# Sticky  GENERAL DISCUSSION



## Marckymarc

en1044 said:


> Because when the clock says 1:00, it's actually 1:00.9. Therefore, it takes an entire second to change from 1:00 to 59.9.


If that were the case then the time to start the period would have to be 12:00.0. And if _that_ were the case then it would change to 11:59 the very instant (1/10 of a second) that the ball or puck was put into play. Watch any basketball or hockey game and you'll see that's not the case--it takes a second to tick down after play begins. 

Either the clock starts at 11:59.9 (displayed as 11:59 using the theory of implied decimals) or there's an extra second. It has to be one or the other. You can't have it both ways. Again, it's simple mathematics.


-


----------



## CharlieP

Marckymarc said:


> Why would you shout "fifty-nine!" at 59.9?


Read what I wrote again. "If you're shouting out the numbers as soon as you see them appear". If you were to be super accurate and only shout "fifty-nine!" when exactly 59.0 seconds were remaining, you'd find yourself out of cadence with the rest of the crowd.



> 59.9 should be "sixty", 58.9 should be "fifty-nine" ...eventually down to "one" at 0:00.9, and "zero" at 0:00.0


You're just reinventing maths now! 60.0 is sixty. 59.9 is 1/10 second later.

However, if we use your funny new numbering system, then by your logic 1:00.9 is "sixty-one". This is shown on the clock as "1:00", one second before 59.9. Do you get it yet?



> The horn should sound when you hit "zero!", not a second later.


The horn does sound when the clock hits zero. Are you claiming that you see the display go 0.3.. 0.2... 0.1... 0.0, then freeze for a second before the horn?


----------



## CharlieP

Marckymarc said:


> If that were the case then the time to start the period would have to be 12:00.0. And if _that_ were the case then it would change to 11:59 the very instant (1/10 of a second) that the ball or puck was put into play. Watch any basketball or hockey game and you'll see that's not the case--it takes a second to tick down after play begins.


Not particularly easy for me to do in this country.  Can you post a video that conclusively shows this? Is the clock electronically linked to a starting buzzer or controlled by another person? In rugby, for example, the referee blows his whistle to start the game, which is the signal for an official to start the clock (and for the TV broadcaster to start _their_ clock) - that means the clock appears to start fractionally after the whistle.

The only other thing I can say to try and convince you is that the clock is "programmed" to measure 12 minutes exactly, not to count from 12:00 to 1:00 then count from 59.5 to 0.0. The numbers you see displayed are derived from the clock - the tail doesn't wag the dog, so to speak.


----------



## CharlieP

PS You could, if you really wanted, use a clock that rounded up not down (i.e. only showed 1:00 when there was exactly a minute to go and not a fraction before), but as westsidebomber has confirmed, that's not the standard in the real world. Even if you did, you'd still get 1:00 before 59.9, but only for a fraction of a second:

*Exact time remaining* - *Real world displays* - *Rounding up*

1:01.05 - 1:01 - 1:02
1:01.00 - 1:01 - 1:01
1:00.95 - 1:00 - 1:01
1:00.90 - 1:00 - 1:01
...
1:00.05 - 1:00 - 1:01
1:00.00 - 1:00 - 1:00
0:59.95 - 59.9 - 1:00
0:59.90 - 59.9 - 59.9
0:59.85 - 59.8 - 59.9
...
0:00.15 - 0.1 - 0.2
0:00.10 - 0.1 - 0.1
0:00.05 - 0.0 - 0.1
0:00.00 - 0.0 - 0.0 BUZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!

Which is better? A clock that shows 0.2 when there's actually only 0.11 seconds remaining, or a clock that shows 0.1 when there's a full 0.19 seconds remaining? I'd prefer to stick with the latter.


----------



## CharlieP

Also see http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=4169.0, which is pretty much the same discussion we're having here...


----------



## Alemanniafan

*When the zero is a second and when it's not*



Marckymarc said:


> No, not at all. When the clock starts it takes a second to tick down to 11:59 (fact), therefore after exactly 12 minutes of play the clock reads 0:00.9 (fact). Add an additional second and the horn sounds to end the period (fact). Total time: 12:01 (fact). It's basic, simple math.
> 
> 
> -


There's a little mistake you're making.
When doing a countdown in seconds, there is no "zero second".
So doing a countdown what is being counted down are the remaining seconds.
And the incident you say 10 there are 10 remaining seconds left, so the ten seconds are at the start when the 10 shows up and not when the 10 dissappears again.
So the last second that elapses is the second with the 1 not the 0, because as soon as the clock displays 0 there is "no time left to play", which means the game is over right the incident the 0 is hit.
And the Nasa by the way don't say "0" they say "liftoff" instead.

So a countdown is simmilar to the calendar. 
There is simply no year 0 AD and no year 0 BC. The 0 in this case resembles the birthday of christ and that is an incident which didn't last a year, it's a momentarily incident.

So the clock should indeed start with 12:00 and show that for one second before switching to 11:59.(It doesn't start with 11:59.9999999 or 12:00.9 or whatever, it really is exactly 12:00 as in aproximately about 12:00.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000)

So when you look up at the clock and read 0:53 for eample then all you know from the clock is that there are allready less than 53 seconds to play, but still more than 52 seconds. 
If you really want to know how much time there is exactly left to play you'll have to wait for the moment when it switches from one second to another. Here for example from 0:53 to 0:52. It's just the same with a normal watch that shows the daytime.

But with a normal clock showing the daytime is one important difference to a stopwatch or calendar, because when a clock (H:MM:SS) switches to 0:00:00 then it is midnight and not before or after that. So a clock displays 0:00:00 from the moment it's midnight for the entire first second of the day until it switches to 0:00:01. So when you read 0:00:00 it's allready after midnight, but still less than one second after midnight. 
So here in this case then the first second of the new day is the one during the time when the clock shows 0:00:00.

Just like the first minute of a soccer match is the minute from(min:sec) 0:00 to 1:00. So when a player scores in the first minute of the game the clock shows 0:45 for example and not 1:45 because that would allready be during the second minute of the match because, so the first minute of the match is the minute with the 0 in the front.

And that's where the often confunsing difference to the years in the calendar is. On a clock the first second of the day is the "second 0" in a calendar the first year is the "year 1" just as the last second of a countdown is also the "second 1".

I hope this explanation of mine didn't cause more confusion than it helped solving the little difficulty.


----------



## CharlieP

Alemanniafan said:


> I hope this explanation of mine didn't cause more confusion than it helped solving the little difficulty.


I think you've confused *everybody*!!!


----------



## CharlieP

The problem is that time isn't discrete, it's continuous. Whether you're counting up or down, it's only, say, 1:00 for an infinitessimally short period of time.

There's no real argument when you're using a stopwatch - you start at 0:00.0 and only change up to 0:00.1 when the first 1/10 of a second has been completed. In other words, until a complete 1/10 has elapsed, the lower value is shown.

Stadium clocks can be thought of as the same stopwatch running in reverse - if there's less than a complete 1/10 of a second remaining, the lower value is shown.


----------



## Welshlad

I cannot believe this thread is still going. Serioulsy, to the doubters, conspiracy theorists of world time etc, go and buy a stop watch.....


----------



## Alemanniafan

CharlieP said:


> The problem is that time isn't discrete, it's continuous. Whether you're counting up or down, it's only, say, 1:00 for an infinitessimally short period of time.
> 
> There's no real argument when you're using a stopwatch - you start at 0:00.0 and only change up to 0:00.1 when the first 1/10 of a second has been completed. In other words, until a complete 1/10 has elapsed, the lower value is shown.
> 
> Stadium clocks can be thought of as the same stopwatch running in reverse - if there's less than a complete 1/10 of a second remaining, the lower value is shown.


It's not pimarily about time being continuous it's purely a matter of definition and what is being counted. (for example minutes or seconds or milliseconds) A matter of the scaling so to speak. And here the confusion results especially from the problem at what moment one switches from one value to another.

If you count the time elapsed for example you start at 0, but you switch to 1 after the first counted timeperiod is fully elapsed. If you count 1/10 seconds the you switch after the first 1/10th second is elapsed to 0.1 if you count minutes you switch after the first minute is elapsed. 
So it naturally depends on the accuracy of the scale what you count, minutes or seconds or milliseconds....

Now to the little dilemma:
A stopwatch that counts UP, counts "the time that has elapsed".
A stopwatch that counts DOWN for a countdown counts "the remaining time left to play".
And that's exactly where the difference comes in that causes so much confusion.

A stopwatch counting up full seconds starts at 0 and switches to 1 AFTER a second.
a countdown shows the remaining time and stops immediately when it shows 0. So it switches to one BEFORE the last second has elapsed.

So in one case (when counting up like a clock) the 0 is being displayed for a full second. In the other case when doing a countdown the 0 is the incident at the end when the countdown is over the 0 doesn't stay up for a second then, it stays there forever. 
Again: The first second when counting up is the time between 0:00 and 0:01 but here the clock switches up to display the 0:01 only at the end AFTER the second has elapsed.
When counting down the last second counting down is also the time between 0:01 and 0:00, but here the clock switches to 0:01 when the last second BEGINS to elapse. So the clock shows 0:01 until the very end when it switches to 0.

So if you record a stopwatch counting up starting at 0 on a camera and watch the video run backwards down to 0 again, then you don't get the same as using a clock counting down the remaining seconds. 
The recorded clock in the reverse video switches down to the next number allways one second before the stopwatch counting the remaining seconds switches. 

If the clocks can only count seconds, then the difference between the reversed clock and the countdown clock is a second, if the clocks count 1/10th seconds then the difference between the two is 1/10 sec and if the clocks only count minutes, then the difference between the reversed clock and the countdown is a minute. 
The difference between the two just depends on the used timescale. 
And if that timescale would be infinetesimally small the difference between the two would also be infinetesimally small.


----------



## CharlieP

Alemanniafan said:


> It's not pimarily about time being continuous it's purely a matter of definition and what is being counted. (for example minutes or seconds or milliseconds) A matter of the scaling so to speak. And here the confusion results especially from the problem at what moment one switches from one value to another.


I should have completed my sentence. The problem is that time is continuous but digital clocks are discrete.



> If you count the time elapsed for example you start at 0, but you switch to 1 after the first counted timeperiod is fully elapsed. If you count 1/10 seconds the you switch after the first 1/10th second is elapsed to 0.1 if you count minutes you switch after the first minute is elapsed.
> So it naturally depends on the accuracy of the scale what you count, minutes or seconds or milliseconds....


Correct.



> Now to the little dilemma:
> A stopwatch that counts UP, counts "the time that has elapsed".
> A stopwatch that counts DOWN for a countdown counts "the remaining time left to play".
> And that's exactly where the difference comes in that causes so much confusion.
> 
> A stopwatch counting up full seconds starts at 0 and switches to 1 AFTER a second.
> a countdown shows the remaining time and stops immediately when it shows 0. So it switches to one BEFORE the last second has elapsed.
> 
> So in one case (when counting up like a clock) the 0 is being displayed for a full second. In the other case when doing a countdown the 0 is the incident at the end when the countdown is over the 0 doesn't stay up for a second then, it stays there forever.
> Again: The first second when counting up is the time between 0:00 and 0:01 but here the clock switches up to display the 0:01 only at the end AFTER the second has elapsed.
> When counting down the last second counting down is also the time between 0:01 and 0:00, but here the clock switches to 0:01 when the last second BEGINS to elapse. So the clock shows 0:01 until the very end when it switches to 0.


No it doesn't - that's my whole point! A stadium clock shows 0:00 as soon as there's anything less than a second remaining (or 0.0 as soon as there's anything less than 1/10 of a second remaining). This is what has confused the OP.

This is why I said the clock is like a stopwatch in reverse. A stopwatch that's been going for 19.237189 seconds will show 19.23. A countdown clock that has 19.237189 seconds left to run will also show 19.23.



> So if you record a stopwatch counting up starting at 0 on a camera and watch the video run backwards down to 0 again, then you don't get the same as using a clock counting down the remaining seconds.


Yes you do.



> The recorded clock in the reverse video switches down to the next number allways one second before the stopwatch counting the remaining seconds switches.


No it doesn't.


----------



## Alemanniafan

CharlieP said:


> No it doesn't - that's my whole point! A stadium clock shows 0:00 as soon as there's anything less than a second remaining (or 0.0 as soon as there's anything less than 1/10 of a second remaining). This is what has confused the OP.


If it does it doesn't function right because it shouldn't.




CharlieP said:


> This is why I said the clock is like a stopwatch in reverse. A stopwatch that's been going for 19.237189 seconds will show 19.23. A countdown clock that has 19.237189 seconds left to run will also show 19.23.


Partially right partially wrong.

Let's asume the clocks would run past the zero point counting negative seconds. One counting up one counting down and both clocks synchronised to one instantaneous incident in the continuous realtime, happening exactly when the clocks hit the 0, or when it is being started from 0.

Then a "stopwatch" or clock counting up coming from the negative time passing the zero, would show -1 before it reaches the zero, switch to 0 (at the incident both clocks are synchronised to) and show 0 until it reaches +1. 
In this case the beginning of the interval with the clock showing zero is synchronised to the incident at "continuous realtime" 0. 
This clock generaly allways shows timevalues that are or to low, except in exactly those moments when it switches where it shows the correct time for an instant. 

A "countdown" comes from positive values and would show 1 until it hits the synchronising incident in "real time" and would then switch to 0 and display 0 until it reaches -1 after another second. 
This clock generally allways shows timevalues that are to high except in those moments when it switches.

If you now let the time run backwards, which is what you do when watching a video backwards, a clock showing to high values will remain showing to high values and a clock showing to low values will remain showing to low values.
So the reversed clock allways differs from the other kind of clock by the value of 1 depending on the timescale, except for the instants where they both switch and show the correct times for just this instant.


----------



## CharlieP

Alemanniafan said:


> If it does it doesn't function right because it shouldn't.


Says whom? That's how countdown clocks work, as confirmed both by a timekeeper in the discussion I posted a link to *and* the original poster. He's seen a clock show "1:00" for a second, then switch to "59.9", and been confused by it because he's assumed that once the clock shows 1:00 there's a minute or less left to go. If that were the case, he'd only see "1:00" for 0.1 seconds so probably wouldn't even notice it at all, and we wouldn't be having this discussion!


----------



## Marathaman

I'm confused.


----------



## Alemanniafan

CharlieP said:


> Says whom? That's how countdown clocks work, as confirmed both by a timekeeper in the discussion I posted a link to *and* the original poster. He's seen a clock show "1:00" for a second, then switch to "59.9", and been confused by it because he's assumed that once the clock shows 1:00 there's a minute or less left to go. If that were the case, he'd only see "1:00" for 0.1 seconds so probably wouldn't even notice it at all, and we wouldn't be having this discussion!


If that's what they'd use in the NASA the countdown would be:
10 - 9 - 8 - 7 - 6 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - 0 - "lift off"

And in this case the 10 would be showing up eleven seconds before the lauch.
(if the timescale is seconds only)

If they do that in a football stadium, then the only reason I could think of as an explanation is that this way the countdown clock visibly switches immediately when its being started and not after running for one second.


----------



## Darloeye




----------



## Alemanniafan

CharlieP said:


> Says whom? That's how countdown clocks work, as confirmed both by a timekeeper in the discussion I posted a link to *and* the original poster. He's seen a clock show "1:00" for a second, then switch to "59.9", and been confused by it because he's assumed that once the clock shows 1:00 there's a minute or less left to go. If that were the case, he'd only see "1:00" for 0.1 seconds so probably wouldn't even notice it at all, and we wouldn't be having this discussion!


If you run this kind of clock continuously past 0 counting down from -10 seconds before the event and then further up to + 10 seconds after the event for example, on this kind of clock the 0 would end up being displayed for two seconds. And that's certainly not the way it should propperly be.


----------



## carlspannoosh

The only reason that there could be negative time passing the zero would be if you were counting down from -10 seconds before the event so counting negative seconds from then on is missing the 0.1 seconds that had been displayed. If he was in the process of letting the time run backwards he'd only see "1:00" for 0.1 seconds so probably wouldn't even notice it at all, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.


----------



## Marckymarc

There's a very simple test you can do that pretty much proves my point conclusively--all you need is a digital watch with a countdown feature that includes tenths of a second or smaller increments:

Set the timer for 12 minutes (or 20, or whatever time you please) and start the timer. You will notice that when you start the timer it instantly will read 11:59.99. 

Therefore unless the arena game clock likewise instantly shows 11:59 as play begins (which it _doesn't_) you will have an additional second as a result.


----------



## sweet-d

How the hell did any one even begin to think of any thing like this. I think some ones on meth.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

Marckymarc said:


> There's a very simple test you can do that pretty much proves my point conclusively--all you need is a digital watch with a countdown feature that includes tenths of a second or smaller increments:
> 
> Set the timer for 12 minutes (or 20, or whatever time you please) and start the timer. You will notice that when you start the timer it instantly will read 11:59.99.


You don't perhaps think it might have been at 12:00:00 for 1 hundredth of a second, but you couldn't tell?



> Therefore unless the arena game clock likewise instantly shows 11:59 as play begins (which it _doesn't_) you will have an additional second as a result.


No, because even in that case, the game ends when the clock reaches zero, not a second after zero.


Maybe they should just have the scoreboard count 60,59,58,57......3,2,1...then "game over", as clearly having a 0 there could confuse a stupid person.



To put it more simply....which is more likely?

a) The people who design electronic timers for game clocks are make them count for and hour and a second, rather than an hour, because they've made a terrible mistake.

b) you are making the mistake


----------



## Marckymarc

CharlieP said:


> Says whom? That's how countdown clocks work, as confirmed both by a timekeeper in the discussion I posted a link to *and* the original poster. He's seen a clock show "1:00" for a second, then switch to "59.9", and been confused by it because he's assumed that once the clock shows 1:00 there's a minute or less left to go. If that were the case, he'd only see "1:00" for 0.1 seconds so probably wouldn't even notice it at all, and we wouldn't be having this discussion!


Nope. The only confusion by me is why the clock doesn't change immediately to 19:59 as soon as the puck hits the ice, because, in your own words, "THAT'S HOW COUNTDOWN CLOCKS WORK".

Of course the "glitch" might be human error--that is, the timekeeper might not be hitting the start button for up to a second after play begins, but that's 6 of that and half dozen of the other. Extra time added by either a glitch or the timekeeper being a second late on the draw makes no difference to the mathematical result.


----------



## Marckymarc

Rev Stickleback said:


> You don't perhaps think it might have been at 12:00:00 for 1 hundredth of a second, but you couldn't tell?


Ok, for you I'll rephrase it.

"Set the timer for 12 minutes (or 20, or whatever time you please) and start the timer. You will notice that when you start the timer it will, _within 1/100th of a second_, read 11:59.99."

There now


----------



## Marckymarc

Rev Stickleback said:


> Maybe they should just have the scoreboard count 60,59,58,57......3,2,1...then "game over", as clearly having a 0 there could confuse a stupid person.


Actually, a stupid person would assume that a 20 minute countdown clock that doesn't start counting down until 1 second after play begins would still be 20 minutes at the buzzer and not 20 minutes + 1 second.


-


----------



## Rev Stickleback

Marckymarc said:


> Actually, a stupid person would assume that a 20 minute countdown clock that doesn't start counting down until 1 second after play begins would still be 20 minutes at the buzzer and not 20 minutes + 1 second.
> 
> 
> -


It starts counting down immediately. It just doesn't change the display to 19:59 until the first second on the game is over. For the _last_ second of the game it will display 00:01, not 00:00.

The game ends when then clock ticks to 0, not 1 second after 0.

Is that really such a difficult concept to grasp?


Think about it. Why would the makers of an electronic timer deliberately add an extra second?


----------



## Marckymarc

Rev Stickleback said:


> It starts counting down immediately. It just doesn't change the display to 19:59 until the first second on the game is over.


Exactly. Do the math. Exactly 20 minutes have elapsed when the clock ticks down from 00:01 to 00:00.9. From 00:00.9 to 00:00.0 is _another_ second. That's 20:01 total time elapsed.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

> Exactly 20 minutes have elapsed when the clock ticks down from 00:01 to 00:00.9


20 minutes is 1200 seconds.

"Do the math?" So 1200 - 0.9 = 1200, exactly 20 minutes?

If you really believe what you are saying then imagine a 5 second game clock, and fill in the blanks below.

After 0.999 seconds, the clock will show....
After 1.999 seconds, the clock will show....
After 2.999 seconds, the clock will show....
After 3.999 seconds, the clock will show....
After 4.999 seconds, the clock will show....
After 5.000 seconds, the clock will show....


----------



## Alemanniafan

Marckymarc said:


> Exactly. *Do the math.* Exactly 20 minutes have elapsed when the clock ticks down from 00:01 to 00:00.9. From 00:00.9 to 00:00.0 is _another_ second. That's 20:01 total time elapsed.


Are you still in middle school?
Because uhmmm what you're ust doing here is pretty much anything but math. My first guess would be that it's some kind of modern art.

Let me explain 

If a clock can only measure seconds then it ticks fown from 00:01 to 00:00 after 20 minutes.
If it can measure 1/10th seconds, then it takes 19 minutes 59 seconds and 1/10th second until it clicks down from 00:01:0 to 00:00:9 
If it can mesure 1/100 seconds then it takes 19 minutes 59 seconds and 1/100th second until it clicks down from 00:01:00 to 00:00:99

If you switch the display from one range to another, the sensitivity of the clock doesnt change. 
So if the clock would only display seconds until the last second of the game starts, then it takes 19 minutes and 59 seconds until the range of the display switches to a more sensitive display for example displaying the 1/100th of a second. So after 19 minutes and 59 seconds the display would switch from 00:02 to 00:01:00 (instead of switching to 00:01) and then after another 1/100th of a second it would display 00:00:99.
If it doesn't display 00:01:00 but leaves out the last two digits 00 it would look like 00:01 for one 1/100th of a second before the last two digits being :99 show up. and the clock looks like 00:00:99.

There is no second being added it's just that the moment when the clock switches from one display range, where it shows only seconds, to a more sensitive display range, where it starts showing the 1/10th or even 1/100th seconds, might be a bit of an awkward moment. 
But what the clock really measures internally, is allways the full sensitivity including the 1/100th seconds or as one should expect even far smaller fractions of seconds.


----------



## Marckymarc

Rev Stickleback said:


> 20 minutes is 1200 seconds.
> 
> "Do the math?" So 1200 - 0.9 = 1200, exactly 20 minutes?
> 
> If you really believe what you are saying then imagine a 5 second game clock, and fill in the blanks below.
> 
> After 0.999 seconds, the clock will show....
> After 1.999 seconds, the clock will show....
> After 2.999 seconds, the clock will show....
> After 3.999 seconds, the clock will show....
> After 4.999 seconds, the clock will show....
> After 5.000 seconds, the clock will show....


Ok here you go: 

(Remember that as you stated in your previous post...



> It just doesn't change the display to 19:59 until the first second on the game is over....


...it takes a second for the clock to change after play begins, therefore...)

After 0.999 seconds, the clock will show.... 00:04
After 1.999 seconds, the clock will show.... 00:03
After 2.999 seconds, the clock will show.... 00:02
After 3.999 seconds, the clock will show.... 00:01
After 4.999 seconds, the clock will show.... 00:00.9
After 5.999 seconds, the clock will show.... 00:00.0

That's 6 seconds in a supposedly 5 second game.

Like I said, do the math.


-


----------



## Marckymarc

Alemanniafan said:


> Are you still in middle school?
> Because uhmmm what you're ust doing here is pretty much anything but math. My first guess would be that it's some kind of modern art.


How does this not add up?

It takes 1 second of play for the clock to change to 19:59...it takes another 19 minutes and 59 seconds for the clock to change to 00:00.9....it takes another second for the clock to reach 00:00.0

Now tell me what you get when you add those totals up.

1 second
+
19 minutes and 59 seconds
+
0.9 seconds
=
?


----------



## Rev Stickleback

Marckymarc said:


> After 3.999 seconds, the clock will show.... 00:01
> After 4.999 seconds, the clock will show.... 00:00.9
> 
> -


So time slows down here then, and only counts 1/10th of a second in this second? (as well as a clock that indicates in seconds suddenly changing to show 1/10th of a second)

But now you've introduced 1/10th of a second into this stadium clock, lets see how that would look.

After 0.999 seconds, the clock will show.... 00:04.1
After 1.999 seconds, the clock will show.... 00:03.1
After 2.999 seconds, the clock will show.... 00:02.1
After 3.999 seconds, the clock will show.... 00:01.1
After 4.999 seconds, the clock will show.... 00:00.1
After 5.000 seconds, the clock will show.... 00:00.0

and no, the clock doesn't start at 5.9, so you are either going to find a way of making the clock go from 1.1 to 0.9 in one second, admit you can see your mistake, or more likely, just be shown up as a troll. After all the explanations you've received, it's nigh on impossible that anyone could still not get it.

ps
http://www.ramocafe.com/t86719.html

sharing the idea with a wider audience, are we?


----------



## Marckymarc

Rev Stickleback said:


> So time slows down here then, and only counts 1/10th of a second in this second? (as well as a clock that indicates in seconds suddenly changing to show 1/10th of a second)


Look, I'll make this so simple that anyone--even someone like you who obviously can't grasp elementary math--can get it.

Follow along if you can:

A 5 second game clock: 00:05

After 1 second of game play the clock ticks down to 00:04 
After 2 seconds of game play the clock ticks down to 00:03 
After 3 seconds of game play the clock ticks down to 00:02 
After 4 seconds of game play the clock ticks down to 00:01
After 5 seconds of game play the clock ticks down to 00:00.9
After _6 seconds of game play_ the clock ticks down to 00:00.0

Six seconds. Do. the. math.

Now if that was too hard for you let's make it eeeeeeeeven simpler: _a 2 second game clock
_
00:02 *Start*

After 1 second of game play the clock ticks down to 00:01

After 2 seconds of game play the clock goes into 1/10 second mode and ticks down to 00:00.9

After _3 seconds_ of game play the clock ticks down to 00:00.0 *horn*

Are you catching on yet?

-


----------



## Alemanniafan

Marckymarc said:


> How does this not add up?
> 
> It takes 1 second of play for the clock to change to 19:59...*it takes another 19 minutes and 59 seconds for the clock to change to 00:00.9*....it takes another second for the clock to reach 00:00.0
> 
> Now tell me what you get when you add those totals up.
> 
> 1 second
> +
> 19 minutes and 59 seconds
> +
> 0.9 seconds
> =
> ?



No, in your eample it doesn't take another 19 minutes and 59 seconds.
It only takes another 19 minutes and 58 seconds and 1/10th of a second. And after that it takes another 0.9 seconds until the game ends.
So the math you have to do is:

1second 
+
19 minutes and 58 seconds and 1/10th of a second
+
0.9 seconds 
= 20 minutes


Let me try to show it to you the simple way again.

A) The elapes time on the left, B) the time displayed on clock showing seconds in the middle and C) on the right a clock showing 1/10th of a second.
Excuse me for not posting 1/100th of a second, because it would be far to much work.


I'll start with the last 1,5 seconds in a 20 minute match.


A) ; B); C)

19:58:5 ; 00:02 ; 00:01:5
19:58:6 ; 00:02 ; 00:01:4
19:58:7 ; 00:02 ; 00:01:3
19:58:8 ; 00:02 ; 00:01:2
19:58:9 ; 00:02 ; 00:01:1
19:59:0 ; 00:01 ; 00:01:0
19:59:1 ; 00:01 ; 00:00:9
19:59:2 ; 00:01 ; 00:00:8
19:59:3 ; 00:01 ; 00:00:7
19:59:4 ; 00:01 ; 00:00:6
19:59:5 ; 00:01 ; 00:00:5
19:59:6 ; 00:01 ; 00:00:4
19:59:7 ; 00:01 ; 00:00:3
19:59:8 ; 00:01 ; 00:00:2
19:59:9 ; 00:01 ; 00:00:1
20:00:0 ; 00:00 ; 00:00:0 = END OF GAME

The red lines are the full seconds and you can switch from one displayed time to another whenever you want, but you have to take the synchronous moments not hop from one point in time to another.
What you're trying to do, is to hop from the very last moment before the game ends on the clock displaying only full seconds (here in blue), over to the moment where just a bit less than 1 full second still remains to be played. (here in green)
The yellow numbers are the ones you'd have correctly displayed when jumping at the red 00:01 to the green 00:00:9 on the more sensitive clock display.

So when you switch from the clock showing seconds to the one showing 1/10th of a second at the beginning of the last second the 00:01 seems to magically "dissapear" very quickly because it turns into 00:00:9 after one 1/10th of a second allready.
If you switch from seconds to 1/10th seconds at a moment two seconds before the game ends, then the 00:02 would "dissapear" quickly after just one 1/10th of a second and is replaced by the more accurate 00:01:9 instead. That hast to be so of course, because the interval at which the display switches then is far more sensitive than it was before. 
It doesn't really make sense to display a time as accurately as 1/10th of a second for a full second, does it? 
And 00:01:0 or 00:00:9 are as accurate as 1/10th of a second, wether you display the ":0" at the end or just leave it out and display only the "00:01", it has to be replaced after 1/10th of a second on a clock as sensitive as 1/10th of a second - or else something is wrong. 

And once more again:

As I allready explained before a countdown is not the same as a reversed clock counting up.
If you define the time on the countdown before the event that's relevant as negative
A clock ticking on past the zero would show

- 00:02 
- 00:01
00:00
+ 00:01
+ 00:02
...
each of these for a second. 

And the important incident (here the end of the game) is synchronized to the beginning of the interval during which the clock displays 00:00 , because a stopwatch or counting up starts at 00:00 when it's started (not at 00:01)

leaving out the "-" sign and counting down and up again you'll get this:

00:02
00:01
--------- (End of game, or start of new measurement counting up is synchronized to the incident the clock ticks down to 00:00)
00:00
00:01
00:02

But if you take a stopwatch or clock counting up and reverse it by recording it on video and playing it backwards. And use that to countdown

00:02
00:01
00:00
----------End of game, start of new measurement
00:00
00:01 
00:02

So the 00:00 in this case would end up being displayed "twice" for a full second and since the clock doesn't noticeably switch from 00:00 to 00:00 one couldn't even tell when the game ends or starts.

And because a countdown is not a reversed stopwatch the time for which it displays 00:01 (which is identical to 00:01:00) before switching to display 1/100th of seconds and thus displaying 00:00:99 then, takes just 1/100th of as second on a countdown. 

A normal clock which counts up though comes from 00:00:00 and ticks up to 00:01:00 after one second.
And after that it either displays 00:01:01 or if you switch to a mode showing only full seconds it displays 00:01 for a full second.

As You might see now, there is a difference between the two, which is a little irritating.
And that's because a clock is allways synchronized to the beginning of the interval during which it displays a time, not to the middle or to the end.
The point to which the clock is synchronized is not symmetrically in the middle of the display intervals and that is also the reason why a countdown is not just simply a reversed clock, because to be reversable the synchronisation would have to be in the center of the display interval.
(But if it were, then in that case, the clock would switch from 00:00 to 00:01 allready after half a second)


----------



## Rev Stickleback

Marckymarc said:


> After 1 second of game play the clock ticks down to 00:01
> 
> After 2 seconds of game play the clock goes into 1/10 second mode and ticks down to 00:00.9
> 
> -


Why would it take a whole second to go from 00:01 to 00:00.9?

Refer to my example above or stop wasting people's time.

I've just about given you the benefit of the doubt because nothing in your posting history suggests you start similar threads elsewhere, and you don't seem to be a kid, but it's almost unknown to be this obtuse without trying.

This idea that the clocks sits there displaying 1 second for a second, then goes to 0.9, is just in your head. It doesn't happen. It would show 1 for 1/10th of a second.

I have an electronic timer just like that. It mainly counts in minutes, but flips to seconds for the last minute.

for between 120 and 60 seconds it'll show a 2.
When there are 60 seconds left, it'll show a 1.
When there are 59 seconds left, it'll show 59.

It does not sit there for a whole minute showing 2, then another whole minute showing 1, then go to 59.


----------



## Marckymarc

Rev Stickleback said:


> *Why would it take a whole second to go from 00:01 to 00:00.9?
> *


For the same reason it would take a whole second to go from 1:00 to 00.59.9 Einstein.


----------



## Marckymarc

Alemanniafan said:


> No, in your eample it doesn't take another 19 minutes and 59 seconds.
> It only takes another 19 minutes and 58 seconds and 1/10th of a second.



When the period starts, the clock takes 1 second to tick down to 19:59 from 20:00, right?

*Answer me this one simple question:*

What is it, including the invisible decimals, for the full second before it changes to 19:59?

_You're ignoring the glaring fact that the clock does not change from 20:00 to 19:59 until one second of play has elapsed.
_
If, as you say, *19:59* is really 19:59.9--19:59.0, then what is *20:00* for the full second it displays!? 

Logically it must be 20:00.9--20:00.0 


-


----------



## Alemanniafan

Marckymarc said:


> When the period starts, the clock takes 1 second to tick down to 19:59 from 20:00, right?
> 
> *Answer me this one simple question:*
> 
> What is it, including the invisible decimals, for the full second before it changes to 19:59?
> 
> _You're ignoring the glaring fact that the clock does not change from 20:00 to 19:59 until one second of play has elapsed.
> _
> If, as you say, *19:59* is really 19:59.9--19:59.0, then what is *20:00* for the full second it displays!?
> 
> Logically it must be 20:00.9--20:00.0
> 
> 
> -


No, wrong thinking again. (in the words of your posting the 19.59 on one clock is kind of the time from 15:*58*:99999999999 to 19:*58*:0000000000000 on a far more sensitive clock. Notice that it's *58*."something" not like you think 59."something". If you loo at my coloured example of a timeline, you'll also see that. This is so, because the clock is allways synchronized to the beginning of the display interval. And the moment when one clock switches to 19:59 is the exact same moment a far more sensitive clock switches to the mathematically identical 19:59:000000000000.(Add as many zeros as you want) 
So however accurate a clock can display the time, if they're all perfectly synchronised they all switch to the mathematically identical time of 15:59 =15:59:0 = 15:59.00 = 15:59:00000 or... at the exact same moment in time. 
But the timeinterval for how long that time is being displays after that moment then naturally varies of course from clock to clock because they have different sesitivities. I know it might seem awkward, to see "58.something" on the sensitive clock instead of "59.something" when the less sensitive clock display just the "59", but it is indeed correct that way and it has to be like that, because of the way clocks are synchronized. 
And it all looks perfectly "normal" and "usual" when the clocks count up, after passing the 00:00:00, it just happens to look "awkward" when counting down before it reaches 00:00:00. 
But it's not the display interval that's really of main interest in a clock, it's the very moment when it switches that matters, because those are the moments when it displays the exact time for an infinitesimally brief moment. 
And these moments are what has to be aligned between the clocks when they are being synchronized with each other. 
It's really of no importance that the 9s or 5s or zeros or 59s look nice and the way one might "want" them to look when "hopping" from one clock to another, from one sensitivity to another. What matters instead is that the clocks all show the exact same time synchronously when they reach those moments, where they switch to a timevalue that they can all display correctly/exactly and mathematically identical on all clocks. And here in our example it just matters that all clocks start showing 19:59 = 19:59:000000 the exact moment when there are 19 minutes and 59 seconds left to play - and it really doesnt matter much how long they display that time or when they stop displaying that.)

the first 1,5 seconds of the game look like this:
(again just like in my coloured example: A) The elapsed time on the left, B) the time displayed on clock showing seconds in the middle and C) on the right a clock showing 1/10th of a second.)

A) ; B); C)

00:00:0 ; 20:00 ; 20:00:0 = Start of gameplay
00:00:1 ; 20:00 ; 19:59:9
00:00:2 ; 20:00 ; 19:59:8
00:00:3 ; 20:00 ; 19:59:7
00:00:4 ; 20:00 ; 19:59:6
00:00:5 ; 20:00 ; 19:59:5
00:00:6 ; 20:00 ; 19:59:4
00:00:7 ; 20:00 ; 19:59:3
00:00:8 ; 20:00 ; 19:59:2
00:00:9 ; 20:00 ; 19:59:1
00:01:0 ; 19:59 ; 19:59:0
00:01:1 ; 19:59 ; 19:58:9
00:01:2 ; 19:59 ; 19:58:8
00:01:3 ; 19:59 ; 19:58:7
00:01:4 ; 19:59 ; 19:58:6
00:01:5 ; 19:59 ; 19:58:5

again the full seconds in red.

Feel free to put it into an exel sheet and check itall the way down to 0:00:0.
(Or write it down by hand or copy paste all the way down to the last second)
You'll see the times that I posted are right.

If you don't understand my explanations, feel free to read my postings again and again, an check them with the numbers.
But do keep in mind that some people here have indeed posted faulty timelines (some examples, where there really would be an extra second added), so don't let that confuse you.
It's actually indeed pretty simple, it just has to be done thoroughly and correctly.

And keep in mind that the countdown has to be done in the way that the clock can continue running like any normal clock does after the end of the countdown, just like I also explained. 
If you define the time before the event (here the end of game) as negative and let the clock run past 0 into positive values you can easily check if everything you've written down is correct. 
Scientifically a clock has to run past the 0 and not show any display interval twice or twice as long or shorter or longer than the rest.
And the end of the game is allways exactly the incident when the 00:00:00 shows up on the display.
You may also feel free to think of it as "infinitesimally before" the 00:00:00 shows up, because then you'll understand, that the timeinterval during which the 00:00:00 is being displayed is allready past the end of the game (or the incident the clock is synchronized to). Just like the start of the game is the incident when the 20:00 starts showing up or thought of as "infinitesimally before" that display interval of each clock starts.

If you don't want to do it for 20 minutes (what I can really understand), do it for a game lasting only 60 - better 61 or 65 seconds, so you'll understand how the minutes work also.
They have to be displayed just like REV Stickleback described his minute sensitive clock when it's switching to seconds and displays them and the minutes also have to be displayed just like on a normal clock after the 0:00 in the positive timevalues.

It's all just such a confusing or strange little hazzle, because the synchronisation of a clock is "assymetric" and not in the middle of the display interval. 
But it really wouldn't make all that much sense to synchronize a clock with the middle of the display intervals.
Because if one would do such, one could never really tell when exactly it turns noon or midnight or 3:15 am or whatever other time, because looking at the clock you'd only know the moment of interest is in between the clock switching to the desired time and away from that time again. But you could never really know when exactly that moment is or was. Just like you simply can't tell when exactly it is 3h 35 minutes and 10,5 seconds on a normal watch.

I've done enough explaining here, far too much actually.

If you still don't fully understand where your mistake is, just take your time and simply continue the numbers the way I wrote them down and fill the gap between the start and the end.
Whenever you're at a full second all the clocks have to show full seconds just like they do in my example (because 00:01 is mathematically identical to 00:01:0 and not to 00:00:9 or 00:01:1 and the clocks allways have to show the same time in these moments, when they're running synchronous otherwise they'd have an offset). You'll quickly understand how it all works then.

Alemanniafan


----------



## Rev Stickleback

Marckymarc said:


> When the period starts, the clock takes 1 second to tick down to 19:59 from 20:00, right?
> 
> *Answer me this one simple question:*
> 
> What is it, including the invisible decimals, for the full second before it changes to 19:59?
> 
> _You're ignoring the glaring fact that the clock does not change from 20:00 to 19:59 until one second of play has elapsed.
> _
> If, as you say, *19:59* is really 19:59.9--19:59.0, then what is *20:00* for the full second it displays!?
> 
> Logically it must be 20:00.9--20:00.0
> 
> 
> -


Logically you'd be spot on if clocks displayed the 1 for a whole second, then went to 0.9

They don't.

They'd display 1 for 0.1 seconds, then go to 0.9


They don't start a second early - give it some though. Why would anyone design it to do that?
They don't add an extra second between going from 1 to 0.9 - again, give it some thought. why would they design it like that?

Electronic timers aren't wrong. You are.


You've invented your own two little ideas, that of the clock "really" starting at 20:00.9 and also it taking a second to go from 1 to 0.9 (hey, isn't that an extra two seconds!) and you are arguing based on your own incorrect assumptions.


To be frank though, the fact that you keep moving the goalposts to avoid answering the questions put to you, leads me to conclude you are just trolling for some reason.


----------



## en1044

I have a feeling that one day, long after this thread has been closed, that it will be considered the Ultimate Internet Study on sports game clock management.

Congrats guys...you're famous.


----------



## CharlieP

This thread is getting boring.

The simple answer is that a countdown timer set to measure 12 minutes *will* measure 12 minutes exactly - the only confusion is caused by what it's displaying on-screen as it's doing so. If it appears to show 1:00 for a second before switching to 59.9, that's because it's displaying times with a precision of 1/10 second, but not showing the tenths of seconds for anything over 1:00.

1:01.0
1:00.9
1:00.8
1:00.7
1:00.6
1:00.5
1:00.4
1:00.3
1:00.2
1:00.1
1:00.0
59.5
59.8

If that's the case, then at the start the timer should instantly switch to 11:59.9 once game time starts. markymarc is claiming that it doesn't, but I want to know how he can make this claim, given that he has no way of knowing when the timer has been started. Is an official in a booth pressing a button when the referee blows his whistle? If so, you have to factor in reaction time (I watch a lot of televised rugby, and there's always a lag of about a second between the referee signalling time off, and the clock stopping, which isn't a problem since you have the same lag when he restarts the game). Is there a hooter at the start of the game? If so, does the game officially start at the start of the hooter?

The only way to prove this once and for all is by writing to the NBA or NHL and asking them to explain how they time games. :lol:


----------



## GEwinnen

..........................


----------



## Marcin_28

*ESTADIO DA TAPADINHA*

hello guys, 
I'm sorry if it is wrong place to ask this kind of question.
I'm looking for a city in Europe where I can find one ( or even more) stadiums like the one from the title of my thread.
http://gloriasdopassado.blogspot.com/2007/12/estdio-da-tapadinha.html

As you can see it is very old, looks like destroyed but it has a specific old schol style. I need a city name where I can find similar place, I need it for a photo session, I would be glad if you help me. Thanks!


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Such stadiums still stand in most European countries, unused and forgotten. What countries do you want to visit?


----------



## repin

*ESTADIO DA TAPADINHA in Losbon*


----------



## Marcin_28

I would like to visit country in Europe, I would like to go there by plane so it should be rather big city, I think about Greece, Spain, Italy, maybe Germany.


----------



## redbaron_012

117,000 people at a baseball game.....Melbourne 1956 ! Melbourne is good.... : )
heck, we don't even play baseball here..............
Ok we do but.............


----------



## Leedsrule

Can someone list me some clubs, not neccacarily just football just some sports teams around the world who need a new stadium? Anything more than 20k or so?


----------



## alexandru.mircea

^ You can start with the Italian Serie A, the whole lot of it (minus Juventus).


----------



## Leedsrule

I was thinking, Between all of us in this forum we must know almost every single thing there is to know about stadiums and sports arena's. Is that likely? I mean obviously there will be a stadium here and there which no-one knows about, but I mean in the major leagues and countries- i'm sure most of us could recognise and give a good estimation of the capacity of most of the major stadiums worldwide, but who do you think knows the most?

Itd be interesting to do a proper stadium quiz, you cant find them around on the internet because its so specific and if you can the questions are rubbish like "Where do Newcastle play?". Itd only be a bit of fun, I just think it would be quite interesting, because I bet there aren't many people around the world who know more than us about "stadiums and sports arena's". If its something people are interested in having a go at, I don't mind setting up a short one with a few questions (Id have to make it google-proof) to start us off, but i'd probaboly want to enter one eventually if enough people were involved. What do you think?

Just an idea


----------



## Leedsrule




----------



## MarkJF

*Stadium Quiz*

9/10 for me, 10/10 means you are Google cheating IMO.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/quiz/2013/may/29/football-quiz-name-stadiums-aerial-view


----------



## Kobo

MarkJF said:


> 9/10 for me, 10/10 means you are Google cheating IMO.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/quiz/2013/may/29/football-quiz-name-stadiums-aerial-view


Thanks MarkJF for moving my post this seems a more appropriate page. I got 10/10 but I almost messed up on Qu: 2 & 9 !!!


----------



## MarkJF

Kobo said:


> Thanks MarkJF for moving my post this seems a more appropriate page. I got 10/10 but I almost messed up on Qu: 2 & 9 !!!


You already posted it? I am sorry.

I did know 10/10 but clicked the wrong answer on 1. hno:


----------



## Leedsrule

MarkJF said:


> 9/10 for me, 10/10 means you are Google cheating IMO.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/quiz/2013/may/29/football-quiz-name-stadiums-aerial-view


Aha 10/10 without cheating, I knew all of them without looking at the options, except the last one, which I had to look at the options before realising what it was :banana:

Any more?


----------



## Bogus Law

only 6/10 but still not bad I think. A bit shame 8/10 are British stadia - guess I could have done better otherwise


----------



## Kobo

MarkJF said:


> You already posted it? I am sorry.
> 
> I did know 10/10 but clicked the wrong answer on 1. hno:


No worries dude.


----------



## Guest

I got 9 out of 10. The one I got wrong was Villa Park, I said Anfield.


----------



## Leedsrule

I don't know if this'll work but try this one. 20 questions 

http://www.quizrevolution.com/ch/a178289/go


----------



## Kobo

Thats a much harder quiz. I got 1400 points on it (14/20).


----------



## Rev Stickleback

19/20. I failed on the Port Elizabeth question.


----------



## LucianPopa1000

^^ A link to this famous pop quiz?


----------



## Leedsrule

http://www.quizrevolution.com/ch/a178289/go


----------



## LucianPopa1000

Can someone please give me a link to this quiz?10x


----------



## Leedsrule

Does anyone have a higher resolution/ quality version of this:










Also is this the same stadium, and are they the only 2 pictures of it that were released?

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/pictu...i=4575NationalStadiumBirmingham_pic1.jpg&no=1


----------



## dande

Why is Qatar 2022 thread closed?


----------



## Lumbergo

^^ too much trolling


----------



## dande

Oh ok, good thing that the last post in there got in before they closed it.


----------



## honeycutt

:banana: Hi.. I'm newbie here.. It's my first post... I have favorite in particular for tall building, stadium and open space park... Sorry for my english, it ain't my mother tongue


----------



## Lallo_bl

Hello, 
I was wondering if someone here would be kind enough to give me some information about different building codes for sport arenas (primarily US and Canadian). In particular I'm interested in height of the stands for the hockey arenas and specifically height difference between eye sight line and head of the spectator in the row below. 
I’ll appreciate any information I can get.
Thank you,
lallo


----------



## Kaban01

Most unusual world stadiums article


----------



## Leedsrule

Please vote for your favourite 

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1693903


----------



## gavstar00

*Lost/Demolished Stadiums*

Can I ask the mods can we look at setting up a sub forum for Lost/Demolished stadiums to go along with the Completed, Under Construction & Proposed forums?

The reason being is that once new builds are completed (Levi's Stadium, New Vikings Stadium etc) the former stadium threads will cease to exist. It's also a great way of creating new threads for former stadiums that will easily accessible to people as opposed to the current situation where they're all thrown into the Old stadiums thread or randomly lobbed into the stadium that replaced its' thread.

Thoughts?


----------



## alexandru.mircea

^ downsized stadiums too. Like the case for the stadium in Udine.


----------



## fidalgo

mods should change the title of the thread "LIBYA - 2013 Africa Cup of Nations" to "LIBYA - 2017 Africa Cup of Nations" due to the tournament been postponed


----------



## will101

What is the policy on discussion of stadium-related outside products? I've recently come across one company that sells prints of stadium blueprints, and another that sells jigsaw puzzles of stadium photos.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Very interesting piece; will post my thoughts later: 



> Why stadiums need a sense of place
> *Jonathan Wilson*
> 
> There are many bad things about the new football stadium in Sao Paulo where the opening game of the World Cup was staged on Thursday (starting with its existence, given it was created for political reasons, when there were at least two existing stadiums in the city that with a lick of paint and minimal upgrading could have done the job perfectly well), but there is one thing that it gets emphatically right, and that is the fact that there are gaps in the corners.
> 
> There is a one-tier bowl, plus permanent second tiers down the long sides of the ground, with temporary stands at the two ends. In the corners are the big screens and television boxes, but they are low, so you can see through, and what that means is that you get a sense of where you are. After hours cooped up in the air-conditioned tent of the media, there's something refreshing about being able to see downtown Sao Paulo, shady hills in the background, a reminder that there is a world beyond the World Cup. When Brazil scored, you could see fireworks bursting in the evening sky.
> 
> This, of course, is an area in which cricket has a huge advantage over football. Because the stands tend to be lower, there is a constant sense of life going on outside, from Lumley Castle at Chester-le-Street to Table Mountain at Newlands, to Henry Blofeld's beloved buses passing Archbishop Tennyson's School outside The Oval.
> 
> That gives cricket stadiums an identity, a sense of place, that is vital but is all too often missing from football, with its identikit modern bowls that reach to the skies. And that's just thinking of the aesthetic, without considering what impact buildings or trees may have on atmospheric conditions: variety is good.
> 
> Old football grounds still occasionally have that sense of place. At Ninian Park, until two years ago the home of Cardiff City, for instance, you used to be able to see trains passing one corner of the ground. Roker Park, once the home of Sunderland, was one of many grounds that gave a glimpse of the terraced housing that surrounded them. At Tannadice, home of Dundee United, and Upton Park, home of West Ham United, there are flats that have a view into the stadium. They were or are grounds rooted in their communities. At the Estadio da Luz in Lisbon, home of this year's Champions League final, the castle is visible in the distance.
> 
> One of my favourite experiences in football was covering an Asian Cup game between Japan and Saudi Arabia in Saida, Lebanon, in 2000, at a time when it seemed the balance of power in Asian football was shifting from west (represented by the Saudis, winners of three of the previous four tournaments) to east (represented by Japan, who had won on home soil in 1992). To the right of the high main stand, the Mediterranean crashed against the rocks and a Crusader fort. Straight ahead, between the mountains that formed the western edge of the Bekaa Valley, a fairground was silhouetted against a purple sky in which lightning flickered. The scene was set for something dramatic, and what followed was the Gotterdammerung of Saudi football as they lost 4-1.
> 
> The backdrop added to the occasion. Too often, though, modern football stadiums reach up to the sky. In the homogenised world of the World Cup, it can be impossible to know where you are. I remember in 2006, in Germany, the sense of panic as I tried to add my byline and couldn't recall if I was in Cologne or Frankfurt. Thankfully FIFA, as though recognising the potential problems, add the names of the host cities on a hoarding by the halfway line.
> 
> But most of the time one football stadium is very much like another, particularly during major tournaments. The modern football ground is two or three tiers of plastic seats, with very little to distinguish them in terms of the angle of the seats or the distribution of the stands. They are comfortable and have good sight lines, but they are often generic, interchangeable.
> 
> Cricket grounds still have their idiosyncrasies, even if modern redevelopment - Adelaide perhaps most obviously - risks removing them. Of course it's understandable that executives want to pack in as many people as possible and maximise the returns on corporate hospitality, but at the same time cricket cannot lose what make its grounds unique - from the mountains of Dharamsala to the volcano at Pukekura to the trees at Kandy to the beach at St Vincent to the cathedral at Worcester. After all, without its quirks, cricket is nothing.


http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/content/story/752705.html


----------



## |WTKI|

Mods, please change this thread's title.

From: *USA - 2016 Copa America*
To: *USA - 2016 Centennial Cup America / Copa América Centenario 2016*

My reasons here:



|WTKI| said:


> First, I think this thread should be named as _2016 Centennial Cup America_ / _Copa América Centenario 2016_, because that's the official name. _Copa América_ is only related to the CONMEBOL tournament and featured on the FIFA International Match Calendar, which _2016 Centennial Cup America_ isn't at least until September 2014.
> 
> [...]


----------



## ardvo

*The Changing Nature of Arenas - Richard Breslin & Andrew Noonan*

July saw the opening of the 50,000 seat Philippine Arena in Manila. Commissioned by Iglesia Ni Cristo ( the Church of Christ), it was the church’s gift to the Philippine community. The arena is of a scale not previously seen in the Philippines and will put the country on the world stage. Although it was built as a community facility, it is also an example of a new breed of mega arenas beginning to develop across Asia, as entertainment rather than sport becomes the driving force for arena development. 

My colleague Andrew Noonan, who is working on our team on the Theatre, the arena that is part of Darling Harbour Live in Sydney, is recently returned from a study tour of the some of the world’s great arenas, and he explains this evolution in arena design, particularly in Asia, has been created by an ever increasing demand for entertainment amongst a growing middle class.

The first decade of the Twentieth Century saw major changes in the music industry which directly affected the way people accessed popular music. The result was the decline in dominance of record companies and the ascent of live music performances and merchandise sales as the predominant revenue stream for many of the world most popular performers. While the introduction of portable music devices and peer to peer technology was largely responsible for the decline in album and single sales, it was the by-product of this technology which seemed to have made the most impact. The freedom of access to music reduced the exclusivity of owning music and created a more divergent music market, where audiences aspired to find the latest sounds. The unique experience of the new was often more sought after than the quality of music. This pursuit for the unique experience has ultimately driven the greatest change, particularly in the developing markets within Asia, with a growing middle class hungry for entertainment at a global scale. 

This growing demand in Asia and, to a lesser extent, Europe has generated an evolution in arena design itself. The operational and technical demands of live music events, whether it’s children’s entertainment or popular music concerts, is driving the design and development of a new type of facility to replace the traditional sport-centric arena model. Understanding how this new type of arena operates and planning for its specific requirements for adaptability and flexibility is the key to unlocking the potential of tomorrow’s arenas. They will be configured to suit the desired atmosphere of the artist, provide the best experience for the audience, and create successful and viability facilities for operators. 

The biggest change for the next generation of arena design is the fundamental differences between sports floor and stage performance events. By optimising the facility to accommodate the greatest number of occurring events, rather than for the greatest number of potential events, many of the operational expenses and shortcomings, standard pitfalls for arena operation, can be avoided. This includes minimizing event turnaround times, allowing for a more full event calendar with reduced staffing requirements, decreasing lost seating to the rear stage area, and enabling a greater capacity during the majority of events. It means more of the audience will be in the most desired location, without the maintenance expense of unsold seats and underutilised washroom and food and beverage offerings. 

Similarly, many shows now have longer runs, with artists performing in the same venue for multiple nights, and so backstage areas are starting to shift away from the traditional handful of small generic unfinished dressing rooms to spaces which are more conducive and comfortable, with ample facilities for technical crew and support staff. Equally, increases in stage and ancillary spaces are already occurring to allow for a greater variety of show. As touring shows increase in size and complexity, so too the requirements increase to provide safe and readily accessible rigging and technical areas. 

However, it is in the patron experience where there is the greatest potential in the next generation of arena design. Front of house offerings to patrons will become more varied, providing more intimate and unique spaces. Generic concourses now become a destination, providing patrons with a variety of engaging experiences, from pre-booked dining options to a variety of exclusive lounge spaces. These are offered during and, just as importantly both before or after the event, enticing patrons to arrive earlier and stay longer to savour in the experience of the show for longer. 

Populous has already experienced this shift from the multipurpose sporting arenas to primarily live music event based designs in both the O2 Dublin and Leeds arena and is currently expanding on this suite of ground breaking arena designs with the Philippine Arena in Manila and the Theatre at Darling Harbour Live in Sydney. However, the evolving requirements and changing potential and opportunities of the next generation of arenas are still to be fully exploited and the shift away from providing the generic sports facilities has proven complex. The new demands that live music performances place on arenas is evolving rapidly as live shows are becoming increasingly technically and physically demanding.

source: http://www.isportconnect.com


----------



## kubica fan ireland

*Questions*

Just wanted to ask a few questions and I thought the general forum would be the best place. It is there anywhere that old stadium projects that were in the proposed thread go when they are cancelled. For example the Waterfront stadium that was supposed to hold the rugby world cup final in New Zealand, or the now defunct Stanley Park Liverpool.
Also could anyone name the best websites for getting photos of the grounds around the world.
And is there any other good websites people visit for stadium renderings and information.


----------



## RMB2007

kubica fan ireland said:


> Just wanted to ask a few questions and I thought the general forum would be the best place. It is there anywhere that old stadium projects that were in the proposed thread go when they are cancelled. For example the Waterfront stadium that was supposed to hold the rugby world cup final in New Zealand, or the now defunct Stanley Park Liverpool.
> Also could anyone name the best websites for getting photos of the grounds around the world.
> *And is there any other good websites people visit for stadium renderings and information.*


Yeah, StadiumDB:

http://stadiumdb.com/designs


----------



## kubica fan ireland

Thanks Rmb 2007. Just to confirm cancelled projects do not get moved from the proposed section.


----------



## RMB2007

kubica fan ireland said:


> Thanks Rmb 2007. Just to confirm cancelled projects do not get moved from the proposed section.


I think they just get closed or left in the proposed section. For example, here's the thread for Liverpool's failed new stadium:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=317914


----------



## KOLEMBH24

*Can you help me by naming every sports arena/stadium song that you know?*

I'm looking for a few certain songs that I have only heard played in arenas/stadiums. I can't describe them, so I want people to just name any song that you know, and I hope that you name it. 

Here are some restrictions to help narrow down choices. 

- Don't name popular songs. What I mean by this is songs like "Welcome to the Jungle" and "We Will Rock You", songs that can be popular without being played in a arena/stadium. 

- Try to stay away from major bands. Chances are these bands don't have the songs I'm looking for. It's possible, but I already know that most don't have these songs. 

- Name songs that generally have few to no words. These are more likely to be the ones I'm looking for. I'd say to look more on the side of techno/electronic/dance club music, don't think that describes it 100% well but that's the best way to describe it. 

Best answer will be the one who names the most songs I am looking for.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

A classic:


----------



## MicroX

Anyone know what stadium this is?


----------



## RMB2007

MicroX said:


> Anyone know what stadium this is?


Benfica's former stadium:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estádio_da_Luz_(1954)

http://stadiumdb.com/historical/por/estadio_da_luz_2003


----------



## xstratus

what do you think about goal nets?I think that white and tightly woven nets are very tempting for football .. 
like this








or this









i dont like colour nets on goalposts!!!


----------



## xstratus

this is for example my favorite
 







and this


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Wow, the 2018 revote thread must have degenerated amazingly bad so that it had to be nuked. :lol:


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Top 50 Most Expensive Stadiums in the World (adjusted for inflation)

Is that list any good?


----------



## kubica fan ireland

*Thread deletion*

I constantly have my posts rejected, especially if they are longer than about 4 sentences. It constantly refers to too many URLs or forbidden words. I am not a computer whizz kid with fairly basic knowledge so I assume it is just something simle I am doing wrong. Any help would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## www.sercan.de

Hi guys,

just for your information.
After six wonderfull years i will quit as a mod of the stadium and arena section.

I am really proud and honoured to be a part of the stadium section. Since we opened the stadium and arena section, it is one of the most popular sections at the forum.

Every day more and more people are viewing the stadium and arena threads and it deserves a more active mod.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Cheers, enjoy the time off!


----------



## endrity

www.sercan.de said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> just for your information.
> After six wonderfull years i will quit as a mod of the stadium and arena section.
> 
> I am really proud and honoured to be a part of the stadium section. Since we opened the stadium and arena section, it is one of the most popular sections at the forum.
> 
> Every day more and more people are viewing the stadium and arena threads and it deserves a more active mod.


We will miss you sercan!


----------



## www.sercan.de

I will stay here as a normal user


----------



## HochSollErLeben!

Question for the stadium-experts...

Do you know of any stadiums which make use of the space underneath the playing surface/football ground? I am thinking of car parking, storage, basement areas or whatsoever...?


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Louis II in Monaco, I think...


----------



## www.sercan.de

Warsaw stadium


----------



## will101

The Mercedes-Benz Superdome has parking underneath. And if you include arenas too, Madison Square Garden has another smaller venue beneath the main arena floor.


----------



## will101

alexandru.mircea said:


> Top 50 Most Expensive Stadiums in the World (adjusted for inflation)
> 
> Is that list any good?


Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara came in at about $1.3 billion this summer. The $1.47 billion cost for Stade Olympique was given in 2006, so there has to be an inflation factor added. And estimated costs for stadiums under construction in Minneapolis and Atlanta should go in there somewhere.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Interesting piece about the gentrification of US stadiums: Fanfare Without the Fans


----------



## RMB2007

Stadium quiz:

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/quiz-can-you-name-football-7963117

10/11 for me.


----------



## hammer1

RMB2007 said:


> 10/11 for me.



same here


----------



## Leedsrule

9/11 which im happy with considering i'm not good at old grounds. I was working these out simply from location, looking at the roads and railways around them and seeing which most suited.


----------



## mrakbaseball

Why was the USA - College Basketball Arenas thread deleted?


----------



## RMB2007

^^ I believe that thread needs to be cleaned up as there's some images or links that are setting off forum members anti-virus software, so it should return once the issue has been resolved.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Congratz Ranma for the promotion, well deserved


----------



## TVN

*New soccer stadiums look the same*

Is it just me, or does allmost all new soccer stadiums lokke the same? It think it can be hard to guess which stadium I lokked at, if dont know the match...

example: Valencia Mestalla Stadium:

now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2XiikAl_gU

The new Valencia stadium hno: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3fpKUo7uHk

Guess a new stadium....:


















































:hm:


----------



## will101

TVN said:


> Is it just me, or does allmost all new soccer stadiums lokke the same? It think it can be hard to guess which stadium I lokked at, if dont know the match...


I always though it had to do with all soccer fields being the same size and shape. When you bring the fans as close to the action as possible, your choices for the shape diminish greatly. This isn't meant to be snarky or anything, just that there is a basic optimal design, and more and more structures are using that design.

Especially when you get rid of those cursed tracks.


----------



## will101

Kind of off-topic: because of the impending demise of Tinypic on this forum, I need to find a replacement. And soon. Because I have a lot of work ahead of me.

Can I get some recommendations for what to use as a replacement? I prefer easy to use, and also need something that won't throw a fit if I'm not using windows. *Thanks in advance!*


----------



## Lakeland

will101 said:


> Kind of off-topic: because of the impending demise of Tinypic on this forum, I need to find a replacement. And soon. Because I have a lot of work ahead of me.
> 
> Can I get some recommendations for what to use as a replacement? I prefer easy to use, and also need something that won't throw a fit if I'm not using windows. *Thanks in advance!*


I used Tinypic for most of my photos and just switched to imgur. It's easy to use, but I'm not sure about the not using windows thing.


----------



## Leedsrule

Please can you vote for your favourite stadium design on this thread! Probably the biggest competition held on the Stadium Design section of SSC, and all of the entries are worth seeing.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1803206

Thank You!


----------



## calcionova1

*What's your favourite stadium site?*

What's your favourite stadium site? I really like www.worldofstadiums.com and www.worldstadiums.com, they have the most information. There also are some good groundhopping sites, like www.frank-jasperneite.de. Which stadium site is your favourite?


----------



## kubica fan ireland

Stadium Guide has been inactive for over a year.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

This is an interesting audit of how European football stadiums are performing finacially for their clubs: https://www.footballbenchmark.com/how_top_european_clubs_maximise_their_matchday_revenue

The key concept here is the "Revenue Per Event Per Available Seat":



> The Revenue Per Event Per Available Seat (RevPEPAS) is a valuable ratio to measure the performance of a stadium during match days. This ratio analyses the matchday revenue generated from each available seat within a stadium from each game played during a season, however excluding non-football related events. As such, the ratio takes into account the matchday revenue generated by a club, the total number of home games played, as well as the respective stadium’s capacity.


How the top five leagues compare:










The best peforming clubs and a few others:










Interesting (actually shocking in fairness) is to learn that the two tenants of San Siro are earning off their available seats as much as SC Bastia are doing off theirs. 

Also, it says that privately owned stadiums outperform publicly owned stadiums "mostly", so I would have liked to know which are the best performing publicly owned stadiums.


----------



## tobywragg

9/11 for me - it's the old ones that i'm no good at


----------



## Hemi 426

*Your score*

11/11 
Champion stadium spotter

Does everyone get the same stadiums to guess? Spotland was the tricky one on that list.


----------



## CharlieP

Bah - 10/11. Got the third one wrong.


----------



## Chevy114

Here is a great quiz on the NFL stadiums by random pictures of part of the stadium. 

I got 18/20, one I got sloppy on and missed it but should have gotten and another was a BS one if you ask me.

http://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2015/09/09/nfl-stadiums-photos-quiz


----------



## Leedsrule

Chevy114 said:


> Here is a great quiz on the NFL stadiums by random pictures of part of the stadium.
> 
> I got 18/20, one I got sloppy on and missed it but should have gotten and another was a BS one if you ask me.
> 
> http://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2015/09/09/nfl-stadiums-photos-quiz


16/20 on that. I would say i'm pretty weak at NFL stadiums, i hadnt even heard of a couple mentioned so i had to narrow it down from thinking about the others. Give me one of those with european stadiums and i'll do better. :nuts:


----------



## Chevy114

Leedsrule said:


> 16/20 on that. I would say i'm pretty weak at NFL stadiums, i hadnt even heard of a couple mentioned so i had to narrow it down from thinking about the others. Give me one of those with european stadiums and i'll do better. :nuts:


Lol I am the exact opposite, that football/soccer one kicked my butt!


----------



## will101

Chevy114 said:


> Here is a great quiz on the NFL stadiums by random pictures of part of the stadium.
> 
> I got 18/20, one I got sloppy on and missed it but should have gotten and another was a BS one if you ask me.
> 
> http://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2015/09/09/nfl-stadiums-photos-quiz


Got all 20, but it wasn't easy.


----------



## SJAnfield

will101 said:


> Got all 20, but it wasn't easy.



Missed #17


----------



## will101

SJAnfield said:


> Missed #17


Really? I've been that person once or twice. I would expect that 2, 3, 8 and 15 would be the most missed. Or maybe getting 6 and 16 confused.

Anyway, here are the percentages of the results so far, with the quiz played 7,901 times (number correct then percentage):
18-20: 4.7%
16-17: 6.3
14-15: 9.2
12-13: 12.8
10-11: 18.6
0-9: 48.4


----------



## Chevy114

If you aren't stadium hunters like we are, some of those are hard to figure out. Like some of these you have to know that a pole is painted a team's color, or the glass on the front side belongs to one of the 10 or so stadiums that have glass exteriors. So I don't blame average football fans for not knowing this.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

FourFourTwo's 100 best football stadiums: http://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/fourfourtwos-100-best-football-stadiums-world#:b-WOV2VYp6WKIA

(first 20 revealed so far)


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Ivan Rakitic gave an interview to El Pais in which, among other details, he talks about loving architecture. He even studied architecture for a while and did an internship at Herzog & de Meuron! I didn't think I could like him more, but...

English translation: https://grup14.com/story/rakitic-we-either-play-well-or-they-ll-win-they-re-real-madrid


----------



## Phantom Dreamer

Overstock.com no longer has the naming rights to the Oakland Coliseum.


----------



## almaghrebi

Hi,
I wish if an admin can answear me.
I ve opened a new thread about stadiums in my country morocco, as there are for the others countries, and it was deleted.
can I have an explanation please ?


----------



## RMB2007

almaghrebi said:


> Hi,
> I wish if an admin can answear me.
> I ve opened a new thread about stadiums in my country morocco, as there are for the others countries, and it was deleted.
> can I have an explanation please ?


Individual stadiums that are 20,000 or more in capacity can have their own thread in one of the sub-forum sections, so like this proposal for a new stadium in Casablanca:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1091125

Stadiums below 20,000 can be posted in this thread:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=744950


----------



## almaghrebi

RMB2007 said:


> Individual stadiums that are 20,000 or more in capacity can have their own thread in one of the sub-forum sections, so like this proposal for a new stadium in Casablanca:
> 
> http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1091125
> 
> *Stadiums below 20,000 can be posted in this thread:
> 
> http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=744950*




Sorry, i didn't see the last Thread .
it is good for me now


----------



## Guest

Are there only 11 super clubs in the world (soccer only)? 

Been scouring social media information, using SocialBakers (great website btw). Has an awesome breakdown of number of Facebook likes for teams (has Twitter, instagram etc but focused on FB), including where most of the people that liked teams are from.

So, as a little experiment, I set three parameters for teams to qualify as 'super clubs'.

1. Have more than 10 million Facebook likes in total (big number, but it's a big world)
2. Have have more than 1 million Facebook likes come from country of origin (this is probably less important, because a global club can have a much smaller domestic support but be huge nonetheless, as youll see)
3. Providing one or more of the above is true, must have more than 50% of total FB likes must come from international fans (to make it appealing as a global club)

With those parameters in place, you get 11 clubs in total that meet all three (in order of number of total FB likes):

1. Barcelona
2. Real Madrid
3. Manchester United
4. Chelsea
5. Bayern Munich
6. Arsenal
7. Liverpool
8. PSG
9. AC Milan
10. Juventus
11. Borussia Dortmund

Clubs that meet 2/3 parameters (either #1 + #3, or #2 + #3...by number of FB likes):

Manchester City
Atletico Madrid
Galatasaray
Corinthians
Flamengo
Inter Milan
Olympique Marseille
Napoli
Benfica
Barcelona SC (Ecuador)
Olympique Lyon


If you're wondering where the likes of Roma, Porto, Tottenham, Valencia (and endless number of teams) are, they didn't meet any of the parameters, despite having 7m+ FB likes in the case of Tottenham. That may go to prove the inadequacies of this little experiment. But I think if a big club needs to be popular not only outside its country, but within it as well. There are cases like Leicester where a mere 200,000 of its FB likes come from the UK, even though it has almost 6 million likes. 

You could argue the whole point of super clubs is that they're popular internationally, but I still think these clubs don't have the foundation that would make them eligible candidates if a global super league was set up tomorrow for instance. In any case, there are probably around 30-40 clubs that fit into the second tier, but I wanted to just really narrow down the real super clubs. And even though Tottenham didn't make either list, I still regard them as a closer candidate to joining the super club elite in the future than most others on that secondary list. But they would need to take that extra step. 

Anyway, thoughts? Would you say the list of the 11 super clubs is fairly accurate? What teams would you consider super clubs instead of/in addition to those 11, or who would you demote?


----------



## BlazerBlaze

Hey mods, can we do something about BigMac and Phantom playing grab ass with each other on all the baseball stadium threads? Its getting rather annoying.


----------



## Bigmac1212

BlazerBlaze said:


> Hey mods, can we do something about BigMac and Phantom playing grab ass with each other on all the baseball stadium threads? Its getting rather annoying.


I have apologized to 3 mods. I am sorry for my behavior.


----------



## Bigmac1212

BlazerBlaze said:


> Hey mods, can we do something about BigMac and Phantom playing grab ass with each other on all the baseball stadium threads? Its getting rather annoying.


I'm sorry for engaging again with Phantom. This time, the mods should step in.


----------



## Icewave

I wish to see in one on one poll :

1) Host venues of Olympics .. stadiums & arenas .. Winter & summer 

2) World cup stadiums 

3) stadiums after & before renovated

4) Proposed stadium 

5) the best stadium in a certain country


----------



## Bigmac1212

BlazerBlaze said:


> Hey mods, can we do something about BigMac and Phantom playing grab ass with each other on all the baseball stadium threads? Its getting rather annoying.


I am yet sorry for my behavior. I have sent a PM to one of the mods for my behavior.


----------



## Bigmac1212

BlazerBlaze said:


> Hey mods, can we do something about BigMac and Phantom playing grab ass with each other on all the baseball stadium threads? Its getting rather annoying.


You're right, BlazerBlaze, the mods have to do something about Phantom and me. I have sent PM's to 3 moderators to sort this out. I am sorry again for continuing this.  If I need to be punished for continuing this, then that is how it needs to be.


----------



## Bigmac1212

Can someone tell Phantom that 5 MLB ballparks WEREN'T design by Populus/HOK Sport during the Camden Yards craze, including his Safeco Field? I'm telling you, it's a majority, but not a monopoly. icard:

Mods, please do something.


----------



## Bigmac1212

I'm watching a program that I won't name that has a good quote that we should all remember, including two posters, one that I won't name and myself, especially. It's from the late Michael Crichton's book, "State of Fear:"



> Do you know what we call opinion in the absence of evidence? We call that prejudice.


Let us remember that when posting our opinions.


----------



## Phantom Dreamer

Bigmac1212 said:


> Can someone tell Phantom that 5 MLB ballparks WEREN'T design by Populus/HOK Sport during the Camden Yards craze, including his Safeco Field? I'm telling you, it's a majority, but not a monopoly. icard:
> 
> Mods, please do something.


Yes, Safeco was designed by NBBJ, but was most influenced by Coors, an HOK Park, and had HOK guys serve as consultants. What exactly do you want the mods to do? I already put you on ignore. It's just too weird.



Bigmac1212 said:


> I'm watching a program that I won't name that has a good quote that we should all remember, including two posters, one that I won't name and myself, especially. It's from the late Michael Crichton's book, "State of Fear:"
> 
> 
> 
> Let us remember that when posting our opinions.


 A person stating their opinion in a forum, imagine that!


----------



## Bigmac1212

If you had me on your ignore list, why do you respond? That's weird.

Also, the constant belittling of modern parks and forcing your opinion of the old days is better is annoying.


----------



## Bigmac1212

Phantom Dreamer said:


> Yes, Safeco was designed by NBBJ, but was most influenced by Coors, an HOK Park, and had HOK guys serve as consultants. What exactly do you want the mods to do? I already put you on ignore. It's just too weird.


Do you have proof on that HOK guys serving as consultants? And for someone who ignoring me, you're not doing a good job.

Mods, he's been trolling the boards, tell him to stop.


----------



## Bigmac1212

I am sorry for my behavior, once again. I have got things resolved. I will make things better and have put initiatives in place to prevent any more problems from happening again. I hope you members will forgive me.


----------



## BlazerBlaze

Mods, I motion for a temporary ban of Phantom. His posting everyday about baseball parks being clones in almost every MLB park thread has become a distraction from meaningful conversation about the facilities.


----------



## Guest

Phantom Dreamer is single handedly keeping baseball stadiums in the public eye on SSC lol


----------



## Bigmac1212

For all the wrong reasons.


----------



## velciane

Hello all - I wanted to introduce myself, I recently volunteered to assist in moderating this section (my primary area is the Seattle forum). If you have any questions, or concerns please let me or the other moderators know. Hope you all are having a good week so far!

~ Vel


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Amazing photo:










That's how they measure capacities back in the day. (In this case, at the Bern stadium for the 1954 World Cup). 

https://twitter.com/TerraceImages


----------



## alexandru.mircea

*Football stadiums then and now interactive quiz, part four*

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...w-interactive-quiz-part-four?CMP=share_btn_tw


----------



## Bahromovies

Tashkent. Bunyodkor Stadium in March 2017


----------



## Spanish Gabacho

I don't know if this topic is the good but i search what is this stdium in this video youtube.

Than you


----------



## alexandru.mircea

^ the link doesn't work for me


----------



## Spanish Gabacho

Sorry


----------



## Spanish Gabacho

It somebody can help me, i think it's a stadium in South America but i'm not sure


----------



## alexandru.mircea

SAdly I have no idea... Maybe someone else.


----------



## DimitriB

Spanish Gabacho said:


> Sorry


This stadium is the Robina Stadium (Cbus Super Stadium due to sponsor reasons) in Robina, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.

Tenants of the stadium are :
Now :
Gold Coast Titans (NRL) 
Palm Beach Sharks (FFA Cup)
Queensland Country (NRC)
Pst :
Gold Coast United (A-League) (2009-2012)
Gold Coast Sevens (Sevens World Series) (2011-2014)
Also used for :
2018 Commonwealth Games (Rugby 7s)
2018 AFF Championship

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robina_Stadium


----------



## Spanish Gabacho

Thank you vey much


----------



## CFCman

I earlier posted my thoughts on possible rule changes to the Laws of the game for soccer in this thread: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=141268113#post141268113. But I'll reproduce them below.

Red cards - *A team whose player has been sent off shall be down a player for 32 minutes; and the affected player's replacement shall be eligible to take his/her place after 32 minutes and shall be counted as one of the the team's substitutions. If another player from the same team also gets sent off, then the team shall remain down a player for the rest of the match.
*
Offsides -* A player shall be penalized for an offside offense only when BOTH feet of the attacking player are ahead of the second to the last player of the defending team*.
The present rule penalizes the attacking player if any part of the body, which can be legally used to score a goal, is ahead of the second to the last player of the defending team.


----------



## Guest

Curious as to how you came to the 32 minutes? Seems quite arbitrary. I think the yellow/red system works quite well for the most part. What I dislike about it is that, even though referees may deny it all they like, a 10th minute tackle is not the same as a 70th minute one. That's the area where the yellow/red system fails. 

The offside idea is good. Common sense doesn't really apply at the moment. In saying that, with video tech coming into play, I see this being less of an issue in the long run. The offside calls that really annoy are those that have a directly rule out (or support) a goal. And thankfully those decisions are now being reviewed. 

I'll make a list of changes I'd like to see in a later post.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

A super league works for those who want to see the best players play each other, mostly on tv. For those who love the history of the game and watch matches through that prism it would be a disaster. Southampton v Watford isn't a match to get the pulse racing but it could be very important in the battle to avoid relegation.

Arsenal not playing Spurs? One of the highlights of the football year gone (2 really). Italians would think the same of Roma but no Lazio. Man City in some super league just because some rich people have chucked their nation's wealth at them? No thanks. Liverpool and Marseilles involved because they used to be good?

If this was ever tried I think you would get the governments in several countries intervening to prevent it as the domestic fans of most clubs would be outraged. Even the fans of the clubs involved wouldn't want to lose their domestic rivalries and affordable away trips. There would definitely be lawsuits from those clubs excluded.


----------



## Guest

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> *A super league works for those who want to see the best players play each other, mostly on tv. * For those who love the history of the game and watch matches through that prism it would be a disaster. Southampton v Watford isn't a match to get the pulse racing but it could be very important in the battle to avoid relegation.
> 
> Arsenal not playing Spurs? One of the highlights of the football year gone (2 really). Italians would think the same of Roma but no Lazio. Man City in some super league just because some rich people have chucked their nation's wealth at them? No thanks. Liverpool and Marseilles involved because they used to be good?
> 
> *If this was ever tried I think you would get the governments in several countries intervening to prevent it as the domestic fans of most clubs would be outraged. Even the fans of the clubs involved wouldn't want to lose their domestic rivalries and affordable away trips. There would definitely be lawsuits from those clubs excluded.*


1st bolded: So, in other words, 99.99% of the people that watch the game. Got it. 

2nd bolded: What an absolute load of puerile crap.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

5portsF4n said:


> 1st bolded: So, in other words, 99.99% of the people that watch the game. Got it.
> 
> 2nd bolded: What an absolute load of puerile crap.


Lots of people who watch only on TV would not want to see a European league. 
They want to see Arsenal v Spurs, Liverpool V Everton, Roma v Lazio and they definitely want to see their local club play against the big teams. You think Governments wouldn't get involved when millions of voters are pissed off? You think clubs won't sue if their income is threatened? I don't even think FIFA would be too keen on a league that would be further ahead of the World Cup in terms of quality.

You are probably the sort of person who is in favour of the Oakland Raiders moving to Las Vegas and would see nothing wrong in the equivalent happening in European sport.


----------



## GunnerJacket

5portsF4n said:


> 1st bolded: So, in other words, 99.99% of the people that watch the game. Got it.


I think you're confusing people who want the best for their team with people who only watch for highlight reels and celebrity players. Millions of viewers and fans everyday watch games not involving the top 8-12 clubs in Europe. ie: Tell us again why you support SKC?



> 2nd bolded: What an absolute load of puerile crap.


Disagree. There's a lot more at stake then simply how much money flows to elite clubs. The scenario he painted may not play out exactly so but thinking there wouldn't be push back against a super league would be naive.


----------



## Guest

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Lots of people who watch only on TV would not want to see a European league.
> They want to see Arsenal v Spurs, Liverpool V Everton, Roma v Lazio and they definitely want to see their local club play against the big teams. You think Governments wouldn't get involved when millions of voters are pissed off? You think clubs won't sue if their income is threatened? I don't even think FIFA would be too keen on a league that would be further ahead of the World Cup in terms of quality.
> 
> You are probably the sort of person who is in favour of the Oakland Raiders moving to Las Vegas and would see nothing wrong in the equivalent happening in European sport.


I'm the sort of person who doesn't give too many shits about the NFL, so I couldn't care less if they move to Las Vegas or Lafayette. 

The European megateams don't need to relocate anywhere, because I see them as global entities. Teams that should be playing on one continent one week, and another the next. A travelling roadshow that serves their global fanbases. Fanbases that are counted in the tens of millions, and hundreds for some, and not 60,000 regulars who congregate at their local stadium every two weeks. 

You have absolutely no proof of what you're saying. I have plenty of proof of what I'm saying. Look at ratings, look at revenues, look at social media, look at whatever metric you want. People overwhelmingly follow the top 10 or so megateams. 

It's puerile crap because the government can't do anything to prevent the best teams forming their own league. 

They haven't needed to so far because, through the ECA, the big clubs are getting basically everything they want under the guise of UEFA anyway. UEFA is ceding to the big clubs with every new negotiation. The latest was the writing on the wall. 4 teams from the top 4 leagues in Europe. Over 50% of CL. 

They don't even have to break off. Eventually, the CL will become the defacto super league. 

And why do you think there are murmurings of FIFA expanding the Club World Cup. It sees what's happening at UEFA, and is basically trying to recreate a global version of the CL. 

One way or another, the club game is what brings in most revenues. FIFA is powerless to do anything to stop it. But right now the big clubs are happy with what's happening. They get the best of both worlds. The CL is becoming a closed shop, little by little, and they still have their domestic leagues where they still make most of the revenues from.


----------



## CFCman

I'm 99.7% certain that IFAB will permit the use of VAR at next year's world cup. Infantino's persistence in extolling the virtues of VAR would obviously sway IFAB at its next meeting.


----------



## Tobermaury

Don't want to clutter the main forum, so hope it's OK to ask here about cricket and athletics co-existing? Could somebody overlay an athletics track onto a cricket field (I'm too thick and lazy)? Are there any examples? I've seen the MCG in athletics mode and the distances between stand and pitch were massive, yet I'm sure the Don Valley Stadium (Sheffield, UK) hosted cricket and that was an athletics stadium

Also, why can't athletics change its standard track in order to fit into football stadiums?


----------



## unitedfc

It's true, European football (soccer) clubs like Real Madrid, FC Barcelona and Manchester United have hundreds of millions of fans worldwide.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Does anyone know what happened with the Emirates Stadium (London) thread? The search function does not work at all. I went back a year in the Completed section, searching it manually, it hasn't shown up.


----------



## Rover030

It's in the proposed section as they will add one row to the middle tier to get capacity back to 60k. Normally such a small renovation wouldn't be worth going out of completed, the works on the Johan Cruijff Arena have been similar in the last years (filling moats mainly) but it hasn't been out of the completed section as far as I know.


----------



## Lumbergo

could we please make a rule to no longer link to pictures from twitter? none of them work anymore and haven't for a while since twitter instituted new rules regarding linking. and yet people keep posting them.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

I often post pics from Twitter and so far all of them are still displayed. Pretty much the opposite compared to Imageshack, who retired all my pics when they changed policy, or to Photobucket, whose awefulness has had a huge impact on SSC, by miles the worst. There are entire photo threads from the golden age of Photobucket, that do not have any visible pics in them anymore.


----------



## Lumbergo

They are still in your cache more than likely which is why they still display for you. And yeah, I had tons of stuff hosted on photobucket and tinypic that no longer work. Very frustrating.


----------



## Knitemplar

Who moderates the so-called "moderators" on this site?


----------



## GunnerJacket

Knitemplar said:


> Who moderates the so-called "moderators" on this site?


That would be Jan, but if you're reacting to the 2026 thread you should shoot me a PM, because there's a backstory with the thread. When someone brings up sexuality and politics after being told that's a no-no then something's gotta change.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Lumbergo said:


> They are still in your cache more than likely which is why they still display for you. And yeah, I had tons of stuff hosted on photobucket and tinypic that no longer work. Very frustrating.


I clear my cache every few days.


----------



## thiago uchoa

Brazil




Rio Branco - Acre
















Arena da Floresta
































Estadio O Florestão


----------



## Kleminus

Why 5G Technology is so crucial for stadiums


----------



## AstroBiont

Just a short article from the BBC about some of the quirkier stadiums around:



> *Trolley parks, trains, buses, crocodiles and castles - Football's quirkiest grounds*
> 
> By Ross Bone
> 
> *BBC Sport
> 
> No two football grounds are the same. An away trip is a great chance to go and see the good, the bad and the bizarre that the beautiful game has to offer.*
> 
> Not every stadium has a cheese room, a retractable roof or even an immaculate playing surface. Plenty of clubs have features that make their ground unique.
> 
> This week, non-league Teversal FC's 'Tesco trolley away end' caused a stir on Twitter. The Mansfield-based club seem to have adopted the supermarket chain's mantra of "every little helps" to keep visitors to their Carnarvon Street home safe from the elements.
> 
> We're not sure if you get your pound back when you leave, though.
> 
> The Tesco Trolley End could easily have been inspired by Bridlington Town's Queensgate Stadium - a ground that boasts an old bus shelter as part of the furniture behind the dugouts. The bus shelter stand was installed in 2010 and is still going strong today.
> 
> The quirky ground is by no means exclusively an English football thing, though. We're sure you've already seen the set-up at TJ Tatran Cierny Balog, a Slovakian amateur side.
> 
> The view from the stands is obstructed from time to time by a steam train that passes through, running along a track between the pitch and the crowd. You can do your own full steam ahead/all aboard the promotion train joke here, if you like...


Full article in link:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48383160


----------



## Lumbergo

do embedded tweets / images from twitter not show up for anyone else on this site?

if it's an image it just shows up as a red x / broken image - clicking view image will allow me to view it (full size on the twimg.com)

if it's an embedded

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/ then I am just out of luck. not sure what the issue is because on other sites this isn't a problem.


----------

