What SPORTS did you watch today?

So did I until someone sent me the link.
http://www.bluebirdbanter.com/2015/10/20/9573947/video-johnny-cueto-looks-to-have-tried-to-knee-kevin-pillar-in-the

Yeah, it's a Jays blog but I can't really explain what Cueto is doing.

Right out of the gate KC gets a break.  WTH were those Met outfielders doing? 

But man, the leadoff guy for the Royals can fly!

Harold Reynolds is absolutely atrocious!
 
After the inside the park homer on a fastball in the first inning, Reynolds was remarking on how Harvey should know better than to start the Royals batters off with a fastball because they're so aggressive.  Later in the first, he complimented Harvey for making adjustments and starting the Royals hitters off with off speed stuff.
 
Now here we are in the second inning and after Harvey walked the second batter, Reynolds says "He needs to get back to his fastball; that's his bread and butter."
 
Make up your friggin' mind!
 
Geez Reynolds sucks.

Wow, that's the weirdest post-season thing I've ever seen.

Fox lost the power to their truck and for some reason MLB halted play until the MLB Network broadcast took over and is now being broadcast over Fox. 

What a strange set of circumstances...

The good news is that the MLB International feed doesn't have Harold Reynolds on it.

Ugh.  Reynolds and the Fox broadcasters are back.  Not 2 minutes later, Reynolds came out with this gem:

"That's the best he's been right now."

Huh?

I know people complain about Joe Buck but he doesn't really bother me.  Harold Reynolds sure does though.  I almost think I'd prefer Joe Morgan and that's saying something.

tohostudios wrote:

Harold Reynolds is absolutely atrocious!
 
After the inside the park homer on a fastball in the first inning, Reynolds was remarking on how Harvey should know better than to start the Royals batters off with a fastball because they're so aggressive.  Later in the first, he complimented Harvey for making adjustments and starting the Royals hitters off with off speed stuff.
 
Now here we are in the second inning and after Harvey walked the second batter, Reynolds says "He needs to get back to his fastball; that's his bread and butter."
 
Make up your friggin' mind!
 
Geez Reynolds sucks.

I caught that and thought the same thing.

OK, tonight is THE game for me in the World Series.

Johnny (Kick/Knee Like A Girl) is starting for the Royals.  I don't care if the Mets win the series or not but I sooooo want them the blast KKLAG tonight!  And let's see who KKLAG tries to get a cheap shot on next.

Not a big fan of Cueto either. Hopefully, he gets knocked around a bit.

Watched part of what was supposed to be a football game last night.

Going to watch game 3 of the World Series. I'm hoping for a KC win tonight.

nevermore wrote:

Watched part of what was supposed to be a football game last night.

Going to watch game 3 of the World Series. I'm hoping for a KC win tonight.

That figures. 

I'm hoping for a Mets win.  Funny thing is that I can't really explain why but I keep finding myself pulling for the Mets in this series.  I think it might be because of two things:  1) I want the National League team to win and 2) I find the Royals to be very boring. They are an "efficient" offense which means they don't strike out a lot and they get a lot of singles.  That of course wins games but it's not very exciting.

Oh, and the Royals have Johnny "Kick Like A Girl" Cueto which pretty much seals it for me.

But it's not like I'll be crying in my beer if the Royals win; after all, they ARE the "other" Missouri team.

This first inning is a typical example.
A bunch of bloopy crap and a misplay by the Mets and suddenly it's already 1-0 Royals.

Give the Royals credit; they sure capitalize on their opportunities.

Geez the Mets are just imploding.

Rugby World Cup - NZL vs AUS

I have no idea how this sport works at all but it's fun to watch. Lots of dudes bleeding. Ha! If only I knew anything at all about the rules.

I watched about 5 minutes of that while flipping around looking for a college football game to watch.  Just looks like a bunch of dudes in a pile to me.  If I were playing I'd want to be one of those guys standing back in a line watching the pile.

At times it's almost like regular football without downs; they just keep picking up the ball and moving with no stoppage of play.

tohostudios wrote:

I watched about 5 minutes of that while flipping around looking for a college football game to watch.  Just looks like a bunch of dudes in a pile to me.  If I were playing I'd want to be one of those guys standing back in a line watching the pile.

At times it's almost like regular football without downs; they just keep picking up the ball and moving with no stoppage of play.

I didn't understand a bit of it. Why no going for the ball when it's fumbled? Why are guys just standing there? Why do they kick the ball sometimes but not others? So many questions and no answers. Mrs. Witchfinder was no help at all. She claimed to know nothing about it other than she's a fan of the Welsh team and that a "try" is a score that equals 5 points.

The one thing I DID understand is that those are some tough dudes.

OK State vs Texas Tech

I love games like this; no defense. It was 38-28 Tech at the half. Still the same score 5 minutes into the third quarter. Weak slate of college football games this week. If the World Series game tonight sucks I'll probably switch over to Notre Dame vs Temple. I hate Notre Dame with a fiery passion.

Witchfinder wrote:

tohostudios wrote:

I watched about 5 minutes of that while flipping around looking for a college football game to watch.  Just looks like a bunch of dudes in a pile to me.  If I were playing I'd want to be one of those guys standing back in a line watching the pile.

At times it's almost like regular football without downs; they just keep picking up the ball and moving with no stoppage of play.

I didn't understand a bit of it.  Why no going for the ball when it's fumbled?  Why are guys just standing there?  Why do they kick the ball sometimes but not others?  So many questions and no answers.  Mrs. Witchfinder was no help at all.  She claimed to know nothing about it other than she's a fan of the Welsh team and that a "try" is a score that equals 5 points.

An attempt at a quick explanation of rugby:

Like American football, the goal is to get the ball to the other end of the field in order to score a "try", with the difference between a try and a touchdown being that the has to be grounded in the end zone.  It's also possible to score points by kicking the ball through the posts, although not as many.

The ball may not be passed forwards, so in order to get the end of the field, players will run with the ball in an attempt to get past the opposition or at the very least make some ground before they are finally tackled.  Alternatively, a team will kick the ball, which will hand possession to the opposition (unless it's a short kick which a player is able to regather), but it means that they will now have to make attack from a long way back.  By putting pressure on that team then they may be able to steal the ball back or force them to kick, and if that kick isn't as good then the net result will be gaining ground.

The other main difference (other than the lack of protective gear) is that there aren't separate offensive and defensive teams.  A limited number of substitutions are allowed, but apart from that, players remain on the field for the whole match.

And it would be remiss of me not to share this video with you.

Citanul wrote:

And it would be remiss of me not to share this video with you.

At least that makes it a little more interesting

That rugby game was actually pretty fun to watch when they weren't locked in a scrum. It looked a lot like the final play Miami used last night to beat Duke as time expired.

tohostudios wrote:

nevermore wrote:

Watched part of what was supposed to be a football game last night.

Going to watch game 3 of the World Series. I'm hoping for a KC win tonight.

That figures. 

I'm hoping for a Mets win.  Funny thing is that I can't really explain why but I keep finding myself pulling for the Mets in this series.  I think it might be because of two things:  1) I want the National League team to win and 2) I find the Royals to be very boring. They are an "efficient" offense which means they don't strike out a lot and they get a lot of singles.  That of course wins games but it's not very exciting.

Oh, and the Royals have Johnny "Kick Like A Girl" Cueto which pretty much seals it for me.

But it's not like I'll be crying in my beer if the Royals win; after all, they ARE the "other" Missouri team.

tohostudios wrote:

That rugby game was actually pretty fun to watch when they weren't locked in a scrum.  It looked a lot like the final play Miami used last night to beat Duke as time expired.

Scrums are an integral part of the game, but they can be a little tedious to watch.  But here are the nominees for try of the year, which are a lot more entertaining.



And this was last year's winner (which I couldn't resist posting because it was scored by South Africa   ).

Steelers vs Bengals. Ben Roethlisberger returns and gives the game away with 3 interceptions. Final 16-10.