Entertainment desk
< November 4	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 6 >

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.

November 5

What movie?

What Movie?

What movie was it where a teen's brother is crippled because they played football on the roof. And then he uses the brother's wheelchair to get into baseball game for free. And the brother explains the meaning of the poem about God carrying the footsteps to the teens stoner friend? And the stoner friend says god is one bad mother ff--? --Gary123 (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside Providence? -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another American football question...

A comment at Talk:1916 Cumberland vs. Georgia Tech football game says, "I *believe* this rule is actually still on the books, but at least at the time, the team scored upon had a choice to kick off or to receive." Any idea whether this really was/is a rule? I don't know where to go to find NCAA or NFL rules. Nyttend (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone had a football question recently, and I and maybe others posted rules histories. I'll see if I can find that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first place I looked was an official NFL rules book from 2007, which states "after a try [i.e. a point-after-touchdown attempt] the team on defense during the try shall receive." They do not have a choice in the matter, at present, in the NFL. I'll see what else I can find. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the question about substitutions, farther up the page, we have a link for the history of college rules [1] and a link for the history of NFL rules [2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I missed that; I was the asker for the substitutions questions, so I should have seen that. I'm surprised to see this usage of "try"; I would have expected that, if it were used at all today, it would be an alternate name for touchdown, given its relation to the try in Rugby. Nyttend (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My first link was about subs, which is not too useful, and the NFL rules history doesn't bring up the subject. I have not found a history of college rules as such, nor even a link for current rules. Someone was saying something in a previous thread to the effect that a touchdown (which equates to a "try" in rugby) used to be fewer points than the "try" in American football. I had never heard that before, and I'm kind of skeptical. Back to the 222-0 game, I did find a Sports Illustrated article that simply parrots the play-by-play, and says Cumberland switched (for awhile) to kicking off after being scored upon, but with no explanation of when or if that approach was no longer allowed. American football was much more of a running and kicking game in those days than it is now, because the forward pass was in its infancy and was considered to be more a desparation play. So teams mostly ran, which meant it took longer to get from one of the field to the other, obviously. To push the other team back, a team might kick on 3rd, 2nd or even 1st down just to get the ball out of their territory. That's what Cumberland tried to do, and obviously it didn't work. Now I'm going to display my ignorance. These articles keep saying Tech never made a first down, because they scored on every set of downs. However, once they had reached 10 yards, wouldn't that count as a first down? It's just that they kept on running, and scored. Maybe that's a rule subtlety that I'm unfamiliar with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to know about when a certain rule was in place, and what the nature of rule changes in the history of American Football is, David M. Nelson's The Anatomy of a Game is pretty much canonical. Nelson served on the rules committee longer than anyone except Walter Camp himself, and his book is at once comprehensive and an easy read on this subject. If ANY source will cover such a rule from such an old game, Nelson will. --Jayron32 05:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you happen to have a copy of that book and/or do you know if it's in print? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

google books does. The last copy I used was about 12 years ago in my college library, and I have not handled a copy since then. Its a bit of a rare book, but still awesome. --Jayron32 06:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw. Unfortunately, the appendix with its chronology of rules stops just before it gets to the "kicking game" section. But the amount of tinkering with the rules every year was amazing. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that at one time, the team scored upon would have the option to kick the ball instead of receiving it. Baseball has done relatively little tinkering since the 60 foot 6 inch pitching distance was established in 1893. The designated hitter was probably the only truly innovative rule change in the 116 years since then. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there has been some tinkering. They lowered the height of the mound after Bob Gibson; they have been playing with Instant Replay recently, and I expect that soon just about anything outside of balls & strikes will soon be reviewable. But as already noted in the last thread where we talked about this, MOST of the minutae of tinkering in football rules is to control exactly how and in what way you are allowed to collide with someone else; they have all been basically injury control rules, at least since the last major rules on free substitution happened in the 1960's. Back to Nelson's book, worldcat lists the book availible at MANY university libraries. If you click the "search libraries" link at the google books entry I note above, you can find a nearby library where you can find it. --Jayron32 06:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, depending on how crazy you want to get, Nelson's original files are still preserved at The University of Delaware Library, so it is still possible to literally go to THE SOURCE on this one. --Jayron32 06:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give that a look. Regarding baseball, nearly all the rules since the "Knickerbocker Rules" of 1845 have had to do with balancing offense and defense. Baseball used to be a high-scoring game. Not at the level of cricket, of course, which is like basketball played with bats in that sense. But over time the defense has gained certain advantages, of which the invention of the glove was only one. The rules makers changed the number of "balls" several times, and changed the nature of what a "strike" is to some extent. Once the pitchers were allowed to pitch overhand, it had a negative impact on hitting, so they repositioned the pitching distance, twice (or three times, actually). All of that stuff was prior to 1900, of course. Changes in equipment and expansion of seating (and shrinking of field size) led to changes in strategy, though with very little change to the actual rules. Following 1968, "the year of the pitcher", the rules makers didn't exactly lower the mound. What they did instead was to establish a maximum and uniform height. It was said at the time that the Dodgers pitching mound was the highest in baseball, and the Senators was the lowest. Guess which of those two teams was the more successful during that era. The DH came along over 35 years ago, and MLB still can't make up its mind about it. Instant replay, while it might affect the outcome of a call, doesn't change the basic nature of the game. Using a machine to call balls and strikes might. I think we're a long ways from that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found it! Page 454 of Nelson's book, link here, states that in 1903 the rule was "The team scored upon shall have the option of kicking off or have the opponents kick off". The copy is missing some pages in this appendix, so, for example, I can't see anything from 1937-1976. The 1922 rule changes may have eliminated this rule, but the wording is hard to follow. We do know that the rule was explicitly allowed from 1903, and I see nothing to contradict that it was still in place by 1916. --Jayron32 06:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally found a reasonly current (2008) NCAA rules book [3] in which it states on pages FR-110 and FR-111, respectively, that the team scoring the touchdown or field goal must kick off. So the answer to OP's question boils down to: Yes, it was legal for Cumberland to kick off the Tech in 1916 after Tech had scored a touchdown; and no, that option is no longer available. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

+1 for Jayron32. That's awesome. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Rome or Ritchie Rome

A famous producer called Richie Rome. I'm German, but I think Ritchie Rome would be more correctly. Google and discogs knows both names of the same person. So what is right? Thanks in advance -- jlorenz1 (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This book uses Ritchie Rome -- jlorenz1 (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The authority file at Library of Congress says Richie Rome.[4] -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richie is a nickname for Richard. There's no t in Richard, so the short version wouldn't usually include a t, and none of the notable Richies we list are Ritchies; although some people may prefer to spell their name that way. Richie and Ritchie are also surnames. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bones

Booth is talking to some guy who cleans cars. The guy mentions he works for a lot of drug dealers without knowing. He further mentions that he has an advert in a "laundromat" (unfamiliar term to me, I'm not American). Booth, shortly before being interrupted, starts to say something linking the drug dealers with the laundromat. Why? Do a lot of drug dealers pay to have their clothes washed? Vimescarrot (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might it have been a reference to money laundering? 86.142.224.71 (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could the laundromat be a front business for a drug ring? Or a place where they make drops (maybe hide a package in a dryer for the next guy to pick it up? Could it just be a public place for criminals to have indiscreet meetings? —Akrabbim^talk 22:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone thought otherwise, the episode was not about the drug dealing or this minor carwashing character - it was just a side conversation that was never referenced in any other part of the episode. So it's more likely to refer to something generally known than anything in-universe. Vimescarrot (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the "advert in the laundromat" was a card ("Your Local Car Wash") on a board provided by the laundromat owner. It would be a place where local people come, so a good place to advertise services.Sussexonian (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It probably was, from the context, yes. Do drug dealers advertise using these cards or something? O_o Vimescarrot (talk) 06:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a place people can advertise at no cost and without the kind of critical attention that a newspaper's staff, for example, would give to printed ads. I think that's all. --Anonymous, 08:02 UTC, November 6, 2009.

Self-service businesses are often used for money laundering. It is very easy to do. You put a bunch of washing machines into a store and let people use them. Say you bring in $200 over the week. You can then add another $200 from another source (such as drugs). Then, when it comes time to service the machines, you pay some company $150 to "service" the machines (they don't actually do anything - just take the money). So, you took in $200 for nothing and sent out $150 for nothing, but it all looks legitimate on paper. Multiply those values about a couple thousand and you have a real money laundering business. -- kainaw ™ 18:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Vimescarrot (talk) 11:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]