Gun rights

[optimus prime]

Football is a superset of soccer, in that it requires not only skill like soccer, but also raw power. That's the beauty of the game: skill combined with sheer physicality.

Yes, American Football does have more raw power; it is so similar to Rugby. You would love Rugby Bryan, I promise you. A lot of people like both Rugby and Football in the UK and some other countries. For some reason though Rugby doesn't seem to be able to compete with Football. I prefer Football but I really like both sports.

LOL!! If you were "bored" by football, then you obviously still don't understand the game. Get to work, and find out how it works!

You are right actually, I was bored because I couldn't decide who to support and I didn't have a clue what was going on. Players were running on and off, I could see their faces to know who was who or why they were running on and off. It seemed very complex and I didn't have a chance of enjoying it because I didn't understand it. I was a little disappointed with the TV coverage because they were obviously trying to catch a new audience and they should have explained every detail to us.

 

[Starseed]

I used to love NFL, but today it's become boring. Few QBs have the arm, and few offensive coaches have the courage to encourage "long bombs", those inspiring long forward throws that attracted me to the game in the first place. Now it all seems slow attrition, almost as uneventful as soccer. Short pass, running play. Running play, short pass. Short pass, running play, running play....yawn.....

What's also killed it for me is the crummy commentators we now seem to get, compared to the days of Dan Fouts and the great Al Michaels. Together with comedian Dennis Miller, they made Monday Night a party.

That, and the imbecile decision by Channel Five here to broadcast it LIVE, instead of cuttting out the bulk of the interminable stoppages you get in a live game. So the game takes FOUR HOURS to get through, with semi-trivial commentary in the stoppages in order to fill the time.

Instead I enjoy watching the highlights of the best soccer league in the world, on "Match Of The Day" on the BBC. Great action (highlights only) and great commentary by the likes of Gary Linneker & Alan Shearer - the Brett Favre of English football.

 

[Bryan]

Just so you know, when I refer to Football I mean the sport you call soccer, and when I say American Football, it’s obviously your football.

Yes, I understand that. However, _I_ will continue to use the terms football and soccer. I don't think there'll be any misunderstanding.

Ok, Rugby stops the clock. It’s more subtle then NFL. The players don’t get a chance to leave the pitch or have a quick break, they play as if the clock is still going, but the ref stops it every time a foul is committed or the Rugby is out of play or a Try is scored. This works well, I do agree.

One thing I don't quite understand is your saying that it's more "subtle" than the NFL. I think stopping the clock in football happens in just about a perfect way; I can't imagine it being any different from how it already is. For example, the clock MUST be stopped after an incomplete pass (especially a LOOOOONG pass down the sidelines), for the simple and screamingly obvious reason that it would take too much time to retrieve the ball and get everybody set-up again for the next play. Think of an obvious way that a team could take an unfair advantage of it, if the clock were never stopped at all: if a team were one point ahead with only one minute left in the game and had possession of the ball, they could very easily run-out the remaining few seconds simply by heaving the ball WAAAAAY downfield (incomplete pass), and letting the clock harmlessy run-out as a result. And there wouldn't be a thing the other team could do to stop it!

Do you see what I'm saying?? The clock is stopped in the game of football after incomplete passes (and at certain other important points of the game) for a VERY good reason: to keep one team from taking an unfair advantage by being able to run-out the remaining amount of time. The game is VERY well thought-out and designed. Each rule is there for a very good reason. They don't stop the clock just to exercise their fingers on the clock-button!

This could potentially be implemented into Football, but I don’t think it will because nobody is really that bothered by it. The overall effect of changing the clocking system would be minor. We also like the thrill of the ‘guesstimate’. ‘What amount of time will the referee add on?’

Damnation....if you like the "thrill" of not knowing exactly how much time there is left in the game, then why even have a fricking clock on the field AT ALL?? :shock: :shakehead: Why not just have a judge anounce to everybody on the public address system when the game is finally over?? uke:

The other thing you have to remember is that when the ball is out of play, the game hasn’t stopped (except if a goal is scored or waiting for an injured player). The players can choose to take a quick throw or quick free kick and not allow the opposition to get into their positions.

Yeah, but what about the OPPOSITE situation to that? What if one team is ahead 1-0, and they want to deliberately SLOW the game down to keep the other team from scoring, and they do that by "accidentlly" kicking the ball waaaay up into the stands? Would they penalize that team (some kind of "delay of game" penalty) for pulling a stunt like that, or maybe add some additional time to the game clock, to make up for it? In the game of football, of course, the response from the referees would be IMMEDIATE: the clock would STOP, until they got the ball back, or got another ball! See the logic and common sense of how the game of football works?

If for example, your team are losing 1-0 with 5 minutes remaining, it is hugely essential to change the way you play so the opposition will not have a chance to put the ball into touch. If they do, then you have to rush as fast as you can to take it quick so time is not lost, this adds to the thrill, trust me. If one of your players makes a mistake or has to put the ball into touch, then you will pay the price, the other team will drag out how long they take the free kick or throw in. They will make sure all their players are in position. There is however a time limit, if they exceed the time limit, it is called ‘time wasting’ and they are punished.

Yes, I understand. Similarly, there is a fixed amount of time that a football team has to get the next play started. If they exceed that limit, they get penalized. It's all very logical and appropriate, and "playing the clock" is part of the strategy in the game of football, including the specific choice of plays to make, some of which momentarily stop the clock, and others don't.

Overall Summary
Football is a very fast game, I wouldn’t like to see the clock stopped because I believe the game would be slowed down....However, I would agree that if a player is injured or a goal is scored they should officially stop the clock(but not stop the clock for free kicks, throw-ins or corners).

I want to emphasize here that I still don't understand what you're getting at with those sentences above, and I think it still shows some major misunderstanding between you and me.

Stopping the clock in football doesn't "slow the game down", except in a certain very superfical sense. It stops (momentarily) after an incomplete pass, but then starts up again on the next play. It stops (again, only momentarily) for the referees on the sidelines to move the chains, if a first-down is scored by the team with possession. But then it starts up again! It stops (again, only mometarily) if a team scores by either a touchdown or field goal, but then starts again on the ensuing kick-off to the other team. They take only about as much time as MUST be taken, after each of those events, unless they do it just because they need a TV commercial break!

So the bottom-line to all of this is that the use of the clock in the game of football is well-designed and logical. Its purpose is to let both the fans in the stadium and the players know EXACTLY how much time is left in the game, and to prevent one team from taking an unfair advantage by the inappropriate use of time-wasting plays. That often leads to nail-baiting finishes in a close game, including some fiendish strategizing about the choice of plays in such a game, and how to "play the clock". I think it's American football which should be called "The Beautiful Game", not soccer! :innocent:

 

[Bryan]

Yes, American Football does have more raw power; it is so similar to Rugby. You would love Rugby Bryan, I promise you.

I probably _would_ like rugby; unfortunately, I've never seen a single game of it.

LOL!! If you were "bored" by football, then you obviously still don't understand the game. Get to work, and find out how it works!

You are right actually, I was bored because I couldn't decide who to support and I didn't have a clue what was going on. Players were running on and off, I could see their faces to know who was who or why they were running on and off. It seemed very complex and I didn't have a chance of enjoying it because I didn't understand it. I was a little disappointed with the TV coverage because they were obviously trying to catch a new audience and they should have explained every detail to us.

Yeah, watching football without understanding the rules of the game must be like watching a game of chess, when you've never played it! :shock:

 

[ali777]

One thing I don't quite understand is your saying that it's more "subtle" than the NFL. I think stopping the clock in football happens in just about a perfect way; I can't imagine it being any different from how it already is. For example, the clock MUST be stopped after an incomplete pass (especially a LOOOOONG pass down the sidelines), for the simple and screamingly obvious reason that it would take too much time to retrieve the ball and get everybody set-up again for the next play. Think of an obvious way that a team could take an unfair advantage of it, if the clock were never stopped at all: if a team were one point ahead with only one minute left in the game and had possession of the ball, they could very easily run-out the remaining few seconds simply by heaving the ball WAAAAAY downfield (incomplete pass), and letting the clock harmlessy run-out as a result. And there wouldn't be a thing the other team could do to stop it!

Do you see what I'm saying?? The clock is stopped in the game of football after incomplete passes (and at certain other important points of the game) for a VERY good reason: to keep one team from taking an unfair advantage by being able to run-out the remaining amount of time. The game is VERY well thought-out and designed. Each rule is there for a very good reason. They don't stop the clock just to exercise their fingers on the clock-button!

Every pass is part of the game, why do you stop the game after an incomplete pass??? In football the only time the clock is presumed to have stopped is when there is a goal, a substitution, or an injury. At the end of the game the referee adds 30 seconds for each goal scored, and substitution, also the injury stoppages are timed and added accordingly.

The game also stops for fouls, throw ins, goal kicks, etc, but the players are required to restart the game as quickly as possible. If the referee is not satisfied with players' effort to restart the game, the player who is supposed to be restarting the game will get booked. Those little stoppages are part of the game.... In football, you want to attack quickly, so waiting for the opposition to get reorganised would be the stupidest thing to do. Football is non-stop and quick... This is where your game and our game differ, you can't understand it...

Gaining an unfair advantage by kicking the ball out of the pitch is impossible these days. There are ball boys around the pitch who give a new ball to the players. There is always a ball available. The only way of gaining an unfair advantage in football is through faking a foul, even this doesn't work with the top referees.

If a team is good enough to hold the ball for a long time and run the clock down, they are worthy winners of the game anyway. Intentionally holding the ball is a skill in football.

Damnation....if you like the "thrill" of not knowing exactly how much time there is left in the game, then why even have a fricking clock on the field AT ALL?? :shock: :shakehead: Why not just have a judge anounce to everybody on the public address system when the game is finally over?? uke:

Yes... That's part of the entertainment. However, everybody in football knows that there is going to be at least 3 mins of added time to allow for the substitutions. An average game has about 3-5 mins added time.

Yeah, but what about the OPPOSITE situation to that? What if one team is ahead 1-0, and they want to deliberately SLOW the game down to keep the other team from scoring, and they do that by "accidentlly" kicking the ball waaaay up into the stands?

It's pointless... There are spare balls all over the touchline. Also, if the referee judges that you intentionally try to waste time by doing something you aren't supposed to, you'll get booked.

In football, if you are winning, you want to hold the ball and stop the opposition from gaining control of the ball. Kicking the ball into stands passes ball possession to the opposite team, which is exactly what you don't want. Kicking the ball into the stands "accidentally" is just pointless.

Overall Summary
Football is a very fast game, I wouldn’t like to see the clock stopped because I believe the game would be slowed down....However, I would agree that if a player is injured or a goal is scored they should officially stop the clock(but not stop the clock for free kicks, throw-ins or corners).

I want to emphasize here that I still don't understand what you're getting at with those sentences above, and I think it still shows some major misunderstanding between you and me.

You are right Bryan... You will not understand it... The fundamentals of the games are too different. It's like comparing oranges to apples (apples and pears are too similar in shape :whistle: ), it's a personal preference.

I feel like I'm gonna repeat what I said above... In football the small stoppages are part of the game, and the players should get the ball moving again ASAP. The referee ensures the action doesn't stop longer than necessary, he has the power to book a player for intentionally slowing the game down... In a way, referee's decision is the final decision. You just have to trust him....

However, there is nothing the referee or the players can do when it comes to injuries. In such cases it might be more fair to have a clearly visible stop clock so that everybody knows how long will be added at the end of the game. However, we like our sport as it is, and players and supporters have trust in the referee.... Well, usually the top referees in the top leagues are good enough...

So the bottom-line to all of this is that the use of the clock in the game of football is well-designed and logical. Its purpose is to let both the fans in the stadium and the players know EXACTLY how much time is left in the game, and to prevent one team from taking an unfair advantage by the inappropriate use of time-wasting plays. That often leads to nail-baiting finishes in a close game, including some fiendish strategizing about the choice of plays in such a game, and how to "play the clock". I think it's American football which should be called "The Beautiful Game", not soccer! :innocent:

Your argument is based on the assumption that the timing in football is flawed and teams can gain an unfair advantage through abusing the clock...

I think apart from the name "football", the two sports have nothing in common. I actually don't understand why you call it football.. You should have called it American Rugby or something.

 

[The Gardener]

I actually don't understand why you call it football.. You should have called it American Rugby or something.

 

[Bryan]

Every pass is part of the game, why do you stop the game after an incomplete pass???

I already explained the reason for that in plain English: because it takes too long to retrieve balls and players from WAAAAAY downfield, back to the line of scrimmage, to start the next play.

For you soccer players who don't know anything about the game of football, here's the very first thing you need to learn: football is a game that proceeds ONE PLAY AT A TIME. Each tick of the clock is precious, and is reserved for only true football action. The clock doesn't run while the referees are standing around on the field discussing a penalty that they're about to impose on a team after a bad play (in such a situation, the referees immediately stop the clock). The clock doesn't run after a team scores points by either a touchdown, field goal, or safety, because it takes a fair amount of time to get the players on both sides set-up again for the ensuing kickoff (or point-after-touchdown, in the case of the touchdown). And most assuredly, the clock doesn't run if a quarterback throws the ball WAAAAY downfield in a failed effort to connect with a distant receiver. That's because it would take too long for everybody to get back to the line of scrimmage, and members of a team who were already ahead could deliberately take their time and drag their feet while doing that, if the clock were still ticking.

Gaining an unfair advantage by kicking the ball out of the pitch is impossible these days. There are ball boys around the pitch who give a new ball to the players. There is always a ball available. The only way of gaining an unfair advantage in football is through faking a foul, even this doesn't work with the top referees.

Okay, I understand now that retrieving the ball itself is not a serious concern. But what about retrieving THE PLAYERS THEMSELVES? Like I said before, in the game of football, it would take too much time for players from both teams to get back to the line of scrimmage (there are both defensive and offensive players chasing the ball downfield on long passes). You have to understand that in football, each tick of the clock is precious, and accounts ONLY for true football action. The clock does continue to run after a running type of play, but I can assure you that there are rules about making the next play within a certain time limit, and that rule is STRICTLY enforced.

If a team is good enough to hold the ball for a long time and run the clock down, they are worthy winners of the game anyway. Intentionally holding the ball is a skill in football.

Yes, but in the game of American football, there are limitations on what you can do to slow the game down. You can't just grab the ball and throw it all the way downfield, and then have your players sloooowly amble back to the line of scrimmage for the next play, while the clock is ticking the whole time!! Sorry, you don't get to cheat like that!

Damnation....if you like the "thrill" of not knowing exactly how much time there is left in the game, then why even have a fricking clock on the field AT ALL?? :shock: :shakehead: Why not just have a judge anounce to everybody on the public address system when the game is finally over?? uke:

Yes... That's part of the entertainment. However, everybody in football knows that there is going to be at least 3 mins of added time to allow for the substitutions. An average game has about 3-5 mins added time.

Which means that soccer lacks the excitement and suspense that football has during a very close game that remains that way all the way to the end. No "playing the clock", no trick-plays that are designed to produce last-second scores. I find that sad. Soccer enthusiasts are missing out on a very significant part of the game, simply because they don't have enough sense to make the CLOCK a serious part of the game.

I feel like I'm gonna repeat what I said above... In football the small stoppages are part of the game, and the players should get the ball moving again ASAP. The referee ensures the action doesn't stop longer than necessary, he has the power to book a player for intentionally slowing the game down... In a way, referee's decision is the final decision. You just have to trust him....

It's the same way in American football, only you don't have to "trust" the referees. The clocks are plainly visible to everybody in the stadium, and everybody can see when a team takes too long to start the play: the play-clock expires, and the team is immediately penalized. It's simple. It's LOGICAL.

However, there is nothing the referee or the players can do when it comes to injuries. In such cases it might be more fair to have a clearly visible stop clock so that everybody knows how long will be added at the end of the game.

Newsflash: simply STOP THE GAME-CLOCK during an injury, for chrissake.

However, we like our sport as it is, and players and supporters have trust in the referee.... Well, usually the top referees in the top leagues are good enough...

I can only laugh at the idea of what might happen if referees told an American football crowd, "Hey, we're taking the clocks down. We'll let ya know when the game is over!" :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Your argument is based on the assumption that the timing in football is flawed and teams can gain an unfair advantage through abusing the clock...I think apart from the name "football", the two sports have nothing in common.

The most important difference between football and soccer, and it's a profound one, is that football proceeds ONE PLAY AT A TIME. I cannot overemphasize the importance of that.

I actually don't understand why you call it football.. You should have called it American Rugby or something.

It's called "football" because kicking is a very important part of the game. One way to score is to kick the ball through the opponent's goalposts. When a team plays all its available "downs" and is forced to turn over possession of the ball to the other team, it almost always "punts" (kicks) the ball to the other team.

 

[ali777]

Every pass is part of the game, why do you stop the game after an incomplete pass???

I already explained the reason for that in plain English: because it takes too long to retrieve balls and players from WAAAAAY downfield, back to the line of scrimmage, to start the next play.

For you soccer players who don't know anything about the game of football, here's the very first thing you need to learn: football is a game that proceeds ONE PLAY AT A TIME. Each tick of the clock is precious, and is reserved for only true football action.

You don't understand how soccer is played, and I have the feeling this argument is completely pointless...

Your football is a tactical game with lots of stops and goes. In soccer we don't have that. Even if you do kick the ball "downfield", the game is in action. We don't stop because a player has failed to deliver the ball to its intended recipient. If the ball goes to a wrong place, the players simply chase the ball and play on. From our point of view, your stops and goes are just silly. We will never understand why you have to stop the game in such scenario.

Gaining an unfair advantage by kicking the ball out of the pitch is impossible these days. There are ball boys around the pitch who give a new ball to the players. There is always a ball available. The only way of gaining an unfair advantage in football is through faking a foul, even this doesn't work with the top referees.

Okay, I understand now that retrieving the ball itself is not a serious concern. But what about retrieving THE PLAYERS THEMSELVES? Like I said before, in the game of football, it would take too much time for players from both teams to get back to the line of scrimmage (there are both defensive and offensive players chasing the ball downfield on long passes).

Scrimmage??? Why do you stop the game for the opposition to re-organise themselves?? They should be tactically astute enough not to get caught in that situation in the first place. If they aren't defensively aware, they deserve to lose the game.

Our game is continuous, yours isn't....

You have to understand that in football, each tick of the clock is precious, and accounts ONLY for true football action. The clock does continue to run after a running type of play, but I can assure you that there are rules about making the next play within a certain time limit, and that rule is STRICTLY enforced.

Guess what... We don't stop for a beer or a TV commercial break.

If a team is good enough to hold the ball for a long time and run the clock down, they are worthy winners of the game anyway. Intentionally holding the ball is a skill in football.

Yes, but in the game of American football, there are limitations on what you can do to slow the game down. You can't just grab the ball and throw it all the way downfield, and then have your players sloooowly amble back to the line of scrimmage for the next play, while the clock is ticking the whole time!! Sorry, you don't get to cheat like that!

Your game is based on tactics and power, ours is based on tactics and skills. Our players spread around the pitch in a way that what you call a scrimmage is part of a running game. We do not stop the game for "plays", we always play.

Besides, in our game controlling the speed of the game is a skill only the best can achieve. If a team is good enough to keep possession of the ball and just run "downfield" with the ball, they are worthy winners.

Damnation....if you like the "thrill" of not knowing exactly how much time there is left in the game, then why even have a fricking clock on the field AT ALL?? :shock: :shakehead: Why not just have a judge anounce to everybody on the public address system when the game is finally over?? uke:

Yes... That's part of the entertainment. However, everybody in football knows that there is going to be at least 3 mins of added time to allow for the substitutions. An average game has about 3-5 mins added time.

Which means that soccer lacks the excitement and suspense that football has during a very close game that remains that way all the way to the end. No "playing the clock", no trick-plays that are designed to produce last-second scores. I find that sad. Soccer enthusiasts are missing out on a very significant part of the game, simply because they don't have enough sense to make the CLOCK a serious part of the game.

Of course we have last minute goals. If a team is losing, in the last 5-10 mins of the game they are literally bombarding the opposition goal. If they can't score in the alloted time, tough luck...

It's the same way in American football, only you don't have to "trust" the referees. The clocks are plainly visible to everybody in the stadium, and everybody can see when a team takes too long to start the play: the play-clock expires, and the team is immediately penalized. It's simple. It's LOGICAL.

After major refereeing errors, there is always the discussion of introducing video referees or implanting electronic chips into the balls. However, the lack of clock has never been an issue.

In my earlier post, I said that the game is becoming mechanical. We like that human element in the game, and human errors are part of it. By human errors I don't mean only refereeing errors, but errors by the players as well. We want to see players being creative, taking an initiative and doing something different. The referees are part of that human element.

If a game is won simply by tactics without the players expressing themselves on the pitch, then all the games would be the same and there is no point of watching the same action all over again. We don't want only the managers to decide the fate of the game, we want the team to play well as a collective unit with the individual players doing something "out of the box".

However, there is nothing the referee or the players can do when it comes to injuries. In such cases it might be more fair to have a clearly visible stop clock so that everybody knows how long will be added at the end of the game.

Newsflash: simply STOP THE GAME-CLOCK during an injury, for chrissake.

I've already told you... Injuries are timed and added to the game... We have "the 4th official" who times stoppages and signals the added time at the end of the game. So everybody knows how long will be added to the game.

However, I also admitted, the injury clock isn't a "universal clock" like in your game. We have the universal 90 mins clock, and the 4th official's injury clock. So, we do place a certain trust in the 4th official.

However, we like our sport as it is, and players and supporters have trust in the referee.... Well, usually the top referees in the top leagues are good enough...

I can only laugh at the idea of what might happen if referees told an American football crowd, "Hey, we're taking the clocks down. We'll let ya know when the game is over!" :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Well.. It's not exactly like that.. The 4th official signals the added time to everybody, however, referee's decision is the final decision.

Your argument is based on the assumption that the timing in football is flawed and teams can gain an unfair advantage through abusing the clock...I think apart from the name "football", the two sports have nothing in common.

The most important difference between football and soccer, and it's a profound one, is that football proceeds ONE PLAY AT A TIME. I cannot overemphasize the importance of that.

Well.. Exactly.. Why do you compare American football to soccer?? They have nothing in common...

Your game is one play at a time, and in between the plays you stop the game. Your game lasts for 4 hours because you stop for a beer, TV commercial, toilet break, water break, cheerleader dance, etc...

We play non-stop for 2x45 mins.... If the ref is not good enough to keep the ball in play, then we lose out and the game turns into a nightmare. We can't get rid of the men in black (they aren't necessarily in black these days), we love to hate them.

Imagine John McEnroe's passion and his arguments with the umpires, that's what made him special for the supporters. 20-30 years on, we may not remember his skills but we remember his arguments. It's the same in football, the referees are part of the game.

I actually don't understand why you call it football.. You should have called it American Rugby or something.

It's called "football" because kicking is a very important part of the game. One way to score is to kick the ball through the opponent's goalposts. When a team plays all its available "downs" and is forced to turn over possession of the ball to the other team, it almost always "punts" (kicks) the ball to the other team.

So, the fundamentals of your game are the same as Rugby??? I still don't understand why you created a sport largely based on rugby and then called it football??

Bryan you are a clever man... Why did you start this argument in the first place? Our games are too different to compare. I'm giving up... We'll never agree...

 

[Bryan]

For you soccer players who don't know anything about the game of football, here's the very first thing you need to learn: football is a game that proceeds ONE PLAY AT A TIME. Each tick of the clock is precious, and is reserved for only true football action.

You don't understand how soccer is played, and I have the feeling this argument is completely pointless...

Judging by some of the astonishingly ill-informed things you go on to say later in this same post, I think it's pretty likely that _I_ know more about soccer than YOU know about football. Even if it drives me crazy, I'm going to make you understand what it is about football that makes it such a great game!!

Your football is a tactical game with lots of stops and goes. In soccer we don't have that. Even if you do kick the ball "downfield", the game is in action. We don't stop because a player has failed to deliver the ball to its intended recipient. If the ball goes to a wrong place, the players simply chase the ball and play on. From our point of view, your stops and goes are just silly. We will never understand why you have to stop the game in such scenario.

Ali777, please listen to me very carefully. I'm going to try to explain this to you one more time, and this time from an even simpler point-of-view than I've done before: the game of American football is a very forceful game, a game of sheer physicality. While it's possible to score points against your opponent in a way that is quite analogous to the game of soccer (you can kick the football through a certain specific area of your opponent's end of the playing field, which scores three points), the preferred way to score points is to FORCE the ball over your opponent's goal-line, which scores a "touchdown" (six points, which is better than the three points of a field goal). The key word there is FORCE. The play continues until the person with the ball either scores a touchdown, or is TACKLED by an opposing player. At that instant, the play is over.

Now here's the important thing that you need to understand: when an offensive player carrying the ball is tackled, that play MUST stop immediately. Why? Because if the play were allowed to continue, we would have all the players rolling around on the ground for the full hour, wrestling for the ball. But that's NOT what the game of football is about. It's about making exactly ONE PLAY OF INTENSE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY AT A TIME, ENDING AT THE INSTANT THE PLAYER WITH THE BALL IS UPENDED.

Do you finally understand the simple significance of that? Because tackling isn't allowed in the game of soccer, it's perfectly reasonable for all those players to spend half an hour or so of continuous play, kicking that ball up and down the field from player to player, in an effort to (finally) get the ball kicked into one of the nets. But such is FAR from the case in the game of football: every play ends when the player with the ball gets tackled, with the exception of the plays when touchdowns are scored, or passes fall to the ground incomplete. Then they set-up for the NEXT play, which begins only a few seconds later.

Scrimmage??? Why do you stop the game for the opposition to re-organise themselves?? They should be tactically astute enough not to get caught in that situation in the first place. If they aren't defensively aware, they deserve to lose the game.

Hopefully, you can now explain the answer to that, yourself. We stop the game after each play because THAT PLAY IS OVER. Each play proceeds until the player with the ball is tackled. Then the tackled player gets back up off the ground (and dusts himself off! ), and then all the players line-up again on the line of scrimmage to start the next play.

Guess what... We don't stop for a beer or a TV commercial break.

Neither do we, in non-televised games. High school football games would be obvious examples of that.

Your game is based on tactics and power, ours is based on tactics and skills. Our players spread around the pitch in a way that what you call a scrimmage is part of a running game. We do not stop the game for "plays", we always play.

And now I hope you finally understand why. There is VIOLENCE and TACKLING in our game. When a person carrying the ball goes down, the play is blown dead and the next one proceeds shortly afterwards.

Of course we have last minute goals. If a team is losing, in the last 5-10 mins of the game they are literally bombarding the opposition goal. If they can't score in the alloted time, tough luck...

Yes, but a soccer team only knows the amount of remaining time to within a pretty large margin of error. In football, we know the remaining amount of time literally TO THE SECOND.

After major refereeing errors, there is always the discussion of introducing video referees or implanting electronic chips into the balls. However, the lack of clock has never been an issue.

Yeah, and a man who has been completely blind his entire life has no idea what he's missing. Look...for the love of god, JUST USE THE FRICKING CLOCK FOR WHAT IT'S INTENDED in any sporting event, which is to let everybody see (players and fans alike) how much time is left in the game, and I mean TO THE SECOND. I can't believe I have to explain the obvious over and over and over! :mrgreen:

Your game is one play at a time, and in between the plays you stop the game. Your game lasts for 4 hours because you stop for a beer, TV commercial, toilet break, water break, cheerleader dance, etc...

I think 4 hours is a bit of an exaggeration...I think the great majority of them don't last THAT long. And I WANT to be able to stop every now and then for a beer, or for a toilet or water break! I don't mind the cheerleaders, either!!

I actually don't understand why you call it football.. You should have called it American Rugby or something.

It's called "football" because kicking is a very important part of the game. One way to score is to kick the ball through the opponent's goalposts. When a team plays all its available "downs" and is forced to turn over possession of the ball to the other team, it almost always "punts" (kicks) the ball to the other team.

So, the fundamentals of your game are the same as Rugby??? I still don't understand why you created a sport largely based on rugby and then called it football??

I don't know. Is there anything wrong with doing that? From what I've heard from all you European guys, it sounds to me like we borrowed the game of Rugby, then carefully and painstakingly worked on it, modified it, and improved it over the years; we debugged it, and developed it into the "Beautiful Game" that it is today!

 

[optimus prime]

I already explained the reason for that in plain English: because it takes too long to retrieve balls and players from WAAAAAY downfield, back to the line of scrimmage, to start the next play.

For you soccer players who don't know anything about the game of football, here's the very first thing you need to learn: football is a game that proceeds ONE PLAY AT A TIME. Each tick of the clock is precious, and is reserved for only true football action. The clock doesn't run while the referees are standing around on the field discussing a penalty that they're about to impose on a team after a bad play (in such a situation, the referees immediately stop the clock). The clock doesn't run after a team scores points by either a touchdown, field goal, or safety, because it takes a fair amount of time to get the players on both sides set-up again for the ensuing kickoff (or point-after-touchdown, in the case of the touchdown). And most assuredly, the clock doesn't run if a quarterback throws the ball WAAAAY downfield in a failed effort to connect with a distant receiver. That's because it would take too long for everybody to get back to the line of scrimmage, and members of a team who were already ahead could deliberately take their time and drag their feet while doing that, if the clock were still ticking.

Nobody is arguing with you there. American football needs to stop the clock.

I'm going to try to explain this to you one more time, and this time from an even simpler point-of-view than I've done before: the game of American football is a very forceful game, a game of sheer physicality. While it's possible to score points against your opponent in a way that is quite analogous to the game of soccer (you can kick the football through a certain specific area of your opponent's end of the playing field, which scores three points), the preferred way to score points is to FORCE the ball over your opponent's goal-line, which scores a "touchdown" (six points, which is better than the three points of a field goal). The key word there is FORCE. The play continues until the person with the ball either scores a touchdown, or is TACKLED by an opposing player

You need more evidence other than people refer to American Football quotes and you stop the clock to prove American Football is better.

You stop the clock and you’re more physical. Rugby also stops the clock is more physical. Rugby also scores points by kick through the posts.

Based on that theory, Rugby is a far better game than American Football. It is more physical than your sport. The players are bigger and stronger in Rugby than American Football, they don’t wear protection and they don’t get a rest bite to gather themselves.

Yeah, and a man who has been completely blind his entire life has no idea what he's missing. Look...for the love of god, JUST USE THE FRICKING CLOCK FOR WHAT IT'S INTENDED in any sporting event, which is to let everybody see (players and fans alike) how much time is left in the game, and I mean TO THE SECOND. I can't believe I have to explain the obvious over and over and over! :mrgreen:

The time factor really doesn’t determine whether a sport is better than another. How ‘better’ a sport is, is entirely down to an individual. Someone may be a cricket fan, therefore his/her best sport is cricket. They prefer the slow strategy game that takes all day. If you have to determine if a sport is better than another surely it is by how popular it is. Therefore Soccer/Football wins. It is the most popular sport in the world.

I don't know. Is there anything wrong with doing that? From what I've heard from all you European guys, it sounds to me like we borrowed the game of Rugby, then carefully and painstakingly worked on it, modified it, and improved it over the years; we debugged it, and developed it into the "Beautiful Game" that it is today!

Or it’s just a pussys version.

[youtube:19u0s2qu]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83U_Vg1GRvA[/youtube:19u0s2qu]

 

[ali777]

Basically, what you are saying is that you work for 8 hours a day, but every single time you go to the toilet, you check your personal emails, you log onto this forum, etc your employer stops the clock?

Or, do your employer and you make an effort to get as much work done as possible in the alloted 8 hours a day?

What's so difficult to understand about it? Tackles are part of the game, and we know a game is done in 90 mins. If the players don't make an effort to play, they get punished. Just like your boss would sack you, if you were wasting your time.

If you think about it, employers get ripped off with all the breaks the employees have. They should use a stop watch for all the employees, so that each employee works every single second he/she gets paid for.

Now, in business, which model are you? American football or soccer?

 

[ali777]

I have to agree with optimus there... Bryan made a very good case for "Rugby" in his previous post....

 

[Bryan]

Nobody is arguing with you there. American football needs to stop the clock.

Wow! We're finally making some progress here!

It was astonishing to me to see "ali777" make the statement that "From our point of view, your stops and goes are just silly. We will never understand why you have to stop the game in such scenario." That's such a bizarre statement, it sounds Martian to me. It clearly is something that would be said only by someone with no real knowledge at all of the game of football.

You need more evidence other than people refer to American Football quotes and you stop the clock to prove American Football is better.

I'll leave it up to others to decide for themselves which is more interesting and exciting: (1) kicking a ball around a field for 90 minutes until it finally goes into a net; or (2) running and passing a ball to your teammates, who then try to POUND that ball across the goal-loan (taking numerous defensive players with them), and SMASHING the other team's offensive players into a bloody pulp, preventing them from doing the same thing.

Which of those two descriptions sounds more exciting to YOU?

You stop the clock and you’re more physical. Rugby also stops the clock is more physical. Rugby also scores points by kick through the posts.

Based on that theory, Rugby is a far better game than American Football. It is more physical than your sport. The players are bigger and stronger in Rugby than American Football, they don’t wear protection and they don’t get a rest bite to gather themselves.

Sounds like a good game. I should look into it. Unfortunately, though, if what you say is accurate, it sounds like the game is poorly designed. It's dangerous and foolhardy to play a game that physical without protective gear. Many football players have suffered grievous injuries, even WITH their protective gear.

The time factor really doesn’t determine whether a sport is better than another. How ‘better’ a sport is, is entirely down to an individual. Someone may be a cricket fan, therefore his/her best sport is cricket. They prefer the slow strategy game that takes all day. If you have to determine if a sport is better than another surely it is by how popular it is. Therefore Soccer/Football wins. It is the most popular sport in the world.

Sure, but you can't make a direct comparison between two such sports unless you indertstand them both. So many people around the world play soccer just because it was taught to them when they were kids. They don't have a clue about the game of football. The fact that they know only soccer and not football doesn't really mean a thing. It's just a cultural thing.

 

[HughJass]

I can't believe this conversation has gone on as long as it has.

 

[Bryan]

Basically, what you are saying is that you work for 8 hours a day, but every single time you go to the toilet, you check your personal emails, you log onto this forum, etc your employer stops the clock?

Or, do your employer and you make an effort to get as much work done as possible in the alloted 8 hours a day?

What's so difficult to understand about it? Tackles are part of the game, and we know a game is done in 90 mins. If the players don't make an effort to play, they get punished. Just like your boss would sack you, if you were wasting your time.

LOL! I appreciate your efforts to try to justify the concept of continuous play like you have in soccer, but it just wouldn't work very well in the game of football. One reason for that is, as I pointed out before, the existence of TACKLING in the game. It complicates things too much, merely to assign some specific period of 90 minutes (or whatever) to the game. Far too much opportunity for the team that's ahead near the end of the game to drag their feet. The way the game is played now (one play at a time, with a second-by-second clock) is simple, logical, and elegant.

 

[ali777]

Contrary to what primus says, I don't think in rugby the clock is stopped after tackles. The ref blows the whistle and tells the players to back off and the game resumes immediately. It's the same in football. The ref blows the whistle and players back off immediately...

From what you are saying, in American football, rather than backing off your players actually keep jumping on the player holding the ball... Why don't they just make an effort to back off immediately?

This is where our culture differs. We like that continuous play, and we get annoyed at players that intentionally waste time. We prefer goals to be scored as part of a fluent game, rather than in set plays. Set plays are part of football as well, and half the goals are probably scored in set plays but from supporters point of view, we prefer goals scored in open play.

PS: the action of kicking the ball in football is termed as passing, we use our feet to pass the ball...
PS2: lots of players suffer broken legs, it's a misconception that there is no tackling in football.

 

[The Gardener]

.

 

[ali777]

Why doesn't "I agree" animation work?

Anyway, I agree that this topic is gone for too long....

Until 1 billion people watch Super Bowl this topic is absolutely pointless..

 

[powersam]

I can't believe this conversation has gone on as long as it has.

bryan is a lost cause on this subject. there are other threads just as long as this on the subject, it's always him vs whoever else is silly enough to get involved in it. the guy cannot accept that people may have differing opinions about what makes up a good sport.

 

[optimus prime]

I'll leave it up to others to decide for themselves which is more interesting and exciting

We do, Oh we do...lol. The world says....

Contrary to what primus says, I don't think in rugby the clock is stopped after tackles.

Sorry, maybe I was misunderstood. The clock only stops when play stops. Play doesn’t stop for tackles in Rugby, the clock stop when it’s out of touch/foul/try, that sort of thing.

it's always him vs whoever else is silly enough to get involved in it.

I know, I can’t help myself, really I can’t. Hahaha