site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   2058 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for February 20, 2026

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Sick final though. Trading two teeth for the gold medal in OT is legendary.

I'm watching it right now -- yes I know what happens, I'm watching it anyways!

NBC doesn't serve hockey to Canadians apparently, but looking at footage elsewhere it's a hard shot that bounces out -- this is hard to be sure about sometimes even for the refs and players! That's why there's a goal judge sitting behind the net. In this case it looks like it might have bounced off some of the crap they've got stationed inside the net; in the past you'd mostly see the impact on the netting, but there's still the rear bars -- normally there's a noise though.

If you think hockey is bad you should try watching lacrosse -- crowd injuries used to be a major problem there for people who didn't follow the action. Now I think there is dumb netting all over the place so people can safely focus on their beer.

I'm watching it right now -- yes I know what happens, I'm watching it anyways!

Cheers, I got up at 5 to get through my morning chores, mass, and get a little toasted for the final. Fantastic game. Absolutely heartbreaking olympics for Canadian hockey.

it's a hard shot that bounces out -- this is hard to be sure about sometimes even for the refs and players! That's why there's a goal judge sitting behind the net. In this case it looks like it might have bounced off some of the crap they've got stationed inside the net; in the past you'd mostly see the impact on the netting, but there's still the rear bars -- normally there's a noise though.

Ok, I think we're on the same page here, you agree that there are some plays that are basically impossible to perceive directly for a casual audience. I think there are more plays in hockey where I have a distinct lag in perceiving what is happening than there are in other major team sports, and that this holds it back in ease of spectator interest compared to the other major team sports.

I like hockey well enough, but I think tv content and youth costs are the biggest things hurting hockey's mainstream popularity.

If you think hockey is bad you should try watching lacrosse -- crowd injuries used to be a major problem there for people who didn't follow the action. Now I think there is dumb netting all over the place so people can safely focus on their beer.

I wonder if professional lacrosse ever makes it big, if I'm capable of forming team loyalties anymore.

Can you typically tell whether an MLB pitch is a ball or a strike without seeing a replay/specialized camera view? I guess they have some electronic BS for this now too, but for me that's not necessary to enjoy the game!

I guess I don't understand the complaint -- typically it seems like people are saying that they can't see the puck at all -- but you are saying more like "90mph slapshots are hard to track"? That is true, but I'm not sure it's that big of a problem -- for another example, does it bother you when they bring out the chains to see whether a football team has made first down?

Can you typically tell whether an MLB pitch is a ball or a strike without seeing a replay/specialized camera view?

Yes, absolutely, and the dispute about this is making me realize this is largely a difference in perception at the level of baseline skill, I played baseball but never competitive hockey. I can tell balls from strikes to a reasonable certainty when watching on TV, though I'm very vulnerable to catcher framing. Live is a little tougher depending on angle of the seats.

I guess I don't understand the complaint -- typically it seems like people are saying that they can't see the puck at all -- but you are saying more like "90mph slapshots are hard to track"?

It's not a complaint in the sense of "this should be different;" it's a fact about the sport that makes it more difficult to enjoy on TV compared to football or basketball.

That is true, but I'm not sure it's that big of a problem -- for another example, does it bother you when they bring out the chains to see whether a football team has made first down?

Chains are normally for close plays, where it was difficult to see to begin with. But yes, it would bother me if the TV broadcast was regularly showing an obvious first down, and then the refs informed me that it wasn't, or vice versa. At some point that would really take away from the aesthetic enjoyment of the game, if I just never knew what was going on until someone told me.

I think it's bad when instant replay is necessary to determine, for example, what is a catch and what isn't, or when the TV angle seems to show an obvious first down and after review they determine something utterly opposite to what it looked like happened based on some obscure rule about forward progress. I hate seeing a play that looks like an amazing touchdown, and then it gets called back on instant replay because a toe was a centimeter over the line, so small that that it was impossible

I imagine most TV producers would agree that their goal is to present the game to the viewer in such a way that the viewer comprehends the action intuitively without needing to be told what was happening. Most innovations in sportscasting have been about aiming for that goal of making the game intuitive: the yellow first down line, the digital strike zone on broadcast, highlighting players or zones of the field.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats