Ipod While Playing?

65 posts / 0 new
Last post

"Sunglasses, hard knee braces, watches, all of these could have the same argument imposed
upon them."

Absolutely. And that argument is absurd at best.

"" "Sunglasses, hard knee braces, watches, all of these could have the same argument imposed upon them."

Absolutely. And that argument is absurd at best""

I'm a little gun shy about watches. I was 10 feet away from a teammate a few years ago who went to block a huck, the guy followed through and broke his nose with about 20 stitches across his cheek and a swollen eye the likes of which I've never seen because of a watch....

Ipods are theoretically concealed under some piece of clothing and where you have them attached isn't an 'active' part of your body during a play. Watches are inches from the tool you use the most to play the sport--dangerous imo.

Well, unless this watch weighed half a pound, he was getting busted up anyway. The watch
very likely didn't cause the busted nose or swollen eye.

Though I'll agree that a watch isn't recommended, for the reasons you state. I would also
suggest some watches couldn't reasonably be called unsafe.

Regardless, the argument in question, that 'if there is a non-zero risk, with no direct benefit
to the sport, it should be forbidden', is absurd at best.

One cannot eliminate all non game-related risk from the sport. One shouldn't even try. What
one should do is reduce reasonable hazards to safety.

Everybody has a different impression of what a "reasonable hazard to safety" is, which is
normal. But those suggesting an iPod is one have both a hyper-sensitivity to risk, and a
rather selective notion of the risks in ultimate.

More likely they don't actually believe there's any meaningful risk, rather just don't like the
idea of it.

I find it funny that somebody will state unequivocally that there's no reasonable risk of
running on cleats with a raised platform which is more narrow than their foot, but are
concerned with under 140g of plastic and metal being strapped to somebody's torso.

why would one wear a watch while playing any sport? Is wapner coming on soon?

Well, given that every player is also an official in Ultimate, ensuring that games end on time could be one reason... Of course, having someone on the sideline track time is better, but a small plastic ironman watch is not a significant hazard, IMHO. Bones and fingernails are just as potentially damaging.

How many of the fear mongers have ever played a point after they've imbibed any alcohol (or
other drug)?

Hypocrisy is a wonderful thing.

Add hypocrite to my list of titles...great.

I always ask people to remove their watches if they're playing. The uncontrolled backhand could be a danger, but as was pointed out, the knuckles suck just as bad as the watch when you're forced to eat them.

More of a concern to me is running beside someone and the arm motion. Scratches, scrapes, and albeit not really my concern, broken watches are all likely.

Please don't turn this into a debate on 'ultimate is a non-contact sport' and I shouldn't be that close to someone...it happens.

Good point temple. Next time I see anyone drinking I'm going to confiscate their cooler, bench myself, and get drunk. You know, in the name of safety. I hear the VUL likes that.

... would someone be allowed to wear a watch on their non-throwing arm?

"How many of the fear mongers have ever played a point after they've imbibed any alcohol (or
other drug)?
Hypocrisy is a wonderful thing."

I was wondering how long it would take and who would try to make this specious comparison.

If you are going to go there, you might as well add those who had a poor night's sleep, those
with work issues on their mind, ad infinitum.

Regulating what you can wear on field isn't the same thing.

"I was wondering how long it would take and who would try to make this specious
comparison."

Do you know what specious means? You say that my comparison is plausible, but wrong, yet
you don't give one reason to back that claim. One wonders why that is.

You argue that 'any added risk that is not inherent to playing the sport, no matter how small,
is unacceptable', then you suggest that playing physio-chemically impaired does not add that
same unacceptable risk?

Oh please. I actually look forward to seeing the 'logical' gymnastics in your reply which
suggests otherwise. Please explain how there is no unacceptable risk in playing under the
influence, but there is unacceptable risk to playing with a sport watch or an iPod strapped to
your waist.

Playing physio-chemically impaired, is undeniably a higher safety risk than wearing sunglasses
or having 140g of plastic and metal strapped to your torso.

Obviously it's a silly argument to suggest either are so unsafe as to warrant another
person saying "i'm not comfortable with you playing that way, you must stop".

"specious argument - an argument that appears good at first view but is really fallacious"

You're comparing a behaviour with a material object. Despite the seeming similarity on the
surface, they are two different categories. I could consume drugs before I ever show up to the
field and you'd never know. I can see whether or not you're using an iPod, so the two situations
aren't worth comparing.

Specious. Nothing to do with risk or lack thereof. You'll notice (well, some would anyway) that I
didn't suggest one was OK and the other wasn't. Simply pointing out the fallacy in your
comparison.

I compared two risks to an ultimate player, and I made a perfectly valid comparison.

The fact that you have different categories of 'unnecessary risks', with each category having a
different acceptability level which is not based on the level of the risk makes for a completely
toothless safety argument.

And wait. If you don't *know* that I've got an ipod on my person, then you're ok with the
fact that I have one? What?

Keam, you've carefully demonstrated that your argument is not based on risk. Ok, so remind
me again what your argument is based on. Actually, never mind.

You make huge leaps of inference from people's posts.

Nowhere did I say one was more acceptable than the other or suggest a hidden iPod was more
acceptable.

Get yourself some reading comprehension. Misrepresenting what others say is so lame.

it's really a disadvantage for the guy wearing the earphones as more then once I've gotten a big d or grab because I've had a teammate call my name. that said my only concern would be the cords. if he was wearing it outside his shirt i would ask him to wear underneath because i don't want to be worrying about ripping out his headphones that's all.

Pages