Same would probably apply to golf. -- "Go for a Metric America" Howard Ressel Project Design Engineer, Region 4 (585) 272-3372
>>> On 10/12/2009 at 12:43 PM, in message <10d2273a03a24559af217eb7f6dd2...@benhur>, Paul Trusten <trus...@grandecom.net> wrote: > I will take John's statement an additional step, and say that, in my opinion, > discussing the metrication of U.S. football at any time during our quest for > metrication is the surest way to lose support for the metrication goal! U.S. > football is a way of life, and part of that way of life is marked out in 100 > very emotional yards. It serves no purpose to change those units, other than > to force standardization into a place that it doesn't need to go. To many of > us in the metrication community, it is a proper extension of measurement > standards, but to the fans, it will be just plain hubris. It will cause more > resentment than it will standardization. Let's just get the nation to go > metric in most other aspects of everyday life, and leave U.S. football alone. > If you were to look up the expression "choose your battles" in some > idiomatic dictionary, you would find the issue of U.S. football metrication. > > Paul T. > > This subject keeps coming up, and > ----- Original Message ----- > From: John M. Steele > To: U.S. Metric Association > Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 9:39 AM > Subject: [USMA:46002] American football fields (was FIFA ) > > > Metricating American football should be WAY down the list of > priorities. Trying to do it early will just make folks mad. Once the US is > nearly completely metricated, people will wonder about those yards and > perhaps be willing to metricate football (its not like the rest of the world > loves it and is just dying for a metric version). > > However, a 90 m field and 9 m of forward progress probably make more > sense than blindly pretending yards are meters. The 90 m field fits existing > stadiums and represents less than 1.6% change in total length, and progress > for a 1st down. I am not convinced that a small change of the magnitude > invalidates all statistics, I think they could be "adjusted." Certainly some > other rules need to be revisited. I would number to the 40 m line, leaving a > 10 m zone between 40's (Canadian football has two 50 yard lines). The meter > line for kickoff (30 yard line) and taking possession (20 yard line) would > have to be reconsidered, and the chainsmen would need a 9 m chain. Extra > point attempts could be undertaken from the 2 m line. > > Pretending meters are yards is about a 9.4% change in total length, > and progress for a first down. Besides not fitting most stadiums, I would > argue that this would change the nature of the game and invalidate statistics > far more than a 1.6% change. > > FIFA rounded the rules of the game in an apparently intelligent way. > Important measurements were rounded to the nearest centimeter, and less > important measurements were rounded further. I think a thoughtful approach > would allow any game to be metricated, but not until the folks in charge of > the rules or laws of the game are ready to undertake it. > > --- On Mon, 10/12/09, STANLEY DOORE <stan.do...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > From: STANLEY DOORE <stan.do...@verizon.net> > Subject: [USMA:46001] Re: FIFA Football Fields > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> > Cc: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> > Date: Monday, October 12, 2009, 8:35 AM > > > > Most comments here on conversion of American football to > metric have addressed the problem from the rules and game playing standpoint. > However, only one addressed it to a new field length (90 m) standpoint. > Changing field length to a full 100 m would require > reconstruction of stadiums to provide space for a 100 m field. A 90 m field > would fit most current stadiums; however that would require changing rules > and void all previous statistics. > Leaving American football fields size as is (100 yards plus > end zones) and current rules would have the nostalgic but practical advantage > for Fred Flintstone Units (FFU) in this case. > Stan Doore > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: carlet...@comcast.net > To: U.S. Metric Association > Cc: U.S. Metric Association > Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 12:31 PM > Subject: [USMA:45985] Re: FIFA Football Fields > > > Metricating US football would weaken the offense, particularly > the rush, and strengthen the defense - the offensive team would have to go > about 10% farther to get first down. However, since teams have both an > offense and defense, most would be equally affected. The likely result would > be somewhat lower scoring. > > Carleton > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kimbrough Sherman" <a...@loyola.edu> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> > Sent: Friday, October 9, 2009 10:50:01 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada > Eastern > Subject: [USMA:45982] FIFA Football Fields > > > I don't believe that the use of metric measures will at all > alter U.S. Soccer, but, incidentally, the fixed measures of the field and > goals Worldwide http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/lawsofthegame.html are in > former hard English Yards (Penalty and goal areas) and feet (height of > crossbar) and soft metric. The Penalty Area is specified at 16.5 Meters to > accommodate the original dimension of 18 Yards. > > American Football, as Stanley Doore has mentioned does have a > real problem with conversion. The concept of "first downs" would be altered > by a ten-Meters requirement, and if the fields were enlarged to 100 Meters, > with two 10 Meter end zones, there are almost no stadium floors that would > accommocate these fields (more than 11M longer). > > In my opinion, American Football should keep the "Yard" as its > measure and children can be instructed that it is a football measure, and > left to die a slow and painless death as people get tired of explaining it in > the far future. > > American Football is the only U.S. Sport I know that would > suffer (statistically, and logistically) from SI adoption. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [owner-u...@colostate.edu] On > Behalf Of STANLEY DOORE [stan.do...@verizon.net] > Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 5:49 AM > To: U.S. Metric Association > Subject: [USMA:45976] Re: Geelong wins national football > championship > > > Congratulations Pat. > It is my understanding that soccer fields do not have a > standard size. This makes it very easy to use metric dimensions entirely. > Great! > Not so with US football fields which have a standard size. > Performance statistics are therefore based on the yard. Stadiums also are > built with this in mind. > Soccer fields could be standardized on rigid metric > dimensions; however, wouldn't there be problems when trying to fit a > standardized metric field size into various sized stadiums? > Stan Doore > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Pat Naughtin > To: U.S. Metric Association > Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 4:33 AM > Subject: [USMA:45897] Geelong wins national football > championship > > > Geelong wins national football championship > > > So what, I hear you chorus. Who cares that Geelong has won the > title as the Australian Rules football championship? However, this bragging > is not the purpose of this email. > > > The ground that the football game is played on is slightly > variable in size but it has all of its markings in metres. See > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_Australian_football This means that the > sports commentators have continuously available references that they use to > describe each game. The metric influence is continuous, especially the two > arcs marked 50 metres from each goal. This has had the effect of making the > descriptions wholly metric. > > > I doubt that the transition to metric in Australian Rules > Football would have happened so quickly without the constant metric reference > lines on every ground built into the rules of the game itself. Perhaps there > are some thoughts here for other metrication transitions! > > > The game, today went for 100 minutes, but if you would like to > get a flavor of the action there is a 10 minute sample at > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIOvSv9Q1Gk&feature=fvw Geelong are the only > team to wear horizontal stripes of navy blue and white – watch for the Gary > Ablett goal at 5:15. > > > Cheers, > Pat Naughtin > Author of the ebook, Metrication Leaders Guide, that you can > obtain from http://metricationmatters.com/MetricationLeadersGuideInfo.html > PO Box 305 Belmont 3216, > Geelong, Australia > Phone: 61 3 5241 2008 > > > Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, > has helped thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to the > modern metric system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that they now > save thousands each year when buying, processing, or selling for their > businesses. Pat provides services and resources for many different trades, > crafts, and professions for commercial, industrial and government metrication > leaders in Asia, Europe, and in the USA. Pat's clients include the Australian > Government, Google, NASA, NIST, and the metric associations of Canada, the > UK, and the USA. See http://www.metricationmatters.com for more metrication > information, contact Pat at pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com or to get the > free 'Metrication matters' newsletter go to: > http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter to subscribe. > >
BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Ressel, Howard TEL;WORK:585-272-3372 ORG:;403-Design EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:hres...@dot.state.ny.us N:Ressel;Howard ADR;DOM;WORK;PARCEL;POSTAL:;403;1530 Jefferson Road;Rochester;;14623 LABEL;DOM;WORK;PARCEL;POSTAL;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:Ressel, Howard=0A= 403=0A= 1530 Jefferson Road=0A= Rochester 14623 END:VCARD
