|
|
Post by The Black Dread on Jul 14, 2014 11:21:40 GMT -5
Also, soccer is not violent. Soccer is a contact sport where, when two players collide, one of them falls to the ground holding his leg and crying, in an attempt to get the other player ejected from the game.
The other day I was watching some kids play soccer in the park, and two of them ran into each other and fell down. Then they both got back up and continued playing. That, to me, is more entertaining than professional soccer.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Gambler on Jul 14, 2014 12:22:51 GMT -5
Haha if I was on the Iroquois team I'd probably try to do as much damage as possible too. I mean, lacrosse is just a trophy sport like polo now. The US Army appropriated it after crushing the Iroquois League. There's a reason the first lacrosse team was at the officer's club at West Point.
|
|
flex
Westeros 
Posts: 96 
|
Post by flex on Jul 14, 2014 15:18:29 GMT -5
Also, soccer is not violent. Soccer is a contact sport where, when two players collide, one of them falls to the ground holding his leg and crying, in an attempt to get the other player ejected from the game. The other day I was watching some kids play soccer in the park, and two of them ran into each other and fell down. Then they both got back up and continued playing. That, to me, is more entertaining than professional soccer. How many soccer games have you seen? How about the one where a guy but another guy in the shoulder? Or that infamous final of the last world cup with horrendous amounts of yellow and red cards? Or maybe the Columbia vs Brazil game in this world cup which was ridiculously violent? None of them probably, because you don't follow the sport and thus have no clue what you are talking about. Just because the players don't run into each other like dicks/swing at each other with wooden clubs doesn't mean it's not violent. Yes, there is a lot of diving, but that doesn't mean there aren't vicious and violent fouls. Word. |
|
|
|
Post by The Gambler on Jul 14, 2014 16:13:29 GMT -5
I think the difference is in our definition of violent. Are there injuries? Absolutely. Is it a violent sport? Absolutely not. A good comparison would be basketball. It's a great sport and there are some nasty injuries. Is it a violent sport? No.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morys Martell on Jul 14, 2014 16:17:53 GMT -5
Isn't the measure of violence relative anyway? Violence in Chess is nothing compared to Violence in Futbol/Soccer compared to Violence in Lacrosse compared to Violence in US Football compared to violence in MMA fighting.
So who gets to make the determination of what is or is not violent in a sport? What objective standards are there to measure, if injuries aren't one of them?
|
|
flex
Westeros
Posts: 96
|
Post by flex on Jul 14, 2014 17:19:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Varryn Targaryen on Jul 14, 2014 19:17:17 GMT -5
*coughs*
*clears throat*
Ahem.
"the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation"
Violence, ladies and gentleman. Soccer might have some violent players, and some violent fans, but it is most definitely not a violent sport. You run back and forth kicking a ball and maybe actually hit your goal two times in a game.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Gambler on Jul 14, 2014 23:13:56 GMT -5
I'd argue you can consider something a violent sport if physical contact is an expected and stressed part of the game. Hockey and lacrosse they teach you how to hit because it's a necessary and expected element of the game. The same is true of American football, rugby, and to an extreme degree MMA. The sports are designed from the ground up to include violence. The same is not true for sports like soccer and basketball, where injuries occur but violence is kept as apart from game as possible. They're games of finesse, coordination, and agility.
The qualifications for a violent sport seem pretty simple. There are only two really: That the harm inflicted on another player is intentional and that said inflicted harm is a legal and established element of the game.
I'd also like to add that whether a sport meets the criteria of being violent or not, I don't think that has any bearing on whether or not the sport is enjoyable and its athletes are worthy of respect. I don't enjoy soccer personally, but I can see the merits of the game and appreciate the level of aptitude and physical fitness someone has to achieve to play it. Hell, "America's pastime" is baseball and that's about as nonviolent as you can get.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morys Martell on Jul 14, 2014 23:16:05 GMT -5
See your point there. :/
|
|
|
|
Post by Queen Rhaena Targaryen on Jul 17, 2014 1:01:07 GMT -5
I think in a way violence in a semi contact sport like football is worse, because those in full contact sports are trained to deal. Football can get pretty rough, and it's utterly unexpected, like when players bite others, and like how one player kept trying to elbow people in the face, and how someone tackled to high, and broke someone's spine, and when someone clawed at a players face, who then had to have it glued shut so he could play. These were all from the last rounds of the finals of this World Cup.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alexys Darkfyre on Jul 17, 2014 5:24:13 GMT -5
This all seems reasonable next to people calling football "soccer" :')
|
|
Erik
Westeros
Erik
Posts: 478
|
Post by Erik on Jul 17, 2014 15:47:38 GMT -5
You people came up with the word. We just happened to already have our own superior version of football when you exported the sport.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alexys Darkfyre on Jul 17, 2014 16:07:00 GMT -5
Ahh my bad, I thought it was a case of "We suck at this game. Better call a game of our invention football as well."
|
|
Erik
Westeros
Erik
Posts: 478
|
Post by Erik on Jul 17, 2014 16:36:40 GMT -5
No, that was the Canadians and the Australians.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Gambler on Jul 17, 2014 16:42:16 GMT -5
As I said, the issue wasn't whether or not soccer has grisly injuries or not. It absolutely does. The issue is that it's not a violent sport. Violence in the sport is illegal. So some of its players are violent. The sport itself is not.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Gambler on Jul 17, 2014 18:23:32 GMT -5
Much like if I started clubbing other players in the back of the head during a golf tournament. I would be a violent golfer. Golf would not be a violent sport, as it's rules do not allow for the clubbing of other players and I imagine would have serious consequences for doing so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Queen Rhaena Targaryen on Jul 17, 2014 18:46:26 GMT -5
But if so mamy golfer clubbed people, so that organically the rules changed to incorporate it. Like in the 70s. Football was awfully violent, because things were judged in perspective.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Gambler on Jul 17, 2014 19:08:03 GMT -5
Is violence incorporated anywhere in soccer? Unless I misunderstand the rules, it seems like any violence, much like basketball, results in some sort of penalty. If the ideal version of a game has no violence whatsoever, I'd argue that it can't be considered a violent sport. American football and ruby can't exist without violence, so I'd consider them violent sports because it's a necessary and encouraged part of the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Elyas Dryland on Jul 17, 2014 21:29:50 GMT -5
Football (or soccer) is a contact sport, but it is not a violent one. Serious Foul Play and Violent Conduct are both sending off offences. Serious Foul Play is defined by FIFA as follows on page 126 of the laws of the game:
"A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play. A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play."
This means that even if you endanger the safety of your opponent with a legitimate attempt to win the ball you ought to be ejected from the game. Then of course there's violent conduct for legitimately violent behaviour.
"A player is guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball. He is also guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality against a team-mate, spectator, match official or any other person. Violent conduct may occur either on the field of play or outside its boundaries, whether the ball is in play or not.[...]Referees are reminded that violent conduct often leads to mass confrontation, therefore they must try to avert this with active intervention. A player, substitute or substituted player who is guilty of violent conduct must be sent off."
-FIFA laws of the game, page 127
Any violence or unnecessarily aggressive actions that might endanger the safety of other players are punished by ejection from the game and suspension from future games by definition. It is also worth noting that the rules acknowledge mass confrontation is likely after Violent Conduct, an indication that deliberate violence is not part of the culture of the game. It is difficult to make the argument that football is a violent sport when in other sports behaviour that would match these definitions is not punishable by ejection from the game and is considered an acceptable part of the event. In hockey for example when two players fight one another they are undeniably using excessive force or brutality against one another when not challenging for the puck. The penalty for fighting is 5 minutes (in an hour long game). Further, with penalties such as boarding, an act that certainly endangers the safety of one's opponent the offender is not automatically ejected, but is penalized at the referees discretion (See NHL rule 41), in practice usually with a minor penalty which is 2 minutes in duration.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Gambler on Jul 18, 2014 23:59:06 GMT -5
I rest my case. Thank you, Dinadan.
|
|
all alone and also really bored 
Hopefully going to kickstart the festival too