Football is 2d game

[nestheking]

Let's think about Football.

Position 1: I am at home. Watching the football game on the giant screen. Thanks for the channel guys, they are using lots of cameras, so I can see everything from different angles, in slow motion etc.

Position 2: I am in the stadium. I have just 1 point of view, and no slow motion.

Position 3: I am the referee. Comparing to position 1 and position 2 you can not even talk about the "point of view". I see lots of spheres. One of them is the ball and the others are the heads of the players.

Position 4: I am sitting on a chair at point Zenith! What I see is a rectangle, some drawings, and 25 PacMans (22 players + 3 referees) are moving from somewhere to somewhere, especially running after a circle called ball. (In this example, the heigth is negligible, because I am at the point very far away the stadium.)

If the name of the referee is Fred, now we can understand how Fred goes to left, right, up, down, briefly 360 degrees. Now he can move any direction! He doesn't need to fly to go other directions.

In brief, instead of looking from leftside of Fred, looking from over his head is sensible. (Hey I am sorry again about my English, hope you understand what I wanted to express. Actually, if it is possible, someone can edit this topic and make some corrections.)

I know in this situation, the rules of Flatland changes. So let's leave Flatland at the same place, and give another name to this new 2d world. (Instead of me, please may one of you name it?)

For example, can we call microorganisms' world as 2d world?. Because their heigth is negligible.

[RQ]

I don't think that depth would be unaccountable. Again it is only perception, not reality that u r referring to with the depth thing.

[pat]

It had to think about it overnight. But, now I think I understand what you were saying here about football.

I know in this situation, the rules of Flatland changes. So let's leave Flatland at the same place, and give another name to this new 2d world. (Instead of me, please may one of you name it?)

I actually think that in Edwin Abbott's original conception of Flatland, the two dimensions are oriented perpendicular to gravity. In other words, they would never fall in any direction. I'm not sure if there is a different name for a Flat world that has an axis aligned with gravity.

So, my thoughts on Football (American translation: soccer)...

Watching the game would be particularly difficult for the referees, the fans at the stadium, and the TV viewers. There would be lots of cases where the action is obscured by other players.

The only big advantage is that offsides would be much easier to call.

Hopefully the ball would look signficantly different than the people in both size and color. I would hope people are not perfectly spherical either.

From position 4, however, in space land.... this would be a very easy game to watch.

[pat]

I prefer volleyball to football. As such, I was trying to think about how to translate the game mechanics of volleyball down to Flatland.

It's somewhat easy to formulate in the scenario where the floor is a line and the net is a perpendicular line. It gets crowded mighty quickly... there's not really room for six people if any spike is ever to hit the ground.

However, it's not at all easy to formulate in the scenario where the players have a 2-D range of motion. First off, it is impossible to "hit the ball into the net" (or impossible not to do so?). Second, it is impossible to hit the ball out of bounds (or not to do so?). The only useful out-of-bounds is if the ball hits the antenna. But, the ball is touching the floor at all times (or never?). So, how could would ever score?

I got to thinking about this because I thought it might be neat to make a Java game to play 2-D football from a first-person point of view. Then, I thought... the game mechanics of football are somewhat complex. Maybe I'll do baseball (without fly balls). But, I don't really like baseball. Then, I thought... well, the game mechanics of volleyball are on par with the game mechanics of football, but I prefer volleyball... so maybe I'll go with it. But, the game mechanics of volleyball don't translate to 2-D very well. Hmmm....

[nestheking]

I am trying to give a name to the world which has no heigth: NoHeigthLand. It is different from Flatland. And we can not talk about volleyball in NoHeigthLand. As much as I know "volley" means "coming from air".

So, back to Flatland. Pat, instead of normal volleyball you can choose Beach Volley. I tried to draw it, but last time I could not insert the picture. Now if it is not shown here please click (or copy paste) the address.
[img]http://www.dortbin.com/volleyball.jpg[/img]

Another idea: If the net is made of glass then players can see the other side of the field.

This picture also explains how Washtaks and Bicks can see either their front and back.

[pat]

Another idea: If the net is made of glass then players can see the other side of the field.

Yes. In NoHeightLand, the problem of the net is even worse (as are all boundary indications). You want them to be clearly visible, but not impenetrable. I was just going to run with the assumption that the lines on the field could be holographically projected. . Heck, if they're solid lines, then they could be projected with just a laser beam. This could even be used to sense when something crosses a boundary line.

[RQ]

Since I realize we are talking about soccer, this reminds me of my FIFA 95, GOd that game is never boring. I stood up until 12:00 every day until I passed all 15 levels.

[nestheking]

In NoHeigthLand, the Football (Soccer) field can not be made of grass. Because in this condition players must be OVER !!? the grass, which is impossible. So, the field must be filled up with air, or some type of gas, or some type of liquid. And I want to remind that I wrote microorganisms' world. Maybe this is a wrong expression. But think about human cell. I am not sure whether a cell has a heigth. Mitocondria, golgi apparatus (hope I wrote them write) can be thought as 2d existance.

[RQ]

I haven't heard that one yet. How would they be thought of as 2D?

[pat]

Maybe this is a wrong expression. But think about human cell. I am not sure whether a cell has a heigth. Mitocondria, golgi apparatus (hope I wrote them write) can be thought as 2d existance.

I'm pretty sure that cells are 3-d (somewhere between cubical and spherical) and mitochondria are 3-d (almost spherical) and such. I think it's just the microscope's view that makes it all look so flat. If you've got to slice out a think-slab and smear it on a slide, things are going to be pretty flat (esp. if you're looking through a single eye).

[nestheking]

Huh! I am really sorry . Even an ATOM is 3d, of course a human cell must be 3d. Sorry again. Then I give up to find any 2d sample in our world.

[elpenmaster]

if you had a 2-d thing in trionian space with the 2-d side perpendicular to the ground, wouldnt it cut through until it got to the center of gravity because it has no surface are and thus no friction to hold it? then the logical place to look for 2-d objects is the center of the earth, because any 2-d objects would eventually probably at some point stand up and would then go straight down. eventually they would get to the center of the earth

[RQ]

the 2D is 0 volume with respect to 3D.

[elpenmaster]

does it matter if the 2-d thing has zero volume or not?