As a participant, I actually like it better. I just don't think it's as strategically rich as football. Maybe you're letting your "cultural pride" sway you a little here...

Dauphin · May 20, 2002, 17:06

Baseball is an acceptable term, given how there are actually bases and a ball, and they are the centre piece of the game.

Rounders is to Baseball as Handmelon is to American Football.

Dauphin · May 20, 2002, 17:10

Quote:

Maybe you're letting your "cultural pride" sway you a little here...

Just making you work for your claim.

Quote:

Strategic choices is one axis. Physical demands and leadership is the other axis

In that case Cricket has AF beat hands down.

Imran Siddiqui · May 20, 2002, 17:10

American football has to be better than Rugby anyway. Why? Because it is a turn based game

.

Imran Siddiqui · May 20, 2002, 17:11

Quote:

In that case Cricket has AF beat hands down.

physical demands

Leadership, perhaps.

Dauphin · May 20, 2002, 17:12

It was sarcasm. I take it you've never seen England play?

Dauphin · May 20, 2002, 17:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
American football has to be better than Rugby anyway. Why? Because it is a turn based game

.

So is Rugby League. Five tackles and the opposition is given their turn.

Imran Siddiqui · May 20, 2002, 17:14

Well, yes... but only to fall asleep at night

.

TCO · May 20, 2002, 17:15

Can't comprehend cricket. (silly insect sport.) Still need to get a better explanation of it.

Dated a girl who's brother was asked to try out for some England team or something. Like a dodo, he went off to play in SA instead and when he got back they weren't interested in him.

Imran Siddiqui · May 20, 2002, 17:16

Quote:

So is Rugby League. Five tackles and the opposition is given their turn.

That isn't a turn! That's a new mission in a RTS. You go real time until you get tackled 5 times, and then move on.