|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 15, 2017 9:47:19 GMT
Moving on, and perhaps as I said I miss-read the original thread, or miss-interpreted what the response was, but hell, we all make errors.. To raise the elephant in the room a few millimetres, just for discussion... I have never played american hand-egg, but I can catch a rugby ball, does that qualify or disqualify me?..  In that, a rugby ball is often at several stages of mud caked whilst in flight, and if you dont catch the ball, you do catch the "Splutch" of mud that follows it. I question therefore if having any kind of weight difference would affect the flight of the ball, and does that change it in the way its "predicted" in flight... Would rain and a wet ball alter anything?. Yo can either predict the flight and be where you need to be to catch it, or, you play REAL football where you kick the round thing. I cant see how having helium or any other gas inside would alter the flight that much when a good footballer has to allow for windage, rain, mud, hot days and cold, all that "do" alter the egg, in more significant ways than the type of air inside?.. I therefore suggest that you look at how other factors would alter the egg rather than just air, to see if it does make a difference. Hows about an automatic ball chuckler and a dozen "similar" balls all of the type used on a standard game. I suspect there is more than one ball in play on any standard game, anyway, to give chance to recover balls out of bounds without altering play, so, get maybe half a dozen balls and send them through, and dial it in to do say a 75 yard throw. I know thats sort of long, but hell, why not?.. and if it gives the better chance to give maximum effect of ball being altered by other factors, why not?. Now have those balls being put through, unseen until the start to fly, but, put in random balls that have either been soaked in a bucket so they are nice and damp, caked in a quick mud bath, sat in a chiller, or put in a warm oven, and have a large fan running to one side that you can quickly duct towards the ball flight to replicate a quick gust of wind. Can your "pro" still manage to predict that ball in flight and be under it when it comes to catching it?. Its been too many years since I ran around a pitch, so not me.... but can other non pro amateur fans catch that ball?.. If the fan comes up with maybe even something like as written above as other factors that may affect the ball flight, but still cant catch the ball themselves, are they still in or out?.. I cant see therefore when you are judging the ball in front of you how the hell a flying ball that is certainly afexcted bu external factors would be "that surprising" when it does indeed change directions from what you "expect", but then again, on here at least, we expect the unexpected?..  |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 15, 2017 15:22:09 GMT
There you go being scientific, again.
to answer, yes, an American style handegg is similar enough in design to a rugby egg to be comparable to those who want to do their own experiments. however, in major game conditions, there are less weather related variables. we are now at the point that even many high school gridirons are artificial turf, so wet and temperature can be factors, but there is rarely mud involved any more.
the big flaw I see is that they are testing whether it makes a difference in good conditions; not whether it makes a difference in marginal conditions. one test I can think of would be to make a passive catching machine - where you throw the ball into the machine and it either stops or bounces out. then you could adjust alignments and see whether the level of inflation made a difference in how often the ball bounced out.
and to answer your quetion, yes, each team brings a number of different balls to the game, and there is a team member whose job it is to make sure that the desired ball is on the field at the desired time. so they will have balls to kick to the other team - which they want to be hard to catch, balls to throw to their own team, which they want to be easy for their team to catch. and balls to kick at the goalposts - which they want to fly straight and far.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 16, 2017 9:41:27 GMT
There you go being scientific, again. I do try, and yeah, I can here you mumbling at the back "Your Very trying at times".. To which I shout "Boooooo", your spoiling the game. Half of the game in Rugby is making it to the end of the match... it is a war of attrition. Either the individual player or the whole team, you tire as the match progresses, some will get replaced as the match progresses, just to take a break, but as conditions deteriorate, often its only the second half when the real action starts, the first half has just been testing each other. This artificial crud is making the game too easy... if just anyone could do it, its not really a sport is it?. On that subject, wheelchair rugby. If you wanna see the toughest in the sport take this on head to head, go watch the wheelchair rugby... I have seen scrum halfs from the England national squad visibly wince when the wheelchair guys collide... That isnt the issue... Yes you can test to see if it carries further in the air, but. The idea that this helium is that if it carries further to give the team an unfair advantage. If the ball DOES carry further, already busted as not significantly enough to be called, then that aint no good if it goes over the catchers head?. In Football, the real game, the balls are handled by the ground staff, impartial stewards, who take all the balls and distribute them about the ground as needed. All match balls are ordered from the same place, again impartial, checked by the ref/linesmen/FA rep etc to be of sufficient quality, before they are allowed near the pitch, and often sealed, "one use only", and given away as prizes after the game. If a ball goes out of play, its put back at the players feet by the ground staff, if a member of the opposing team is seen to "swap out" for a different ball, thats interfering with play, that can be penalised up to a Red Card. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 16, 2017 15:10:35 GMT
this is not the helium ball myth - this is the underinflated ball myth.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 17, 2017 10:28:48 GMT
this is not the helium ball myth - this is the underinflated ball myth. And that makes it hard to handle?. I call B/S on that, because I know for sure that under-inflated balls get used a lot for training in Rugby. They use "old" balls, and as they are old, no one bother much to check them for "exact" pressure, they are just tools that they dont mind getting rough-handled and squished a lot whilst used as a training tool. I also have been told they use "softer" balls for training for catching sake in rookies... Although if I remember right, that meteor of dirty snow-ice-mud-snot that came hurting at me when I was a kid didnt feel to soft as it bounced off my chest and slapped me under the chin?.. We played in/on/under a filed that resembled the Somme when I was a kid, complete with Trenches at either end as they tried to sort out the drainage, but it was a field of mud, and the going was rough. A Ball is a Ball is a Ball, and unless you are at the level of special snowflake when they only ever throw you a "perfect" ball, any ball handles different from the last?.. Having someone throw it to you at the right heigh helps. Having it arrive in the general position of where I am supposed to be at knee height is worthless, I aint catching that. If it goes above head heigh, I have an option of reaching up or jumping, I will catch that, but low balls?.. useless. Under or Over inflated, does it actually matter that much?. Having not seen the show, I can only guess, but I would imagine, unless its barely ball shaped at all under-inflated, not that much difference?. One that is tumbling end over end, thats a challenge, but inflation wise, I cant see it mattering much?. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jan 17, 2017 12:20:07 GMT
this is not the helium ball myth - this is the underinflated ball myth. And that makes it hard to handle?. I call B/S on that, because I know for sure that under-inflated balls get used a lot for training in Rugby. They use "old" balls, and as they are old, no one bother much to check them for "exact" pressure, they are just tools that they dont mind getting rough-handled and squished a lot whilst used as a training tool. I also have been told they use "softer" balls for training for catching sake in rookies... Although if I remember right, that meteor of dirty snow-ice-mud-snot that came hurting at me when I was a kid didnt feel to soft as it bounced off my chest and slapped me under the chin?.. We played in/on/under a filed that resembled the Somme when I was a kid, complete with Trenches at either end as they tried to sort out the drainage, but it was a field of mud, and the going was rough. A Ball is a Ball is a Ball, and unless you are at the level of special snowflake when they only ever throw you a "perfect" ball, any ball handles different from the last?.. Having someone throw it to you at the right heigh helps. Having it arrive in the general position of where I am supposed to be at knee height is worthless, I aint catching that. If it goes above head heigh, I have an option of reaching up or jumping, I will catch that, but low balls?.. useless. Under or Over inflated, does it actually matter that much?. Having not seen the show, I can only guess, but I would imagine, unless its barely ball shaped at all under-inflated, not that much difference?. One that is tumbling end over end, thats a challenge, but inflation wise, I cant see it mattering much?. At the highest level of any sport everything is tuned to the nth degree, like race cars in Motorsport. A ball is not a ball, the handling of a ball,at a particular pressure may be important knowing how it will fly when passe or kicked is important, and indeed many other factors as well. There is a difference between the conditions that you or I may have played rugby in at high school or local clubs, and in the different codes we would probably have played, and those tha play Proffesional sports. Equally however the accuracy that someone like Owen Farrell can kick a rugby ball at when scoring conversions, the passes that Jack Nowells are able to take under pressure is way above what we could achieve. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 17, 2017 14:53:03 GMT
this is not the helium ball myth - this is the underinflated ball myth. And that makes it hard to handle?. I call B/S on that, because I know for sure that under-inflated balls get used a lot for training in Rugby. They use "old" balls, and as they are old, no one bother much to check them for "exact" pressure, they are just tools that they dont mind getting rough-handled and squished a lot whilst used as a training tool. I also have been told they use "softer" balls for training for catching sake in rookies... Although if I remember right, that meteor of dirty snow-ice-mud-snot that came hurting at me when I was a kid didnt feel to soft as it bounced off my chest and slapped me under the chin?.. We played in/on/under a filed that resembled the Somme when I was a kid, complete with Trenches at either end as they tried to sort out the drainage, but it was a field of mud, and the going was rough. A Ball is a Ball is a Ball, and unless you are at the level of special snowflake when they only ever throw you a "perfect" ball, any ball handles different from the last?.. Having someone throw it to you at the right heigh helps. Having it arrive in the general position of where I am supposed to be at knee height is worthless, I aint catching that. If it goes above head heigh, I have an option of reaching up or jumping, I will catch that, but low balls?.. useless. Under or Over inflated, does it actually matter that much?. Having not seen the show, I can only guess, but I would imagine, unless its barely ball shaped at all under-inflated, not that much difference?. One that is tumbling end over end, thats a challenge, but inflation wise, I cant see it mattering much?. you kept citing details of the helium ball test as arguments. and as an example of US professional handegg conditions. the catch of the week last week was a receiver who, while being run into by his defensive screen, reached down with his wrong hand, braced himself against the screen with his other hand, and scooped up the ball from below knee height before it could hit the field. I forget now whether he had one foot on the ground or no feet on the ground, but I know one leg was up in the air. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 18, 2017 9:32:20 GMT
"this has to be right that has to be right that has to be perfect and we cant have any of that [pointing to a slightly tousled person] in the crowd!!"
And that is reported from a major golf game.
My good friend is a golfer, he gave up when like me he hurt his back, but, we have played a round on the "Manicured" greens of the Open [for that year] ground in UK.
The grounds were manicured to within an inch of their life.
The difference between Fairway, Borders, Rough, Deep rough and out-of-bounds was visible in inches of height of the cut of the grass, and weeds.
Did it make it any better?.
Did it [redacted]
It became boring, there was no thinking, you can plan which club you need to use fr the next 4 shots on a par 4 from the tees.
British Motor-sport, pick one of may different classes of racing on the weekend, one you are allowed only SIX new tyres per weekend.. not half a dozen per wheel and that doesnt include the wet and damp tyres.
[note, One F1 car costs more to run in tyres in one single race that I have ever spent on the whole of all the cars I have ever driven...]
In the lower end of more affordable racing, You either run what you brung and hope that you move up the field for the second or third race and use the new tyres for the better grid position start, or go all out and qualify first on new tyres and hope you can stay there...
Tyre strategy can make it out front and be off on the f of off and stay out front, hoping the tyres dont wear out too quick, or, slow start look after the tyre and hope you can make up ground when everyone else's tyres have worn out.
Move down a few leagues from premiership football, NOT 3-G pitches, good old mud and grass, the ball bounces differently in different weathers, it makes it more interesting because not all pitches are the same, you dont get the usual booring yawn matches you see on teevee again, and scores that are half a dozen a side make the game more exciting...
Ask me again if taking all the variables out makes the game "better"?..
Professional?.
Humph, I would rather go watch a amateur or semi-pro match.
As to the discussion under way, are we making the game too predictable by removing the variables?.
Is THIS a myth that should be addressed.
My honest opinion is Yes, Yes we are.
And yet I still watch F1?.
Why?.
Because its an Unknown on the very knife edge of unknown at the very top of the sport that absolutely thrives on "Not the usual"
This coming season, there will be changes in tyre width..
How will that affect the drive-ability?.. stay tuned.
There are other changes coming in in the rules, and of course, all cars will be getting upgrades, there are a couple of new tracks, including the promise of one in France, which hasnt been raced at F1 level for many years.
Not le-Mons.
There are changes in Drivers as Cry-baby Rossberg is "on his way", how will the teams react?.
And upgrades, faster cars, better cars, technically, billions is being spent on R&D and how best to bend the rules just a little bit to gain advantage, and of course, when they do, the rules change.
Its an evolving sport, at 200mph.
Who cant get a little bit happy to see that?.
Yes maybe I did but my last post evolved to see what else could have been tested.
At the top end of pro- field sports, "world records" are being set by someone with a stop-watch or tape measure.
I was watching [on the teevee] when the first ever end-to-end from just at the side of the posts to the "touchdown" run was made in your hand-egg game...
You will never see that again.
I was there when the first ever lap record was set by a British made F1 car at Silverstone GP circuit...
Now they need video replay to see which horse wins by the length of its nose whiskers on a horse race?.
All this "Making everything the same" is not helping the sport at all, if it wasnt for the score top right of the screen, which tells you the first three letters of the team, I wouldnt know which football match was being played on the Teevee because so many teams play red against blue.
And yet, go to my local FC United, if I see their striker on the filed, even by the way he runs, you KNOW its him.
Dont let me sound like a grumpy old git here, its just I do remember when a football match was more exiting, because there was more differences in games.
Now they all play the same tactics, and you can spot a play being made.
Everything is more and more of exactly the same... and its boooooring!!!!?.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 18, 2017 14:20:31 GMT
no argument that watching professional sports is more or less watching professionals go to work.
but remember this is a thread for criticizing a specific episode, which I why I made a gesture to herd you in the specific direction.
|
|
|
|
Post by WhutScreenName on Jan 18, 2017 15:19:07 GMT
I miss the conversation about the episode....
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 20, 2017 23:38:37 GMT
I miss the conversation about the episode.... I'll get us back on track them, as I've just watched the first two episodes. First of all, I was happy to hear Robert Lee's voice again and I was even happier when the credits rolled and I saw that two of our good friends, Dan Tapster and Steve Chistiansen, still have their old roles. That gives me hope that what they're doing is genuine and the people behind it will settle for nothing less than the best. I'm also generally optimistic about the group of builders. They seem like a talented bunch from various backgrounds with very different personalities and they all seem to have a lot of respect - if not genuine awe - for the original show. I have no doubt that the worst thing that could happen for any one of these people was if they got chosen, made and broadcast the show and then found out Adam, Jamie, Kari, Grant or Tori absolutely hated it. I get a strong sense that at least most of them get what MythBusters is all about and want to carry on the tradition. That also makes me hopeful. Now, on to the show itself. I like the host, Kyle Hill. He seems to understand what MythBusters is all about and what it meant to its viewers, most of all because he was one of them. I like that he not only looks at how good the contestants are as builders, but also how good they are on camera, how they work with others and how well they embody the general MythBusters spirit. I also appreciate the fact that he doesn't in any way try to steal the picture. He says what needs to be said and not much more. He's not some clown who's just there for comic relief, nor is he the classic reality show host who takes on the role of being the one who pressures the contestants and acts like an a**hole when he has to send someone home. He seems like he genuinely wants these people to succeed and taking their dream of being MythBusters away from them doesn't seem to be something he likes to do. It's just part of the job. The first build - the Fast and Furious Ejector Seat, as the episode is also called - was a good test of skills for all involved. Most of the contestants got a chance to shine, except for the person who ended up getting sent home. Yes, she got somewhat railroaded by some of the others, but we here all know the work schedule and pressure the hosts and crew are under to make these shows, so I can't really say I feel too sorry for her. Being a MythBuster is not for the timid and she was just that. I have no doubt she's a talented girl, or she wouldn't have made it to the show in the first place, but there's no room or time for someone who hangs back and makes excuses when what they've built doesn't work. Just get in there and get it working. The build itself was classic MythBusters. Take something from a movie and see if it could work in real life. There were some interesting approaches to the problem on both teams and both ended up with a working concept, only with one team suffering from premature ejection (good one Robert  ). There were some standouts, both positive and negative. I liked Brian, Martin, Allen and Tracy from the beginning. They all seem like people who know when to throw in their two cents and when to step back and let others who know more about a certain subject take the lead. Brian especially seems to have some great leadership skills. Very positive, very diplomatic and able to rally his team when they need to get things done. Martin has a bit of the same going for him, but more than that, he's good on camera in an Adam sort of way, but still with his own style (he also sort of reminds me of Bruce Campbell, which is never a bad thing ). Allen seems like a great mix of Grant and Tori and there's no doubt that he LOVES MythBusters. A very talented builder and he just comes in with great energy. Presents himself as a fun guy who likes to solve problems. Confident, but not full of himself. Tracy reminds me a lot of Kari. Not quite as good looking, but hey, who is? Besides, that's never been what the show was about. She just brings good energy and seems like the type who wants to help wherever she can. Maybe not the most talented builder (she may prove me wrong later), but she's got that artistic streak that Kari also has and seems to just be enjoying the ride and having fun. Smiles and laughs can be just as contagious as negativity and she seems to infect everyone around her with big grins. Most of the others didn't get a chance to stand out too much, but one caught my attention and not in a good way. I just don't like Hackett. He seems pretentious, combative, annoying and just all around too intense for a show that's about learning science in a fun way. That and the guy never blinks! I don't know why, but I've never liked that. I feel like people who don't blink are just too on edge. I'll get back to Hackett when commenting on episode 2. As for the Deflategate test, no it wasn't terribly scientific, but that wasn't the point. Kyle (the host) actually said on camera - and I quote: "Obviously, all the data we gather today is gonna help us make a conclusion about this myth. But it also lets us see everyone operate as individuals. Being a MythBuster is about a zest. A vigor for testing. Someone who catches every single ball without being entertaining and fun and enjoying themselves... That's not nearly as interesting as someone who fails, but in a fun way. That's what we're looking for." I don't agree that the "data they gathered" helped make a conclusion about the myth, but I understand the idea that they want people who will actually enjoy themselves while testing these myths, even when they're out of their element. Maybe even ESPECIALLY when they're out of their element. How many times have we heard Adam say something like, "I'm giving up my dignity in the name of science"? The new hosts have to be willing to do that. You can't have hosts who refuse to test something because it'll make them look silly, or who are so overly focused and serious that it's not fun to watch. Even Jamie - one of the most serious people on the planet - was willing to put himself out there on a limb and could laugh at himself when he failed at something. All in all, I'm more positive about this after having watched the first episode than I was going in. This is not your typical reality show. This is not just some lame attempt at milking an existing concept to make a quick buck. It seems to be based on a genuine wish to continue something that changed television and science education forever and keep that movement going. I for one support that effort. |
|
|
|
Post by blazerrose on Jan 21, 2017 3:58:46 GMT
Me, too. I was not expecting much out of it and I was still kind of bitter about the show ending and this one starting so soon. It feels more like a baton pass in a relay than a supplanting.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 21, 2017 4:15:11 GMT
Me, too. I was not expecting much out of it and I was still kind of bitter about the show ending and this one starting so soon. It feels more like a baton pass in a relay than a supplanting. if it is, indeed, a baton pass, I will be satisfied with it. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 21, 2017 21:53:31 GMT
Me, too. I was not expecting much out of it and I was still kind of bitter about the show ending and this one starting so soon. It feels more like a baton pass in a relay than a supplanting. Well said. That's exactly what it feels like to me as well. And with Tapster and Christiansen at the wheel, I'd be surprised if it took a turn towards something entirely different (and worse) along the way. They lived and breathed MythBusters for over a decade. I can't bring myself to believe they would betray the show's legacy in any way. |
|
|
|
Post by koshka on Feb 9, 2017 16:39:14 GMT
Had a chance to stream this last night.
I know the show had a limited amount of time for the sideways ejector seat build, but I can't help thinking that letting Blue Team try to fix their rig would have been a good way to evaluate their potential as MB hosts -- how often did we see Jamie and Adam (or the build team) scramble to get a test back on track? OTOH, this is a competition, and Red Team might have won anyway just because their rig worked first try.
Deflategate felt like padding. From what we saw, it was more a test of how fast the contestants could figure out how to catch a football. Maybe there was something in the crunched numbers that allowed for the fact that by the last few balls, the contestants would have had enough practice to catch the ball regardless of air pressure.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 9, 2017 16:47:12 GMT
Had a chance to stream this last night. I know the show had a limited amount of time for the sideways ejector seat build, but I can't help thinking that letting Blue Team try to fix their rig would have been a good way to evaluate their potential as MB hosts -- how often did we see Jamie and Adam (or the build team) scramble to get a test back on track? OTOH, this is a competition, and Red Team might have won anyway just because their rig worked first try. Deflategate felt like padding. From what we saw, it was more a test of how fast the contestants could figure out how to catch a football. Maybe there was something in the crunched numbers that allowed for the fact that by the last few balls, the contestants would have had enough practice to catch the ball regardless of air pressure. I think at this point we've reached the consensus that the second myths are just ways to put the candidates by themselves in front of the camera. |
|
|
|
Post by WhutScreenName on Feb 9, 2017 17:51:27 GMT
/cut for space.... but I can't help thinking that letting Blue Team try to fix their rig would have been a good way to evaluate their potential as MB hosts -- how often did we see Jamie and Adam (or the build team) scramble to get a test back on track? /cut for space You have a great point. There have been many times on MB when a setup had to be retooled, or changed to fix something that didn't work the first time. But, I think with as many contestants as they had, they were constrained by time, and thus the no reset. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Feb 9, 2017 21:21:24 GMT
Can I just ask something I know this is known as 'The Seatch' here but what is its full title?
I need to look out for it when and if it comes to Discovery in the UK, btw that little SKY/ Discovery spat was settled.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 10, 2017 0:52:19 GMT
Can I just ask something I know this is known as 'The Seatch' here but what is its full title? I need to look out for it when and if it comes to Discovery in the UK, btw that little SKY/ Discovery spat was settled. over here, it is "Mythbusters:The Search" or words to that effect. and it is on the science channel. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Feb 10, 2017 9:17:56 GMT
Can I just ask something I know this is known as 'The Seatch' here but what is its full title? I need to look out for it when and if it comes to Discovery in the UK, btw that little SKY/ Discovery spat was settled. over here, it is "Mythbusters:The Search" or words to that effect. and it is on the science channel. Thanks I'll keep an eye out for that, for us it may be on Science or the main Discovery Channel like the original one always was. |
|
).
