I am a hearing person. Me and some friends have made learning ASL one of our hobbies over the last couple years. I highly recommend it, it's very fun! It also opens a window into the deaf world that I find really fascinating.
There is a joke in the deaf world that hearing people are emotionally repressed. I don't think it's taken seriously, but it's because speaking ASL requires you to be so expressive with your face and body. For example, instead of raising the pitch of your voice to indicate you are asking a question, you raise or furrow your eyebrows (raised for a yes/no question, furrowed for an open-ended question). You also don't say things like "I REALLY like it", you just say "I like it" and show the REALLY part with your face and body. It's understandable how hearing people could look like a bunch of emotionless drones with that context! Learning to be visually expressive is one of the most fun parts about ASL.
As with the football team in the article, using ASL around hearing people can feel like a super-power. Imagine saying to your friend, "This place sucks, let's get out of here," while the bartender is right in front of you! Probably not the most polite thing, but useful. It's also great if you're somewhere crowded and/or loud. You can really zone out the noise and have a conversation.
Also, doing simple things like spelling people's names can be a fun party trick (for hearing people).
Anyway, I just wanted to emphasize that as a hearing person, there was so much more to learn about ASL and the deaf community than I thought there was. I can't recommend it enough.
My spouse (hearing) spent some time immersed in the Deaf community and the learnings she got from just scratching the surface was really eye opening. All of what you said is true - there's no use for many of english adjectives because body language tells it equally as effectively.
The Deaf community was way more nuanced and interesting than I expected. ASL is a really cool language and it's fun and relatively easy to learn.
Learning the alphabet is a great way to start, and only takes about 30 minutes. This video[1] should do the trick.
When you spell words letter-by-letter it's called "fingerspelling". Here[2] is the sign for it.
I recommend taking a class, though. I took classes at ASL NYC[3], and it was awesome. They started doing Zoom-based classes during the pandemic, I'm not sure if they still do that.
It's best to learn from a teacher, and in an environment where you can practice with other people (via Zoom is perfectly fine). Even with something "simple" like fingerspelling, there is a lot of nuance that a good teacher can help you with.
For example, in the alphabet video I linked, she does some letters differently than how I learned them (she shows her "C" to the side, I show it facing forward). She's not wrong, it just turns out that there are a lot of different styles and ways to do things in ASL. You don't want to learn the "wrong" way and then have to unlearn it -- your teacher will have a specific way they want you to do things in class.
A class is also a natural gateway to other resources. For example, I now do an informal, monthly ASL meetup with a couple people I met in class (we go to a bar and play sign language games). You'll discover a lot of avenues to get good practice and continue learning.
Are you asking for writing tips? I'm not OP, but for one "someone who isn't deaf" is 4 words and has a complex structure while "hearing person" is 2 words and has a simple structure, and thus is more effective writing.
It seems strange to me to suggest more complicated structures to replace simpler ones! Is there another reason to use the more complicated structure?
Yes, but they were not stating they were a 'deaf person' they would be saying 'not a deaf person' which is back to 4 words. "Hearing person" is still only 2 words.
The things that get nitpicked on this site confound me to the level of not being able to look away from the train wreck.
Yes, someone who isn't deaf. "Hearing" or "hearing person" is the vernacular used in the deaf community. It can be important to establish depending on the context. In this case I wanted to make it clear that I was learning ASL despite not being deaf.
My youngest daughter has CP and global traumatic brain injury from bacterial meningitis at birth. Its a brutal as it sounds. She is 2.5 and knows about 60 signs. This article warmed my heart and brought tears to my eyes. Two thoughts:
1. Loneliness is real. Special needs children are often overlooked. Take the time to recognize them, let them know they are seen.
2. Someone should fund a jumbotron for this school.
My kids are involved with wrestling and the sport is generally all about getting more people involved in anyway possible. There are rules for the deaf to allow a translator to walk around the outside of the mat to sign. There are rules for the blind that require contact be maintained throughout the match. Amputees are not unheard of and sometimes present major challenges since missing a leg might bring a seriously stronger person down a couple weight classes.
Nothing really to say about this article other than I'm happy they're able to get out there and play. I just wanted to point out a sport that seems to be doing it right at the national level, not just one instance.
Amazing that the article doesn't contain some (IMO) important and interesting historical context: The football huddle was invented at Gallaudet, so that other teams couldn't read sign language pre-play discussions.
Ironically, the California team is described as not needing to huddle — which makes sense since their opponents presumably don’t know ASL
> Many teams try to use hand signals to call in plays, but they are no match for the Cubs, who communicate with a flurry of hand movements between each play. No time is wasted by players running to the sidelines to get an earful from the coaching staff. No huddle is needed.
Much like football plays for the hearing, they're probably using numbers, metaphors, and "random" words to describe the plays. No need to come up with their own sign language.
It's a feel-good human-interest story; not meant to be accurate. It doesn't investigate any of the claims made as to why the team is successful.
> Mr. Adams, who coached the team for two seasons starting in 2005 and began his second stint four years ago, attributes the turnaround to rigorous conditioning and an especially talented cohort of players, some of whom have played together for years at lower levels.
Seems the most likely explanation, since sign language isn't a new innovation for deaf football players. The rest is just "since the team is good, it is a hook to talk positively about deafness.
It's awesome that they have overcome what others perceive as a disability. And in this case, they might have actually turned it into an advantage. But make no mistake, the reason they are beating people is because they are good at football, not because they are deaf.
well no? Line-of-sight communication with zippy sign language is not distance dependent, or as dependent on environmental audio considerations (jamming). Incidentally, I have always wondered why naval ship-to-ship communication isn't with a LOS tight beam laser -- unjammable and uninterceptable. Conceivably, a football team could learn to adapt by physically blocking line-of-sight between QB and receiver but it's too niche. Same goes for reading sign language.
If indeed they are winning because they have a communication advantage (which is and always has been in american football), true it is not strictly because they are deaf, because any other team could learn to use a similar system, but let's be real. It's because they are deaf, fluency especially at a high speed takes near-zero effort.
" Incidentally, I have always wondered why naval ship-to-ship communication isn't with a LOS tight beam laser -- unjammable and uninterceptable."
Because they do not work when there is mist, which is quite often the case at sea and also I can imagine, it is a nontrivial issue of aligning them, when both ends are constantly moving, due to waves and cruising direction.
Also it might give the position away, if you power up the beam to counter humidity.
Though it's mostly because fencing (or boxing) a lefty as a righty is unusual enough that you have less practice doing it. While the lefty pretty much only fences (or boxes) against righties. It boils down entirely to comfort. Someone with a good lefty in their club/team that they regularly practice against won't have much difficulty with it.
What's really funny, by the way, is watching two lefties fence against each other when neither of them have a second really good lefty to practice against. It just looks... awkward.
Of course then you get to a high enough level and it's 100% footwork, and the lefty/right bit mostly stops mattering.
Not to mention the horizon limiting communication to those ships that are close enough. Naval warfare doesn’t take place between ships that can see each other anymore, so one needs to be able to communicate over the horizon anyway, so why bother to have two systems?
seriously? It's 2021. Maybe there's something I'm missing, but it shouldn't be hard to track and aim a 30cm object at 100 m with a laser that is moving +/- 5-10 meters at a speed of 5m/s
There is something you are missing obviously. Naval engineers are not dumb.
> it shouldn't be hard to track and aim a 30cm object at 100 m with a laser that is moving +/- 5-10 meters at a speed of 5m/s
Boats don’t move only in one direction. They have side-way vibrations along the three special axis and constantly rotate along two. The 100m is extremely close for two boats and I think you don’t realise what a heavy sea looks like (understandable if you have never been far from shore). Navigating in nine meters high waves is not exceptional for a military boat. You are constantly losing line of sights with distant boats.
Keeping a laser on something fast is doable (that’s part of what an optical targeting system does) but staying fixed on a small receiver gets tricky. I don’t think the win in bandwidth and latency justifies the hassle which is why I don’t believe ship-to-ship laser communication will ever happen. Ship-to-space however, that wouldn’t surprise me.
Why would the ship to space need to be a laser? We're already doing ship to space with radio waves, even encrypted, with a much more forgiving benefit of not needing to be so damn precise to hit the target.
Free space optics links are quite finicky even between stationary ground stations. Additionally, LoS communications are limited by the horizon. The mast antennas on most warships are something like 40 meters tall, meaning it's only 20 km to the horizon. Ships operating as one group routinely spread further than that.
NoS communications on ships just use satellite links, which are also difficult to detect or jam if you're not along the axis.
There are directional LoS microwave links used in some contexts, such as China's stations scattered around the South China Sea. The pointing/stabilization issues are much less severe with these.
The navy was dragged into that against their preference by Rumsfeld and the rest of the "Revolution in Military Affairs" people. The original plan was for the first Ford class ships to use conventional catapults, etc, while the new stuff was developed and refined in parallel, to be integrated once it was proven ready. That wasn't fast enough for the Revolution folks, who insisted that the most aggressive timeline possible be followed. Nearly everything those people touched has turned into a disaster, costing tax payers billions.
The US Navy has a lot of active carriers and few superpower-scale threats, so they're taking an opportunity to experiment (USS Ford) and can afford to do it (for now). It seems like the right thing to do while they can. Ford is the largest warship ever constructed, it's not very surprising they might have problems with a new class.
like never jumping the snap count. don't move until the ball moves. every coach tries to beat that into their players. i bet they're impossible to get those 5 yard encroachment pentalties coaches like to try in 3rd and short.
The only potential problem I can see with a deaf team is that they would seem more likely to miss the referee stopping play. For example, a receiver for the non-deaf team fumbles a pass, a deaf player recovers and is running for the goal getting ready to try to plow through a couple opposing players who are in the way, and the ref blows their whistle to stop the play because the receiver did not have possession before fumbling so it was really just an incomplete pass.
If the deaf player does not know the play has stopped they might still try to plow through those other players who did hear the whistle and are no longer ready to take a hit.
The article says that the refs are asked to wave their arms around when stopping play in addition to the usual whistle blow, but that requires the player to be looking at the ref.
In a pro stadium or top level amateur league stadium, where the whole damn field is going to be encircled by animated advertising at field level, it would be possible to make something that detects when the ref stops play and flashes "STOP PLAY!" in some hard to miss color scheme. That should be noticeable by any player who is still standing (and players who are not standing aren't going to cause problems if they miss play stopping).
I played football in college against Gallaudet University (which is a school for the deaf.) They used a very large drum (6 ft diameter) on the sideline for their snap count as well as whistle plays dead.
But referees warned us that they were not going call late hits on the other team unless they were egregious and that we should keep aware on the field and protect ourselves accordingly.
To the best of my recollection American Football does not wrap the playing field in animated ads like European Football/Soccer does. I assume that's partly because everybody just hates the idea for every possible reason...
Noise can be a problem in really large stadiums and college/pro fans will sometimes successfully disrupt the opposing offense by making it too loud for them to hear each other in the huddle.
> To the best of my recollection American Football does not wrap the playing field in animated ads like European Football/Soccer does. I assume that's partly because everybody just hates the idea for every possible reason...
No, just that ground-level perimeter displays are too pedestrian for American football.
At least at the football games I've been to, the videoboards aren't primarily used for ads but to show score information, close-up camera shots, instant replays, gimmicks to hype up the crowd, etc. There's some advertising but it's usually in the form of the announcer saying "now let's watch the best plays of the year, brought to you by some random insurance company!" Most of the ads are old-fashioned paper billboards placed next to the videoboards, and not in distracting places like on the sidelines.
Televised football is totally different -- the ads are absolutely obnoxious. But I guess if you actually buy a ticket then they're incentivized to actually give you a good experience. Maybe NFL stadiums are worse than college stadiums, or maybe my school is just unusually pleasant, I don't know.
The video board at SoFi (or any other NFL stadium) is not primarily used for ads. There are ribbon boards along each seating level of the stadium that are primarily used for ads, which is much more similar to the European field-level ads.
It's absolutely unbearable. Completely ruins the experience of going to a college football game when you have to stand on uncomfortable bleachers for four hours and play is stopped every 5 minutes for a 2 minute TV timeout.
Maybe they could point some bright colored lights at the field and flash them when the play ends? That seems like a pretty low-budget way of achieving the same thing.
Good point, what about asking ref to press some button when the foul is detected. Then, some small watch could vibrate and notify a player. Sounds like a simple enough idea to implement.
I am reminded of when the NHL tried to use a wirelessly trackable puck. It worked until the tech involved wasn't up to the rigors of being slapped around by professional hockey players.
In the same vein, I have some doubts about the ability of a watch to stand up to the forces at play on the field.
NFL (and college football) players already have electronics in their gear- the quarterback has a radio in his helmet, the players have RFID trackers in their pads, and there is one in the ball. Some teams also use wearable GPS athlete monitoring devices like the STATSports Apex [0]. They seem to work.
I imagine that a hockey puck is subjected to much harder acceleration than a football, never mind a player, due to the nature of its collisions with the wall.
I started reading a new book today, "Beasts of Burden" by Sunaura Taylor, which talks about the parallels between the fight for rights for the disabled and the fight for animal rights. The first chapter or so serves as an introduction to what disabled rights means, and what it feels like to be disabled in an ableist world, and the author talks about a cliche in disabled culture which is "super crip", in which we are astonished and inspired by someone with a disability doing something that we deem impossible or difficult for a disabled person, like getting married, or climbing a mountain.
Serious question, because I'm genuinely curious and don't know, but is an article like this just the same tired cliche? I'm curious to hear from others where the line is drawn between being a positive and helpful representation of what life can be for someone who is disabled, and being condescending because we're surprised deaf folks can be good at football.
What I find annoying, as a (partially) blind person, is when people say I'm inspirational because I'm good at something where my disability isn't even a factor. For example, one time I did karaoke at a bar where I had never been before, and while I was singing my first song, a guy was saying stuff like, "guy is blind, that's awesome... this guy is inspirational". (I know this because he posted a video on Facebook, which got back to me via a friend.) So, I'm inspiring because I'm blind because I can sing? How does that make sense? "Blind musician" is such a stereotype, I figured the reaction would be more like, "he's blind; of course he can sing."
> So, I'm inspiring because I'm blind because I can sing? How does that make sense?
Best I can think of is that—since this was karaoke—maybe they were impressed that you didn't need to read the lyrics off the screen? Assuming the bar didn't have an accessible alternative to the teleprompter.
Yeah, I guess that could be it. And no, I'm not aware of any accessible option for karaoke lyrics. But as I like to say, real performers have been memorizing their songs for thousands of years.
This really makes me think about myself. Misattribution is probably the most annoying thing. I didn't get far in the software industry in spite of my loss of vision or hearing (in fact it was my vision declining that made me focus on computers and to quit sports). On the other hand, I'm decent at competitive shooters despite my disabilities. So sometimes it's just like "why are we talking about my disability, it has nothing to do with this." Sometimes we want to be celebrated for just the "normal" amazing things, and especially things our abled peers couldn't achieve (or maybe I just hold myself to way too high of standard).
Texas also has a very successful football team at the Texas School for the Deaf. They play in a 6-man league (the team in the article plays 8-man) but they are 8-1 this year and leading their district heading for the playoffs.
I attended one of their games this year, which happened to be the one they lost, against my nephew's team. The quietness of the game was what stood out to me the most. Of course our team was making noise and our fans were doing the usual cheering. The cheerleaders and fans even tried to "make a lot of noise" on third down, I guess out of habit, because it made no difference, except to get our defense excited I suppose. But the only noise from the other side was a big drum or canon that they used which I suppose the deaf players could feel the sound of to set some timings.
Their major advantage is that they can communicate through sign language. I am just curious through, how hard is it for other teams to develop a sign language to take advantage in this aspect, if they really focus on it? I mean basically this is just a trade off, i.e. relocating training time from other practice to the sign language.
Deaf person here and attended that high school. I was surprised to see my high school in the news.
The team can learn sign language if they prefers or they can use pidgin. Pidgin is a simplified form of the communication to convey it. Pidgin itself is not a language, it is more of jargon in a sense. Pidgin is very common uses outside of Deaf communities.
Baseball use call signs, and that is pidgin. Crane operators have their hand signs, that is pidgin too! Same for military, they use pidgin. Pidgin is easier to learn than sign language as it can be simple handshape or call sign, similarly to emoji in a way. Sign language requires efforts and you will be surprised to find thousand muscles you never thought you used before.
Is that technically pidgin? I thought pidgin was a simplified version of language used expressly for communication between speakers that don't understand each other. Is it still pidgin if neither one understands full sign language?
If the Deaf team are using sign language to communicate with each other, then no it is not pidgin because American Sign Language is a language. Pidgin is a lingua franca like Gestuno (International Sign) and Esperanto.
EDIT: If you are talking about Deaf Team and Hearing Team (people with hearing ability for those folk who are not familiar with Deaf communities jargon) attempt to communicate with each other without sign language, then yes it can be a pidgin. If the Deaf Team itself communicating with their teammates, then it is not a pidgin because they switch to their native language to express.
As far as I understand, Esperanto would not be considered a pidgin as it's an artificial, designed language. Pidgins are natural languages that form in order to facilitate communication in multilingual environments.
I don't know if the article makes this clear, but it if they are just using ASL, the benefit there is that they've been communicating via ASL their whole lives and understand it "natively". It's also a language that was refined over time to communicate things quickly and concisely.
Other teams do develop their own language, with both verbal and hand signal components. However, I'm not sure high school football coaches are necessarily adept at making new languages, sure maybe it is good enough for what they're doing, but is it as robust as ASL or English? Of course not. Then, the players need to take time to learn it, if they ever even fully grasp it. Then, the players will come and go, so once a senior, who probably fully gets it leaves, the coach is left with a bunch of new players they have to teach - for this reason, the language is hard to refine. For all of these reasons, the team using their native language has an edge in communication.
This is probably better at the pro level since a player on each side has a direct line in their helmet from the coaches and the players stick around long enough to master the new language.
Overall, though, I think this line in the article is downplayed: The coach attributes the turnaround to rigorous conditioning and an especially talented cohort of players, some of whom have played together for years at lower levels. It's a great human interest story to talk about turning a perceived disadvantage into an advantage, but it sounds like, deaf or not, this particular group of players shows great teamwork and a great work ethic.
In professional (and hearing) football and baseball hand signals are used as well. Security through obscurity mostly works fine. The teams generally change the meaning of the signals from game to game or even play to play, and it mostly keeps the defense from knowing what the signals mean.
In this context if the other team did happen to have somebody who could interpret the signals quickly enough, it would be pretty easy for the players to just have a few codes which change the meaning of the signals. And of course you can just agree what codes mean what in the huddle or the sideline where the other team can’t see.
"it would be pretty easy for the players to just have a few codes which change the meaning of the signals."
At some point, though, you might confuse your own team more, than the other team, so I would keep it simple, especially if we are talking about a sport, that involves banging heads together.
Except baseball players to whom 1 finger is always fastball and 2 fingers is always curve. They have security through hiding your hand between your legs, and if you think a runner on second is stealing signs beaning the batter with the ball.
> Their major advantage is that they can communicate through sign language.
I read the article and I played football against Gallaudet in college, and I fail to see how that is an advantage at all. We came the line of scrimmage and our quarterback announced the play we were running and on the line we would verbally agree on the pass blocking scheme. “I’ve got 64, you take 73 cause it doesn’t look like the linebacker is coming.”
I suspect they’re succeeding because they’re well coached, very fit and physically talented. And while their deafness is no real liability I don’t see it as an advantage.
Many teams at all levels already do depending on how they structure play and defensive calling. I was an offensive lineman and linebacker through high school and college - our line coach used hand signals for blocking schemes and the OC had 2 different signals he used to indicate which plays should be used from our wrist list. Linebackers communicated changes to defensive backs and safeties with hand signals based on what we saw lineman do or changes we head from the QB.
> Not hard at all. Baseball, from juniors to the majors, also uses sign language.
This need additional contexts. Deaf communities use Signed Languages in baseball. Outside of Deaf communities, they are not sign language. Language by definition requires grammar structure, cultural information, foundation of linguistic, etc.
They are using pidgin is the word you are looking for. Baseball use pidgins, they don't use sign languages. It is an important distinctive because one is actual language and other are not.
The vast majority of USians I know do not speak proper English. Nor do they follow the rules of English taught at any of the US schools I attended. Many people fight against this. Others embrace it. You might say that these people speak pidgin. I say it is their native language.
> I know do not speak proper English. Nor do they follow the rules of English taught at any of the US schools I attended.
It is not because of people fighting against it. It just that English is damn complicated and not easily to be an expert on it. Written and Spoken English does not have the same discourse style. There are times when I thought I structured it correctly and turns out it not. I am natural-born American and English is my first/second language (ASL is my first). Even English native speakers struggles with it than non-native English user.
I played against the California School of the Deaf in football back in 2014. It was an interesting experience, a decent amount of confusion about when the plays were over unfortunately, which led to some late hits and jostles, but overall it was mostly like any other football game.
They beat us by a score or something, and our coach showed us how to sign "good game" for after
Wow! I've heard of players in sport getting into the "zone" where they no longer hear anything around them, they're just charging down the field, 100% focused. When the coach said that "deaf players have heightened visual senses that make them more alert to movement," I thought of that. Because one sense is cut off, their focus is less distracted.
I read that at the start of COVID when sports teams were still playing games in empty stadiums, there were no screaming audiences, and the players reported better focus on the game.
I wonder if the deaf team has an advantage in that regard.
In high school, my school's basketball team went to play a basketball game at my state's high school for the deaf. A really interesting and unique experience.
There is a joke in the deaf world that hearing people are emotionally repressed. I don't think it's taken seriously, but it's because speaking ASL requires you to be so expressive with your face and body. For example, instead of raising the pitch of your voice to indicate you are asking a question, you raise or furrow your eyebrows (raised for a yes/no question, furrowed for an open-ended question). You also don't say things like "I REALLY like it", you just say "I like it" and show the REALLY part with your face and body. It's understandable how hearing people could look like a bunch of emotionless drones with that context! Learning to be visually expressive is one of the most fun parts about ASL.
As with the football team in the article, using ASL around hearing people can feel like a super-power. Imagine saying to your friend, "This place sucks, let's get out of here," while the bartender is right in front of you! Probably not the most polite thing, but useful. It's also great if you're somewhere crowded and/or loud. You can really zone out the noise and have a conversation.
Also, doing simple things like spelling people's names can be a fun party trick (for hearing people).
Anyway, I just wanted to emphasize that as a hearing person, there was so much more to learn about ASL and the deaf community than I thought there was. I can't recommend it enough.