About ten years ago while playing golf, I used a golf cart which had GPS
on it. It gave distances to the pin, among other things. A simple switch
converted English units to metres and vice versa. So, converting courses to
metric should be no problem except for learning on the part of players and the
public.
Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
From: John M. Steele
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 10:34 AM
Subject: [USMA:46014] Re: U.S. football--choose your battles
Why? Golf seems like it would be one of the more trivial sports to
metricate. Just revise the units on course layouts.
Courses are already laid out in metric in other countries. Americans
who play golf overseas are likely to play on metric courses and survive.
Foreign visitors who play here probably wonder about yards. I would think that
golf courses which attract foreign guests would at least benefit from being
"dual."
--- On Tue, 10/13/09, Howard Ressel <hres...@dot.state.ny.us> wrote:
From: Howard Ressel <hres...@dot.state.ny.us>
Subject: [USMA:46012] Re: U.S. football--choose your battles
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu>
Cc: "Gary Brown" <gsbr...@aol.com>, "Lorelle Young"
<lorelle...@aol.com>, "Don Hillger" <hill...@cira.colostate.edu>, "Valerie
Antoine" <valerie.anto...@verizon.net>
Date: Tuesday, October 13, 2009, 8:10 AM
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.
>
>
