Forums

ForumsThe Tavern

Battle of the Brands (Current battle: pg. 176)

Posted Jun 14, '13 at 3:19pm

Riptizoid101

Riptizoid101

3,336 posts

There is no set definition on what a ball is. Hand-egg makes as much sense as foot-round. The ball is ovoid, just like a soccer ball is spherical.

Here the definition of ball. As you can see, the only exception to the definition and actually fulfills the criteria of being ovoid yet still being a ball is the game of rugby and American football.
However, even the 19th century game of rugby made distinctions between their balls and other balls of other sports, always referring it as a "rugby ball".
Also, it was called rugby, which is one thing I like. =P

Since you watch american football, you should be aware that the ball is kicked frequently with the foot, so the name does fit. =D

Sure, but not as frequently and as important as soccer. In fact, punting only gets you a point because the real objective and "point getter" of the game is to get a touchdown which requires mostly the usage of hands, teamwork, running, and some form or basis of a strategy.
I would think you would name the sport after the most important and frequent aspects of the game.

Also, the names can cause confusion between sports. Not many people say "American Football", but rather, just "Football".

Anyways, my vote still stands on FIFA.

 

Posted Jun 14, '13 at 11:58pm

xeano321

xeano321

2,562 posts

Knight

However, even the 19th century game of rugby made distinctions between their balls and other balls of other sports, always referring it as a "rugby ball".

It's called an American Football to you foreigners (don't take that as offensive), and here in the states we just call it a Football. It's really interesting, seeing the different definitions the assorted countries have for stuff.

Here the definition of ball.

It says it's usually spherical, not that it always has to be spherical.

Sure, but not as frequently and as important as soccer.

Not as important? Are you sure? The three points scored off of a field goal can frequently say who wins and who loses. I could give you example after example of this. Sure the kicking doesn't occur very often, but when it does, huge plays can happen. That's what is so cool about American Football. Any play could be a miracle.

punting only gets you a point

I thought you watched American Football... You don't score points from punts.

Also, the names can cause confusion between sports. Not many people say "American Football", but rather, just "Football".

I try to distinguish between the two while online, but it's not easy. Here in the states, when you say football, you're talking about American, while Soccer is used for Association.

Anyways, my vote still stands on FIFA.

Not trying to change your vote. Just discussing a rather interesting topic. =D

You like FIFA, no biggie.

 

Posted Jun 15, '13 at 12:24am

Riptizoid101

Riptizoid101

3,336 posts

It's called an American Football to you foreigners (don't take that as offensive)

I'm American, too. I don't know what gave off the impression that I'm not. Maybe my denunciation of football's name? Well, I've always been fond of foreign countries and have been traveling around a lot during the summers because of that. Still a full-fledged American, though.

I thought you watched American Football... You don't score points from punts.

My mistake. I don't really know why I said that. *facepalm* But you know what I mean. Field goals. xD The first and last time I confuse punting and field goal kicking.

Anyways, let's agree to disagree.
I mean, it's not exactly appropriate to debate American Football's name and it's other features in this thread, is it? It was a nice conversation, though. =)

 

Posted Jun 15, '13 at 1:25am

xeano321

xeano321

2,562 posts

Knight

Still a full-fledged American, though.

Stupid assumption on my part... Doh!

Anyways, let's agree to disagree.

Of course. Always nice to get a discussion going occasionally, even if this technically isn't the correct thread. =D

 

Posted Jun 15, '13 at 8:03am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,012 posts

Knight

I vote for football. Real football, i.e soccer. If I want to watch men slogging each other, which is brilliant once in a while, I prefer rugby infinitely. No armor, just flesh against flesh.

 

Posted Jun 15, '13 at 1:13pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,097 posts

Here the definition of ball. As you can see, the only exception to the definition and actually fulfills the criteria of being ovoid yet still being a ball is the game of rugby and American football.

it's not the only word they have stolen for their own use...

i dont like either of the 2 sports. but i still go for fifa. cause i can understand the tactics of it.  but as company fifa is pretty bad. i know nothing about the company behind american football. so i dunno if they are just as bad or not.

 

Posted Jun 15, '13 at 1:14pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,097 posts

If I want to watch men slogging each other, which is brilliant once in a while, I prefer rugby infinitely. No armor, just flesh against flesh. I prefer rugby infinitely. No armor, just flesh against flesh.

ditto

 

Posted Jun 15, '13 at 3:08pm

Terry_Logic

Terry_Logic

3,997 posts

I'm going with the Superbowl, because of the commercials. That's the only memorable part of it for me. I don't actually watch the football part. I have no real interest in it.

But as entertaining as football isn't, I find soccer even less entertaining. Especially if the two teams are the best in the world, not too many goals are going to be scored within the long hour and a half during which the match takes place. Look at the 2010 World Cup final score. One goal in the entire match, and it was scored in overtime. I'm sure it made overtime very interesting to watch, but that first 90 minutes.... I can't imagine myself sitting there and watching nobody score for such a long period of time.

 

Posted Jun 15, '13 at 9:14pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,012 posts

Knight

But as entertaining as football isn't, I find soccer even less entertaining. Especially if the two teams are the best in the world, not too many goals are going to be scored within the long hour and a half during which the match takes place. Look at the 2010 World Cup final score. One goal in the entire match, and it was scored in overtime. I'm sure it made overtime very interesting to watch, but that first 90 minutes.... I can't imagine myself sitting there and watching nobody score for such a long period of time.

I imagine most football fans would concur on that particular match. Whilst it's nice to have free-flowing scoring, it just reflects poorly on the team's defense. The near misses, attempts, drives, dribbles, passes are what makes football enjoyable, not just the goals. Which is saddening in many younger generation fans, away from the time where hard, no nonsense tackling, defending were the norm, rather than purely about scoring (at least in England).

 

Posted Jun 15, '13 at 9:36pm

UnleashedUponMankind

UnleashedUponMankind

5,388 posts

Moderator

Thread turns a lil bit off topic, isnt it?

 
Reply to Battle of the Brands (Current battle: pg. 176)

You must be logged in to post a reply!