Locker room talk: rolling basketball thread

IdleRich

IdleRich
This is not basketball related but I think we agreed to make this a general minority sport thread so, I got a question about American football.

It strikes me that the game has an extraordinary number of rules and at the same time the roles of the players are extremely specialised. I'm thinking about the guys who are really just a part of the plan made by the brainy guys who lead the team, they are a cog in a machine.

So my question is about these guys; to what extent do they need to know all the rules? Are there people who simply know that when the ball is thrown they need to run over there and hit that guy, but, who ultimately don't understand the tactics of the game, or even the rules?
 

linebaugh

Well-known member
This is not basketball related but I think we agreed to make this a general minority sport thread so, I got a question about American football.

It strikes me that the game has an extraordinary number of rules and at the same time the roles of the players are extremely specialised. I'm thinking about the guys who are really just a part of the plan made by the brainy guys who lead the team, they are a cog in a machine.

So my question is about these guys; to what extent do they need to know all the rules? Are there people who simply know that when the ball is thrown they need to run over there and hit that guy, but, who ultimately don't understand the tactics of the game, or even the rules?
thats actually a really good question and I dont know the answer
 

Leo

Well-known member
no way of knowing, really. I'd imagine the guys on the offensive and defensive lines -- the ones who's only job is to block and tackle -- don't need to know a lot of strategy. that's more the realm of the play callers (in most cases, the quarterback, but they too rely heavily on the sideline coaches who often call the plays).

also, I'm not sure there's an extraordinary number of rules.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
The reason I asked this was cos a friend was saying they were watching a rugby match with a former international player and there were some decisions over scrums and suchlike where he couldn't explain the refs calls or, even it turned out, the actual rule. And it just occurred to me, there could be a guy who has won superbowls but doesn't know the rules... not just the tactics Leo, but deeper than that, as long as they can perform their specialised function to perfection then what does it mater if they don't know what goes on in the rest of the game?

Kinda like how on a production line if you have someone who is fantastic at making wingmirrors does it matter if they have no idea how to make a gearbox... in fact do they even need to know what type of car that they are making... of even if it's a car, or what a car is?
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
thats actually a really good question and I dont know the answer
Thank you, i would truly like to know the answer. Like if there was some situation where they unexpectedly asked a pro for his opinion on a big game and he just said "Sorry man, no idea, I don't even know the rules, I just smash the guys in the other coloured helmets".
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
also, I'm not sure there's an extraordinary number of rules.
I thought there were, loads of stuff about who can stand where and when. I guess cricket has a lot too probably... but compared to something like... I dunno, to pick one I know, I reckon you can fit all of the rules of squash in about one paragraph - Hit the ball inside the red lines, don't let it bounce twice and after you hit it it's got to hit the end wall before it bounces on the floor. When you serve you gotta stand in that box and hit it above the other line and into that box. Then there is scoring (there are two different systems) and stuff about getting in each other's way and probably some regulations about the ball and racket and that's about it I think.
 

Leo

Well-known member
as long as they can perform their specialised function to perfection then what does it mater if they don't know what goes on in the rest of the game?

Kinda like how on a production line if you have someone who is fantastic at making wingmirrors does it matter if they have no idea how to make a gearbox... in fact do they even need to know what type of car that they are making... of even if it's a car, or what a car is?

I think this is it, really. players are so specialized that they only need to be excellent at what they need to do in their position.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Yeah, it's something I find quite interesting, that sport can cover such a range.... from the utterly simple and pure - who can run faster or jump higher - to things so complex that they can seriously be described as analogous to a whole factory production line and of which we can legitimately ask whether top players understand the rules.
 

Leo

Well-known member
american football is the outlier in that you have separate units of players for offense, defensive and special teams (for punts and kick offs), so they are probably the most specialized. at least basketball, football/soccer and baseball have the same unit play both offense and defense, so their knowledge is most likely broader.

sports played by individuals as opposed to teams are the most demanding, I guess, since it all rests on one person to do everything,
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
In football and basketball all the players (ok except the keeper) have the same rules but they are divided tactically into specialised roles, whereas in American football and cricket, at a given time, different players are subject to different rules. Though in cricket the roles will be switched at a later time.

I'm not really going anywhere with this. I suppose just musing on the way that the definition has become so widely stretched to encompass so many things that it feels that it should be almost meaningless. Although that hasn't happened we broadly know what someone means when they say it. Maybe some disagree about whether darts or snooker is a sport but that's about it.
 

Leo

Well-known member
another note of pointless musing: in sports where players play both offense and defense, it's still pretty rare to find a player who excels at both. most stars are the ones with offensive prowess (since scoring gets all the attention), and they tend to be average or worse on defense; the accomplished defensive specialists never rise to the stardom of high-scoring players (and also typically tend be to average offensive players).
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
I think in football it's quite hard to say. What would it mean to say "Ronaldo is a bad defender" cos he never plays in that role. I'm sure he's perfectly adequate at winning a defensive header on a corner, but when you say someone is a good defender you mean that they can play 90 min and read the game and concentrate so that they are in the tight position the whole time - and then they deployed their ability to win tackles and headers etc Could Ronaldo be shaped into such a player? We'll probably never know. Of course there are some players who are just bad at tackling but it doesn't necessarily follow for all strikers.

Maybe cricket is a better example. Players are in the team to bowl or to bat, but as everyone does need to bat, then bowlers who can chip in with a few runs are very useful. If you have someone who can genuinely play at the top level as a batter and a bowler then that is fantastic, it's like having an extra player. Shane Warne springs to mind as undoubtedly one of the best bowlers of all time and solid with the bat. Botham was a genuine all-rounder... Gary Sobers... er

I think I asked before without an answer, but do the pitchers have to bat in baseball or not?
 
Top