Live data from Hacker News

Chuck Klosterman on why we've never actually seen a real football game

latimes.com

111–115 of 115 posts

Re: Chuck Klosterman on why we've never actually seen a real football game

#111
post #4

I think of football as one of the killer apps for tv. Baseball is one for radio: baseball is almost always better over radio; there’s lots of space to do something else at the pace of most baseball games.

I spent a summer building a car in a garage with baseball on the radio. That was the most I’ve enjoyed the game by far.

The most fun I’ve had with regards to baseball is either getting tanked watching the local team in clllege on cheap beer and a short walk to the stadium, or a team-management game for Wii where the main focus was building your team and playing the whole 200+ game season. There was still a game of sorts for the actual play, but it was by no means the focus in terms of presentation nor mechanics.

Re: Chuck Klosterman on why we've never actually seen a real football game

#112
post #73

There are a lot of sports that are much better in person. Football is made for TV as the action is confined. Types of play that would require viewing player movements outside the "set" are discouraged like lateral passes. Basketball is similar as the action is very much confined to the video frame. Non-US sports like Australian Rules or Gaelic football are an in person spectacle. They're free flowing (like ice hockey…

I actually like the stop-and-go of American football. Each play is a few seconds of intense, simultaneous activity. You then have a minute to dissect all of that action, which can tell a different story for each of the 22 players. Even two players holding each other to a standstill can be serious drama.

To each their own, of course. But you might be surprised at how intellectual a game American football can be. It's not mere brutality, as it can appear.

Re: Chuck Klosterman on why we've never actually seen a real football game

#113
post #73

There are a lot of sports that are much better in person. Football is made for TV as the action is confined. Types of play that would require viewing player movements outside the "set" are discouraged like lateral passes. Basketball is similar as the action is very much confined to the video frame. Non-US sports like Australian Rules or Gaelic football are an in person spectacle. They're free flowing (like ice hockey…

I disagree about baseball. I played it in school and have always enjoyed it casually, but I attended a game with a friend who was very into MLB. He pointed out many interesting defensive and offensive moves through the innings. Some were straightforward, like the runner on second base edging forward to steal. Others were less obvious, like outfielders tightening inward since the batter was likely to bunt. There was a…

George Will's Men At Work is a good introduction to the numerous minute subtitles of baseball. It came as quite a surprise to hear why, say, shortstop and second base are such wildly different skill sets.

I'm still not a fan of the game, but I can see why those who are, are. I enjoy it a lot more when I go with someone who is seeing a lot more to each play.

Re: Chuck Klosterman on why we've never actually seen a real football game

#115
post #90
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Football is so unique in that the way it’s presented makes it almost impossible to understand what’s going on. There are a million rules, which even die-hard fans don’t understand. And the broadcast doesn’t even make an attempt to explain or even show the offensive or defensive formations and plays being chosen. It feels like what we’re shown on tv is a very narrow slice of what’s going on. We see the ball moving dow…

The plays belong to the individual teams, which is, I heard, why they don't broadcast full field views. No idea if it's true or not

There are some recent experiments with consumer-facing full field: (Prime Vision All-22). They were held closely for a long time, though.
Post reply on HN