What Pisses You Off?

I usually try to be a positive person, but I just found an example too good to pass up for this thread. I've been a staunch supporter of no drums. Not because I like English style of support or because I don't like fabricated noise. The reason I absolutely cannot stand drums during a game is from watching MLS and hearing this...

http://matchcenter.mlssoccer.com/ma...ion-vs-new-york-red-bulls/details/video/18278

WHY??!?!

...who on earth is banging on that drum making the stadium feel like it's on a massive migraine. Am I the only one annoyed by this?
 
Whats cricket got to do with football.

Wicket (strip in a square)
Square (where the wickets are)
outfield - not in the square

Pitch or field ... the whole

And jerseys are called jumpers

I think you have your terminology a little out. The wicket is the combination of the three stumps and the two bails - it's what the bowlers are aiming at. I've not heard of the term "square" used in cricket before although I gather that it can be used, but the area where the wickets are is traditionally called the crease. This area can also be called the pitch (pitch does not refer to the whole playing area) whereas the field is the entire playing field.

The point is that kit, pitch, side, etc are just British terms for things in sports, not just in football. Am I correct in that? Are pitch, side, and kit exclusive to football?

Cricket has slightly different terms (as above), largely because cricket - not football - is the origin for most British sports terminology, and the other terms we now view as being "typical British terminology" are actually old cricket terms which have been misapplied to other things (i.e. the way that the "pitch" which is merely the most important area of a cricket field now being used for the entirety of other sports' fields of play.

The other notable exception is the "jersey/kit" term for cricket. Cricket is practically unique in British sports as its' the only sport where people wear armour for protection. Because it's immediately obvious at any time which players are on each team (the "attacking" team are the only ones holding the bats, and they also have very distinctive protection) then there's no real need for the two teams to wear different clothing. The concept of different teams wearing different colours is a very recent development. Traditionally both teams would play in white and the only difference would be the club badge on their t-shirts. For this reason, terms are very rarely used to talk about the "kits/shirts/jerseys" being worn, because they simply aren't relevant to the game. They're not really the kinds of things that fans buy to wear to games.
 
I think you have your terminology a little out. The wicket is the combination of the three stumps and the two bails - it's what the bowlers are aiming at. I've not heard of the term "square" used in cricket before although I gather that it can be used, but the area where the wickets are is traditionally called the crease. This area can also be called the pitch (pitch does not refer to the whole playing area) whereas the field is the entire playing field.



Cricket has slightly different terms (as above), largely because cricket - not football - is the origin for most British sports terminology, and the other terms we now view as being "typical British terminology" are actually old cricket terms which have been misapplied to other things (i.e. the way that the "pitch" which is merely the most important area of a cricket field now being used for the entirety of other sports' fields of play.

The other notable exception is the "jersey/kit" term for cricket. Cricket is practically unique in British sports as its' the only sport where people wear armour for protection. Because it's immediately obvious at any time which players are on each team (the "attacking" team are the only ones holding the bats, and they also have very distinctive protection) then there's no real need for the two teams to wear different clothing. The concept of different teams wearing different colours is a very recent development. Traditionally both teams would play in white and the only difference would be the club badge on their t-shirts.

Agreed Falastur... The only other game (not British) that I have played with major protection is Lacrosse, though I am aware it exists in Ice Hockey.

Another serious question for Americans as I have never been lucky (or unlucky) enough to play is American football. Why is so much armour needed as against Rugby Union ?
 
Agreed Falastur... The only other game (not British) that I have played with major protection is Lacrosse, though I am aware it exists in Ice Hockey.

Another serious question for Americans as I have never been lucky (or unlucky) enough to play is American football. Why is so much armour needed as against Rugby Union ?

Usurping the whole "to Americans" bit, but it's because of the way that tackling works. In American Football you literally just throw your entire body into the path of your opponents - you can even tackle people who don't have the ball (in some circumstances, I think?) This means that bodies just go flying in all directions. In rugby the method for tackling is much more proscribed, and if you do it correctly it is far safer (even if it's a much more intimidating thing to contemplate doing).
 
I usually try to be a positive person, but I just found an example too good to pass up for this thread. I've been a staunch supporter of no drums. Not because I like English style of support or because I don't like fabricated noise. The reason I absolutely cannot stand drums during a game is from watching MLS and hearing this...

http://matchcenter.mlssoccer.com/ma...ion-vs-new-york-red-bulls/details/video/18278

WHY??!?!

...who on earth is banging on that drum making the stadium feel like it's on a massive migraine. Am I the only one annoyed by this?
That's a 4/4 beat. They are probably keeping time to a chant.
 
That's a 4/4 beat. They are probably keeping time to a chant.

I should preface this by saying I am a drummer...(not saying I am a great drummer. There is much I do not know about rhythm and drums)..

If that was a 4/4 beat the bpm of that has to be sub 40 (i think i actually counted 1 beat per 2 seconds so that would be 30 bpm)...If they are singing choir music I might understand.

AND if they are singing chants the chants would hopefully be louder than the drums.
 
I should preface this by saying I am a drummer...(not saying I am a great drummer. There is much I do not know about rhythm and drums)..

If that was a 4/4 beat the bpm of that has to be sub 40 (i think i actually counted 1 beat per 2 seconds so that would be 30 bpm)...If they are singing choir music I might understand.

AND if they are singing chants the chants would hopefully be louder than the drums.
I'm a musician too, 15 years, also studied Audio Recording and Technology in college. Now, despite it being irrelevent to the discussion, we both know each others credentials.

It's still a 4/4 beat. Whether it's 35 or 45 or 55 bpm doesn't mean much.

Low frequencies always travel further than high frequencies. Especially when your microphones have pop-filters on them. That's not even considering the fact that the announcers are using condenser or plate diaphragm mics that will only pick up the low thud of a drum.

So I apologize, but they are probably singing with those drums. Can you hear it? No, high and mids are absorbed. All that's left is low resonating frequencies.
 
I'm a musician too, 15 years, also studied Audio Recording and Technology in college. Now, despite it being irrelevent to the discussion, we both know each others credentials.

It's still a 4/4 beat. Whether it's 35 or 45 or 55 bpm doesn't mean much.

Low frequencies always travel further than high frequencies. Especially when your microphones have pop-filters on them. That's not even considering the fact that the announcers are using condenser or plate diaphragm mics that will only pick up the low thud of a drum.

So I apologize, but they are probably singing with those drums. Can you hear it? No, high and mids are absorbed. All that's left is low resonating frequencies.

No need to apologize. I wasn't trying to be feisty but point taken...
 
I think you have your terminology a little out. The wicket is the combination of the three stumps and the two bails - it's what the bowlers are aiming at. I've not heard of the term "square" used in cricket before although I gather that it can be used, but the area where the wickets are is traditionally called the crease. This area can also be called the pitch (pitch does not refer to the whole playing area) whereas the field is the entire playing field.



Cricket has slightly different terms (as above), largely because cricket - not football - is the origin for most British sports terminology, and the other terms we now view as being "typical British terminology" are actually old cricket terms which have been misapplied to other things (i.e. the way that the "pitch" which is merely the most important area of a cricket field now being used for the entirety of other sports' fields of play.

The other notable exception is the "jersey/kit" term for cricket. Cricket is practically unique in British sports as its' the only sport where people wear armour for protection. Because it's immediately obvious at any time which players are on each team (the "attacking" team are the only ones holding the bats, and they also have very distinctive protection) then there's no real need for the two teams to wear different clothing. The concept of different teams wearing different colours is a very recent development. Traditionally both teams would play in white and the only difference would be the club badge on their t-shirts. For this reason, terms are very rarely used to talk about the "kits/shirts/jerseys" being worn, because they simply aren't relevant to the game. They're not really the kinds of things that fans buy to wear to games.

Hi Falstaff

Without going too deep (Because we are both right in regard to the wicket)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicket

The crease is the area in the wicket where the batsman stand (are safe from being our when running between stumps)

Wickets are 22 yard long strips of grass.
Rarely will the same wicket be played on 2 games running, so there are normally several wickets grouped together in the centre of the field. These areas have special preparation so that the ball stays true when bowled.
Everything you say regarding cricket KIT / UNIFORM is correct and I suppose the term cricket kit is used over here as its our normal terminology for most sports kit.

I do believe America is Unique in using the term UNIFORM for sports kit though. It is the only place I have heard the term "Football Shoes" as well. (Maybe shared by Canada ?)
I am not saying it is wrong just different lol
 
People arguing about cricket terminology.

American football tackles would bring an instant sending off, citing and ban in rugby, from somebody that's played both, you can't play american football without armour and they should really be considering introducing it to rugby union with the increase in player muscle mass over the last 15 years, before somebody gets killed (only a matter of time imo).
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrE
People arguing about cricket terminology.

American football tackles would bring an instant sending off, citing and ban in rugby, from somebody that's played both, you can't play american football without armour and they should really be considering introducing it to rugby union with the increase in player muscle mass over the last 15 years, before somebody gets killed (only a matter of time imo).

I wasn't being sarcastic, and likening it to Rugby, I have never played American Football, and only Rugby at school, I genuinely don't know the difference in tackle techniques, rules, etc... thats why I asked.

On the subjects of American Football and Rugby I am completely ignorant.
 
Wierd .... It is a kit, it is a pitch, it is a team, it is football.... These are the correct terms

Football was around before 2002

Uniform, field, side, and to a lesser extent soccer are American terminologies used probably because in some Hollywood blockbuster coming soon they will have claimed to have invented the game in the process of saving the world.

The word 'soccer' stems from 'Association Football', and is in fact a British word.
The only reason Americans use it is because the word 'football' was already being utilised for the hand-egg game, which itself originates from the English rugby game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrE
The word 'soccer' stems from 'Association Football', and is in fact a British word.
The only reason Americans use it is because the word 'football' was already being utilised for the hand-egg game, which itself originates from the English rugby game.

Wow you learn something new every day, and isn't that what these forums are about. relaying news, debating topics and developing views

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/06/the-origin-of-the-word-soccer/
 
  • Like
Reactions: einwindir
Don't like goal line replays to begin with but possibly worse is the constant references to "technology." Its a contraption to decide whether a ball has crossed a line or not and a sad first step towards robotic officials. Its hardly a miracle of science. People get in spaceships and don't keep making references to technology every 5 seconds. It even says "goal line technology" on the screen now as we marvel and gasp at this technological wonder.

If people get in a plane they don't keep making references to aviation technology. Its "goal line replay" nothing more.
 
Don't like goal line replays to begin with but possibly worse is the constant references to "technology." Its a contraption to decide whether a ball has crossed a line or not and a sad first step towards robotic officials. Its hardly a miracle of science. People get in spaceships and don't keep making references to technology every 5 seconds. It even says "goal line technology" on the screen now as we marvel and gasp at this technological wonder.

If people get in a plane they don't keep making references to aviation technology. Its "goal line replay" nothing more.

Utter fucking bollocks, it's a fantastic step towards making the game fairer.
 
Many things could be done to make it fairer at all levels that don't involve "technology" or decisions on the field. Yet I see no progress in any of those areas.

Goal line replays are hardly fair to lower league sides without access and they didn't even have the "technology" in the qualifiers. So technically they changed the rules of the whole competition while its still ongoing. Besides that I hate the whole concept in the first place. Its a step towards eradicating controversy and talking points and it probably won't be the last one. Just what we need more stories filled with inane quotes instead of controversial incidents.

Lots of things are more unfair than whether a ball has crossed a line or not. Life isn't fair.
 
Many things could be done to make it fairer at all levels that don't involve "technology" or decisions on the field. Yet I see no progress in any of those areas.

Goal line replays are hardly fair to lower league sides without access and they didn't even have the "technology" in the qualifiers. So technically they changed the rules of the whole competition while its still ongoing. Besides that I hate the whole concept in the first place. Its a step towards eradicating controversy and talking points and it probably won't be the last one. Just what we need more stories filled with inane quotes instead of controversial incidents.

Lots of things are more unfair than whether a ball has crossed a line or not. Life isn't fair.


The game was always the same from top level to bottom.
Then along came Mr Platini, who claimed it was not fair on players who could run with the ball that "god forbid" they could be tackled from behind. Then came the "dangerous" tackle....
The changed offside rule, offside is offside whether you are interfering with play or not (Especially in the box). The GK has to make his decisions based upon the location of all players.

FFS if you win the ball first, you win the ball, everything else is immaterial.

I want technology taken out of the game, leave the controversy... Technology (started with Cameras) only benefit the association in disciplining players. When was the last time a goal was struck off because it was proven offside.
When was the last time a result was changed because the referee incorrectly sent off a player.

Leave the game alone, let the fans talk about the controversial incidents, let the results stand.

The game then stays the same throughout, and at the end of the day decisions equal themselves out.