1100: Vows

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
(Redirected from 1100)
Jump to: navigation, search
So, um. Do you want to get a drink after the game?
Title text: So, um. Do you want to get a drink after the game?


This comic is a joke parodying wedding ceremonies and American Football plays intended to misdirect or fool the opponents about what is really happening.

A standard misdirection play involves the offense misdirecting the defense into thinking that the play being executed is actually a different play: for example, a passing play could actually be a running play, or that a ball being run left is actually being run right, or that a field goal or punt end up being attempted to get a down.

In this comic, Cueball is about to get married to Amy, a girl looking like Megan, but the bride interrupts the ritual by saying that she doesn't want to get married. The bride then reveals herself to be a Cueball-like man and after questioning reveals that the relationship and the wedding was an elaborate con to get the advantage on the football field. "Amy" turns out to be a player for the opposing team and he had a football on his person. He then proceeds to run the ball in for a touchdown. This clearly constitutes the greatest high school football misdirection play of all time. [citation needed]

Randall takes the deception in a misdirection play to the next, virtually impossible level; it is unlikely that a relationship could develop to the point of marriage within the time-frame of a football game, with "the groom" not noticing that Amy was in fact a football player, or that he was standing on the football field.

The title text indicates that, in spite of the deception, "the groom" still has feelings and is not ready to give up the relationship (or at least he would like to share a beer with the opposing team like after a friendly game). Alternatively, as it is unclear who is speaking, "the bride" may have also developed feelings for "the groom" and is now awkwardly asking for a date after deceiving "the groom."

Misdirection Plays[edit]

Occasionally, especially at the high school level, extreme misdirection plays are attempted where teams try to misdirect the opposing team into thinking that a play is not even being run. Good examples of that can be found on YouTube, such as this "wrong ball" trick, or that "five more yards" trick. Despite conforming to the rules of the game, these are considered to be dirty tricks and usually only work in little league football.


[A bride in full wedding dress, that looks like Megan, and Cueball with a bow-tie as the groom stand next to each other. Each has a hand outstretched toward the other.]
Officiator (off panel): Do you take this man to be your lawful wedded husband?
Bride ('Amy'): ...No.
[Cueball steps back in surprise. The bride removes a wig to reveal that she is in fact a Cueball-like man.]
Groom: What? Amy!?
Man: I'm not Amy. None of this was real. You're back in senior year. It's the big game.
[Cueball puts his hands to his head in confusion. The man holds up an American football, still holding the wig in his other hand.]
Cueball: What is this!?
Man: The greatest high school football misdirection play of all time.
[Cueball puts his hands to his mouth as the man in the wedding dress begins to run backwards, away from him holding up the ball.]
[Cueball remains frozen in horror as the man turns and dashes toward the goalpost in the distance.]

comment.png add a comment! ⋅ comment.png add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ Icons-mini-action refresh blue.gif refresh comments!


Somebody please explain what a "High School Misdirection Play" is. I did my best to explain American Gridiron, but I'm not a sports nut (far from it). lcarsos (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

How about now? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I assume that a "Misdirection Play" is where the ball is made to look like it is passed/thrown/handed to one player who then proceeds to run as if they had the ball, attracting the defensive players away from the actual person holding the ball. Highschool football has a tendency to use more "tricky" plays than "higher" levels of play (college, professional) as there is more chance of success for a risky, surprise type of play compared to games with more experienced players. Similarly, there are more "surprise" plays in college ball than in the NFL - I think there are more "two point conversions" in college ball. J-beda (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
In American Football, the team on offense must move the ball down the field past the defending team (similar to most field sports, such as football (soccer), rugby, or hockey). In order to do this, sometimes the offensive team will try to trick the defensive team into thinking the ball is, or will be moved, somewhere where it's not. This is called a misdirection. One example of this (the one I'm most familiar with) is the Screen Pass. In the comic, the "bride" is a member of the offensive team and, it is implied, has courted and promised to wed cueball, who is playing on the defense, in an incredibly elaborate attempt to misdirect him about the intended football play. It is quite absurd.
Boise State is a team known for their trick plays because they used 3 in a row in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl Joehammer79 (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
This is false. They used 3 trick plays in the fourth quarter & Overtime, but they were not 'in a row.' jjhuddle 19:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I stand corrected. 5 years of college football made me forget all the little plays in between. Joehammer79 (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone else struck by the fact that if there's continuity of stance in panels 1-3, then "Amy" is running backwards through the End Zone? -- 20:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think in the last panel "Amy" actually has turned around and is running forward, because the veil is then trailing and the ball looks to be in the crook of the arm. lcarsos (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"...the priest asks (for the sake of formality) if the bride takes the groom to be her husband..." No no no no no. Most of the dialogue during the ceremony is understood to be poetic or discretionary ("obey," anyone?) But, there are a few questions during a wedding ceremony which are legal essentials, NOT formalities. One is to ask each person whether they actually want to marry the other person, that one, there, calling him/herself "Rob" or "Amy." Another is to get each one to explicitly declare there is no legal impediment to them getting married to that there person.

The third essential is the officiant's duty to look at the pair and see if, in his best judgment, they are sober and sane. YMMV, but pronounced intoxication or delirium would make the wedding questionable and a serious officiant would not sign off on the license. The last essential involves the signing of the paperwork by five persons -- the officiant, the bride and groom, and two witnesses.

I've been doing weddings since 1999. Neither footballs nor parachutes have ever been involved, but one ceremony included a kilt and a freshly caught bigmouth bass.Noni Mausa (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Did anyone ever say no? Buggz (talk) 10:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I think Mausa is being overly prescriptive. The requirements to marry vary depending on the faith and the jurisdiction; for one thing, the ceremony and officiant, like the kilt and bass, are optional. As I recall, the marriage license was less work to get than my parking permit. Blood test, sign here, mazel tov. Dragonsaver (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me state first that I am a big fan of xkcd. Yet this cartoon is not only totally unfunny but also the title text totally fails to add to the joke. Am I alone with this opinion, or is this typically American (with obsession towards A. football and highschool sports in general)??? 22:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Stereotypes aside, I'm also one to say this isn't one of Randall's funnier pieces, though I see where he is going: in this case, extreme extrapolation of circumstances. But then again, there are those that thought that Waiting for Godot was wonderful while I thought it was dreadfully tedious, and there are those that enjoy dissonant music while I would rather hear fingernails down the chalkboard. There is a matter of taste -- some may find humor in the sheer absurdity of the circumstances portrayed, or enjoy absurdist theater, or revel in dysharmonious notes played together while others don't -- and there's a matter of, um, not every play resulting in a touchdown (to borrow the terminology from Football Américain.) Oh well. There's always the next one. -- IronyChef (talk) 00:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to be American, an American football fan, a sports fan, or anything else to find this funny (I am none of those things). The joke here is simply about a misdirection - a common tactic in team sports - being carried to a ludicrous extreme, as examined above. The context of sports is just that, a framework for the joke. It could be any other situation just as easily. 11:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Why were all those terms not hyperlinked ugh I had no idea what there were (I fixed that) Beanie (talk) 11:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)