Is there a mainstream sport that has a lower scoring rate than football (ie soccer)?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

And is there any other sport where no scoring at all is a fairly common occurrence?

― James T., Thursday, 14 October 2004 14:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Russian Roulette?

― Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 14 October 2004 14:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Middle School Spin the Bottle?

― Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 14 October 2004 14:49 (twenty-one years ago)

U.S. beats Panama 6-0, on track to qualify for World Cup 2006.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/headlinenews?id=313109&cc=5901

― Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 14 October 2004 14:53 (twenty-one years ago)

tag of war?

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 14 October 2004 14:56 (twenty-one years ago)

tug

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 14 October 2004 14:56 (twenty-one years ago)

change football...scrap the offside rule and play 12 a side.

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Thursday, 14 October 2004 14:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Football's low scoring is makes the game for me. The fact that an entire match can turn in a matter of seconds gives it the edge over most higher-scoring games - ie rugby.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Thursday, 14 October 2004 14:57 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think a sport where no scoring at all is fairly common is a very well calibrated sport, ie final scores don't often enough reflect how well the teams actually played.

― James T., Thursday, 14 October 2004 15:03 (twenty-one years ago)

I like the basketball thing where it always seems to be 113-112 and the winner is simply the team whose turn it is to score as the time runs out.
(This is a bit of a cliche I know but I have watched games where this has happened).

Judo tends to swing on one or two half points doesn't it (not that it's exactly mainstream in terms of audience figures but lots of people take part)?

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Thursday, 14 October 2004 15:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Duelling often has a low score.

― Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 14 October 2004 15:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Is there a sport where the intensity of crowd reaction to an instance of scoring is as intense as football?

(Like, surely if it's like 347853-308774 at the end you'd be knackered from cheering all of them)

― Michael Philip Philip Philip Philip Philip Annoyman (Ferg), Thursday, 14 October 2004 15:09 (twenty-one years ago)

i dunno.. cricket spectators cheer quite a lot when they hit 4s and 6s

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 14 October 2004 15:10 (twenty-one years ago)

and wickets!!

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 14 October 2004 15:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah but when a try is worth 5493 points, an over is 677, a goal is worth 980 points, a touchdown's worth 9782, and a home run nets you a full 10,284 points, it's not that hard really.

― Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 14 October 2004 15:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Cricket spectators don't cheer. They get the help to clap politely.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 14 October 2004 15:14 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think a sport where no scoring at all is fairly common is a very well calibrated sport, ie final scores don't often enough reflect how well the teams actually played.

But its all about how well the teams played RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER. What's the point in just looking at the score and drawing all your conclusions from there? If, say, Birmingham, draw 0-0 with Arsenal at Highbury then the common conclusion to draw is that the Birminham defence played *very well indeed* (or, less likely, that the Arsenal attack played poorly).

If Man Utd put six past West Brom then its fairly cut and dried.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Thursday, 14 October 2004 15:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Cricket spectators don't cheer. They get the help to clap politely.
-- Kevin Gilchrist (KevinGil14...), October 14th, 2004 4:14 PM. (later)

they so do cheer - they even fucking cheer when the score is 123 and dickie bird lifts his right foot!

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 14 October 2004 15:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Also the crowd reaction to a goal in football is so intense mostly because there is so much riding on it and so much can change. If you're 2-0 down with half an hour to go and then pull one back that renews hope and adds a whole new lease of life.

(I'm kind of presuming I'm arguing with someone who doesn't really like football btw)

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Thursday, 14 October 2004 15:15 (twenty-one years ago)

final scores don't often enough reflect how well the teams actually played.

Also end product vs fannydangle - fite.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Thursday, 14 October 2004 15:16 (twenty-one years ago)

And is there any other sport where no scoring at all is a fairly common occurrence?

Dating in NYC. /bitter spinster

― Je4nne ƒury (Jeanne Fury), Thursday, 14 October 2004 15:16 (twenty-one years ago)

you can do that even when the scoring system's differnet though? like if the Bulls lose to (insert crap basketball team here) by 1 point you'd think OMG that crap basketball team really turned the tide there.

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 14 October 2004 15:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Jeanne's quip is better than mine. Kisses to you Jeanne. Somewhere out there is some hot chick who'll swoon for you.

― Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 14 October 2004 15:19 (twenty-one years ago)

I think what that nincompoop up there means is that people cheer slightly when Umpire shepherd hops on one leg when there is a "nelson" ie 111 or 222 or 333

― L Ron Mother Hubbard, Thursday, 14 October 2004 15:19 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah 111 222 333 rather than 123 246 sorry.

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 14 October 2004 15:20 (twenty-one years ago)

they cheer even shit like that

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 14 October 2004 15:21 (twenty-one years ago)

they even fucking cheer when the score is 123 and dickie bird lifts his right foot!

It's 111 (and 222 and 333 etc.) and it's the other guy, Ken, what's his name - David Shepherd, that's the one. Let me see - there you go.

xpost but fuck it, I included a link

― Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 14 October 2004 15:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah Ken, I suppose I'm talking specifically about the 0-0 draw here.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Thursday, 14 October 2004 15:24 (twenty-one years ago)

i got all the specifics wrong - i only remmebered dickie bird's name cos he has a funny name that reminded me of chicks with dicks

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 14 October 2004 15:25 (twenty-one years ago)

How very 'English eccentric' of him. (David Shepherd, I mean)

― Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 14 October 2004 15:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Hockey is pretty goddman low scoring, but not as boring as soccer.

― andy, Thursday, 14 October 2004 15:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Suppose you had a sport where it was so difficult to score that it only happened once in every hundred games or so, and so 99 games out of 100 were therefore draws. Under such a system, Arsenal would perform about as well as some fifth rate club from the Faeroe Islands. The conclusion you could draw is that the scoring system is no good as a means of determining which side is better, because it sets the bar way too high. My scenario here is obviously a ridiculous exaggeration, but that's the principle by which I think football is not a very well calibrated sport on account of its very low scoring rate.

― James T., Thursday, 14 October 2004 15:36 (twenty-one years ago)

It's still has more goals unless you're watching New Jersey.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Thursday, 14 October 2004 15:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Isn't the Eton wall game something like that? Not that I'd know, I'm an oik.

― JimD (JimD), Thursday, 14 October 2004 15:37 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.etoncollege.com/eton.asp?di=197

― JimD (JimD), Thursday, 14 October 2004 15:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, football has been around for quite a while, tournaments and leagues function fine, and it's the most popular sport in the world, so I guess it must be calibrated alright.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 14 October 2004 15:44 (twenty-one years ago)

The best teams seem to win the championships.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 14 October 2004 16:41 (twenty-one years ago)

i think James T is right that football isn't a very well calibrated sport because of the low scoring, but he seems to think this is bad, whereas in fact it's a big part of football's appeal. We all know that Arsenal are a better team than Birmingham City (even Birmingham's fans and players know this), but 20000 Birmingham fans will still turn up to watch because they know that with a lot of luck, they could still fluke a win. This isn't really possible in rugby, where the better team will nearly always win. In American football and baskeball, the draft system artificially ensures the teams are kept fairly even.

― Joe Kay (feethurt), Thursday, 14 October 2004 16:58 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.