American Football and the armor

[BoliDan]

I see this sub forum is more geared towards int'l club sports. But, I've been abroad a lot and answered this question a lot. "Why all the armor?" Rugby certainly doesnt need it, they are tougher, obviously.

First some quick history. Football is a offshoot of rugby. It has more stop and go. The play starts and then ends when a tackle occurs. This means all players reset and prepare to hit eachother again every time the a tackle occurs. This becomes a chess match between coaches.."what is the likely play, what set up will counter that move".

This chess match results in a lot of hits per play. The front line is thought to take an average of 200 blows per game. Let us also keep in mind, these front lines people average weight is 312 lbs (23 stone). They are head to head blows and hand to head blows, often both... every play.

First American football year played. 1905. This was an ivy league only sport (Harvard, yale, Brown etc..) there was zero armor used. 18 people died that year playing the sport. (Maybe that should have been an indication to stop the sport, but were american and must find alternatives to British sport.)

Fast forward present day: yes we still see deaths from this sport. Most are workout related. Because of the armor, traumatic death is very rare. CTE is still a major problem. Aaron Hernandez had it, and I grew up 2 miles from him. I Knew his brother DJ, good dude. Coach at my high school, cared deeply about his students. He was forced to move to TX, because of the controversy his brother caused in our town. But I hear he is doing well.

Armor is not a weakness but a necessity, one they need to improve on. Every play, the front line is involved in a scrum, bit even more violence. On the other hand, runners and receivers probably get hit harder because the armor protects the defender. https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=HEITsfVpie0

I love the chess aspect. Guessing what the offense will do for a certain situation, and how the the defense set up for the those possibilities. It is a much more cerebral driven sport, that coach decisions/predictions (each play) sometimes outmatch other team's player abilities. But you can decide. Is the armor needed or part of a problem? Is this sport too dangerous or are you more interested?

 

[Ken Gargett]

1 hour ago, BoliDan said:

I see this sub forum is more geared towards int'l club sports. But, I've been abroad a lot and answered this question a lot. "Why all the armor?" Rugby certainly doesnt need it, they are tougher, obviously.

First some quick history. Football is a offshoot of rugby. It has more stop and go. The play starts and then ends when a tackle occurs. This means all players reset and prepare to hit eachother again every time the a tackle occurs. This becomes a chess match between coaches.."what is the likely play, what set up will counter that move".

This chess match results in a lot of hits per play. The front line is thought to take an average of 200 blows per game. Let us also keep in mind, these front lines people average weight is 312 lbs (23 stone). They are head to head blows and hand to head blows, often both... every play.

First American football year played. 1905. This was an ivy league only sport (Harvard, yale, Brown etc..) there was zero armor used. 18 people died that year playing the sport. (Maybe that should have been an indication to stop the sport, but were american and must find alternatives to British sport.)

Fast forward present day: yes we still see deaths from this sport. Most are workout related. Because of the armor, traumatic death is very rare. CTE is still a major problem. Aaron Hernandez had it, and I grew up 2 miles from him. I Knew his brother DJ, good dude. Coach at my high school, cared deeply about his students. He was forced to move to TX, because of the controversy his brother caused in our town. But I hear he is doing well.

Armor is not a weakness but a necessity, one they need to improve on. Every play, the front line is involved in a scrum, bit even more violence. On the other hand, runners and receivers probably get hit harder because the armor protects the defender. https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=HEITsfVpie0

I love the chess aspect. Guessing what the offense will do for a certain situation, and how the the defense set up for the those possibilities. It is a much more cerebral driven sport, that coach decisions/predictions (each play) sometimes outmatch other team's player abilities. But you can decide. Is the armor needed or part of a problem? Is this sport too dangerous or are you more interested?

 

one aspect you did not touch on is that the rules re tackling are different and the protection in the NFL is needed for that. 

[BoliDan]

5 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

one aspect you did not touch on is that the rules re tackling are different and the protection in the NFL is needed for that. 

There has been talk about the need to adopt rugby style tackling rules. The problem is, each team needs to adopt it, seeing there is no rule for it. Here is a 2016 article illustrating that here has been some adoption. https://www.sbnation.com/2016/9/6/12341916/nfl-rugby-tackling-concussions-seahawks-falcons

However, there is no rule to adopt the style. There is some sick warrior-love in American football, and a rules to thwart hard hits would be met with boycotts and anger. In pubs, I've seen on multiple occasions, opposing fans cheering an injury of players. Truly disgusting behavior... but it is part of the mentality that makes them money. Pete Carol of the Seattle Seahawks adopted Rugby style tackling. Unfortunately, with out a rule, most coaches prefer that extra yard and potential game/career ending hit...

[JohnnyO]

The rules of the game have changed over the years and the speed of the players. The game has become more pass oriented, the players are spread out resulting in more violent crashes. Defenses used to be 5-3-2-1, Buddy Ryan used the 4-6-1, now they have 4-3-2-2, 3-4-2-2 and 4-2-3-2. Linebackers and defensive ends now have to be pass defenders. If its 3rd and long and you cant cover a receiver you wont be in the play. Pete Carrol got a lot of players hurt with that style of tackling on both sides and cut careers short. Those players liked the highlight reel tackles because grabbing a guy around the waist and getting dragged 5 yards down field wont get you on ESPN. Comparing Rugby players to NFL players is  a stretch as I doubt there are many Rugby players that are 6' 5" and can run a 4.2 second 40-yard dash. You cant teach speed. More efficient uniforms/pads will protect the players along with rules that prevent players from launching at the head area. Look at one of the many Brady Rules....cant hit em too high or too low. There just aren't enough quality quaterbacks in the league to keep putting your starters on IR. John

[RijkdeGooier]

Maybe some facts re speed and size

https://www.google.nl/amp/s/amp.rugbypass.com/news/the-remarkable-metre-per-second-speed-64-18-stone-cokanasiga-clocked-in-training/

about general toughness

http://rugbywarfare.com/rugby-vs-american-football/

[JohnnyO]

You have one guy that reportedly ran a (unconfirmed) 10.8 100 meter dash. We have high school kids that run better times here in Florida since the 70's. There is a reason why rugby players cant transition to the NFL. They are slower and smaller. Oh, they are tougher and more conditioned and all that but they are still slower and smaller. It would be similar to say that England's National cricket team could beat the World Series Champ. I know….they dont use a glove, they got a funky bat, their tougher, more conditioned....

[RijkdeGooier]

19 minutes ago, JohnnyO said:

You have one guy that reportedly ran a (unconfirmed) 10.8 100 meter dash. We have high school kids that run better times here in Florida since the 70's. There is a reason why rugby players cant transition to the NFL. They are slower and smaller. Oh, they are tougher and more conditioned and all that but they are still slower and smaller. It would be similar to say that England's National cricket team could beat the World Series Champ. I know….they dont use a glove, they got a funky bat, their tougher, more conditioned....

Sources my friend ??

[Corylax18]

Armor? I've never heard Pads called that before. Haha

If you watch carefully, the biggest/fastest guys, usually Defensive Ends wear the least amount of padding. Look at Michael Bennet for example. He wheres shoulder pads that would be small on a middle school kicker. It provides less for the Offensive Lineman to grab on to and if you're good at tackling, you don't don't really need them. (see rugby)

The players that wear the most padding are the ones that have the highest chance of getting crushed by one of these monsters. Quarterbacks and Running backs. Linebackers also typically wear relatively large shoulder pads, but not the "Flack Jackets" that you see most quarterbacks and some running backs wearing. 

I'm really torn on how much safer pads make the game. Some people blame the helmet especially for drastically degrading the quality of tackling over the last few decades. Watch Ryan Shazier paralyze himself, with literally the worst for tackle in history. Arms down, head down, the only point of contact being the very top of his head. People assume the pads/helmet will protect you from anything, that clearly isnt the case. Link to the clip:

 

[JohnnyO]

1 hour ago, RijkdeGooier said:

Sources my friend ??

Cokanasiga does not have an official 100 meter time logged and I doubt at 30 years old ever will. Added to that at 252 lbs its just a fairy tale (or likely a marketing technique) to think that he could run a 10.8. Carlin Isles is the worlds fastest Rugby player at a legitimate 10.13 in the 100 meter. An American football player that switched to Rugby, but at 5' 8" and 165 lbs did not make the cut when trying out for the Detroit Lions. So if your best cant qualify for our worst (Detroit Lions at the time) what does it say for the rest of the field? 

[RijkdeGooier]

Here’s a reputable switch list

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_players_who_have_converted_from_one_football_code_to_another

The latest convert

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Wade

I will step away from this now

[Ken Gargett]

2 hours ago, JohnnyO said:

Cokanasiga does not have an official 100 meter time logged and I doubt at 30 years old ever will. Added to that at 252 lbs its just a fairy tale (or likely a marketing technique) to think that he could run a 10.8. Carlin Isles is the worlds fastest Rugby player at a legitimate 10.13 in the 100 meter. An American football player that switched to Rugby, but at 5' 8" and 165 lbs did not make the cut when trying out for the Detroit Lions. So if your best cant qualify for our worst (Detroit Lions at the time) what does it say for the rest of the field? 

seriously? someone trying out for a completely foreign sport in different country. and you dismiss entire codes and what nations might offer because they are not an immediate success? a bit tin hat.

an ex-NFL running back, still quite young (forget the name) recently came over to try for rugby league (and you guys won't get anywhere understanding football outside the states until it dawns on you that there are two entirely different codes of football involved in this - rugby union and rugby league - different games). managed a few games for some no-name team playing outside ipswich (you may assume that this really is the sticks). got nowhere. complete failure. and this was very far from top level competition.  sure, he might not have been walter payton but if this apparent superiority really existed, you'd expect better. 

should we dismiss all american footballers? you seem happy to do the reverse? good luck to anyone from either side trying out in a completely different sport. it is extremely tough to do and very very few succeed. if you honestly think you could pick a group from offence and defence to take on rugby scrums, breakdowns and so on, against a top international side then you could hardly be more off beam. ditto if any rugby or league fans thought we could put together players to take on a top O line or D line. it is simply box of frogs stuff. 

for what one personal opinion is worth, i'm old enough to have watched way too much rugby, AFL, soccer, NFL and league. i've never seen anything that comes close (especially in the old days) that combines toughness and athleticism and skill in the way State of Origin rugby league does. daylight second. i love watching the NFL and it can be brutal in short bursts but nothing sustains the toughness like an Origin game. 

as for transferring sports, what say we insert usain bolt into NFL or one of the rugby codes - big and no one faster. but absolutely no guarantee of success. there is so much more to it that you seem to ignore. in fact, i think bolt tried out for an aussie soccer team recently. didn't last long, despite the speed. 

and while we are throwing both sense and facts out the window, cokanasiga is 21, not 30. 

"your best"? please, elaborate on where you came up with this. the bloke has played 3 or 4 tests, i think. may be one or two more. so he is basically a very raw rookie. he is battling for a spot in the english team, but is no guarantee. if anyone had said that an NFL player with just a few games under his belt and not even guaranteed of his spot was "your best", you'd rightly suggest it was lunacy. yet you have no problem doing the reverse?

what does that say? 

[99call]

On 8/23/2019 at 9:16 PM, JohnnyO said:

You have one guy that reportedly ran a (unconfirmed) 10.8 100 meter dash. We have high school kids that run better times here in Florida since the 70's. There is a reason why rugby players cant transition to the NFL. They are slower and smaller. Oh, they are tougher and more conditioned and all that but they are still slower and smaller. It would be similar to say that England's National cricket team could beat the World Series Champ. I know….they dont use a glove, they got a funky bat, their tougher, more conditioned....

As others have pointed out, I think this comment is very short sighted.      Although I don't enjoy American Football, I can appreciate it has a very specific skill set, and must be a very hard sport to get into,  but the reverse is also true.  The key fact is money wise why would you want to transition from AF to rugby union etc. 

In short I would suggest AF is massively stats focused in terms of the core parameters of an athlete.   In rugby union you get lots of athletic "specimens"  try and make it in the  15 format of the game, but at international level they fail miserably, as in long periods of play, they lose control of field position, defensive spacing etc etc.   Rugby Union has very long periods of play compared to AF, and you have to be a great deal more creative 'on the hoof'  i.e you're not running off a set play most of the time, you're looking at whats in front of you, as it unfolds, and making tactical decisions as they present themselves.        The athletic specimens largely end up in 7 man rugby, which is like an exhibition version of the game. 

In conclusion it's very very unlikely that sportsmen can adapt either way, AF to Union, or Union to AF.  I would say they are equally skilful in their own unique ways,    People train for a specific end goal, the difference in Rugby Union, is the majority of the players are training to 'multitask',  they have to be quick, strong, agile, flexible, can pass well of both hands, kick etc etc.   often what you get,  is a athlete that is very good a numerous different things, but they all negate each other.  i.e a winger still needs a great deal of body mass, to be able to survive tackles, leap for arial attacks etc,  without that body weight he would be much quicker etc. 

It's better to just show both sports the respect they deserve

 

[Ken Gargett]

1 minute ago, 99call said:

As others have pointed out, I think this comment is very short sighted.      Although I don't enjoy American Football, I can appreciate it has a very specific skill set, and must be a very hard sport to get into,  but the reverse is also true.  The key fact is money wise why would you want to transition from AF to rugby union etc. 

In short I would suggest AF is massively stats focused in terms of the core parameters of an athlete.   In rugby union you get lots of athletic "specimens"  try and make it in the  15 format of the game, but at international level they fail miserably, as in long periods of play, they lose control of field position, defensive spacing etc etc.   Rugby Union has very long periods of play compared to AF, and you have to be a great deal more creative 'on the hoof'  i.e you're not running off a set play most of the time, you're looking at whats in front of you, as it unfolds, and making tactical decisions as they present themselves.        The athletic specimens largely end up in 7 man rugby, which is like an exhibition version of the game. 

In conclusion it's very very unlikely that sportsmen can adapt either way, AF to Union, or Union to AF.  I would say they are equally skilful in their own unique ways,    People train for a specific end goal, the difference in Rugby Union, is the majority of the players are training to 'multitask',  they have to be quick, strong, agile, flexible, can pass well of both hands, kick etc etc.   often what you get,  is a athlete that is very good a numerous different things, but they all negate each other.  i.e a winger still needs a great deal of body mass, to be able to survive tackles, leap for arial attacks etc,  without that body weight he would be much quicker etc. 

It's better to just show both sports the respect they deserve

 

i take it that 'very short-sighted' is a euphemism for utterly moronic. deservedly so. 

not that i ever want to be seen defending the english cricket team but is this suggesting an american baseball team could beat the english at cricket? this has been a year for imbecilic idiocy in so many spheres but that would take the cake. 

and if it is suggesting that the english cricket team would not beat an american team at baseball, well that is nearly as dumb. tell us the sun is coming up tomorrow. that would be as bigger news. they are different games. it is absurd to think otherwise. but good luck to the athletes brave enough to give it a go. 

[Colt45]

44 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

i take it that 'very short-sighted' is a euphemism for utterly moronic. deservedly so. 

not that i ever want to be seen defending the english cricket team but is this suggesting an american baseball team could beat the english at cricket? this has been a year for imbecilic idiocy in so many spheres but that would take the cake. 

and if it is suggesting that the english cricket team would not beat an american team at baseball, well that is nearly as dumb. tell us the sun is coming up tomorrow. that would be as bigger news. they are different games. it is absurd to think otherwise. but good luck to the athletes brave enough to give it a go. 

KG, as always, your moderator skills are unparalleled!

[Ken Gargett]

Just now, Colt45 said:

KG, as always, your moderator skills are unparalleled!

colt, your support and wisdom is, as always, much appreciated. 

merely providing backing to the views of one of our members in a manner in keeping with the tone of the thread. 

[JohnnyO]

In the history of all sports how many NFL players have participated or medaled in an another Olympic sport? Plenty. Not only did they achieve gold medals but they set WORLD RECORDS. Lets take Australia for an example. How many Rugby players from there have medaled in Olympic games in another sport and set a world record along the way? I'm struggling with that number. Most NFL players if they are timed for their best 100 meter dash it will be in their earlier stages of their career, not as they get older and have to deal with surgeries. Reggie Bush did a 10.46 as a high school junior. Most NFL players logged 10's while at the university. If Cokanasiga hasn't been timed by now he never will. So the numbers thrown out is just marketing hype. As he gets older he's going to succumb to injuries/surgeries and become slower. So my suggestion that they time him when he's 30 was meant to say if he hasn't been timed by now he never will and there is a reason why they haven't posted his times. He's just not that fast. Now I know you are going to hit me with codes, tin hats, box of frogs, toughness, athleticism (Can you put that in plain English Ken?) but pound for pound NFL players are just better athletes. We've had players play dual professional sports (BTW Bo Jackson and Dion Sanders ran 10's in the 100 meter) and I don't think it can be said for too many of your Rugby fellas. Broad Jump, 40 meter, 60 meter, 100 meter, vertical jump, 225lb reps, all the measuring devices for NFL players the numbers don't lie. There is no other sport that can produce the numbers NFL players do for speed, athleticism and strength. Now the Patriots have safety Nate Ebner that played for the US Rugby team in the Olympics. I'm sure he's a tomato can by your standards, but how many Rugby Union players have 3 Super Bowl rings? My basic argument is that the NFL has world class athletes, Rugby does not. If you want to misinterpret it with Usain Bolt and Cricket teams by all means have at it. John

[99call]

5 hours ago, JohnnyO said:

In the history of all sports how many NFL players have participated or medaled in an another Olympic sport? Plenty. Not only did they achieve gold medals but they set WORLD RECORDS. Lets take Australia for an example. How many Rugby players from there have medaled in Olympic games in another sport and set a world record along the way? I'm struggling with that number. Most NFL players if they are timed for their best 100 meter dash it will be in their earlier stages of their career, not as they get older and have to deal with surgeries. Reggie Bush did a 10.46 as a high school junior. Most NFL players logged 10's while at the university. If Cokanasiga hasn't been timed by now he never will. So the numbers thrown out is just marketing hype. As he gets older he's going to succumb to injuries/surgeries and become slower. So my suggestion that they time him when he's 30 was meant to say if he hasn't been timed by now he never will and there is a reason why they haven't posted his times. He's just not that fast. Now I know you are going to hit me with codes, tin hats, box of frogs, toughness, athleticism (Can you put that in plain English Ken?) but pound for pound NFL players are just better athletes. We've had players play dual professional sports (BTW Bo Jackson and Dion Sanders ran 10's in the 100 meter) and I don't think it can be said for too many of your Rugby fellas. Broad Jump, 40 meter, 60 meter, 100 meter, vertical jump, 225lb reps, all the measuring devices for NFL players the numbers don't lie. There is no other sport that can produce the numbers NFL players do for speed, athleticism and strength. Now the Patriots have safety Nate Ebner that played for the US Rugby team in the Olympics. I'm sure he's a tomato can by your standards, but how many Rugby Union players have 3 Super Bowl rings? My basic argument is that the NFL has world class athletes, Rugby does not. If you want to misinterpret it with Usain Bolt and Cricket teams by all means have at it. John

You're still not getting it. 

What is the requirement for athletes in AF?   very short period of play, with players who have extremely specific roles.     Because of this, it's just naturally the case you are going to get either supreme speed or supreme size.  

In rugby union you have extremely long passages of play.  and any member of your team can be exposed  having to attempt to complete a skill that is not their prime function.    Hence you get a group of prime athletes who are supremely fit, and supremely talented.............but............but   them being  70% brilliant at tackling, requires them to have 10% more muscle mass,  than they may want to carry if they wanted to be 10% faster.         Is this getting through to you?

AF (i'm sure) is a wonderful game, and I'm sure the athletes within in it are wonderful.   but it's horses for courses.   People train a lifetime and tailor themselves to perform a specific task.  In Rugby Union It's exactly the same, but the outcomes are different, because the required skills are different.  For example can a guard positions in AF run at high intensity bursts for numerous 6minute blocks over 80mins,  no they couldn't because they're to f-ing fat, many of these "athletes"  would be seen as a disgrace in Rugby Union. 

During my 30yrs watching Rugby Union and Rugby league I've seen numerous speed merchants or huge men......but guess what? they either cant pass for shit, or cant jump or tackle etc etc.....ultimately "one trick ponies" are useless in Rugby Union.

You are trying to correlate two sets of athletes against each other to draw some sort of conclusion about who is best........this is bullshit.     take those exact same athletes at 8yrs old and have them switch sport, and have them train for those specific skill sets......then maybe you could judge. 

 

 

 

 

[Colt45]

On 8/25/2019 at 10:19 AM, Ken Gargett said:

colt, your support and wisdom is, as always, much appreciated. 

You forgot wit and charm. And humility.

[JohnnyO]

Your argument is the Rugby players are different so that makes them better athletes. Facts are facts. No gold medals for the Rugby players in other sports in the Olympics. NFL players have Olympic gold medals going back about 100 years in different sports. Rugby players do not. That separates them from Rugby players and the rest of the world. But you still say they are better athletes. 3 million professional Rugby players exist in the world, less than 2,000 qualify for an NFL team. But not one gold medal amongst them. Good at their play but they are just inferior athletes on a world level. 

[99call]

Just now, JohnnyO said:

But you still say they are better athletes.

I'm not saying that......but your ignorance it repeatedly steering it down that path. 

By "Athletes" I mean AF Athletes or Rugby Union Athletes......not Olympic Athletes.  

Rugby players want to win the Rugby World cup! period!     end of!......they don't want to record their fastest 100m, or their biggest bicep curl, and they don't want to play AF.  Take Chistian Wade for instance.  He may end up also getting rejected by the Buffalo Bills,   but he 100% got rejected by England rugby, because he couldn't tackle for shit, he scored some amazing tries, but he let in twice as many. he is a perfect example of an imperfect athlete for Rugby Union. 

You are the only one on this thread insisting one sports Athletes (AF) are "better" than an others.   I am not.   what I'm saying is that if you take a heathy 5yr old, and all you want them to achieve is speed......well by 25 they will be as quick as their genetics will allow them to be.     Athletes who train to be international rugby players, are not looking to be phenomenal at one thing at the cost of others, many of them are looking to be very good at 7 things....not amazing at 1 and shit at 6. 

I respect both AF and Rugby Union for what they are........different sports that require being world class at different things.  and sportsmen successfully transitioning either way to be incredibly unlikely.  

 

 

[David88]

All this obsession with stats and times etc. is pointless. Rugby clubs will have a wide variety of stats and records for their players but they aren’t published as a rule. Also 100m times aren’t they focus for a modern professional rugby player, most will focus on their 40m sprints as there are very few opportunities to run that distance at full speed. 

I like American football and I like rugby. I would imagine athletic ability between the players would be comparable but I wouldn’t care enough to ever compare as there will always be anomalies. 

While there may not be too many Olympic gold medal winning rugby players, there have been a strangely large number of doctors and surgeons playing professional rugby. Not trying to throw an argument out there, just an interesting observation! 

[Ken Gargett]

2 hours ago, Colt45 said:

You forgot wit and charm. And humility.

goes without saying. 

[Ken Gargett]

2 hours ago, JohnnyO said:

Your argument is the Rugby players are different so that makes them better athletes. Facts are facts. No gold medals for the Rugby players in other sports in the Olympics. NFL players have Olympic gold medals going back about 100 years in different sports. Rugby players do not. That separates them from Rugby players and the rest of the world. But you still say they are better athletes. 3 million professional Rugby players exist in the world, less than 2,000 qualify for an NFL team. But not one gold medal amongst them. Good at their play but they are just inferior athletes on a world level. 

"athleticism (Can you put that in plain English Ken?)".

first, the word 'athleticism' is plain english. i can't help it if you do not understand it. fortunately, these days, google will get you into a dictionary that should be able to assist. if it is too difficult, hopefully someone will be able to assist. 

as far as i can see, you've decided what you think our argument is, no matter whether it is anything of the sort and then you seem determined to put words into what we are all saying and then argue against that. i suppose everyone needs a hobby. 

the argument is that they are different. not that this makes them better, worse, taller, whatever. different. it really should not be so hard to understand but you don't want that argument. you've invented your own. if size and speed is all this is about, as you seem to argue on numerous occasions, then it follows that tom brady (or joe montana if you prefer) is/was the biggest and faster and strongest player in the game? 

as far as i can see, this was a perfectly interesting discussion on american football and protective gear and matters pertaining to that before you decided to blunder into it, decide that it was somehow (even though it was started by one of your countrymen) an insult to national pride and then attack everyone for things that they have not said. that does seem to be the method of debate so often undertaken these days, especially by those who really do not have any interest in facts or rational discourse. 

i hope you'll excuse me if i bow out and leave you to it. i know that in your book, that will allow you to assume you have prevailed. in mine, it simply means that the endless nonsense you keep sprouting is not worth my time.