news.bbc.co.uk— Factors involved in their calculations include the number of steps in run-up, time taken to kick the ball, velocity of shot and position of striking foot.
Jun 22, 2006View in Crawl 4
((X Y S)/2) in the equation shows the -"ideal number of steps in a run-up to be four to six - but a long run-up of 10m is the least successful. "((T I 2B)/4) in the equation shows -"The ideal time to take the penalty is three seconds or less and while waiting for the goalkeeper to move before striking the ball helps the chances of success, if a player waits more than 0.41 milliseconds, chances of scoring are halved. "(V/2)-1 in the equation shows -"ideal velocity for the ball to be 25-29 metres per second"
In addition to all that, there's a units mismatch: (X + Y + S) --> [length + length + time] ?!? (T + I + 2B) --> [time + time + length] ?!? (V/2) --> [speed] or [length/time]So to of the terms in the equation aren't sane even taken by themselves (let alone added together). I'd be willing to overlook that if the article was at least funny. But it's not.No digg. Off to watch the videos in other replies!EDIT: WTF? Digg removes all the "plus" signs when you edit, and won't let you put them back unless you use the character entity.
Empirical formulae... Bah - might as well have chucked in the odd factor of 4.67 or 2.1(ish) to make it look decent.You'd think that they'd actually bother to make it dimensionless at least - Nusselt, Prandtl and co 4tw!!!
timewarriorJun 22, 2006Submitter
((X Y S)/2) in the equation shows the -"ideal number of steps in a run-up to be four to six - but a long run-up of 10m is the least successful. "((T I 2B)/4) in the equation shows -"The ideal time to take the penalty is three seconds or less and while waiting for the goalkeeper to move before striking the ball helps the chances of success, if a player waits more than 0.41 milliseconds, chances of scoring are halved. "(V/2)-1 in the equation shows -"ideal velocity for the ball to be 25-29 metres per second"
xaninJun 23, 2006
if you read the box at the side of the article it explains the terms
chewtoyJun 23, 2006
In addition to all that, there's a units mismatch: (X + Y + S) --> [length + length + time] ?!? (T + I + 2B) --> [time + time + length] ?!? (V/2) --> [speed] or [length/time]So to of the terms in the equation aren't sane even taken by themselves (let alone added together). I'd be willing to overlook that if the article was at least funny. But it's not.No digg. Off to watch the videos in other replies!EDIT: WTF? Digg removes all the "plus" signs when you edit, and won't let you put them back unless you use the character entity.
jeblisJun 23, 2006
Cool. Now we'll have a way to resolve all those tie games.
jameseyJun 23, 2006
There's more to it than hitting an inswinger 90MPH into the upper corner?
mrnastypantsJun 23, 2006
Empirical formulae... Bah - might as well have chucked in the odd factor of 4.67 or 2.1(ish) to make it look decent.You'd think that they'd actually bother to make it dimensionless at least - Nusselt, Prandtl and co 4tw!!!
rtaylor32Jun 23, 2006
Why do I care. US is out Soccer/football/futbol is dead to me. I banish you back to the third world.