Why do people care about Superbowl?

[MOBIUS]

Rugby is to me like playing hocky without pads. Trying to prove your manhood by breaking bones is rather stupid.
Kinda like those Jackass films.
Not to bright.
IMHO

Exactly. American football players are wimps compared to rugby players.

[MOBIUS]

Were you just amusing yourself with your attempt to describe association football in a trollish sort of way, or was that a serious attempt an analysis? If the latter, had you considered that you might have been missing something, and failing to understand what is actually going on? Or that you hadn't seen a game of decent football because you'd only seen poor-quality games such as tend to get played at the World Cup?

Or a MLS game FTM.

[Elok]

Were you just amusing yourself with your attempt to describe association football in a trollish sort of way, or was that a serious attempt an analysis? If the latter, had you considered that you might have been missing something, and failing to understand what is actually going on? Or that you hadn't seen a game of decent football because you'd only seen poor-quality games such as tend to get played at the World Cup?

Somewhere in between, I think. I've only ever seen World Cup and Olympic games (they don't play anything else over here AFAIK). I'm told that all football/soccer games have what I think of as a great flaw--people only score a goal once every fifteen or twenty minutes. Now, perhaps instead of just drifting across the field back and forth like a black and white tumbleweed in a shifting wind, the ball's supposed to be bouncing around like a pinball as skilled players coordinate their movements to cut each other off and intercept the ball and whatnot. But I don't see how that's going to be a significant improvement. Either way, ninety percent of the game will effectively be dead time that contributes nothing towards the final score. You'll just replace an idle nothing with a frenetic nothing. You've got World War I in a stadium, the vast majority of their furious, valiant efforts are futile. Kinda depressing.

However, I do like mocking and egging on Europeans and other "soccer weenies" as much as the next red-blooded American. And I don't really "get" sports in the first place, so my opinion's of very little merit. I'd probably invest more energy in figuring these things out if they didn't strike me as a goofy sublimation of primitive tribalist instincts that I thankfully don't possess. Why should I cheer for one group of overpaid entertainers over another, just because that one group happens to be based in a city near me? I'd only care who won the Superbowl if I were friends with one of the players, and then I'd care for his sake.

As it happens, I think NFL football is a much more impressive and compelling visual spectacle. I can watch them duking it out for up to three minutes before realizing I don't care who wins. And that's the most serious opinion I have about professional sports.

[Docfeelgood]

Exactly. American football players are wimps compared to rugby players.

Who wants to have brain damage and missing teeth?

[MOBIUS]

As it happens, I think NFL football is a much more impressive and compelling visual spectacle. I can watch them duking it out for up to three minutes before realizing I don't care who wins. And that's the most serious opinion I have about professional sports.

Then you should watch rugby union: the NFL is bloated and tame compared to rugby - a proper man's sport!

[Docfeelgood]

Somewhere in between, I think. I've only ever seen World Cup and Olympic games (they don't play anything else over here AFAIK). I'm told that all football/soccer games have what I think of as a great flaw--people only score a goal once every fifteen or twenty minutes. Now, perhaps instead of just drifting across the field back and forth like a black and white tumbleweed in a shifting wind, the ball's supposed to be bouncing around like a pinball as skilled players coordinate their movements to cut each other off and intercept the ball and whatnot. But I don't see how that's going to be a significant improvement. Either way, ninety percent of the game will effectively be dead time that contributes nothing towards the final score. You'll just replace an idle nothing with a frenetic nothing. You've got World War I in a stadium, the vast majority of their furious, valiant efforts are futile. Kinda depressing.

However, I do like mocking and egging on Europeans and other "soccer weenies" as much as the next red-blooded American. And I don't really "get" sports in the first place, so my opinion's of very little merit. I'd probably invest more energy in figuring these things out if they didn't strike me as a goofy sublimation of primitive tribalist instincts that I thankfully don't possess. Why should I cheer for one group of overpaid entertainers over another, just because that one group happens to be based in a city near me? I'd only care who won the Superbowl if I were friends with one of the players, and then I'd care for his sake.

As it happens, I think NFL football is a much more impressive and compelling visual spectacle. I can watch them duking it out for up to three minutes before realizing I don't care who wins. And that's the most serious opinion I have about professional sports.

[MOBIUS]

Who wants to have brain damage and missing teeth?

Real men - not girly men!

[Docfeelgood]

I have seen rugby play and either they got more balls than me or I have more brains than them.

It is fun to watch.

[Elok]

I'm too lazy to Wiki, but I thought there were two significant differences between rugby and NFL football:

1. No safety gear
2. No forward passes, so they essentially have to run with the ball every time.

Is that about the shape of it? Because that just sounds like more players off the field from injuries and a more homogenized game to me.

[Docfeelgood]

Real men - not girly men!

Can't argue to that

[MOBIUS]

Somewhere in between, I think. I've only ever seen World Cup and Olympic games (they don't play anything else over here AFAIK). I'm told that all football/soccer games have what I think of as a great flaw--people only score a goal once every fifteen or twenty minutes. Now, perhaps instead of just drifting across the field back and forth like a black and white tumbleweed in a shifting wind, the ball's supposed to be bouncing around like a pinball as skilled players coordinate their movements to cut each other off and intercept the ball and whatnot. But I don't see how that's going to be a significant improvement. Either way, ninety percent of the game will effectively be dead time that contributes nothing towards the final score. You'll just replace an idle nothing with a frenetic nothing. You've got World War I in a stadium, the vast majority of their furious, valiant efforts are futile. Kinda depressing.

However, I do like mocking and egging on Europeans and other "soccer weenies" as much as the next red-blooded American. And I don't really "get" sports in the first place, so my opinion's of very little merit. I'd probably invest more energy in figuring these things out if they didn't strike me as a goofy sublimation of primitive tribalist instincts that I thankfully don't possess. Why should I cheer for one group of overpaid entertainers over another, just because that one group happens to be based in a city near me? I'd only care who won the Superbowl if I were friends with one of the players, and then I'd care for his sake.

There was a great game of footie over the weekend. The South Wales derby between Swansea and Cardiff. The result was only 1-0 to Cardiff (Yay!), but there were lots of great moves and plenty of argy-bargy - as you'd expect from a derby game.

[Elok]

"Argy-bargy?" Wuzzat? Geez, even the game slang sounds stupid...

[Docfeelgood]

"Argy-bargy?" Wuzzat? Geez, even the game slang sounds stupid...

It's a man thing.
Like not bathing.

[MOBIUS]

I'm too lazy to Wiki, but I thought there were two significant differences between rugby and NFL football:

1. No safety gear
2. No forward passes, so they essentially have to run with the ball every time.

Is that about the shape of it? Because that just sounds like more players off the field from injuries and a more homogenized game to me.

That's why Union is better than League (there's two major rugby codes). In Union there is also a kicking game, mostly for position (sort of like on the run punts), ones where you chip over a defender and collect, and also drop goals (on the run field goals).

You also have things like the scrum and line outs.

The most important thing though, is that you get 80 minutes of mostly unbroken play (plus half-time), as opposed to the terribly stop-start nature of American football. So a game is usually completely finished within 2 hours - as opposed to well over 3 hours!

Rugby union

[MOBIUS]

"Argy-bargy?" Wuzzat? Geez, even the game slang sounds stupid...

Not game slang.

argument; squabble; A lively or disputatious discussion