Soccer... What???

Osbourne Ruddock · Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 1

Charles wrote in @
4ax.com:

>
>>american football is fucking shit.
>
> We are duly indebted to you for that insightful gem!

It's certainly my favourite comment so far.

--
Cheers, Os

Archived from group: uk>sport>football>clubs>leeds-united

Graybags · Joined: 07 Aug 2007 Posts: 2

> Just as well maybe, because half the team on the field is made up of
> overweight men. It is the only sport in the world, apart from Sumo, where
> fat fellers can make a good living.

Actually, no, two other popular sports in the US can be played effectively
by fat fellas - baseball and golf. Just as well, considering.

Graybags

Tom Benton · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 40

nigeleeezzzz wrote:
> On 23 Oct, 00:17, John wrote:
>
>>There is no such thing as soccer.
>
>
>>They need the protection because it is a high impact game. Neither
>>regular Football that we play here in England or either of the Rugby
>>codes are high impact sports.
>>
>
>
> Utter bollocks, you've obviously never played the game then. 20 years
> ago you may have argued that American Footballers hit harder than
> Rugby Union but since the arrival of professionalism your argument is
> utter tosh.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvMFHXcd0yQ
>
> Take a look for your self
>

The video was a bit fuzzy on my computer, but I get the idea. Thanks for
sharing that.

Having said that, one of the concerns that folks over here have about
our football players is that they are so protected, (helmets, shoulder
pads etc) that that they hit harder than they may have been able to had
they not had the equipment. This may have resulted in some of the
horrific injuries we have seen over the years.

Your players obviously play a physical game, I don't dispute that. No
wimps on those fields.

However, what is the inury situation in rugby? Do you have the
concussions and major joint injuries (most notably knees and shoulders)
our players do? We have even had some horrible spinal injuries.

Rest assured, I am not advocating football over rugby. I am just
wondering if the lack of equipment in your game might actually make it
safer (not softer) for the player. (And maybe better for the fans as the
stars are on the field and not on the sidelines or in the hospital.)

Just wondering...

lescor · Joined: 23 Oct 2007 Posts: 2

Graybags wrote:
>>Just as well maybe, because half the team on the field is made up of
>>overweight men. It is the only sport in the world, apart from Sumo, where
>>fat fellers can make a good living.
>
>
> Actually, no, two other popular sports in the US can be played effectively
> by fat fellas - baseball and golf. Just as well, considering.
>
> Graybags
>
>

You are right. but I was really thinking about FAT not
Mongomery type podgy. If we include plump we could include a
few cricketers, until recently maybe?

LC

Le Dieu · Joined: 23 Oct 2007 Posts: 2

"Swerve" wrote in message $2$13930$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> "Le Dieu" wrote in message
> $DB2.15954@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>>
>> "John" wrote in message
>> @4ax.com...
>>> There is no such thing as soccer.
>>
>>
>> I beg to differ. We played a game at school on the parquet flooring of
>> the
>> one of the class rooms with a bunched up pair of socks. Socker. The
>> skills
>> I learned then - chipping, swerving, volleying etc, stood me in good
>> stead
>> for the rest of my career.
>>
>> A. Dieu.
>>
>>
>>
>
> We played a similar game occasionally, usually with a discarded fruit from
> someones "pack up"
>
> Needless to say, the day the banana was the ball didn't go too well....

Damn, if we'd known each other we could have formed a league.

A. Dieu.

Dan · Joined: 25 Oct 2007 Posts: 1

"Swerve" wrote in message $1$13931$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> "John" wrote in message
> @4ax.com...
>> There is no such thing as soccer.
>>
>
> Wrong
>
> It is not an Americanism, it was first used in the late 19th Century, in
> England, as an abbreviation of Association Football.

true.

asSOCiation

The word "soccer" comes from the original name of the game "Association
Football" or more precisely from its abbreviation Assoc. Assoc. was a slang
term used in UK universities from about 1889. It later became socca, socker
and finally evolved into soccer
>
>
>
>
>

Erasmus · Joined: 25 Oct 2007 Posts: 5

"Uncle Dave" wrote in message @50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 25, 4:03 pm, Tom Benton
> wrote:
>>
>> Rest assured, I am not advocating football over rugby. I am just
>> wondering if the lack of equipment in your game might actually make it
>> safer (not softer) for the player. (And maybe better for the fans as the
>> stars are on the field and not on the sidelines or in the hospital.)
>>
>> Just wondering...
>
> I think you're right. Although there are some awful injuries and
> occasionally disabililties in rugby, I think the equipment used in
> football might well contribute to injuries. Rugby body armour is much
> thinner (for want of a better word) than that used in football and I
> guess what you're saying is that in football cerain areas are left
> exposed to shock because there is a sudden - and pronounced -
> difference in protection. For example, the neck is exposed and I
> guess any shock not absorbed by a hit to the helmet or the shoulders
> will travel on neckwards.
>
> Watching both sports (on TV at least) week in week out, I would say
> that football players do hit harder and get up from hits which would
> generally leave rugby players groggy. It stands to reason that you
> can take a bigger shock in a tank than in a jeep and that's why tanks
> go into areas that jeeps don't. Similarly, rugby players tackle much
> harder now than they used to, increased levels of fitness and
> technique allowing them to go into places they mostly didn't before.
> The more dynamic nature of rugby mostly precludes being able to line
> somebody up and take a twenty to thirty metre run and launch yourself
> at them. You might miss, or they might offload the ball so such "long
> range" committed tackles tend to be last ditch and, hence, rare.
>
> Anyway, who cares? You just have to accept they're different and
> watch accordingly. Vive les differences, I say! What I wonder about
> is why you hardly ever see football players offloading the ball to a
> teammate in order to keep the play alive. And when they do they throw
> it like two year old girls Wink

>
> Just my 2 eurocents worth...
>
> UD
>

Swerve · Joined: 25 Oct 2007 Posts: 2

"Le Dieu" wrote in message$DB2.15954@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>
> "John" wrote in message
> @4ax.com...
>> There is no such thing as soccer.
>
>
> I beg to differ. We played a game at school on the parquet flooring of the
> one of the class rooms with a bunched up pair of socks. Socker. The skills
> I learned then - chipping, swerving, volleying etc, stood me in good stead
> for the rest of my career.
>
> A. Dieu.
>
>
>

We played a similar game occasionally, usually with a discarded fruit from
someones "pack up"

Needless to say, the day the banana was the ball didn't go too well....

Swerve · Joined: 25 Oct 2007 Posts: 2

"John" wrote in message@4ax.com...
> There is no such thing as soccer.
>

Wrong

It is not an Americanism, it was first used in the late 19th Century, in
England, as an abbreviation of Association Football.

SirBob · Joined: 07 Aug 2007 Posts: 2

"Uncle Dave" wrote in message @50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 25, 4:03 pm, Tom Benton
> wrote:
>>
>> Rest assured, I am not advocating football over rugby. I am just
>> wondering if the lack of equipment in your game might actually make it
>> safer (not softer) for the player. (And maybe better for the fans as the
>> stars are on the field and not on the sidelines or in the hospital.)
>>
>> Just wondering...
>
> I think you're right. Although there are some awful injuries and
> occasionally disabililties in rugby, I think the equipment used in
> football might well contribute to injuries. Rugby body armour is much
> thinner (for want of a better word) than that used in football and I
> guess what you're saying is that in football cerain areas are left
> exposed to shock because there is a sudden - and pronounced -
> difference in protection. For example, the neck is exposed and I
> guess any shock not absorbed by a hit to the helmet or the shoulders
> will travel on neckwards.
>
> Watching both sports (on TV at least) week in week out, I would say
> that football players do hit harder and get up from hits which would
> generally leave rugby players groggy. It stands to reason that you
> can take a bigger shock in a tank than in a jeep and that's why tanks
> go into areas that jeeps don't. Similarly, rugby players tackle much
> harder now than they used to, increased levels of fitness and
> technique allowing them to go into places they mostly didn't before.
> The more dynamic nature of rugby mostly precludes being able to line
> somebody up and take a twenty to thirty metre run and launch yourself
> at them. You might miss, or they might offload the ball so such "long
> range" committed tackles tend to be last ditch and, hence, rare.
>
> Anyway, who cares? You just have to accept they're different and
> watch accordingly. Vive les differences, I say! What I wonder about
> is why you hardly ever see football players offloading the ball to a
> teammate in order to keep the play alive. And when they do they throw
> it like two year old girls Wink

>
> Just my 2 eurocents worth...
>
> UD
>

Two sensible, well thought out and fair posts. Both well structured and not
overshadowed by favouritism.

You should both be ashamed of yourselves! There's no room for that kind of
thing in a NG these days.

SirBob

Erasmus · Joined: 25 Oct 2007 Posts: 5

Not a soccer group not interested please desist
"SirBob" wrote in message $lV4.47604@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Uncle Dave" wrote in message
> @50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 25, 4:03 pm, Tom Benton
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Rest assured, I am not advocating football over rugby. I am just
>>> wondering if the lack of equipment in your game might actually make it
>>> safer (not softer) for the player. (And maybe better for the fans as the
>>> stars are on the field and not on the sidelines or in the hospital.)
>>>
>>> Just wondering...

>>
>> I think you're right. Although there are some awful injuries and
>> occasionally disabililties in rugby, I think the equipment used in
>> football might well contribute to injuries. Rugby body armour is much
>> thinner (for want of a better word) than that used in football and I
>> guess what you're saying is that in football cerain areas are left
>> exposed to shock because there is a sudden - and pronounced -
>> difference in protection. For example, the neck is exposed and I
>> guess any shock not absorbed by a hit to the helmet or the shoulders
>> will travel on neckwards.
>>
>> Watching both sports (on TV at least) week in week out, I would say
>> that football players do hit harder and get up from hits which would
>> generally leave rugby players groggy. It stands to reason that you
>> can take a bigger shock in a tank than in a jeep and that's why tanks
>> go into areas that jeeps don't. Similarly, rugby players tackle much
>> harder now than they used to, increased levels of fitness and
>> technique allowing them to go into places they mostly didn't before.
>> The more dynamic nature of rugby mostly precludes being able to line
>> somebody up and take a twenty to thirty metre run and launch yourself
>> at them. You might miss, or they might offload the ball so such "long
>> range" committed tackles tend to be last ditch and, hence, rare.
>>
>> Anyway, who cares? You just have to accept they're different and
>> watch accordingly. Vive les differences, I say! What I wonder about
>> is why you hardly ever see football players offloading the ball to a
>> teammate in order to keep the play alive. And when they do they throw
>> it like two year old girls Wink

>>
>> Just my 2 eurocents worth...
>>
>> UD
>>
>
> Two sensible, well thought out and fair posts. Both well structured and
> not overshadowed by favouritism.
>
> You should both be ashamed of yourselves! There's no room for that kind of
> thing in a NG these days.
>
>
> SirBob
>

SirBob · Joined: 07 Aug 2007 Posts: 2

"Uncle Dave" wrote in message @22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 25, 8:43 pm, "SirBob" wrote:
>>
>> You should both be ashamed of yourselves! There's no room for that kind
>> of
>> thing in a NG these days.
>
> Yeah? And wtf would you know?
>
> UD
>

That's more like it.

SirBob

Erasmus · Joined: 25 Oct 2007 Posts: 5

"Uncle Dave" wrote in message @y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 26, 8:06 pm, "SirBob" wrote:
>> "Uncle Dave" wrote in message
>>
>> @22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Oct 25, 8:43 pm, "SirBob" wrote:
>>
>> >> You should both be ashamed of yourselves! There's no room for that
>> >> kind
>> >> of
>> >> thing in a NG these days.
>>
>> > Yeah? And wtf would you know?
>>
>> > UD
>>
>> That's more like it.
>>
>> SirBob
>
> Smile

>
> UD
>

bababooey · Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Posts: 1

nigeleeezzzz wrote in @d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

> On 23 Oct, 00:17, John wrote:
>> There is no such thing as soccer.
>
>> They need the protection because it is a high impact game. Neither
>> regular Football that we play here in England or either of the Rugby
>> codes are high impact sports.
>>
>
> Utter bollocks, you've obviously never played the game then. 20 years
> ago you may have argued that American Footballers hit harder than
> Rugby Union but since the arrival of professionalism your argument is
> utter tosh.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvMFHXcd0yQ
>
> Take a look for your self
>
>

I won't say that Rugby is less hard-nosed than American Football.
However, there are no 350-pound rugby players, or there would be
protective gear required in their leagues, as well. It's not a question
of toughness here. It's a question of physicality. Banging against 25
stone linemen fifty times a game has a way of wearing down men's body
parts. Even Joe Namath, the great New York Jets quarterback, had to have
both kneecaps replaced from being run over by defensemen, and he played a
position that is thought to be the least threatened. So don't argue
toughness unless you discount the collateral damage that is inherent in
the American pro league. There is no arguing that both rugby and NFL
football are brutal games. It's the weight differential that makes the
American game more bone-crushing, literally speaking.

Erasmus · Joined: 25 Oct 2007 Posts: 5

"bababooey" wrote in message @69.28.186.158...
> nigeleeezzzz wrote in
> @d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On 23 Oct, 00:17, John wrote:
>>> There is no such thing as soccer.
>>
>>> They need the protection because it is a high impact game. Neither
>>> regular Football that we play here in England or either of the Rugby
>>> codes are high impact sports.
>>>
>>
>> Utter bollocks, you've obviously never played the game then. 20 years
>> ago you may have argued that American Footballers hit harder than
>> Rugby Union but since the arrival of professionalism your argument is
>> utter tosh.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvMFHXcd0yQ
>>
>> Take a look for your self
>>
>>
>
> I won't say that Rugby is less hard-nosed than American Football.
> However, there are no 350-pound rugby players, or there would be
> protective gear required in their leagues, as well. It's not a question
> of toughness here. It's a question of physicality. Banging against 25
> stone linemen fifty times a game has a way of wearing down men's body
> parts. Even Joe Namath, the great New York Jets quarterback, had to have
> both kneecaps replaced from being run over by defensemen, and he played a
> position that is thought to be the least threatened. So don't argue
> toughness unless you discount the collateral damage that is inherent in
> the American pro league. There is no arguing that both rugby and NFL
> football are brutal games. It's the weight differential that makes the
> American game more bone-crushing, literally speaking.