5 ms·

What do you mean by scrums being unfair? If you have any sources you'd recommend on this, it sounds interesting.

• scubbo 4y ago
  Replying to remind myself to check back on this - I'm also interested!
  • codetrotter 4y ago
    If you click on the timestamp of a HN comment, you navigate to a link specific to the comment. From there you can add the comment to your HN favourites by clicking on “favourite”. You can find your HN favourites in your profile. They are public, so others can see what you’ve favourited. Alternatively you can bookmark the comment in your browser, or take a screenshot of the comment.
    • scubbo 4y ago
      Thank you - though, that would require me to build "checking my favourites" into a regular routine to remember to look for replies (and, more than that, I'd need metadata or brainpower-expenditure to distinguish "this is a comment I favourited because I want to check for replies" from "this is a comment I favourited to refer back to later"), whereas this approach "just works" with my (all-too-regular :( ) habit of checking replies-to-my-comments. Though if this is considered a particularly irritatingly selfish behaviour, I'd consider stopping! I don't _think_ it particularly negatively affects anyone, but I'm willing to hear otherwise.
      • codetrotter 4y ago
        I think it is frowned upon a little bit because notes about wanting to check back later do not contribute to the conversation. But I think occasionally making those kinds of comments is ok, as long as the vast majority of comments that a user makes is contributing.
        • scubbo 4y ago
          Fair, thanks! Implicit in my "I don't _think_ it particularly negatively affects anyone" was "I don't believe that seeing occasional non-contributive comments are a strong negative effect", but you're right to call it out explicitly.
      • executesorder66 4y ago
        I find those sorts of comments irritating. Why not just keep the comment open in a tab, and check back on it when you have a chance? Is it necessary to spam the discussion?
• bovermyer 4y ago
  Basically, Walter Camp thought scrums hid the ball. > English players form solid masses of men in a scrummage and engage in a desperate kicking and pushing match until the ball pops out unexpectedly somewhere, leaving the struggling mass ignorant of its whereabouts, still kicking blindly where they think the ball may be. Further reading: http://www.tony-collins.org/rugbyreloaded/2015/6/16/the-walter-camp-myth-and-the-origins-of-american-football http://www.tony-collins.org/rugbyreloaded/2015/6/16/the-walt...
  • aidenn0 4y ago
    Further, further reading: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/502784a984ae2d2eef45097c/t/55eea31ce4b0c46828ef673c/1441702684565/American+Football+in+Transnational+Context+%28JGH%29.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/502784a984ae2d2eef450... TL;DR: In the mid 19th century Scrums did kind of suck (the possessor did not release the ball, sending the ball backwards was controversial, and it was twenty-a-side, so it was a mass of bodies just trying to move the ball towards opposite sides). Britain Rugby eventually responded to this, but in a different way compared to Canada and the US. The US difference was largely impacted by a single college's preference for playing eleven-a-side, which opened the game up even more than the fifteen-a-side that was adopted in Britain.
  • msoucy 4y ago
    This amuses me way more than it should. I'm just picturing a scrummage getting so chaotic that nobody notices for a good minute.
    • TeMPOraL 4y ago
      Isn't this exactly why the work methodology we're predominantly forced to use in this industry is called "scrum"?