Categories
Hockey Personal

Hockey vs. Football (Soccer)

I only watch football (soccer for those in North America) about once every 4 years.  In the World Cup.  I figure if I’m going to watch a sport I’m not really into, I might as well see it at the highest level, on the grandest stage.  That way I can get to see the best doing their best.

This  year, unfortunately, I haven’t had as much time to watch matches as I’ve wanted to, but the few times I have seen it, I began comparing and contrasting the differences with ice hockey (beyond the obvious differences in the field-of-play and equipment).  Here are a few random thoughts I’ve had run through my head:

  1. Turnovers in mid-field in football are nowhere near as costly as turnovers in the neutral-zone in hockey.  The ability to transition from offense to defense rapidly is very different for each sport.  In hockey, a turnover usually leads to at least a scoring chance (whether weak or strong).  In football, it is more often than not, simply a change in possession.
  2. The lack of boards at the edges of the field-of-play certainly have a dramatic effect on the ability to contain opposing players.  In football, the risk of putting the ball out of bounds really constrains what a player can do near the sidelines, while hockey, players can use the boards to their advantage when moving the puck or attacking an opposing player – you can literally give them nowhere to go.
  3. Protecting the ball in football seems much more difficult than protecting the puck in hockey.  Despite the abundance of penalties/stoppages in football due to contact, it seems very difficult to set up a pass or shot (unless it is straight-ahead) without having at least a small amount of time/space.  In hockey, the puck-carrier can initiate contact with the opposition and shield the puck with their body while setting up for a pass or shot.  This allows hockey players to make accurate plays while under pressure.
  4. The goalies in football are far more versatile than the goalies in hockey.  The ability to make solid passes to offensive players up-field combined with the ability to handle the ball without being subjected to pressure or without stopping play allows a team many more options than in hockey.  In hockey, goalies who can handle the puck well (even at the top levels of the game) are very few and far between.  While a few goalies can make excellent offensive passes, they virtually cannot sit back and wait for a play to develop.
  5. Toughness is not really a celebrated in football.  In hockey, it is simply expected.  I’ve spoken with several friends that are serious football fans and the main focus, they say, is on the win, the “experience”, the celebrity gossip, or a certain player’s “look”.  Toughness simply isn’t in the equation.  In hockey, players get injured and are expected to get sewn back up and not miss a shift.   Heck, referees and coaches are expected to do the same.   I think that’s why diving and going down easy is so tolerated in football.  Players are doing it to give their team an advantage and that’s all that counts.  There isn’t really a downside.  In hockey, diving is very frowned upon (even by your own teammates) so it doesn’t really give you an advantage, especially if you take a penalty doing it.
  6. With all the penalties and out-of-bounds calls, it seems that the game of football is really broken up.  Substitutions, too, seem to slow the game down.  I just found that the games have very little flow to them.  Granted, in hockey there can be obscene amounts of starts and stops sometimes, but there is usually some semblance of flow.  I almost wonder if, like American-football, that football players are trying to use the clock against their opposition.  I’m not in favour of that, at all, which is a major reason I dislike American-football.

That’s about it for now.  I hope everyone enjoys the rest of the World Cup!

Categories
Personal Privacy Security Technical

Miscellaneous

This is more of a post for me to throw out some interesting things I’ve come across and would like to keep track of (and am too lazy to find another place). (Fair warning – a lot of links involving Bruce Schneier)

Categories
Personal

The Opening Ceremonies

Tonight (February 12th, 2010) marked the opening of the 2010 Olympic Winter Games.  I was with friends watching the opening ceremonies and I thought I’d jot some notes down while the experience is still fresh in my mind.

First off, I was deeply moved by the tragic death of Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritashvili.  Nodar died this morning during a training run at the Whistler Sliding Centre where he lost control in the final turn of the course and left the track, striking a support beam.  I felt that VANOC and the IOC handled the situation appropriately.  They didn’t turn it into something over-produced or sappy or tried to get any ‘mileage’ out of it.  The flags at half-staff and the moment of silence as well as the standing ovation for the Georgian team made me get a little teary-eyed.

While I understood the reasons for the welcome by the First Nations, it wasn’t really my “thing”.  The costumes were phenomenal and the sentiment was heartfelt.  6.5 out of 10

The rendition of the national anthem was, in a word, brutal.  Unlike the American national anthem, the Canadian anthem is very difficult to alter and still keep it singable.  The R&B/Christmasy/whaever version performed was impossible to sing along with.  While I thought Nikki Yanofsky had a beautiful voice, it wasn’t enough to help the performance. 2 out of 10

I liked the Bryan Adams & Nelly Furtado performance.  It had some energy and sounded good. 7 out of 10

I thought the inclusion of four the aboriginal first-nations and the sequences were interesting but not thrilling, and I’m not sure I fully ‘got’ a lot of the sequences.  When the announcer said “use your imagination”, my immediate retort was “in other words, we couldn’t come up with anything decent so you’re on your own to fill in the blanks”.  Sorry, but that’s what I felt.  Some great visuals, though and Donald Sutherland narrating.  4.5 out of 10

Sarah McLachlan did a wonderful rendition of  “Ordinary Miracle”, but I must admit, I adore her music so I am biased. 9.5 out of 10

The “Rhythms of the Fall” section had great visuals and great music, but I could definitely see where non-Canadians would wonder what the hell it was all about.  I think it was a little bit too esoteric-Canadian and maybe not as accessible as other parts of the show. 6 out of 10

The most interesting thing I thought was the poem, We Are More (by Shane Koyczan) was fantastic.  Call me strange, but I think it could replace the I Am Canadian rant. 9 out of 10

Most people who know me will find this hard to believe, but I actually liked John Furlong’s opening remarks.  While the delivery was a little stiff (and the French atrocious) I thought the speech was well thought out, heartfelt, and inspiring to a good degree.  While it was a little long, it didn’t feel long-winded.  7 out of 10

K.D. Lang’s rendition of Leonard Cohen‘s “Halleluja” absolutely blew me away.  I am not a K.D. Lang fan, but I have always respected her as an artist.  Her performance was so powerful and honest that I sat there stunned after it ended.  10 out of 10

With the entry of the Olympic flag, I thought the choice of flag-bearers was good, although I was disappointed that Betty Fox was not involved in the cauldron-lighting ceremony.

Finally, I thought VANOC chickened out with the cauldron-lighting.  While all of the individuals involved were probably worthy, I think having all five light it (despite the hydraulic failures) was taking the easy way out trying not to offend anyone.  I was a little surprised to see Gretzky light the outdoor cauldron by himself, however.  I’m not going to debate the pros and cons of the cauldron lighting in this post, however.

Overall, I’d give the ceremony a 5 out of 10.  Now that its out of the way, time to see how the athletes do.

Categories
Personal Politics

Good to see competition is alive and well

So, Telus is finally offering the Apple iPhone in Canada.  Too bad they are pricing it exactly the same as Rogers does.

When I heard that Telus was going to be offering the iPhone, I was curious to see how they would try to draw people away from Rogers.  Finally, I though, and apples-for-apples level of competition.  Alas, I was obviously quite naive.

The requirement for a mandatory 3-year contract is the same as Rogers and is the biggest disappointment to me.  With Canada already having the lowest quality/highest priced cellular service in the developed world, we can’t be surprised that the telecommunications cartel in this country are so blatantly thumbing their nose at the consumers in this fashion.

With the wireless spectrum auction last year, I was eager to see 4 or 5 new entrants to the market, but as time goes on, that potential number is dropping to 1 or 2 and their entrance is seemingly delayed every time I check for news.

All in all, more depressing news for Canadian consumers.

I think the iPhone is a nice little toy and I certainly wouldn’t turn one down if it was offered to me, but I don’t plan on lining up to get one from Telus (or Rogers) anytime soon.

Categories
Personal Politics

A good step

It’s not too often I compliment the government, much less the Federal Conservatives, but I’ve got to give them some credit here.  The government passed a bill eliminating the practice of giving convicted criminals 2-for-1 credit for time spent in detention before and during their trial.

I was always confused with this practice.  I mean, I have no problem with giving 1-for-1 credit when a person has been convicted.  I just think it’s fair.  They’ve been incarcerated so that should count toward their final sentence.

Judges still have the ability to award 1.5-to-1 time, but it will only be under certain circumstances and the judge will have to justify their actions when they choose to go that way.

There shouldn’t be loopholes or shortcuts in the justice system.  If a crime has a certain penalty, everyone should have to serve the proscribed penalty if they commit that particular crime.  Part of the point of the system is to create a deterrent and shortcuts and loopholes undermine the effectiveness of the deterrent.