Nobel Prize winner on dodgy World Cup ball Goalkeepers like to get their excuses in first, and this new World Cup is no exception. A new design of a ball is introduced, and even before the first kick, goalies are complaining that it dips, swerves, performs incredible yo-yo tricks… and worst of all, it's round. How is anybody supposed to get hold of that? It really …
It does seem that the ball seems a little more 'flighty' than the usual fare. Perhaps it's time to make a ball that is slightly heavier and has more dimples on it to allow *more* movement in the air.
anything that causes more goals for the fans can't be a bad thing - this ball just seems to be hitting the fans rather than the back of the net.
Having said that, Spain, although they lost, seem to have a good handle on the new ball - they certainly looked dangerous on the attack.
Q) What's the England teams favourite wine?
A) The ball's the wrong shape.
I would say it all evens out... The goalies don't know where they are going, so can't stop them, and the strikers don't know where they are going so can't actually get them on target.
At least they have the excuses all lined up for the penalty misses in advance this time.
Now stop whining, or we fill the ball with hydrogen :-p
It does seem to be quite a bland and tedious world cup so far.
As for Mr Murrays comment "1966 was a very long time ago it's past time you got over it". I couldn't agree more, in fact, I think a very similar thought whenever Jesus comes up in conversation.
Please forward this idea immediately to the BBC, ITV and Talk Sport.
It is fairly obvous to most people interested in physics that a perfect sphere is not going to behave the same way regular irregular footballs behave.
It isn't rocket science it is just simple ballistics. Stuf that has been known for centuries. Stuff that the design of the golf ball is based on.
And the stuff the stuff falling out of the sky sci-fi idiots wet dream abourt.
Silos and chimney take it into acount and I daresay that chemist interested in vortice shedding would have humungous computers set up to analyse.
As for scoring with the bloody things, how on earth are they supposed to do that when it is dificult enough in regular top rank games with reasonably shootable balls? Pick them up and rub one side of them with dirt the way that cricketers are alledged to?
Apparently they set out to build a "seamless" ball (i.e. a perfect sphere). When they did this, they found it didn't fly "right". I guess they're not interested in physics then?
What we have now is a spherical, seamless ball with added seams. A bit like that humungo IT project that gets the last minute Change Request that completely changes the scope when it's waaaay too late to alter the fundamental design. We all know how that one pans out.
Incidently, there's nothing "alleged" about rubbing the ball with dirt in Cricket, everyone does it. It would be impossible to stop as the ball picks up dirt off the wicket anyway and all the bowler has to do is rub it into the surface on one side (you add a bit of sweat to get it to "take" to the leather) and polish it off the other. This gives the "one side rough, the other shiny" effect that produces swing in the air. What they are not allowed to do is "pick" at the surface or the seam with a fingernail, key, coin or such to scuff / dent it artificially.
"But I suppose now popstars do international relations, chemists now do physics on footballs they've never examined." Or journalists spin stories to support their own viewpoint...
One of Andrew's usual sarky pieces - Kroto is firmly in the "climate change is real and happening" camp, but then he would be wouldn't he? A real scientist, to be taken down a peg, rather than a loony like Christopher Monckton who's word is gospel.
Andrew, you have been told before, the organization is called "The Royal Society of Chemistry" - I thought that the first thing that a journalist was taught was "get the names right".
Kroto, Curl and Smalley made Buckminsterfullerene in 1985.
So all in all, up to Andrew's usual standard - If he can't be bothered, why would we take anything he writes seriously?
...the William Harrison short story on which the (excellent) 1975 and (dire) 2002 movies "Rollerball" were based, you'll remember that at the end they started making the ball uneven to make its path less predictable. They also introduced "multi-ball". Perhaps that could be the key concept for the UK's bid to host a World Cup?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
