2012 Summer Olympics - London, England (1 Viewer)

[andrew markworthy]

Thanks for the info on Animal Hospital, guys!

 

[DavidJ]

A couple of articles about the Olympics I found interesting:

The London games: The joy of the nudge Olympics | The Economist/URL]


On The Ground: After initial dread, these Games have been 'lovely' - SportsBusiness Daily

I especially enjoyed the one from The Economist. I've read Nudge and respect both Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler. Nudging is an intriguing concept.

 

[Kevin Hewell]

I was flipping channels and missed most of Eric Idle's "Life of Brian" skit and I heard that he actually said the sh*t word as in the lyrics from the Movie. I presume NBC must of bleeped it out, no?
I definitely missed the Who's performance cause I turned it off I think slightly after the Spice Girl's reunion...
Jay

NBC bleeped it.

Despite all the rumors, I was a bit sad that Kate Bush didn't turn up after hiding out for the better part of a decade to perform. *shrug*

I heard she performed and NBC cut her out.

 

[Yee-Ming]

The IOC can never win. Here in the UK the IOC is seen as having a US bias! With the greatest of respect, the comment about the Greek team is a bit unfair. The host nation is allowed (in reality, compelled) to put in a team for every sport. This time, GB found itself in the water polo and handball competitions, in spite of having zero home-grown talent (or interest) in the sports. The teams' performances could best be described as embarrassing.

To be fair, the four strokes are somewhat different, while there's only one way of running, and there's a separate race-walking event as well, although I don't think any distance runner participates in race-walking, just as the specialists in breaststroke tend not to do well in freestyle/butterfly and vice-versa. Perhaps there could be a backwards running sprint? (said only half in jest)

Although I do agree, there is a good amount of similarity between, say a freestyle 100m and a butterfly 100m -- the same suspects usually show up in the two finals. As for differentiation by distance, IIRC that's why there isn't a 50m race, at least at the Olympics, but as between 100m and 200m, I'd guess that's about as different as the 100m and 200m on land, and there are some differences in the usual finalists in those, even if the likes of Bolt, Lewis, and Owens before them, won both distances.

I didn't know the host country was obliged to participate in all sports. Perhaps the Brits should have "borrowed" our water-polo team (being an ex-colony and member of the Commonwealth and all), we're the biggest fish albeit in a very small pond (pun intended) -- Singapore has won the last 26 (IIRC) straight South East Asian Games water-polo golds. Just as we've "borrowed" China's "B" team in table-tennis...

Odd that the IOC would force host countries to participate in all. I can understand the thinking that as host country, notionally the cost of sending participants to 'make the numbers' in certain sports is less, but on the other hand, if some sports need help in padding up the numbers to begin with, shouldn't they either consider relaxing entry requirements for other countries that at least have an actual interest in participating, or consider dropping the sport in question entirely?

 

[Jay H]

NBC bleeped it.
I heard she performed and NBC cut her out.

Thanks. I have managed to find Ray Davie's Waterloo Sunset on Youtube so that is well. I went to bed before that was even on anyway I think... I gather Eric Idle's full performance is probably on youtube as well...
As far as the Kaiser Cheifs covering the Who:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19244601
I can't seem to play the media (it might be blocked outside the UK??) , if anybody can rehash what the video is about, that would be great... It sounds like the lead singer has/had a case of stage fright...
Jay

 

[Sumnernor]

I can't seem to play the media (it might be blocked outside the UK??) , if anybody can rehash what the video is about, that would be great... It sounds like the lead singer has/had a case of stage fright...
Jay

I am in Germany and get a message "Can't play in your country".

 

[andrew markworthy]

Odd that the IOC would force host countries to participate in all.

It seems to be a do it or lose face sort of thing. I guess a bonus side to it is that people will come to watch a sport that's unfamiliar to them because the host country is playing.

 

[DavidJ]

Although I do agree, there is a good amount of similarity between, say a freestyle 100m and a butterfly 100m -- the same suspects usually show up in the two finals.  As for differentiation by distance, IIRC that's why there isn't a 50m race, at least at the Olympics, but as between 100m and 200m, I'd guess that's about as different as the 100m and 200m on land, and there are some differences in the usual finalists in those, even if the likes of Bolt, Lewis, and Owens before them, won both distances.

I'd say 100m to 400m is probably a better comparison (aside from the fact that the 50m "splash and dash" is probably more akin to a 100m, but that takes us down a path where comparisons like this fall apart).

 

[Walter C]

Lol... surprised no one corrected me on the name of the TV show... It's actually called Animal Practice. I did not realize this until I updated my Track the TV Episodes Watched list. Maybe too upset from when the coverage was interrupted like that.

For 2016, golf and rugby has been added to the Olympics.

 

[Stan]

For 2016, golf and rugby has been added to the Olympics.

Are you serious or just added a touch of sarcasm?
Rugby I can understand, it requires skill, strength, athleticism and teamwork.
Golf? Barely worth a comment except that it certainly doesn't require you to have strength or be an athlete, just some basic eyehand coordination skills.
Not saying anything more, I'll just get in trouble. Just did a quickie bit of research and you're right, but golf? How boring will that be to watch.

 

[andrew markworthy]

Rugby I can understand, it requires skill, strength, athleticism and teamwork.
Golf? Barely worth a comment except that it certainly doesn't require you to have strength or be an athlete, just some basic eyehand coordination skills.

If archery and shooting are Olympic sports, then golf has fair grounds to be included (or alternatively, none of them should be included). Rugby really should have been in decades ago as it is arguably as popular (probably more so) than e.g. basketball or water polo.

 

[andrew markworthy]

I know this is being disloyal to my own country's team, but does anyone else think that cycling would be a much fairer competition if all the competitors were randomly allocated a bike from a set of identical bikes at the start of the competition? This principle is followed in the yachting events and in field events, you don't see athletes being allowed to bring their own javelins or shots to competitions, do you? In that way, the competition would be between the athletes, and the design of the bike would have zero bearing on the competition.

 

[Sumnernor]

Where would cricket fit in?

 

[andrew markworthy]

Where would cricket fit in?

[
Cricket is certainly played widely enough to merit inclusion. However, I believe the reason it's not in is because it takes too long to play the matches. For those unfamiliar with cricket, it can be played in matches of various lengths, from about three hours to five days. But: full international matches in their traditional form take up to five days. Even a simple knockout competition, with matches played back to back (and with the weather remaining perfect for the entire duration of the competition) would take far longer than the two weeks the Olympics are held. And playing a shortened form of the game would be seen as not being the proper game.

 

[Stan]

If archery and shooting are Olympic sports, then golf has fair grounds to be included (or alternatively, none of them should be included). Rugby really should have been in decades ago as it is arguably as popular (probably more so) than e.g. basketball or water polo.

Completely forgot about archery and shooting events, thanks for the reminder.
My personal opinion is that the Olympics is about athleticism, training, teamwork, being in peak physical shape, etc. The events mentioned could be done by a 400 lb. couch potato who happens to have good aim shooting at things. Not particularly what I'd consider an Olympic level event, but somehow they've made it into the competitions.

 

[Sumnernor]

Olympics gone to the dogs

http://tennis.si.com/2012/08/07/andy-murray-olympic-medals-dogs/

 

[Sumnernor]

Originally Posted by andrew markworthy /t/322614/2012-summer-olympics-london-england/210#post_3964155
[
Cricket is certainly played widely enough to merit inclusion. However, I believe the reason it's not in is because it takes too long to play the matches. For those unfamiliar with cricket, it can be played in matches of various lengths, from about three hours to five days. But: full international matches in their traditional form take up to five days. Even a simple knockout competition, with matches played back to back (and with the weather remaining perfect for the entire duration of the competition) would take far longer than the two weeks the Olympics are held. And playing a shortened form of the game would be seen as not being the proper game.

Currently there is playing in Sri Lanja the ICC Twenty20 Championship. Each team plays 20 overs (120 balls) and the match lasts a little over 3 hours. Could this not be done at the olympics???

I have a number of questions for someone familier with Cricket. What does the score "65-1" mean , in particular the "!-1" I have seen "-3". What does in mean and what causes it. I have other questions later.

 

[andrew markworthy]

Currently there is playing in Sri Lanja the ICC Twenty20 Championship. Each team plays 20 overs (120 balls) and the match lasts a little over 3 hours. Could this not be done at the olympics???
I have a number of questions for someone familier with Cricket. What does the score "65-1" mean , in particular the "!-1" I have seen "-3". What does in mean and what causes it. I have other questions later.

20:20 cricket is certainly fun, but it is seen as pretty much a novelty event and not the proper game. Perhaps in time this view will change. But your argument is certainly an interesting one as all the cricketing nations play 20:20.
As for your question about 65-1. This means that the batting side has scored 65 runs for loss of 1 wicket. That is the brief answer. Here is the longer one:
A wicket is, technically speaking, a rectangle of specially prepared closely-mown grass 22 yards long. At both ends of this are a set of stumps and bails. The stumps are three upright sticks pushed into the ground. The bails are two much smaller pieces of wood that are balanced on top of the stumps.
The batsman is said to lose his wicket when one of the following happens: the bowler bowls the ball and it hits the wicket knocking the bails off; the batsman attempts a stroke that knocks the bails off (this rarely happens in professional cricket); the batsman hits the ball and it is caught by a fielder before the ball bounces (i.e. as in baseball); the batsman is run out (see below); the batsman is adjudged to have committed leg before wicket, or LBW (this is VERY complicated, but basically, he blocks the ball with his body and the umpire judges that if he hadn't blocked, the ball would have hit the wicket - test matches use computer software to verify this these days); the batsman is stumped (there is a line parallel to the stumps in front of the batsman, called the crease - if he steps over the crease in making a shot, misses the ball and a fielder behind it gets the ball and knocks off the bails before the batsman can put his foot back inside the line, then he is said to be stumped; this is a LOT easier to understand if you see an example rather than listen to the explanation); the batsman hits the ball onto his own wicket, knocking off the stumps; and (this really is true) ungentlemanly conduct (e.g. swearing or hitting will get you sent off the field).
The batsman has two duties. The first is to not lose his wicket (also called getting out). The second is to score runs. Cricket is played in a series of overs. Each over consists of six balls being bowled by one of the fielders. This fielder (who, for the duration of the over is called the bowler) bowls the ball from no nearer than the crease at the other end of the wicket. At all times, there are two batsmen on the field of play - the one who is being bowled at and another who stands at the other wicket (i.e. the one the bowler is bowling from). Let's suppose that the batsman manages to hit the ball when it is bowled at him and it goes some distance onto the pitch (i.e. the rest of the playing area). The fielders have to retrieve the ball and return it to the wicket. Until that happens, the batsmen are in effect free to move. A run is scored each time the batsmen swap places. So if the fielders take some time to retrieve the ball and return it, the batsmen might have run to each end of the wicket twice. This would give them a score of two runs. However, if the batsmen start running and the fielders return the ball to the wicket before a batsman reaches the wicket they are running towards, and the fielders can remove the bails by hitting the ball against them, then the batsman is said to be run out, and he loses his wicket.
You can also score runs by other means. The first is when the bowler bowls a foul ball - there are various ways in which this can happen, such as the bowler releases the ball after his foot has gone over the crease, or the ball is too wide of the bowler for him to have any chance of hitting it, etc. The second way to score runs is to hit the ball so it goes over the boundary of the playing area without bouncing. This scores six runs and that is it (in other words, the batsmen cannot get more runs by running until the ball is returned - six is the maximum). If the ball goes over the boundary, but has already bounced, then four runs are scored.
Although the wicket has a fixed size, the surface of the wicket can vary enormously depending upon how it was prepared, weather conditions, etc. Some wicket surfaces might favour the bowler by being hard and having an unpredictable bounce. Others might favour the batsman by having a predictable bounce and absorbing a lot of the speed of a bowled ball. There is not fixed size or dimension to the rest of a cricket pitch. I think the grounds used for test matches have to have a minimum size, but I cannot remember the details (sorry!).
In theory, a side remains batting until they have lost 10 wickets. In reality, this does not always happen. In so-called limited over games (i.e. where each side can only bowl for a set number of overs - typically 20 or 50) then batting stops when the set number of overs has been used up. In other matches, batting sides might do something called declaring, which is when they announce they will not longer bat, and the other side must now bat. This is often done for tactical reasons and until you are REALLY into the game it is impossible to explain adequately why this is done.
The fielders have names according to where they are placed on the field relative to the batsman. The bowler is self-explanatory. The wicket keeper wears protective gear and is crouched behind the wicket. The other fielders can be placed wherever the team captain decides and they will be moved around according to the type of bowler (see below) and the type of batsman. There are numerous specialist terms for these. The best known as the slips (who stand or crouch to one side of the wicket keeper to catch stray balls) and the silly mid-on and silly mid-off (who stand very close to the front of the batsman),
Bowlers are categorised principally by the speed of their delivery and whether they use spin. Spin bowlers have relatively slow deliveries, but they make the ball spin unpredictably. Fast bowlers bowl quickly and hope to defeat the reflexes of the batsman.
Happy to answer further questions.