Yeah, it's pretty hot.
Sitting through yet another assessment, JB and I watched Olympic water polo on the TV above us as we waited for the assessee (person being assessed) to make copies of essential stuff on papers.
I turn to JB and ask, "Isn't water polo just volleyball??" She thinks about it for a moment, and replies, "No, it's like soccer."
"So, why not just call it water soccer?? Or even water fútbol..."
She seems perplexed by this logic, and so commences a debate on what water polo is, what land sport it is adapted from, and what it should be actually called.
Polo is a sport played on horseback using sticks. But water polo is so much like soccer. So is polo soccer on horseback?? After about ten minutes of this, a moment of brilliance: polo is lacrosse on horseback!! There's soccer. Then there's lacrosse, which is like soccer but with sticks. Then there's polo: soccer with a stick on horseback. But...lacrosse is called lacrosse, not "soccer with sticks". And polo is called polo, not "soccer with a stick on horseback." So why is water polo, which is soccer in the water with sticks or horses, called water polo instead of having it's own name?? And if polo is soccer with a stick on horseback, where the connection with it's supposed water version?? Where are the sticks and the horses?? Why the mislabeling?? And why treat it as a third-class sport not worthy of it's own unique and original name??
Honestly, what the hell else are we gonna talk about on these blasted assessments??