Originally posted by CrazyLilTingThe poster in question emphasises his statement as a "whistler" (a Fred Lowry fan?) rather than a "bugler" by choosing for his thread title a derisory "pfffft" instead of a brassy "parp".
Note the contraposition of "whistle" vs "bugle", the former being a very poor musical instrument (if one at all), against the last (the bugle).
Cheers.
- J
Originally posted by no1marauderrec for being a great writer -- especially the harpoon part
Well I had the misfortune to actually watch some of the World Cup today as the sports bar I was watching the Yankee game at had it bracketed by two TV's showing this ridiculous "sport". Let's get this straight once and for all: soccer is as lame as frisbee tossing and probably more boring.
First, soccer fans always talk about the "action" in the ...[text shortened]... hould be picked up and thrown by human beings as we evolved hands for a reason.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageComment totally out of context, to say the least.
The poster in question emphasises his statement as a "whistler" (a Fred Lowry fan?) rather than a "bugler" by choosing for his thread title a derisory "pfffft" instead of a brassy "parp".
Try again if you care. I don't.
- J
Isn't it american football that has a rule where sometimes,in case of a tie,the outcome is decided by a coin toss?Enough said.
Must agree on the extra time,they oughta get rid of that crap.
The actors have to go too.Some nice,shiny red cards would take care of that.
And a little shoulder bump should never be a foul either.
If you want more goals make them play 5 vs 5 on both halfs and only defenders are allowed to cross the midfield line.
Originally posted by GorgarI can't see how more goals makes it more interesting. I suspect it would make it less interesting. I believe the excitement of most sports is not actually scoring of a goal or the making of points but the build up and play that could potentially lead up to it. Fewer goals means the game is always tight and the build up in one half or the other is always more important as a result. It is rare in football to be so far ahead that the opposing team has no chance.
Isn't it american football that has a rule where sometimes,in case of a tie,the outcome is decided by a coin toss?Enough said.
Must agree on the extra time,they oughta get rid of that crap.
The actors have to go too.Some nice,shiny red cards would take care of that.
And a little shoulder bump should never be a foul either.
If you want more goals make them play 5 vs 5 on both halfs and only defenders are allowed to cross the midfield line.
Originally posted by WheelyGee, you probably consider watching a pie bake more exciting than eating it.
I can't see how more goals makes it more interesting. I suspect it would make it less interesting. I believe the excitement of most sports is not actually scoring of a goal or the making of points but the build up and play that could potentially lead up to it. Fewer goals means the game is always tight and the build up in one half or the other is always mo ...[text shortened]... t as a result. It is rare in football to be so far ahead that the opposing team has no chance.
Originally posted by no1marauderI never said a game has been decided that way.I said there is such a rule.
No football game was ever decided by a coin toss; even if you get the ball first you still have to move it down the field to score. Personally, I'd like to see the NFL rule changed for sudden death, but TV networks rule.
Originally posted by no1marauderI was just playing Devil's Advocate, but essentially I agree with you. However, you can't deny the fact that getting the ball first is a big advantage with the NFL's sudden death rule.
No football game was ever decided by a coin toss; even if you get the ball first you still have to move it down the field to score. Personally, I'd like to see the NFL rule changed for sudden death, but TV networks rule.