Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
One thing the Olympics are good for
115 views
Skip to first unread message
arahim
Aug 7, 2012, 3:46:13 AM8/7/12
to
It sort of forces you to have alook at sports that you usually do not
follow or have not followed for a while. While, channel flipping, saw
a women's hockey game momentarily. It was on a blue feild with a
yellow ball with, as the comentator stated, indentations. Intrigued, I
spent about 20 - 30 minutes watching the game between Pakistan and
South Africa. I suppose if someone stopped following cricket a couple
of decades ago they would be in for a few shocks including 2T. So
besides the blue feild and the yellow ball with indentations here are
some of the "new" things I noticed:
1. There is video referral/ challenge though only one is allowed (if
you get it wrong).
2. During the challenge the discussion between the referee and players
and the referee's discussion on the referral is clearly audible.
3. A lot of the general chatter between players was audible.
4. Free hit rules have changed.
5. Corner (long) rules have canged.
6. There is a dotted (dashed?) line around the D line though from
watching the game I could not say what the line was for.
7. The hockey's beingued have a lot more of a "hook" to them and this
seems to be resulting in a lot of reverse flicks and shots.
Apart from that it seems Rick Charlesworth (Australian coach) and
Akhtar Rasool (Pakistan coach) are still relevant to the game.
Something to note: both were (are?) parlaimentarians.
follow or have not followed for a while. While, channel flipping, saw
a women's hockey game momentarily. It was on a blue feild with a
yellow ball with, as the comentator stated, indentations. Intrigued, I
spent about 20 - 30 minutes watching the game between Pakistan and
South Africa. I suppose if someone stopped following cricket a couple
of decades ago they would be in for a few shocks including 2T. So
besides the blue feild and the yellow ball with indentations here are
some of the "new" things I noticed:
1. There is video referral/ challenge though only one is allowed (if
you get it wrong).
2. During the challenge the discussion between the referee and players
and the referee's discussion on the referral is clearly audible.
3. A lot of the general chatter between players was audible.
4. Free hit rules have changed.
5. Corner (long) rules have canged.
6. There is a dotted (dashed?) line around the D line though from
watching the game I could not say what the line was for.
7. The hockey's beingued have a lot more of a "hook" to them and this
seems to be resulting in a lot of reverse flicks and shots.
Apart from that it seems Rick Charlesworth (Australian coach) and
Akhtar Rasool (Pakistan coach) are still relevant to the game.
Something to note: both were (are?) parlaimentarians.
Bharat Rao
Aug 7, 2012, 7:28:27 AM8/7/12
to
On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 3:46:13 AM UTC-4, arahim wrote:
> It sort of forces you to have alook at sports that you usually do not
>
> follow or have not followed for a while. W
What I like at the Olympics is that sports you normally never follow are suddenly important. Certainly swimming and gymnastics reach their peak interest during these two weeks -- as do a lot of other sports. I don't think I follow badminton, wrestling and various track and field events (hammer, discuss, high jump,..) at any time except the Olympics. I vaguely remember the last couple of winners of the signature races in the World Championships, but remember every 100m and 200m Olympic champ since 1972 onwards, and could probably recite some of the signature times... Valery Borzov got guite some press in 1972 due to the pro-Soviet Indian press, and in 1984 I was transfixed as the greatest-athlete-ever ran a sub-10 100m (and won the 200m, relay & long jump to boot), awed by Superman Ben Johnson, only to see him bested by Kryptonite), rejoiced with Christie in 92 and felt his deep deep pain in 96, to Bolt's transcendent 08 & 12 performances, which rightly returned this event to the pinnacle of world sport).
> It sort of forces you to have alook at sports that you usually do not
>
> follow or have not followed for a while. W
I have ambivalent feelings about cricket in the Olympics. On one sense, the sport is already super-popular globally, so it would be like men's basketball -- where the Olympics Gold isn't anywhere near the top achievement of that sport; on the other hand, it would provide a huge boost to the nations where cricket (basketball) isn't that popular. I'm among the minority who liked it when the US sent college kids.
Tennis is a bit strange. The public doesn't view the Olympic Gold as a huge achievement (at least not comparable with winning a Major), but the player's seem highly motivated. Will this be Murray's coming out party?
Bharat
mike
Aug 7, 2012, 11:32:41 AM8/7/12
to
On 7 Aug, 12:28, Bharat Rao <rao.bha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 3:46:13 AM UTC-4, arahim wrote:
> > It sort of forces you to have alook at sports that you usually do not
>
> > follow or have not followed for a while. W
>
> On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 3:46:13 AM UTC-4, arahim wrote:
> > It sort of forces you to have alook at sports that you usually do not
>
> > follow or have not followed for a while. W
>
> I have ambivalent feelings about cricket in the Olympics.
i was told during a match recently that the ICC were hoping to
get the IOC to include a T20 in the Olympics if not at Rio,
then the next one. But I couldnt find anything on the web
to confirm this.
> On one sense, the sport is already super-popular globally, so it would be like men's basketball -- where the Olympics Gold isn't anywhere near the top > achievement of that sport; on the other hand, it would provide a huge boost to the nations where cricket (basketball) isn't that popular. I'm among the minority who > liked it when the US sent college kids.
>
> Tennis is a bit strange. The public doesn't view the Olympic Gold as a huge achievement
i think they do in GB, now that Murray has won.
> Tennis is a bit strange. The public doesn't view the Olympic Gold as a huge achievement
mike
Bharat Rao
Aug 7, 2012, 12:02:58 PM8/7/12
to
On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 11:32:41 AM UTC-4, mike wrote:
> On 7 Aug, 12:28, Bharat Rao <rao.bha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have ambivalent feelings about cricket in the Olympics.
>
>
>
> i was told during a match recently that the ICC were hoping to
>
> get the IOC to include a T20 in the Olympics if not at Rio,
>
> then the next one. But I couldnt find anything on the web
>
> to confirm this.
>
One problem is the grounds. Cricket stadia dimensions are difficult in that cricket stadiums can't really be used for other events. The problem is the width, more than soccer and other sports by quite a bit -- maybe you could do this on flat fields with movable seating. Even if you went to a 16 nation straight K-O (or 24 with 8 byes for the top 8 teams), you would need at least 4 grounds, playing 2-3 games a day on each ground in the early stages. Very hard to do, even if spread out grounds around the country, rather that at one city. London would have been the perfect place for a demonstration.
> On 7 Aug, 12:28, Bharat Rao <rao.bha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have ambivalent feelings about cricket in the Olympics.
>
>
>
> i was told during a match recently that the ICC were hoping to
>
> get the IOC to include a T20 in the Olympics if not at Rio,
>
> then the next one. But I couldnt find anything on the web
>
> to confirm this.
>
The other problem is money. The ICC will get no money from this event, nor will the players. The NHL and NBA aren't too keen on the Olympics but the players want to play anyway even if they should be resting (as a Bulls fan I have mixed feelings about Lou Deng suiting up for GB when injured) -- maybe it will be the same in cricket...
Bharat
John Hall
Aug 7, 2012, 1:39:12 PM8/7/12
to
In article <3df5d8b6-e3a7-434e...@googlegroups.com>,
not won gold is debatable. :)
> but the player's seem highly motivated. Will this be Murray's
>coming out party?
Let's hope so. I can't help wondering whether Federer, as the older man,
was a bit tired in the final, though. The schedule seems to have been
far more demanding than at Wimbledon, where if you aren't in the doubles
you normally only have to play on every second day.
--
John Hall
"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Attributed to the Commander of Japan's Submarine Forces in WW2
Bharat Rao <rao.b...@gmail.com> writes:
>Tennis is a bit strange. The public doesn't view the Olympic Gold
>as a huge achievement (at least not comparable with winning a
>Major),
The British public do, but whether they would have done if Murray had
>Tennis is a bit strange. The public doesn't view the Olympic Gold
>as a huge achievement (at least not comparable with winning a
>Major),
not won gold is debatable. :)
> but the player's seem highly motivated. Will this be Murray's
>coming out party?
was a bit tired in the final, though. The schedule seems to have been
far more demanding than at Wimbledon, where if you aren't in the doubles
you normally only have to play on every second day.
--
John Hall
"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Attributed to the Commander of Japan's Submarine Forces in WW2
mike
Aug 7, 2012, 2:35:44 PM8/7/12
to
On Aug 7, 5:02 pm, Bharat Rao <rao.bha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 11:32:41 AM UTC-4, mike wrote:
> > On 7 Aug, 12:28, Bharat Rao <rao.bha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I have ambivalent feelings about cricket in the Olympics.
>
> > i was told during a match recently that the ICC were hoping to
>
> > get the IOC to include a T20 in the Olympics if not at Rio,
>
> > then the next one. But I couldnt find anything on the web
>
> > to confirm this.
>
> One problem is the grounds. Cricket stadia dimensions are difficult in that cricket stadiums can't really be used for other events. The problem is the width, more than soccer and other sports by quite a bit -- maybe you could do this on flat fields with movable seating. Even if you went to a 16 nation straight K-O (or 24 with 8 byes for the top 8 teams), you would need at least 4 grounds, playing 2-3 games a day on each ground in the early stages. Very hard to do, even if spread out grounds around the country, rather that at one city. London would have been the perfect place for a demonstration.
>
yes it might be difficult for a non cricket nation to stage,
> On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 11:32:41 AM UTC-4, mike wrote:
> > On 7 Aug, 12:28, Bharat Rao <rao.bha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I have ambivalent feelings about cricket in the Olympics.
>
> > i was told during a match recently that the ICC were hoping to
>
> > get the IOC to include a T20 in the Olympics if not at Rio,
>
> > then the next one. But I couldnt find anything on the web
>
> > to confirm this.
>
> One problem is the grounds. Cricket stadia dimensions are difficult in that cricket stadiums can't really be used for other events. The problem is the width, more than soccer and other sports by quite a bit -- maybe you could do this on flat fields with movable seating. Even if you went to a 16 nation straight K-O (or 24 with 8 byes for the top 8 teams), you would need at least 4 grounds, playing 2-3 games a day on each ground in the early stages. Very hard to do, even if spread out grounds around the country, rather that at one city. London would have been the perfect place for a demonstration.
>
but not insurmountable.
also it would disrupt the english season, so i cant see
the ECB being in favour of it, but then i dont spose
they carry much influence at the ICC anymore.
mike
Uday Rajan
Aug 7, 2012, 11:37:54 PM8/7/12
to
On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 3:46:13 AM UTC-4, arahim wrote:
> It sort of forces you to have alook at sports that you usually do not
> follow or have not followed for a while.
Indeed. While the 100 m final was on, TV viewers in the US were sort of forced to watch a horse that appeared to be grazing in a pasture. I'm assuming there was a sport in the vicinity, but the horse did not appear to be jumping or anything.
> follow or have not followed for a while.
Something else the Olympics are good for: reminding US viewers that the 100 m final is far too important an event to be shown live. In the US, the Olympics are presented as the ultimate reality show for primetime viewers (sports fans need not apply). Hours of primetime are devoted to it, with all the really important events shown on tape delay. Those who can bear to watch are rewarded with human interest profiles on some of the major contestants. Bits and pieces of the event itself are interspersed in to hold viewer interest. Or perhaps I have it all wrong; the profiles *are* the main event, and the sports are just there to break up the excitement.
Obligatory cricket reference: Someone told me that they did a profile on Yohan Blake that showed him playing cricket and bowling. I see that Blake apparently said in an interview that he can bowl faster than Zaheer Khan.
tendulkar.com
Aug 7, 2012, 11:48:42 PM8/7/12
to
On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 11:37:54 PM UTC-4, Uday Rajan wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 3:46:13 AM UTC-4, arahim wrote:
>
> > It sort of forces you to have alook at sports that you usually do not
>
> > follow or have not followed for a while.
>
>
>
> Indeed. While the 100 m final was on, TV viewers in the US were sort of forced to watch a horse that appeared to be grazing in a pasture. I'm assuming there was a sport in the vicinity, but the horse did not appear to be jumping or anything.
>
>
>
> Something else the Olympics are good for: reminding US viewers that the 100 m final is far too important an event to be shown live. In the US, the Olympics are presented as the ultimate reality show for primetime viewers (sports fans need not apply). Hours of primetime are devoted to it, with all the really important events shown on tape delay. Those who can bear to watch are rewarded with human interest profiles on some of the major contestants. Bits and pieces of the event itself are interspersed in to hold viewer interest. Or perhaps I have it all wrong; the profiles *are* the main event, and the sports are just there to break up the excitement.
>
>
Because it works. Yes, on self-proclaimed intelligent people too. (You know the ones who claim that they never get influenced by ads).
> On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 3:46:13 AM UTC-4, arahim wrote:
>
> > It sort of forces you to have alook at sports that you usually do not
>
> > follow or have not followed for a while.
>
>
>
> Indeed. While the 100 m final was on, TV viewers in the US were sort of forced to watch a horse that appeared to be grazing in a pasture. I'm assuming there was a sport in the vicinity, but the horse did not appear to be jumping or anything.
>
>
>
> Something else the Olympics are good for: reminding US viewers that the 100 m final is far too important an event to be shown live. In the US, the Olympics are presented as the ultimate reality show for primetime viewers (sports fans need not apply). Hours of primetime are devoted to it, with all the really important events shown on tape delay. Those who can bear to watch are rewarded with human interest profiles on some of the major contestants. Bits and pieces of the event itself are interspersed in to hold viewer interest. Or perhaps I have it all wrong; the profiles *are* the main event, and the sports are just there to break up the excitement.
>
>
Bottomline, human beings are pathetic and delusional in their self-analysis of being logical / rational. Sure, they pretend to sound smart by proclaiming their love for test cricket or their 'international' knowledge or shouting on twitter about how they hate NBC (or IPL), but at the end of the day, they succumb to the same pleasures and sins as the (gasp) 'average' human being
Uday Rajan
Aug 8, 2012, 12:14:02 AM8/8/12
to
On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 11:48:42 PM UTC-4, tendulkar.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 11:37:54 PM UTC-4, Uday Rajan wrote:
>> In the US, the Olympics are presented as the ultimate reality show for
>> primetime viewers (sports fans need not apply)...
> On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 11:37:54 PM UTC-4, Uday Rajan wrote:
>> In the US, the Olympics are presented as the ultimate reality show for
>
> Because it works. Yes, on self-proclaimed intelligent people too.
> (You know the ones who claim that they never get influenced by ads).
Yes, of course; it works, in the sense that NBC makes more money by not showing events live. But for it to work, it's not necessary that people are delusional about their own intelligence.
> Because it works. Yes, on self-proclaimed intelligent people too.
> (You know the ones who claim that they never get influenced by ads).
> Bottomline, human beings are pathetic and delusional in their self-analysis
> of being logical / rational. Sure, they pretend to sound smart by proclaiming
> their love for test cricket or their 'international' knowledge or shouting on
> twitter about how they hate NBC (or IPL), but at the end of the day, they
Many of them don't succumb, actually, but are just outnumbered by far by the people who will watch tape-delayed Olympic events or IPL matches. I believe people who say they hate the IPL or those who say they hate NBC. But the reality is that people like that are in a minority. E.g., I haven't seen a T20 innings in its entirety yet, but have paid to watch odos (the last World Cup) and Test series. But I understand that the BCCI makes much more money from an IPL match than from a Test match (it probably loses money on Tests). And that NBC makes more money by not showing events live. Similarly, I think many of the people complaining about the lack of live coverage in the US are not watching tape-delayed events on NBC, but clearly lots of other people are.
Bharat Rao
Aug 8, 2012, 6:09:35 AM8/8/12
to
On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 12:14:02 AM UTC-4, Uday Rajan wrote:
> Many of them don't succumb, actually, but are just outnumbered by far by the people who will watch tape-delayed Olympic events or IPL matches. I believe people who say they hate the IPL or those who say they hate NBC. But the reality is that people like that are in a minority. E.g., I haven't seen a T20 innings in its entirety yet, but have paid to watch odos (the last World Cup) and Test series. But I understand that the BCCI makes much more money from an IPL match than from a Test match (it probably loses money on Tests). And that NBC makes more money by not showing events live. Similarly, I think many of the people complaining about the lack of live coverage in the US are not watching tape-delayed events on NBC, but clearly lots of other people are.
I don't hate NBC -- far from it -- in this Olympics I'm an unabashed fan of their ..... internet coverage. The site nbcolympics.com allows you to watch pretty much every single event live or replay it later -- and it is free (at least it is free with my ISP/TV provider). For example, I was able to follow Ms. Nehwal's progress through the games, and I didn't have to wake up at 4am to do it. And also watched the 100m final live on the internet, while being on Skype with friends from London who were watching it live on their TV -- quite the surreal "wow, look at technology" moment. I do wish Willow TV would make it as easy to replay Tests...
> Many of them don't succumb, actually, but are just outnumbered by far by the people who will watch tape-delayed Olympic events or IPL matches. I believe people who say they hate the IPL or those who say they hate NBC. But the reality is that people like that are in a minority. E.g., I haven't seen a T20 innings in its entirety yet, but have paid to watch odos (the last World Cup) and Test series. But I understand that the BCCI makes much more money from an IPL match than from a Test match (it probably loses money on Tests). And that NBC makes more money by not showing events live. Similarly, I think many of the people complaining about the lack of live coverage in the US are not watching tape-delayed events on NBC, but clearly lots of other people are.
A lot of my (US) friends do watch the tape delay, and it has become quite our family ritual to watch the action together every evening as a family -- giving up SportsCenter was a bit of a pang, but I had no problem with tape delay for the majority of events, while watching the ones I cared about live. I loved that I could follow the less popular sports as I wished (25m rapid fire?) -- and this fan is grateful to nbc for putting the 20-odd daily feeds on the internet for free.
And I've watch cricket on tape delay for years -- from programming VCR's (and buying the extra long 8 hour tapes that could record a full day's action) so it would record while I was sleeping / at work, etc.
Bharat
dechucka
Aug 8, 2012, 6:56:46 PM8/8/12
to
snip
> 6. There is a dotted (dashed?) line around the D line though from
> watching the game I could not say what the line was for.
has anyone figured out what this is for yet? I'm not a hockey fan but do
> watching the game I could not say what the line was for.
enjoy watching it, my only game was an interfaculty game where I was injured
in the first 5 minutes.
ura...@umich.edu
Aug 8, 2012, 11:08:09 PM8/8/12
to
On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 6:09:35 AM UTC-4, Bharat Rao wrote:
> I believe people who say they hate the IPL or those who say they hate NBC.
>
> I believe people who say they hate the IPL or those who say they hate NBC.
>
> I don't hate NBC -- far from it -- in this Olympics I'm an unabashed fan of
> their ..... internet coverage. The site nbcolympics.com allows you to watch
> pretty much every single event live or replay it later -- and it is free (at
> least it is free with my ISP/TV provider). For example, I was able to follow
> Ms. Nehwal's progress through the games, and I didn't have to wake up at 4am
> to do it. And also watched the 100m final live on the internet, while being on
> Skype with friends from London who were watching it live on their TV -- quite
> the surreal "wow, look at technology" moment. I do wish Willow TV would make
>it as easy to replay Tests...
I don't hate NBC (or the IPL) either; I most certainly dislike and even hate (in the sense of intensely dislike) NBC's policy of not showing the 100m final live. I'm glad you had a better experience with that on the internet than I did. I thoroughly enjoyed the first 5 seconds of the race, at which point my feed rebuffered. When it came back, the runners had all scattered beyond the finish line.
> their ..... internet coverage. The site nbcolympics.com allows you to watch
> pretty much every single event live or replay it later -- and it is free (at
> least it is free with my ISP/TV provider). For example, I was able to follow
> Ms. Nehwal's progress through the games, and I didn't have to wake up at 4am
> to do it. And also watched the 100m final live on the internet, while being on
> Skype with friends from London who were watching it live on their TV -- quite
> the surreal "wow, look at technology" moment. I do wish Willow TV would make
>it as easy to replay Tests...
> And I've watch cricket on tape delay for years -- from programming VCR's (and
> buying the extra long 8 hour tapes that could record a full day's action) so
> it would record while I was sleeping / at work, etc.
0 new messages