Aargh - having a really bad day. I mean 2 yards. Still wrong, but at least you could “increase” to 2 m.
And also, I believe, that “goals” scored in penalty shootouts don’t contribute to statistics like a player’s goals scored in a season, career etc.
Wow, how do you spell h-i-j-a-c-k? hehheh
Obviously not a Giants/Parcells fan from the early 90’s. The Giants/Bills superbowl was one of the greatest games of all time. That’s just my opinion, of course. (Still living down last year’s debacle in San Fran.)
Sounds a lot like the NFL 50 years ago, which is to say it doesn’t sound half bad. If there is ever any televised rugby, I’ll check it out. (Back then the forward pass was illegal.) Also, football and rugby share the rule about off-the-ball tackles…you can only tackle the guy with the ball. The distinction was about Hockey, where you cannot tackle anybody, and the hits you’re allowed to do in Hockey (against only the puck-handler) are a watered down version of blocking, which you can do against anybody on the field.
I completely agree. I think the analogy I originally put forth still holds: Put a modern day boxer in the bare-knuckle style of 100 years ago and they’d be shocked, but it doesn’t detract from the fact that the boxers of today hit much harder. Most solid punches of today would break the hand if not for the gloves.
I take nothing away from rugby as a sport of men and brutality. I think Football diverged to have (slightly?) more strategy/tactics, and harder hits. This debate is often engaged in sports bars, and I’ve often thrown in the (wildly unsupported) claim that the NFL is the most brutal sport based on the life-expectancy and post-career surgeries required by its players. Except for boxing, of course, but boxing isn’t a team sport. (But nobody in the sports bars I go to know anything about rugby, and off-hand I would imagine rugby is similar to the NFL in terms of post-career “life sucks-iness”)
Yeah, I’ve never liked Phil Taylor myself. Also, it’s clear he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. From the article:
“Will those people like the league better if it’s populated by more Caucasians whose names they can’t pronounce? If Antoine Walker and Jermaine O’Neal don’t suit your taste, will you really prefer Zarko Cabarkapa or Sofoklis Schortsanitis?”
Only one problem – Schortsanitis isn’t white.
Guy probably didn’t even watch the draft…
Yes, well, regarding Phil Taylor. I’m sure Ralph Wiley just read that column and is kicking himself for not thinking of it first.
Remember that Wiley is the guy who thinks Hoosiers is racist because Hackman’s team defeats a team with blacks on it for the championship. Or who thinks that Bill James’ belief that managers shouldn’t steal so much is because he resents the achievements of blacks.
Back to football.
Quite right. The gloves allow you to hit harder, they don’t do much to protect the other guy’s face. Same with pads, they help you hit harder - although they do give some protection to the hittee. That said, there’s always several concussions, injured spines, ankle injuries, knee injuries and what have you over the course of a season. Not that there isn’t in rugby, but American football hits at least as hard as rugby.
Ellis Dee,
If you’re interested in seeing Rugby (and have cable), I recommend checking out Fox Sports Network. They regularly show Rugby matches all the time. Currently, they are televising the Tri-Nations Cup (rugby matches among Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa).
It took me a while to figure out all the nuances of the sport, but I quite like watching it (still haven’t figured out the strategic purpose of kicking away the ball). I used to follow the NFL in my younger days, but I’m not much interested in it anymore.
Note: Fox Sports Network (along with Sky Sports) broadcasts not only Rugby, but also Australian Rules football, and soccer from around the world: MLS, English, Scottish, German, Spanish, Brazilian, and Argentine league matches. They even broadcast A-League soccer matches (one of the US’s lower leagues).
Are you sure of which Rugby code Fox new is showing ?
That sounds like Rugby Union to me, in which case the kicks are all about gaining territory, and not getting caught with the ball close to your own lines.
Gaining field position in Rugby Union is fairly slow, and because of the numerous possible infringements it is very easy to commit some offence and turnover posession, one good kick cuts that out.
It’s one of the things I dislike about Rugby Union, that you get the type of game that degenerates into swapping kicks up and down and loads of stoppages.
Rugby Union at its best involves lots of interchanges, passing and expansive movement, but it is rare you see this.
Rugby League is a more ball running game.It too can get bogged down if the defenses on both teams are on top of the offenses, but there are tactics that can alleviate this.
I disagree that marketing has much to do with the success of the NFL.As others have mentioned it is simply an exciting and probably the most dramatic team sport to watch.
Baseball:I watch baseball(Go Marinerts!) adn enjoy it nowadays but I could not sit through an inning when I was younger.Even now I must aknowledge that there is a lot of “waiting for something cool to happen” in baseball.Also, the athleticism involved in baseball is such that one can concieveably be a cigarette-smoking, 43 year old, overweight man and still be playing the game as long as he can hit or pitch(remember Babe Ruth?).
Even a punter or kicker in the NFL could not be so slack and remain in the league(training camps alone have killed NFL players and they didn’t even smoke!).
This is not to say that baseball if full of such types(in fact such a person would probably be rare at best).Most are very physically fit athletes, but my point is that they don’t really NEED to be.
Edgar Martinez cannot run, catch, throw, pitch, slide, dive or jump and he is still an all-star player!
Soccer/European Football:Incredible athletes…I will grant them that.I have played soccer, football, baseball, and basketball and soccer can land you in oxygen debt with the quickness.
But I am sorry…as a spectator sport it is just about as boring as things get.The only dramatic pauses seem to occur on penalty kicks and corner kicks and the latter seems akin to the “hail mary” play of American football where the ball is sent into a throng and everyone hopes for the best.
The rest of the time is just guys runing back and forth non-stop kicking a ball.
Hockey:Soccer on ice only harder to watch than either soccer or ice skating.
Nfl football has elements of strategy, tactics, ballet-like agility and grace, war-like brutality and a true sense of urgency since these teams train their entire offseason to be able to play 16 games!Every game…just about every play counts!I wish baseball would take a page out of the NFL’s playbook and simply have one game a week for 20 weeks or so.Then they would not need 6 starting pitchers, another 6 relief pitchers and all that.
The preceding is ENTIRELY subjective adn is not meant as a knock against fans of other sports.
Go Seahawks!
No, I disagree completely. While football has an advantage in its format for better television viewing, it’s the NFL’s marketing machine that has brought it to the top. There’s a reason that the Super Bowl is as hyped as it is and that’s because the NFL heavily markets it and has done so. NFL Films helps a ton. Marketing is the biggest reason for the NFL’s rise to the top, along with MLB’s idiocy in PR issues. More power to the NFL, IMHO.
As for it being more dramatic, that’s silly. Remember Kirk Gibson in '88? The 2002 WS Game 6? The 2001 Games 4, 5 and 7? Bucky Dent? Bill Mazeroski? Bill Buckner? Bobby Thompson (The Giants win the pennant! The Giants win the pennant!)? The '98 home run race? The 1991 World Series and Morris going scoreless for 10?
Not that football isn’t dramatic, mind you? But the most dramatic? No way. Baseball lends itself to more dramatics because there’s always the opportunity for last minute heroics and walk off, while it’s possible to just grind out the clock in football.
And let’s not leave basketball out of it, either.
I think you’ve all missed the point. The reason (American) football is popular is because it’s played in America.
This has nothing to do with patriotism. If you grow up with a sport, you’re going to be interested in that sport. It’s why Americans are into (their) football, the British are into soccer, Victorians are into AFL and New South Welshmen and Queenslanders like Rugby League.
Now, some random thoughts from someone who has grown up calling Rugby League “football”.
Rugby and Rugby League share this. You’ve got to play for field position, and that will eventually convert itself into points.
I’ll agree that Rugby doesn’t have the spectacular hits. That’s because Rugby players can’t tackle. Rugby League players are meancing however, and they hit as hard as an American football player and do so without padding. This is an intense game.
Rugby involves passing, and Rugby League depends on passing. If you don’t get the ball moving you get hammered. And if the ball goes “incomplete” (we call it a knock-on) you lose it, making ball handling even more important than in American football.
A rugby league halfback can and usually does play a similar role - he sets the plays, kicks, passes and runs all while facing down the advancing defence. Despite this, he is not as integral to the team as an NFL quarterback is.
I hope I don’t appear to be deriding American football. I really only watch the Superbowl each year, but I do enjoy it as a sport. It’s really fascinating as a game and does have that “event” feel about it. I was just pointing out that its “toughness” and the skill required to play it aren’t unique.
**
Let me re-phrase:I do not think the NFL’s marjeting preceded it’s popularity but rather the other way around.The sport became popular on it’s own merits and then people like Tex Shramm adn Pete Rosel(and others) contributed their marketing savy to increase popularity further.Interestingly however, in my experience people who are not interested in football or who dislike the sport only become MORE disinterested and resentful of it as it is advertised more and more.
Note that I DID say that I AM a baseball fan adn I agree that basenball has incredibly dramatic moments…just not as many or AS dramatic as football.Sorry.Remember the "miracle in Memphis that got the Titans into the Superbowl a few years back where they lost to the Rams in what was the most exciting Superbowl ever played?Mike Alstott’s one yard TD run(like 6 or 7 years ago) that has since become known as “THE one yard TD run”?(he broke , carried and ran over literally the entire defense without the aid of blockers and such on that play) ?“The catch”?(though I was a Cowboys fan back then and have always hated the Niners)?Randall Cunningham’s/Barry Sanders’/Michael Vick’s plays that were so incredible that they seemed to not even be real?!?
Tony Dorsett’s 99 yard TD run from scimmage?Roger Staubauch’s/John Elway’s/Joe Montanna’s various impossible comebacks?
All subjective of course but I think my point is made.
Disagree strongly.“Last minute heroics” happen in both sports and it is hard to say which has more of them but I have seen football games where they were literally rolling the credits adn the commentators were talking about what team so-and-so’s record would fall to when team so-and-so did something on the last play of the game that would be considered unrealistic if it were in the script of a movie about football and I see these things happen more often than the walk-off grand slam in the bottom of the 9th to win the game (which is odd considering baseball teasm play 162 games a year…EACH!COmpare to football’s 16…).
True dat. NFL Films has been combining some of the world’s most beautiful sports camerawork with sterling voiceover work that makes every play seem larger than life for some forty years now.
I’ve never understood why other sports don’t do this (outside of logistical problems for indoor sports). Highlights from other sports seem to be limited to just the video caught by the cameras used for the television broadcast, and they’re almost always put together as nearly-random clip shows with no sense of narrative, even when the highlights focus on one game.
NFL Films cameramen have the run of the field, looking to catch unique shots from unusual angles. You see everything from long shots of nothing but the ball in a tight spiral, tracking its entire flight from quarterback to reciever, to tight, slowmotion closeups of players on the sidelines on a cold day, their breath visible in the cold. Every play comes off as epic as a Hollywoodized historical piece and as graceful as the finest ballet.
I think the softer look of film versus video helps, too, though I’m not sure they use film anymore.
According to Fortune, NFL Films has been called “the most effective propaganda organ in the history of corporate America.” It’s hard to argue with that assessment.
Not a chance. NFL films started in 1962, five years before the Super Bowl was created. The marketing machine began before football was even in the same league as baseball in terms of popularity and has steadily increased it’s share. Marketing came first. Pete Rozell’s genius is the main reason the NFL has become the powerhouse it is. Which is not to say that football isn’t a great game, I’m a big fan. But nearly everything the NFL enjoys today can be tied back to Rozell.
Yes, your point is made. Football has had many dramatic moments, I didn’t mean to imply different. Baseball has had more. But football has the marketing machine to keep them in people’s minds.
Second, the Rams vs. the Titans was the most exciting Super Bowl ever played? whatWhatWHAT?? Broncos vs Packers just a few years earlier was twenty times the game that one was! Rams vs Titans sucked until the last quarter.
Oh please. First off, you’re comparing apples to oranges. A walk off grand slam is not the only source of late game dramatics, and to compare it to anything except a successful Hail Mary is silly. Third, last at-bat wins are fairly frequent in baseball. Cincinnati itself has had 20 something wins in their last at-bat. And they happen in a variety of ways. You just don’t see them because MLB is too stupid to market itself and you aren’t paying attention.
The forward pass was legal 50 years ago. It was legal 75 years ago. It was legal 97 years ago.
A 1953 NFL game wouldn’t have as much passing at it does today, but there was definitely passing. And if you were watching the Los Angeles Rams of the day, you would see a wide open offense.
You are correct.
[Quote from PFRA]
(http://www.footballresearch.com/articles/frpage.cfm?topic=runningspecies):
Apparently I was confusing the concept of “not in fashion” with “illegal.”
Not at all. I for one appreciate the insights.
**
I guess I am underestimating the importance that marketing played.Good points.
**
Well, a matter of perspective but the point remains…both sports have had their moments.
**
Another great game but did not match the Rams vs. Titans game which literally came down to the last play and one yard.
Woah!Calm down there fella’.I did not list all possible dramatic finishes vs. all possible dramatic finishes of football for obvious reasons.Also I never compared anything in baseball to a “hail mary”…you are mixed up.I said soccer corner kicks were reminiscent of a “hail Mary pass”.
Get a grip man.I am a fan of both baseball adn football, I just have the opinion that football is more exciting.It is nothing more than an opinion(just as YOUR opinion is not an objective fact).
I think a great reason for football’s popularity is its accessibility.
I grew up in Steeler Country, but this was only a part of the local football picture. Football was also played at several large colleges within a short drive that all were major NCAA powerhouses at various times. Pitt, Penn State and West Virginia were all right there, and each had it’s share of local fans.
Even bigger than this was football at the high school level. Western Pennsylvania has nothing on Texas when it comes to the popularity of high school football. Many NFL Hall of Famers (and at least one member of the Canadian Football Hall of Fame) cut their teeth on Pittsburgh-area gridirons. Put all of these high school games together, and the attendence would be several times that of a Steeler game.
Incidentally, the NFL knows this. Written into its bylaws is a provision barring Friday night play. The NFL says that this is out of respect to the young people playing that night in high school games. I suspect its to protect attendence at NFL events in parts of the country where high school ball is popular.
The point is that football, in season, is played everywhere, at many levels. The games are major social events in many communities. This is a major contributor to its popularity.
Mr. Moto: I fail to see how that distinguishes football from other major sports. Heck, if anything one would think basketball and baseball would be more accessible, and thus more popular, because the equipment needs are fewer (touch football notwithstanding). Certainly all three sports are played at the high school and college level, and their relative popularity depends on the region (football is indeed king in Texas, Alabama and Pennsylvania, but Indiana is basketball crazy).
Yep, and Indiana is, by comparison, not football crazy. The Colts don’t have the following there that they had in Baltimore, where Johnny U. was worshipped as a god.
Basketball and baseball are very accessible to play, but not as accessible to watch. College, high school and minor-league baseball don’t have the following that college and high-school football has. High school basletball is popular, and college ball is tremendously successful. The NBA is a disappointment by comparison, and has a fraction of the NFL viewership.
Football is popular at many levels of play as a spectator sport.
So, you’re saying that football is popular because it’s got a large following?
Julie