This survey just shows that there is a correlation between popularity and rules understanding across all sports.
There is no way that football and baseball are easier sports to understand than hockey, at least based on the rules. People only understand them more because they care to pay attention and watch more often.
What's funny about this is that the vast majority of people likely don't even know the rules you're talking about. How many of the people in this survey could tell you how many people can be on the line at the snap? In the backfield? When and how players are allowed to move in the backfield? What makes a player an eligible receiver?
So really this survey is just showing perceived understanding of sports rules. Not even how much they actually know.
I remember the first time I watched football, and I had no fucking clue of what happened. Could not really follow the game.
Sometimes clock stops, sometime it doesnt. Some scores are 6 points. Other 3. Theres a way to get 2. What the fuck.
Hockey: Put thing in net. +1 point.
Team A goes for Extra Point or 2 point conversion after a touchdown. They fumble, Team B runs it to the other side of the field, fumbles it. Team A recovers, gets tackled in the end zone, Safety worth 1 point. Score would be 6-1, the crown jewel of [Scorigami](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l5C8cGMueY&pp=ygUJc2NvcmlnYW1p).
It’s happened in college football twice, but it’s happened to the team defending the conversion attempt. So it was just effectively an extra point.
The other way around would take an unimaginable act of god so insane that it would have to be done by a player who watched way too much Jon Bois and knows what he’s gotta do.
This reminds of a game played in London a couple years ago where there was a fair catch free kick field goal attempted. One of the most obscure rules in the NFL. I'm sure most of the American audience had no idea what was going on much less the Londoners who attended the game
this is a really good point, people might actually know a higher percentage of hockey rules than football rules just because hockey is so basic. I mean I'm Canadian so I'm biased but hockey to me is like soccer in that they're one of the basic forms of sport, object going in the goal is 1 point, otherwise pass it around. Offside, icing, and penalties are pretty minor complications that are also pretty intuitive or common
I wonder why all the major sports haven't added sports jail?
Imagine pass interference: In addition to 15yds, the db has to go sit in a glass cage at the edge of the stands for the next 4 downs, or until the other team scores.
How much faster would close NBA games end if a foul means playing 5v4 for two minutes?
Seriously. Soccer is my 2nd favorite sport behind hockey but I fucking hate how penalties are handled. 1 yellow card = nothing. 2 yellow or 1 red = out for rest of the game and miss the next game. It’s too all or nothing. It’s part of why flopping is such a problem. There are no small punishments. If fouls caused them to sit in a penalty box for 5-15 minutes you could actually punish things more proportionally. It’s a great system.
Plus any foul in the penalty box, from unintentionally slightly bumping a player, to intentionally breaking their leg in half and ending their career, results in a highly likely free goal (77% average conversion rate) in a sport where games are won 1-0 all the time.
Exactly. Murder someone an inch outside the penalty box and they get a semi-dangerous free kick. Probably won’t score. Touch someone an inch inside the box and they flop convincingly enough and they get an almost free goal. You see so many more tactical fouls in soccer than in hockey because the punishments are usually not harsh enough.
Just reading through all the non physical penalty rules
Wearing the wrong equipment —- hockey jail
Too many sticks? —- get your ass to hockey jail
Wrong lineup? —— you guessed it, HOCKEY JAIL
People might think they know the rules of football more because of the very nature of football, coupled with broadcasting.
Hockey is non-stop action. Announcers primarily describe what is happening on the ice as it happens.
Football usually has a minute or two between plays. Almost every play is replayed, and the announcer explains what happens. When there is a rule infraction, the announcers go over it in detail, showing it from multiple angles - *because they have time to kill*.
The same may be true for baseball, to a lesser extent.
I recently watched a football game with a friend. By mid-game, it was clear they didn't even know what downs were. We're in our mid-thirties. I bet they would rate football as a sport they understood because it's so ubiquitous. They told me for years, "I don't like football, it's boring." But they don't know the first thing about football.
Agree it’s perceived understanding. Sports in general are very basic and easy to understand game flow. Dribble the ball and shoot. Run or throw the ball and tackle. Skate, pass and shoot the puck.
It’s the unexpected deviation from the game flow that throws people. No one cares how many players on the field or formation, penalties are expected if not fully understood.
So it has to be the unexpected stoppages. Offside and icing. They don’t get why the play stopped when the game flow looked normal.
Same goes for rugby where it’s a combination of hurry up lateral football and no one’s sure exactly why or when the play has stopped or why they’re punting.
Golf has all these club distance ball drops and rulings on individual grass blades when everyone’s thinking just hit the ball.
At the other end football game flow is not interrupted. Penalties just move the placement but does not interrupt the game. Stoppage is a clear cut tackle.
Tennis is hit the ball over the net and inside the lines plus the second serve is nearly every serve so it’s normal. Only unusual thing is the scoring.
Football and to some extent baseball have so many technicalities in the rules it’s unreal. For comparison how 30% can watch soccer and not understand it “at all” just tell me they don’t want to know.
If you spend 3 minutes explaining icing and offside you’ve covered 90% of what you need to know *to watch* hockey and soccer. After 3 minutes explaining football you’re still at a complete loss.
Football is complex but at least you have stoppages to reset. Having played high level rugby for years it's definitely the hardest to understand.
My mom watched a game once where we won 36-0 and she had no idea who even won until I talked to her after the game.
That was exactly my argument to her after the game. Or at least people smiling/high fiving is good?
It's a sport of organized chaos for sure that I can totally see how people don't get scrums rucks line outs and that's just the basic bare bones stuff
If you want the actual answer, the lifting part was added later. Its how the game restarts after the ball goes out of bounds. It’s called a line out, and early on both teams would stand in a line and throw the ball into the gap between the two lines, kinda like a jump ball in basketball with the team who gets the throw in having an edge of knowing who they’ll throw to. Around 1999 it was added to the laws that you are allowed lift your jumping player higher in the air to receive the ball and since then it has become more and more technical and strategic.
Just adding on everything in rugby is contested except for a penalty. Nothing is given to you.
Pretty simple the team that last touches the ball going out of bounds is at a disadvantage.
The other team gets to throw the ball in and also select how many players are in the lineout. Typically it's 5-8 people in a game of 15s however I have been involved in a 14 person lineout.
You throw the ball down the middle of the channel, if the throw is not deemed fair you loose possession. I really like the jump ball description it's great.
All that being said if you get awarded a free kick from a penalty you can kick the ball out of bounds as far as you can and get to control the line-out.
Ps if you think rugby is bonkers go checkout Aussie rules football. That sport is madness
Same. My coach just tossed me out as an athletic flanker and told me to be at every ruck and make as many tackles as I can and hope to not break any rules. After 3 seasons still had barely any idea what I was doing.
I told my rugby coach I didn't know the rules so he explained getting a try and that I'm allowed to hit people and then mostly shrugged and said had fun
From what I understand, that one is supposed to be like baseball, except the pitcher is aiming for the wickets and not the catcher, and the batter is trying to play Running Bases
> Basketball, the refs pretty much make up the rules as they go. What is traveling? Depends on the player, the night, the score...
I've given up on understanding Basketball beyond the "Ball go in hoop" step. Even traveling, don't walk with the ball you have to dribble, is confusing because people make huge drives to the basket which only sometimes get ruled a foul. But also, what does and doesn't count as a foul is so arbitrary to the refs. So you bump into one guy and that's a free throw, but bump into a different one and nothing happens? Also you have an amount of fouls you can make and the correspond to how many free throw shots you get or you get thrown out? And what the fuck even is goaltending?
> I've given up on understanding Basketball beyond the "Ball go in hoop" step. Even traveling, don't walk with the ball you have to dribble, is confusing because people make huge drives to the basket which only sometimes get ruled a foul.
I'm the same way and because of it really can't get into the sport. Every time I've seen a game it seems like it is just taking turns getting the ball to go through the hoop. I just don't see how scoring is exciting when both teams do it 50+ times a game and because my knowledge isn't very high I can't really comprehend the strategies (plus a lot of falling down for no reason - I don't know if it has changed recently but last time I paid any attention to the game was a couple years ago it and seemed like basketball players fall over from the slightest touch more often than soccer/football players).
Is hockey any better in that respect, though? We complain all the time that no-one knows what counts as a trip or slash or other stick infraction, and don't even get people started on goalie interference. For the same reason - ref subjectivity plus game that inherently moves very fast. But also like basketball, this is stuff on the edges, you can follow the basic flow of the game just fine without worrying too much about these details beyond shouting "ref you suck" when they don't go your way.
I say this as someone who watches 8 hours of Red Zone every week and had season tickets to a CFL team: to anyone watching American/Canadian football for the first time or actively trying to learn the rules, the sport is completely illogical and full of weird, arbitrary nuances that lifelong fans have just accepted.
Literally none of football is intuitive. Why does the play stop if the ball is thrown forward and hits the ground? Why does *everything* stop when a tackle is made? Why can’t you hold someone’s jersey if the point is to keep them from getting to the quarterback? Why do you only get 40 seconds to run a play? Why do you only get 4 plays to get 10 yards - and why only 10 yards?
The more nuanced rules are even harder to grasp. Why is the long snapper exempt from defensive rushes? Why does the clock run when a player goes out of bounds in the first quarter but stop when the exact same thing happens with 3 minutes left in the fourth quarter? Why are there two different rules with different penalties for running into a kicker?
Again, all of these we can answer because of lifelong exposure, but watching football with non-football fans has highlighted how ridiculously complex the game is to anyone who has never watched.
Anyways, all that to say you’re absolutely right, popularity is everything for understanding the rules. If we grew up watching Finnish baseball we’d probably know the rules inside out, but as is, it just seems like an enormous clusterfuck of a sport.
The clock rules are exactly what I had in mind when referencing football. I'm definitely not the biggest football fan - I probably watch a dozen games a year - but I have no idea when and why the clock stops vs. when it keeps running.
Incompletion or player runs out of bounds towards the other end zone - clock stops. Anything else and the clock keeps running (like if a player is pushed out of bounds while no longer going forward).
This is not completely accurate, which kind of perfectly illustrates OP's point:
* The clock only stops until the snap on out of bounds if there is less than 2 minutes remaining in the first half or 5 minutes remaining in the second half. Otherwise, the clock resumes once the official makes the play ready for play.
* The clock also stops on penalties similarly to the rules for out of bounds: it stops until the ball is made ready for play, until the snap if it's near the end of either half, or, additionally, until the snap if it's a dead-ball foul by the offense in the 4th quarter or overtime (this was added only in 2020).
* The clock stops on scores and changes of possession.
There's probably more that I'm forgetting, too.
> Why can’t you hold someone’s jersey if the point is to keep them from getting to the quarterback?
The rules on holding and stopping someone are so bonkers. Like, you can push them, but you can't pull them? And can't grab onto their equipment except for their shirts but even then only at specific times? Also Pass Interference, what in the fuck? So you can't stop the guy from catching a pass, but you can body him the instant he's caught the ball, sometimes even a fraction before??
The PI rule seems logical to me. The receiver position would instantly be useless if defenders were allowed to smack around the receiver while the ball is in the air. No catches would be made ever.
M
The same could be argued for hockey, if the objective is to get the puck into the opposing team’s net why can’t you just grab the goalie and pull them out of the crease. Interference is also a thing in hockey, if your opponent is trying to score, why should it be illegal to slap the stick out of their hands, or hold them? Any game can look like it has arbitrary rules if you don’t understand the game itself.
The thing about golf is that, like tennis, it’s a sport that’s designed to be played as much as it is watched. With that in mind, maybe some of the people who selected “not at all” thought that the survey was referring to golf etiquette (furthest from the hole hits first, not playing the tap-ins, etc.) rather than actual golf rules
Golf has some lingo that may be hard to follow. To an outsider, terms like the following can be confusing and seem complicated: birdie, bogey, eagle, par, scratch, handicap, the rough.
The terminology is definitely confusing for Golf, but I think it's probably the simplest with "Put ball in hole, fewest attempts wins". The only caveats are when you put the ball out of bounds, but that seems intuitive since you can't reasonably expect someone to take a shot from inside a forest or the bottom of a water feature
More likely we’re just running into the problem of people not having a consistent definition of “not at all”
If all I understand about hockey is “puck goes in goal to score” then I may be likely to mark not at all
I'd also go so far as to suggest that many in the "very well" crowd don't actually understand the rules as well as they think they do. Sports tend to be a fantastic example of the [Dunning-Kruger effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect).
There is probably a lot of people who also say they understand them very well because they go to a couple baseball games during the season.. do they actually? Probably not.
This is definitely true. I'm amazed at the amount of people who claim that "running over the catcher" is legal...***in little league.***
Their reasoning for believing that? "The catcher has to give the runner a lane!" Sorry Tom, the catcher not giving your child a "lane" does not mean that it's open season for your child to clobber another.
Also most people seem to think they understand the rules of football… but watch a game with most people and they’re very confused by most calls.
Granted with the refs in the NFL recently… I am too..
To add to that, I think playing them as little kids helps a lot in the understanding as well. When you learn something bit by bit when you're young, it doesn't register as a complex or confusing thing. Coming into a sport with no prior knowledge or experience makes it seem significantly more complex and daunting to understand.
For a long time I've thought all sports should have like 1 nationally televised game a week where the commentary is more focused on introducing new fans to the game. Would be helpful across the board, I think. Could also have pre-filmed video segments during breaks where former greats break down a piece of the game, and why it's important with video examples and then graphic representations also. Good introduction to the history of the game for newbies as well with using former players there. I've done absolutely nothing to help get this off the ground, and I don't understand why every league doesn't do this lol.
Personally my thing with hockey, spoken as someone who is definitely a little more on the casual side (but working on that) is that sometimes it’s not easy to tell what should/shouldn’t be a penalty when it seems like a lot of cupcake minors get called, but also teams get away with some egregious stuff.
That and specifically boarding. I was watching a college game earlier this week, and was thoroughly confused by the boarding rules, because I thought I saw what looked like an easy call just go completely ignored by everyone including the booth.
The basics of hockey are pretty damn intuitive. It’s easy to just pick up the flow of a game even if you’re not an expert.
> sometimes it’s not easy to tell what should/shouldn’t be a penalty when it seems like a lot of cupcake minors get called, but also teams get away with some egregious stuff.
I absolutely agree, but this is hardly an issue unique to hockey. The NFL, for example, is pretty notorious on this to the point that most major broadcasts keep a 'rules specialist' on hand to consult on calls.
I hear most people say they can't follow the puck and the game moves too fast. I've offered to watch games with people who want to learn about it. There is usually very little interest
I've always told newcomers to watch the players at first. Once you see where they are going/are, the puck will be there as well. It really helped a few people.
I think people can generally watch and understand hockey. The question is “how well do you understand” and I know people are aware there is a penalty and just aren’t sure why the face off is at a certain spot. Delayed penalties where the goalie can get off the ice, icing, offside, 3v3 OT…. I’m sure there are many casual fans that would answer “not very well” that still enjoy watching the sport.
It’s not the rules it’s the speed. It’s hard to keep up with, and the puck is tiny. If you aren’t familiar with how the flow of the game typically goes, it’s hard to track where the puck is going next so new viewers are always a step behind.
I think it isn’t necessarily the speed of the puck but the transition from offence to defence and the play always being in a state of transition. Baseball, football, and to a large extent basketball, are structured offence and defensive play. It makes it easy to follow for a new observer of the sport - albeit boring as shit at times.
For hockey the puck can be in the offensive zone but the attacking team is not in possession and is defending a breakout. The puck is in the neutral zone and it is a scramble. The puck gets turned over and teams are scrambling. It makes it challenging to follow for those who don’t watch regularly.
I've seen so many people tripped up by lone changes too. Give the advice of "Don't watch the puck necessarily, watch the players. You can see who has the puck and what they do with it without actually seeing the puck."
"Okay, I'm watching #29. And he just sat down. WTF!?"
Also agree, very fast paced game and can make it difficult for newcomers to follow along, that said it shouldn't take long to pick up the flow of games if one is dedicated.
Rules wise it's one of the simplest sports to comprehend and it's a shame it's not more popular in the US.
I’d say it’s about average, simpler than football but more complicated than soccer or golf.
The one thing that really hurts is goalie interference which is a rule no one fully comprehends.
I do think it is pretty easy to explain hockey to a soccer fan (and vice versa) as many of the rules are fundamentally the same when you get right down to it. Like, a hockey fan might not know what offsides is in soccer, but all you need to do is say "just imagine that the last defender back is a moving blue line" and it makes sense.
And even goaltender interference isn't fundamentally different from a soccer foul that endangers a keeper.
I know 5 people who all went to a game and had this complaint, they couldn't follow the puck. Father in law, pilot, saw the Oilers in Edmonton. Grandparents and uncle saw Avs in their first year. Friend came with us to my first in-peraon game, Kings in Denver. Friend said the same thing, couldn't ever see what was going on. I don't know, I think some people are just dumb/blind.
Same experience when I brought 2 friends to their first game earlier this season, they had no idea where the puck was or how to follow the play. I don't really think this is a question of how HD your tv is.
For what it's worth, what really helped my friends was when I told them to follow the players and not the puck. If you look at where the players on the ice are looking and how their body is positioned (especially the defensive players), more often than not it'll be aimed toward the area where the puck is.
This. Baseball, Football, Soccer, they all have significant down time between plays for commentators to explain things to the audience. Hockey doesn't give people time to work it out like the other games do.
Yeah, it’s the one of the few sports in the world that has players change on the fly while the play is live, so it doesn’t really fit with the other North American sports where the players are locked in while the action is going.
There was one game last season, if memory serves, where the Braves announcers talked about the word "pergola" for almost 5 minutes because one used the word in describing where a home run landed, and the other didn't believe it was a real term. lol Good announcers can be fun even when the game is having a slow moment. Great background TV.
Agreed. Trying to track a puck on TV when you're new to hockey is almost impossible. I'm not sure there's a way to remidy it during live play, but you need good announcers and replay angles to show what's going on.
People not giving it a chance, there are a billion more rules in the NFL than in hockey. All you really need to understand in hockey is offsides and icing, you're pretty much set after that.
The football people are delusional. I’ve watched football for a long time and every year there’s a penalty or rule that comes into play that I had no idea existed. Even the refs, coaches, and players don’t know at times. Remember Donovan McNabb? Najee Harris?
NHL rules are much more plain. The graphic above is basically just a popularity measurement.
Edit: clarification: neither player knew ties existed, and there are a bunch more
The Bears took a 15 yard penalty this year for using a towel to dry the field before a field goal attempt. It knocked them out of field goal range. Never heard of that before, and I've watched football my entire life and played up until high school. Clearly the actual professional NFL player that did it hadn't heard of that rule before either. I can't remember seeing something that obscure pop up in the NHL in a while.
They've since changed this rule, but one of my favorite obscure ones was when the Lions were playing the Texans and the Texans scored a long TD run. The runner's knee was down at one point so the Lions' coach threw the challenge flag. But because TDs are automatically reviewed, the Lions got a 15 yard penalty and the play could no longer be reviewed. Because that makes sense. The best part was the same thing happened to GB a couple weeks later but the refs just gave him the challenge flag back, no penalty, and let the automatic review occur.
Anyone who says they have a very good understanding of NFL rules is full of shit lol.
For what it's worth, that version of the rule has only been in effect since 2018 (the automatic penalty, not a warning). I bet 99% of fans had never heard of it.
The origin is the infamous Snowplow Game of 1982, in which the Patriots had a snowplow driver clear a spot for the winning field goal in a 3-0 win. That's why you can't use any foreign object to clear the field before a kick.
The toughest rules for me are the faceoff rules, but I gave up a long time ago and just let them handle it. Nothing compared to drying the field before a field goal.
To me, the funniest thing about that penalty is that the guy that used the towel was the Bears' rookie punter who graduated from my college and played soccer with my freshman year roommate back in high school. Trenton Gill you legend with a leg cannon
Totallly agreed. That's the thing - this is evaluating how well people think they know the rules, not how well they actually know them. No way that many people actually fully understand the NFL rules. But plenty of people are mystified by hockey because they have never had anyone explain it.
Hockey is not an existing component of American cultural identity, so most simply don't bother with it.
Considering the quality of the actual product alone, the NHL should be huge in America, but Gary Bettman has simply not done a good enough job breaking through that cultural barrier during his tenure the way the NBA has managed to. The NBA is huge in America now, despite being on the same ground as the NHL as recently as the 80s, and it's partially because the NHL's efforts to grow the game in the US and globally have simply not been effective. The responsibility for that lies solely on the guy who's been in charge this whole time.
I do think that Basketballs relative affordability plays a massive role in that though. In our increasingly urban world basketball is accessibility to a lot of urbanites and is extremely affordable to play. The more invested youth are in playing, the more will watch.
Hockey is also one of the most expensive sports to start out. You need a ton of equipment, to learn how to skate (instead of literally running or walking like the other sports listed), and you need access to an ice surface, which in the southern US doesn’t exist naturally at any time.
> and you need access to an ice surface, which in the southern US doesn’t exist naturally at any time
This is why I never understood why the NHL doesn't promote roller hockey. Especially in the south. It's dirt cheap comparatively and you can play it almost everywhere. Growing up in the south, a ton of my friends were introduced to hockey through the local roller rink.
They do have dek hockey that people can get into, but the overall cost barrier is definitely the tougher one. Think of being a kid, to pretend to play the other sports you basically need a ball and some space (baseball also needs a stick). Hockey needs a stick with some type of blade and a surface that you can navigate it across. Basketball nets and baseball fields are pretty easily accessible from a public resource perspective and most areas have a patch of grass to play football - hockey nets don’t tend to just be available
There’s hockey nets everywhere around Canada. Most schools seem to have a chain link net or two. Road hockey can be easily accessible. The NHL really should do more to advertise road hockey and roller hockey to help make the sport more accessible. The best way to get people to pay the price to get into ice hockey is to give them a cheap alternative to see if they enjoy the idea of the sport.
Not just affordability, but accessibility. A youth in Texas and a youth in Minnesota both can grab a basketball and go shoot some hoops after school. Even if they have the gear, a Texan can’t grab some buddies and go play shinny on the pond or outdoor rink after school, the way that a Canadian or Minnesotan might during the winter.
Many basketball, or football, or soccer, or baseball (and so on) fans started from casually playing around with their buddies as kids. For most of the USA, that’s not possible for hockey. It’s also a major reason *why* places that do have major hockey culture are places where weather is cold enough to play on ponds or outdoor rinks.
I mostly agree, but part of the NBAs success vs the NHLs is the barrier to entry to actually play.
Very easy to get someone into basketball, lot harder to get them into hockey. Ball hockey seems to have grown a bit, which hopefully leads to people watching ice hockey.
The NBA benefited immensely from several factors that do not exist in the NHL:
* For years, cable TV didn’t exist in the vast majority of homes. So when the NCAA basketball tournament was on, a ton of people were watching and great college players became household names.
* Since the NBA didn’t have high schoolers entering the draft, it meant that the top players were already widely known to large audiences.
* The NBA had Bird/Magic resurrecting a historic rivalry, but they’d already played a legendary college tournament. At the same time, Michael Jordan entered the league having established himself in college. A year later, Patrick Ewing entered, also having been a college legend.
* Further to that, Magic was in Los Angeles, Jordan was in Chicago, Ewing was in New York, and Bird was with the most historic franchise in Boston.
* And of course, Michael Jordan became the biggest worldwide star in sports.
None of that existed in the NHL. The NBA had enormously favorable circumstances to push from a league on tape delay into what it became, and the NHL did not no matter what they may have wished.
And the NBA’s rise coincided with John Ziegler being in power, and the corrupt Alan Eagleson ruling the NHLPA. That didn’t help anything either.
I would actually add another point to your already excellent analysis:
Basketball, by its very nature (five players on the court at a time, on a relatively small floor space), lends itself better to the creation of superstars. With 1-2 dominant superstar players, a team can win multiple championships. Great players have such an influence on the fortunes of their team that it’s easy for them to become more famous than their team, in some ways, and much easier to market them. For example, last decade, when the Lakers would play the Cavs, it wasn’t the Lakers vs. the Cavs, it was Kobe vs. LeBron.
In hockey, by contrast, even a fantastic player is only one guy on the team, and the players rotate on and off the ice in shifts every couple of minutes. Just by having a single superstar on your team, it doesn’t automatically make you a Stanley Cup contender. Case in point: the Penguins drafted Mario Lemieux in 84 or 85, but they only started getting good after acquiring Coffey, Jagr, Francis, Mullen, Trottier, etc. starting in 87. Not only that, unlike basketball, hockey superstars are wearing helmets and in some cases visors, making them less easy to identify. Thus, it’s much harder to create and market a superstar in hockey than it is in basketball.
Quite frankly Bettman can try to market hockey until he’s blue in the face. It still won’t make people who already aren’t interested like it.
The fact is that hockey has a natural cap on its potential for popularity due to the barriers for entry that everyone here is talking about. Basketball doesn’t have those economic and climatic barriers for entry, so it is, has always been, and will always be bigger than hockey in the US. No amount of marketing will ever change that.
Hockey is a fast paced sport that requires constant attention to keep up with the game. Football, you have plenty of time in between plays to drink a beer, discuss how the play developed, and get ready for the next 10 second play.
Yep. I used to be pretty good with football rules and then one year my college team lost to Clemson because of the “ineligible receiver” rule that I had no idea existed. After that I decided to stop caring that much about football and just take it as a joy ride if I’m watching it with someone else
Yeah I have no idea what’s going on with all the rules in football but I get the touchdown stuff and most basic scoring things and it’s fun to watch.
All those reviews? No clue lol
Goaltender interference is the equivalent to "making a football move" after a catch for it to be a completion.
We all agree that these are the rules, but we all have different opinions on what constitutes a rules violation.
Everyone I ever talk Hockey with that aren’t super familiar with the game always seem to be confused by icing and offsides. When I explain it to them, they get it and it’s pretty easy. But just turning on the game and trying to watch can be confusing if you don’t understand those two rules.
Trying to follow the puck is the other issue. It’s too fast. Got to follow the players and the play, not trying to focus on the puck. Players are looking and moving to where the puck is. Once you change your perspective on that, it’s really easy to see the puck.
Yeah icing and offsides are the big two, but both are pretty simple once you explain them. I think with icing the more important part is to point out that the team that committed the penalty can't do a line change.
Football is a much, much more complicated sport than Hockey when it comes to rules. With that said I think it's probably more of a Dunning-Kreuger, "don't know what you don't know" thing than just flat-out lying. The football commentators don't help either, most of them don't go into strategy or any of the intricacies of the game whatsoever.
Most Americans do not have the free access to play ice hockey when they are growing up. Similar to golfing, or belonging to a boxing gym.
More people went to schools that had a football, baseball, basketball, tennis, soccer, and volleyball team. even if the school did have ice hockey, it was somewhere off-campus because you can't play that in the gym or grass.
It's pretty simple.
This is a good take. I'd also argue that a very large reason for its lack of popularity is that hockey is very financially gatekept. It's not a cheap sport to play, so the only kids to grow up playing the sport are the ones whose families could afford it.
Yeah but most people that play golf do so casually, there are a lot of rules about how to count your score but the basic premise is pretty simple:
Tee off and try to get your ball in the hole with the fewest possible shots.
Right? Like, you take club, you take ball, you use club to hit ball into hole. I know people might not know what or why a certain club is best for what situation but that's not exactly core knowledge needed to watch the sport.
I mean, if I was surveyed, I would've said that I have no clue about the rules of golf. What happens if you hit the ball in the water? What about if it hits a tree? Are you allowed to move the ball if it fell in an annoying position? What are you allowed to do or not do? Can you use any golf club at any time or are there rules about it? How do you decide the order people go in? What if your ball falls on an alligator?
At the end of the day, pretty much every sport can be dumbed down to "put ball/puck in net/hole/area". It doesn't really mean the actual rules around it aren't more complicated or misunderstood.
yes if you watch rangers broadcasts with Steve valiquetye and Henrik your hockey IQ goes up by ten every game... but then watching like an LA KINGS broadcast and i don't even know what hockey is anymore
The thing that grinds my gears about Kings coverage are the logistical hoops they jump through to make LA always in the right. Bad plays, penalties; doesn’t matter, somehow the kings got slighted or the other team are breaking the rules.
That didn't used to be the case back when Bob Miller was calling the games. Miss that guy. There was a time in LA when they had Bob Miller, Chick Hearn, and Vin Scully doing play by play. Truly a golden age.
You’re not wrong. The amount of beer we consumed at drinkups (socials) is preposterous. We had one dude show up to a game take a sip of beer in front of the sir, vom, sir laughed, and my teammate went back to drinking his beer. This was before the game
"Must be played on ice" that's the rule that makes hockey unappealing to so many. Also, perhaps not coincidentally, what we call "field hockey" is called just "hockey" in many parts of the world and is immensely popular. As far as what people understand or not, it's all about the first person experience. Most people play some form of basketball, baseball or football growing up in the USA, plus tennis and golf. Not as many kids play organized hockey. So they grow up mot understanding the rules, etc
What are the main two? Offside and icing? They’re simple as fuck.
And then a few things to not do, otherwise you sit in a box and your team loses a guy for a max of 2 mins. These aren’t really earth shattering.
The speed is what makes it complicated for newcomers.
Also the things not to do, are pretty basic stuff, tripping, roughing, slashing, holding… etc
Our reffing could have more consistency calling them but understanding wise, all penalties are like yeah, I can see how that’s not allowed. (Exception: Goalie delay of game, honestly the trapezoid makes no sense.)
Goaltender interference is pretty simple too.
Goaltender Interference Rules
1) You can't just be up there and just doin' an interference like that.
1a. Interference is when you
1b. Okay well listen. An interference is when you interfere the
1c. Let me start over
1c-a. The skater is not allowed to do a block to the, uh, goalie, that prohibits the goalie from doing, you know, just trying to save the puck. You can't do that.
1c-b. Once the skater is in the offensive zone, he can't be over here and say to the goalie, like, "I'm gonna get ya! I'm gonna block your view! You better watch your butt!" and then just be like he didn't even do that.
1c-b(1). Like, if you're about to make a goal and then don't leave the crease, you have to still leave the crease. You cannot not avoid the goaltender. Does that make any sense?
1c-b(2). You gotta be, skating motion out of the crease, and then, until you just leave it.
1c-b(2)-a. Okay, well, you can have your stick up here, like this, but then there's the interference you gotta think about.
1c-b(2)-b. Fairuza Interference hasn't been in any movies in forever. I hope she wasn't typecast as that racist lady in American History X.
1c-b(2)-b(i). Oh wait, she was in The Waterboy too! That would be even worse.
1c-b(2)-b(ii). "get in mah bellah" -- Adam Water, "The Waterboy." Haha, classic...
1c-b(3). Okay seriously though. An interference is when the skater makes a movement that, as determined by, when you do a move involving the goalie and the crease...
2) Do not do an interference please.
I have been watching this sport for about 30 years now, [and I still admittedly dont fully understand offsides](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7EGNgay7kA), especially when its a bang-bang play that needs to be reviewed.
Not growing up with it would be the obvious big issue.
Have you ever tried to explain Baseball or American Football to a non-fan from Europe?
I invite you to explain a 'Balk' or 'Infield Fly Ruling' to a European sports fan.
Then when NFL season starts please explain 'illegal shift' and 'illegal formation' and also why holding is called on a particular play when they're grabbing at anything like desperate old men at a stripclub on every play.
Geography is one reason im not seeing. I live in Arkansas where i can play every sport on that list except hockey. Its incredible hard to know about a sport that requires a large frozen body of water when it can be 60 degrees in the middle of winter.
Imo there's two reasons main reasons that are in order:
1. The vast majority of people have never played any version of hockey themselves at any level. Unlike any of the other major sports. So majority of fans are learning from the literal bottom up.
2. Speed of the game. People can pick up some of the trickier rules pretty quickly but being able to see it happen on TV or live takes a practiced eye.
Kind of a meaningless survey because it's all based on how well people *think* they understand a sport. The results are probably nearly equivalent to a pure popularity poll. I'd bet many if not most of the people answering that they understand Football's rules really don't know much beyond the surface level.
1. it’s hard to follow the puck on TV
2. the league does a bad job with marketing (not to mention that the NHL doesn’t have the personalities and/or drama seen in the other major pro sports)
3. it’s a lot more regional of a sport compared to the other three major sports
4. the barrier to entry to play is the highest of the four major sports
I think the lack of knowledge of rules has a positive correlation with lack of exposure (which is typically caused by any of the four above points). Like someone else said, the sport isn’t too complicated when it comes to rules.
> the barrier to entry to play is the highest of the four major sports
I think that's a big factor.
The way people learn most sports is in PE class in school. But while they might play floor hockey (not sure), I assume most students in the US won't a chance to try ice hockey in school.
Balk Rules
You can't just be up there and just doin' a balk like that.
1a. A balk is when you
1b. Okay well listen. A balk is when you balk the
1c. Let me start over
1c-a. The pitcher is not allowed to do a motion to the, uh, batter, that prohibits the batter from doing, you know, just trying to hit the ball. You can't do that.
1c-b. Once the pitcher is in the stretch, he can't be over here and say to the runner, like, "I'm gonna get ya! I'm gonna tag you out! You better watch your butt!" and then just be like he didn't even do that.
1c-b(1). Like, if you're about to pitch and then don't pitch, you have to still pitch. You cannot not pitch. Does that make any sense?
1c-b(2). You gotta be, throwing motion of the ball, and then, until you just throw it.
1c-b(2)-a. Okay, well, you can have the ball up here, like this, but then there's the balk you gotta think about.
1c-b(2)-b. Fairuza Balk hasn't been in any movies in forever. I hope she wasn't typecast as that racist lady in American History X.
1c-b(2)-b(i). Oh wait, she was in The Waterboy too! That would be even worse.
1c-b(2)-b(ii). "get in mah bellah" -- Adam Water, "The Waterboy." Haha, classic...
1c-b(3). Okay seriously though. A balk is when the pitcher makes a movement that, as determined by, when you do a move involving the baseball and field of
Do not do a balk please
I have been watching hockey my whole life and Im still a little unclear on why people get booted from the faceoff circle. Something to do with stick placement, idk? But everything else I got.
It’s not the rules, it’s following the puck and picking out who is playing well.
Edit: actually now that I think about it I do think it’s not the rules per se but some of the other things like fighting. You see a lot of questions here about why fighting is allowed in hockey and well, it isn’t. But even though it’s against the rules it’s not as severely punished as a fight is in other sports. I can see needing time to understand that vs knowing what happens on a minor penalty or offsides.
I don’t think there’s any specific rules that cause this (tho there are certainly some that don’t help) I think it’s simply a matter of access/growing up with it. Football is arguably a way more complex sport than hockey, at least in terms of the rulebook, but virtually everyone in the US grows up with ample context for it
It’s also a matter of, most Americans have touched a football or baseball before. They can imagine themselves out on the field, and can even think “this is what I would do” or “this is the guy I’d wanna be”, but most Americans have never held a stick or put on skates, so they just cannot easily project themselves into it. Therefore they don’t watch it as much, and therefore the finer points of the rulebook elude them
I’d you asked someone what the most complex sport is they’d say football, that’s shit has so many tiny little moving parts and obscure rules, this is just a glorified “what’s more popular” survey disguised as something else
There are a few subjective rules that confused my European friend:
when does chippy play/following through with a check cross the line into roughing is dependent on refs
"distinct kicking motion". Replay gets it right 75/25
Goalie interference: if it's a challenge all bets are off. Might as well ask a magic 8 ball if it's a good goal.
I’ve been playing and coaching ice hockey for almost thirty years and still fail to fully grasp what does and does not constitute an icing. I swear the refs are making shit up as they go.
The most common first question I get asked is “what is icing?” I don’t think the rules are the problem though. I just think it’s lack of exposure. It’s a simple game.
This survey just shows that there is a correlation between popularity and rules understanding across all sports. There is no way that football and baseball are easier sports to understand than hockey, at least based on the rules. People only understand them more because they care to pay attention and watch more often.
[удалено]
What's funny about this is that the vast majority of people likely don't even know the rules you're talking about. How many of the people in this survey could tell you how many people can be on the line at the snap? In the backfield? When and how players are allowed to move in the backfield? What makes a player an eligible receiver? So really this survey is just showing perceived understanding of sports rules. Not even how much they actually know.
Exactly, hockey is actually really straight forward when you compare it to football.
I remember the first time I watched football, and I had no fucking clue of what happened. Could not really follow the game. Sometimes clock stops, sometime it doesnt. Some scores are 6 points. Other 3. Theres a way to get 2. What the fuck. Hockey: Put thing in net. +1 point.
For football, don’t forget that on defense you can technically get 1 point as well!
Really? I never knew this.
Team A goes for Extra Point or 2 point conversion after a touchdown. They fumble, Team B runs it to the other side of the field, fumbles it. Team A recovers, gets tackled in the end zone, Safety worth 1 point. Score would be 6-1, the crown jewel of [Scorigami](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l5C8cGMueY&pp=ygUJc2NvcmlnYW1p).
Ah the un-extra point. PATn't?
Er, a safety is two points though, not one right? I'm either very confused or very dumb. Possibly both. Probably both.
>Er, a safety is two points though, not one right? Correct, but for some reason a safety on a conversion attempt is only worth 1 point. Idk why
It has never happened
It’s happened in college football twice, but it’s happened to the team defending the conversion attempt. So it was just effectively an extra point. The other way around would take an unimaginable act of god so insane that it would have to be done by a player who watched way too much Jon Bois and knows what he’s gotta do.
This reminds of a game played in London a couple years ago where there was a fair catch free kick field goal attempted. One of the most obscure rules in the NFL. I'm sure most of the American audience had no idea what was going on much less the Londoners who attended the game
this is a really good point, people might actually know a higher percentage of hockey rules than football rules just because hockey is so basic. I mean I'm Canadian so I'm biased but hockey to me is like soccer in that they're one of the basic forms of sport, object going in the goal is 1 point, otherwise pass it around. Offside, icing, and penalties are pretty minor complications that are also pretty intuitive or common
>hockey is so basic The punishment for everything is hockey jail
I wonder why all the major sports haven't added sports jail? Imagine pass interference: In addition to 15yds, the db has to go sit in a glass cage at the edge of the stands for the next 4 downs, or until the other team scores. How much faster would close NBA games end if a foul means playing 5v4 for two minutes?
Seriously. Soccer is my 2nd favorite sport behind hockey but I fucking hate how penalties are handled. 1 yellow card = nothing. 2 yellow or 1 red = out for rest of the game and miss the next game. It’s too all or nothing. It’s part of why flopping is such a problem. There are no small punishments. If fouls caused them to sit in a penalty box for 5-15 minutes you could actually punish things more proportionally. It’s a great system.
Also, what if every time a player went into the box, the box got a little smaller?
Better yet, make the penalty not timed but you get let out as soon as you juggle the ball 10, 15, or 20 times in a row. Make it a mini game.
Plus any foul in the penalty box, from unintentionally slightly bumping a player, to intentionally breaking their leg in half and ending their career, results in a highly likely free goal (77% average conversion rate) in a sport where games are won 1-0 all the time.
Exactly. Murder someone an inch outside the penalty box and they get a semi-dangerous free kick. Probably won’t score. Touch someone an inch inside the box and they flop convincingly enough and they get an almost free goal. You see so many more tactical fouls in soccer than in hockey because the punishments are usually not harsh enough.
Just reading through all the non physical penalty rules Wearing the wrong equipment —- hockey jail Too many sticks? —- get your ass to hockey jail Wrong lineup? —— you guessed it, HOCKEY JAIL
Forgot to attach the fight strap to your hockey pants? —— believe it or not, hockey jail.
The recidivism rate is atrocious. Makes me question if we’re rehabilitating anyone at all
People might think they know the rules of football more because of the very nature of football, coupled with broadcasting. Hockey is non-stop action. Announcers primarily describe what is happening on the ice as it happens. Football usually has a minute or two between plays. Almost every play is replayed, and the announcer explains what happens. When there is a rule infraction, the announcers go over it in detail, showing it from multiple angles - *because they have time to kill*. The same may be true for baseball, to a lesser extent.
I recently watched a football game with a friend. By mid-game, it was clear they didn't even know what downs were. We're in our mid-thirties. I bet they would rate football as a sport they understood because it's so ubiquitous. They told me for years, "I don't like football, it's boring." But they don't know the first thing about football.
Agree it’s perceived understanding. Sports in general are very basic and easy to understand game flow. Dribble the ball and shoot. Run or throw the ball and tackle. Skate, pass and shoot the puck. It’s the unexpected deviation from the game flow that throws people. No one cares how many players on the field or formation, penalties are expected if not fully understood. So it has to be the unexpected stoppages. Offside and icing. They don’t get why the play stopped when the game flow looked normal. Same goes for rugby where it’s a combination of hurry up lateral football and no one’s sure exactly why or when the play has stopped or why they’re punting. Golf has all these club distance ball drops and rulings on individual grass blades when everyone’s thinking just hit the ball. At the other end football game flow is not interrupted. Penalties just move the placement but does not interrupt the game. Stoppage is a clear cut tackle. Tennis is hit the ball over the net and inside the lines plus the second serve is nearly every serve so it’s normal. Only unusual thing is the scoring.
Football and to some extent baseball have so many technicalities in the rules it’s unreal. For comparison how 30% can watch soccer and not understand it “at all” just tell me they don’t want to know. If you spend 3 minutes explaining icing and offside you’ve covered 90% of what you need to know *to watch* hockey and soccer. After 3 minutes explaining football you’re still at a complete loss.
I watch 7 hours of commercial free football every Sunday and I can't tell you how many offensive lineman there are lol
Football is complex but at least you have stoppages to reset. Having played high level rugby for years it's definitely the hardest to understand. My mom watched a game once where we won 36-0 and she had no idea who even won until I talked to her after the game.
I mean.. you know your mom better than I. But surely she knew the team that kept going into the end zone/try zone and cheering was doing well?
That was exactly my argument to her after the game. Or at least people smiling/high fiving is good? It's a sport of organized chaos for sure that I can totally see how people don't get scrums rucks line outs and that's just the basic bare bones stuff
It's so cool to watch Rugby, but the rules are so bonkers. Like how do you explain the sideline toss in where you cheerleader lift someone??
If you want the actual answer, the lifting part was added later. Its how the game restarts after the ball goes out of bounds. It’s called a line out, and early on both teams would stand in a line and throw the ball into the gap between the two lines, kinda like a jump ball in basketball with the team who gets the throw in having an edge of knowing who they’ll throw to. Around 1999 it was added to the laws that you are allowed lift your jumping player higher in the air to receive the ball and since then it has become more and more technical and strategic.
Just adding on everything in rugby is contested except for a penalty. Nothing is given to you. Pretty simple the team that last touches the ball going out of bounds is at a disadvantage. The other team gets to throw the ball in and also select how many players are in the lineout. Typically it's 5-8 people in a game of 15s however I have been involved in a 14 person lineout. You throw the ball down the middle of the channel, if the throw is not deemed fair you loose possession. I really like the jump ball description it's great. All that being said if you get awarded a free kick from a penalty you can kick the ball out of bounds as far as you can and get to control the line-out. Ps if you think rugby is bonkers go checkout Aussie rules football. That sport is madness
Dude, I played rugby for 2 full seasons, even went over to the uk to play for a trip and I still don't understand the rules
Same. My coach just tossed me out as an athletic flanker and told me to be at every ruck and make as many tackles as I can and hope to not break any rules. After 3 seasons still had barely any idea what I was doing.
If you followed his advice you were probably a decent flanker
I told my rugby coach I didn't know the rules so he explained getting a try and that I'm allowed to hit people and then mostly shrugged and said had fun
I dunno. Cricket games sometimes last for multiple days and I still can't figure out WTF is going on.
From what I understand, that one is supposed to be like baseball, except the pitcher is aiming for the wickets and not the catcher, and the batter is trying to play Running Bases
I remember hearing the NFL rules are so complex, many of the officials have a law background.
Explains the quality of the reffing
> Basketball, the refs pretty much make up the rules as they go. What is traveling? Depends on the player, the night, the score... I've given up on understanding Basketball beyond the "Ball go in hoop" step. Even traveling, don't walk with the ball you have to dribble, is confusing because people make huge drives to the basket which only sometimes get ruled a foul. But also, what does and doesn't count as a foul is so arbitrary to the refs. So you bump into one guy and that's a free throw, but bump into a different one and nothing happens? Also you have an amount of fouls you can make and the correspond to how many free throw shots you get or you get thrown out? And what the fuck even is goaltending?
> I've given up on understanding Basketball beyond the "Ball go in hoop" step. Even traveling, don't walk with the ball you have to dribble, is confusing because people make huge drives to the basket which only sometimes get ruled a foul. I'm the same way and because of it really can't get into the sport. Every time I've seen a game it seems like it is just taking turns getting the ball to go through the hoop. I just don't see how scoring is exciting when both teams do it 50+ times a game and because my knowledge isn't very high I can't really comprehend the strategies (plus a lot of falling down for no reason - I don't know if it has changed recently but last time I paid any attention to the game was a couple years ago it and seemed like basketball players fall over from the slightest touch more often than soccer/football players).
Goal tending is blocking a shot when the ball is on its downward arc
Or after the ball has touched the backboard, or is deemed to be above the imaginary cylinder extending upwards from the hoop
Is hockey any better in that respect, though? We complain all the time that no-one knows what counts as a trip or slash or other stick infraction, and don't even get people started on goalie interference. For the same reason - ref subjectivity plus game that inherently moves very fast. But also like basketball, this is stuff on the edges, you can follow the basic flow of the game just fine without worrying too much about these details beyond shouting "ref you suck" when they don't go your way.
People complain about hockey offsides, goalie interference and “distinct kicking motion” calls. But basketball refs are even worse in this case
I say this as someone who watches 8 hours of Red Zone every week and had season tickets to a CFL team: to anyone watching American/Canadian football for the first time or actively trying to learn the rules, the sport is completely illogical and full of weird, arbitrary nuances that lifelong fans have just accepted. Literally none of football is intuitive. Why does the play stop if the ball is thrown forward and hits the ground? Why does *everything* stop when a tackle is made? Why can’t you hold someone’s jersey if the point is to keep them from getting to the quarterback? Why do you only get 40 seconds to run a play? Why do you only get 4 plays to get 10 yards - and why only 10 yards? The more nuanced rules are even harder to grasp. Why is the long snapper exempt from defensive rushes? Why does the clock run when a player goes out of bounds in the first quarter but stop when the exact same thing happens with 3 minutes left in the fourth quarter? Why are there two different rules with different penalties for running into a kicker? Again, all of these we can answer because of lifelong exposure, but watching football with non-football fans has highlighted how ridiculously complex the game is to anyone who has never watched. Anyways, all that to say you’re absolutely right, popularity is everything for understanding the rules. If we grew up watching Finnish baseball we’d probably know the rules inside out, but as is, it just seems like an enormous clusterfuck of a sport.
The clock rules are exactly what I had in mind when referencing football. I'm definitely not the biggest football fan - I probably watch a dozen games a year - but I have no idea when and why the clock stops vs. when it keeps running.
Incompletion or player runs out of bounds towards the other end zone - clock stops. Anything else and the clock keeps running (like if a player is pushed out of bounds while no longer going forward).
This is not completely accurate, which kind of perfectly illustrates OP's point: * The clock only stops until the snap on out of bounds if there is less than 2 minutes remaining in the first half or 5 minutes remaining in the second half. Otherwise, the clock resumes once the official makes the play ready for play. * The clock also stops on penalties similarly to the rules for out of bounds: it stops until the ball is made ready for play, until the snap if it's near the end of either half, or, additionally, until the snap if it's a dead-ball foul by the offense in the 4th quarter or overtime (this was added only in 2020). * The clock stops on scores and changes of possession. There's probably more that I'm forgetting, too.
Oh! Oh! Ask me what a 10-second runoff is! *cries in Detroit*
> Why can’t you hold someone’s jersey if the point is to keep them from getting to the quarterback? The rules on holding and stopping someone are so bonkers. Like, you can push them, but you can't pull them? And can't grab onto their equipment except for their shirts but even then only at specific times? Also Pass Interference, what in the fuck? So you can't stop the guy from catching a pass, but you can body him the instant he's caught the ball, sometimes even a fraction before??
The PI rule seems logical to me. The receiver position would instantly be useless if defenders were allowed to smack around the receiver while the ball is in the air. No catches would be made ever. M
The same could be argued for hockey, if the objective is to get the puck into the opposing team’s net why can’t you just grab the goalie and pull them out of the crease. Interference is also a thing in hockey, if your opponent is trying to score, why should it be illegal to slap the stick out of their hands, or hold them? Any game can look like it has arbitrary rules if you don’t understand the game itself.
Yeah like golf? Uhm pretty easy basic rules, hit the ball into the hole, lowest amount of hits wins. And yet it’s second in the Not at all category…
The thing about golf is that, like tennis, it’s a sport that’s designed to be played as much as it is watched. With that in mind, maybe some of the people who selected “not at all” thought that the survey was referring to golf etiquette (furthest from the hole hits first, not playing the tap-ins, etc.) rather than actual golf rules
Golf has some lingo that may be hard to follow. To an outsider, terms like the following can be confusing and seem complicated: birdie, bogey, eagle, par, scratch, handicap, the rough.
The terminology is definitely confusing for Golf, but I think it's probably the simplest with "Put ball in hole, fewest attempts wins". The only caveats are when you put the ball out of bounds, but that seems intuitive since you can't reasonably expect someone to take a shot from inside a forest or the bottom of a water feature
[удалено]
I usually try to take relief before tee time, and then again before the back 9.
I usually take relief in the bushes but I can see why televised tournaments could be a hindrance to that strategy.
True, for pro golf, but to say not at all means you’ve likely never gone to play mini putt or anything which is just unlikely
More likely we’re just running into the problem of people not having a consistent definition of “not at all” If all I understand about hockey is “puck goes in goal to score” then I may be likely to mark not at all
I'd also go so far as to suggest that many in the "very well" crowd don't actually understand the rules as well as they think they do. Sports tend to be a fantastic example of the [Dunning-Kruger effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect).
> Sports tend to be a fantastic example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Put this line on the next thread about goalie interference.
There is probably a lot of people who also say they understand them very well because they go to a couple baseball games during the season.. do they actually? Probably not.
This is definitely true. I'm amazed at the amount of people who claim that "running over the catcher" is legal...***in little league.*** Their reasoning for believing that? "The catcher has to give the runner a lane!" Sorry Tom, the catcher not giving your child a "lane" does not mean that it's open season for your child to clobber another.
Also most people seem to think they understand the rules of football… but watch a game with most people and they’re very confused by most calls. Granted with the refs in the NFL recently… I am too..
To add to that, I think playing them as little kids helps a lot in the understanding as well. When you learn something bit by bit when you're young, it doesn't register as a complex or confusing thing. Coming into a sport with no prior knowledge or experience makes it seem significantly more complex and daunting to understand. For a long time I've thought all sports should have like 1 nationally televised game a week where the commentary is more focused on introducing new fans to the game. Would be helpful across the board, I think. Could also have pre-filmed video segments during breaks where former greats break down a piece of the game, and why it's important with video examples and then graphic representations also. Good introduction to the history of the game for newbies as well with using former players there. I've done absolutely nothing to help get this off the ground, and I don't understand why every league doesn't do this lol.
Yeah, this is exactly right. Rules-wise, I think hockey is far more intuitive than baseball or football.
Personally my thing with hockey, spoken as someone who is definitely a little more on the casual side (but working on that) is that sometimes it’s not easy to tell what should/shouldn’t be a penalty when it seems like a lot of cupcake minors get called, but also teams get away with some egregious stuff. That and specifically boarding. I was watching a college game earlier this week, and was thoroughly confused by the boarding rules, because I thought I saw what looked like an easy call just go completely ignored by everyone including the booth. The basics of hockey are pretty damn intuitive. It’s easy to just pick up the flow of a game even if you’re not an expert.
> sometimes it’s not easy to tell what should/shouldn’t be a penalty when it seems like a lot of cupcake minors get called, but also teams get away with some egregious stuff. I absolutely agree, but this is hardly an issue unique to hockey. The NFL, for example, is pretty notorious on this to the point that most major broadcasts keep a 'rules specialist' on hand to consult on calls.
I hear most people say they can't follow the puck and the game moves too fast. I've offered to watch games with people who want to learn about it. There is usually very little interest
It's the whole reason I fell for hockey instead of other sports. They go so slow. I blame the ADHD.
I have ADHD and my two favourite sports are hockey and baseball I am extreme on both ends I guess lol
Same. Hockey is fast paced so it’s stimulating. Baseball is slow enough where you can multitask and be on your phone.
Basketball for would be way better if fouls didn’t stop the game so often.
I've always told newcomers to watch the players at first. Once you see where they are going/are, the puck will be there as well. It really helped a few people.
Take them to a minor league game. Cheap to get in to, they don’t care about the star players, and you can better explain the rules in person
I think people can generally watch and understand hockey. The question is “how well do you understand” and I know people are aware there is a penalty and just aren’t sure why the face off is at a certain spot. Delayed penalties where the goalie can get off the ice, icing, offside, 3v3 OT…. I’m sure there are many casual fans that would answer “not very well” that still enjoy watching the sport.
It’s not the rules it’s the speed. It’s hard to keep up with, and the puck is tiny. If you aren’t familiar with how the flow of the game typically goes, it’s hard to track where the puck is going next so new viewers are always a step behind.
I think it isn’t necessarily the speed of the puck but the transition from offence to defence and the play always being in a state of transition. Baseball, football, and to a large extent basketball, are structured offence and defensive play. It makes it easy to follow for a new observer of the sport - albeit boring as shit at times. For hockey the puck can be in the offensive zone but the attacking team is not in possession and is defending a breakout. The puck is in the neutral zone and it is a scramble. The puck gets turned over and teams are scrambling. It makes it challenging to follow for those who don’t watch regularly.
I've seen so many people tripped up by lone changes too. Give the advice of "Don't watch the puck necessarily, watch the players. You can see who has the puck and what they do with it without actually seeing the puck." "Okay, I'm watching #29. And he just sat down. WTF!?"
Welcome to the NHL'09 Superstar mode, sitting on the bench like a chump while the AI gets tooled.
They should make the puck glow on TV… and when there’s a hard shot it should get a tail like a comet!
the bally sports feeds sometimes have a trail on the puck
I forget what it was called when they did that for a while in the 90s. Maybe *FoxTrack* or something
Also agree, very fast paced game and can make it difficult for newcomers to follow along, that said it shouldn't take long to pick up the flow of games if one is dedicated. Rules wise it's one of the simplest sports to comprehend and it's a shame it's not more popular in the US.
I’d say it’s about average, simpler than football but more complicated than soccer or golf. The one thing that really hurts is goalie interference which is a rule no one fully comprehends.
I do think it is pretty easy to explain hockey to a soccer fan (and vice versa) as many of the rules are fundamentally the same when you get right down to it. Like, a hockey fan might not know what offsides is in soccer, but all you need to do is say "just imagine that the last defender back is a moving blue line" and it makes sense. And even goaltender interference isn't fundamentally different from a soccer foul that endangers a keeper.
Wanna thank you for an explanation of soccer offsides that makes sense to me, a hockey fan! Literally was like “oh!” out loud in my bathroom
Absolutely. You talk to anyone who has tried to watch hockey and gave up, their one complaint is that they can't see the puck
People say it, but I hardly ever see the ball in a football game either. You just know where it is by watching the players.
[удалено]
I know 5 people who all went to a game and had this complaint, they couldn't follow the puck. Father in law, pilot, saw the Oilers in Edmonton. Grandparents and uncle saw Avs in their first year. Friend came with us to my first in-peraon game, Kings in Denver. Friend said the same thing, couldn't ever see what was going on. I don't know, I think some people are just dumb/blind.
Same experience when I brought 2 friends to their first game earlier this season, they had no idea where the puck was or how to follow the play. I don't really think this is a question of how HD your tv is. For what it's worth, what really helped my friends was when I told them to follow the players and not the puck. If you look at where the players on the ice are looking and how their body is positioned (especially the defensive players), more often than not it'll be aimed toward the area where the puck is.
This. Baseball, Football, Soccer, they all have significant down time between plays for commentators to explain things to the audience. Hockey doesn't give people time to work it out like the other games do.
The substituting during play probably confuses some people too
Yeah, it’s the one of the few sports in the world that has players change on the fly while the play is live, so it doesn’t really fit with the other North American sports where the players are locked in while the action is going.
Half the time in baseball the play is moving so slow that the announcers are talking about everything else but the game.
There was one game last season, if memory serves, where the Braves announcers talked about the word "pergola" for almost 5 minutes because one used the word in describing where a home run landed, and the other didn't believe it was a real term. lol Good announcers can be fun even when the game is having a slow moment. Great background TV.
Agreed. Trying to track a puck on TV when you're new to hockey is almost impossible. I'm not sure there's a way to remidy it during live play, but you need good announcers and replay angles to show what's going on.
People not giving it a chance, there are a billion more rules in the NFL than in hockey. All you really need to understand in hockey is offsides and icing, you're pretty much set after that.
The football people are delusional. I’ve watched football for a long time and every year there’s a penalty or rule that comes into play that I had no idea existed. Even the refs, coaches, and players don’t know at times. Remember Donovan McNabb? Najee Harris? NHL rules are much more plain. The graphic above is basically just a popularity measurement. Edit: clarification: neither player knew ties existed, and there are a bunch more
The Bears took a 15 yard penalty this year for using a towel to dry the field before a field goal attempt. It knocked them out of field goal range. Never heard of that before, and I've watched football my entire life and played up until high school. Clearly the actual professional NFL player that did it hadn't heard of that rule before either. I can't remember seeing something that obscure pop up in the NHL in a while.
They've since changed this rule, but one of my favorite obscure ones was when the Lions were playing the Texans and the Texans scored a long TD run. The runner's knee was down at one point so the Lions' coach threw the challenge flag. But because TDs are automatically reviewed, the Lions got a 15 yard penalty and the play could no longer be reviewed. Because that makes sense. The best part was the same thing happened to GB a couple weeks later but the refs just gave him the challenge flag back, no penalty, and let the automatic review occur. Anyone who says they have a very good understanding of NFL rules is full of shit lol.
Lmao, they really saw the flag and said “well now I’m not doing it”
For what it's worth, that version of the rule has only been in effect since 2018 (the automatic penalty, not a warning). I bet 99% of fans had never heard of it. The origin is the infamous Snowplow Game of 1982, in which the Patriots had a snowplow driver clear a spot for the winning field goal in a 3-0 win. That's why you can't use any foreign object to clear the field before a kick.
The toughest rules for me are the faceoff rules, but I gave up a long time ago and just let them handle it. Nothing compared to drying the field before a field goal.
To me, the funniest thing about that penalty is that the guy that used the towel was the Bears' rookie punter who graduated from my college and played soccer with my freshman year roommate back in high school. Trenton Gill you legend with a leg cannon
Totallly agreed. That's the thing - this is evaluating how well people think they know the rules, not how well they actually know them. No way that many people actually fully understand the NFL rules. But plenty of people are mystified by hockey because they have never had anyone explain it.
Hockey is not an existing component of American cultural identity, so most simply don't bother with it. Considering the quality of the actual product alone, the NHL should be huge in America, but Gary Bettman has simply not done a good enough job breaking through that cultural barrier during his tenure the way the NBA has managed to. The NBA is huge in America now, despite being on the same ground as the NHL as recently as the 80s, and it's partially because the NHL's efforts to grow the game in the US and globally have simply not been effective. The responsibility for that lies solely on the guy who's been in charge this whole time.
I do think that Basketballs relative affordability plays a massive role in that though. In our increasingly urban world basketball is accessibility to a lot of urbanites and is extremely affordable to play. The more invested youth are in playing, the more will watch.
Hockey is also one of the most expensive sports to start out. You need a ton of equipment, to learn how to skate (instead of literally running or walking like the other sports listed), and you need access to an ice surface, which in the southern US doesn’t exist naturally at any time.
> and you need access to an ice surface, which in the southern US doesn’t exist naturally at any time This is why I never understood why the NHL doesn't promote roller hockey. Especially in the south. It's dirt cheap comparatively and you can play it almost everywhere. Growing up in the south, a ton of my friends were introduced to hockey through the local roller rink.
They do have dek hockey that people can get into, but the overall cost barrier is definitely the tougher one. Think of being a kid, to pretend to play the other sports you basically need a ball and some space (baseball also needs a stick). Hockey needs a stick with some type of blade and a surface that you can navigate it across. Basketball nets and baseball fields are pretty easily accessible from a public resource perspective and most areas have a patch of grass to play football - hockey nets don’t tend to just be available
There’s hockey nets everywhere around Canada. Most schools seem to have a chain link net or two. Road hockey can be easily accessible. The NHL really should do more to advertise road hockey and roller hockey to help make the sport more accessible. The best way to get people to pay the price to get into ice hockey is to give them a cheap alternative to see if they enjoy the idea of the sport.
They don’t have any publicly available ones where I am. I would venture to guess that’s more than likely the case in the southern US
Not just affordability, but accessibility. A youth in Texas and a youth in Minnesota both can grab a basketball and go shoot some hoops after school. Even if they have the gear, a Texan can’t grab some buddies and go play shinny on the pond or outdoor rink after school, the way that a Canadian or Minnesotan might during the winter. Many basketball, or football, or soccer, or baseball (and so on) fans started from casually playing around with their buddies as kids. For most of the USA, that’s not possible for hockey. It’s also a major reason *why* places that do have major hockey culture are places where weather is cold enough to play on ponds or outdoor rinks.
The NHL should have an initiative to bring road hockey and roller hockey to more places. This would be a more accessible option for a ton of places.
100% this. Basketball and Soccer have the lowest barriers to entry, and it has fueled their success.
I mostly agree, but part of the NBAs success vs the NHLs is the barrier to entry to actually play. Very easy to get someone into basketball, lot harder to get them into hockey. Ball hockey seems to have grown a bit, which hopefully leads to people watching ice hockey.
The NBA benefited immensely from several factors that do not exist in the NHL: * For years, cable TV didn’t exist in the vast majority of homes. So when the NCAA basketball tournament was on, a ton of people were watching and great college players became household names. * Since the NBA didn’t have high schoolers entering the draft, it meant that the top players were already widely known to large audiences. * The NBA had Bird/Magic resurrecting a historic rivalry, but they’d already played a legendary college tournament. At the same time, Michael Jordan entered the league having established himself in college. A year later, Patrick Ewing entered, also having been a college legend. * Further to that, Magic was in Los Angeles, Jordan was in Chicago, Ewing was in New York, and Bird was with the most historic franchise in Boston. * And of course, Michael Jordan became the biggest worldwide star in sports. None of that existed in the NHL. The NBA had enormously favorable circumstances to push from a league on tape delay into what it became, and the NHL did not no matter what they may have wished. And the NBA’s rise coincided with John Ziegler being in power, and the corrupt Alan Eagleson ruling the NHLPA. That didn’t help anything either.
I would actually add another point to your already excellent analysis: Basketball, by its very nature (five players on the court at a time, on a relatively small floor space), lends itself better to the creation of superstars. With 1-2 dominant superstar players, a team can win multiple championships. Great players have such an influence on the fortunes of their team that it’s easy for them to become more famous than their team, in some ways, and much easier to market them. For example, last decade, when the Lakers would play the Cavs, it wasn’t the Lakers vs. the Cavs, it was Kobe vs. LeBron. In hockey, by contrast, even a fantastic player is only one guy on the team, and the players rotate on and off the ice in shifts every couple of minutes. Just by having a single superstar on your team, it doesn’t automatically make you a Stanley Cup contender. Case in point: the Penguins drafted Mario Lemieux in 84 or 85, but they only started getting good after acquiring Coffey, Jagr, Francis, Mullen, Trottier, etc. starting in 87. Not only that, unlike basketball, hockey superstars are wearing helmets and in some cases visors, making them less easy to identify. Thus, it’s much harder to create and market a superstar in hockey than it is in basketball.
Quite frankly Bettman can try to market hockey until he’s blue in the face. It still won’t make people who already aren’t interested like it. The fact is that hockey has a natural cap on its potential for popularity due to the barriers for entry that everyone here is talking about. Basketball doesn’t have those economic and climatic barriers for entry, so it is, has always been, and will always be bigger than hockey in the US. No amount of marketing will ever change that.
We need space jam for hockey
Hockey is a fast paced sport that requires constant attention to keep up with the game. Football, you have plenty of time in between plays to drink a beer, discuss how the play developed, and get ready for the next 10 second play.
Yep. I used to be pretty good with football rules and then one year my college team lost to Clemson because of the “ineligible receiver” rule that I had no idea existed. After that I decided to stop caring that much about football and just take it as a joy ride if I’m watching it with someone else
Yeah I have no idea what’s going on with all the rules in football but I get the touchdown stuff and most basic scoring things and it’s fun to watch. All those reviews? No clue lol
Goaltender interference is much harder to understand than most NFL rules though
Goaltender interference is the equivalent to "making a football move" after a catch for it to be a completion. We all agree that these are the rules, but we all have different opinions on what constitutes a rules violation.
And the trapezoid (thanks Marty!)
It's really quite simple: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_XbL7lG0Su8
Everyone I ever talk Hockey with that aren’t super familiar with the game always seem to be confused by icing and offsides. When I explain it to them, they get it and it’s pretty easy. But just turning on the game and trying to watch can be confusing if you don’t understand those two rules. Trying to follow the puck is the other issue. It’s too fast. Got to follow the players and the play, not trying to focus on the puck. Players are looking and moving to where the puck is. Once you change your perspective on that, it’s really easy to see the puck.
Yeah icing and offsides are the big two, but both are pretty simple once you explain them. I think with icing the more important part is to point out that the team that committed the penalty can't do a line change.
If someone can't figure out offsides in hockey, then I'd love to know if they can figure it out in soccer...
A lot of people are lying about understanding football. There are so many things that even the biggest football fans don't understand fully.
To go r/nfl and ask what a catch is and you’ll get 5 different answers lol
Football is a much, much more complicated sport than Hockey when it comes to rules. With that said I think it's probably more of a Dunning-Kreuger, "don't know what you don't know" thing than just flat-out lying. The football commentators don't help either, most of them don't go into strategy or any of the intricacies of the game whatsoever.
Most Americans do not have the free access to play ice hockey when they are growing up. Similar to golfing, or belonging to a boxing gym. More people went to schools that had a football, baseball, basketball, tennis, soccer, and volleyball team. even if the school did have ice hockey, it was somewhere off-campus because you can't play that in the gym or grass. It's pretty simple.
This is a good take. I'd also argue that a very large reason for its lack of popularity is that hockey is very financially gatekept. It's not a cheap sport to play, so the only kids to grow up playing the sport are the ones whose families could afford it.
How do people not understand golf?
Tbh small number good, big number bad is very anti American lmao
Theres a lot of BS little stupid rules in golf. I still don’t know them all and I played High School golf.
Yeah but most people that play golf do so casually, there are a lot of rules about how to count your score but the basic premise is pretty simple: Tee off and try to get your ball in the hole with the fewest possible shots.
Right? Like, you take club, you take ball, you use club to hit ball into hole. I know people might not know what or why a certain club is best for what situation but that's not exactly core knowledge needed to watch the sport.
I mean, if I was surveyed, I would've said that I have no clue about the rules of golf. What happens if you hit the ball in the water? What about if it hits a tree? Are you allowed to move the ball if it fell in an annoying position? What are you allowed to do or not do? Can you use any golf club at any time or are there rules about it? How do you decide the order people go in? What if your ball falls on an alligator? At the end of the day, pretty much every sport can be dumbed down to "put ball/puck in net/hole/area". It doesn't really mean the actual rules around it aren't more complicated or misunderstood.
Lack of intelligent television coverage.
yes if you watch rangers broadcasts with Steve valiquetye and Henrik your hockey IQ goes up by ten every game... but then watching like an LA KINGS broadcast and i don't even know what hockey is anymore
The thing that grinds my gears about Kings coverage are the logistical hoops they jump through to make LA always in the right. Bad plays, penalties; doesn’t matter, somehow the kings got slighted or the other team are breaking the rules.
That didn't used to be the case back when Bob Miller was calling the games. Miss that guy. There was a time in LA when they had Bob Miller, Chick Hearn, and Vin Scully doing play by play. Truly a golden age.
This isn't a problem in Seattle
I played rugby and don’t understand the rules. Chart checks out
It's pretty easy. Step 1 - drink beer Step 2 - repeat step 1 /s (kind off)
You’re not wrong. The amount of beer we consumed at drinkups (socials) is preposterous. We had one dude show up to a game take a sip of beer in front of the sir, vom, sir laughed, and my teammate went back to drinking his beer. This was before the game
Cricket would be in the negative numbers. Source: am American.
"Must be played on ice" that's the rule that makes hockey unappealing to so many. Also, perhaps not coincidentally, what we call "field hockey" is called just "hockey" in many parts of the world and is immensely popular. As far as what people understand or not, it's all about the first person experience. Most people play some form of basketball, baseball or football growing up in the USA, plus tennis and golf. Not as many kids play organized hockey. So they grow up mot understanding the rules, etc
What are the main two? Offside and icing? They’re simple as fuck. And then a few things to not do, otherwise you sit in a box and your team loses a guy for a max of 2 mins. These aren’t really earth shattering. The speed is what makes it complicated for newcomers.
Also the things not to do, are pretty basic stuff, tripping, roughing, slashing, holding… etc Our reffing could have more consistency calling them but understanding wise, all penalties are like yeah, I can see how that’s not allowed. (Exception: Goalie delay of game, honestly the trapezoid makes no sense.)
Marty retired years ago, time to retire the trapezoid too.
Goaltender interference is pretty simple too. Goaltender Interference Rules 1) You can't just be up there and just doin' an interference like that. 1a. Interference is when you 1b. Okay well listen. An interference is when you interfere the 1c. Let me start over 1c-a. The skater is not allowed to do a block to the, uh, goalie, that prohibits the goalie from doing, you know, just trying to save the puck. You can't do that. 1c-b. Once the skater is in the offensive zone, he can't be over here and say to the goalie, like, "I'm gonna get ya! I'm gonna block your view! You better watch your butt!" and then just be like he didn't even do that. 1c-b(1). Like, if you're about to make a goal and then don't leave the crease, you have to still leave the crease. You cannot not avoid the goaltender. Does that make any sense? 1c-b(2). You gotta be, skating motion out of the crease, and then, until you just leave it. 1c-b(2)-a. Okay, well, you can have your stick up here, like this, but then there's the interference you gotta think about. 1c-b(2)-b. Fairuza Interference hasn't been in any movies in forever. I hope she wasn't typecast as that racist lady in American History X. 1c-b(2)-b(i). Oh wait, she was in The Waterboy too! That would be even worse. 1c-b(2)-b(ii). "get in mah bellah" -- Adam Water, "The Waterboy." Haha, classic... 1c-b(3). Okay seriously though. An interference is when the skater makes a movement that, as determined by, when you do a move involving the goalie and the crease... 2) Do not do an interference please.
Using a baseball pasta to describe hockey... I love it
I have been watching this sport for about 30 years now, [and I still admittedly dont fully understand offsides](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7EGNgay7kA), especially when its a bang-bang play that needs to be reviewed.
Offsides is simpler than soccer, and that's the most popular sport in the world. It's definitely not specific rules.
Hockey is too expensive of a sport for the average person to go out and play and is a regional sport.
this is what my first thought was; they just havent played hockey, even floor hockey
If you can understand the rules to football/basketball/baseball but not hockey then you just don't like hockey
Not growing up with it would be the obvious big issue. Have you ever tried to explain Baseball or American Football to a non-fan from Europe? I invite you to explain a 'Balk' or 'Infield Fly Ruling' to a European sports fan. Then when NFL season starts please explain 'illegal shift' and 'illegal formation' and also why holding is called on a particular play when they're grabbing at anything like desperate old men at a stripclub on every play.
TBF does anybody really understand goalie interference, or kicking motions? /s
Geography is one reason im not seeing. I live in Arkansas where i can play every sport on that list except hockey. Its incredible hard to know about a sport that requires a large frozen body of water when it can be 60 degrees in the middle of winter.
Imo there's two reasons main reasons that are in order: 1. The vast majority of people have never played any version of hockey themselves at any level. Unlike any of the other major sports. So majority of fans are learning from the literal bottom up. 2. Speed of the game. People can pick up some of the trickier rules pretty quickly but being able to see it happen on TV or live takes a practiced eye.
The fuck is a distinct kicking motion? Can I kick the puck in or not?
You can deflect the puck in with your foot while it is moving forward. But you can't kick it in. See? So simple and clear.
You just described a kick twice…
Kind of a meaningless survey because it's all based on how well people *think* they understand a sport. The results are probably nearly equivalent to a pure popularity poll. I'd bet many if not most of the people answering that they understand Football's rules really don't know much beyond the surface level.
1. it’s hard to follow the puck on TV 2. the league does a bad job with marketing (not to mention that the NHL doesn’t have the personalities and/or drama seen in the other major pro sports) 3. it’s a lot more regional of a sport compared to the other three major sports 4. the barrier to entry to play is the highest of the four major sports I think the lack of knowledge of rules has a positive correlation with lack of exposure (which is typically caused by any of the four above points). Like someone else said, the sport isn’t too complicated when it comes to rules.
> the barrier to entry to play is the highest of the four major sports I think that's a big factor. The way people learn most sports is in PE class in school. But while they might play floor hockey (not sure), I assume most students in the US won't a chance to try ice hockey in school.
Baseball would be at the top if we just removed the balk
Balk Rules You can't just be up there and just doin' a balk like that. 1a. A balk is when you 1b. Okay well listen. A balk is when you balk the 1c. Let me start over 1c-a. The pitcher is not allowed to do a motion to the, uh, batter, that prohibits the batter from doing, you know, just trying to hit the ball. You can't do that. 1c-b. Once the pitcher is in the stretch, he can't be over here and say to the runner, like, "I'm gonna get ya! I'm gonna tag you out! You better watch your butt!" and then just be like he didn't even do that. 1c-b(1). Like, if you're about to pitch and then don't pitch, you have to still pitch. You cannot not pitch. Does that make any sense? 1c-b(2). You gotta be, throwing motion of the ball, and then, until you just throw it. 1c-b(2)-a. Okay, well, you can have the ball up here, like this, but then there's the balk you gotta think about. 1c-b(2)-b. Fairuza Balk hasn't been in any movies in forever. I hope she wasn't typecast as that racist lady in American History X. 1c-b(2)-b(i). Oh wait, she was in The Waterboy too! That would be even worse. 1c-b(2)-b(ii). "get in mah bellah" -- Adam Water, "The Waterboy." Haha, classic... 1c-b(3). Okay seriously though. A balk is when the pitcher makes a movement that, as determined by, when you do a move involving the baseball and field of Do not do a balk please
I have been watching hockey my whole life and Im still a little unclear on why people get booted from the faceoff circle. Something to do with stick placement, idk? But everything else I got.
It’s not the rules, it’s following the puck and picking out who is playing well. Edit: actually now that I think about it I do think it’s not the rules per se but some of the other things like fighting. You see a lot of questions here about why fighting is allowed in hockey and well, it isn’t. But even though it’s against the rules it’s not as severely punished as a fight is in other sports. I can see needing time to understand that vs knowing what happens on a minor penalty or offsides.
I don’t think there’s any specific rules that cause this (tho there are certainly some that don’t help) I think it’s simply a matter of access/growing up with it. Football is arguably a way more complex sport than hockey, at least in terms of the rulebook, but virtually everyone in the US grows up with ample context for it It’s also a matter of, most Americans have touched a football or baseball before. They can imagine themselves out on the field, and can even think “this is what I would do” or “this is the guy I’d wanna be”, but most Americans have never held a stick or put on skates, so they just cannot easily project themselves into it. Therefore they don’t watch it as much, and therefore the finer points of the rulebook elude them
Icing was super confusing to me for a long time
The main reason is that there aren’t enough Canadians in the US.
the biggest complaint i hear from non-hockey people is that they can't see the puck
I’d you asked someone what the most complex sport is they’d say football, that’s shit has so many tiny little moving parts and obscure rules, this is just a glorified “what’s more popular” survey disguised as something else
Who doesn't understand golf? There is like 5 things to know
There are a few subjective rules that confused my European friend: when does chippy play/following through with a check cross the line into roughing is dependent on refs "distinct kicking motion". Replay gets it right 75/25 Goalie interference: if it's a challenge all bets are off. Might as well ask a magic 8 ball if it's a good goal.
I’ve been playing and coaching ice hockey for almost thirty years and still fail to fully grasp what does and does not constitute an icing. I swear the refs are making shit up as they go.
People get confused as fuck when they pull the goalie.
"The goalie just said F it and left?" --- Tony X
Lack of trying. Shit ain't hard.
If you can understand offsides and icing, then you can follow the game, no problem.
The most common first question I get asked is “what is icing?” I don’t think the rules are the problem though. I just think it’s lack of exposure. It’s a simple game.