That is ridiculous, you play football with empty soda can until your neighbour find an old ball lost on some wasteland and you play that until you older brother pities you and offers you his old ball or until you get into a club and your parent don't want to be ashamed by your rubbish ball.
No I've since realised a flaw which makes me right once again. Rock and stick throwing isn't a game with points, its just fun, so it's disqualified from the discussion.
I mean you can make a game out of it, but it isn't a universally agreed upon ruleset. Rock and stick throwing is play, it's fun, it's not bound by rules. You can make some up, but that's just for your group. It won't translate to other groups.
English kinda sucks in that the word "game" both describes games and just regular child's play.
Edit: also *you're lmao, I win, rockstickthingheads btfo again
Depends on the thing you're throwing them at. River under a bridge? Whichever stick comes out the other side first.
Can? No DQ.
Each other? Whoever gets the least hurt.
You don't need a physical goal, you can just agree on where the goal is. You can mark it in dirt or grass or with piles of coats and if you're playing in an alley you can just agree that either end of the alley is a goal. You can also make do with just one goal, though that gets kinda weird and usually ends in arguments.
I'll give you that maybe the thing you're throwing at then doesn't qualify either, so we can remove half an item (I'm leaving it as half an item because the thing you're throwing at, has to be somewhat fun to throw at. It can't be anything)
This brings football to 1.5 items, rocks and sticks down to 2.5 and rocks or sticks down to 1.5. Anything far away enough can be fun to hit, provided it is relatively small so I would consider a target and goal marking equivalent when it comes to items.
No this doesn't bring football up from 1 item as I've just explained. This silly discussion is becoming weirdly real for some reason, so I'm gonna disengage
Thanks to this thread I'm now going through common sports and seeing what the trade off is between minimal equipment and typical rules.
Hockey's minimal version is "shinny", where you still need a puck, skates and a stick, as well as a usable ice surface which is realistically hard to come by even in cold weather areas with lakes/rivers due to the way ice freezes inconsistently. F tier.
American Football's minimal version would be two-hand touch, which is still fun and can be played with just a ball. B tier.
Rugby is similar to American Football, only the touch version doesn't really work, but hits aren't as hard so you can get away without gear. A tier.
Baseball needs a ball, bat and glove. I guess you could play some positions without a glove, but it would detract from the game. C tier.
All racquet sports need a net, ball/device, and racquet. C tier
Volleyball has some drills/games that can be done without a net, but to really "play" you need the net + ball. C tier.
Basketball needs a ball and hoop. Fairly easy to find in a city, but still a costly piece of infrastructure. F tier.
Soccer is the only S tier I can think of because you really just need a ball to get 90% of the fun from the sport (full nets give you free reign for goal height).
Rugby is similar to American Football, only the touch version doesn't really work
Touch rugby has its own leagues and championships and shit. Not sure if you're making a judgment on if it's fun or not, but I've watched enough touch games to know that it at least works as a game.
Oh cool, I was just thinking back my brief time playing organized rugby and couldn't think of a way to remove the tackling. The ability to toss the ball mid-tackle felt integral, but makes sense that people figured it out.
Good list, but you're missing out on one integral part (except for hockey) which is terrain. Basketball requires a hard and smooth surface, like asphalt or wood. Rugby requires a soft surface like grass, don't know if it requires a soft surface with two-hand touch. Tennis requires a hard surface. So on and so forth.
Any sport that is restricted to a specific surface gets a minus point in my book. To me, this is what really brings the game up in my eyes.
After that it's complexity: How easy is it to learn the rules of the game (not talking at a fully competitive level, just the simplified backyard variant) the easier it is to pick up, the better.
To me it's the combination of these factors that make football so good: You can play it anywhere, it's incredibly easy to pick up (but can still scale in complexity) and it doesn't require anything other than a sphere.
Three things needed.
One thing needed. Rockstickthingheads btfo
How you acquire a football: spend $$$ in store.
How you acquire a rock and stick: walk around for a bit.
That is ridiculous, you play football with empty soda can until your neighbour find an old ball lost on some wasteland and you play that until you older brother pities you and offers you his old ball or until you get into a club and your parent don't want to be ashamed by your rubbish ball.
Real
Ah fuck
throwing rocks and sticks at things haters in shambles
No I've since realised a flaw which makes me right once again. Rock and stick throwing isn't a game with points, its just fun, so it's disqualified from the discussion.
not if youre creative
I mean you can make a game out of it, but it isn't a universally agreed upon ruleset. Rock and stick throwing is play, it's fun, it's not bound by rules. You can make some up, but that's just for your group. It won't translate to other groups.
English kinda sucks in that the word "game" both describes games and just regular child's play.
Edit: also *you're lmao, I win, rockstickthingheads btfo again
look at this poster, don't even know the rules for throwing rocks and sticks at things.
Depends on the thing you're throwing them at. River under a bridge? Whichever stick comes out the other side first.
Can? No DQ.
Each other? Whoever gets the least hurt.
Tag requires zero things
Would be cool if tag was a national sport tbh
Tag will become a national sport the day we get a national anthem that isn't a hymn or a march.
Somalias national anthem is just the preset on a keyboard, if I remember correctly
He is obviously talking about the most famous player of street football in the human history: He doesn't need a thing to play football.
Requires friends
You need a goals so both are three things
You don't need a physical goal, you can just agree on where the goal is. You can mark it in dirt or grass or with piles of coats and if you're playing in an alley you can just agree that either end of the alley is a goal. You can also make do with just one goal, though that gets kinda weird and usually ends in arguments.
I'll give you that maybe the thing you're throwing at then doesn't qualify either, so we can remove half an item (I'm leaving it as half an item because the thing you're throwing at, has to be somewhat fun to throw at. It can't be anything)
This brings football to 1.5 items, rocks and sticks down to 2.5 and rocks or sticks down to 1.5. Anything far away enough can be fun to hit, provided it is relatively small so I would consider a target and goal marking equivalent when it comes to items.
No this doesn't bring football up from 1 item as I've just explained. This silly discussion is becoming weirdly real for some reason, so I'm gonna disengage
Thanks to this thread I'm now going through common sports and seeing what the trade off is between minimal equipment and typical rules.
Hockey's minimal version is "shinny", where you still need a puck, skates and a stick, as well as a usable ice surface which is realistically hard to come by even in cold weather areas with lakes/rivers due to the way ice freezes inconsistently. F tier.
American Football's minimal version would be two-hand touch, which is still fun and can be played with just a ball. B tier.
Rugby is similar to American Football, only the touch version doesn't really work, but hits aren't as hard so you can get away without gear. A tier.
Baseball needs a ball, bat and glove. I guess you could play some positions without a glove, but it would detract from the game. C tier.
All racquet sports need a net, ball/device, and racquet. C tier
Volleyball has some drills/games that can be done without a net, but to really "play" you need the net + ball. C tier.
Basketball needs a ball and hoop. Fairly easy to find in a city, but still a costly piece of infrastructure. F tier.
Soccer is the only S tier I can think of because you really just need a ball to get 90% of the fun from the sport (full nets give you free reign for goal height).
Touch rugby has its own leagues and championships and shit. Not sure if you're making a judgment on if it's fun or not, but I've watched enough touch games to know that it at least works as a game.
Oh cool, I was just thinking back my brief time playing organized rugby and couldn't think of a way to remove the tackling. The ability to toss the ball mid-tackle felt integral, but makes sense that people figured it out.
Good list, but you're missing out on one integral part (except for hockey) which is terrain. Basketball requires a hard and smooth surface, like asphalt or wood. Rugby requires a soft surface like grass, don't know if it requires a soft surface with two-hand touch. Tennis requires a hard surface. So on and so forth.
Any sport that is restricted to a specific surface gets a minus point in my book. To me, this is what really brings the game up in my eyes.
After that it's complexity: How easy is it to learn the rules of the game (not talking at a fully competitive level, just the simplified backyard variant) the easier it is to pick up, the better.
To me it's the combination of these factors that make football so good: You can play it anywhere, it's incredibly easy to pick up (but can still scale in complexity) and it doesn't require anything other than a sphere.