Invidiosulus Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 If a 100-metre metric football field was 109.36 yards long instead of 100 yards, the teams would have adapted within a season and the little old Imperial-sized field would be just a memory. The last time I checked a football field was 120 yards long. There is no reason to change it as it would require major alterations on some existing stadiums. Futbol fields can be whatever you want. I advise you stick with that sport, Sport. Okay, you got me there. I'm not a sports fan and assumed that since 50-yard line was the middle, the field would be 100 yards long. Of course, some room is needed beyond the goal posts. As for futbol, I just know that those fields are really big. The only sports I follow are MotoGP and the Tour de France, plus some NHL playoff games. Don is just being a goof. The goal lines are 100 yards apart in American Football with a 10 yard end zone at each end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Don is just being a goof.The goal lines are 100 yards apart in American Football with a 10 yard end zone at each end. You are completely missing the point - The football field is 120 yards long and if changed to 120 meters many existing football fields would require extensive and expensive renovations to fit the larger field into the stadium, or a complete demolition and rebuilding of the stadium. Why do this - just to satisfy people who can't convert yards to meters? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigStewMan Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Don is just being a goof.The goal lines are 100 yards apart in American Football with a 10 yard end zone at each end. You are completely missing the point - The football field is 120 yards long and if changed to 120 meters many existing football fields would require extensive and expensive renovations to fit the larger field into the stadium, or a complete demolition and rebuilding of the stadium. Why do this - just to satisfy people who can't convert yards to meters? why not just start saying the football fields are 109 meters and not rebuild them? However, I'm fine with our system and do not have a burning desire to change it just so that we can be like everyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Islander Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 There would be no need to convert playing fields from Imperial to metric. Canada's been metric for over thirty years, but Canadian Football League (CFL) fields are still measured in yards. http://www.sportsknowhow.com/football/field-dimensions/canadian-cfl-football-field-dimensions.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woofers and Tweeters Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 On 10/25/2011 at 4:08 AM, Mallette said: The failure of this country to join the planet with a non-medieval measurement system is both major insane as well as an enormous impediment to the economy. <snip> After WWII, the rest of the industrialized world was blown to shat. It was an opportune moment to modernize their measuring system on their machines. We mercans carried the burden of the nonstandard ways of measuring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woofers and Tweeters Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 To the other points: The simple way of seeing that water freezes at 0c and boils at 100c is easier to remember 32f and 212f. It's easy to see how many meters are in a kilometer....quickly / without math, how many yards in a mile? Although bars play nicely with the other SI units, it's not equal to an ATM, but better than 14.6959. The problem is trying to convert. When dealing with temperatures, do I multiply / divide by 9/5 or 1.8 (they are =) and the 32 before / after, add / subtract... When done on a regular basis, it easy enough to go from one to the other, but if we were never subjected to the system that doesn't play nice it would be easy to cut down on the clutter. Oh yeah, bump Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wvu80 Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 This is a 5 year-old thread. Go 'Merica! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woofers and Tweeters Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 I was stumbled onto it and couldn't help myself 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 Maybe old, but still a major issue and expense. For all who defend our medieval and incredibly complex "system" of measurement you must be comforted to know we are in the company of Burma and Liberia as the only known intelligences in the universe who have deluded themselves into thinking they have a superior system. Dave 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceptorman Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 Only time will tell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel Posted October 27, 2016 Moderators Share Posted October 27, 2016 4 hours ago, Weber said: I was stumbled onto it and couldn't help myself Met a few girls like that 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJkizak Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 The temperature scale should have been an expanded Kelvan in the range of -100f to +200f. C it virtually useless on a day to day basis. The meter is based on a one time mathematical measurement of the Earth diameter relationship to the north pole but then again the Earth is always changing shape much as the foot. What's the difference if you had picked a rock at random and stuck it in the bureau of measurements for safekeeping. JJK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woofers and Tweeters Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 1 hour ago, JJkizak said: The temperature scale should have been an expanded Kelvan in the range of -100f to +200f. Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woofers and Tweeters Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 2 hours ago, dtel said: Met a few girls like that And couldn't help yourself.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarheel TJ Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 There are only two kinds of countries in this world: those who use the metric system, and those who have landed on the moon! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybobg Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 I was curious as to how stones was used as a measure of weight. Pretty accurate, give or take a bag full of gravel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJkizak Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 2 hours ago, Weber said: Why? Then instead of looking at world air temperatures now all of which are in the 30C range (Very boring) we could see a variation in the Kelvan scale that isn't boring with a scale based on the complete coverage from absolute zero to infinity. Then dispose of the C & F systems. JJK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woofers and Tweeters Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 2 hours ago, JJkizak said: Then instead of looking at world air temperatures now all of which are in the 30C range (Very boring) we could see a variation in the Kelvan scale that isn't boring with a scale based on the complete coverage from absolute zero to infinity. Then dispose of the C & F systems. JJK Do the other forms of measuring temperature have an upper limit? (planck) Would it be intuitive to know what water boils and freezes in Kelvin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woofers and Tweeters Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 4 hours ago, Tarheel TJ said: There are only two kinds of countries in this world: those who use the metric system, and those who have landed on the moon! We have had some great minds. We built large dams, building and bridges - without the use of CADD. Should we not use CADD? My point is there are better ways. I used to oppose the SI system. Now I use it and convert freely from imperial and metric or vv many times a day. It would have been a lot easier had we all been taught the metric system, and not the imperial system Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJkizak Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 13 hours ago, Weber said: Do the other forms of measuring temperature have an upper limit? (planck) Would it be intuitive to know what water boils and freezes in Kelvin? Freezing is 273.15K Boiling is 373.15K JJK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.