NFL's First Broadcast In 3-D, Still Has Work To Do

darkwing_bmf writes "The NFL broadcast a live game to theaters in 3-D for the first time on Thursday night. The technology demonstration was mostly successful but they still have some issues to work out. 'Some scenes clearly captured the benefits of 3-D broadcasts, however, such as an interception by Chargers linebacker Stephen Cooper as players crisscrossed the field, and a long touchdown catch by San Diego's Vincent Jackson with the arc of the ball caught on camera all the way. Viewers were encouraged to text in their reaction to the viewing. One of the first comments, according to the commentators: "More cheerleaders."'"

Comments

Re:Sure!

[Anonymous Coward]

There are two types of people in the world, those who are comfortable with their sexuality, whatever it may be, and those who feel the need to denigrate others because they're afraid of their own feelings. Can you guess which group your post puts you in?

Re:Sure!

[fyngyrz]

Yep. The one with the cheerleaders in it. :o)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

No football!!! Bring on the Hockey!

[shlepp]

This should be NHL in theater in 3D, football is teh suck.

Re:No football!!! Bring on the Hockey!

[geekoid]

NHL is fully of whiny bullies. When they get rid of the 'punch the guy out' subtext and focus on the game part, then maybe the NHL will become as popular and successful and the NFL.

Re:No football!!! Bring on the Hockey!

[Deag]

HD and technology like this can only help hockey, next to impossible to see the game on standard definition - you can't see the puck!

Re:No football!!! Bring on the Hockey!

[ari_j]

3-D puck to the face FTW.

Re:No football!!! Bring on the Hockey!

[rhpenguin]

You're Canadian, aren't you?

Re:No football!!! Bring on the Hockey!

[Eberlin]

I'm not disagreeing with the NHL's lack of popularity but I can't say the NHL is full of whiny bullies...for the same reason that they have what you call a 'punch the guy out' subtext.

Think about it -- the NBA is full of whining millionaire prima donnas who leave a game with a hangnail. NFL has its share of whiners too, just look at the league's wide receivers. Players get hit but are much more well padded, and the offense usually doesn't dish out as much punishment as the defense does. And egos are much much larger. MLB -- if you want to discuss whiny, it's a grown man arguing with an umpire about a called strike three. Also, especially in the AL where a pitcher can throw at someone's head and not have to face retribution since they don't come up to bat.

In hockey, if the referee doesn't call it, someone usually takes care of the "problem" -- you don't get that in those other sports. Hockey has a set of unwritten rules -- stuff like always hit clean, don't bump the goaltender, and don't take shots after the whistle. When those unwritten rules get violated, hockey players don't whine, they show their displeasure in a more cathartic way.

Re:No football!!! Bring on the Hockey!

[DreadPiratePizz]

A while ago fox put a transmitter inside the puck, which would make it glow brightly on TV so that people could see it. The response was overwhelmingly negative, that they removed it (it was amazingly distracting and ugly). Most people can see the puck just fine, maybe you just need to sit closer.

Re:No football!!! Bring on the Hockey!

[Reality Master 101]

When those unwritten rules get violated, hockey players don't whine, they show their displeasure in a more cathartic way.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And the players "need a place to let off steam, because they're carrying sticks. Better to let them fight than to start swinging sticks." I've heard all the rationalizations, and they're all crap. Hockey allows fighting because they think their core fan base wants fighting (and they're probably right about that), but that aspect of the game will forever keep it out of the mainstream.

If I want fighting, I'll watching boxing (and I hate boxing). I want athletic competition. Gretzky proved that Hockey can be played as a legitimate sport and people will watch.

You apparently are one of those people that like the fighting. Fine. But that's why I won't let my kids watch Hockey. Sportsmanship is taught in this family, not thuggery.

Athletic professionals will adjust to whatever rules the league institutes. If they want to get rid of fighting and they put teeth in penalties, fighting will be gone.

Re:No football!!! Bring on the Hockey!

[Anonymous Coward]

Which sport do you let your kids watch that demonstrates sportsmanship? MLB with its steroid controversies and bench-clearing brawls? The NBA where the egos are so huge that individuality trumps team play? The NFL with its weekly saga of drugs, guns, and last year's Patriots doing sneaky camera work? NASCAR where road-raged guys step out of their cars, throw helmets at other cars, and start fights? But you're right, that's not anything like fighting in hockey. In the other leagues, they crack down on all that stuff so hard it never happens again. I suppose there's tennis and golf.

Re:No football!!! Bring on the Hockey!

[Clanked]

You of course won't agree with me on this, most likely because you don't have a full understanding of the game.

Fighting actually keeps the game safe.

Yes, I said that. Fighting keeps the players safe.
The amount of damage you can inflict on someone with fisticuffs is minimal. Compare that to a nasty hit which can very easily permanently disable someone.

So a hockey team will have their little skilled guys, and then one or two enforcers out there. The other team knows if they do something cheap- usually a bad check -to any opposing players they will get their face punched a bit. No one likes getting punched (except Tyler Durden). This helps keep it self, a sort of forced sportsmanship if you will. The game suspension penalty makes it so players just don't randomly get into fights. I would wager 90% of the fights that happen are for a specific purpose.

Bash fighting all that you will, but actual hockey fans understand it. They also don't watch the games for fighting; in fact games with a lot of fights are usually the worst ones to watch. How many fights do you see in the playoffs? There is a reason those games are the best to watch, they contain the best hockey.

Re:No football!!! Bring on the Hockey!

[Alsee]

Wait... I've been watching hockey all these years on my smallscreen set...
and now you tell me there's a PUCK?!

-

Polarization

[Kagura]

Can somebody explain what polarization is, and how some materials can block certain "orientations" of polarization?

Re:Polarization

[UziBeatle]

Sure, I can explain polarization this way:

  See the post by fynqyrz http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1052969&cid=26008363
entitled Sure! up above. It's the first post can not miss it.

  That is polarization and fynqyrz is the material doing the polarizing.

  Science is fun.

Re:Polarization

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason you haven't heard any good description of polarization is that the left wing media has buried any discussion of anything that doesn't support the premis of global warming having to do with CO2 emmissions.

Simply put, polarization is the technical term for a material that change the orientation of the polar climates so they don't just happen on the earth's poles, but other places on earth. This would clearly counteract any hint of global warming.

So far they haven't come up with any inexpensive materials that can change the orientation of the earth's poles enough to counteract global warming on a large scale, although the materials that can are generally available in expensive "polarized" sunglasses. The way that "polarized" sun glasses work is that they cool down the light. This is beneficial in sunglasses so that your eyes aren't damaged as much as they would be in the "hot" light of the summer. On the larger scale this could actually change the global climate and prevent global warming.

Hopefully one of these days they'll discover a material inexpensive enough to reverse the trend of global warming on a planetary scale, but until then, you can do your own small part by supporting the polarized sun-glass industry by buying your own pair. Just be sure that when you aren't using them to cool down your eyes, you put them out in the sun to cool down your own small patch of earth.

Think of it like buying a hybrid car. Do your part for the environment.

Re:Polarization

[MichaelSmith]

Imagine that two people hold on to opposite ends of a rope. One moves the rope to send waves down the rope to the other end. That person could shake the rope horizontally to generate horizontally polarised waves, or vertically to generate vertically polarised waves.

If you pass the rope through a slot in a wall the slot will only allow waves which align with the slot. That is how polaroid sun glasses work. They literally have slots in them aligned a certain way.

You can use polarisation to split two signals from a single stream of photons. Horizontal in the left eye, vertical in the right eye for example.

Re:Polarization

[zippthorne]

The electric field and magnetic field that make up what we call "light" have both a magnitude and direction. This is independent (somewhat) of the direction of travel.

If you imagine a dipole flying through space, in the area around it for instance, the magnetic field at each point has a magnitude and direction, and the whole thing has a direction of travel. This not light, but I hope you can visualize that the direction of an electric property is *not* the same as the direction of travel EM radiation.

Now, I say somewhat, because the varying electric field can also be described as varying magnetic field perpendicular to the electric field, and the direction of travel is perpendicular to both of those.

So you can see that for any given direction of travel, there is a locus of orientations for plane described by the E and B vectors, that can be described by an angle of rotation from some reference orientation.

Now hand waving here.

There is a class of materials that preferentially pass photons that have a specific orientation angle. Or rather, they pass the component of those photons in the preferred direction, so you see a range of attenuation up to the maximum where the E vector is perpendicular to the preferred E vector.

And it just get weirder from here.

Re:Polarization

[naoursla]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarization

Light travels as waves (and particles -- but let's ignore that for now). Imagine waves on an ocean coming into the shore. A polarizer is like a bunch of thin wooden boards stacked on top of each other, but with space inbetween each layer. If you place this polarizer so that the boards are standing on end, then the waves will pass through the slats between the boards and come out of the other side mostly intact. However, if you lay the polarizer down so that the boards are lying flat, then the vertical motion of the wave will be stopped by the polarizer.

Light waves usually go in all directions, but you can polarize light by passing it though a polarizer. Only the waves that line up with the polarizer will pass through the polarizer. If you then take a second polarizer and rotate it 90 degrees, then all of that polarized light will be stopped by the new polarizer.

To get a 3D effect, you want two images made of polarized light but with the polarization of the two 90 degrees off from each other. Then you put polarizers over your eyes but rotated 90 degrees. One filter will block one image and the other filter will block the other image. The result is you see two different images and your brain constructs the 3D illusion.

LCD monitors emit polarized light. If you wear a pair of polarized sun glasses and look at an LCD monitor, you can rotate your head and watch as the polarized light from the monitor is passed or blocked by the sunglasses.

Re:Polarization

[wjaxmann]

Can somebody explain what polarization is, and how some materials can block certain "orientations" of polarization?

Quick, hand-waving answer...

Light can be described as a traveling electromagnetic wave with transverse electric and magnetic fields. For example, a light wave traveling north might have its electric field oscillating up and down and its magnetic field oscillating east and west. An oppositely polarized light wave (traveling north still) would have its electric field oscillating east and west and its magnetic field oscillating up and down.

In a material that blocks a certain polarization the electrons are more free to move in one direction than in the other direction. (Based on the shapes of molecules making up the material). The moving electrons interact with the electric field when the directions match...

Enjoy,

Re:Polarization

[bmwm3nut]

I see what you did there.

Anyway, to answer the the OPs question here's a simplified example (real physicists, don't hate on me, I'm not going to get into the gory details here).

First, lets think of a wave in the water. It's traveling in one direction (towards the shore) and vibrating in another (up and down from the plane of the water). Light is the same. It travels in one direction (from the theatre screen to your eye), but it can vibrate in two directions: up and down, or left and right (and technically any combination of that like diagonal and such). This is called the polarization: vertical or horizontal.

So what these 3D theaters do is have a special theater screen that preserves polarization (most just randomize it) and they have one image for one eye sent out in vertical polarization and the other sent out in horizontal polarization. Then by using special glasses they can show only one polarization to each eye.

Think of polarized glasses as having little bars in them, if they're aligned up and down only vertical light can squeeze through the bars, the horizontal gets stuck. Likewise the bars can go horizontally and the vertical light gets stuck.

Actually it's the other way, but that's more complicated. If the bars (i.e. molecules aligned such that they conduct electricity) are vertical, the vertical polarized light resonates with the bars and gets dissipated and the horizontal makes it through. But that's just technical matters.

This is also why polarized sun glasses are great for boating and driving. Since most of the time you're looking out at a big horizontal reflector (the water or your car hood or the road), most of the light that's reflected (glare) is horizontally polarized (I won't go into the details why), so the polarized sunglasses are set up to filter out horizontally polarized light which removes glare and you only get the vertical light which is just about everything else.

Re:Polarization

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember watching "Captain Eo" at Disney World as a kid (guessing 1986). That was the first polarized 3-D movie I ever saw. Unbelievable. Blew away the red-blue method.

Re:Polarization

[dgatwood]

And the key to fully understanding this is to understand that two of these waves at right angles to each other don't interfere with each other in any significant way (unlike two ropes would).

To understand this concept, place a red ball in the center of the rope and fasten it in place. View the rope from the end. You can watch the ball move up and down. This shows how the wave as perceived from a single point in space can be seen as effectively a change in position vertically rather than as something moving horizontally. Now view that wave through a vertical slit. You will notice that you still see the red ball moving up and down. Now view it through a horizontal slit. Move the slit rapidly up and down so that the ball remains visible through the slit. Notice that you always see the ball in a single position horizontally. Putt simply, moving the ball vertically does not change its position horizontally, and vice-versa. This demonstrates that motion in one direction does not cause interference when viewed 90 degrees out of phase relative to that motion. As a result, no matter how you shake the rope, at any given moment, the ball's two-dimensional position can be interpreted separately as two separate positions, one in the horizontal direction and one in the vertical direction.

Because of this, these projection systems project the superimposition of two waves, one horizontal, one vertical. (I assume this is probably done with two projectors.) You then wear glasses with a series of horizontal slits for one eye and vertical slits for the other eye. The waves moving horizontally are perceived as light by one eye, the vertical waves by the other, and you see two distinct pictures that do not interfere with each other. The first time I saw this demonstrated was the Captain Eo movie at Disney World back in the 80s. It is very effective, with the caveat that your eyes are focusing on a flat plane while converging on objects that are outside this plane, so watching it for a long period of time can cause significant physical discomfort, particularly when viewing objects that appear to be significantly closer to you than the physical location of the screen.

Re:Polarization

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it's just my poor vision or something, but to me the popped out items in Captain Eo looked like cardboard cutouts. It was a slightly less satisfying viewing experience than a 3-d viewmaster. I'm guessing it's probably improved since then or it wouldn't be worth making into a product.

Re:Polarization

[Kagura]

Actually it's the other way, but that's more complicated. If the bars (i.e. molecules aligned such that they conduct electricity) are vertical, the vertical polarized light resonates with the bars and gets dissipated and the horizontal makes it through. But that's just technical matters.

THIS is *exactly* the sort of specific answer I was looking for. Thanks so much... it's not quite spelled out that plainly on Wikipedia.

Now, another question that wasn't quite answered below yet: I've long understood that polarization is changing the orientation of the propagating wave, but exactly how does this work for light? As far as I'm aware, light doesn't take a zig-zaggy, wavy motion through space, so how is it analogous to sending waves down a jump rope or similar? (I have a feeling the problem I have in understanding this issue has to do with the preceding sentence.) Thanks in advance, and thanks to all the people below this author who have also responded.

Re:Polarization

[Kagura]

Replying to myself... I could be wrong, but from what I read on replies below and on Wikipedia, it seems that the orientation isn't a spatial movement like waves on a jump rope moving up and down, but rather an intrinsic, non-classical property like spin. At least, that's what I gather. ;)

Re:Polarization

[bmwm3nut]

Light itself doesn't make a zig-zaggy motion, but the electric and magnetic waves oscillate in a zig-zaggy way. Light is nothing more than an oscillating electric (and magnetic) wave. Probably have to go to wikipeida for a good picture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

Going back to the wave on a string example. If two people hold the string and one shakes it. The string itself will oscillate but the energy associated with that motion travels straight to the other person. It's hard to explain or imagine if you haven't spent a lot of time in physics classes, but a wave is just a way to transfer energy. The wave may make the string move up and down but the energy is going "straight". This is a terrible explanation, maybe someone else can do better.

The trouble is when you actually start to get into the details of wave motion and how light behaves, basically you just need to trust the equations and there are few physical examples of how it actually works (other than a wave on a string). And then the people who study this all the time just think in terms of the equations and don't really know how to explain it.

Re:Polarization

[blair1q]

"unlike two ropes would"

False.

If the detector at the other end of the rope has a very high impedance (doesn't allow the end to move for a changing force) then it will detect the vertical and horizontal wave components with fidelity as forces. The two components can then be decoded.

If the detector is in a moving portion of the rope, it will have to have a very low impedance (allowing full motion without applying any force to the rope itself). It can detect the motion as displacement and decode it into vertical and horizontal components.

Re:Polarization

[MichaelSmith]

I had a read around on wikipedia to refresh my memory. As I understand it you have two fields in space: electric and magnetic. Electromagnetic waves (like light) are waves in both of those fields, but if a wave is vertical in the magnetic field it is horizontal in the electric field.

The rope example I have above is a bit like a (force) field because it transmits force. So maybe the magnetic field in a bit like the rope in that way.

Getting in too deep here. Is there a physicist in the house? I know somebody who could answer this question but I don't think he hangs out on /.

Sorry you got modded troll up above BTW.

Re:Polarization

[danlor]

This actually isn't true, although it was the exact analogy I was always taught.

It's much more complex, and beyond the scope of a sd post. Mind boggling actually.

Re:Polarization

[MichaelSmith]

This actually isn't true, although it was the exact analogy I was always taught.

It's much more complex, and beyond the scope of a sd post. Mind boggling actually.

Do you mean polarisation in light waves? Kagura asked about polarisation in general, which is what I replied to.

Re:Polarization

[Tacvek]

As I understand it:
Electromagnetic radiation is longitudinal vibration (waves) of an electric field line. (One could view it it vibrations of a magnetic field line too, but that view is not common.)

Now since light travels in a straight line, so the vibrations are not in that dimension. However, there are two other dimensions. If you are looking straight down the path of a beam of light there are two dimensions along with the field line vibrations could occur, namely up-down and left-right.

Those two components could have different amplitudes, but the same phase, which results in linear polarization, and could occur along any possible orientation. If the left-right and up-down components of the vibration (waves) have a phase difference, circular or elliptical polarization can occur.

See the nice images on the Wikipedia polarization article.

Re:Polarization

[Matt Edd]

The grandparent is correct. The magnetic field doesn't play a part in the polarization. The vertical electric waves get absorbed by the vertical polarizer and the horizontal do not. (As the GP does I'm not going into detail about the absorption.) To spell it out explicitly it's not the slit that does the filtering.

Re:Polarization

[vojin]

The new stereoscopic (3D) projection systems actually use circular polarization, in which the waves travel both horizontally and vertically in a helix. The two images are separated by whether the wave spins right or left (their "handedness"). This maintains the stereoscopic effect even if you tilt your head to either side, unlike linearly polarized systems.

Re:Polarization

[MichaelSmith]

Thats interesting. I wonder how the glasses distinguish between the two?

Re:Polarization

[Anonymous Coward]

now please explain circular polarization

Re:Polarization

[dgatwood]

*scratches head* I think you must have misunderstood what I said unless the laws of physics changed so that two ropes can exist in the same place at the same time.... My aside was to point out that you have to think of it as a single rope moving in two directions because waves behave decidedly different than two separate ropes in roughly the same physical space would. Unless you could synchronize the timing of the waves in such a way that neither rope would ever have to move past the other rope, they'll hit each other, and you will end up with ropes wrapped around each other....

Re:Polarization

[Btarlinian]

Now, another question that wasn't quite answered below yet: I've long understood that polarization is changing the orientation of the propagating wave, but exactly how does this work for light? As far as I'm aware, light doesn't take a zig-zaggy, wavy motion through space, so how is it analogous to sending waves down a jump rope or similar? (I have a feeling the problem I have in understanding this issue has to do with the preceding sentence.) Thanks in advance, and thanks to all the people below this author who have also responded.

Light is a wave in the electromagnetic field. Along different points in space the electric field and magnetic fields have different directions and magnitude. Plotting these magnitude and direction of the electric and magnetic fields would give you wavy shapes.

Re:Polarization

[Jbcarpen]

Ok, the way circular (and elliptical) polarization of light is as follows.

As light propagates, the wave shuffles back and forth between a magnetic field, and an electric field. In linearly polarized light, the electric field is in one axis, and the magnetic field is in another.

Elliptical polarization is different in that it (can be thought of as) the sum of 2 linearly polarized photons. one is polarized one way, and the other is polarized another way. The thing is, they aren't both electric at the same time, or magnetic at the same time.

You can also look at it like this, take a stopwatch and look at it from the edge. watch the tip of the second hand as it spins around. this is the electric component of the light wave, note that it goes back and forth in a straight line (from your perspective). If you tilt the stopwatch back toward you a little then the tip of the second hand appears to go around an ellipse(this is elliptically polarized light). As you continue to turn it back toward you, the path becomes more circular (circularly polarized light).

Re:Polarization

[Jbcarpen]

Gah, wish I could edit that.

Anyway, the stopwatch example works better if you hold the watch out in front of you and walk forward. (that's the axis of propagation)

Re:Polarization

[Alsee]

I think he was explaining that you can have two-component horizontal+vertical signals from a single rope. The wave can have a diagonal displacement carrying both signals.

The stuff you explained was correct as far as I recall, and the stuff he explained was correct as far as I recall. Whether he was correct or not in saying you were "wrong"... I think that is mostly a communication issue and I offer no particular input on who was unclear in their speech or in their understanding.

-

Re:Polarization

[Alsee]

I wonder how the glasses distinguish between the two?

You know how a drill bit or a corkscrew spirals from front to back? That spiral can twist clockwise as you go from front to back, or it can twist counterclockwise.

Imagine the front surface of one lens - a sheet one molecule thick - is a vertically polarized filter. The light then passes deeper into the lens, and again you have a one-molecule-thick sheet of polarizing material, except this layer is tilted 5 degrees to the left (or tilted 5 degrees to the right). As you pass deeper through the lens you keep hitting a series of layers each twisted slightly to the left (or twisted to the right). The light has to twist like a drill bit does, as it passes from front to back. A left twist or a right twist.

Some materials naturally corkscrew the arrangement of their atoms. It is random whether the second layer it will twist left or right compared to the first layer, but after that the material will keep twisting left or keep twisting right as it forms.

-

Re:Polarization

[Anonymous Coward]

Electromagnetic radiation is longitudinal vibration (waves) of an electric field line.

'longitudinal' is never used to describe EM wave propagation. I know exactly how light travels but I am having an impossible time visualizing what you mean by "longitudinal vibration of an E-field line"
E-field lines are rarely straight, so how would they vibrate longitudinally?

Anyways, the classic way to describe the propagation of light (EM radiation) is: two oscillating fields that are orthogonal to each other (E & M), and also orthogonal to the velocity vector. That is, they are transverse waves because the wave is vibrating perpendicular to the propagation of the wavefront.

As opposed to pressure waves (sound) which are longitudinal waves because the molecules vibrate back and forth in the same direction as the propagation of the wave.

Perhaps you are correct, but as I couldn't understand what you meant, then anyone who is trying to understand light would probably be confused too.

Re:Polarization

[dgatwood]

Given that the entire remainder of my post after that aside was explaining that you could have a horizontal and vertical component of a single rope, I'm baffled. :-)

Re:Polarization

[Tacvek]

Electromagnetic radiation is longitudinal vibration (waves) of an electric field line.

'longitudinal' is never used to describe EM wave propagation. I know exactly how light travels but I am having an impossible time visualizing what you mean by "longitudinal vibration of an E-field line"

Correct, I did indeed mean transverse vibration. I was writing that when my mind was half-asleep.

For polarizations, the M-field is irrelevant, because if there is an E-field wave there is an M-field wave perpendicular to it by definition. What is important is are the amplitude differences and phase offsets between two perpendicular components of the oscillating E-field.

I know this is /. and not Fark, but...

[Tokerat]

There are two types of people in the world, those who are comfortable with their sexuality, whatever it may be, and those who feel the need to denigrate others because they're afraid of their own feelings. Can you guess which group your post puts you in?

This.

Re:I know this is /. and not Fark, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the opposite true? What about those guys that are always talking about how much dong they want? Do they actually want some coot?

Re:I know this is /. and not Fark, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope

Next: cameras in helmets!

[SputnikPanic]

Now all we need are cameras in the players' helmets and then we can all feel like we're really part of the game. Which might not be such a good thing when you see a 300-lb lineman with a full head of steam barreling towards "you". Might make for sloppy beer management...

Re:Next: cameras in helmets!

[reymyster]

Isn't this what the XFL tried? Cameras in huddles, helmets, locker rooms, microphones everywhere, etc.

Re:Next: cameras in helmets!

[SputnikPanic]

Ah, the XFL, the bastard love child of the NFL and WWE... It was mildly entertaining for about two weeks -- which come to think about it, is about how long the XFL actually lasted.

Re:Next: cameras in helmets!

[dedazo]

Wasn't there a movie in the 80s or 90s where this was featured as the future of football?

And QBs have radio transmitters in their helmets nowadays, so that's not too far fetched. The key would be to make a camera that can take the punishment.

I think it would be cool. I wouldn't want to watch a whole game that way, but for replays and whatnot, it would be nice. You'd have to be careful with the sound though. Too many four-letter words uttered when a 300lb tackle falls on top of you.

Re:Next: cameras in helmets!

[timeOday]

The XFL had zillions of gimmicks. The failure of the league doesn't discredit all of them. I do think you'd need a fisheye lens with heavy-duty image stabilization to allow extracting a reasonably steady video stream in a range of camera angles though.

Re:Next: cameras in helmets!

[barzok]

The XFL had zillions of gimmicks. The failure of the league doesn't discredit all of them.

The XFL gave us the "over the field" camera on cables. Which, combined with HD, represents a huge leap in field coverage.

Re:Next: cameras in helmets!

[barzok]

And QBs have radio transmitters in their helmets nowadays, so that's not too far fetched

No transmitters. Only receivers.

Re:Next: cameras in helmets!

[Anonymous Coward]

And QBs have radio transmitters in their helmets nowadays, so that's not too far fetched

No transmitters. Only receivers.

Receivers have transmitters in their helmets? I thought only quarterbacks had those.

Re:Next: cameras in helmets!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Which might not be such a good thing when you see a 300-lb lineman with a full head of steam barreling towards "you"."

There's worse -- the quarterback view just before the snap.

Re:Next: cameras in helmets!

[flewp]

The problem with helmet mounted cameras is they only face in one direction. How often are your eyes actually fixated forward in any sport? I can't say for certain as I've never taken the time to study it, but from personal experience it seems like when I'm playing sports, my eyes fixate on something first then the head follows. Or if I'm scanning side to side, my head is also moving but my eyes are also moving back and forth. The other problem is image stabilization. Someone else mentioned it in this thread, and it would definitely be needed. Our eyes and brains do a wonderful job of stabilizing the images we see when we're running around and whatnot, but it doesn't work as well when we're watching a TV replay of a head mounted camera.

Re:Next: cameras in helmets!

[barzok]

Only the QB has a radio in his helmet. It is only a receiver, it is not a transmitter.

Re:Next: cameras in helmets!

[dedazo]

You're right. Some part of me knew that, and for some reason I used the wrong word anyway.

Thanks for the correction.

Re:Sure!

[philspear]

The third consists of those who want to watch beautiful cheerleaders perform routines that emphasize their feminine, athletic and desirable traits, while wearing the skimpiest possible outfits

Hey, come on, quit trolling! They could be a LOT skimpier!

So what you're saying is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Three kinds of people watch football:

1) Dumb kids

2) Closet homosexuals

3) Leering perverts

I'm not dumb and I'm not a homosexual, so I'm a leering perv.

See how easy it was to summarize your wordy post?

Re:So what you're saying is...

[Bearhouse]

Three kinds of people watch football:

1) Dumb kids

2) Closet homosexuals

3) Leering perverts

I'm not dumb and I'm not a homosexual, so I'm a leering perv.

See how easy it was to summarize your wordy post?

That was funnier than the original post - mod up!

Re:So what you're saying is...

[esrobinson]

Whoops, accidentally modded troll, just posting to cancel that. Sorry.

Damn

[DJ Jones]

Too bad this technology wasn't working in time to catch Ryan Clark's hit on Wes Walker last week.

We could have visualized pain in three dimensions.

Re:Damn

[Saroset]

Pain with a side serving of "Your world just got rocked."

Re:Damn

[demonlapin]

I caught a hit like that in high school - rounded a corner and ran into a guy - and those actually don't hurt much at all. If you'll notice, Clark is off the ground and Walker neatly topples over. These are fairly elastic collisions. The ones that hurt are the fullback-linebacker type impacts right near the line of scrimmage.

Re:Damn

[Behrooz]

If by 'neatly topples over' you mean 'experiences cranial acceleration sufficient to go from 5 m/s to -2 m/s in something under a 15cm distance', perhaps. Physics doesn't lie, and the pros are going a metric fuckload faster than high school football players do.

Elastic collision or not, his brain was playing ping-pong at 50+ Gs, and that ain't no good for nobody's neural tissue.

Re:Damn

[optimus2861]

Physics doesn't lie, and the pros are going a metric fuckload faster than high school football players do.

(USA) How much is a "metric fuckload" in english? (/USA)

Re:Damn

[moortak]

1.28 fucktons

Re:Damn

[demonlapin]

All true. However, I expect that Walker is also in the sort of physical condition that I wouldn't be able to achieve with steroids, enough wealth to be able to train 24/7, and enough stamina to put the character from Mirror's Edge to shame. It's not good for the head, but it's not nearly as painful as the other kind.

Re:Sure!

[geekoid]

Wow, could be be more homophobic.
I mean projecting your far(and you secret desires) onto a football game is just amazing.

Some people just like the game.

Re:Sure!

[philspear]

I'm guessing this AC feels your description of category 2 was insulting to him and his frat brothers.

(no offense, I just couldn't resist)

Re:Sure!

[cayenne8]

"Hey, come on, quit trolling! They could be a LOT skimpier!"

C'mon...screw doing it for football and cheerleaders....lets get into 3-D pr0n!!

Heck...skip that...just get VR pr0n, on demand....

But, then again...if that happened...mankind would likely cease to exist. I mean, once ever guy could have realistic sex with any woman he wanted, that wouldn't talk back, fake a headache, be on the rag, or threaten to take half his belongings if he switches models...no man would ever go back to the "real" thing ever again.

ON the other hand...this would allow more time to watch football in between VR sex romps.

Forget the NFL!

[cashman73]

Forget the NFL! With 3-D broadcasting, p0rn will never be the same! =)

Re:Forget the NFL!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm 3D porn. That would rock.

Re:Forget the NFL!

[dwarg]

Watch it!!! You could poke an eye out with that thing!

Re:Forget the NFL!

[T Murphy]

You clearly haven't realized the potential this technology has for C-Span. Those politicians will almost seem like real human beings!

Re:Sure!

[Walpurgiss]

Hopefully they build their own theatres for this shit, and keep regular movie theatres separate.

I'd hate to actually go to a theatre for once, and have it overrun by retards trying to catch the game.

Re:Sure!

[fyngyrz]

No, that doesn't follow. Being enthusiastically hetero is not at all the same as being homophobic; I'm not interested in the sexuality of men or sex with men, it's simply boring -- doesn't result in any sexual reaction at all. Which is, in fact, probably the main reason why football bores me. The fact is, male on male sexuality is neither offensive or fearsome to me. The more men that prefer that path, the more women left for exclusively straight guys like me, so by all means, have at it. You can count on me to support your quest for rights and equality on every front. As here, for instance.

Re:Sure!

[Beardo the Bearded]

You forgot two groups:

1. People who actually watch football and care about it.

2. People who watch football as a 2-3 hour escape. "Ooh, sorry, honey. The game is on. How about in a few hours?"

Personally, I don't watch or follow any pro sports. I think they're all a waste of time and money, and I simply don't get it.

Re:Sure!

[fyngyrz]

I didn't say it was a bad thing. :o)

Re:Sure!

[owlnation]

As well as a 3D Cheerleader channel, there really needs to be a 3D women's beach volleyball channel. A 2D channel would be a start. The World needs this. Urgently.

But everything goes better with 3-D!

[David Gerard]

VARIETY, Lack Of - Steven Soderbergh's new musical version of Cleopatra - in 3-D! - proves an incredible box-office same-old same-old. Starring Catherine Zeta-Jones as the fishnet-clad vaudeville jazz empress and Hugh Jackman as the mutant self-healing Roman general - in 3-D! - the film carries the Ocean's Eleven franchise somewhere beyond its ultimate extent.

"I've always wanted to do a musical," Soderbergh said. "All the ones that were coming along just weren't for me. This one, however, involved dumptrucks full of money backed up to my house."

Soderbergh pooh-poohed suggestions that the film would be some sort of low-rent exploitation quickie that would insult the intelligence of any creature smarter than a flatworm. "I can assure you this will be the most artistically satisfying creation in my entire career as a director," he said, lighting a cigar off a hundred-dollar bill before laying back on a great big bed made of money.

"DUMPTRUCKS!" Soderbergh emphasised. "FULL OF MONEY! BACKED UP TO MY HOUSE!"

Here's the one sentence regarding issues found.

[Wanado]

Not a lot of technical discussion in the article. I would have liked to hear more about what they did and why it left people a bit cross-eyed. Did the camera angles not line up with each other? Do they pan back and forth on a fixed track? Are the two camera lenses close to each other or far apart? Are they synchronized mechanically to each other and/or part of the same camera?

"On Thursday, some systems at a Salt Lake City location had to be rebooted to restart the satellite feed and some camera crews performed pans that ended up leaving the viewers a bit cross-eyed, Modell said."

Re:Here's the one sentence regarding issues found.

[Anonymous Coward]

They probably don't mean cross-eyed in the literal sense. As you are probably aware, the 3-D effect is based on the relative position of the objects in the two opposite polarized images. If something moves across the screen quickly - like a pass or a close up of a run - and goes near-to-far or vice versa, that would probably be a bit disorienting to a viewer, particularly if they are close to the screen.

Re:Here's the one sentence regarding issues found.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the apparent separation of the cameras isn't close to the viewer's eyeball separation (baseline) it's going to cause a sense of crosseyedness and probably headaches.

Re:Sure!

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, once ever guy could have realistic sex with any woman he wanted, that wouldn't talk back, fake a headache, be on the rag, or threaten to take half his belongings if he switches models...no man would ever go back to the "real" thing ever again.

Well, there are guys who are into that kind of thing... not sure we want them to populate our future though

Re:Sure!

[Anonymous Coward]

Condescending asshole much?

I've never understood the hate-on some geeks have for sports. Though it seems a lot of people grow out of that when they get older, so perhaps it is a maturity thing.

Understatement

[OglinTatas]

"still has work to do"
They have a LONG way to go... first step is finding better teams than the Chargers and the Raiders.

Oh yeah, and I second the motion for more cheerleaders... in motion!

Re:Understatement

[Tablizer]

Oh yeah, and I second the motion for more cheerleaders... in motion!

Double-D's might make us seasick.
   

Re:Sure!

[Anonymous Coward]

I rarely do this but I have to say, you should really stop posting. You sound so gay.

Re:Next: cameras in other places . . .

[PolygamousRanchKid]

For better coverage of the snap, how about live footage from the center's cup-cam?

But seriously, too many cameras on the field, would mean that too many folks would see too much nastiness.

It might lead to too many post-games disputes . . . or worse, to, um, serious altercations between supposing fans after a very nasty hit.

Re:Sure!

[CorporateSuit]

No, that doesn't follow. Being enthusiastically hetero is not at all the same as being homophobic

No, but describing that everything you don't like as a vivid representation of homoeroticism kind of is. Football isn't suppose to get a sexual rise out of men. It's a game of simulated warfare and athletic strategy. It's attraction to a typical man's adrenal gland falls under the star of Ares rather than Venus. If your worldview is absorbed by the binary distribution of "Does it turn me on sexually or is it for teh gays?" then your condition is considered a disorder and downright creepy by the opposite sex. It is admittedly healthier than an obsession with violence, and easier to cure as you probably just need to get laid or lay off the porn for a while. Go camping or something.

Re:Sure!

[sexconker]

He seemed comfortable with it.
There was no denigration.

Guess what that makes you.

Ill advised dissolve?

[bluefoxlucid]

Explain what the refocus/dissolve stuff and pulling off the polarized lenses was. Tech explanation please.

Re:Ill advised dissolve?

[maz2331]

Quick Explanation:

It causes visual dissonance if done poorly.

Technical Explanation:

Stereoscopic imaging is an attempt to recreate the world from the perspective of a person looking upon it. To do so, it must present to both eyes at all times a pattern of light the same as those eyes would see if placed in the "world" that the scene is portraying.

The human eye/brain combination rejects any scene presented to it that is not:

1. Aligned vertically
2. Has excessive horizontal variation
3. Contains parts of images "cut off" such that a normal observer would not see.

What happens when a bad focusing moment happens is that both cameras aren't in or out of focus at the same time by the same amount. This causes the human brain to enter an "exception" condition that is actually somewhat painful. The same thing happens with a bad dissolve/fade/mix - it presents the eye/brain combination with a pattern of information it simply was not designed to handle.

3D is different enough from the familiar 2D imaging to require different, and generally more restrained, techniques in shooting and editing. Where one can "get away" with rapid scene and perspective changes in 2D (think music videos here) the same in 3D will actually cause physical discomfort to the person watching the resultant production.

Re:Ill advised dissolve?

[sahonen]

Explain what the refocus/dissolve stuff and pulling off the polarized lenses was. Tech explanation please.

A "dissolve" is a type of transition between different shots. It's when the image from the first shot blends smoothly into the second. It works fine in 2D, but in 3D it creates a very confusing and uncomfortable sensation. The "polarized lenses" refers to the 3D glasses that the people in the theater were wearing. Other comments in this article explain that part already, so I won't here. The article talks about people pulling them off because of the uncomfortable sensations created by mismanagement of the 3D effect in the broadcast.

I don't like contact sport with other men

[flyingfsck]

My answer when guys at school asked why I don't play rugby.

Re:I don't like contact sport with other men

[tehcyder]

At my school, impugning a rugby player's sexuality in that way would have got you a good old de-bagging and probable multiple manual bollock-tweaking.

Re:Sure!

[eclectic4]

Certain types of people enjoy watching the best humans have to offer within a physical set of rules. You would be surprised to learn of the intelligence behind most sports, and the lifelong training that is needed to excel in them. The winning and losing part just allows you to invest in them. It can be fun, for sure. Each of these people may have on or several sports they like to watch. Personally, I like baseball. I watch football and am interested. I used to watch basketball when Jordan was playing. But the mind game between pitcher, catcher, batter and runners is very entertaining to me.

Re:Sure!

[blair1q]

If you don't care about sports, then they have no meaning for you.

If you do, then they do.

And vice versa.

Life's like that. Only for some things your caring is built-in.

What was the ill-advised dissolve?

[kc8jhs]

Almost every article on the web (which is a copy-paste press release) references 2 problems, a temporary outage, and "an ill advised zoom." Does anyone know what the ill-advised zoom was?

Re:What was the ill-advised dissolve?

[Chyeld]

Don't know but I can imagine that zooming too quickly and too far in would give the impression of falling. Any movement of the field of vision being provided, for that matter, would have to be more carefully considered vs. a 2D broadcast given the closer to you are with fooling your head that you are actually watching a three dimensional object, the more vertigo related issues you have as your brain struggles with the "seeing motion but inner ear says I'm sitting still" cognitive dissonance.

Re:Sure!

[blair1q]

Your reasons are sufficient but not necessary. Some people like watching anyone at all playing baseball. Some people like just sitting and staring at the stadium as it fills before the game. Some people like to watch the crowd during the game.

Sports are something to do.

So is /.

Re:Sure!

[treebeard77]

Actually the most enthusiastic football fans I know are women. My mother was always a huge fan and my sister has followed suit. My daughter enjoys watching. Many women friends love watching football. The only person I know who actually has season tickets ( 49ers ) is a woman.

Without endorsing or contradicting your remarks, I think you missed at least one entire group: Women who enjoy watching football

I used to enjoy watching myself until one season I bet on games every weekend. I was lucky and made a few bucks over the season, but unlucky in that it spoiled the game for me. If my daughter is around I'll always join her. But by myself, I'll catch the occasional game or part of one.

Always Almost There Like Flying Cars

[Tablizer]

Mass 3D movies and TV have been promised since the 50's. It didn't catch on then (other than novelty shows) and probably never will, at least as long as glasses are involved. Polarized spectacles are not a significant improvement over red/blue ones.

The glasses make people feel dorky and many find them uncomfortable. 3D TV would have to have a large percent of the population prefer it before the infrastructure is worth while. Some kind of holographic projection would probably be needed to get it to take off.

Besides, one can get almost the same sense of depth sensation by merely panning the camera left to right (or versa) slowly while pointing at the main subjects. The brain uses the parallax info in much the same way that two-eye parallax works. It's a cheaper form of 3D. See http://www.kokogiak.com/mars/mws.asp?n=4

Re:Sure!

[Anonymous Coward]

On a podcast I listen to, the host made a really good point: The more you defend how straight you are the more you secretly want some dong.

How much do you love pussy, fyngyrz?

Re:Next: cameras in other places . . .

[reymyster]

IIRC, the XFL put their multitude of cameras on a 7-second delay to deal with nastiness that came up, including foul language, etc., but they were still a spectacular failure

Re:Sure!

[Tatsh]

I disagree entirely. There is nothing mature about 'watching the game' like 'everyone else' does. The only way I see this hate-on going away when 'geeks' get older is at a place like a bar where desperate men (read: geeks) go to meet women, so they pretend to care about the game. Last episode of IT Crowd covered this topic in a comedic manner.

Re:Next: cameras in other places . . .

[mooingyak]

I actually think they'll eventually get to a point where you have enough cameras on the field that you can take anything that happened during the game and get a composite view of it from any angle you could possibly want.

Re:Sure!

[IorDMUX]

There's an interesting subset of people that I've noticed here in Silicon Valley, but I'm certain exists elsewhere, consisting of both recent immigrants to the USA from various places as well as natural born citizens, of both genders, and a variety of ages, whose favorite televised sport to watch is American Football. They (we) do this because no other televised sport (in our eyes) has quite so much pre-planning and synchronized teamwork, broken up often for more planning and design. I am a fan of Soccer, Hockey (not baseball... sheesh), and the like, but their non-stop tests of physical ability are not as interesting to watch as the repeated implementation and execution of stellar football plays.

NFL

[Strep]

wow. NFL casting DDD Broads...

Re:Sure!

[Anonymous Coward]

denigrate. good use of the word-hoard.

Re:Sure!

[dedazo]

While there are certainly extremes where people will watch *every* sport all year, there's nothing wrong with following one or two.

I follow the NFL because although I wasn't born in the US, I played it when I was in high school and I like it. I also follow the Bundesliga and the Premier League (that's the normal football for all you Americans <g>), the European and Latin American soccer confederation cups and of course the World Cup. I also watch the Olympics (winter and summer) when they're on.

That's it. I don't like hockey, baseball, basketball or anything else. I also very rarely follow the US college football season, though I will sometimes watch a bowl or two in January.

Of course there's also the fun angle (Superbowl parties!) but I don't use sports as an excuse to drink beer or escape from grim reality or anything like that. That's just an exaggeration.

Penis cam FTW

[Anonymous Coward]

Cameras at each corner, and on the edges.
Camera on each of the players.
That should allow for at least over 90% of everything in the game field.
The rest could probably be filled in using pattern matching algorithms and fill-in to achieve 100%.

Oh we can dream, we can dream. Not only that, but 3D porn too.
Penis cam FTW

Re:Sure!

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I don't watch or follow any pro sports. I think they're all a waste of time and money, and I simply don't get it.

Spot the kid who got hung from his locker by his underwear by a bunch of jocks. :)

Video link

[supaneko]

I unerstand that it may be a bit difficult to get the "3D effect" on a 2D screen but... Does anyone have a link to view a clip from the 3D game?

Lingerie Bowl

[santix]

Surely won't be the same.

Re:Sure!

[CorporateSuit]

I'd hate to actually go to a theatre for once, and have it overrun by retards...

You have not been to the movies lately, have you?

I can't see 3D anyway

[Nimey]

My eyes look in slightly different directions, so I've never had depth perception. Can't catch a ball, can't do melee combat effectively. I'm told I have a disadvantage only from about six feet away on in, but that's probably far enough out that a 3D TV would be useless at best, and probably an annoyance from seeing double.

Re:I can't see 3D anyway

[Edmund Blackadder]

can't do melee? you will make a terrible zergling.

Re:I can't see 3D anyway

[mathx314]

Same here, and my father. (Actually, truth be told, I do have depth perception, but 3D glasses still don't work. He doesn't have it.) Every time a movie comes out in 3D, we both sigh a little since we know we'll never see it. Hopefully this 3D football stuff doesn't catch on, since we both watch the sport fairly regularly.

Oh, and out of curiosity, do you really get in melee combat so often that not having depth perception is an issue?

Re:I can't see 3D anyway

[Alsee]

In related news, people with one deaf ear can't hear in stereo anyway.

-

Re:I can't see 3D anyway

[mathx314]

Admittedly true, but you can still listen to stereo, just with one less ear and without the surround-sound effects. Nimey and I can't watch 3D movies at all, just weirdly overlapping pictures.

Re:I can't see 3D anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. Bone conductance and your sinuses allow some hearing, unless the cochlea or nerve itself is damaged.

I know from experience. I grew up with the bones between the cochlea and eardrum gone in one ear.

This has since been corrected by some little plastic rod taking their place.

Re:I can't see 3D anyway

[Nimey]

Said people won't be annoyed by the stereo sound being slightly out of phase.

Re:Sure!

[Anonymous Coward]

heh, that's like the gayest post I've ever read. Do you empathize with this fellow?

Re:Sure!

[MicktheMech]

Bush still has a month to push an incentive plan through. To hell with Detroit. Besideds, we know he's a fan.

Re:Sure!

[Rycross]

Personally, I've never understood the hate-on some people have for people like myself who simply don't like watching sports. Its amazing how much disgust registers in their face to a simple, "Sorry, I don't follow sports." You'd think I kicked their dog or something.

Re:Sure!

[Anonymous Coward]

Podcasts are kind of gay, man. I don't think the host of a podcast is a reliable authority of the straight mindset.

Re:Sure!

[BronsCon]

I'm sure you have firsthand experience to know that's true.

I'm not afraid of the dong, myself, I just prefer twat.

Re:Sure!

[KanSer]

This just in: Athletes should wear baggy pants otherwise insecure career nerds will feel threatened by alleged homo-eroticism.

You don't like football. Stop posting in a thread about football.

Re:Sure!

[KanSer]

Ah yes, the beautiful leathery skin of 30+ year old professional beach volleyball players...

I, personally, could support a college indoor volleyball channel. Could those shorts be any shorter? Could those chicks be any taller? There's too much hotness going on there; thank god they're of age and don't make me feel like a pre-vert.

Cheerleading competitions on ESPN and women's gymnastics on the other hand... that's pedo territory.

Re:Sure!

[kaizokuace]

fake a headache, be on the rag, or threaten to take half his belongings if he switches models

When they are on the rag thats BJ week!

Re:Sure!

[kaizokuace]

for sure, my brother and I just really got into football. Sports are only fun when you get into the nuances of the sport. I was never into football and now that I finally took the time to understand it I wish that I had played in high school. I've always been into F1 racing and various other racing, except nascar ehhe. But the one thing that keeps my brother and I into watching sports is the athleticism. Watching the best of the best go against each other with a ruleset to even the playing field. Cheerleaders and all the extra stuff is a fun perk. It makes going to games more fun as an event.

I don't see how these categories are exclusive...

[Behrooz]

I don't see how these categories are exclusive, for damn sure a lot of the people I know would class the entire football-watching population of my house in at least categories #1 and #3, and I'm pretty sure a lot of the trash talk implies that most of us are also in category #2.

So, either someone is spreading vicious slander, or this whole categorizing plan is bullshit.

Re:Sure!

[Ihmhi]

I've never seen someone take what could have been such a simplistic statement and turn it into an incredibly elaborate diatribe. Couldn't you have just said "People who watch football are gay" and saved us a bunch of time?

Back on topic - I read an article in Popular Mechanics a year or two ago about the physics of football.

A fighter pilot might experience 10 Gs in an extreme maneuver. Two football players ramming into each other (homosexual subtext not intended) briefly experience 150 Gs. Even for an instant, that's gotta hurt.

Re:Sure!

[EVil Lawyer]

Hey guy... you're in mighty fine shape. You wouldn't want to participate in some "arts" that involve shirtless men touching each other for "sport" would you? And maybe some gay sex afterward?

- Consummate dude

Try the Pulfrich Effect for 3D TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Pop one lens out of a pair of old sunglasses and watch TV with them. The dark eye gets the image to your brain a millisecond later than the clear lens, giving you a stereo pair. Occasionally when the picture is right (camera moving horizontally) there will be a 3D effect. You can get same effect by squinting one eye, squint the eye where the motion is coming from. Camera moving right to left, squint the right eye. Works in movie theaters too.

red-green

[overcaffein8d]

does anyone know the kind of 3d they used? i know there's red-blue.... but did they use the new, fancy polarized ones?

Re:Sure!

[Neoprofin]

I think the hate on is because people who don't watch sports feel the need to comment in stories about sports about just how uninteresting sports are. If you don't like sports that's your free time, but unless you have something to contribute to the conversation why interject yourself, especially in the case of the troll above who needs to rant on and on about how anyone who likes football is gay. That's why people have a hate on when people talk about how they don't like sports.

Re:Sure!

[Anonymous Coward]

Admit it! You love the cock!

Re:Sure!

[Rycross]

I'm not talking about the current discussion. I'm talking about in general.

Other Guy: Hey, omg, the NFL game last night! What do you think?
Me: Oh, I'm not really interested in sports, sorry.
Other Guy: *looks at me like I just kicked his dog*

I find sports uninteresting in the same way most people find my gaming hobby or my Japanese hobby or anything else I do uninteresting. Its not a big deal, people have different interests. Just when I talk about mine in mixed company, I'm told that I need to shut up about my "nerd crap," while if I don't get gushy about football people act like I just pulled my pants down and pissed on their shoes.

So lets not act like its just the sports haters that pull that kind of shit, OK? OK.

Oh and for the record, I think the OP was joking, and everyone (including the OP) overreacted to it. But then again, my sports-loving friends usually laugh at that sort of thing.

Underwire.

[Ostracus]

Double-D's might make us seasick.

 

Only if they're yours.

Sure!-Sports going to the dogs.

[Ostracus]

Personally, I've never understood the hate-on some people have for people like myself who simply don't like watching sports. Its amazing how much disgust registers in their face to a simple, "Sorry, I don't follow sports." You'd think I kicked their dog or something.

You don't follow "dog kicking" either?!

Re:Sure!-Sports going to the dogs.

[darthdavid]

Must not be a Michael Vick fan...

Polarnegation

[Ostracus]

Thats interesting. I wonder how the glasses distinguish between the two?

They take a class in circular logic.

Next: A use for broadband.!

[Ostracus]

"Now all we need are cameras in the players' helmets and then we can all feel like we're really part of the game"

We already have 3D sports. It's called multiplayer in most games. Throw in real-time motion capture and you've just saved yourself several million in not building a stadium.

Re:Sure!

[stephanruby]

It's a game of simulated warfare and athletic strategy.

Are you sure you're not talking about sex? or good sex?

I know this is a taboo topic to talk about in such politically correct time, but according to some published medical research, we produce the same hormones and the same blood test results when we are having sex than when we are fighting. Also, a woman is four times more likely to get pregnant when she has intercourse with an aggressive male than a non-aggressive male.

Re:Sure!

[servognome]

Chess is simulated warfare from the viewpoint of the generals, where the soldiers don't matter and the strategy, tactics, and outcome of the battle is everything -- just like real life

Football is simulted warfare with strategy and tactics where the soldiers do matter.

If the spandex outfits, butt grabbing, and superfluous piles-o-guys don't cue you in, that's simply a lack of perception on your part. It doesn't change anything. Football is as intentionally homoerotic as "professional wresting", for many of the same reasons, and no amount of rationalizing will change that.

If you look at any sport with that mentality then every one of them is homoerotic. In fact, I'd say chess is the worst of them all, since every almost piece is shaped like a penis.

Re:Sure!

[servognome]

Sports are something to do.
So is /.

While I enjoy slasdot, there's something to be said about sports parties where you help hold a college girl upside down over a keg... if only we could get something similar after getting modded up to 5 :)

Re:Sure!

[Koiu Lpoi]

"Without women, men would live like kings.", is how I've heard it said.

Re:Sure!

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to play football. The Op is right, its a field full of closet cases.

Re:Sure!

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, a woman is four times more likely to get pregnant when she has intercourse with an aggressive male than a non-aggressive male.

I am trying to come up with images how this "research" could have been conducted, but all I can see are the letters kink dot com?

Re:Sure!

[Neoprofin]

I might be going out on a limb here, but my first guess would be to chalk it up to delivery and attitude. I play videogames daily, watch football every Sunday, read classical literature at night, and see Avril Lavigne when she's on tour. There are literally 0 people who give a shit about the things I do, and yet I've never been told to shut up about it. Is there any chance you have a hateful or smug tone when you tell them their hobby doesn't interest you? I'm dead serious here, I get asked on daily basis if I've seen X Show and never once has someone been offended that I don't share their favorites.

more cheerleaders?

[SDFanboy]

but they'll poke BOTH your eyes out!

Re:Sure!

[Hurricane78]

I want a huge dong to play with!

Perfect proof that I'm straight, ...right?

I rest my case. :P

Re:Sure!

[xerxesVII]

...since every almost piece is shaped like a penis.

Whether it's for your eyes or your penis, you might want to see a doctor.

Re:Sure!

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

The fourth likes it for the tactics and planning - when you get really familiar with the sport, it's quite amazing how much thought actually goes into each play, and how all of the different gameplay elements (time remaining, score, 'momentum', etc) are combined into it.

Oh, and the cheerleaders.

Oh come on, it's a football joke...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod this poor AC up...

Re:Sure!

[toddestan]

You also forgot the group of people who watch the game just so they have something to talk about the next day with their buddies aot the bar/at the watercooler at work etc.

Re:Sure!

[toddestan]

It's an issue of stereotypes. You pretty much can't say that you drive a Prius/use a Mac/don't watch TV/eat organic food/own a firearm/whatever without people thinking "oh, one of THOSE types". Even here - I don't think you can mention here that you don't own a TV without someone posting a link to that Onion article, no matter what the context.

Re:Sure!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey guy... you're in mighty fine shape.

That isn't fyngyrz. It's his "student" John. They've been together for ten years.

Mod this UP!

[gavron]

I'm a guy. I'm real. Not a troll. Post often here, groklaw, arstechnica, etc.

MOD THIS POST UP!!! What an amazing summary of American Football we have here! He's no troll!

Ehud

Re:Sure!

[socalmtb]

Actually, your two groups could be included in the original three.

1. People who actually watch football and care about it.
These are just dumb kids. I'm one of them and not ashamed to admit it. At least I'm not a Jim Carey fan, that would be really dumb.

2. People who watch football as a 2-3 hour escape. "Ooh, sorry, honey. The game is on. How about in a few hours?"
These are the leering perverts.

Re:Sure!

[socalmtb]

2. People who watch football as a 2-3 hour escape. "Ooh, sorry, honey. The game is on. How about in a few hours?"

Oh, and these could also be the homosexuals. If the man says this while the wife is standing naked in front of the TV, he is gay.

Re:Sure!

[stephanruby]

I think it's in the book "The Mating Mind".

Re:Sure!

[Anonymous Coward]

With a VR girlfriend, they aren't going to be populating anything.

Re:Sure!

[Walpurgiss]

I think not since Saving Private Ryan came out in theaters. Or the first Matrix. Not sure which came out first.

LOSERS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Football sucks ASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS why aren't you playing video games, you fucking proto-cretins? Ohh, your authority figures made you into sackless approval-slaves? Carry on then, pathetic creature.

Re:Sure!

[DaVince21]

Only if you mean your own. :P

Re:Sure!

[DaVince21]

You're completely forgetting that sexuality completely plays no role in the men stumbling over eachother in order to get to the ball. It's just a heavy-contact sport, like fighting sports can be too.