Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Cherry picking. And correct awful call. But we can go on all day and dispute calls in each sport
My point is don't act like the NBA isn't immune from similar deficiencies.
It's not cherrypicking. I don't think you understand the difference between a blown call and a lack of clarity on what the rule is in the first place. Tennis had blown calls before the invention of HawkEye technology. Linesmen would call balls out that were really in. That's different from not understanding what makes a ball in or out to begin with.
The NBA's rules do not have the same degree of ambiguity as the NFL's. Don't even try to pretend that they are comparable. There's a big blowup about some rule change in the NFL every few seasons. The complaints in basketball are usually that refs are too whistle happy, not that they are trying to enforce rules that the League admits it can't even fully understand.
There are no "unsettled" rules in the NBA. Sure, the competition committee tinkers with the rules, but there are no fundamental disagreements like what you had with the tuck rule. Whereas a bad call in the NBA affects just one game, the tuck rule had implications for every game. The NFL has a history of inventing rules that are completely unworkable.
Anybody who says the rules are equally confusing is not a real sports fan. Or they get kicks out of being a contrarian.
Quote:
The tuck rule is the tuck rule," said Redskins Coach Joe Gibbs, who discussed the call with the NFL's officiating department. "It says you can pull [the ball] down and do anything you want for the next 10 minutes. It makes no sense to me. It's the way it's worded. I think everybody probably sees that and says it's a bad rule."
All our primary games are flawed and are difficult to govern. Balls and strikes in baseball, personal fouls in basketball, and penalties in hockey are subject to someone’s opinion, and we often quarrel passionately about them. When it’s all said and done, we acknowledge that these are difficult calls and we judge officials by their track record in making a decent percentage of what we would deem to be “correct” calls. We allow for human frailty, even as we applaud human ingenuity and experience. But football has gone out of its way to overanalyze things in a futile attempt to eliminate the human factor in certain situations, with Rule 3, Section 21, Article 2 being Exhibit A.
You can bring in whatever sport you want. The fact remains that football doesn't have much scoring. It has roughly the same amount of scoring as sports that are often criticized for not having enough scoring.
I think the difference is that defense in football is a lot more entertaining to watch than defense in soccer. Even in a low scoring game, watching tackle blow up a draw behind the line of scrimmage is a lot more fun that watching a defensive soccer game, even though I'm sure there are some very beautiful, intricate things going on in soccer defense, too.
The very idea of either being 'better' than the other is absurd. What's 'better'?
There are no objective metrics by which to compare them. They are entertainment. Their appeal is subjective.
The real question is this: why are people so emotionally needed that they desperately need to convince themselves that their subjective preferences are actually objective truths?
The very idea of either being 'better' than the other is absurd. What's 'better'?
There are no objective metrics by which to compare them. They are entertainment. Their appeal is subjective.
The real question is this: why are people so emotionally needed that they desperately need to convince themselves that their subjective preferences are actually objective truths?
I agree the absurdity are a few of the arguments being posed.
There is no question that the rules in football are dumber and less consistently applied than they are in basketball. Most people complain about inconsistent calls in the NBA, but at least there's some consensus on what the rule is in the first place. The NFL admits the rule is confusing.
That's got to be the biggest reason football has been cooling on me. Football already has less scoring and less games, so luck is already a larger factor in who wins.... Add in all of these byzantine rules and over-reffing and you have a very large chunk of the games decided by refs.
I think the difference is that defense in football is a lot more entertaining to watch than defense in soccer. Even in a low scoring game, watching tackle blow up a draw behind the line of scrimmage is a lot more fun that watching a defensive soccer game, even though I'm sure there are some very beautiful, intricate things going on in soccer defense, too.
I would agree with that. But to take the comparison back to basketball, you get a lot more "defensive struggles" in football. The bottom line is that people enjoy offense, which is why the NFL has instituted a series of rule changes that favor the passing game.
Quote:
Consider this: In 2005, there were only two 400-yard passing games all season, both by Marc Bulger of the Rams. In 2013, that total has already been surpassed, and Week One isn’t even over. Peyton Manning, Eli Manning and Colin Kaepernick all topped 400 yards this week.
....
What has changed? That was the question Brian Kenny posed to me on his NBC Sports Radio show this morning. The primary difference is the rules: Quarterbacks are protected from hits. Wide receivers are protected from hits. Pass interference, illegal contact and defensive holding are called much more stringently.
So while the defense is more exciting in football than it is in soccer (at least in my opinion), NFL games are still largely defensive chess matches, which casual fans find boring (hence rule changes designed to increase scoring). A competitive game with a bunch of 3 and outs is not exciting. That's essentially what we had in this year's Super Bowl. When NBA games get boring, it's because one team is scoring way too much compared to the other.
Kinda like the first 3 games of the snoozefest known as the 2016 NBA Finals.
I guess the difference is that we have 4 more games to hold out hope for.
There is a 2 week gap between the conference championships and the Super Bowl. So we endure two weeks of press conferences, pre-game hype, and prognostications for one game that is not even that good more often than not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
