Joespn Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 I just was watching the show Sport Science on FSN and they said that the chances of a randomly dropped football bouncing right back up the same direction is 1 in 180. Seems like tony Romo sits to pee is the luckiest guy on the planet by defying those odds seemingly every week. I wish the skins could get some of that luck every once in a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pvkeeper19 Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 I wonder how they arrived at that number, since it is mathematically incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIDETHEWALRUS Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 I wonder how they arrived at that number, since it is mathematically incorrect. Care to elaborate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpfan Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 What are the odds of dropping the snap on a game winning extra point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackest Eyes Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 What are the odds of dropping the snap on a game winning extra point? Only Mr. Romo sits to pee can have that luck! :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 What are the odds of dating Jessica Simpson AND Carrie Underwood? Some ****s get all the luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 What are the odds of dating Jessica Simpson AND Carrie Underwood?Some ****s get all the luck. They must have gone up significantly after Romo sits to pee pulled it off lol... Btw, wrong forum lol :cool: (and tr1 would LOVE this thread!!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joespn Posted July 8, 2008 Author Share Posted July 8, 2008 They must have gone up significantly after Romo sits to pee pulled it off lol...Btw, wrong forum lol :cool: (and tr1 would LOVE this thread!!) Sorry it was on the wrong forum. I don't post a lot. I just lurk like crazy and usually just on the stadium. I heard that stat and thought it was very interesting and post worthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins:Victory_or_Death Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Sorry it was on the wrong forum. I don't post a lot. I just lurk like crazy and usually just on the stadium. I heard that stat and thought it was very interesting and post worthy.If you voted for Chief Zee - All is Forgiven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Sorry it was on the wrong forum. I don't post a lot. I just lurk like crazy and usually just on the stadium. I heard that stat and thought it was very interesting and post worthy. I didn't mean it as a complaint...and in reality if you had posted this in the Around The NFL forum instead, it would have gotten HUGE responses lol :laugh:...tr1 (and several others, but particularly him) has been arguing that Romo sits to pee is THE luckiest QB on the planet precisely because all those fumbled balls and snaps seemed to just pop right back up into his waiting hands lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRobi21 Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Yeah how the hell does that happen?!?! he gets the luckiest bounces that come right to him. Then on ESPN they're like, "And watch how Romo sits to pee makes the football bounce right back to him. That's why he's one of the top QBs in this league." (Sigh) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pvkeeper19 Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Care to elaborate? There are an infinite number of points on a football, and depending on the angle at and force with which the ball hits the ground, any of those points could cause the ball to bounce back in the exact direction from which it was dropped. So there would be "infinity in infinity" chances of this event occurring, which number is undefined. However, practically speaking, what they probably did is review film of a lot of fumbles and count the number of times the ball bounced back into the hands of the player who fumbled it, leading them to surmise that there is a 1 in 180 chance of that event ocurring. Mathematically speaking, the number is wrong. Just because that is what they observed does not make their math right. They are only reporting data. That data cannot necessarily be used to extrapolate the likelihood of recovering one's own fumble in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoGood28 Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 This thread sucks. Get this crap out of the stadium. I don't come to the stadium to read threads with ****'s name in them. I think you're a troll. Edit: Maybe you meant to post it in the ATN, but it is still just some random thought. Sorry for being a jerk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRobi21 Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 This thread sucks. Get this crap out of the stadium. I don't come to the stadium to read threads with ****'s name in them. I think you're a troll. :laugh: :laugh: Woah. Someone's a little grouchy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoGood28 Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 :laugh: :laugh: Woah. Someone's a little grouchy. First day of work after graduating college. :ahhhhh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRobi21 Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 First day of work after graduating college. :ahhhhh: Congrats on graduating. And I like where your head is at on your first night of work. :laugh: :applause: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathartic-j Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Joespn: I'd suggest PMing a mod and requesting that this thread gets moved to the ATN. Then take a look at the rules about posting a new thread, and hopefully next time things will go a little more smoothly. This thread sucks. Get this crap out of the stadium. I don't come to the stadium to read threads with ****'s name in them. I think you're a troll.Edit: Maybe you meant to post it in the ATN, but it is still just some random thought. Sorry for being a jerk. I won't lie: it's pretty ironic that one of the most venomous comments I've seen in awhile came from someone with "DoGood" in their username. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Batman Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 However, practically speaking, what they probably did is review film of a lot of fumbles and count the number of times the ball bounced back into the hands of the player who fumbled it, leading them to surmise that there is a 1 in 180 chance of that event ocurring.Mathematically speaking, the number is wrong. Just because that is what they observed does not make their math right. They are only reporting data. That data cannot necessarily be used to extrapolate the likelihood of recovering one's own fumble in the future. Or, instead of reviewing film, they could have noted that a circle contains 360 distinct degrees. Since the ground is flat, that cuts the arc in which the ball can bounce into 180 distinct degrees, which are essentially 180 measurable directions that the ball could bounce in. So if they used that calculation, it is not only easier to arrive at but mathematically correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIDETHEWALRUS Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 There are an infinite number of points on a football, and depending on the angle at and force with which the ball hits the ground, any of those points could cause the ball to bounce back in the exact direction from which it was dropped. So there would be "infinity in infinity" chances of this event occurring, which number is undefined.However, practically speaking, what they probably did is review film of a lot of fumbles and count the number of times the ball bounced back into the hands of the player who fumbled it, leading them to surmise that there is a 1 in 180 chance of that event ocurring. Mathematically speaking, the number is wrong. Just because that is what they observed does not make their math right. They are only reporting data. That data cannot necessarily be used to extrapolate the likelihood of recovering one's own fumble in the future. I am no math major, so if my response is incorrect, just let me know so and I will take no offense. The idea that because there are infinite points on a football seems fairly irrelevant. Are there no infinite points on a basketball? What seems to be relevant in terms of whether the ball bounces back would be the elasticity of the shell, the football itself. When pressure is applied, there is an equal and opposite reaction, which, if fairly flat would redirect the ball back in the direction in which it came. When talking about bouncing right back into a QBs hands, we are not talking about bouncing right back into an infinitely small area, rather we are talking about bouncing back into fairly large QB mitts. Theoretically I see what you are getting at, but practically, if we were to experiment the theory falls a bit to the wayside. All that being said... Since the ball is generally broadsided, and since a QB's hands are generally large, I suspect the 1 in 180 to be approximately correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIDETHEWALRUS Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 First day of work after graduating college. :ahhhhh: Congrats on graduating. Don't be a **** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corrupt3d Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 I am no math major, so if my response is incorrect, just let me know so and I will take no offense.The idea that because there are infinite points on a football seems fairly irrelevant. Are there no infinite points on a basketball? What seems to be relevant in terms of whether the ball bounces back would be the elasticity of the shell, the football itself. When pressure is applied, there is an equal and opposite reaction, which, if fairly flat would redirect the ball back in the direction in which it came. When talking about bouncing right back into a QBs hands, we are not talking about bouncing right back into an infinitely small area, rather we are talking about bouncing back into fairly large QB mitts. Theoretically I see what you are getting at, but practically, if we were to experiment the theory falls a bit to the wayside. All that being said... Since the ball is generally broadsided, and since a QB's hands are generally large, I suspect the 1 in 180 to be approximately correct. Well...it's not the ball, but rather, where the ball can go after it bounces. There are 180 degrees in a straight line. That basically means that if a ball bounces on its point, a 1 in 180 chance it comes back to where it started means that the ball will only bounce in one of those 180 degrees. But what if it bounces at a 45.5 degree angle? And that is only in 1 dimension. Add the fact that it can bounce at a 45.5 degree angle on the x axis, and a 72.8343 degree angle on the z axis, and waht you have is an 1/infiniti chance that the ball bounces back to exactly the same location. And this is also not accounting for wind resistance of the face of the ball, forces applied and the fact that the ball doesn't necessarily have to land on its tip, but every other point on the ball can land on the ground just as equally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedlamVR Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 The ball does not have in infinte number of points ...it is a defined geometric shape of a known volume so it has a finite number faces that may be incident on the field..... But the number 1 in 180 seems pretty arbitrary because what counts as it bouncing back to the QB ? If it bounces and rolls along the floor in his direction so he can snatch it up is that the same as the ball bouncing back up right into the QBs hands . How does the athlecisim factor in, the type of field etc etc . Its an interesting question but not the right forum .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fullnelson9999 Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 This thread sucks. Get this crap out of the stadium. I don't come to the stadium to read threads with ****'s name in them. I think you're a troll.Edit: Maybe you meant to post it in the ATN, but it is still just some random thought. Sorry for being a jerk. dude, not needed. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackdaddydean Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Well...it's not the ball, but rather, where the ball can go after it bounces. There are 180 degrees in a straight line. That basically means that if a ball bounces on its point, a 1 in 180 chance it comes back to where it started means that the ball will only bounce in one of those 180 degrees. But what if it bounces at a 45.5 degree angle? And that is only in 1 dimension.Add the fact that it can bounce at a 45.5 degree angle on the x axis, and a 72.8343 degree angle on the z axis, and waht you have is an 1/infiniti chance that the ball bounces back to exactly the same location. And this is also not accounting for wind resistance of the face of the ball, forces applied and the fact that the ball doesn't necessarily have to land on its tip, but every other point on the ball can land on the ground just as equally. I hate to bust your bubble, but i don't think it was THAT technical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 First day of work after graduating college. :ahhhhh: first day of work in the real world and your attitude sucks already? :doh: have fun with the rest of your life lol... :loser: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.