Entertainment desk
< June 29	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	July 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.

June 30

Major League Baseball umpire becomes unable to work?

What happens in a Major League Baseball game if an umpire becomes unable to perform his duties midway through the game? I can only think of one game in which this happened — the home plate umpire died of a heart attack during the opening game of Riverfront Stadium, if I remember rightly, although this was years before I was born — and although I suspect that disability or death of umpire has happened in other games, I can't think of any others. Nyttend (talk) 03:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was John McSherry, and in his case they postponed the game, but normally it would be the same as with any other on-field personnel injury - he'd be taken away to a hospital or wherever, and they would continue with 3 umpires. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't expect that they could easily go with just three umpires; I'm rather surprised. More surprising, however, is McSherry; I thought it happened in the 1970s, during the first season that Riverfront was open for games. Thanks for the pointers. Nyttend (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the old days, they only had one, so three is no big deal. In case you're wondering, the base umpires just shift over so there's a guy between second and third and another guy between first and second (but closer to first), though they shift around as play requires. It's unusual but not unheard of for an ump to have to quit the game due to illness or injury or whatever; they're only human, ya know. :) Matt Deres (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most minor league games are played with three umpires, so it's perfectly workable at a high level of play; in fact only two umpires are used in a lot of amateur and college games. There have been a number of instances in the first half of the 20th century when the umpires failed to show up for a Major League game and each team supplied a player or a coach to act as an umpire for the game. It happened in an NHL game as recently as the 1980s, so I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility if there was a similar crisis at a major league baseball game. I've seen a number of games in recent years which have continued with three officials after an umpire had to leave the game because of injury or illness, and the game continued with just a short delay. --Xuxl (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen numerous occasions of the home plate umpire getting rapped with a bat or a foul ball, and having to leave the game. In that case, there is usually a bit of a delay because one of the base umpires must go inside and don all of the protective gear so he can take over behind the plate. — Michael J 21:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Conley - Lee Roberts

Why did soul singer Arthur Conley (Lee Roberts) decide to change his name and spend the rest of his life in Belgium and Holland? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ap1carter (talk • contribs) 04:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting story. According to this site - and others - he was devastated by the death of his mentor Otis Redding, and was unhappy with the pressures of his record company in the US. "A tour through Europe where he felt at ease, made him decide to stay in Brussels and Amsterdam. He officially changed his name to Lee Roberts and disappeared into anonymity, until he performed live in Amsterdam in 1980 when he was recognized as Arthur Conley. He buried himself in the Netherlands in a region called 'de Achterhoek' (literally "backcorner"), in the village of Ruurlo, a beautiful, agricultural area, close to the German border. Here Roberts found the peace to deploy himself again, where he worked and ultimately died in 2003." Some of this needs to be added in to his article, if a better source can be found. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 questions: 1. Would anyone please translate the Hindi language text in the video? 2. Why can't we embed videos on Wikipedia?

<youtube>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rm3Gd1TzAro</youtube>

What does the text in the above video say in English? (Any random passerby who knows an active Wikipedian that reads Hindi may want to summon them, if you would so please.)

Second, on Wikia and other wiki-networks' wikis, we can embed videos just fine (marking them up as shown above.) What's wrong with embedding them here? --Let Us Update Wikipedia: Dusty Articles 07:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know any Hindi, but for the answer to your second question, see Wikipedia:Videos. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There, I pressed Ctrl+F and typed "embed" and "external" to see what I could find about embedding external videos. I couldn't find anything relevant. Is there another policy page that goes over this specifically? --Let Us Update Wikipedia: Dusty Articles 21:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a satire on Tata Nano car, for it's size. In the first scence you have a typical Indian khadi-clad politico telling the other that "Bread, Cloth and House" (a famous slogan) is too old, add a car (Nano) instead of a TV ( in rural election campaigns Indian office-runner openly bribe voters that way (how shameful)). In the next scence we have a kid shopping for toy cars wanting a Nano parked outside instead of the toy in shop-window (Nano too small!) Next we have peasants sitting in rural landspace and have Nanos standing where usually buffalos should have been (Nano too cheap ! ) Next, a beggar doing rounds in a Nano ( Nano too-too much cheap !)Next, Nano is solving the traffic-jam problem by passing underneath a truck (Nano too low!)Then, a Nano driver asking a Petrol Pump attendant for "Janta Petrol" ( It is labeled "Public car" to popularise it among common men ). Then, a minister is being warned by his underlings about a strange new demand rising already - parking reservation for the poor ! Next, a housewife is complaining her hubby that the servent is making excuses on the reason that her car is deflated (In India the people who work at others' house are those who are extremely wretched - can't even afford bicycle, so such a woman having car is the most laughable thing for Indians) Jon Ascton (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. That must be the closest answer I could get! Now, what is Janta petrol? --Let Us Update Wikipedia: Dusty Articles 21:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Janta or जनता is the hindi for "public". Nano was famously labelled "Janta Car" to show that it is "everyman's" car i.e. even the most hoi-polloi can own it. The man in the cartoon seems to have misunderstood that this "Janta Car" might need some special fuel i.e. Janta Petrol...!

Wikipedia does not embed off-site content into its pages. All the embedded content on WP, The images, the sounds, and the videos, is hosted on the foundation's own servers.

This is done for a variety of practical and philosophical reasons, but one major concern is that Wikipedia isn't just being built to be usefull right now, Wikipedia is being built to be a long-lasting archive of free information. One hundred years from now Wikipedia will probably still exist in one form or another, but YouTube videos come and go like the seasons.

Therefore, if you want to put a video into Wikipedia you need to have the video on your computer, and then upload it to Wikipedia's servers. (But please only do that if you intend it to be a permanent part of the encyclopedia.) APL (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Economic theory mentioned on The Big Bang Theory

Near the beginning of the episode entitled The Large Hadron Collision, the character Sheldon mentions an economic theory stating that something may be more valuable to a person simply because the other person does not have it, but I missed the name of this theory. Can anyone help? Thanks. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What he says in this clip (which doesn't appear to be a copyvio) is "positional good". Deor (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TV show online, international copyright !!!!! please

Please help , I have to know why when we want to watch an online episode on a foreing channel , that doesn't work !!! what's international copyright say about this , I don't understand !!! --Mounir2012 (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, take the BBC's online service iPlayer, for example, which is only available to IP addresses in the UK. This is because BBC TV programmes are paid for by the British TV licence fee. Also, the BBC may want to sell the rights to their shows to overseas TV companies. They would lose much of their selling power if the shows were freely available to the entire world online. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 14:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which web site are you referring to? Web sites that show video can choose to exclude whoever they want from their services. We could probably be more specific if you could mention which Web site and show you're talking about. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so it's not a matter of international copyright laws that forbid a TV channel from making its content available online internationally, but rather the TV channel being able to sell that content to another market. Not all channels are like this; for example, this Catalan TV channel's website makes its content available everywhere, even in a different continent like the USA.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 22:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red-carded goalie

The question above about the MLB umpire being unable to perform his duties in the middle of a game reminded me of a question I pondered last weekend: What would happen in a soccer game (for the sake of concreteness, let's say at the World Cup) if a team's goalie gets red-carded off the field? Would the team seriously have to play without a goalie? Would one of the other defensive players take over the role of goalie, complete with the special permissions granted to goalie like being allowed to catch the ball with their hands? Or would the defensive players just have to do their best with just their feet and heads, same as when the goalie was there? +An gr 15:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another player takes over in goal and can do whatever goalkeepers do. It doesn't have to be a defender. This happened in one of the World Cup games a week or so ago. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 15:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or the coach can substitute an outfield player for a goalkeeper on the bench if he has one available. Nanonic (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, just to clarify, the specialist goalkeeper would come off the bench, go in goal, and the team would then carry on playing with 9 rather than 10 outfield players. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Outfield player" means everyone except the goalie? (Sorry, until now I only knew the term "outfield" from baseball.) +An gr 15:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 15:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been occasions (I can't remember a specific example offhand) when the goalkeeper has been sent off after all of the team's three substitutes have been used. In that case, one of the outfield players would indeed have to go in goal, but once they are designated in that position they then take on all the rights of the goalkeeper, in terms of being able to handle the ball within the penalty area. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While FIFA's Laws of the Game do not address this situation directly, they do state that of the maximum 11 players on the field, one of them must be a goalkeeper (p. 15, PDF's 17), and a goalkeeper can be substituted for any other player on the field under the simple conditions on the following page. It's interesting that this World Cup, one team (I forget which) wanted to add an extra outfield player to their roster in one of their 3 FIFA-designated goalkeeper positions, which FIFA forbade. However, the language of this Law of the Game would seem to permit it.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 22:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The aforementioned incident during this year's World Cup was the South Africa-Uruguay game. The South African keeper Itumeleng Khune was red-carded, and replaced by their other keeper, Moeneeb Josephs (Uruguay of course immediately scored on him with a penalty kick). Adam Bishop (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of a goalie getting sent-off then a outfield player donning the goalie gloves, going in goal and saving the subsequent penalty (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvA9QyeDhV0)! ny156uk (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some answers and anecdotes: As per Adam Bishop above, in the South Africa-Uruguay game Steven Pienaar was substituted for Moeneeb Josephs when Itumeleng Khune was sent off. In 1996 in the league match between Leeds United and Middlesbrough F.C., Leeds goalkeeper John Lukic was sent-off and Lucas Radebe (a defender) took over the goalkeeping duties, thus no-one had to be sub'ed to make way for a goalie off the bench. The team that wanted to use an outfield player in one of their 3 designated goalkeeper spots was North Korea. Zunaid 08:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shutter Island

In the movie Shutter Island, is DiCaprio's character really the sane Marshall Teddy Daniels whose wife gets killed by Andrew Laeddis or is he himself Andrew Laeddis? Or is it a story with no actual ending where we ourselves have to decide what to believe? Thanks. --119.155.31.219 (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Shutter Island.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's explained clearly in the movie that he is Andew Laeddis. That's what the entire movie is about. --mboverload @ 21:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]