|
|
Karel Čapek wrote: Isn't it the same for both sides?
Oddly, no. In the NFL each team uses it's own balls when they're on offense.
|
|
|
|
|
That's why nobody outside US understand this game 
Bruno
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd bet most people inside the US didn't know about the balls.
I have no idea why they do it that way...
On a related note: Can you explain the difference between a legal tackle vs. an illegal tackle in soccer? It seems totally arbitrary from tackle to tackle let alone game to game.
|
|
|
|
|
An illegal tackle in 'soccer' (hate that word) is the one where you get caught by the ref.
|
|
|
|
|
Is the right answer.
There is a wonderful phrase running all through the laws of Association Football;
If, in the opinion of the referee, ...
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
That's easy, although it has varied. A legal tackle is one where the ball is played, not the man. If contact is made with the man, then it is illegal. Sometimes a referee will allow a technically illegal tackle if the contact was accidental, the outcome wasn't changed by the contact and calling the foul would constitute an unnecessary interruption in the game. Known as "Play on".
Now the "controversial" bits:
A tackle from behind has from time-to-time been considered illegal, although if no contact with the person is made, I've never seen it in the rules. It's actually very hard to tackle from behind and not make contact though. Some refs will always blow for such a tackle.
Shoulder-to-shoulder: Technically this contact is allowed although plenty of refs will blow for shoulder-to-shoulder challenges.
Finally, "taking the man with the ball": If the contact is man to ball, ball to man, it's never a foul. It can often be hard to tell though and referees will call a foul when hasn't been made.
It's been a long while since I've read an FA rule book and there may have been changes, but them were the rules when I used to ref!
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
No I can't. Nearly same thing in ice hockey (my favorite). And in ice hockey it becomes strange, at least in europe (I hope not in Canada/US)...one is not allowed to disturb/check a player when he is not near the puck.....
Bruno
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
...Undo of my message just before.....
*lol* I like clipboard...so try again:
No I can't. Nearly same thing in ice hockey (my favorite). And in ice hockey it becomes strange, at least in europe (I hope not in Canada/US)...one is not allowed to disturb/check a player when he is not near the puck.....
Bruno
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Bruno Sprecher wrote: one is not allowed to disturb/check a player when he is not near the puck.....
Pretty sure its the same in Canada / US hockey.
Contrary to popular belief, nobody owes you anything.
|
|
|
|
|
That is sad info. Hockey is a something like a "combative" Sport...played it for nearly 20 years (and yes I was not successful). Why the hell it is not longer allowed to press a player to avoid that he can Change the game....for this I'm missing the "good" old time.
Bruno
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Seriously? That is dumb. Why don't the game officials provide the balls and then you wouldn't get this issue?
|
|
|
|
|
Or have the teams play with each other's balls.
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. Baseball, basketball, hockey all do it that way. The way the NFL operates it almost begs for teams to "bend the rules".
|
|
|
|
|
... and you don't want to get started on cricket balls (although deflated is never a problem!)
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
I cringed when I read the headline for this post?
Glad it turned out not to have anything to do with an emasculator.
New version: WinHeist Version 2.1.0
My goal in life is to have a psychiatric disorder named after me.
I'm currently unsupervised, I know it freaks me out too but the possibilities are endless.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Hankey wrote: emasculator
Was that one of Arnie's roles?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
My boss has designed a practical test to be used during interviews for new members of our database team, and asked me to sit it. Apparently I've got the job  I can still bullshit with the best of them!
|
|
|
|
|
I would negotiate the future payment.
Bruno
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Congratulations!
That means you'll be getting two salaries, now? 
|
|
|
|
|
I have not done an interview/test in 15 years, I suspect my bullshit capability may have slipped!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
The guy who turned up today to take the test scored high on the bullshit monitor - the boss recognised him and checked the personnel records - he worked for the company about 7 years ago, and was sacked after three months. His CV said that he was working for a different company in that timespan.
=========================================================
I'm an optoholic - my glass is always half full of vodka.
=========================================================
|
|
|
|
|
In the UK I interviewed a DBA who I had sacked 3 years before in Oz, he dropped the production database and had backed up the master DB 3 times instead of the production DBs.
He got the job as he was the best of a bad lot <facepalm>
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Metaphorically.
In the early nineties, many said: "I do OO correctly; you don't understand OO".
Now, they seem to say: "I work on Big Data; you don't understand Big Data".
Is there a similarity?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, neither are a silver bullet
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
