Some Notes About the Superbowl

Posted: February 8, 2010 in Braak
Tags: , , ,

I watched the Superbowl, and had a pretty good time.  I rooted for the men with the blue hats until late in the fourth quarter, when I switched to rooting for the men in the gold hats.  The men in the gold hats won!  I was very happy about that.

Watching the Superbowl, I have had some thoughts that future Superbowl administrators may want to take into consideration.

1.  It shouldn’t be called an “interception” if the guy misses the ball and someone else catches it.

That just doesn’t make any sense.  You “intercept” something by coming between an object and its target.  It should be called a “collection” or something.  I don’t know, let the Ministry for Football Vocabulary figure out what.  Just not “interception.”

2.  There needs to be a play in which the ball is handed to a very small running back, and then two offensive linemen throw him over the line of scrimmage.

I see this being highly effective when the offense is right at the end of the field, and they need to get past all of those huge guys.  The gold-hat guys tried to run around the blue hat guys THREE TIMES and it didn’t work.  Obviously–there’s really only two ways you can run in a circumstance like that.  It’d be better if you could just find a small guy and kind of hurl him into the end-zone.

3.  Man, what kind of sissy men watch this shit?

I saw about eighty-five hundred commercials about guys being emasculated by their wives, and that’s why they should be allowed to drive a Dodge charger, or why they should be able to wear Dockers, or why they should buy a tiny television to keep in their pockets, OR — and this was really weird — they should use Dove moisturizing soap so that they could have silky-soft skin.

I don’t really understand what’s going on here, because they kept talking to men like our biggest problem is that our wives won’t let us watch “the big game” — but these commercials are on DURING THE BIG GAME.  By definition, anyone who would see them wouldn’t be the person they were appealing to.

I guess the point was to play on my self-esteem, so that I would feel like I was missing out?  Like maybe I wasn’t experiencing life to the fullest the way a dirty caveman would have?  I don’t know — I found all of the commercials baffling.  I am not particularly inclined to buy a Dodge Charger, nor am I especially interested in purchasing a very small television so that I can watch it while I am shopping with Jeanine.

It’s weird:  I don’t really mind shopping that much.  Also, when she wants to go to the scarf shop and look at scarves or something, I tell her that I’m going to the comic book store and that I’ll meet up with her when she’s done.


[UPDATE:  The conviction of Superbowl advertisers that men are peculiarly brainless, spineless, sex-craved children has not gone unnoticed by OTHERS ON THE INTERNET.  Here at The Sexist, for example, and my good and hilarious friends over at the Jezebel.]

  1. wench says:

    Commercials are not designed to make you a better person. They are designed to make you insecure and miserable so you’ll spend money to feel better.

  2. braak says:

    I know — this just seemed like a laughable poor assault on my self-esteem.

    However, the Doritos commercial with the guy in samurai armor that was made out of Doritos was hilarious.

  3. Jeff Holland says:

    Yes, the two big hits of the night – by which I mean, the only ones where my friends and I didn’t look at each other and say, “Huh…that wasn’t very good” – were nacho armor, and Betty White football.

    I don’t know how good they were at selling Doritos or Snickers, but if Target sold Nacho Armor or Betty White, I would buy a bunch of them.

    On the other hand, the Charger commercial was really troubling, because it seemed like these guys wanted to be rewarded for basic decency toward their girlfriends. If you do not like something about the way you and your wife or girlfriend interact, MAN UP AND DEAL WITH IT.

    Though buying a Dodge Charger instead is an awesomely passive-aggressive alternative.
    “Honey, why is there a Dodge Charger in the driveway?”

  4. K. Liebert says:

    1) It is an “interception” because the gold hat guy came between the ball and the target, blue hat guy. “Gold hat guy “intercepted” the ball.

    2) Terrible calls at the end zone. Very often a small running back will launch himself over the line of scrimmage. (Nearly as often he is met above the line be the defense and it makes a nice crunch sound.) They even had a commercial where a gold hat guy leaps over a tackler to score.

    3) So many of the commercials were absolutely terrible. The LOST influenced commercials were pretty fun though. And the Play Nice Dorito kid was amusing: Slap! “One- keep your hands of my momma, two- keep your hands off my Doritos.”

  5. braak says:

    False. The blue hat guy missed the ball. The gold hat guy was behind him, and just picked it up afterwards.

  6. K. Liebert says:

    Picked it up? Gold hat guy made a break on the ball & caught it in the air. Are we talking about the same play? If it was the kickoff right after halftime, yes; blue hat guy totally missed, and gold hat guy came out of that pile with the ball, recovered it as it were. If it was towards the end of the game, gold hat guy intercepted the pass.

  7. braak says:

    I don’t know. Are you talking about a play in which the quarterback threw the ball to a guy, and he missed it, and the guy behind him caught it? I think it was kind of early on.

    In fact, the guy behind might not have actually caught it, but almost caught it. So, nearly an interception, but whatever, still it shouldn’t be called an interception then.

  8. Lord Wackadoo says:

    Here is why it is an interception. In the army if the Germans sent a coded message to Franco in Spain that fell into the hands of the British, then that transmission would be said to have been intercepted by the British.

    It was intended for ally hands, and ended up in enemy hands. Much in the same way that Payton Manning, a Colt intended, for that ball to end up in another Colt’s hands but wound up in a a Saints player’s hands. Therefore it is semantically correct to refer to an errantly thrown ball that lands right in an opponents hands as an intercepted pass.

  9. braak says:

    I don’t think that that proves that it is semantically correct! I think that referring to a coded message received by radio as “intercepted” is ALSO incorrectly applied — a holdover from days when messages were actual things that could be held; necessarily, if the Allies had gotten one of those messages, it would be because they had interposed themselves between the message and its target.

    Saying that a secret message was intercepted during WWII is also mislead, because it implies that Franco didn’t get it.

  10. Lord Wackadoo says:

    First of all, I never once said “received by radio”, you assumed that I meant that. If a carrier pigeon flies to England by mistake, then it would still be semantically accurate to say (albeit potentially misleading) that the message was intercepted by British intelligence.

    While it is true that in sending messages it is possible for both Franco and the British to receive the message, unlike in football where it is not possible for both teams to posses the ball. I refer you here:

    b : to receive (a communication or signal directed elsewhere) usually secretly

    Of course one cannot argue that there are several valid definitions of “intercept” listed under the words entry, some of which coincide with your description. However, the person who first coined the football term “interception” obviously chose to use the definition selected above to describe when a defensive player catches a forward pass.

    Therefore I reiterated it is semantically correct to refer to an errantly thrown ball that lands right in an opponents hands as an intercepted pass.
    And that it is not semantically correct only when the defensive player stands between the passer and the receiver.

    Could they have used another term to describe such a play result? Of course. Does there exist definitions of interception such that when applied does not desrcibe such a play result? Also of course. But since there exists a single valid, applicable definition of “interception” that describes any forward pass caught by an opponent interception is semantically valid under the circumstance.

  11. Tad says:

    If we’re going to get into semantics, it should really be the gold hat guys and the white hat guys. The Colts, while wearing blue jerseys, or “shirts” to the casual viewer, wore white helmets with a blue stripe and blue horseshoes on both sides.

  12. braak says:

    Since the purpose of language is communication, if it is misleading then it is wrong, regardless of whether or not it is semantically correct. This is assuming, even so, that a definition used in a different context is valid justification for a definition used in this context.

    There is, in fact, a world of difference both for players and for fans between a man catching a ball before its intended target can get to it, and a man catching a ball because the other guy missed.

    I stand by my assertion. Also: no one cares.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s