20 Nov 09
Originally posted by PhlabibitPM's wouldn't expose the weaknesses inherent in the answers of the tv-watchers. we need to be able to compare the answers out in the open.
Did I do bad?
I've another view also... I just still don't stand behind your thought that only those who play know 'crap'.
You should have done this as a competition... PM you the answer as we see it.
P-
20 Nov 09
Originally posted by uzlessOk -- read most of the posts here. I agree with the assertion that a non-player (if her or she
Okay, i found a clip that will do. All you have to do is tell us WHY this goal was scored.
Let's hear some non-players first that have only watched the game on tv. The idea is to show that non-players don't understand the game as well as ex-players and non-players can't give you the kind of insight that ex-players can.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh7WQALmQdE&feature=related
has enough interest or motivation) can "understand" a game just as well as a former-player
simply by watching it on TV. But not just any Joe Schmo TV watcher...it would have to be a
fan that is passionate about the game and has an invested interest in understanding what's
going on. Average Joe TV? Sure, I would agree that most of the time he wouldn't be able to
understand the subtleties and nuances of a game as well as someone who played the game for
years. Most sportscasters are former players for this reason...BUT, NOT ALL sportscasters or
journalists or even coaches are former players. Bill James, Harry Caray, Bob Costas, Jeff Van
Gundy...just to name a few who are considered professionally knowledgeable about their
respective sports without having played the sport at a level anywhere near their knowledge
about it, if at all. Don't know their "complete" bios, so maybe they played the sport as a kid.
That said -- I'll give a shot at your video experiment. Keep in mind that I have never played
hockey and my experience watching it is limited to "The Mighty Ducks," "Miracle," and selected
scenes from "Happy Gilmore"...
Player A made a horrible pass to his teammate, Player B. Intentions were good but it was lead
way too much. Player C (the goal scorer) made a great interception of the puck, and an
amazing pass to himself against the wall as he spun around Player B. Player A was no longer
in a position of defense as he was going to the bench to be substituted for - this left no one
from the white team in a position to defend a possible steal of the puck. Player D and E (E
must have been the sub) scrambled to get back on defense but Player C's momentum gave
him a clear advantage for a break-away attempt at the goal. Player D did a great job in
closing the distance in an attempt to disrupt the goal attempt, but Player C did an amazing job
of body-positioning to keep himself between the puck and Player D. From there it's simply a
great display of athleticism - he falls to the ice and makes a great shot against a seemingly
surprised and timid keeper.
20 Nov 09
Originally posted by Traveling AgainThank you for participating, but you have only told us WHAT happened.
Ok -- read most of the posts here. I agree with the assertion that a non-player (if her or she
has enough interest or motivation) can "understand" a game just as well as a former-player
simply by watching it on TV. But not just any Joe Schmo TV watcher...it would have to be a
fan that is passionate about the game and has an invested interest ...[text shortened]... the ice and makes a great shot against a seemingly
surprised and timid keeper.
You haven't told us WHY it happened.
The difference between a non-player and an ex-player is that the non-player can't tell you WHY things happen...they can only tell you WHAT happened.
20 Nov 09
2 edits
Originally posted by uzlessWhy?
Thank you for participating, but you have only told us WHAT happened.
You haven't told us WHY it happened.
The difference between a non-player and an ex-player is that the non-player can't tell you WHY things happen...they can only tell you WHAT happened.
Because the sucker has played the game most of his life and has fine-tuned his body and mind
to the sport. Because he trains and practices, because there was a set-defense meant to
position him in that exact spot, because he studied film and knew that Player A often sent a
lazy pass when he was about to be substituted? There could be a million things to explain the
"why" that led to this goal being scored. You can ask 100 ex-players to analyze a given play
and they'll all probably have an altered explanation. Listen to ex-players on ESPN debating
plays and games, etc. Even ex-players have different levels of knowledge about the game. It's
more like a fluid spectrum of knowledge, not a linear staircase.
Believe me, I see the point you are trying to make. But you make it sound like there's a
magical realm of sports knowledge somewhere out there. I bet my sister could tell you more
about the nuances of the game of baseball than the guy who played third-base on my
high-school team. For the most part, do players understand the game better than those who
never played? Of course they do. But does that mean that a non-player can never really
understand the game? Of course not.
21 Nov 09
Originally posted by uzlessLOL...Well don't think Carey Price would like being called a timid goal tender very much either.
Thank you for participating, but you have only told us WHAT happened.
You haven't told us WHY it happened.
The difference between a non-player and an ex-player is that the non-player can't tell you WHY things happen...they can only tell you WHAT happened.
I watch most of the habs games, and can tell everyone he is most certainly not timid. All one has to do is watch the game to realize this. I really couldn't name one NHL goalie who you could call timid.
21 Nov 09
Originally posted by Very RustyDarren Pang?
LOL...Well don't think Carey Price would like being called a timid goal tender very much either.
I watch most of the habs games, and can tell everyone he is most certainly not timid. All one has to do is watch the game to realize this. I really couldn't name one NHL goalie who you could call timid.
I played with Tyrone Garner of Calgary. Pussycat.
21 Nov 09
Originally posted by Very RustyDo you understand English? This has been posted before.
You still haven't given your view on the clip. Are you afraid you will miss things, or do you already know you will?
I don't believe he is the one doing any ranting, on "your Internet"....LOL....
Because it's a game I (we) know bugger-all about. You do know there are places on this ball we all call home where there is never ice and snow, right?
It would be futile for me and Palynka to comment or analyse it.
21 Nov 09
Originally posted by CrowleyNo I don't understand a word of English. 😕
Do you understand English? This has been posted before.
Because it's a game I (we) know bugger-all about. You do know there are places on this ball we all call home where there is never ice and snow, right?
It would be futile for me and Palynka to comment or analyse it.
Sorry to hear that you live on a ball. :'(
Then if you can't analyse it, why bother to say anything concerning it? Just to stir the pot a bit perhaps?
21 Nov 09
3 edits
Originally posted by uzlessAre these #1 NHL goalies?
Darren Pang?
I played with Tyrone Garner of Calgary. Pussycat.
Oh yea Pang he was that little goalie, and I don't think he lasted very long either.
Garner ever make the NHL? With the Calgary Flames NHL team?
Are you an ex-NHL player?
Or just back ups...I am talking more about the the NHL #1 goalies, not the fill ins, or back ups.
I don't think I even remember anyone named Tyrone Garner to be honest with you. Of course there are 30 teams now.😕
24 Nov 09
Originally posted by uzlessI get the idea now. The answer you're looking for does not involve anything you can SEE (or hear) in the video clip. If it did, it would only qualify as describing WHAT happened. The answer involves something you can't see - that is, it involves speculating about the specific experiences and thoughts of the various players involved.
Thank you for participating, but you have only told us WHAT happened.
You haven't told us WHY it happened.
The difference between a non-player and an ex-player is that the non-player can't tell you WHY things happen...they can only tell you WHAT happened.
So - the goal went in because Ovechkin noticed something or expected something about the puck and-or the goalie and reacted properly. Or the goalie noticed or expected something and reacted poorly. Or both. Either way, the things they noticed would NOT be observable by the TV viewer. Maybe the defender's skates made a weird sound and the goalie thought the sound came from Ovechkin's skates, and as a result the goalie misjudged the play. And since I've never played hockey, I would have no idea how or if a goalie uses skate sounds when trying to make a save.
Or maybe everyone who plays hockey learns by experience that when attempting a shot, you must "always be thinking about moving towards the net" (or some other nostrum). But most players fail to do this once they've fallen down. But because Ovechkin maintained this train of thought, he put himself in a position where his well-trained body "instinctively knew" what to do, and the result was a goal. Perhaps Ovechkin spent many hours practicing this exact type of play, so what looked like a "lucky shot" was actually a well-rehearsed event.
24 Nov 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesYou're almost there. If uzless could tell you what happened in clear terms, then his premise would crumble. You would learn and understand what happened, despite never having played!
I get the idea now.
So the corollary is obvious. uzless cannot reveal his game or he'll lose. So he won't.
24 Nov 09
Originally posted by PalynkaIt's a Tarp!~
You're almost there. If uzless could tell you what happened in clear terms, then his premise would crumble. You would learn and understand what happened, despite never having played!
So the corollary is obvious. uzless cannot reveal his game or he'll lose. So he won't.
http://tinyurl.com/28xy69