Jump to content

American Football: Why so many breaks?!


Saintandy666
 Share

Recommended Posts

It f*cks me off that the BBC pump money and time into this American hype machine while neglecting to bother to apply for things such as the cricket, which has much more interest to people in the UK.

 

If the BBC get rights for the Cricket, i'd be devastated. Cricket coverage on Sky is some of the best sporting coverage around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I was watching the super bowl last night and I have to say my impressions WERE NOT good. Why is it they play for about 2 minutes, and then rest for 3? :/ It makes it all very dull and ****.

 

So you can order more beer. WTF is wrong with that as a sporting concept?

 

Seriously! Donkeys years ago I got invited to the first pre season game held at Wembley - Vikings v Cardinals. I was in Corporate. We had a 5 or 6 course meal, got absolutely shredded on plonk with all the attendant running to the loo. Didn't miss a second of action.

 

Marvellous.

 

If only I could remember what happened in the game. I know I went, I still have the Programme, the menu & a photo. Which is how sport should be watched (unless it's Saints) IMHO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I was watching the super bowl last night and I have to say my impressions WERE NOT good. Why is it they play for about 2 minutes, and then rest for 3? :/ It makes it all very dull and ****.

 

1/ So that they can broadcast adverts, adverts and more adverts.

 

2/ National Sterotyping # 59 .......The average American has the attention span of a goldfish

 

3/ To fit in the 20 substitutions they make each time they win/lose the ball.

 

If a game starts at say 1500 .... how on earth do you know when the game is going to finish. Thought games here with Fergie time were bad, but imagine trying to arrange transport home etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the BBC get rights for the Cricket, i'd be devastated. Cricket coverage on Sky is some of the best sporting coverage around.

 

That's all well and good for those with Sky.

 

But the Super Bowl is a cash cow. Advertising costs a fortune. A 30 second slot costs up to $2.8m - Lookee here......http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/super-bowl-ad-price-falls-in-commercial-slowdown-1864738.html. There are an awful lot of 30 second breaks in the game.

 

I started watching it but fell asleep pretty quickly and woke up a 2am and went to bed. I still don't know the final score, and frankly don't care. How the Yank commentators were talking about one of them becoming world champions was risible. (The AFL-NFL World Championship) Just like baseball's World Series, which hardly anyone else apart from the Yanks play. A little grandiose and arrogant isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the BBC get rights for the Cricket, i'd be devastated. Cricket coverage on Sky is some of the best sporting coverage around.

 

All I can say is your easily pleased if you think Sky's cricket coverage is brilliant.

IMO the commentators are boring AND totally biased, especially Messrs Lloyd and Hussain, and how many times does an incident in the game have to be shown. Not less than 12 times on average, while undermining the umpires authority as dismissals are shown 'ad infinitum et ad nauseum' interupted by repetitious adverts for the so-called Premier League or some other sport that has no bearing on the sport you're watching. Its tolerable.(just), with the sound turned off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because whenever possession changes hands they have to swap every single player on the field, and because in between every play the quarterback has to tell his team-mates which one they're using and the defence has to get set up accordingly.

 

Exactly, it's an integral part of the sport, doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's as much a part of the game as the long pauses at the end of each over and between each ball of an over are in test cricket.

 

Also, it gives the broadcasters a chance to analyse each play and review the action that just happened. In practically every play, all 22 players on the field influence how the play develops and trying to take it all in "real-time" is a challenge for the spectator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

while undermining the umpires authority as dismissals are shown 'ad infinitum et ad nauseum' .... .

 

dont think that could be much further from the truth. the vast majority, and im estimating 95-98%, of umpires decisions are correct and are applauded by all the commentators on Sky. They continually show what excellent decisions they make, and when they get them wrong largely say why or can see why they got them wrong. sure they make errors but they rarely get lambasted for it

 

As for American Football, if i had another life and was going to be a sportsman i think i'd take up American Football. Provided I made it to the NFL of course.. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like American Football. I hate commercials. If I'm not on a beer/p#ss break then the button comes in handy. Time to pump up some tunes or whatever.

 

Once you get to like/understand the game then you learn to handle the constant breaks. The cricket analogy is a good one. Try explaining (to a non-cricket fan) why you will watch a game that can last 5 days and end in a draw cos it started to rain.

 

To get into American Football you have to first watch it with someone who knows what is going on - so you get to recognise when a play is bigger than others. 3rd downs are big - some bigger than others. If your 1st question is 'what the hell is a 3rd down?' then that's when you need someone to explain the basics & take it from there...

 

Same with cricket. You are 250/9 and need 260. One batsman is on 139 n/o and the other is some bowler just in on no runs and whose highest score ever is 7 n/o. It's the last ball of the over and the 139 guy gets a single. The crowd goes crazy. It's obvious why - isn't it? Not if you don't know anything at all about cricket it isn't...

 

Anyway - who's looking forward to the new baseball season then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for American Football, if i had another life and was going to be a sportsman i think i'd take up American Football. Provided I made it to the NFL of course.. :)

 

Maybe - but despite all the 'poofs pads' a lot of players leave the NFL banged up with various injuries. If it is a very tough sport to survive in.

 

Just thinking what sport I'd like to be top in. Praps golf? Good money, get to travel the world, nobody trying to break your legs, not too much hassle from the crowd. Yeah that'll do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the comment that the BBC shouldn't be spending licence-payers' money on securing the broadcast rights to the Superbowl... they should leave it to Channel 4 or at least recruit the Channel 4 NFL production team. Gary Imlach and Mike Carlson were the perfect double-act for NFL coverage in the UK - encyclopaedic knowledge of the game and quick, intelligent humour. BBC's Jake Humphrey? 'kin ell!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lettuce, I tend to agree. Unless they have the rights to any programme, which can be sold on, then they shouldn't bother.

 

This includes/ed Formula One, Cricket, Football and all sport. Having said that, paying for the cheaper highlights shows probably offers much better value. I believe that MotD last Saturday pulled in a viewing figure of 6.2 million, which for a show that starts at 10.30pm isn't half bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because whenever possession changes hands they have to swap every single player on the field, and because in between every play the quarterback has to tell his team-mates which one they're using and the defence has to get set up accordingly.

 

It is probably the most tactical sport there is, like chess with real men, the stopping and starting is very much part of what is a very exciting spectator sport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It f*cks me off that the BBC pump money and time into this American hype machine while neglecting to bother to apply for things such as the cricket, which has much more interest to people in the UK.

 

I don't know all the figures, but I shouldn't have thought it cost the BBC very much to show the Super Bowl. A once a year match that Sky Sports have the more comprehensive season rights over, and which the governing body (NFL) are absolutely desperate to push on the British market by any means necessary. Comparative to wrestling the rights to England Test Cricket back from Sky (who paid £220m for 2005-09) it really can be very little. The chances of the BBC getting Test cricket back any time soon would depend on government intervention, which wouldn't go down at all well with the ECB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...