|
BiggerBoat posted:Question: I always actually wondered that myself so I looked it up once and basically nobody knows for sure but the prevailing theory is that in the original days of tennis they kept the game score using a clock face and would move the hand in quarters to indicate the point but the 45 was changed to 40 so that if there was a deuce (40-40) they could move the hand to 50 when someone won the point and got the advantage e: beaten but here's a little more context
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 14:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 21:19 |
|
|
if you want to have fun look up the rules of "real tennis" which lawn/modern tennis descended from and seems like the kind of game that you make up in your backyard. like there's a random window at the back of the court and if you hit the ball there you instantly win the point. also since that window existed in the first ever "real tennis" court, every court built after it had to put a window there. also the spectator areas have to be set up in a specific way, because if you hit a ball into the furthest box, you instantly win the point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 15:03
|
|
|
The clock explanation actually makes perfect sense so thanks for answering that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 15:09
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Regarding the NFL and what constitutes a catch. You are not imagining it. I didn't go into it into the post because the distance between this call and the first rule change was 8 years and I figured the post was already long, but famously in the 1999 NFC title game this was ruled incomplete (skip to 1:35): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m24r9JiKV14 This happened in a pre-social media era so it's generally not as well remembered
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 21:25
|
|
|
Ok, thanks for letting me know I'm not crazy regarding The Ball Touching the Ground at All thing. That's how I remembered it and the way we used to play even in our two hand touch pick up games with a Nerf ball. To be honest, just resetting that rule to go back to that criteria might go a long way to cleaning up all this dumb bullshit about what a "football move" is or when a receiver "had possession". Just go back to where the ball can't touch the ground whatsoever during a catch and, basically, the Floor is Lava. Back then, even though the rule itself was clear, replay and poo poo wasn't nearly as developed as it is now so poo poo was weird but that part of things seems fairly solved in this day and age. It's a simple way of figuring this thing out and only leaves possession on an out of bounds pass up for debate. I'm prepared for and OK with some judgement calls along the sidelines but, even then, just make it so that two hands on the ball and two feet in bounds = catch. ... Having said that: Someone explain Cricket to me
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 22:44
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Someone explain Cricket to me I could, as I watch far too much of it, but there are still some things about the game I don't understand
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 22:47
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Having said that: You gotta know what a crumpet is to understand cricket.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 01:03
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 02:34
|
|
|
Cricket and rugby are the two sports where I look them up on Wikipedia and there seems to be a bunch of different variations with nothing to tell me which variant is the “regular” one. So I guess my question is what is normal cricket and what is normal rugby?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 02:58
|
|
|
Test (5 day) is the highest level cricket though the short versions get more money. The Cricket World Cup plays one-day/ODI. Rugby league and rugby union are different sports. League is more popular in Australia but it's union for most other rugby nations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 03:19
|
|
|
Test cricket, which can take 5 days to play is the original (and best) form. This is for the "purists" and smart cricket fans would take being good at Tests over almost anything else. In the 1970s one day international (ODI) cricket was formed and after some tinkering with the rules each team had a maximum number of 50 overs (300 balls) they could face. This became more common in the 80s and 90s and one day cricket World Cup tournaments were highly prized. About 15 years ago a third, even shorter version called Twenty20 (T20) was created where each team faced a maximum of 20 overs (120 balls) so the game could be done in a few hours. Although this format is often derided as being for casuals who just want to see batters smash the ball everywhere, it sparked a bunch of lucrative domestic leagues. There's players who specialise in T20s, the skills needed are much different than Test cricket. These days ODIs are becoming less popular since T20 is better for TV, although the last ODI World Cup was really good. To sum up, I would say the "normal" form of the game depends on the individual, the three formats are actually quite different games in terms of strategy. If you're just a beginner/casual watcher then T20s are probably a good place to start, there's currently a World Cup on right now. Once you start to get the hang of the rules and strategies then 5 day Test matches can be engrossing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 03:21
|
|
|
Rugby 7s is also a thing, it's just a shortened version of the game with less players, but is an Olympic sport.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 03:23
|
|
|
Also I'd say that all the major forms of cricket are different forms of the same sport, like how stroke play and match play are both fundamentally golf, but Rugby Leage and Rugby Union are separate sports entirely
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 03:23
|
|
|
I once spent a day, a whole day's time, studying cricket and I understand it less afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 04:10
|
|
|
Charles 2 of Spain posted:There's players who specialise in T20s, the skills needed are much different than Test cricket. Could you expand on this please? I'd be interested to hear why
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 05:43
|
|
|
OK, so the main difference between T20s and Test cricket is that T20s have a limited number of legal balls to be bowled, while in tests you keep bowling until you get the other team out or they declare to end their innings. This difference influences how you should bat or bowl. For batters, T20 is all about scoring as quickly as possible. Even if you only face 10 balls and get out, if you score say 20 runs that's still incredibly helpful. In test cricket it's mostly about not getting out and accumulating runs, even if you do it slowly. A T20 batting approach in test cricket doesn't work so well because there is more risk of getting out (e.g. you hit the ball in the air more and can get caught by fielders). Although lately there's a new mindset that England have been using known as Bazball which tries to turn this philosophy on its head. For bowling, in T20s you want to stop being hit for runs, even if you don't get people out. Usually you have to bowl with much more variety so the batter can't guess what the next ball is going to be. Whereas in test cricket it's better to bowl more consistently but with accuracy and you can afford to spend time setting up plans to find the batter's weaknesses and get them out. You also have less restrictions on how you set your field to do this. Bowling a T20 style in tests means the batsmen can just keep blocking the ball and wait until they get one that's easy to hit. If you concede 5 runs per over in T20 it's considered outstanding, do the same in a test match and you'll get dropped. The specialisation of formats occurs because some players are really good at scoring quickly or preventing batters from scoring, and so are suited to T20. But they won't be suited to test matches so will only focus on the T20 format. Another more cynical reason is that you can earn much more money playing in T20 leagues around the world for much less work compared to test cricket. Most of the West Indian T20 team for example do not give a poo poo about test cricket because their board doesn't pay them, and they basically act as mercenaries for teams. Of course, there's players who are good at both forms but I think it's becoming rarer. Steve Smith is arguably the best test match batter in the world but he's pretty garbage at T20s. Same with Pat Cummins and bowling. I think you'll eventually see kids choosing which format to focus on and putting all their efforts into making that specific team.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 08:52
|
|
|
Sash! posted:I once spent a day, a whole day's time, studying cricket and I understand it less afterwards. tbh it was the opposite for me i was dissapointed it wasnt as complicated as it seems and its mostly that it just has a lot of terminology and notation that no other sport uses compared to like, the breakdown rules in rugby union where i still have no goddamn clue what they're doing and why they're doing a maul at a specific moment or whatever Feels Villeneuve fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 17:22
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I'm prepared for and OK with some judgement calls along the sidelines but, even then, just make it so that two hands on the ball and two feet in bounds = catch The problem is that this isn't sufficient. You have cases like a receiver gets both hands on the ball and both feet down, but an instant later he gets hit from behind and the ball flies out of his hands. Is that incomplete or is it a catch and fumble?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 17:36
|
|
|
That's really cool thanks
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 18:37
|
|
|
Feels Villeneuve posted:tbh it was the opposite for me i was dissapointed it wasnt as complicated as it seems and its mostly that it just has a lot of terminology and notation that no other sport uses Yeah it was the terminology that took me the longest to get and after 3 years I still struggle remembering all the fielding positions or the different descriptions for bowling lengths. E: like short and full make sense but it took me forever to remember what "pitch it up " or "back of length " meant. BWV fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 19:30
|
|
|
I enjoy watching cricket from time to time but it may as well be commentated in Latin for me, and I accept this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 20:00
|
|
|
BWV posted:Yeah it was the terminology that took me the longest to get and after 3 years I still struggle remembering all the fielding positions or the different descriptions for bowling lengths.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 22:39
|
|
|
How does coaching compare between the NCAA and NBA levels? How is the role of the coach different? Why are some guys like Brad Stevens able to succeed in both, while others like John Beilein flame out?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 02:21
|
|
|
Tokelau All Star posted:How does coaching compare between the NCAA and NBA levels? How is the role of the coach different? Why are some guys like Brad Stevens able to succeed in both, while others like John Beilein flame out? Coaching is so much more impactful in college. Or at least it can be. But at the very least almost every NCAA team has a coach that calls nearly every play that happens on the floor for most teams, whereas in the NBA, the only plays the coach really calls in most instances is out of time out plays (there are some exceptions of course but even these exceptions feature way more player agency than college). Then talking about player development. Usually (some exceptions of course) that is something in the NBA outsourced to a giant training staff. College you have a couple trusted assistants, other assistant positions that mysteriously seem to be filled with people related to the top recruits , and then some graduate students, so the coach may be primarily responsible for teaching a player. These days that's not as tall of a task since most college recruits have been in AAU ball for a long time at this point or been practical pros already overseas but they're still kids and still usually need a lot added to their games. Oh yeah, and recruiting. It's insane and dirty and not really applicable to anything in the NBA. This might make it sound like I am sayiing the college coach is more "real" coaching but I guess it's really what your jam is. In the NBA you have to design a scheme that is attractive enough to play in that you get the job in the first place, and then convince the millionaires to run it, knowing you'll be fired if they decide not to. You then need to be a good teacher because you have to teach those players to run the system as if you didn't exist because frankly during gameplay a lot of times you might as well not (some exceptions of course) You also have to motivate people who don't frankly have much reason to listen to you or much reason to actually be successful. The only weapon you have is playing time and even that's under assault as we heard tales last year of people just checking themselves in last year in Houston. So basically they're different jobs, which is why it's hard for one to translate to another. Brad Stevens was young on a young team so maybe that's why it worked a bit better there, but even that seemed to have an expiration date on it. There are some dudes in college who don't do any of what I said college coaches do and only recruit, and I wonder if maybe these types would but these guys also are usually paid like twice an NBA coaches starting salary. E: I think Kibner covered the NBA coaching more fairly overall Rick fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Nov 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 03:02
|
|
|
Tokelau All Star posted:How does coaching compare between the NCAA and NBA levels? How is the role of the coach different? Why are some guys like Brad Stevens able to succeed in both, while others like John Beilein flame out? NCAA is more about recruiting and developing players to play in your system. NBA coaches all have to manage personalities of people who have more "power" than them but also have very different roles depending on the state of the team: Rebuilding: keeping the team motivated, developing skills for individual players to use in future seasons, prevent bad habits from slipping in Contender: develop team schemes and rotations designed to get the team through the season healthy, relatively fresh, and ready for playoff competition. lots of very specific and detailed game planning once in the playoffs. Playoff Hopeful: a mix between Rebuilding and Contender teams, usually based off age/experience of players on team Most NCAA coaches that fail in the NBA is because they don't know how to treat the players as equals or even more important than them. Some fail because of the brutal schedule. Others fail because they are stuck in their rigid system and don't do a good job of adapting to the players they have. e: this is a very, very, very high level summary and not 100% true and a perfect fit, but intended to just give a better idea Kibner fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Nov 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 03:08
|
|
|
One of the things that I think differentiates a great NCAA vs a great NBA coach is an ability to adapt over time with the same person who will have different things that weigh on them as their career goes along. In the absolute best case you have 5 years with a player in the NCAA (a redshirt year where he practices but does not play and 4 playing years) and at the high level schools where you have NBA talent you basically never get that long with any given person. They're also for the most part "college kids" during that time. In the NBA you can have guys for over a decade. He can get married, have kids, all sorts of things and that doesn't even take into account the ups and downs any franchise will experience. As an NCAA coach, you can have a short-shelf-life schtick because there's an enforced limit on how long anyone has to put up with you but in the NBA you have to be able to connect to someone potentially for a much longer time. This is not to say the NCAA coach is lesser, getting the most out of a guy who's with you for one year and then definitely hopping to the NBA is its own separate skillset.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 05:59
|
|
|
Kibner posted:NCAA is more about recruiting...players This is by far the biggest part.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 10:43
|
|
|
A college HC is a combo of HC/GM. They have roster management duties and organization building responsibilities that NBA coaches don't so there's a lot more ways of being a successful college coach than an NBA one. You can win by out-recruiting your competition, by developing raw/overlooked guys better, or by being a better gameday coach but at high levels, you probably need to do everything pretty well. But then when you looking for an NBA coach, the recruiting part doesn't really matter and the development part may take a backseat depending on the team. So an NBA team or fans looking at NCAA coaches might want a winner with a flashy record, but they might not work out as well because their strengths don't translate while a more surprising choice might turn out better because they are a great tactician but a lovely recruiter so their NCAA record doesn't look as good. But yeah, people management skills seems to be the biggest issue that coaches run into when switching levels as dealing with pros and kids requires different skills and attitude.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 16:47
|
|
|
where the hell is the soccer/world cup thread? Don't tell me that of all things doesn't have a thread in SAS I wish to laugh at the
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 15:42
|
|
|
The soccer forum has become a top level forum for the world cup
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 15:45
|
|
|
oh boy
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 15:54
|
|
|
Why hasn’t MLB pushed to have at least one female umpire at the pro level? Seems like there’s no reason physically that they wouldn’t be just as capable. Even the NFL is ahead of them. Are there any retired boxers who are 100% still with it mentally, or is that just an accepted part of the sport? I used to go to a barber who had been on the US Olympic team in the 80s and he was nice but would sometimes mention brain fog issues. Is there an MLB rule against having a little person on their team if they followed all the draft and roster rules or would that get into mockery of the game? Also would wonder if even if he could walk consistently if it would be worth it if he’d have to be pinch run for every time. Would an NFL team ever draft someone in high school if it were allowed, or would the guy just get annihilated? A cousin was briefly in the NHL and had “NHL ID” that allowed him to visit the Mariners clubhouse before a game. Is that a common courtesy among all the major US sports?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 03:40
|
|
|
Floyd Mayweather seems to have it as together as he ever did, your call as to if that's with it mentally due to all his eccentricities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 05:15
|
|
|
There's no safe level of being punched in the head.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 05:31
|
|
|
Hyrax Attack! posted:Is there an MLB rule against having a little person on their team if they followed all the draft and roster rules or would that get into mockery of the game? Also would wonder if even if he could walk consistently if it would be worth it if he’d have to be pinch run for every time. Let me address this one because there is very, very funny history behind it. This is Bill Veeck, recovering from injury sustained in World War II:  Bill Veeck (rhymes with wreck not wreak, as he told us in his autobiography, titled Veeck as in Wreck) was for a long time the owner of the AL team the St. Louis Browns (who were previously the Milwaukee Brewers [but a different team than the Brewers that exist today], and who would eventually become the Baltimore Orioles you know today). Seeing as how he was competing with the vastly more popular NL St. Louis Cardinals, he was always doing some sort of promotional nonsense. On August 19, 1951, he pulled arguably his greatest stunt. In the bottom of the 1st inning of the second game of a doubleheader, he pinch hit Eddie Gaedel, who was 3'7" and 60 pounds, for his leadoff hitter Frank Saucier (cool name). The umpire immediately called the Browns manager, Zack Taylor, demanding to know what was going on. Fortunately Veeck had the foresight to give Taylor a copy of Gaedel's contract, which was shown, and, the umpire having no choice, the at bat was allowed to continue. Gaedel's uniform number, in case you were curious, was 1/8. This resulted in one of my favorite sports pictures of all time:  Gaedel was, as you might imagine, under strict orders not to swing; indeed Veeck had told him that he had taken out a $1 million dollar insurance policy on Gaedel's life and Veeck claimed he would be on the roof with a rifle observing for even the hint of a temptation to swing. He walked on 4 straight pitches, of course, and was immediately pinch run for. His contract was voided by the American League President the next day. Veeck's response was, per Wikipedia, to "request an official ruling on whether Yankees shortstop and reigning American League MVP Phil Rizzuto, who stood 5 feet 6 inches (1.68 m), was a short ballplayer or a tall dwarf." So, how did this happen anyway, and, why does it not happen today? Let's address part two first, because you got it in your post anyway: it's a huge waste of a roster spot to have a guy who'll walk every time but has to be pinch run for every time. As for the first part, Veeck had filed Gaedel's contract at the last minute Friday, knowing MLB would just rubber-stamp it and not bother to scrutinize it at all til Monday, as was the custom at the time (the doubleheader was on Sunday). In addition, no one was paying enough attention to notice Gaedel getting added to the lineup card for game two of the doubleheader (except one reporter who was fed some bullshit to shut him up). This resulted in the still-current rule that a player may not appear in a game until the Commissioner approves his contract personally. There is not, however, any rule anywhere in the MLB book stating "you must be this tall to bat." fast cars loose anus fucked around with this message at 06:34 on Nov 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 06:29
|
|
|
fast cars loose anus posted:A good explanation Ah thanks for info, that’s really interesting. Kinda would assume if it became a known tactic modern day pitchers could probably strike them out anyway as they wouldn’t have to care about velocity only accuracy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 06:41
|
|
|
Yeah probably. If you boil the question down it's essentially "is having your leadoff man on first base every game worth an entire roster spot on a major league baseball team" and the answer is "no" even if you pretend he'll actually walk every time, which he won't especially nowadays.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 06:46
|
|
|
Hyrax Attack! posted:Would an NFL team ever draft someone in high school if it were allowed, or would the guy just get annihilated? It’s explicitly not allowed by the NFL, players have to be three years out of high school and used up college eligibility - or ask for the league’s permission after three years. So effectively the earliest is after a redshirt sophomore season. I’m of the mind that ensuring players don’t go into the NFL at 18 or 19 is probably a fine idea, as it takes most rookies a while to get up to speed with the systems and speed of play in any case. Don’t think there’s a need to change the rule. And yes, anybody coming out that young would probably get destroyed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 06:54
|
|
|
There have been two teenagers drafted into the NFL (Amobi Okoye who was somewhere between average and below average, and Tremaine Edmunds who's made two pro bowls), both in the first round. Both were 20 by the time their first season started. Okoye skipped grades, not sure how Edmunds got into the situation but both of them satisfied the three years out of high school requirement; there wasn't a special dispensation for either of them. Neither of them got destroyed physically but it's not something you'd want to make a habit of either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 07:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 21:19 |
|
|
fast cars loose anus posted:he was always doing some sort of promotional nonsense. On August 19, 1951, he pulled arguably his greatest stunt. There was also his Disco Demolition Night that was such a rousing success that the White Sox had to forfeit the second game of a double header because the fans had rendered the field unplayable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 07:31
|
|