# Unique aspects of sports. **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [June 12, 2010, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unique-aspects-of-sports/542946 "2010-06-12T19:31:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Superhal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Superhal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superhal)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unique-aspects-of-sports/542946/101 "2010-06-15T10:17:41Z")
> [@penultima\_thule](#): > > Because I’m refuting your argument that “Baseball is the only sport where being left-handed is a **distinct, quantitative, and strategic** advantage.” on the grounds that it is not the only sport where being (or playing) left handed confers distinct and strategic advantages and you haven’t demonstrated that it is a quantifiable advantage. How is a shorter distance to first not quantifiable? ---
**Author:** ![Superhal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Superhal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superhal)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unique-aspects-of-sports/542946/102 "2010-06-15T11:41:05Z")
American football is the only ball game where the ball is not ball-shaped. Halfball is the only ball game where half of a ball is used. Hacky Sack (or footbag) is the only ball game where the ball is normally deflated but round in shape (as compared to bean bags.) Snooker uses the most balls (22) of any ball game with a limited (vs. pachinko) number of regular starting balls. ---
**Author:** ![penultima\_thule](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penultima_thule/32/3833_2.png) [@penultima\_thule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/penultima_thule)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unique-aspects-of-sports/542946/103 "2010-06-15T12:18:15Z")
> [@Superhal](#): > > American football is the only ball game where the ball is not ball-shaped. That’s no better than your last effort of American exceptionalism. Rugby union, rugby league, Australian Football all use (different) elipsoid shaped balls. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unique-aspects-of-sports/542946/104 "2010-06-15T14:54:48Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I have a couple of friends who’ve been to Nationals, and I think they’ve said that there still weren’t any officials there. I could double-check, though. Ultimate does utilize observers at least at some of the tournaments. The collegiate finals were here one year and there were observers on the field for that. If you watch highlights from the [USA vs. Japan](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFYwfvFJ2qM&feature=related) world championship game you can see some people dressed in gray that I believe are observers. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Dead\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Cat)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unique-aspects-of-sports/542946/105 "2010-06-15T16:20:48Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I’m not aware of any sport in which it’s a foul to throw a ball out of bounds. It’s not a foul in basketball. In football you don’t even lose possession. This is seen as a serious foul in Rugby Union, which usually results in a yellow card (and hence ten minutes off the pitch) for the offending player. > [@Jet\_Jaguar](#): > > Anyhow, golf is probably unique in that the players are also the referees, and that the players are expected to call fouls on themselves. This is true of croquet (though this is perhaps not a serious sport in the context of this thread), and the latter is true of snooker, even at World Championship level. > [@lisiate](#): > > I know it happened a while ago in a CONCACAF match due to weird tie break rules. By the end of the match both teams were defending each others’ goals. This was a football (soccer) match, not Aussie rules, where the tiebreak rules declared that if the game ended in a draw, the result should be settled by penalty shoot-out. A penalty shoot-out win was deemed a 2-0 win under the rules of the competition. In one game, Barbados needed a victory by 2 clear goals, but were leading 2-1 with only a few minutes left. The rest of the story is predictable and is well-told on [snopes](http://www.snopes.com/sports/soccer/barbados.asp). ---
**Author:** ![Suburban\_Plankton](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/suburban_plankton/32/219_2.png) [@Suburban\_Plankton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Suburban_Plankton)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unique-aspects-of-sports/542946/106 "2010-06-15T17:09:49Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > I’d have to check and see if the rules of baseball ever formally barred trees. There certainly were a few fields with trees in them, way back in the day. > > There are still one or two fields with flag poles or similar objects inside the wall. Then of course there are things like rolled field tarps which are in foul territory, but still potentially in play (perhaps impeding a fielder trying to make the play **Tanbarkie** is thinking of). > > Also still permitted in baseball fields, though rarely seen, are [hills](http://www.ballparkreviews.com/jc/jc4.jpg). That’s right-field fair territory in Johnson City, TN, a professional ballpark in the Cardinals system. Notice how the foul line runs up the slope, and the pole stands atop it. There is also a [hill (complete with flagpole)](http://waiversharks.com/files/2009/01/houston-astros-minute-maid-park-tals-hill.jpg) at Minute Maid Park, home of Major League Baseball’s Houston Astros. I’m not certain, but is baseball the only sport in which it is allowed for the playing field to be not entirely level? ETA: It took about half a second after hitting Submit to realize the answer to the preceding question is no. Golf ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unique-aspects-of-sports/542946/107 "2010-06-15T17:25:12Z")
> [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > I’m not certain, but is baseball the only sport in which it is allowed for the playing field to be not entirely level? > ETA: It took about half a second after hitting Submit to realize the answer to the preceding question is no. > > Golf In baseball, a non level field is a requirement if you include the pitcher’s mound. It’s not unique in this, however, [Crown Green Bowling](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Green_Bowls#Variations_of_play) is played on a convex pitch (with asymmetric balls). ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unique-aspects-of-sports/542946/108 "2010-06-15T18:47:32Z")
> [@penultima\_thule](#): > > That’s no better than your last effort of American exceptionalism. > > Rugby union, rugby league, Australian Football all use (different) elipsoid shaped balls. You can add Canadian football to that list. Also, I’m thinking tennis is the only sport where a player wins one unit (in tennis, point/game/set) at a time, but the winner must win by two or more units. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unique-aspects-of-sports/542946/109 "2010-06-15T18:51:18Z")
I think volleyball must also be won by two or more points, mustn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unique-aspects-of-sports/542946/110 "2010-06-15T18:53:39Z")
and table tennis, squash … ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unique-aspects-of-sports/542946/111 "2010-06-15T19:03:27Z")
Okay, let’s ignore that about tennis, then. Hey, I’m easy. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![fachverwirrt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/94ad74/32.png) [@fachverwirrt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fachverwirrt)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unique-aspects-of-sports/542946/112 "2010-06-15T19:15:31Z")
> [@Panurge](#): > > Actually in the case of cricket it is the exact opposite of both points above. In cricket the defensive team is the one batting as they try to defend their wicket. > [@Panurge](#): > > Scratch the above. I can’t find any references to confirm what I posted. In fact, the Laws of Cricket never (I think) refers to the teams in the terms of offence and defence but seems to use the terms “batting team” and “bowling team” in stead. I suppose one could say that both the batting and the bowling team are involved simultaneously in defending and attacking in some way. Weird. I think that a reasonable definition of “offense” is “the side actively trying to score points” while defense is “the side trying to prevent points from being scored”. By that definition, the batting team is on offense in cricket. ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unique-aspects-of-sports/542946/113 "2010-06-15T19:22:17Z")
The OP mentioned Hockey, but no one’s mentioned that it played in three halves, no quarters, er whatever. Any other sport have this? ---
**Author:** ![penultima\_thule](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penultima_thule/32/3833_2.png) [@penultima\_thule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/penultima_thule)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unique-aspects-of-sports/542946/114 "2010-06-15T22:14:05Z")
> [@fachverwirrt](#): > > I think that a reasonable definition of “offense” is “the side actively trying to score points” while defense is “the side trying to prevent points from being scored”. By that definition, the batting team is on offense in cricket. But the score in cricket isn’t measured in points, so the premise is wrong. Substitute either “runs” or “wickets” into that definition and you get different outcomes. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unique-aspects-of-sports/542946/115 "2010-06-15T22:26:27Z")
> [@fachverwirrt](#): > > I think that a reasonable definition of “offense” is “the side actively trying to score points” while defense is “the side trying to prevent points from being scored”. By that definition, the batting team is on offense in cricket. Cases vary. In some situations, the batting side is aggressively trying to score runs. In others, they are defensively trying to avoid losing wickets. (An example would be a team 150 runs behind in the last half-hour of a Test - a time-limited international - with seven men out. There is no hope of scoring the runs, but a reasonable hope of lasting out time.) And sometimes both can be true at once - a side can have both a chance of winning and a real risk of losing, which makes for extremely interesting cricket. Indeed, sometimes a fielding side will give up some easy runs to encourage the batting side to go for it, at increased risk of losing. ---
**Author:** ![Mahaloth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mahaloth/32/1079_2.png) [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unique-aspects-of-sports/542946/116 "2010-06-15T22:59:47Z")
> [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](#): > > The OP mentioned Hockey, but no one’s mentioned that it played in three halves, no quarters, er whatever. Any other sport have this? Well, tennis in most tournaments is played in three sets, but it’s not quite the same. It’s best of 3, actually, so it’s really not the same, but similar. ---
**Author:** ![fachverwirrt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/94ad74/32.png) [@fachverwirrt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fachverwirrt)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unique-aspects-of-sports/542946/117 "2010-06-15T23:44:02Z")
> [@penultima\_thule](#): > > But the score in cricket isn’t measured in points, so the premise is wrong. > Substitute either “runs” or “wickets” into that definition and you get different outcomes. That “points” are called “runs” doesn’t change anything. I realize that wickets are important, but at the end of the game, it is runs that matter. Yes there are cases (as **Malacandra** notes above) where a team can find themselves merely trying to defend wickets, but such a situation arises because they are _behind in runs_. Look at it this way. Take a 50-over ODI where the team batting first ends their innings at 250-10. The next team comes up and, while they very successfully defend their wicket, end the day at a mere 180-3. Who wins, the team with the most wickets, or the team with the most runs? ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unique-aspects-of-sports/542946/118 "2010-06-15T23:47:45Z")
> [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](#): > > The OP mentioned Hockey, but no one’s mentioned that it played in three halves, no quarters, er whatever. Any other sport have this? That would be three _periods_. Seriously, “halves”? I would have understood “thirds”, but “three halves”? Are you one of those people who always gives 110%? 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Dead\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Cat)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unique-aspects-of-sports/542946/119 "2010-06-15T23:50:33Z")
> [@fachverwirrt](#): > > That “points” are called “runs” doesn’t change anything. > > I realize that wickets are important, but at the end of the game, it is runs that matter. Yes there are cases (as **Malacandra** notes above) where a team can find themselves merely trying to defend wickets, but such a situation arises because they are _behind in runs_. > > Look at it this way. Take a 50-over ODI where the team batting first ends their innings at 250-10. The next team comes up and, while they very successfully defend their wicket, end the day at a mere 180-3. Who wins, the team with the most wickets, or the team with the most runs? In answer to your last question, the team with the most runs wins. But that is because it is a limited-overs game, whereas **Malacandra** was referring to situations that occur in limited-time games (usually 4 days or 5 days), where the batting team can be well behind in runs but play for a draw by batting defensively and conserving wickets. If the bowling side cannot get the batting side out, the match is drawn. ---
**Author:** ![fachverwirrt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/94ad74/32.png) [@fachverwirrt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fachverwirrt)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unique-aspects-of-sports/542946/120 "2010-06-15T23:53:46Z")
> [@Dead\_Cat](#): > > In answer to your last question, the team with the most runs wins. But that is because it is a limited-overs game, whereas **Malacandra** was referring to situations that occur in limited-time games (usually 4 days or 5 days), where the batting team can be well behind in runs but play for a draw by batting defensively and conserving wickets. If the bowling side cannot get the batting side out, the match is drawn. I understand that, but again, the reason that they are playing for a draw is because they are behind in runs. In the end, it is the runs that matter, and the number of wickets taken is ultimately not a measure of anything. Although, going back to the OP, cricket may be unique in allowing a draw when one team is losing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unique-aspects-of-sports/542946.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unique-aspects-of-sports/542946.md?page=7)