Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Baseball broadcasts aren’t groundbreaking, but they don’t have the problem of failing to show – everything is before and visible
I know of several Jays fans who seem to have a chip on their shoulder about the Leafs and hockey, because they are the more popular sport and get more coverage.
This is me. I can't stand the fact that in August a morning Sportsnet broadcast will lead with an update on the contract negotiations of a Martin Brodeur or a Rick Nash before they even show highlights of the previous nights' Jays game. Its ridiculous.
What? They still run commercials during playoff overtime.
Bigger rinks, and no fighting is definitely the way to go. Is hockey the only sport where you can land a punch and not be ejected immediately?
Is hockey the only sport where you can land a punch and not be ejected immediately?
Pedro just did.
Come to the US, where every sports broadcast talks about the NFL, whether in-season or not, and hockey doesn't exist. Also, the game has changed radically since 2000, though it is always in danger of slipping back.
But, there really is nothing like overtime playoff hockey.
They should have ejected and suspended him on the spot.
Hockey having the 5 on 5 nature of overtime is a great wrinkle, to help offset that conservative mindset, but it's still a different game.
The absolute worst sport for overtime is college football. No other sport is even close. The NFL's revised sudden death rule is a step back from the drama** of real sudden death, but college football's OT rules are like death by a thousand subcommittees.
**and yes, "luck", but so what?
Except maybe overtime during March Madness, an NBA playoff game 7 that comes down to the last shot, a World Series game 7 that's decided by the final pitch, a sudden death NFL championship game, a 73rd hole of the Masters, a photo finish in the Belmont involving a horse who won the Derby and the Preakness, a hill-hill game in the finals of the U.S. Open nine ball championship, or any number of other events in other sports. These all seem like the greatest moments to the people who favor those sports over all others, and for some of us who love more than one sport it's impossible to choose among them.
Hockey is great in the arena, not so great on TV
Well aside from the fact that I actually favour baseball by a country mile...
Agreed a great finish is a great finish, and how much you enjoy it says more about your level of interest in the sport in question than anything else.
Hockey is great in the arena, not so great on TV
Hockey on TV may be OK on Big Screen with high def, but for a 27" screen like mine
If you're a hockey fan to begin with. If your preference is for other sports, there are many equivalent events in terms of drama, even if their format isn't exactly the same.
The true sudden death format combined with the quick strike nature of the sport, the genuine potential that the game will go on long into the night, the energy-zapping nature of the sport and the simple fact that this is a regular feature seen multiple times during the playoffs, not a rarity, all make this particular state unique among major sports.
But it's simply a statement of fact that these specific situations aren't comparable to OT playoff hockey for any number of reasons.
But of course one could name unique attributes* for the overtimes of all sports, so, I think Andy is right.
*Most of those you listed are not at all unique to hockey, so I think that the "any number of reasons" is probably quite a low number.
I know a lot of NHL fans that are complaining a bit because they seem to think the NHL has gotten less physical and has less fights now.
I've seen people here say that before, and it seems to go against the consensus of casual fans of the two sports. I think hockey's popularity among females is a large part based upon how easily accessible the game is to a novice on tv.
Completely disagree. Hockey on TV may be OK on Big Screen with high def, but for a 27" screen like mine the puck is just too damn small and hard to follow.
I have to admit, I dislike the NHL. Because of the fighting mentality, every team has to have at least one "goon" on the roster to make sure the other teams goon doesn't rough up the guys who can really play.
Of course hockey's sudden death rule makes it unique in a technical sense, but to go from that to implying that there's something more inherently dramatic about that format than there is about the climactic moments of baseball, football or basketball is simply stating a personal preference. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but don't assume that your take is universal.
I have to admit, I dislike the NHL. Because of the fighting mentality, every team has to have at least one "goon" on the roster to make sure the other teams goon doesn't rough up the guys who can really play. It gives it a kind of WWF illegitimacy to me. And you have guys like Don Cherry who actively promote this ethos, and accuses anyone one who doesn't see it his way of being a pansy.
I remember the 1972 series between Canada and the Russians. To tell you the truth, I thought the Russians, as a whole, were better players than the NHL guys and played a flashier and more skillful, dynamic brand of hockey. Their passing and the way they attacked the net was more reminiscent of the way NBA teams run offenses than the style that was popular in the NHL at the time, which was to have big strong forwards who could out-muscle the opposition in the corners after the puck was dumped in there, and if that didn't work, rough up the other teams best skaters. In other words, reduce the game to the lowest common denominator.
Canada eventually won (barely) by playing goon hockey, with Bobby Clarke deliberately injuring the Russians best player, Valeri Kharlamov, who up to that point was skating circles around the slower, less skillful Canadian players.
and if the Russians hadn't put the fear of god into them then hockey today would probably still be the garbage they played in the 70's,
There are people who watch for the fights, but I don't think my opinions are uncommon among fans, that's it a stupid sideshow and can we get back to the hockey? Especially when the fight happens at the first puck drop. Might as well move it to warm ups. And no one likes Don Cherry. Some people may be amused by him.
Clarke's two-handed slash is so embarrassing I'm surprised any Canadians take pride in the series at all. If the series were made into a kids movie, the Canadians would be the bad guys. But I'm an American born 10 years after it the summit series, so I can say that.
I know it might be a bit of a surprise to you, but over 40 years later the game isn't anything like that any more.
If the pro game was played like college hockey, it would be a lot more popular, IMO.
I think we're perhaps getting too bogged down in value judgements
But the puck does seem to present a real problem to new viewers. Having grown up with hockey it's not a problem I've ever encountered (and the puck trax on the American coverage of hockey is still a source of amusement for Canadians who want to feel morally superior to their friends from the south). But, as with all sports, I think there is a learning process to watching the game. For my undergrad years I had a 12 inch TV, and those were my most dedicated hockey-watching years (it's probably been three or four years since I saw a complete hockey game). It doesn't even occur to me that this is what I'm doing, but the trick is you don't watch the puck. By the actions, movement and gestures of all the players it's always very clear where the puck is. Maybe I'm alone in watching hockey this way...I do have terrible eye-sight, but you can see the puck without always seeing the puck, if that makes sense.
As evidenced by the lack of interest in college hockey outside of Minnesota?
They aren't great at hockey then but some kind of basketball on ice, hockey is a physical sport.
Are you kidding? Red lines, blue lines, "offside", and just when the action gets going, everyone stops and just skates around in circles for seemingly no reason. If you think the average casual viewer finds this easier to follow than the other three major sports, I strongly suspect you're Canadian. Or maybe it's just that I'm not.
No, I want to be able to actually see the puck, the way I can see the baseball, the basketball, and the football. I want to be able to see it easily and clearly as it passes from one player to another. Color me dense, but on TV, at least, it all comes across as a lot of dissembled motion, way too often interrupted by the puck sailing down to the wrong end of the ice, which I take it is some sort of a defensive move.
Football, OTOH, is ridiculously easy to follow on TV and understand in about five minutes.
And hockey on radio, Jesus.
My preference is for hockey. For me, the NHL version in its current incarnation is the only perfect game. It wonderfully blends skill, physicality, pace, frequency and transparency. No other sport hits on all five of those marks, at least in my view.
If I'd grown up Canadian, I'm sure I'd be singing a different tune than I've been singing on this thread so far.
Sosh, not a timed game, but there have been baseball games where extra innings took longer than regulation. As you know...
And there is no red-line or two-line pass rule anymore. The red line is there, but it's meaningless now.
It may be one of hockey's best features, but to say that this makes hockey somehow superior to football is about on the same level as saying that football is superior to soccer because in soccer only goalies can use their hands
That's a good way of looking at it, but to that you have to add "How many times does this basic confusion present itself during the course of a game, and does the TV announcer ever bother to explain it to the first time viewer?"
Now once you get past that, and concepts such as "icing", then hockey is a lot more basic a sport than baseball or American football. That doesn't make it "better" or "worse", it just makes it different, and subject to personal preferences.
Not basketball. Basketball on the radio, in the hands of a good announcer like Marv Albert, comes to life in a way that hockey or soccer never can. The pattern of a basketball play takes place within a relatively small space, and often involves just one or two passes before a shot, all easily described. Hockey and soccer feature many more passes over much larger territory, far more turnovers, and far fewer shots relative to everything else. All of that makes the radio game inherently much less satisfying.
For the absolute virginal viewer, all sports seem complicated. The learning curve is probably steepest for baseball, followed by American football, basketball, and then hockey.
Baseball is the only sport that works on the radio as more than just getting the information of what is going on in the game to a fan.
The networks don't exactly clamor all over themselves for NHL contracts either.
the bad (referees act like calling a penalty will immediately end the world)
The Flyers were thugs
I do find this frustrating about rugby broadcasts. I don't know enough about the rules so the play seems to stop at random intervals.
(rugby refs never seem to stop talking -- and they take absolutely no crap from the players. It's really quite a culture shock. I'd love to see how a rugby ref would fare with soccer players -- who never stop pissing and moaning at the ref)
Hockey's too energetic and complicated for most Americans.
How great can it be if Canadians are so good at it?
And I suppose you'll have us believe curling, shoveling snow, and writing poems about beavers aren't great past-times as well!
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (0 members)
Page rendered in 0.9998 seconds, 47 querie(s) executed