The difference between Americans and Europeans ....

[macsen rufus]

I quite enjoy all the trans-atlantic sniping in the backroom, so thought I'd throw this in for discussion :juggle2: (Lights blue touch-paper and retires to watch fireworks...)

Can't remember who said it originally, but it made me chuckle anyway.

"Europeans think 100 miles is a long way.
Americans think 100 years is a long time."

[Avicenna]

Asia thinks neither

:thumbsup:

[macsen rufus]

@ Tiberius: :bow:

[doc_bean]

Heh, that's actually pretty good.

:inquisitive:

This is no way to start a backroom thread ! Both sides agree !

[Masy]

Yeah, not much arguing is gonna happen here. In the words of my bible belt american granny; "it's true as gospel"

[yesdachi]

It would be a more interesting conversation if we were to discuss the differences between American and European women! :eyebrows:

[doc_bean]

There isn't one European woman though, or one type. UK and French women are vastly different, not to metnion Swedish, Italian, Spanish, Greek, etc. women.

Of course, the US has its diversity too (probably even more).

[yesdachi]

There isn't one European woman though, or one type. UK and French women are vastly different, not to metnion Swedish, Italian, Spanish, Greek, etc. women.

Of course, the US has its diversity too (probably even more).
You make some valid points and I think much more research is required on the subject. ~D

[Rodion Romanovich]

:inquisitive:

This is no way to start a backroom thread ! Both sides agree !

I have an idea on how to fix that :evil: - what is worst: to think time goes fast or think distances are short? :laugh4:

[KafirChobee]

For Americans, mostly decendants of Europeans - it is 2 generations. After 2 generations most give up their longing for their father's lands left behind to cross that vast pond - the Atlantic. They become more self-centered and less social.

[Fragony]

It would be a more interesting conversation if we were to discuss the differences between American and European women! :eyebrows:

Well, european women are half the women of their americans counterparts.

in weight.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well, european women are half the women of their americans counterparts.

in weight.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Rodion Romanovich]

You mean this:
http://www.surfnewquay.co.uk/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/197
Found it with google when searching for american+women with image search... I was hoping to find some babe pics for this thread, instead I found this ~:( Now I'll try to search for american+babes and european+babes instead... edit: bah that didn't work well either... I **** at googling it seems...

[caravel]

Without going down the road of weight and armpit hair, I would say that the difference between some Europeans are bigger than say, the difference between the US and some European countries... if that makes sense? Basically there is more diversity in Europe, so a generic question about the difference beween "Americans" and "Europeans" is difficult to answer. :dizzy2:

[Aenlic]

You mean this:
http://www.surfnewquay.co.uk/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/197
Found it with google when searching for american+women with image search... I was hoping to find some babe pics for this thread, instead I found this ~:( Now I'll try to search for american+babes and european+babes instead... edit: bah that didn't work well either... I **** at googling it seems...

Actually, Legio, you did a wonderful job. That pic pretty much tells it all. :laugh4:

[Watchman]

Isn't that hitting below the belt as it were, Legio ?

Soccer and American football.
...
No, seriously. Apparently some scholars think the two socialize people into very different kinds of situational awareness, analysis and problem- and conflict-solving approaches.

Or, well, at least one.

And he's an American.

Who, according to his own theory, are socialized to a somewhat, uh, linear and dualistic approach.

Which, apparently, also shows in his theory, or at least that's what a curious-but-critical review observed.

...am I the only one getting a bit of a headache from this kind of tailchaser...?

[littlelostboy]

No difference.

[Husar]

Actually soccer is football...:dizzy2:

[Watchman]

American football (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_football).
"Association football, soccer, or simply football (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_%28soccer%29)".

I would say there's a bit of difference.

[Samurai Waki]

American Women...European Women. As long as I'm not getting skanky vag I don't really care.

[Fragony]

Honestly, there's no fair way to compare Football and Soccer. They're totally different sports. The reason Soccer does not appeal to Americans is because it's redundant, given our choice of sports--Soccer comes out as sort of a defensive Basketball with your feet. Meanwhile, (American) Football does not appeal to Europeans for a multitude of reasons--not the least of which probably that it is American.

Maybe I am wrong, but I think americans don't like football because they aren't the best at it. Playing it save with national sports nobody else likes, you don't have to leave the country to become a world champion.

[Fragony]

Uh, no. You have to understand, the league rivalries within the USA are about the same level and size as any world-league of any international sport. The reason we don't care for international sports is because our sports leagues are so big that we get enough wide-spread semi-nationalist rivalry as it is. A Mariners fan cheering as the San Fransisco Giants gets stomped, or a Boston fan cheering when the Yankees fell in 2004, is just as intense for us as any Germany vs. UK or what have you.

Ok, makes sense. Sooooo, you got the stomping as well, I thought that was a strictly european phenomenom :2thumbsup:

[Fragony]

I'm just saying that the USA, in terms of sports, is a world unto itself. We get enough. We don't need the rest of the world to keep ourselves entertained.

I wasn't being sarcastic ~:)

[caravel]

I just thought I'd mention that in the rest of the world "soccer" is known as "football". This is the correct name for "soccer". Football was invented in England, as was Rugby which is a derivative of football. Rugby was supposedly perfected at Rugby School in Warwickshire, hence the name. "American Football" is another version of Rugby which it evolved from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_football

[Atilius]

Here's (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/384qgmke.asp) an American take on "football".

Excerpt:


...any game which prohibits the use of the hands is contrary to nature. Opposable thumbs allow humans to grasp things (thumbs on other primate hands such as chimps and orangutans are splayed out the side and are not truly opposable.) This is why the games human beings play involve holding things such as baseball bats, golf clubs and hockey sticks, or to grip and throw objects like a ball or a Frisbee.

Soccer denies its players this most basic human ability. Players cannot catch or throw the ball. But they can hit it with their heads. If one were to set out to invent a game fundamentally at odds with human nature, soccer would be it. Place the head with its big brain in constant danger, and prohibit the use of the hands. Soccer denies to its players the very attributes that make human beings, the thinking toolmaker, human.

[Atilius]

Who is John Galt?

"$"

[Atilius]

Haha. To be honest, I thought John Galt was the worst character in the book.

Perhaps - they were all bad. I liked the book in spite of the characters. Sort of like a Tom Clancy novel. But we digress...

[doc_bean]

Honestly, there's no fair way to compare Football and Soccer. They're totally different sports. The reason Soccer does not appeal to Americans is because it's redundant, given our choice of sports--Soccer comes out as sort of a defensive Basketball with your feet. Meanwhile, (American) Football does not appeal to Europeans for a multitude of reasons--not the least of which probably that it is American.

Now that's quite an insult to 'soccer' imho. Basketball is very different from football in two other areas

1. the constant scoring

In football you get excited when a goal is in, there is disbelief, their is joy, their is excitement. Have you heard/seen the clip with all the people cheering in the streets in france after Zidane scored ? You don't get that when it's 20 points per minute like in basketball

2. the tallest player is always the best

Granted, an exageration. But how many players in basketball are just tall and have very little technique ? A lot of them still have to learn a lot of stuff when they're already playing in a major team. But they're in because they can dunk without jumping.


As for American football: It's just a bunch of guys that dress up in body armour to play rugby isn't it ? :laugh4:

[Aenlic]

Are there many objectivists in Europe? I'm curious. Especially female objectivists? I've always wondered how any woman with any self respect at all could be a fan of Ayn Rand, whose captains of industry quite clearly didn't include and weren't meant to include women. :wink:

[Fragony]

Americans should look at the game more, I think most don't understand what is really going on. It's playes like a battle, just as I expext american football to be. A lot of the critism, like football being 'sissy' sport would be quikly watered down after seeing one match, these guys make terrible falls, and unlike american football, where you falling is part of the game, players don't expect to fall so they move differently and have worse injuries.

[Ironside]

"Europeans think 100 miles is a long way."

Uhm, nope.

But that's probably more of a "local" occurence.

[Banquo's Ghost]

We know. I'm not calling it anything but Soccer, just because the rest of the world calls it Football. Here in America, it's Soccer, and Football is a sport where two teams of large men in body armor try to invade the opposing team's side of the field by using strategy to transport the Football itself.

The interesting thing is that the transportation of the 'football' is largely by hand!

I must admit to enjoying all three 'brands' of football (let's discount local variances such as Gaelic football - and yes, I know, one could argue that American Football is a local variant).

Association football is hard to beat for sheer excitement, flow and second to second emotion. It can also be the dullest activity to watch short of wood warping (Switzerland v Ukraine replay anyone?)

Rugby Union (League is not a game, it's an abomination) is the most sublime, the most athletic, the most tactical of the football brands. It relies on wonderful skill, incredible bravery, and deepest passion. It is all these things at test level, and at amateur club level, which cannot be said for the others. It is the only human achievement that makes me want to have been born in New Zealand.

American football is an enormously enjoyable romp, and so deliciously American. Even the idea of franchises leaving traditional cities because of money (a concept so universally loathed in Europe, no-one save those in Wimbledon can even conceive of it) is very American. GC is right about the rivalry - in my youth I was privileged to visit the Cleveland Browns when supporting my adopted Steelers. ~:eek:

Three wonderful games, united only by the word football.

[Joker85]

Ah soccer .... https://img185.imageshack.us/img185/5296/11515881447734if.gif

What with all the fake injuries, dive taking, and running back and forth for an hour and a half to culiminate in a mind blowing nil nil tie... what's not to love?!:laugh4:

[Al Khalifah]

I know. I much prefer to watch a bunch of oversized meat-heads in armour repeatedly run into each other while the few athletic members of the team attempt a game of catch around the general melee to try and move 10 yards per 4 throw-and-catches. Fascinating.

Mind you, this World Cup has been terrible for the amount of diving and cheating. I suppose its quite hard to dive or cheat in a sport where the objective is to run into the other team and smash their face.

[Joker85]

I know. I much prefer to watch a bunch of oversized meat-heads in armour repeatedly run into each other while the few athletic members of the team attempt a game of catch around the general melee to try and move 10 yards per 4 throw-and-catches. Fascinating.

Mind you, this World Cup has been terrible for the amount of diving and cheating. I suppose its quite hard to dive or cheat in a sport where the objective is to run into the other team and smash their face.

http://www.journalofsports.com/images/Terrel_Owens.jpg

...yes he sure looks like an "oversized" person to me.

In case you don't know who that is, he's an NFL star.

Perhaps you should learn the difference between Linemen, and Wide receivers, defensivebacks, and runningbacks. They are some of the best athletes in the world.

You see they actually have to be able to do more than run back and forth for 90 minutes randomly falling down when you think the ref is looking. :2thumbsup:

[Al Khalifah]

Yeah, they run about for 10 seconds... then play stops and we have another minute long break and then they run about for 10 seconds.... then play stops and we have another minute long break and then they run...................

And repeat. Its the sustained duration that 'soccer-players' have to run about for that makes them superior athletes. Terrell in that picture seems to have a lot of superficial muscle that would increase his weight dramatically without significant improvements to his physical performance. He's also a wide-reciever so like I said:

while the few athletic members of the team attempt a game of catch
I do understand American football - I just find it very boring to watch.

[Joker85]

Yeah, they run about for 10 seconds... then play stops and we have another minute long break and then they run about for 10 seconds.... then play stops and we have another minute long break and then they run...................

And repeat. Its the sustained duration that 'soccer-players' have to run about for that makes them superior athletes. Terrell in that picture seems to have a lot of superficial muscle that would increase his weight dramatically without significant improvements to his physical performance. He's also a wide-reciever so like I said:

I do understand American football - I just find it very boring to watch.

Fair enough, I really don't have anything against soccer (ignoring my posts). But the prevaling condescending attitude towards Americans in manythings (our sports least of which) gets old after a while. And being I can dish it out as well as I can take it, if people with little to no knowledge of the intricacies football want to simplify and attack it as a "bunch of fat people pushing into each other", then I, a person with little knowledge of the intricacies of soccer will simplify it as "people running back and forth for 90 minutes periodicaly dropping to the ground".

[Boohugh]

American football is just Rugby Union for sissies in my opinion. American footballers need to wear body armour and take breaks all the time, whereas rugby players will be constantly running and tackling each other for 80 mins with only a short half-time break :2thumbsup:

[Watchman]

I always thought those American football players, especially with their armour on, looked like infantile muscle-man fantasies...

I also find the appereance of a line of large, armoured, uniformed, disciplined young men kind of creepy in general.

For some reason I always found the hurly-burly freewheeling of soccer far more pleasant to watch. Maybe it's just my slight claustrophobia speaking though.

[Joker85]

American football is just Rugby Union for sissies in my opinion. American footballers need to wear body armour and take breaks all the time, whereas rugby players will be constantly running and tackling each other for 80 mins with only a short half-time break :2thumbsup:

Or one could say Rugby is just Football without it's balls. :2thumbsup:

Let's continue to generalize sports we only have a general working knowledge of to make ourselves feel better about our own.:laugh4:

[doc_bean]

This debateis getting us no where, besides, women's beach volleyball pnws all other sports

https://img161.imageshack.us/img161/9163/suedafrikabeachvolleyballg3if.jpg

[Fragony]

I am sure american football is a fantastic game if you know how it works, which I don't. What I really don't understand is baseball though, what fun is that??

[doc_bean]

I am sure american football is a fantastic game if you know how it works, which I don't. What I really don't understand is baseball though, what fun is that??

From what I understand from American culture: the beer.

[Boohugh]

This debateis getting us no where, besides, women's beach volleyball pnws all other sports

insert pic of hot beach volleyball players here

I so agree ~:cheers:

[Watchman]

From what I understand from American culture: the beer.I keep hearing persistent rumours that counts as beer only theoretically, though.

[Atilius]

I am sure american football is a fantastic game if you know how it works, which I don't. What I really don't understand is baseball though, what fun is that??

You know Fragony, that's a very good question. I dearly love baseball - it's my favorite sport - but explaining why is hard.

Perhaps it's the intellectual challenge of attempting to remember all the rules which might apply in any given situation: I think there are 11 different ways for a batter to reach base. I can only think of 5 right now.

Long home runs are good: watching Barry Bonds hit a baseball out of 3COM park and into San Francisco Bay is cool. Stolen bases are usually exciting. A well-turned double play is also - the pivot man often throws at the runner's head in order to force him to get out of the way of the throw to first base. Meanwhile, the runner tries to crash into the pivot man before he can make the throw.

But mostly nothing happens. The pitcher looks in for the sign from the catcher, the batter is getting signs from the 3rd base coach. So you have a lot of standing around interspersed with bursts of violent activity. A lot like American Football actually. Hmmmmm.....

[Rodion Romanovich]

Do South American babes count as "Americans" in this discussion? And are Asian babes counted under "Europeans"? :grin:

[Husar]

Americans should look at the game more, I think most don't understand what is really going on. It's playes like a battle, just as I expext american football to be. A lot of the critism, like football being 'sissy' sport would be quikly watered down after seeing one match, these guys make terrible falls, and unlike american football, where you falling is part of the game, players don't expect to fall so they move differently and have worse injuries.
Wouldn´t the guys who dress all over in body armour be the sissies?~;)

I advice all Americans older than 16 years to watch the latest Netherlands vs. Portugal football game.:2thumbsup:

And to clarify my first post, soccer is football and football is rugby.:laugh4:

[Incongruous]

Oh sheesus!
Yanks trying to tell people their Football is tough pah!
Man you guys should come down to nz, take of ur armour and play a game of ruggers with us, hows you're scrum?

[Fragony]

I advice all Americans older than 16 years to watch the latest Netherlands vs. Portugal football game.:2thumbsup:

Well, eh ahum, that would be, well, you know :sweatdrop: :shame:

@Atilius, more a battle of statistics and chance no? Someone here described it as a preasure boiler, I can understand that if you know all the players, how hard they throw, etc etc that it is fun. I love to sink my teeth in complex strategy games, so if I grew up with baseball I would probably love it as well.

[Al Khalifah]

If you like the combination of the cheating of football with the violence of rugby you can always watch the Six Nations - where England not only have to struggle against the opposition, but also against the most ridiculously biased refereeing decisions in sport today.

[caravel]

We know. I'm not calling it anything but Soccer, just because the rest of the world calls it Football. Here in America, it's Soccer, and Football is a sport where two teams of large men in body armor try to invade the opposing team's side of the field by using strategy to transport the Football itself.

Forgive me for calling it what the rest of my country calls it.

You need to calm down mate. I was just pointing this out, because it can be confusing. Sometimes when conversing on an international messageboard one has to be prepared to compromise somewhat.

As to American Football and Rugby, they both seem very similar indeed. How has American Football "evolved" from rugby. What are the differences apart from the armour?

[macsen rufus]

Gah! This thread was more fun when it was about babes, before sport crept in :help:

@ Legio
Do South American babes count as "Americans" in this discussion? And are Asian babes counted under "Europeans"?

No way - Latinas count as angels ~:pimp: :helloo: :girlslap: ~;) :sweatdrop:

[caravel]

No way - Latinas count as angels ~:pimp: :helloo: :girlslap: ~;) :sweatdrop:

:2thumbsup:

[Al Khalifah]

You have four plays in which to get the football at least 10 yards (a little less than 10 meters for you Europeans, I think), or else the ball goes to the other team.
This is one point that really pisses me off about the use of the term 'European.' What measurement system do you think is standard in the United Kingdom?

We buy beer in pints, we measure distances in miles and we have our own independant currency. Europe is not an isotropic whole. It is far more diverse than even the USA. The UK is as different to France as Texas is to California.

[rory_20_uk]

This is one point that really pisses me off about the use of the term 'European.' What measurement system do you think is standard in the United Kingdom?

We buy beer in pints, we measure distances in miles and we have our own independant currency. Europe is not an isotropic whole. It is far more diverse than even the USA. The UK is as different to France as Texas is to California.

Amen. We're only close to france in terms of distance.

~:smoking:

[Perplexed]

Or one could say Rugby is just Football without it's balls. :2thumbsup:

Rugby is to Football as Ox is to Bull

[Brenus]

“We're only close to france in terms of distance.” Easier to go for shopping…:laugh4:

[Al Khalifah]

Why go to France? The food there is terrible.

[Samurai Waki]

...Back on Football vs. Soccer

Admittedly I had a low opinion of European Football before I saw a game in Person. Its one of those things that gets your adrenaline going because everyone elses adrenaline is so high, within the first half your cheering and booing the team your going for even if you don't quite understand whats going on. Its quite phenomenal really. Same could be said about a European going to an American Football Game.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Haha. To be honest, I thought John Galt was the worst character in the book.

Anyone who rambles on for 50 pages can't be great.

There was one good character, or, at least one I liked- the viking pirate.

And to football- I like both kinds, and play both kinds.

I've noticed lately some articles dissing soccer in the US. THe most surprising one was one comparing watching soccer to watching cheese. The aggravating thing was the author had not watched any world cup games and based his analysis on the fact that the US had scored only one goal in three games.

And it was an article on National Review. :no:

Crazed Rabbit

[whyidie]

My take on the sports on the table:

1) American Football - Violent sport. Becuase of the rules you get quite a bit of specilization in the different roles. It can be incredibly entertaining to watch but because of the excessive amounts of commercial timeouts and uneccessary stoppages a game can become incredibly boring if neither team is playing spirited ball on offense of defense. With the possible exception of Rugby this is the only sport where some of the players play with broken bones. In my top two for overall best athletes. They're big. They're fast. They're strong. Cardio is a potential weakness, but overall the players at the skill positions are incredibly athletic.

2) Rugby - I haven't played or watched it enough to really comment. I will say that from what I have seen it can be downright brutal. Like the difference between the early days of the tough man competitions and boxing. With some exceptions football injuries are more beneath the skin. You rarely lose teeth. Blood doesn't flow from your face too often. My brother who has played Rugby tells me that he wishes American Football was more like Ruby and didn't have as many rules.

3) Basketball - Beautiful sport to play and watch. Trumps Amerfootball in terms of team creativity. Similar to Soccer in that regard. While Amerfootball would be more a regimented marching band, basketball would be a jazz band. Basketball has suffered because of too many fouls being called and stoppages for commercials. Selfish individual play made the game hard to watch for a spell. These things really kill the flow of the game and basketball, like jazz, is all about the flow. Incredible athletes. Size does matter for the lesser skilled and unmotivated middle. If you're tall and have "upside" you can be a bench warmer. But in the upper echelons of the league size becomes less of a factor than overall skill and drive. Basketball players would get my vote for most well rounded athletes.

4) Soccer - I got so disenchanted with the constant stoppages and incredible amount of boring matches in Amerfootball during the 2000 season that I started watching soccer instead of football on Sundays. While I've since gone back to football, soccer has earned a spot in the rotation. Gifted athletes, opportunity for creative team play, and passion that is unrivaled. LOVE the lack of commercials and needless timeouts. Can't say enough about that. They have kept the sport true to itself in that regard. TV and commercials don't dictate what happens on the pitch. Bravo. Some things I'm struggling with. Can't use your hands. That does suck, but its still an engaging sport. Worst case of diving. Basketball has its share of floppers, but soccer takes the crown hands down. The card system is difficult to get used to. I wouldn't mind seeing a basketball type system adopted. You get six fouls and you're gone. Card or not. Would love to stop players from having to sit out the next game when they get two yellows. Especially in the knockout rounds. After watching Brazils practices during WC '94 I came to appreciate their fitness levels.

5) My first love. Similar to soccer in that you have to pay attention in order to truly appreciate it. You can have a beautifully played, engaging 2-0 game. On the opposite end a 10-9 slugfest can be just as entertaining. One of the neat things about baseball is that you have a series of 1 on 1 pitcher-batter showdowns throughout the game. More nuanced than soccer, rugby...I'm going to say than any of the other listed games. Baseball is a marriage. Football is a one night stand. Of all the sports baseball has the least well rounded athletes. Skilled, but not necessarily athletic.

6) Hockey - Haven't watched or played enough but from what I have watched and played it is an incredibly fun sport. You use all your tools, have physicality and have opportunities for team creativity. Feet, hands, speed, cardio, it all comes into play although you can't throw things you do get to carry a stick at all times. Yet we never really hooked up. I blame the warm weather. What could have been.

[Brenus]

“The food there is terrible.” Here, we compare with ENGLISH food… Mash potatoes, roast potatoes, gravy, broccolis, carrots, roast meat, fishes and chips etc… :inquisitive:
Now, if YOU find this better than the French Food, well, you are lost from the human race…:laugh4:

[Al Khalifah]

Mash potatoes, roast potatoes, gravy, broccolis, carrots, roast meat, fishes and chips
What decade are you living in?
We have adopted the cuisine of the world and made it our own. If you go anywhere in this country besides your local and are prepared to spend a bit of money you will find food as good as anywhere in the world. This is perhaps why London was voted the best city to eat out in - in the World.

[Fragony]

London has the BEST indian food I ever devoured. Prefer Paris in general though, and it's so refreshing to not see a kentucky fried chicken, burger king and macDonalds in every street, and what it does to people.

[Al Khalifah]

My favorite Parisian cuisine is riot-car-barbeque. As in, beef barbequed on a car that has been set on fire during a street riot. It's fantastic and is fortunetly served almost every week these days.

[Fragony]

My favorite Parisian cuisine is riot-car-barbeque. As in, beef barbequed on a car that has been set on fire during a street riot. It's fantastic and is fortunetly served almost every week these days.

This is brilliant on so many levels :laugh4:

[Quid]

Why go to France? The food there is terrible.

!!!LMAO!!!

...and the food in England isn't? Common, man!

Quid

[Banquo's Ghost]

This is one point that really pisses me off about the use of the term 'European.' What measurement system do you think is standard in the United Kingdom?

We buy beer in pints, we measure distances in miles and we have our own independant currency. Europe is not an isotropic whole. It is far more diverse than even the USA. The UK is as different to France as Texas is to California.

Actually, if you check, you'll find that the UK Parliament passed into law the requirement to use metric measurements as standard. You are all metric now, and several shopkeepers have been taken to court for refusing to put kilos on their grocery signs.

There are still some exceptions, and imperial measurments are still allowed (since half your school-leavers are innumerate and can't do the decimal math :wink: ) but the Evil Empire of the European Onion has deemed you a Metric colony like the rest of us.

:bounce:

[Al Khalifah]

Law whatever.
Next time you pass by these shores, ask someone how much something weighs or how far it is to somewhere. Trust me, our government is so disconnected from the people of this country that for the most part what they do is just ignored and we all try to just get on with our little lives.

[Brenus]

“This is perhaps why London was voted the best city to eat out in - in the World.”: By whom? :laugh4:

[Somebody Else]

Baseball... I think we have that in the UK. My sister played it at school, but we call it rounders.

I'm a rugby player myself... I like a game I'm required to think whilst playing (and have the chance to beast on the other team).

So, yes... I'm from Europe - where the history comes from.

Better wine, whiskey, food - well, you know the drill. It's the whole European finesse thing up against American excess.

[Perplexed]

“The food there is terrible.” Here, we compare with ENGLISH food… Mash potatoes, roast potatoes, gravy, broccolis, carrots, roast meat, fishes and chips etc… :inquisitive:
Now, if YOU find this better than the French Food, well, you are lost from the human race…:laugh4:

Steamed broccoli is the food of heaven, no joke.

[Joker85]

https://img51.imageshack.us/img51/3356/ronaldoc7ke4be5sx.gif

[Atilius]

5) My first love. ... You can have a beautifully played, engaging 2-0 game. On the opposite end a 10-9 slugfest can be just as entertaining. ... Baseball is a marriage. Football is a one night stand.

(Sniff) ...agree entirely.. Sorry, verklempt...



6) Hockey - Haven't watched or played enough but from what I have watched and played it is an incredibly fun sport...

In spite of living in a part of the country in which hockey is more religion than sport, I've never learned to like it. I always think of this play when I think of hockey: On a breakaway, the guy with the puck is streaking down the ice only to be hauled down by a defenseman. Both players slide together into the goalie and all three of them knock the net off its pegs. Players and net slam together into the boards. No.

[Quid]

https://img51.imageshack.us/img51/3356/ronaldoc7ke4be5sx.gif

Oooookey then, while we're at it.

Clicky (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRO626ImQek)

Just thought you would like to know how Italy won against the Aussies...

Sorry, off topic...perhaps this would have found better company in the video- or even the WC thread.

Quid

[Ironside]

Oooookey then, while we're at it.

Clicky (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRO626ImQek)

Just thought you would like to know how Italy won against the Aussies...

Sorry, off topic...perhaps this would have found better company in the video- or even the WC thread.

Quid

How long do you think it'll take before the cameras is starting to have an effect on the judging during a game?

[Husar]

https://img51.imageshack.us/img51/3356/ronaldoc7ke4be5sx.gif
That´s really great and a similar scene happened in the Portugal vs England game where a Portuguesse made similar tricks and then shot against the knee of an English player.:dizzy2: :laugh4:

[Rodion Romanovich]

Oooookey then, while we're at it.

Clicky (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRO626ImQek)

Just thought you would like to know how Italy won against the Aussies...

Sorry, off topic...perhaps this would have found better company in the video- or even the WC thread.

Quid

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Watchman]

A major soccer match isn't just a sports event - it's also a performance art exhibition. Now that's sophisticated.

[doc_bean]

How long do you think it'll take before the cameras is starting to have an effect on the judging during a game?

Even camera footage is often debated, I don't see it happening anytime soon.

[Aenlic]

In American football, the Camera is used for judging. Doesn't seem to stop the referees from making horrible calls though.

Case in point would be the last Superbowl. Ugh. :wall:

The NFL is a sick joke perpetrated on fans to enrich a bunch of unfaithful scumbag owners sitting in their box seats and holding entire cities' fans at ransom to pay for their stadiums with tax money and bond elections. If the fans won't pony up whatever the owners want, then the teams up and leave. Screw them.

I quit watching the NFL long ago, back when my team packed up and pranced off to Tennessee. I don't live in Tennessee. I'm not interested in rooting for the Tennessee Panty-Waists or whatever they called themselves. I'm not interested in whatever team crawled out of the woodwork to replace them, either. It's been exactly that long since I last watched an NFL game or payed any attention to the NFL. I couldn't even tell you who was in the last Superbowl, much less who won.

:furious3:

Not that I feel strongly about it, at all. :grin:

[Quid]

How long do you think it'll take before the cameras is starting to have an effect on the judging during a game?

My apologies once again...wholly off topic.

I hope it'll never happen. Football has always lived off the ref's 'wrong' decisions. What does have to happen is more cards for diving, i.e. if the ref sees a player dive, it should automatically be a card. Throughout this WC we have seen many instances where the ref simply told the player to get up and get on with the game. No card.

Furthermore, talking to the ref and asking for another player to be carded should also be stopped. Only the captain of a team should have the privilage to talk to the ref directly. The ref has to be 'God' on the pitch and his word respected - even if disputed.

The ref should also have other options to punish treams. One example would be a 10 metre penalty (not a spot kick, if you know what I mean. Much like in Rugby if not back ten yards or gobbing off).

I am not totally against uses of cameras. Teams that are notorious for 'unfair' play should receive penalties - even if done after the game. Disallowed goals, offsides etc. should not be able to be contested. Only fairplay.

Quid

[Banquo's Ghost]

The ref should also have other options to punish treams. One example would be a 10 metre penalty (not a spot kick, if you know what I mean. Much like in Rugby if not back ten yards or gobbing off).

I wholeheartedly agree with this idea. In rugby, you rarely get much dissent aginst the referee, because one word and your team is marched ten yards deeper into trouble. I believe American Football has the same rule.

Of course, these are games where territory is much more important than soccer, but nonetheless, I think it would stop the current nonsense where the referee is in fear of his life every time someone sneezes.

(In rugger, the accepted response for someone being stamped in the 'nads is a prop forward adminstering 'justice'. The ref is a sideshow - but an unmolested one. :evil:)

[thrashaholic]

What might help in Football is to adopt something similar to the 'Sin Bin' in Rugby, where a player gets sent off when they're comitted a 'professional (deliberate) foul', but only for 10 minutes. It usually punishes a side (I think the avaerage number of points scored against the offending team is 7 during the 10 minute period), but doesn't ruin the match by one side being handicapped for too long.

Liberal use of a 'sin bin' would probably stop a lot of the back-chat football refs get at the moment, and possibly stop some of the other professional fouls one sees in football: like diving.

Incidentally, I think this quotation says it all about American Football: "A standard football game consists of four 15-minute (typically 12 minutes in high school football) periods (called quarters), with an intermission (called halftime) after the second quarter. The clock stops after certain plays; therefore, a game can last considerably longer (often more than three hours in real time)." Any game that is supposed to last an hour, but ends up lasting three must be utterly dire. Thats a whole two hours of absolutely nothing happening, how dull...

Rugby on the other-hand, now there's a sport, much better than both poof-ball and American poof-ball combined...

[Banquo's Ghost]

What might help in Football is to adopt something similar to the 'Sin Bin' in Rugby, where a player gets sent off when they're comitted a 'professional (deliberate) foul', but only for 10 minutes. It usually punishes a side (I think the avaerage number of points scored against the offending team is 7 during the 10 minute period), but doesn't ruin the match by one side being handicapped for too long.

I've heard this mooted, but I don't think it would have the effect it does in rugby. Losing a man in rugger tends to unbalance the team enough so that points are more likely to be scored against them.

In soccer, one already sees too much of the 'ten-men-behind-the-ball-play-for-a-draw-or-penalties' mentality, so I think there would be a massive defensive lock-up for the ten minutes of sin bin time. It's not quite so easy to score in soccer in that scenario, so I fear even more boring draws.

Incidentally, since we are already way off on a tangent, what do people think should replace penalty shoot-outs (if anything)? I like the idea of unlimited periods of extra time, with a man having to be taken off every five minutes, and the match decided by the golden goal (first score wins). For example, after the first period of extra time you'd only have seven men on per team, increasing the likelihood of scoring greatly.

It would mean lots of tactical nouse needed by the manager (sorry Sven :laugh4: ), lock-out defending would become unviable by the second period of extra time, lots of nail-biting excitement and no villains, only heroes.

:inquisitive:

[Quid]

I've heard this mooted, but I don't think it would have the effect it does in rugby. Losing a man in rugger tends to unbalance the team enough so that points are more likely to be scored against them.

In soccer, one already sees too much of the 'ten-men-behind-the-ball-play-for-a-draw-or-penalties' mentality, so I think there would be a massive defensive lock-up for the ten minutes of sin bin time. It's not quite so easy to score in soccer in that scenario, so I fear even more boring draws.

Incidentally, since we are already way off on a tangent, what do people think should replace penalty shoot-outs (if anything)? I like the idea of unlimited periods of extra time, with a man having to be taken off every five minutes, and the match decided by the golden goal (first score wins). For example, after the first period of extra time you'd only have seven men on per team, increasing the likelihood of scoring greatly.

It would mean lots of tactical nouse needed by the manager (sorry Sven :laugh4: ), lock-out defending would become unviable by the second period of extra time, lots of nail-biting excitement and no villains, only heroes.

:inquisitive:

I think they should just play on until one team wins. Simple as that. They do it in tennis, they can do it in football. Okay, not quite the same thing, but hey, why not?

Quid

[Banquo's Ghost]

I think they should just play on until one team wins. Simple as that. They do it in tennis, they can do it in football. Okay, not quite the same thing, but hey, why not?


Why not? Yer honour, I respectfully submit Exhibit A:

Switzerland v Ukraine. :snore:

[Quid]

Why not? Yer honour, I respectfully submit Exhibit A:

Switzerland v Ukraine. :snore:

Ok, ok, you don't really have to watch it now, do you. Hell, even I was watching something else in between. That game would still have had a result...sooner or later...:help:

Quid

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I too think that going to a time unlimited golden goal scenario after extra time would be preferable to penalties. The teams wouls start getting extremely tired, and begin to make mistakes, which would increase the likelihood of someone scoring.

It's got to be better than the penalty-decide the match at random-shootout.