Entertainment desk
< January 10	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 12 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 11[edit]

snake venom murder scene[edit]

hi, i don't remember the movie name which has a scene where a victim is injected a snake venom to create a scenario of natural death by snake bite. Investigator finds it by analysing the injected body region which is not like snake bitten, but is set up to simulate a natural way. Any movies that u know involve this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.141.254 (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder in Times Square from the 1940s is one possibility. There's also the much more recent Fatal Trust, a Made-for-TV film. Just some things I found with Google, using "snake venom murder movie" as a search term. --Jayron32 06:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

identifying a song[edit]

There's a song that incorporates lines from many other (1960s, I think) songs. Among its lyrics are "peanut peanut butter" (from the song "Peanut Butter" by the Marathons) and IIRC "who put the ram" (from the song "Who Put the Bomp (in the Bomp, Bomp, Bomp)"). Alas (and surprisingly), Googling "peanut peanut butter" ram lyrics and Googling "peanut peanut butter" "put the ram" lyrics do not turn up the song. Can anyone identify it (and provide information about it), please?—msh210℠ 07:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed one instance of "peanut" from your search, and Redman's "It's Like That (My Big Brother)" dominates the results. Were you looking for a song from the 60s? --BDD (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not the song. I don't know when the song I seek is from (and searching with one peanut dropped doesn't find it for me), but it sounds like a '60s song.—msh210℠ 17:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "peanut peanut butter" "who put the" lyrics also doesn't find it.—msh210℠ 17:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was it a song that had the same person singing all those lines, or were they samples? If the latter, it could it have been a track from a sound collage artist such as People Like Us. For example, her album Welcome Abroad is entirely composed of samples from '60s and '70s, and collages like this don't turn up in online lyrics databases. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounded to me like the same person/group singing throughout, not samples.—msh210℠ 19:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should say where I heard it: recently, on an oldies station (IIRC KZQZ-AM).—msh210℠ 20:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iconically complex rules in sports[edit]

In a discussion on the Miscellaneous desk about the rules of cricket, leg before wicket is described as "a mysterious and arcane shibboleth that only a 9th dan cricket watcher can describe properly". I can think of a couple of similar rules in other sports that are often considered particularly complex for outsiders to fully understand - for example offside in soccer, the infield fly rule in baseball. What other sporting rules might fall into this category? -OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite incessant attempts at rule changes, many of the infringements that are penalised by rugby union referees during scrummages, rucks and mauls are not only invisible to the fan, but difficult to comprehend. --Dweller (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The balk rule in baseball is another fairly arcane one; most of the illegal moves it covers are imperceptible to the vast majority of observers. In American football, rules pertaining to illegal formations require some serious explaining for the profane to understand, especially when it comes to an offensive lineman having to switch uniform numbers for a play because he becomes an eligible receiver as a result of the formation, etc. --Xuxl (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fair catch rule in American football has a history of complexity that seems incongruous given it's simplicity on face value. It looks like "wave your hand in the air, and you get to catch the ball without being bothered", but historically it's been one of the most flexible rules with a history of complex changes and nuance that seems out-of-balance with what should be something fairly simple. David M. Nelson's The Anatomy of a Game[1] spends an inordinate amount of time on the evolution and subtleties of the rule, and calls it "the most altered in the history of the game"(p54) American football is a trove of complicated rules beyond that. The rules for Pass interference,[2] in the NFL have 4 subsections to delineate what may or may not be pass interference (with lots of "includes but is not limited to" language), along with several exceptions and clarifying notes. For people unfamiliar with the game, the "eligible receiver" and "legal formation" and "motion" rules seem particularly difficult to grasp at first. --Jayron32 14:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original intent of such rules was plain to see, but they've had to be fine-tuned over the years. One rule I get questioned about sometimes is the not-caught third strike. It seems a bit obscure, but it's been a rule since the days of the Knickerbockers. Also, recently I had to explain the "lining up in the neutral zone" rule to someone who's been a football fan for many years but isn't necessarily up on the fine points of the rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Indeed. The rationale behind the eligible receiver and illegal formation rules is a) to maintain a competitive balance between offense and defense and b) to ensure player safety. The formation rules for offense specifically exist to outlaw the flying wedge and other mass-attack running formations, which have a high potential for injury; it mandates that seven people MUST line up on the line of scrimmage so they can't all get a long running start. Eligible receiver rules exist because if the any of the 11 players on offense could catch a pass it would be impossible to defend them. Still, try explaining to the casual fan the difference between a flanker and a split end, or why "covering the tight end" results in a 5 yard penalty, or what constitutes an "ineligible receiver downfield", what it means for an "ineligible number to report", or other situations when it is legal for an otherwise ineligible receiver to be downfield, and you get that 30 degree twist of the head that is the universal sign of "I hear the words you are speaking, but it still makes no sense to me". --Jayron32 17:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that team sports necessarily develop more complex rules than individual sports? I can think of no rules in tennis or swimming, for example, as complex as those mentioned here. Maybe some combat sports might come close - I never really got my head around right-of-way when watching fencing at the Olympics. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, rules in fencing are fairly esoteric. I think another individual sport that gets very complex in its rules and interpretations is golf, for example the sorts of things you are, and are not, allowed to do with the ball, the ground around you, and your club. For someone not intimately familiar with the game, you'll hear some controversial call about someone receiving (or not receiving) a stroke penalty for some esoteric rule violation. --Jayron32 17:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis is mostly known for the unnecessarily complicated tennis score, but players and spectators have to learn it and quickly get used to it. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The theory behind the right-of-way rules is simple: fencing derives from dueling, so you need to at least pretend that there's a risk of getting skewered if you ignore the other guy's sword. It's the details of "enforced pretending" where things get tricky. --Carnildo (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and just to prove the entire point of the thread, I need to correct something Xuxl said above which is incorrect. When he said "when it comes to an offensive lineman having to switch uniform numbers for a play because he becomes an eligible receiver as a result of the formation", that's wrong. Offensive linemen are required at all levels of football to wear uniforms numbered in the 50s, 60s, or 70s so they can be visually identified by referees and by the other team. However, that doesn't mean they need to change their uniform number if the coach wishes to put them in another position: instead, what happens is that the player reports to the ref and says "I'm going to be playing in an eligible position". The referee will then tell the opposing team "Player number 77 on the other team will be lining up in an eligible position". This is called something like "Ineligible number reporting to play an eligible position". So, if a player that normally plays center is going to line up as a tight end, he just tells the ref, the ref tells the other team, and then he's allowed to do that. No uniform changes necessary. --Jayron32 18:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen linemen put on a half jersey with a different number for a specific play where they become eligible receivers; I think that's how they do it in the Canadian Football League. Other leagues have different rules for that process, which goes to illustrate the degree of complexity associated with that rule. --Xuxl (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tuck rule is one of those needlessly complicated exceptions that doesn't really make any sense to new followers of gridiron, or even to people who have watched it their entire life. Livewireo (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tuck rule is an attempt to remove the need for referees to make a snap judgement as to the intent of the player. Regardless of the kerfuffle over the Brady example from 2001, the rule simply states that a ball lost in the act of throwing a forward pass is never a fumble, and for the purpose of deciding what is or isn't a forward pass, the only relevant information is the motion of the thrower's hand. If the thrower's hand is moving forward, it's a forward pass. The tuck rule is a clarification which just says "don't try to figure out if the thrower was actually aborting the attempt to pass in mid throw before or after the ball came out of their hand" because doing so is nigh-on impossible. If the hand is going forward with the ball in it, and the ball comes out of the hand, it's an incomplete pass and not a fumble. The rule is only made complicated by bitter Raiders fans who want to hold on to the belief that they were robbed. The rule itself is simple. Ball-in-hand moving forward, ball leaves hand, it's a pass attempt and not a fumble. To operate in a world where referees had to decide, in the moment (or with the use of replay) what manner of forward hand motion would constitute a forward pass and what ones would not would actually be more complicated. --Jayron32 19:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the initial post here... As an Australian, brainwashed in cricket knowledge from birth, but also pretty familiar with baseball, I regard the infield fly rule in baseball as a very rational part of the game, far more logical than the present form of the leg before wicket law in cricket. It's worth noting that cricket laws these days are massive international compromises. The powerful nations (and no, it's not a democracy of equal rights) only allow law changes that won't disadvantage their teams. The current complexities of the leg before wicket law seemed to come out what England would allow back in the 1960s. HiLo48 (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The intent of the LBW rule clearly is to prevent the batsman from "interfering" with the bowler's delivery. I think of it as being similar to a batter standing in such a way that he's actually within the strike zone. Thus baseball says if the batter gets hit by a pitch, it's a strike, not a hit batsman. Not so severe as the cricket rule (unless it's strike three), but the same idea... supplemented in cricket with a number of exceptions and exceptions to exceptions and so on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've hit the nail on the head with "a number of exceptions and exceptions to exceptions and so on". You've explained the baseball analogy. Now explain those exceptions. HiLo48 (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The history indeed seems complex, but it seems to have to do with fairness. A batsman might allow a spun ball to hit him, on the theory that it wouldn't have knocked over a wicket. But a bowler might throw a spun ball with the intention of hitting the batsman and getting him dismissed. To me this part is analogous to the batter standing stock-still while a pitch comes at him, hoping to be sent to first base. But if he lets the ball hit him, it's only a ball, not a hit batsman. Countering that, if a pitcher is obviously trying to intimidate a batter, he can be warned and then ejected if necessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's legitimate to deliberately aim for a batsman's pads (ie. his legs) in order to get an lbw. Deliberately trying to hit a batsman on the head has a chequered history, stretching from before the time when they had protective helmets, through to the modern day with lots of fussy rules aimed at spectators. Watching a barrage of head-hunters (also called bouncers) can get very boring. Before this time, great speedsters like Michael Holding would often bowl at a batsman's head with the intention of unsettling him, and it often worked. It still happens to an extent, but it tends to be strictly controlled, in the face of public criticism. IBE (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the many odd things about the thoroughly odd sport of cricket (that, like HiLo48, I've been brainwashed in, though in my case from the age of five) is the requirement to "appeal", to ask the umpire to make decision about whether a batter is out. Imagine: a goal is scored in a game of soccer, the players celebrate but the referee says "no, I'm not going to award a goal, because you didn't explicitly ask me to make a decision about whether it is a goal or not."

I can't see it in the laws, but by convention the captain of a cricket team decides whether their team members will appeal. The permission is almost always implicit, but I remember an incident where a batter was injured when they were run out, and the captain indicated the team would not appeal, so that it could go down in Wisden as "Retired hurt"^{[citation needed]}. And sometimes a captain can over-rule a decision even after it was made. No, I'm not making this up--Shirt58 (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In baseball, a check swing that's called a ball can be appealed by the catcher. Also, failure to touch or retouch bases properly is an appeal. The only hit batsman appeals I can think of are rare cases where a pitch hit the batter's foot and he successfully appealed as the ball had picked up some shoe polish. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canada's Walk of Fame[edit]

When are known the inductees of each year? Thank you. Kyxx (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it will be the same time as last year's. It's not difficult to find List of inductees of Canada's Walk of Fame which includes towards the end "...the 2011 class were inducted on October 1, 2011 at Elgin Theatre in Toronto". Last year's inductees were announced in this press release from June 2012. So, the answer is: it's announced in June, but the ceremony is not until October. Astronaut (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do any other sports than cricket have laws?[edit]

Having just posted in the Iconically complex rules in sports thread above, being pedantic enough to note that cricket doesn't have rules, it has the laws, I wondered... Do any other sports have laws? HiLo48 (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure laws is just a synonym for rules here, it's an arbitrary word choice probably based on the specific time and place where such rules were first compiled. FIFA also calls their rules laws, and that's likely because association football and cricket were both first codified in the same place, at the same time (19th century Britain). This is confirmed also as Rugby (IRB) also uses the word "Laws" --Jayron32 19:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laws of the Game is a disambiguation page. By the way, many languages don't have a special word for referee but just use the word for judge (compare interlanguage links to see examples). PrimeHunter (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's another difference - referees vs umpires. HiLo48 (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American football has all three: referees, umpires, and judges. --Jayron32 20:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's just being greedy. HiLo48 (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised they don't have lawyers as well. IBE (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but they do: [3]. --Jayron32 04:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the Qld v NSW rugby league series still attracts law suits--Shirt58 (talk) 11:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]