--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Jan Coffey > > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 03:47 PM > > To: Killer Bs Discussion > > Subject: Shouldn't this have read N->F<-L ? Re: NHL observation > > > > I have the perfect solution to all your problems. Stop > > watching Grid- Iron and watch Rugby Football instead. > > I watched the ManU(re)/Villa game last night, and our party included a young English woman. Before the soccer match began, they were running the tape of the Seattle/Greenbay game, and she expressed an amazement that this game was somehow "entertaining" and made exactly the same points about Rugby being a better game that you outlined. > > > Grid-Iron is boring. It's nearly unbearable. Out of 10 minutes of > > viewing there is about 45 seconds of action. And that is if you are > > lucky. The game keeps stopping. There just doesn't seem to be any end > > to the reasons to stop the clock. > > Not to mention if you're at the field and play just... stops... for no... reason... until you realize wait, there IS a reason, this game is televised, and they're stopping for commercials. > > > Grid-Iron is predictable. 9 out of 10 times they will do exactly the > > same thing with the ball. Throw it forward to the tight end of one of > > the runners. These players will either catch the ball and be tackled, > > or not catch the ball. No finding holes, no running through. On the > > off chance that this kind of play does happen, the big slow fat guy > > with the ball goes to ground after just 10 yards. Never is there any > > attempt to move the ball to a more advantageous position, never does > > the game continue. It's like watching really bad tennis players. Did > > I mention that the game keeps stopping? > > The game is, in some sense, "solved" towards gaining 1st downs, not for massive plays.
Thus, les action, less adrinalin, less fun. > Although rugby is the only sport where I know someone who was bitten in by one of their own teammates, I do think Rugby is a much gentler sport, despite the lack of protective gear. Players don't try to actually hurt people, whereas it seems to happen all the time in football To be fair there are many Rugby sides (teams) which use a play dirty tactic. In 15 per side Rugby when the side is composed of many large and tough forwards, and backs that are not as speedy, they often resort to trying to intnetionaly injure the other sides backs, thus giving them the advantage with the better forwards. The problem with this is of course that in Rugby, such violations do not go unpunnished, and the Rugby punishment is much more severe. The mildest being the ball being turned over or a kick for yardage, the most usual being a kick for 3 points (in Rugby the scorring team gets the ball after the score), another common penalty is a yellow card, that means 10 minutes with 1 less player. The most severe is a red card, the rest of the game (and often the following game) is played without the carded player. Such a stratagy usualy leads to a lot of lost games, and in club play, it means not being envited to play at all. > > Each player in rugby has to use their intellect and athletic ability > > to move the ball forward as a team. > > team team team! Watching the OU/LSU game with my housemate, we were both complaining that its the same 3-4 people in every play.. The Sugarboal. (Why do they call it a boal?) OU looked like they didn't care, but then the LSU defence was rolling over them. The Greenbay - Seahawks game was much more interesting. Still, it would be a much more interesting game if they just did away with the forwards leaving a 5 or 6 man team. It would not seriously alter the game as the forwards tipicaly do nothing more than sumo wresteling. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
