|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Mar 22, 2014 13:27:49 GMT
I'd think Cricket ball as well, since they seem a lot heavier than a Baseball. (I have a baseball on my desk, a gift from a friend who went to Las Vegas a few years back.) For the record there is a Rugby League in the Bay area. There is also a Cricket League in the Bay area. Next you know we'll discover Americans known how to make tea...  This is probably half true for modern armour. But the original equipment consisted of padded leather, not hard 'plates' as far as I know. An educated guess is that they switched to stronger armour when it became available in an effort to avoid injury. But the newer armour weighed more, so needed more armour and padding to retain a reasonable degree of protection. (Especially since someone wearing the armour was probably going to be more willing to tackle at higher speed) The 'special effects' were a side effect, but one that would have made what can be an astonishingly dull game* into something more interesting. American members will, of course, correct me if I got anything wrong there. (*This is my opinion, and to be fair I find most sports to be rather dull. Baseball I can live with, as in I'm not what you could consider a fan but more than willing to watch a game on the (very rare) occasions I get the chance) |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 22, 2014 13:56:17 GMT
I'd think Cricket ball as well, since they seem a lot heavier than a Baseball. (I have a baseball on my desk, a gift from a friend who went to Las Vegas a few years back.) For the record there is a Rugby League in the Bay area. There is also a Cricket League in the Bay area. Next you know we'll discover Americans known how to make tea... This is probably half true for modern armour. But the original equipment consisted of padded leather, not hard 'plates' as far as I know. An educated guess is that they switched to stronger armour when it became available in an effort to avoid injury. But the newer armour weighed more, so needed more armour and padding to retain a reasonable degree of protection. (Especially since someone wearing the armour was probably going to be more willing to tackle at higher speed) The 'special effects' were a side effect, but one that would have made what can be an astonishingly dull game* into something more interesting. American members will, of course, correct me if I got anything wrong there. (*This is my opinion, and to be fair I find most sports to be rather dull. Baseball I can live with, as in I'm not what you could consider a fan but more than willing to watch a game on the (very rare) occasions I get the chance) American football gear has been a bit of a vicious circle. they got better armor because they were getting hurt - the better armor meant they could crash into each other harder. crashing into each other harder meant they got hurt just as much - so they got better armor. repeat until getting hurt involves serious injury. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Mar 22, 2014 16:59:36 GMT
[Edit SD, I am a Cynic, I am the boards registered cynic, before you read this, know that it is being said with a cynical sense of humour?....]So what you are saying, is of the NFL tackles were more rugby style, they would stop the players more often with out the need for a HUGE impact..... So the padding would not be needed...... Part of the 'bouncing off' comes from the pure speed of impact, but yeah. If some players went for the hip/leg area more often rather than going for the upper body, you'd probably see less missed tackles. However, the speed at which these hits are made is also the reason that the padding is still needed. The armour plating sure makes a glorious noise when two huge players collide... but as you say, they then bounce off and continue.... So the padding and armour plating are for "FX" effect rather than effective effect..... Big Bangs more often without actually stopping play. Yes it makes a great noise when two huge players collide, but that's not what the armor is there for. The rules allow you to hit above the waist and if it's done properly, as TLW says, you push the player backwards instead of allowing him to fall forward. With the very different rules of the two games in question, allowing a player to fall forward isn't a problem in rugby, but it is in football where the whole thing is a game of field position. Those one or two extra yards that he can get by falling forward can mean the difference between ending the drive or allowing it to continue, so if you do it right, there's an advantage to hitting him high. As for the tackles... There is an offence in Rugby known as the high tackle..... Yet in American football, not only have I seen "Clothes line" tackles, I have seen blatant grabbing of the nose-guard and helmet handling whilst tackling. I seem to understand then when you "Sack a quarterback", there are no actual rules how you do it?... And if you do it in a way that has the quarterback stretchered off, there will be extras in your "Bung".... Also, in Rugby, once you have bought the opponent to ground, you must roll away.... Not "Sit on them" until play stops. It's blatantly obvious that you don't actually watch football and have never learned the rules. You are not allowed to grab the facemask at any time, since that puts the other player in serious danger of neck injury. In fact, IIRC, you're not allowed to grab and hold on to the helmet at all. You're allowed to hit it, but holding on to it and dragging someone down by it is forbidden. As is grabbing the back of the neck of the armor and pulling someone down that way (the so-called 'horse collar tackle') for the same reason. As for the quarterback sack, you're allowed to tackle him the same way you would any other ball carrier. As long as he has the ball, that is. There are actually very specific rules about hitting the quarterback and breaking any of them will result in a 'roughing the passer' call and a penalty, which is usually much steeper than if you'd done the same thing to any other player. The same applies for kickers and punters. As Always, the above is observed behaviour, and as in football, I see players dive like an Olympic swimming team, I am sure not all I see is entirely legal. It strikes me, American Football is HUGELY visually Violent. The violence is a lot like the wrestling, done for effect, and not always real.... Its a visual entertainment thing for the crowd to enjoy?.... Rugby is a game played by odd shaped men with odd shaped balls, it is violent, but not cruel, and its a team effort to get that ball over that line, in any way that works, as long as you play the game and keep it clean..... "Fairness". I dunno... I sometimes wonder if we got it wrong. England plays "Fair", we abide by the rules. The rest of the world seeks to find ways to bend the rules. We have to either adapt, or accept we can no longer play "Fair" if we actually want to win. And now, winning is all that matters?... Many years have passed since I heard the crowd saying "Bloody good game, even if they did win, both sides played well..." Yes, football is visually violent, which is part of the entertainment. But just as many other Europeans do, it seems that's the only part you tend to focus on. There are more fair play rules in American football than there are in most other games in the world. For instance, you'll never see an international soccer star get a fine for grandstanding, even though they jump around and waste everybody's time doing backflips and other stunts that are more suitable for a circus than a soccer field every time they score a goal. I've always found it immensely funny that people can hold these spoiled actors in such high regard when they can be lying on the pitch one moment, grabbing their knee and sobbing after hardly being grazed, get up when they realize the ref won't grant them a free kick, go on to score a goal and then jump around doing cartwheels and flips on that supposedly injured knee the next moment. In American football, that's called unsportsmanlike conduct and is penalized both on and off the field by loss of yards and a fine, usually starting at $5,000. How's that for fair play? And that's just one example. There are numerous other rules for what you can and can't do. Some are for the sake of fair play and some are for the sake of safety. Violence for the sake of violence and lack of fair play is heavily frowned upon. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Mar 22, 2014 23:12:09 GMT
For instance, you'll never see an international soccer star get a fine for grandstanding, even though they jump around and waste everybody's time doing backflips and other stunts that are more suitable for a circus than a soccer field every time they score a goal. I've always found it immensely funny that people can hold these spoiled actors in such high regard when they can be lying on the pitch one moment, grabbing their knee and sobbing after hardly being grazed, get up when they realize the ref won't grant them a free kick, go on to score a goal and then jump around doing cartwheels and flips on that supposedly injured knee the next moment. In American football, that's called unsportsmanlike conduct and is penalized both on and off the field by loss of yards and a fine, usually starting at $5,000. How's that for fair play? And that's just one example. There are numerous other rules for what you can and can't do. Some are for the sake of fair play and some are for the sake of safety. Violence for the sake of violence and lack of fair play is heavily frowned upon. You can and do sometimes see a player hooked for such an offence in Soccer, they call it Simulation in FIFAs rule book, on occasion admittedly not as many times as I would like,. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 23, 2014 11:47:11 GMT
So that is a "From behind" tackle.... I cant see the problem, if he was well on his way to go 30 yards and you stopped him at 5?...
I know, if you get more than 10 yards on three attempts you get to keep the ball.
But in Rugby, they also have full frontal tackles, and that can throw a man not just off his feet, but backwards as well.
[quote[a regulation softball is larger than a hardball, though both are about the same compressability (or lack thereof) - the softball can be caught barehanded at higher velocities than a hardball can. I think I recall a cricket ball is smaller than a regulation hardball.
[/quote]
On the Pitching thing, I suggest they roll out the high speed camera and measure the ball as if its a cannon ball...
Less chance of it going astray?...
Let them swap balls and repeat for a truly representative data set.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 23, 2014 11:56:22 GMT
They do.
But Badly.
Back off you lot... I have a Tom Jones, fully charged and ready to warble, looking for tour dates, and I can send him your way......
Seriously, I have had what passes for American tea.
Its something almost quite entirely unlike tea that you could ever get... ask Dent-Arthur-Dent, he can tell you more....
But it tasted like someone had been told verbally what was needed and had tried his hardest but had never actually tasted proper tea?...
And I know, there are some places that can actually reference a proper English/Chinese/Indian/other trained person who knows what tea should be.
I think we can leave that one there.
It needs a proper grave..... "Argue the post not the poster"
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Mar 23, 2014 13:45:16 GMT
I think we can leave that one there. It needs a proper grave..... "Argue the post not the poster" I was arguing the post and from your post it's blatantly obvious that you don't actually watch football and have never learned the rules. It's not a personal attack. It's a statement of fact that's clear from the way you talk about the sport. You present some very common misconceptions and opinions formed on a weak basis that many Europeans have about American football, which all stem from the fact that you've seen clips, but never actually taken the time to learn how the game works. I attempted to correct those misconceptions. I would call that arguing the post. It's not like I called you an idiot or anything else personal and you know full well that I wouldn't. I like you. I just happened to disagree with this particular set of opinions of yours. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 23, 2014 14:38:29 GMT
So that is a "From behind" tackle.... I cant see the problem, if he was well on his way to go 30 yards and you stopped him at 5?... I know, if you get more than 10 yards on three attempts you get to keep the ball. But in Rugby, they also have full frontal tackles, and that can throw a man not just off his feet, but backwards as well. [quote[a regulation softball is larger than a hardball, though both are about the same compressability (or lack thereof) - the softball can be caught barehanded at higher velocities than a hardball can. I think I recall a cricket ball is smaller than a regulation hardball. On the Pitching thing, I suggest they roll out the high speed camera and measure the ball as if its a cannon ball... Less chance of it going astray?... Let them swap balls and repeat for a truly representative data set.[/quote] on tackles: a good ball carrier can gain a yard quite easily if his upper body is left free - and it is 10 yards in FOUR tries. we have radar gun measurements for who can make a ball go the fastest. but it won't make thrilling TV to have Tory say "a baseball pitcher has thrown 106 MPH, and a cricket bowler has bowled 100.23 MPH. That is all." so yeah, have then hit a human analog with the ball, watch that on the slo-mo. - use a backstop if you are worried about it going astray. which is harder to hit? I've seen what a bowler can do. in baseball, if the ball doesn't go through a specific window, in front of the batter, it counts towards a free ticket to get on base. (four such advances the batter to first, and pushes those already on base ahead if applicable.) in cricket, it doesn't much matter how the ball passes the batsman, and I think I even saw one youtube clip where the bowler put it behind him and still hit the wicket. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Mar 23, 2014 15:42:23 GMT
Might be interesting to test the difference of the two throwing styles of cricket and baseball. Logic tells me that a cricket ball will leave the hand at a greater speed, as the bowler is running at the moment of release which will add to the speed of the ball. However since cricket balls hit the ground before they reach the batter they would, presumably, loose some of that additional energy.
Testing the speed and effects of the balls could be done using a standard cricket battling/bowling cage. This is a long rectangular 'cage' open at the bowling end and covered in netting to prevent the ball from going anywhere.
They could easily put a board up at the bowling end to help measure the speed, while getting the bowler to aim at a target at the far end. That target could, initially, be a force gage or a block of material such as polystyrene which the ball will either dent or penetrate to allow them to compare the amount of force.
They could then move onto using a ballistic-gel torso with ribs inside to see how much injury both balls and throwing styles could cause. (Years ago bowlers - I *think* Australian - started to aim for the batsman rather than the stumps. After at least one batsman ended up with a broken rib this was declared illegal)
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 23, 2014 15:55:02 GMT
Might be interesting to test the difference of the two throwing styles of cricket and baseball. Logic tells me that a cricket ball will leave the hand at a greater speed, as the bowler is running at the moment of release which will add to the speed of the ball. However since cricket balls hit the ground before they reach the batter they would, presumably, loose some of that additional energy. Testing the speed and effects of the balls could be done using a standard cricket battling/bowling cage. This is a long rectangular 'cage' open at the bowling end and covered in netting to prevent the ball from going anywhere. They could easily put a board up at the bowling end to help measure the speed, while getting the bowler to aim at a target at the far end. That target could, initially, be a force gage or a block of material such as polystyrene which the ball will either dent or penetrate to allow them to compare the amount of force. They could then move onto using a ballistic-gel torso with ribs inside to see how much injury both balls and throwing styles could cause. (Years ago bowlers - I *think* Australian - started to aim for the batsman rather than the stumps. After at least one batsman ended up with a broken rib this was declared illegal) if a pitched baseball contacts the batter, (and the batter did not get caught stepping into it) it is an automatic ticket to first base. a pitcher will still sometimes deliberately hit a batter - but it is usually personal rather than strategic. as for cricket vs baseball, the baseball delivery is set up to optimize the velocity of the delivery, while the cricket delivery is somewhat restricted (I.E. the "hurling" restriction) - definitely, peak velocity would be measured on release, and the cricket ball would lose velocity more, but really, it is energy delivered that is the consideration, and an errant delivery of either could result in a hit directly from the delivery. I think a fun side myth could be what sport is more complicated. - to be judged based on the size of the official rule book. (simplest sport is Norse Stickball. one rule: all body parts must be returned to their original owners after the game.) |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Mar 23, 2014 16:09:20 GMT
*Nods* It sometimes happens in cricket as well, usually a result of the ball hitting a bump on the pitch rather than aiming at the batsman. I *think* that in cricket the referee has some discretion, and can use their own judgement to decide if such a pitch was a deliberate attempt to hit the batsman or accidental - so will usually 'allow' this to happen once before having a quiet word with the bowler. (Probably helped by the fact that if you continually throw a heavy ball at someone's head or ribs you could be charged with criminal assault)
In baseball you can't really use the 'hit a bump' defence as the ball never touches the ground before reaching the batsman. So it makes sense to be a little more stringent about dangerous throws, without automatically assuming any intent on the part of the pitcher to put the batsman in hospital. After all even the best pitchers are going to miss-throw once in a while.
So the 'move to first' seems a very fair solution to this. If the pitcher was aiming at the batsman then it will get the batsman out of the line of fire. If he wasn't then he only gets a fairly minor punishment for messing up a throw. It also means that pitchers have a vested interest in not trying this stunt, after all they could end up handing their opponents a free run which isn't going to make them any friends on their own team.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Mar 23, 2014 18:01:00 GMT
Might be interesting to test the difference of the two throwing styles of cricket and baseball. Logic tells me that a cricket ball will leave the hand at a greater speed, as the bowler is running at the moment of release which will add to the speed of the ball. However since cricket balls hit the ground before they reach the batter they would, presumably, loose some of that additional energy. Testing the speed and effects of the balls could be done using a standard cricket battling/bowling cage. This is a long rectangular 'cage' open at the bowling end and covered in netting to prevent the ball from going anywhere. They could easily put a board up at the bowling end to help measure the speed, while getting the bowler to aim at a lyingtarget at the far end. That target could, initially, be a force gage or a block of material such as polystyrene which the ball will either dent or penetrate to allow them to compare the amount of force. They could then move onto using a ballistic-gel torso with ribs inside to see how much injury both balls and throwing styles could cause. (Years ago bowlers - I *think* Australian - started to aim for the batsman rather than the stumps. After at least one batsman ended up with a broken rib this was declared illegal) IIRC the so called Bodyline test series was the other the other way around, England where using that tactic during a tour of Australia, it nearly caused a diplomatic incident. Bowlers can still bowl one "Bouncer" in an Over, a set of six balls. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 23, 2014 23:35:27 GMT
*Nods* It sometimes happens in cricket as well, usually a result of the ball hitting a bump on the pitch rather than aiming at the batsman. I *think* that in cricket the referee has some discretion, and can use their own judgement to decide if such a pitch was a deliberate attempt to hit the batsman or accidental - so will usually 'allow' this to happen once before having a quiet word with the bowler. (Probably helped by the fact that if you continually throw a heavy ball at someone's head or ribs you could be charged with criminal assault) In baseball you can't really use the 'hit a bump' defence as the ball never touches the ground before reaching the batsman. So it makes sense to be a little more stringent about dangerous throws, without automatically assuming any intent on the part of the pitcher to put the batsman in hospital. After all even the best pitchers are going to miss-throw once in a while. So the 'move to first' seems a very fair solution to this. If the pitcher was aiming at the batsman then it will get the batsman out of the line of fire. If he wasn't then he only gets a fairly minor punishment for messing up a throw. It also means that pitchers have a vested interest in not trying this stunt, after all they could end up handing their opponents a free run which isn't going to make them any friends on their own team. the only tactical reason for a "bean ball" would be psychological - and the anecdotal reference to this comes from a response to a batter who habitually crowded the plate. (with the implied intent of forcing the pitcher to throw more carefully to avoid an accidental walk) |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 24, 2014 7:52:21 GMT
To put it into perspective, I watched more American football one year than I did actual football.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Mar 24, 2014 7:58:14 GMT
To put it into perspective, I watched more American football one year than I did actual football. Then I'm genuinely surprised at your views on the game as unfair and brutal for the sake of brutal. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 24, 2014 8:12:45 GMT
Pitching/Bowling....
Cant remember where, it was a while ago, but some show asked the same question.
The run in cricket doesnt add that much speed when compared to the "Wind up" in baseball.
The leaning back long armed full throw of a trained baseball pitcher can get more energy into the ball than a fast bowler....
But I think this all depends on the actual person throwing.
Fast or spin, there are distinct styles of bowling, which are all designed to deceive the batter into going the wrong way.
Does the ball loose much speed on hitting the ground?... not that much, but its already hit the target at that point.
The target in cricket is the ground UNDER the bat, and then to change direction immediately to cut from there to the wicket?...
Deceiving the batsman, he has to choose to hit before or after the bounce and predict where the ball will be.
In Baseball, it has to get from pitchers hand past the batter before he has time to react....
Do baseballs curve in flight?... or do the appear to curve?... and how does that affect the throw?...
Again, to deceive.
It overloads the batters concentration as he starts to swing, tries to correct, and them misses.
Full Toss... "Yorkers", outlawed in cricket, as throwing the ball directly at the batter with intent to injure is considered unsportsmanlike.
There are also strict rules about how far the ball must travel before it hits the floor.
There is an imagined box on the floor that the ball must be inside to be considered a good ball...
What it does after that is down to the skill of the bowler.
Bowling short creating a deliberately high ball is considered as bad form as a Yorker.
Just why is it called a yorker?... I actually dont know, there are rumours that its because the practise was started by a Yorkshire bowler, but that could be bluster miff and leg-end (Pulling of), the closest I can get is it was the name of one player {as in Richard-of-York}who used it a LOT, .
The truth is lost in time.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 24, 2014 14:08:29 GMT
To put it into perspective, I watched more American football one year than I did actual football. In the past year I watched more cricket than baseball. doesn't mean I have any real understanding of the game, even though it involved reading several articles on the game. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 27, 2014 10:31:09 GMT
To put it into perspective, I watched more American football one year than I did actual football. In the past year I watched more cricket than baseball. doesn't mean I have any real understanding of the game, even though it involved reading several articles on the game. Thats the problem, I cant watch a sport I have no idea about without going asking questions... You may be sick of me saying it sometimes, but you DO learn something new every day, and I know there is even an idiots guide to American Football somewhere on the interwebs.... how do I know that?.. I went and found it.... Heck, I was watching American football back in the days when Denver Bronco's beat Green Bay Packers, back before the millennium?... I think I may remember the score but I would have to check..... I think I first remember Super-bowl from about 25, Buffalo Bills vs New York Giants, and it was the Giants that got me into the game, that and a player called "The Fridge" Perry who once sat down to a Mc'D's meal that would have fed me for a week?... Just for interest, I watched Hang-Gliding for about half an hour before I started asking questions.... As luck would have it, one of the persons I was asking was a qualified instructor, and about an hour later I found myself strapped in..... My motto at that time would be something like What are you doing?.. and can I have a go.From the age of 18, when I survived a fatal bike accident (Revived roadside once, in hospital twice) I had a Life wish. Its the same as a death wish, but its when you want to do something dangerous for the adrenalin rush.... British American Football?... I met the London Blitz team in the 80's, and when I was invited to square up to one of their offensive team, I politely asked if I could be excused... (Like,... where are the Toilets please?...) he was a LOT bigger than me, and I was a little concerned?... There must be about 30 or 40 teams in the UK at the moment, I dont get to go to the games, but I do take a passing interest. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 27, 2014 13:57:53 GMT
my sports watching is pretty much only sitting on standby at the high school's home football (gridiron) games.
|
|
|
|
Post by blazerrose on Mar 28, 2014 3:23:31 GMT
I geek over the Olympics every two years.
|
|
