Played softball against a few Huskers this wknd.

[H4ever]

This weekend I participated in the the 4th Annual Phillips, NE woodbat softball tournament. This tournament's proceeds go to a different charity every year and it's a good time every year. The tourny organizer managed to get a team of Nebraska football players this year and it was great to see them out there in " 'Skers " uniforms playing a sport half of them had OBVIOUSLY never played.

This tournament is getting bigger each year and next year they are going to try and get Bo Pelini to coach a team of football players and possibly get the Nebraska baseball team to send a few guys down. Biggest name there was Mike McNeil (pre-season all Big 12 tight end). Drew Young was also there and was the 'Skers pitcher. Watching a couple of OL try and swing a bat was hilarious. But, these guys were good enough athletes to steadily improve each game and actually had at least 5 or 6 dingers (tough to hit a softball 300 feet with a wood bat).

Good times, good cause, and it was cool to compete against kids from a team I love. For the record: the 'Skers went 2-2 in this double-elimination tournament and never got beaten by more than 8 runs against some pretty decent local softball teams....even though everyone was swinging wood sticks.

[Screw_Michigan]

Who gives a fuck?

[TheJON]

Who gives a fuck?

More people than do care about hockey. Just sayin'.......

[Screw_Michigan]

Who gives a fuck?

More people than do care about hockey. Just sayin'.......

More people care about hockey than the Iowa Fuckeyes. Sorry to break it to you like that, champ. Feel free to resume grabbing your ankles at any time.

[Danimal]

Hockey is on fucking Versus now and the average guy couldn't tell you who won the Stanley Cup last year. Can't believe I'm saying this but JON wins.

[TheJON]

Hockey is on fucking Versus now and the average guy couldn't tell you who won the Stanley Cup last year. Can't believe I'm saying this but JON wins.

Word. And Iowa games don't get lower ratings than Full House re-runs. Can't say the same about hockey playoffs.

You see, Screw, Iowa has games played on ESPN. Hockey does not. Why? Because people watch Iowa games. Shit, more people watch the fucking spelling bee than that garbage sport. Take your ass back to Canada, cunt. Thanks.

[Nolesy]

We must be living in the final days but I too must agree with Jon.

[Left Seater]

I am going to disagree with Jon, but keep my distance from Screw Michigan.


Hockey is a great sport, but one that has to be enjoyed live at first. Hockey on TV is horrible and you miss so much of what makes it a great game. TV follows the puck and as such you miss the checks behind the play, the drives to the net, the net play with a back to the goal, the breakouts, and on and on. Hockey is right up their with baseball as unwatchable on TV in my book.

If you were to attend a game you would be able to follow it as soon as you learned icing and offsides. The remainder of the penalties are from player to player infractions such as tripping, hooking, slashing, elbowing, etc. The name of the penalty should tell you all you need to know.

Further Hockey is hardly a Canadian sport only. Look no further than Texas with 9 pro teams (10 next season) as proof. If tiny Texas towns like Hidalgo can support hockey then it is doing just fine.

Jon, how many Chops games have you been too?

[TheJON]

I am proud to say that I turned down an opportunity to go see a Chops game every single time a ticket was offered to me (which was at least 5 or 6). I'm even more proud to say that the Chops experiment lasted just 1 year and they're gone thanks to poor ownership. The retards refused to pay their bill so the Anaheim Ducks sent them packing. People in Iowa don't give a shit about hockey. We originally had the Iowa Stars, but they were (as I had predicted) a miserable failure and gone after 3 years.

Looks like the idiot owners will be forced to put some Central Hockey league team in there. Oh boy, I cannot wait for that Des Moines-Odessa rivalry! It should be epic!

I actually do have a good time going to Des Moines Buccaneers games. It's actually not even the pros. They play in a small arena (maybe 3,500 or so capacity), but it's a great atmosphere. Lot's of fun to drink beers with the fellas at a Bucs game. 10 times more fun than going to a nice arena and seeing the Iowa Chops/Stars. Went to a couple of Stars games and was bored out of my mind. There was no atmosphere even though the Wells Fargo Arena is VERY nice, it was very boring. Crowd was not into the game and it was way too laid back for my taste. I don't like the sport of hockey, so it's all about the atmosphere/entertainment to me. That's why I would never watch an NHL game on TV.

[H4ever]

Who gives a fuck?

I thought that was Findafold's job? I would tell you what an ingrate asswipe fan of a sport that, in the sporting world, is on par with the musical significance enjoyed by the Indian from The Village People but I won't after the bitch-slap you just took from THE JON. Find a length of rope and see if you can hit paydirt before the chair kicks out, Grasshopper...it's the only way for there is no redemption.

[MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan]

Did I miss the thread Screw started about playing in a charity hockey tourney against some WMU Broncos players?

[TheJON]

Did I miss the thread Screw started about playing in a charity hockey tourney against some WMU Broncos players?

Why would Screw play in a charity event? Since when do the recipient's of a charity get to take part in the event?

[M Club]

Hockey is a great sport, but one that has to be enjoyed live at first.

only if you discovered the sport in your 30s.

Hockey on TV is horrible and you miss so much of what makes it a great game.

only if you discovered the sport in your 30s.

TV follows the puck and as such you miss the checks behind the play, the drives to the net, the net play with a back to the goal, the breakouts, and on and on. Hockey is right up their with baseball as unwatchable on TV in my book.

every sport follows the ball. unless you discovered the sport in your 30s, you catch just about everything you said you miss. and checking someone behind the play usually results in a power play.

If you were to attend a game you would be able to follow it as soon as you learned icing and offsides. The remainder of the penalties are from player to player infractions such as tripping, hooking, slashing, elbowing, etc. The name of the penalty should tell you all you need to know.

you could accomplish the same by watching on tv.

you're either a fan or you're not, so it's pointless to tell someone who just doesn't care that hockey's soooooooooo fucking awesome, but for those of us who are, playoff hockey is much a much more tense viewing experience than playoff anything else. every shot looks on goal, and every rebound is probably headed straight toward the forgotten side of the rush.

oh, and jon just rubbed his ballz all over screw's chin.

[Left Seater]

Swing and a miss. I came to hockey when the North Stars moved to Dallas and I could see every game on FSN Southwest.

My point about hockey on TV was from the point of view of those who don't know the game. Sure any dedicated fan can enjoy their sport on TV. Well except for baseball which is brutal on TV. (Our video guy for the Aeros put together an action video of an Astros game. He started each clip when the pitcher came set on the mound and ended each when the catcher returned the ball to him. It included pickoff throws, steals, etc. In a 2 hour 49 minute game the video was 16 mins, 24 seconds.)

Most people who talk down on hockey have never given it a chance.

[M Club]

you didn't make much of a point at all. most people generally only like the sports they grew up with. you may get someone to admit hockey's a fun sport by taking him to a live game, but he's going to go right back to not giving a shit once he leaves the arena. there are obviously exceptions to the rule, but for the most part, there's a reason the nhl can't gain traction in its non-traditional markets.

plus, the argument you use to promote hockey can be just as easily applied to soccer. a great deal of skill and appeal is lost in translation from the field to the tv, and people who see high-level competition in person are generally impressed. they still don't go straight home and begin watching the EPL. and no matter what sort of jim rome-like jokes you have about soccer, it's sort of relevant every country save us and india is obsessed with it.

then there's football, which most of us would regard as our favorite sport. while abroad i had some friends who were curious about it, so i taught them how to play. their response was why don't you just play rugby.

[Van]

Lefty, if your video guy did the same thing to a football game, i.e., condensed it down to strictly from when the ball is snapped until the whistle is blown to end the play, a three and a half hour football game would be no longer than your sixteen minute baseball game.

I think this is a large part of why Americans find soccer to be so painfully dull. The play is nearly continuous, yet nothing ever happens. In our sports there is much more action, even with all the stops and starts.

That, plus the fact that soccer is a fundamentally flawed game.

[M Club]

Lefty, if your video guy did the same thing to a football game, i.e., condensed it down to strictly from when the ball is snapped until the whistle is blown to end the play, a three and a half hour football game would be no longer than your sixteen minute baseball game.

I think this is a large part of why Americans find soccer to be so painfully dull. The play is nearly continuous, yet nothing ever happens. In our sports there is much more action, even with all the stops and starts.

That, plus the fact that soccer is a fundamentally flawed game.

can't wait for the dissertation on why this isn't an entirely culturally-centric observation.

[Van]

Nope, nothing like that. Soccer is inherently flawed because it goes against man's most basic sporting instinct, which is to use his most dextrous extremities, his hands.

Heading a ball, rather than swatting at it or catching it, is simply preposterous. Limiting most of the players to the use of their feet and their noggin makes for a needlessly morose game.

Imagine how much more exciting soccer would be if the players could use their hands, as well as their feet. It's what any child would do, if you didn't tell him anything.

Throw or kick a ball at a child, a child who's never heard of soccer, and he'll try to catch that ball. He'll punch at it. He'll throw it back to you. Whatever.

He won't head it, and he sure as hell won't go out of his way to avoid using his arms and hands to control it and re-direct it, like he's a cast member of Riverdance: Irish Footy Paws Of Fury.

It's the least culture based argument possible. Soccer is inherently flawed because it places the most unnatural, least instinctive restriction on the players. It's this ridiculous restriction which creates ninety minute matches with nary a single real scoring opportunity.

I can't even imagine the thought process which came up with the idea of soccer...

"Dude, seriously. No arms, and no hands."

"I can't use my hands?? That seems ridiculous to me."

"Yep. You gotta be a full-time Weeble. Okay, how about this: You can also bounce the ball off your skull!"

"Huh? Are you high?"

"Yeah!! I mean...no! Look, when a ball comes flying at you a million miles per hour...no handsies! You gotta just let the ball hit you in the forehead!"

"What if someone rifles one at my balls?"

"Ninja kick it."

"Oh, okay then! Brilliant!"

[Left Seater]

Lefty, if your video guy did the same thing to a football game, i.e., condensed it down to strictly from when the ball is snapped until the whistle is blown to end the play, a three and a half hour football game would be no longer than your sixteen minute baseball game.

Not so much. Have two RICE games that are cut down as such and both are over 35 minutes. Would be interesting to see this done again with the college game going to the NFL timing last season. But more than twice the action of said baseball game.


Soccer will always be the world's sport because it can be played with almost nothing. One only needs something to make a ball, ie an old tin can, old linens, reeds, vines, etc. No infrastructure is needed either. The goal becomes the tree and the shrub on that end and the wall and pole on the other.

More of the younger, richer countries don't do so well in soccer because more of their citizens have the ability to spend money on sports. In New Zealand it is sailing, Aussies it is Aussie football, USA it is football/basketball/baseball, Canada is hockey.

[Van]

Left, sorry, but I don't believe you. There are only sixty minutes in a football game and more than half of that ticking clock does not involve actual play on the field. That clock is running too often, and most football plays are only a few seconds long. From the moment the center hikes the ball to the moment the RB is tackled, it's usually only a few seconds, and often times it's less than that. The rest of the time is spent unpiling people, lining up, waiting for the snap, etc.

From the moment the ball is snapped to the moment the whistle finishes the play, and nothing else, that is not going to equate to thirty five minutes.

Also, the new time rule reduced the number of plays per game even further.

I don't know the exact number, but it's not going to be thirty five minutes of real play per game. No way. Not even close.

Also, hey, France, Germany, Italy, England and now Spain are all major powerhouses in soccer. I'd say those are some respectably wealthy countries/cultures. Shit, those are the countries who dominate the world's most expensive sport, F1 racing. Soccer may appeal to dirt poor kids in the jungles of Uruguay, or little Petrus's in the African bush, but those poorer countries hardly have the market cornered on soccer success.

Nope, even the wealthier nations have gotten themselves hornswoggled by that stupid game.

[TheJON]

Good discusion. A couple of points. One of you saif if you didn't grow up with a sport you probably aren't going to enjoy it later in life. While there's exceptions to the rule, this is generally correct. That's why I was certain that AHL hockey would fail in Des Moines. We just didn't grow up on hockey here. It wasn't even a HS sport here. I do, however, understand why people could find it an enjoyable sport. Lots of action, just not my cup of tea. I will say this, earlier today a sports director for our NBC affiliate said that they hate having to air the Stanley Cup Playoffs on his afternoon radio show. He said that almost every NBC affiliate feels the same way because it hurts their ratings regardless of what day of the week it is on. So that pretty much shoots down Screws take on more people wanting to see hockey than Iowa games. As for soccer- I just don't get how in the fuck anyone can watch that garbage. There is nothing to it. Its for the simple minded. I see it as a game of organized keepaway and I have not had 1 single soccer fan be able to come up with a decent rebuttal to that. And this comes from a guy who grew up with a lot of the best amateur soccer players in the country. Heck, when I was in high school many of my friends were on our soccer team- a team that was considered one of the best in the COUNTRY. In fact, I think they still are. If memory serves me correct they actually ended up first in the nation senior year. I never once attended a game and I'm damn proud of that.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Soccer will always be the world's sport because it can be played with almost nothing. One only needs something to make a ball, ie an old tin can, old linens, reeds, vines, etc. No infrastructure is needed either. The goal becomes the tree and the shrub on that end and the wall and pole on the other.

More of the younger, richer countries don't do so well in soccer because more of their citizens have the ability to spend money on sports. In New Zealand it is sailing, Aussies it is Aussie football, USA it is football/basketball/baseball, Canada is hockey.

You also need a significant expanse of relatively flat land to play soccer. Of course, the cost of land varies greatly depending on where in the world you are, and in some places, land is dirt cheap (pun intended).

Basketball is another relatively inexpensive sport to play. All you need is something to make a ball, a pole, a circular object for a rim (backboard and net are optional), and a paved area, significantly smaller than for any other sport. You also need fewer players than you do for other sports.

[Left Seater]

Left, sorry, but I don't believe you. There are only sixty minutes in a football game and more than half of that ticking clock does not involve actual play on the field. That clock is running too often, and most football plays are only a few seconds long. From the moment the center hikes the ball to the moment the RB is tackled, it's usually only a few seconds, and often times it's less than that. The rest of the time is spent unpiling people, lining up, waiting for the snap, etc.

From the moment the ball is snapped to the moment the whistle finishes the play, and nothing else, that is not going to equate to thirty five minutes.

When you throw the ball on almost every snap there are plenty of times when the clock stops after every play. Remember, after first downs, out of bounds, drops, etc. Plus, there is quite a bit of action that is untimed, extraq points, kickoffs until caught, etc. Also, I never said anything about the center snapping the ball as the starting point. If there was motion by the offense that was included on my tape.

Also, the new time rule reduced the number of plays per game even further.

Notice I said:

Would be interesting to see this done again with the college game going to the NFL timing last season.

Also, hey, France, Germany, Italy, England and now Spain are all major powerhouses in soccer. I'd say those are some respectably wealthy countries/cultures.

Nope, even the wealthier nations have gotten themselves hornswoggled by that stupid game.

Again, you left part of my statement out. Notice I had the word younger in there.




Terry,

I have seen plenty of kids overseas just kicking a ball around off a wall or bouncing it off their knees/feet. They don't always need an open area to play. Agree with you on the basketball too. Most inner cities today have courts of some sort where kids can play basketball.

[M Club]

Nope, nothing like that. Soccer is inherently flawed because it goes against man's most basic sporting instinct, which is to use his most dextrous extremities, his hands.

that statement must be based in neuroscience, non? hey, look, i can make claims of my own: it doesn't go against man's most basic sporting instinct. man's most basic sporting instinct is to hunt. his second is to play whatever game by whatever rules established.

Heading a ball, rather than swatting at it or catching it, is simply preposterous. Limiting most of the players to the use of their feet and their noggin makes for a needlessly morose game.

again, so says the 14 billion people who follow soccer religiously. they do so because they're bored.

Imagine how much more exciting soccer would be if the players could use their hands, as well as their feet. It's what any child would do, if you didn't tell him anything.

ja, imagine. it'd be called rugby, and that won't catch on in the states, either.

also, you're now a developmental psychologist? what any child would do is pick up on cultural cues. kids in a soccer country will kick a ball long before the urge to ever throw it arises.

Throw or kick a ball at a child, a child who's never heard of soccer, and he'll try to catch that ball. He'll punch at it. He'll throw it back to you. Whatever.

He won't head it, and he sure as hell won't go out of his way to avoid using his arms and hands to control it and re-direct it, like he's a cast member of Riverdance: Irish Footy Paws Of Fury.

i'm sure you've run this experiment? i'm also pretty sure your control experiment included a kid who's also never heard of sports that require the use of hands, scientific and all. otherwise, you're probably right that a kid will throw a ball back that's been thrown to him. he'll probably also kick the ball back that's been kicked to him. a lot of early learning is nothing more than copying, after all.

as far as what he sure as hell won't do, kids are also notorious for being dullards and literalists. they never take any creative chances, so i'm quite sure using their heads or feet would never occur to them.

It's the least culture based argument possible. Soccer is inherently flawed because it places the most unnatural, least instinctive restriction on the players. It's this ridiculous restriction which creates ninety minute matches with nary a single real scoring opportunity.

jfc, you're a jokeshow. your argument is so absent cultural bias that it describes...you. if it was so inherently flawed much of the world wouldn't be obsessed with it. i mean, there's you and your impeccable logic, and there's the rest of the world who could give a fuck about your corollaries on least instinctive restrictions because they're outside kicking a ball around.

also, please explain how using a natural extremity is any more restrictive than using a hockey stick, or a tennis raquet, or a baseball bat, or etc. then explain how using a natural extremity is less instinctive than moving around in ice skates or anything football-related that requires you to take a hit for sake of throwing or catching a ball?

I can't even imagine the thought process which came up with the idea of soccer...

"Dude, seriously. No arms, and no hands."

"I can't use my hands?? That seems ridiculous to me."

"Yep. You gotta be a full-time Weeble. Okay, how about this: You can also bounce the ball off your skull!"

"Huh? Are you high?"

"Yeah!! I mean...no! Look, when a ball comes flying at you a million miles per hour...no handsies! You gotta just let the ball hit you in the forehead!"

"What if someone rifles one at my balls?"

"Ninja kick it."

"Oh, okay then! Brilliant!"

i suppose anyone wondering what sort of writing you do can cross comedy off the list.

[M Club]

Soccer will always be the world's sport because it can be played with almost nothing. One only needs something to make a ball, ie an old tin can, old linens, reeds, vines, etc. No infrastructure is needed either. The goal becomes the tree and the shrub on that end and the wall and pole on the other.

there are different reasons for being the world's sport other than poverty. basketball's not a particularly expensive sport to pick up. neither is baseball, considering all that requires is the ball you described and a stick. volleyball? even a form of football or rugby can be played with your tin can.

[Left Seater]

To a degree yes.

Sure you can throw a ball around but that isn't exactly baseball. Same for football and rugby as you point out. But those sports do require individual equipment for each to play the game as it was meant to be played.

[M Club]

so does soccer.

[Left Seater]

shin guards are hardly necessary when you don't even have shoes.


Gloves for baseball and helmets for football are much more required than shin pads.

[M Club]

....as it was meant to be played.

why does this bit of a statement apply to some sports but not others? i'm pretty sure shoeless soccer on a littered half-field with a bunch of rolled up plastic shopping bags is but an approximation of soccer as it was meant to be played. it's a pretty violent sport, so those shin guards are absolutely necessary to allow soccer to be played as it was meant to be.

Gloves for baseball and helmets for football are much more required than shin pads.

i'm sure if those barefoot kids can manage without shin pads they can also manage without a baseball glove [cricket, anyone?]. a helmet is obviously a necessary thing for organized football, but my point was that poor kids who want to play it can get by with the exact same ball you described before. i don't quite remember running home from the 6th grade and getting out my shoulder pads and helmet to go play football in the park.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

There's little "sporting instinct" in facing a 95 mph fastball. The natural instinct is to get the fuck out of the way.

In any event, if a sport challenges your "instincts" there's nothing wrong with that. Sports are supposed to be physically challenging and/or complicated. Your dexterity is supposed to be challenged, and soccer is a perfect example of such a challenge. Sports wouldn't require endless hours of practice if it all felt so natural.

Van probably gets PISSED when the punting or kicking unit comes on the field.

[M Club]

sports is actually a way of managing your instincts.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Right. And that's the challenge in it. Your body wants to do what feels comfortable, but you have to manage and control yourself to get out of that comfort zone so you can learn how to do it the right way. A golf swing would be a perfect example.

[TheJON]

Did someone really just say soccer is a violent sport?? Hu??

So then why did the biggest pussies in school play it??

[Van]

Great. Instead of swatting at the 95 mph flying object with the stick in your hands, use your skull to knock it over the fence. That'd be your natural instinct. In fact, don't even throw the ball towards the plate at all. Kick it towards the plate.

When you need to move that ball three hundred yards away, to the center of the fairway, bop it out there with your knee.

The next time you need to get that ball to go through a hoop, don't jump and stuff it down the hole, using your hands. Nope, bounce it off your head and hope it finds its way.

Need to fire a gun, or use a bow and arrow? Use your nose and teeth.

Wanna play handball? Tie you hands, and run face first into the side wall.

Triathlon? Legs only. No using your arms to swim, or even to hold yourself up on your bike. You can use your forehead for that.

Martial arts will consist of nothing but kicking and jaunty verbal taunts.

Jerry Rice is open in the corner of the endzone? Bicycle kick the ball to him. Don't just throw it to him. That'd be counter-athletic.

Water polo? They're all upside down, with scuba tanks, blindly kicking the fuck out of each other.

Shot put, weight lifiting, javelin, discus, wrestling...all the original Olympic sports? No hands, please.

Punting and place kicking? Again, no hands. Catch the snap, which, by the way, was kicked to you, or farted to you, I'm not really sure; anyway, catch it with your facemask. Catch it between your knees, then swiftly and elegantly manage to get that kick off.

Hockey? "Kick save, and a beauty!" that's all that's allowed. Even when it's time to fight, do what comes naturally. Drop your gloves and try to slit the guy's throat with your skates.

When Tim Tebow is barreling towards you, take him down with a rolling scissors kick. Recover the resulting fumble by landing on it and going Mr Slave from South Park, inhaling the ball up your ass.

Mgo, I'm sure you're just trolling. You must be. That was way too stupid for you to be serious. Man was designed to use his hand-eye coordination. He wasn't designed to use his head as a precision bludgeoning instrument, and he wasn't designed to disengage his arms during battle or sport.

Opposable thumbs, much?

[TheJON]

Man was designed to use his hand-eye coordination. He wasn't designed to use his head as a precision bludgeoning instrument, and he wasn't designed to disengage his arms during battle or sport.

I dunno. You'd probably say man wasn't designed to just bend over and take it up the ass but if you watched enough Royals baseball you'd know there's 9 guys out on the field for KC that do that each and every night.

[Screw_Michigan]

Well, you'd have to be used to taking it up the ass to resort yourself to residing in the reservation of Iowa, so I'd see how you've become accustomed to that, NOJ.

Remind me when Iowa is a little better than a state with the ninth-fewest college graduates residing within said borders. http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:OY_ ... =firefox-a Really not so bad when a culture of ignorance beats their chest about rejecting hockey. You weren't worthy, anyway.

[TheJON]

Well, you'd have to be used to taking it up the ass to resort yourself to residing in the reservation of Iowa, so I'd see how you've become accustomed to that, NOJ.

Remind me when Iowa is a little better than a state with the ninth-fewest college graduates residing within said borders. http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:OY_ ... =firefox-a Really not so bad when a culture of ignorance beats their chest about rejecting hockey. You weren't worthy, anyway.

Care to try again or would you like me to mention how the city of Detroit is considered Hockeytown USA? Errr wait, I guess I just did.......

You sir, are just throwing me softballs. I mean, at least make this difficult. You're like the dolt that thinks he's got it made in Checkers when he jumps you but didn't see the triple jump he left you following that move.

Get it through your head, Screw. Hockey is lame. Nobody south of Minnesota gives a fuck about the sport. Okay, that's not fair, nor is it true. Actually there are people that care about hockey in this country.........just not as many as those who watch Full House reruns.

[M Club]

Mgo, I'm sure you're just trolling. You must be. That was way too stupid for you to be serious. Man was designed to use his hand-eye coordination. He wasn't designed to use his head as a precision bludgeoning instrument, and he wasn't designed to disengage his arms during battle or sport.

the longer a thread goes the more stupid you get. you said soccer is fundamentally flawed because it goes against man's instincts to use his arms. mgo merely added yet another instance in sport that goes against man's better instincts, which is to stand in a box while someone throws a rock 95 mph to within six or so inches of his head. you should try reading what people actually write rather than what you think they did.

all of those examples you provided fail to make any point aside from the fact you come across as a petulant wanker.

[M Club]

Did someone really just say soccer is a violent sport?? Hu??

So then why did the biggest pussies in school play it??

soccer is a full on contact sport. you'll obviously hurt more after a football or rugby match, but just because the explicit objective isn't to tackle someone into the ground does it mean the other team hasn't just spent the last 90 minutes kicking or head butting you. there are also a lot of elbows thrown during free kicks.

personally speaking, i played tackle football with friends all the way up till 25, and the only broken bone or other major injury i've ever had came during a soccer match when some barefoot kid slid heel-first into my ankle.

[TheJON]

personally speaking, i played tackle football with friends all the way up till 25, and the only broken bone or other major injury i've ever had came during a soccer match when some barefoot kid slid heel-first into my ankle.

That doesn't prove anything though. Weird things like that happen. I had inflamation in my knee a couple years ago that I got just laying around the house watching TV and not from playing sports year round.