BruceMGF

Anyone here familiar with cricket, and not necessarily recent cricket? I'm wondering how schools and other amateurs held cricket matches before the days of limited-overs cricket. Surely schoolboys didn't play five-day matches. I know there were single-innings matches but surely that would take a couple days at least? What sort of rules did they play under?

It's almost surprising the announcers aren't required to call him "Eldrick". But then I remembered "Hootie". So I guess not.

Not too traditional. The sporran would get in the way of the swing, I think.

OK, we know the Masters thinks certain words don't have a sufficient amount of Southern gentility and ban them from telecasts. It's "patrons", not "gallery". And it's "second cut", not "rough". But, seriously. "Patron observation platform" for "grandstand"? (Should we abbreviate it POP?) Did anyone else hear that one? That doesn't even sound Southern. More like something a politically correct professor in the Ivy League would dream up. It's the bleacher seats, guys. Really, it is.

I prefer option 3 myself, but I'm sure I'm in a minority. "Ties suck!" seems to be accepted as tautological these days for some reason. Hard to believe now that MLB, in the 1960s, was seriously considering putting a cap on extra innings and accepting ties in the standings. Option 1: The Canadian Football League used to do this for playoff games (a 20-minute mini-game) and I think something similar was in the rules of the short-lived World Football League in the 1970s. Not sure if it ever actually was needed in the WFL, which lasted less than two seasons, I think.

The point is that, statistically, the chance of injury rises toward the end of games, and continues into overtime, if any. And it's a big deal with the NFLPA. The recent NFL-player dispute wasn't solely about money, but about safety as well. It's why kickoffs were moved back to the 35 from the 30.

While I agree with this statement in general, why do these particular changes make it less interesting for you? I'm actually curious to see what new strategies emerge from the new OT rule. Will the team with the first possession go all-out for a touchdown, maybe even trying to convert a fourth-down play in easy FG range? Will the other side, down by 3, be content to re-tie the game (essentially getting all the disadvantages of the old rule's kickoff team) or go for broke in their turn? A writer for Slate reportedly did a simulation showing the team kicking off under this format should onside-kick every time. Alas, the article is behind a paywall and I'm not interested enough in Slate to register.

1. All turnovers will be automatically reviewed. Good side: the right call will be made more often in tough cases. Bad side: games delayed while reviews are made of calls that are obviously right (interception went right to a defender with no-one else close). 2. Post-season overtime rules now apply in regular season - almost. The "almost" is that, as before, regular-season OT is limited to 15 minutes. Ties are still possible. And under the new rules, presumably more common, which bothers this writer: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/28/overtime-change-could-cause-problems/ OK, I get that OTs will be longer, which creates greater risk of injury. This is the more troubling part of the new rule. He also says it will cause more overlap in televised games. Cry me a river. Pick a game and watch it. Pick up the next one late in the first quarter if you want to. Or record it. Whatever. Mountain out of molehill. He also says the increase in ties will "wreak havoc on the standings and the playoff possibilities." Huh? Why? One of reasons ties are a good thing (heresy to modern sports fans, I know) is that they create greater granularity in the standings. That is, not only can you have teams with 9, 10 and 11 wins, but also with 8.5, 9.5, 10.5 and 11.5 wins. And fewer playoff spots or seedings decided by tiebreak criteria #89 (safeties on blocked punts in Monday Night games.). That being said, I doubt the number of ties will rise greatly. What's it been, four ties in twenty years under the old rules? So maybe the next twenty will feature all of six or seven? Maybe even ten?

Should the selection committee invite anyone not otherwise qualified? If so, who and on what criteria?

Maybe he'll do it, but it seems people are trying really hard to force themselves to believe it, maybe because he seems to be personally appealing. I mean, he has as many majors as Martin Kaymer and wasn't #1 as long as Kaymer, but nobody's predicting a Kaymer Era. We're still waiting for the Michelle Wie Era, too. Any day now. (And I'll admit I had my doubts about Tiger when he was winning all those US Amateurs. "This dude can't keep it in the fairway! How's he going to win a US Open? How?" So I'm not putting my foot down and saying Rory is going to be a bust. But fans seem to be trying really, really hard to believe he's the Second Coming.)

Sigh. I wish more people thought like you. I ignore the FedEx thing, basically. After the PGA Championship I watch the Ryder or President's Cup and that's it. Hyperplayoffism has turned me off all team sports.

I remember years ago Gary Player holed out a sand shot in a critical situation. Asked about it later, he explained that there was no way to stop the ball on the green, so holing it out was the only shot he had. :-)

True enough. But it's still weird to think that Orville Moody and Jack Fleck each won more US Opens than Sam Snead. It just is.

What about Natalie Gulbis? Oh, wait, she finally won a tournament. Never mind.

What? You mean it wasn't the week Rory was #1?

Good and bad. I hate the damn playoff mentality pervading sports since the 1960s-70s, at least in North America. What the hell are they "playing off" after a "regular season" that goes on forever, anyway? Playoffs used to be for breaking ties, or between winners of separate leagues that didn't meet in the season. Now they're played just because. But I never liked the Q-school idea, either. A few hot rounds and you're in. Or not. Satellite tours and Monday qualifying are better. A few bad rounds doesn't kill your chances for a year, if you're consistently good for a long stretch.

Yeah, just one Grand Slam and never did it again. :-)

OK, who's the golfer who had the one biggest moment in golf and then ... never did it again. I nominate Birdie Kim.

I wonder if anyone's quoting odds on Ernie Els ... 1) Winning in Houston. 2) Going on the win the Masters.

Well, I don't think Tiger knew what had happened, nor was he the best person to do anything about it. But screaming is just stupid. Do something or get someone else to do something. Screaming only makes sense if there's no-one else in sight and you need someone to come running.

Is it possible that Augusta National could be used for something big-time other than the Masters? Has it ever been? No, obviously not for another major. It's got one every year. And not a regular tour stop (the Walmart Augusta Classic, anyone? No.) But why not the Ryder Cup? Really, why not?

But what if Tiger had never gone to Las Vegas for anything but golf tournaments? He'd still be number 1, right? And what if Nicklaus had never gotten old?

The "Rory Era" sure was short, wasn't it? :-)

Well, sports is a zero-sum thingy. If someone wins more, others win less, no? In case anyone hasn't picked up on it, there's a tongue-in-cheek point to my question. I agree that it's a stretch to call any win undeserved. Even Goalby in the 1968 Masters. But when announcers go on about how many wins so-and-so ought to have, I wonder what tournaments they're supposed to have won and what happens to those who did win them. There don't seem to be enough tournaments to go around for all the ones golf announcers say should be being won.

OK, sometimes golf announcers (and even posters here) tell us that Rickie Fowler should be winning tournaments, or Sergio should have won majors by now. So if some golfers haven't won as much as they should, some others must be winning more than they should, right? Who are those? Are they the Tigers and Phils with the long list of wins? Or someone like "how did he win a major?" Ben Curtis?