Entertainment desk
< September 20	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 22 >

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.

September 21

What's this film?

At the start a man dips his arm into a pool of liquid LSD. The title may be something like SW19 but not necessarily. Drogonov 10:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well some contenders are SLC Punk!, 1969 and J.C.. But it would really help if we had more info such as how old the film might be, who was in it, if it was an English speaking film, etc.Popcorn II (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. It was likey an english speaking film but that's all I remember.Drogonov 08:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monk guest star name

I'm trying to find the person who played the bathroom attendant on Mr. Monk and the Critic. He reminded me of "The Professor" (Russell Johnson). However, looking at current photos of Russell, there is no similarity. I checked the standard sources (ie: IMDB), but this character, which had multiple scenes and many lines, it not listed. They do list many characters with one (or no) lines. Odd. -- kainaw ™ 12:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was it (uncredited) Bernie Kopell? Character name: Gilson [1] ---Sluzzelin talk 14:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was. Thanks. I wonder how I got the Professor mixed up with the Doc. -- kainaw ™ 15:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UFC Elbow Rule

Is the UFC no downward strikes with the point of the elbow arbitrary? How is it different from a punch, or the downward strike with the point of the knee? Is the point of an elbow a process/condyle?174.3.110.93 (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not abitrary. According to our page it's a foul. It's different from a punch because it's such a small, hard point and therefore has a much more concentrated impact. You can do a great deal of damage to someone by elbowing down onto the top of their head. Trying to do a downward strike with the point of the knee is not likely to be very effective just because of the physical logistics (a knee to the head of a grounded opponent is also a foul). I don't think it's got anything to do with whether it's a process or not.Popcorn II (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the first person to ask if it's arbitrary, I've heard this discussed by commentators before. To clarify, you are allowed to elbow your opponent as long as it isn't a "12-6 motion" (i.e. bringing the elbow straight down as opposed to a sideways elbow strike) and as long as he isn't "grounded" (although our page doesn't mention this part). But I don't know why they would specifically ban the downward elbow and not, say, hyperextending someone's elbow or grabbing the back of someone's head and kneeing them in the face. Maybe it was too easy to break people's noses that way. Recury (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's arbitrary in the sense that all rules are somewhat arbitrary, but that doesn't mean that there's no reason for it. The elbow point rule is somewhat like the head butt and small joint rules; they're put in place because a lot of damage can be done instantly and, to be cynical about it, in a way that doesn't make for good entertainment. In the early UFCs, those rules didn't exist and the fights were much more like typical vale tudo fights: the slightly better wrestler overpowers the other guy and head butts him into unconsciousness. Besides being bloody and dangerous, it's just not that much fun to watch, even if you've a strong stomach for violence; it's boring. As Recury mentions, it's the 12-6 motion that is the problem; a strong man can easily break a bone (including his own) using that maneuver. Even a shot into thick muscle can create a nasty charlie horse with a single blow. The comments above about hyperextending an elbow ignore that during a submission, the goal is to simply have the guy tap out; in a way it is the victim who chooses to get his arm hyperextended by not signalling his submission (and, yes, there are fighters that do risk the hyperextension to "stay in the game", but they are rare). A busted nose is nothing to these guys; they break 'em like normal people get haircuts. Matt Deres (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

movie in Anchorage

I am looking for a mainstream movie that is set in Anchorage Alaska, can you name me some of them? Googlemeister (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to use IMDB's advanced search. I'm not sure how to narrow it down to "mainstream movies" though. --LarryMac | Talk 20:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that just gives you filming locations. (Star Trek VI, obviously, did not take place in Anchorage.) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films set in Alaska would be a good place to start. --Jayron32 02:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did an IMDB advanced search for Anchorage in the plot summaries. There were no hits at all on real movies, but there was one hit on a TV-movie from 2000 called Personally Yours, which apparently takes place partly in Anchorage and partly in a rural location.

I also tried an IMDB advanced search for Anchorage in the plot keywords. There was one hit on a movie, a 1998 one called Permanent Midnight. Neither the IMDB plot summary nor the Wikipedia page says anything about where the story takes place, but the title could be alluding to the Arctic's dark winter days. (But if meant literally it would not be correct for Anchorage, which is south of the Arctic Circle and therefore has sunrise and sunset every day.)

--Anonymous, 07:20 UTC, September 22, 2009.

According to TCM, Permanent Midnight is set in Los Angeles. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So either the IMDB keyword is wrong, or maybe there is just a part of the movie that's set in Anchorage. Thanks for checking there. --Anonymous, 04:20 UTC, September 24, 2009.

Offside

What's the point of football's offside rule? Vimescarrot (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume from the bluelink, you do not mean American football? Because I could answer if you mean American football. Googlemeister (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You assume correctly. Association football/soccer. Vimescarrot (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It makes for a more interesting game because you can't have a player standing next to the goal who receives a long pass and scores. A player has to actually dribble the ball past the opposition. --Tango (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are similar laws in other sports, such as hockey. I never played hockey, but there is some rule against passing the puck directly from one end to the other end of the rink. The purpose of the rule is, as Tango said, to make the game more interesting by ensuring that play progresses through the field and doesn't jump from one end to the other. Some sports, such as American Football, promote the ability to pass from one end of the field to the other. It is exceedingly difficult to do, so it is exciting when it actually works. -- kainaw ™ 20:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you're referring to is icing (hockey). Dismas|^(talk) 00:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, yes. Icing is not offsides as such, but it has an offsides component to it. It most often comes from a desparate attempt to clear the puck out of the attacking zone. That's a defensive strategy. However, the attacking team can ice the puck also, by shooting from their own side of the center line across the goal line. Either way, it's typically called back for a faceoff. That part of the rule is intended to slow the offense down a bit. Oddly enough, you can do the same thing from the other side of the redline, and it's fine - provided the attackers don't precede puck into the attack zone. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To state the obvious - in American Football the ball may never touch the ground, so heaving it the length of the field and having someone catch it in stride is quite challenging. In ice hockey & soccer/futbol, long passes are not difficult and thus somewhat restricted. 61.189.63.208 (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has to do with balancing offense and defense. In ice hockey, there are several related rules, the most obvious being that no one on your team can precede the puck into the attacking zone. That's fairly similar to the soccer offside rule, and for the same reason, otherwise soccer games might be very high-scoring, and I might even watch. Oops. In basketball, there is a similar rule called a "lane violation", or 3-second rule: An offensive player not holding the ball cannot be in the painted "lane" near the basket for more than 3 seconds, to prevent the offensive team from ganging up - actually very much like the soccer situation. In American football it's different, because it's not continuous action, it's a series of scrimmages. Without the offsides rule, and hence without scrimmages, the game would probably look a lot more like its ancestor, Rugby. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference in ice hockey, of course, is that the offside line is actually painted on the ice. In soccer there is a just a guy with a flag, so it looks a lot more arcane. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer's offside rule is actually really easy to understand, its just stubborn Americans who think that everything soccer must be stupid, and so refuse to "get it". No one on the attacking team can precede the ball past the last defender (not counting the keeper). It's not a line on the ground that defines it, its the position of the backmost defender. Other than that little difference, its pretty much identical to the hockey offsides rule. Look, I'm a dumb American who lives and breathes American football, and I never found soccer's offsides rule all that tough to "get". --Jayron32 02:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not quite right. Any number of players may precede the ball past the last defender, they just may not participate in the play should action move that way. There are several set-piece tactics designed around intentionally leaving a man offsides to cause misdirection whilst another player meets a through-pass after initially starting in an onsides position. However, the effectiveness of these tactics depends greatly on the competence of the linesman. He must not be jumpy and flag the play immediately when it appears that the offsides man is involved, because the reality is he is not, and holding the flag a moment longer will reveal the (legal) ruse. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 03:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on this, but if a referee thought that a player was deliberately being placed in an offside position to cause misdirection then couldn't that player be considered to be 'involved in the play', even if they never touched the ball?

And incorrect on another detail: offside is judged at the time the ball was last played, so (as it says in the article) "Therefore a player who runs from an onside position into an offside position after the ball was touched or played by a team-mate is not penalised because a team-mate is no longer touching the ball." DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Placing a player behind the last defence player during a set piece does not make him offside until the ball is kicked and then only if the ball is directed to the player who was in an offside position, hence the possible dummy tactic. Richard Avery (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, technically speaking, it isn't always the last defender. If, for example, the "last defender" was closer to his own goal-line than his goalkeeper, then it is the goalkeeper ("second last defender") that determines off-side

May I just point out that the offside rule is changed every season by UEFA or FIFA (whichever is the higher up) so you are all probably correct in your definitions, just not regarding the current version of the rule... Gazhiley (talk) 10:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. A sport that's at least a century and a half old, and they're still tinkering with one of their basic rules? Well, what da ya expect from a sport where the officials are the only ones in the stadium who know how much time is left? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if you speak to old "Sparky" Hughes even though they say what time is left, what is actually left doesn't always tally... ;-) Gazhiley (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]