Verified Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


AUDub last won the day on February 10

AUDub had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,344 Sterling

About AUDub

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • Yahoo

Profile Information

  • Location
    Off the Gus Bus and on the Pearl Parade!
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,003 profile views
  1. AUDub


    Yeah, you did. And if it’s correct, why are we even having this argument? You’ll get no argument from me on that one, but then, why are we even having this argument (unless you’re excluding association football when I say “nothing else”)? Just in a particularly nitpicky mood today? Fine. I’ll cite:
  2. My dad’s a big oyster fan. Eats a few dozen raw every time he goes to the beach. Never been a big fan myself.
  3. AUDub


    Yes, rugby style, rather than rugby itself. Unique elements were retained, even as the game became more like rugby than soccer. The game was originally more like soccer, using the codification of the FA, which still exists today, BTW, with variations. Then it became a mishmash depending upon locale. Then it came to more closely resemble rugby union, with variations. Then concepts like down and distance were introduced. Then the forward pass was eventually adopted. It became radically unique compared to the other codes. Saying "it evolved from rugby and nothing else, full stop" is incorrect. That's a gross oversimplification. Wikipedia's article on the early history of football would be a good read for you.
  4. AUDub


    Correct. Things were fluid. Neither sport was formalized until much later. But that's when they distinctly took different developmental paths to codification. Think of it like evolution. When humans and chimps diverged some 13 million years, those nascent forms of both would have still been very similar to their common ancestor. We might not be able to tell much difference. There's even still evidence of hybridization up to 4 million years ago, in fact. Think of that like how rugby union actually adopted some of Walter Camp's innovations into their code. But, given enough time, they're now distinctly different sports. Nothing in the source refutes anything I've typed. In fact, it affirms it. American football is a descendant of both the association and rugby codes. To put this in visual form, here's a helpful chart detailing modern football genealogy:
  5. Tampering with witnesses is a good way to get on any Judge's s*** list in a hurry.
  6. AUDub

    Sessions gets blowback

    So after the WH spent the week blaming this on the Ds, Stephen Miller owns it.
  7. AUDub


    Citing a source to support your argument would be helpful here. It is a descendant of both. Rugger and soccer diverged from each other around the 1820s. American football came later and borrowed from both, and while it was a unique game, the rules of the FA (again, the governing body for soccer) were paramount before the sport greatly diverged as school associations adopted their own rule changes before the sport was codified. What's widely considered the first football game was played with modified rules based upon the FA's code. Later changes to the code would borrow more havily from rugby, but to say the sport is exclusively a descendant of rugby is wrongheaded.
  8. AUDub


    Early rules were either borrowed or based upon early FA (football association, the governing body for soccer in England) rules. American football is just as much a descendant of association football as it is rugby football.
  9. AUDub


    They did not "reinvent" the game. The rule differences are a result of differences in evolution. Both sports are descendants of rugby and association football (soccer). It's just that Canadian football retains more of those roots than American football, which had departed more radically from the sports from which it came.
  10. AUDub

    Sessions gets blowback

    Maybe so, but the ugly aspect of who we are as a country is rearing its ugly head. Trump's approval ratings are actually going up.
  11. AUDub


    @aucanucktiger Get in here in fact check me to make sure I have the rule for the rouge right.
  12. AUDub


    This one could probably use a bit of explanation. The Rouge is a funny twist. When a ball is punted or a FG attempted, it results in a point for the kicking team if the ball is kicked out of the back of the end zone or if the return man is tackled there. In a tie game with 1 second on the clock, even a missed FG or punt can win the game, provided the ball goes out the back of the end zone or if the receiving team can’t advance it out. What the receiving team can do, however, is punt the ball back out of the end zone to prevent giving up that point. This wild finish, involving our very own Damon Duval, was possible because of said twist. On the above play, Damon misses the game winning FG. However, the ball is kept in play by one of Toronto’s players to prevent giving up a game winning point. The return man (not technically a return man, as they have specialist “kick out” teams for this situation in the CFL) realized he could not advance out of the end zone to force OT, so he kicked it back into the field of play, where it was fielded by Damon. Damon punted it back into the end zone. The returner, realizing, once again, that he couldn’t advance the ball, once again attempted to kick it out. This poor kick was blocked and recovered by the Alouettes for the game winning TD. Novel, and fun to watch. Had they gotten the ball out and the ball had been downed in the field of play, OT would have been the result.
  13. AUDub


    I think some of the rule diffrerences make for an interesting product. 3 downs instead of 4. Field is larger. Endzones are bigger. D has to stay 1 yard off the ball. Goal posts are at the front of the end zone. 12 players on the field. Backs and receivers have unlimited motion before the snap. No fair catch. The Rouge.
  14. You would definitely benefit from it.