Theme Week, Part 3

Jeremy's Sametime Status Proudly Presents:  Soccer Improvements Week!  #3 - Add an “Over and Back” rule similar to basketball

Jeremy's coverage of the Euro 2012 tournament continues today with the third part in a week-long series dedicated to making the game of soccer more enjoyable to a wider audience.  Today's rule change explores the world of ball control and territorial gain.

 One thing that everybody (read: Jeremy) finds entertaining about most sports is the drive and determination to achieve the ultimate goal, be it winning a point, scoring a goal, putting the ball in the target area...what have you.  In the case of most sports, the majority of a team's effort is spent moving towards that goal.  Football players rush toward the end zone, basketball players drive to the net, hockey players speed through the neutral zone toward the goal, bowlers roll the ball toward the pins, archers shoot at the target, golfers drive the ball down the fairway, divers fall, baseball players run towards first base when they hit the ball, and so on.  On the other hand, soccer players stand around with the ball and kick it back and forth amongst themselves, spending as much time and effort kicking the ball backwards as they do forwards.  This is nonsense.

Soccer would be so much more entertaining if instead of trying to "maintain control" and methodically keep possession of the ball, the players actually tried to consistently move forward and attempt to score.  Basketball has a fairly similar type of issue, when teams merely try to kill time off the clock, but that sport has several methods in place to deal with the situation.  They not only employ a shot clock and an 8-second backcourt violation (once a team puts a ball in play, they have 8 seconds to cross the court's center line, or they lose possession.), but they have a rule called "Ball In Backcourt," more commonly referred to as "Over and Back."  (Rule 10, Section X)  The idea is that once you have advanced the ball past the center line of the court, you can't go backwards, recrossing the center line, in order to waste time.  You are essentially forced into the front half of the court to face your opposition and try to score.   

Such a rule needs to exist in soccer.  An average of 83 times per game, a player will advance the ball past mid-pitch, see that there is an opposing defender within 20 yards of them, and decide to kick the ball back across the center line to a teammate out of danger.  This results in team possessions of the ball lasting minutes on end without any real attempt being made at scoring a goal.  So, I say nuts to this.  If the teams aren't going to take it upon themselves to score, force their hand...or their feet, I guess would be more appropriate here.  Once they cross the center line, they're not allowed to go back.  Press on and take a shot on the goal!  The thing is 192 square feet for cryin' out loud.  If you make more of an attempt to actually get goals, maybe we'll make more of an attempt to watch your sport. 

Theme Week, Part 4

Jeremy's Sametime Status Proudly Presents:  Soccer Improvements Week!  #2 - Use an actual Stadium Clock

Before we begin, Jeremy and I would like to congratulate the Los Angeles Kings for their dramatic victory in Game 6 of the Stanley Cup Finals to win their first NHL championship in franchise history.  By "dramatic victory," we mean, of course, "Good Old-Fashioned Beatdown of the New Jersey Devils."

So Theme Week continues today with the second in a series of improvements to the game of Soccer which would make the game more accessible to today's sporting audience.  Today's suggestion is simple: use a stadium clock to keep the game time.

Soccer games last 90 minutes, plus whatever time the ref sees fit to stop the clock due to injuries and whatnot.  Many of you probably know that in a game of soccer, there is only one person on the field, in the stadium, or watching on TV who knows when the game is going to end.  The only official record of the time is on the referee's wrist, and when he decides the game is over, he blows the whistle.  He does not tell anyone in advance exactly how much time is remaining at any given time.  Many of you don't know that this practice goes back to the days before clocks, when the only way to tell the time was by the passage of the sun.  The referee would determine at which position on a sideline sundial the game would end and rule the game accordingly. 

You're ruining your credibility here...

We've since come so far as to have somebody announce approximately how much "stoppage time" is left after everyone else thinks that 90 minutes have passed, though how that information is gleaned from the ref is a mystery on the order of the "Magic Spray" used to treat soccer injuries.  Regardless, nowadays, we actually have clocks with the express purpose of timing sporting events.  Referees can stop and start them at will, and there are even officials whose duty it is to make sure those clocks are accurate.  There is no reason not to use this in soccer.  

If they still want to use the goofy backwards clock which counts from 0:00 to 90:00, that's fine...we can figure that part out, but to have there be no clues as to how much time is actually left in the game is absurd.  It deprives people of the suspense and action that can accompany the last minute of a game when victory is on the line and one team is frantically trying to tie the score.  You want to add that level of drama and intrigue to the game?  Add a real game clock. 

Theme Week, Part 5

Jeremy's Sametime Status Proudly Presents:  Soccer Improvements Week!  #1 - Change or Eliminate the Offside Rule

All this week, in celebration of Euro 2012, which is a soccer tournament or something, Jeremy's Sametime Status and Jeremy Is In The Office, in association with Miracle Posting, Inc. proudly presents an entire theme week dedicated to the improvement of this great game.  

That's right, LIR.  While the sport of soccer may be well known and beloved outside of the United States (I guess there's a "rest of the world" out there), its popularity in this country lags other more "American" sports like Basketball and NASCAR.  As it turns out, if Americans aren't always the best at something, we think it's stupid and don't want to watch.  So despite the US having its own soccer league which is able to play sport the American way (Throw unholy sums of money at already-famous talent to pretend we give a crap...See Also: Becham, David, and Yankees, New York) Americans just aren't quite as in-tune with the game as others around the world.  To try to rectify that, I've created a series of changes that soccer can implement in order to broaden its appeal to American audiences, who are more willing to pay ridiculous amounts of money to watch games...and isn't that what sport is really all about?  

First off, Offsides.  The offside rule is confusing enough to explain to somebody when there is a fixed position which governs it (Such as the Blue Line in hockey).  In soccer, the position of "Offside" changes with respect to the positioning of the defenders, and also only applies before the ball is kicked in the general direction of a player.  Whether the ball can be deemed to be played to that person is subjective and at the discretion of the ref.  On top of that, there is a play called an "Offside Trap" in which the defenders all move up in unison in order for an offensive player to be called offside without actually doing anything.  

Sure, the concept of Offside is marginally necessary.  The intent is to prevent "Cherry Picking" in which one or more players on a team just hang out deep in the offensive zone, wait for a turnover and for the ball to be kicked the length of the field before the defense has time to react.  This practice is common in grade school sports, is akin to Internet Trolling, and is considered (at the very least) bad form among trained athletes.  By the time you get to games being played on TV, this sort of thing shouldn't work, so having a confusing and constantly-in-flux rule to prevent it is just unnecessary.  Let's go ahead and get rid of the current Offside rule, or replace it with a Blue Line on the pitch somewhere between the goal box and the center line.  It will help people who pay attention to soccer once every 2-4 years understand the game a little bit better. 

SCIENCE!

“That guy brought science.”  Adam Rogers - Senior Editor, Wired Magazine

Who brought science?  Also, where was science brought?  These are important questions that you told me to ask you on today's Blag.  Also, when are you going to hire a better script writer for me?  

So the guy who brought Science was none other than Mythbuster Adam Savage.  The quote which makes up today's Sametime Status comes from an online celebrity bowling competition.  

Online celebrity bowling?  Please tell me you're making this up.

I'm so not.  The fine folks at Nerdist, who make Youtube videos and probably some other stuff have a web series going on where they hold a bowling competition between four of them and four people from some other celebrity group.  Some of these include the cast of "Breaking Bad," chefs Hannah Hart and the loud guy from Epic Meal Time, Weird Al Yankovic, and in one recent case, "Mythbusters."  Most of these competitions are held at a bar in Los Angeles called "The Spare Room" which happens to be an unbelievably nice and posh place with A Bowling Alley Built In.  I want to go.  

These competitions are often hilarious and feature hilariously bad bowling, which only leads to more trash talking and hilarity.  I recommend watching the show Right Now.

That's Just Nutty

Here’s a Fun Fact!  Almonds are members of the Peach family

I don't know about this.  Do you get these from the same place you get your Revisionist History facts?

Actually, I'm not making crap up!  

Shocking.

I know, right?   Anyway, I was skeptical about this one, too...since, you know...almonds more resemble the parts of a peach that you don't eat than the part that you do.  But as it turns out, it's entirely true.  Both delicious treats belong to the genus "prunus" which also includes plums, cherries, and apricots.  (Yay!  Oxford Comma!)  So there you have it, folks...go forth and amaze your friends by dropping some fruity/nutty knowledge on them.

Betrayal!

Success at the Driving Range does not equal Success on the course

Before continuing, it's important to filly understand that Jeremy is a lousy golfer.  Forget what he's ever told you about shooting par and whatnot...he stinks.  

Not long ago, I bought a new golf club...specifically, a Callaway driver.  It wasn't long before that when I received a new Jack Nicklaus Golf Bag to hold all my clubs.  The theory is as follows.  Aside from the people who I'm golfing with, the only time on the course people will actually see me hit the ball is off the first tee (And the 10th, if we're playing 18, but the theory remains the same).  So, in order to create the illusion that I'm a good golfer, all I need to do is impress people at this time.  Therefore, if I stroll up to the first tee with my Jack Nicklaus golf bag, pull out my Callaway driver, and pound the first ball of the day 250 yards down the fairway, the people near the clubhouse will see this and assume I'm nothing but a high roller.  After that, I disappear around the first bend, never to be seen by these people again, and the illusion is complete.  I can then proceed to suck it up for the rest of the round and only 3 people are the wiser. 

All I needed to do was procure this new driver and learn how to drive the ball 250 yards down the fairway...no problem, right?  There are places to do this.  So, I took my new gear out to the driving range a handful of times since then, with mixed, though mosty positive, results.  The new club hits the ball a long, long way...and sometimes it even goes straight.  I'm well aware that the limiting factor here is the operator, but that's why I practiced.  Having achieved this reasonable level of success, I decided it was time to put my new plan into action, so I hit the links.  (Apparently, "Links" is a very specific type of golf course, but I don't know how to distinguish them, so I'm just going to use that word)

The results were not good.  I think I actually achieved my goal of a relatively decent drive on the first tee, but that was the last time I hit the ball anything that even resembles "well" with the new driver.  Having sliced many a ball at the range, I proceeded to hook every hard-hit ball to the left, topped a couple straight into the turf, and hit one that stayed about 2 feet off the ground for its entire short flight.  The left hook that one of these shots had was darned impressive, actually.  Like something out of a cartoon, the ball launched off the tee, then seemingly hit the brakes and immediately turned 90 degrees to the left and found its way into the trees.  It was an impressive, but not especially useful shot. 

Bottom line...the scenery is complete, but I need a little more practice before my illusion of grandeur can work out.  

The Mirror Also Knew This Was Crap

Snow White’s Huntsman should have kept hunting for a better movie  

Hope you've gone out to the lobby to get yourselves a snack, because your favorite film critic is back with another review.  Also, one of these days, Jeremy may actually like a movie.  That will be fun to see.

So, not long ago, I attended a screening of the new motion picture "Snow White And The Huntsman."  It's the new epic telling of the fairy tale of roughly the same name.   The non-spoiler portion of my review is as follows:  Don't See This Movie.  

SPOILER ALERT!  If you're concerned about that sort of thing, stop reading now, but come back tomorrow!

This movie stars Kristen Stewart in a non-vampire role where she still gets to sleepwalk through her part without ever changing facial expression.  (Remind You Of Anyone?)  She plays Snow White whose father is killed by the evil queen and her army of glass shards.  I'm not making that up.   Snow escaped from the castle and is tracked in the dark forest by the unnamed "Huntsman" who I shall refer to as Westley, because the whole dark forest thing (and at least 41.5% of the rest of the movie) is lifted pretty directly from The Princess Bride.  After Westley decides he likes Snow, he goes on the run with her and they spend the next hour of our lives being hunted down by the Queen's magical army no fewer than four times, because three apparently wasn't enough to drive the point home.  Snow discovers that the animals and some dwarfs love her and the whole poison apple thing happens, Westley kisses her to wake her up (since she was only "Mostly Dead") and they gather an army to storm the castle.  Snow confronts the evil queen in her magical chamber of evil with the line "My name is Snow White.  You killed my father.  Prepare to die."  Or at least she should have. 

Here's a brief list of what's wrong with this movie:

• The Mirror on the wall actually melts down and creates a sort of statue person (who is NOT voiced by James Earl Jones...huge casting mistake) in a special effect we haven't seen since Terminator 2.
  
• Snow escapes the castle with nothing but a nail, yet four battle scenes later, she's wearing a snuggly-looking winter coat.
  
• A mystical 83-point buck decrees Snow to be the real princess in a scene stolen from The Matrix when Neo meets the Oracle.  Anything that reminds us of Keanu Reeves can't be a good thing.
  
• Snow's friend joins the Queen's army as a double-agent archer, seemingly the only archer in the search party.  When a village is set on fire with flaming arrows, our boy has already switched sides.  Who's shooting all these arrows, and why has nobody noticed that The Archer isn't one of them?
  
  
• The tunnel Snow used to escape the castle is a full 50 feet above the water on the side of a cliff, yet that's the entrance the dwarfs use to get back in. 
  
• And this one is the worst for me.  Snow and Westley are wandering through the dark forest when OUT OF FREAKING NOWHERE, Westley stops everything to show Snow how to properly kill somebody with a dagger, and they move on.  Gee...we're 35 minutes into the movie, and I now know precisely how the evil queen is going to die.  I'm all for foreshadowing, but this was terrible. 
  
  

So, in a nutshell, this film was visually amazing with scenes and costumes and action scenes to spare.  However, that's not quite enough to make up for the pacing (At least 30 minutes too long), baffling plot twists, lack of originality, and some questionable acting performances (Charlize Theron as the Evil Queen isn't bad when she's not too far over the top).  This film killed it at the box office this weekend due to a brilliant marketing campaign, but it won't stay up there for long.

This has been another edition of Jeremy Is In The Theatre.