Entertainment desk
< October 30	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	November 1 >

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.

October 31

Michael Jackson's height

How tall was Michael Jackson and how much did he usually weigh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.154.93 (talk) 05:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That info is on his mug shot. -- kainaw ™ 00:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap, he was skinny! He was an inch taller and 50 lbs lighter than I am, and I'm skinny already! Dismas|^(talk) 14:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subs in American football

Was there ever a time when American football rules restricted the number of times when players could be substituted? I don't know anything about the substitution rules of other codes of football. Nyttend (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was, at one time. Players from the early days played on both sides of the line. Unlimited substitution came later. I'll see if we have any articles on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't vouch for the facts stated in this article about the college-level game, but it has the ring of truth to it: [1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And here's a similar list for the NFL: [2] Free substitution didn't arrive to stay until the 1950s, it seems. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I knew that players in previous decades typically played both sides of the ball, but I hadn't known if it were simply customary (or if nobody had thought of having two sets of players) or if it were required. Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those dates seem right. I seem to remember that there were still some weird substitution rules in the NCAA until the 1960's. I don't have access to it right now, but if you can get it, David M. Nelson's book titled The Anatomy of a Game: Football, the Rules, and the Men Who Made the Game covers nearly every rule change in the NCAA from its inception until the 1990's. It's one of the best, straightforward chronicles of the history of football rules; Nelson served on the rules committee longer than anybody except Walter Camp himself, so he should know... --Jayron32 02:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American football is a game that seems to be constantly subject to rules tinkering, to find the right balance between offense and defense. That's a contrast with baseball, most of whose changes seem to be in style of play rather than rules changes. Once the pitching rubber was established at 60 feet 6 inches in 1893, the next (and possibly only) true innovation was probably the Designated Hitter - 80 years later, and now over 35 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the rule "tinkering" is an attempt to reduce injuries. The only big game-changing rule in recent history is the instant-replay. That has been tinkered with since it began to try and fix problems (such as previously not being allowed to use instant replay to view the results of a field goal). Baseball is not an injury-prone sport. Therefore, there is very little need to tinker with the rules to reduce injuries. -- kainaw ™ 03:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As is often stated, "Ballroom dancing is a contact sport, football is a collision sport." Tracking the rule changes in Nelson's book would confirm Kainaw's analysis. The game is pretty much identical, on the big rules, since the 1930's or so. Again, I don't have access to it, but I do remember one running narrative was the tortuous history of the Fair catch rule, which Nelson notes is the most "tinkered" with rule in all of football. The rule is purely an injury-avoidance rule, and all of the changes to it have been mainly in response to the inadequacy of the old rule to deal with preventing people from clobbering a punt returner with his head up in the air. In fact, one must remember that the modern game only exists because of such "injury avoidance" rules. The forward pass was instituted in 1906 in direct response to a call from president Roosevelt to make the game safer, as 1905 saw a horrific number of on-field deaths and grave injuries. So, one could make the case that the most significant change to the game ever came about as an injury avoidance rule. --Jayron32 03:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting points about the injuries. Certainly a number of the rules changes in recent memory have had to do with reducing the chance of injury, especially as players have gotten much larger (due to eating lots of rice cakes, I suppose). For example, the outlawing of the "flying wedge", ca. 1900. Over time, changing the shape of the football made it much more of a passing game, and pretty much eliminated the drop-kick, except as a stunt. One important change was moving the hash marks closer to the field, making field goal tries easier. That was also aided by the replacement of the straight-on kicker by the soccer-style, resulting in much longer field goals, but that's a style change, not a rules change. In terms of injury prevention, baseball's innovations have also been slow to come. The helmet was introduced in the 1950s but wasn't required until sometime in the 60s, and the earflap helmet (introduced by Ron Santo) wasn't required until fairly recently. On the other hand, football helmest used to be optional. As scary as it is to see photos of great stars like Babe Ruth batting without helmets, it's almost equally scary to see photos of early NFL players like Bill Hewitt (American football) playing without helmets.[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been recently argued that helmets, in an odd way, actually increase long term injuries in American football. Players with modern helmets are much more willing to collide into other players with their heads, creating the long term risk of dementia, a concern that is currently in the news. The current controversy will not, of course, lead to the elimination of helmets. —Kevin Myers 14:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the dilemma, that protection increases carelessness. Batters are emboldened to crowd the plate, especially if they have elbow protection too as Bonds did. On the other hand, Babe Ruth used to crowd the plate and he never suffered a serious beaning that I know of. So it could work in reverse, in that some pitchers could be more likely to be headhunters, figuring there's less chance of killing the batter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]