Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2010 September 21

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

Chuck season premiere song

In the season 4 premier Chuck vs. The Anniversary, there was a song that sounded kind of like Beck, which also had a children's choir or something. I can't remember any words, or even what was going on in the episode at the time, but it was in the first half, if that helps (I think it was when they were walking into the Buy More?). I realize this is a terrible description, but does anyone know what it was? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Reference Desk! I'm disappointed. Yahoo Answers beat you this time. It was "We're Here to Save the Day" by the Constellations, and who I thought was Beck was actually Asher Roth. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Damn, that hurts. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute, Adam Bishop is cheating on the Reference Desk, with Yahoo Answers. Is that allowed? Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I was just looking! It meant nothing to me! (Also, I was wrong, the Beck-like singer is just the normal singer, and Asher Roth of course sounds like Eminem.) Adam Bishop (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

He must be made to wear a scarlet Y to the end of his days, that all may know of his perfidy. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:evolution - Shamen track

Is there an instrumental version of re:evolution, and if so, what format is it available on? DuncanHill (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I found "De:Evolution" ("Re:Evolution" without Terence McKenna's narration). If you google "the shamen de evolution" you'll see a youtube link I'm not sure I'm supposed to post here. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! DuncanHill (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Trace Atkins Video

Who is the female that plays the solo part in Trace Atkins video for the song"This Ain't no love song. I think this is the same girl that plays the maid in his video for"Marry for Money" Am I correct and who is she?

Thanks, Rodney Roy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.206.168 (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, it's Jaime Faith Edmondson [1]. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

midspeed internet conn.

how can i store video that has been buffered? I have a midspeed dsl connection,would like tostore video to watch at one time.Chanse209 (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If you use Mozilla Firefox as your browser, the "DownloadHelper" extension (which has a stub article here which is for some reason entitled "VideoDownloader") lets you download many video file types from the web onto your computer, which may be what you're looking for. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

There's also KeepVid, which is a bookmarklet that can be used in any browser. Bettia (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No-ball controversy

Can somebody please explain this to me? I can read a bit about it at the end of Suraj Randiv, and see a huge amount of media coverage at http://www.google.com/search?q='no+ball+controversy' (do/should we have an article on this?). I don't understand really how cricket works- perhaps somebody could give a comparable scenario in some other sport? It sounds to me like an intentional walk in baseball with the bases loaded that would score a single run rather than risk a grand slam. But that shouldn't be very controversial... Staecker (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

We have an article at No ball. It appears to be a term applied to any illegally or improperly delivered bowl in cricket. The rules appear to vary depending on the specific version of the rules followed. It would appear that deliberately bowling a no-ball to gain some sort of advantage is against the rules, see [2]. It would also appear that there is some controversy over whether or not the bowler in question was pressured to deliver the no ball: [3]. It would appear that given the rules of the game, a no-ball is a mandatory 1-run score, however since the batter in question hit the ball beyond the bounds, it would have been a 6-run score had the ball been good. It seems to be more than pitching around a strong hitter, the calling of the no-ball actually took 5 runs off the board, see [4]. This seems to be the cricket equivalent of "icing the kicker" in American football (used this past weekend by Gary Kubiak against the Redskins), whereby the coach calls a last-second time-out right before the kicker attempts a field goal. In other words, its a very shady play that is poorly regarded by nearly everyone. --Jayron32 23:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This article makes it a little clearer. I'm not a cricket expert, but here's what happened. Sri Lanka batted first and scored 170 runs. Now India had to score 171 runs in its "innings" before Sri Lanka recorded 10 outs or 50 overs (300 balls) were pitched. India got to 170 runs with only four outs recorded. That basically meant India was sure to win. Meanwhile, the Indian batter had recorded 99 runs, leaving him one short of a coveted century of 100 runs. Instead of pitching a normal ball, the Sri Lankan bowler deliberately threw a "no ball," automatically giving India one run, ending the game (with an Indian victory) and depriving the Indian batter of a chance to get to 100. What would be the equivalent in American sports? Perhaps intentionally walking a batter to deprive him of a chance to hit a home run record. Here's the scorecard from the cricket match. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"Outs"? We call them wickets, and the chap with the bat is a batsman. Overs are bowled, not "pitched". DuncanHill (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, right, but I'm trying to use words an American would understand. Hey, give me a break -- how many Americans even know what cricket is? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I forgive you, but it's good to try to help those less fortunate than ourselves to learn the correct terminology. DuncanHill (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Most Americans know what cricket is. They are those little chirpy bugs right? Googlemeister (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Can I remind you that we invented baseball. Then we gave it away.  ;) Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Our article Glossary of cricket terms may help baffled Americans get to grips with descriptions of cricket matches. DuncanHill (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mwalcoff- I think I get it now. Am I right in putting it this way: The Indian batter was about to end the game, winning it for his team, and achieving a seriously glorious "century" for himself. Just to spite this guy and prevent the century, the Sri Lankan intentionally fouled, giving the Indians a free run which ended the game immediately. So the Indian guy's team still won, but he didn't get the century. Right? That is a bit of a jack move. I can't think of a good analogy since I don't know other big sports in which you can cause the game to end immediately by fouling. Maybe a goaltend in basketball... Staecker (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems right. Imagine if, for the last basket in Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game, someone had intentionally goaltended to prevent him from scoring 100. Total dick move. --Jayron32 02:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, reading that article, it looks like the Knicks tried something similar. They spent the last 5 minutes fouling every player on the Warriors except Wilt, in an attempt to keep him from scoring 100. Looks like there is an analogy in Basketball as well, and it almost worked... --Jayron32 02:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

A "jack move"? I hope you weren't intending to be deliberately offensive, Staecker. Lucky my name's not Dick either.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This happens often. Over ten years ago when I used to play cricket socially, we had two players who simply did not get on, and one of them did just this - he deliberately bowled a wide, allowing the batting team to win when the scores were tied, simply to deny the other player a fifty - almost as coveted as a century ( I scored three fifties myself in my playing time - but only about a half dozen centuries were managed in the ten years we played ). The batter that time was likely to have a fit and try to attack the offending bowler - more than once he threatened to stab people with wickets, and more than one in Rugby which we also played he was given a thump by me - but I recommend both sports to Americans as true gentlemanly arts of the British Commonwealth. Although now cricket is being tainted by betting scandals. This idea of games ending on illegal deliveries has also occured - one even was finished on the first ball of a new over, which was wide, and a debate broke out as to what to designate the ball, since it did occur in the new over, but because illegal, the scoreboard would only show so many previous overs completed. This was in Australia - in a tri series between RSA and Pakistan, but I cannot recall who was playing. It was in 1993. I would love to see America get interested in Cricket, because they are missing out. Who would not want to see Andrew Clarke or Brendan McCullum bat, and Slinga Malinga bowl ? Not to mention Sachin, Dravid, Sehwag, Kallis and Pietersen. Get into it ! The Russian Christopher Lilly 05:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

For an example of even more unsportsmanlike tactics on the cricket field, see Underarm bowling incident of 1981. --Viennese Waltz 07:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That one at least had the saving grace that the action of the bowler was squarely within the rules, unlike the issue at hand. It was widely decried because "it's not the done thing", and the debate that then ensued quite correctly focussed on the issue of: all (male) cricketers are assumed to be gentlemen; and a gentleman would never do that, not even to save the match; so how come it's permitted within the rules to begin with? That has never been resolved. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it has been resolved in a way, since (as the article points out) underarm bowling was banned in limited overs cricket as a result of the incident. But more widely, the 'debate' you cite regarding why things are in the rules if they are frowned upon is a red herring. Is it really too much to ask that cricketers play the game according to higher standards of conduct than what is required by the rules? Apparently so, if your name is Greg Chappell. I'm reminded of a line in a book by my boyhood hero Barry Richards: "The only time an Aussie walks is when his car runs out of petrol." --Viennese Waltz 09:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hence Unsportsmanlike conduct. Which, perhaps, doesn't apply to cricket but is an attempt to ensure people play fairly without having to have a separate rule for each eventuality. --Frumpo (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not defending Greg Chappell. But if it's been banned in limited overs matches, what prevents the powers that be from banning it for test matches? That would be a simple rule change that would put paid to the possibility of such an incident ever recurring. They have so far chosen not to do that. If everyone except GC is dead against it, why not? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes things aren't against the rules because it's never occurred to anyone that someone would try it on. Anyway, I thought underarm had been outlawed in the First-Class game. DuncanHill (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• According to our article Underarm bowling, the Laws of Cricket do now prohibit underarm bowling unless agreed before the start of the match. DuncanHill (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Although it's totally within the rules, in baseball it's considered unsporstmanlike if a batter atempts a bunt towards the end of a pitcher's perfect game. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to think of baseball examples too, since baseball is sort of more "gentlemanly" than, say, American football (well, maybe not anymore). Last year, I think, Alex Rodriguez was running along the basepath when one of his teammates hit an easily-catchable popup, and yelled something to the Toronto player to make him think another Toronto player would catch it, so the ball dropped and all the Yankees players advanced safely. That's not against the rules either, but still rather unsportsmanlike. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There's this whole debate over too much government and too many laws, and as much as it is relevant to society in general, we see its parallels here in sport. One of the comments before is especially relevant - it is all about foresight. When the rules of cricket were first formulated over a thousand years ago ( I know - but it seems sometimes like the game is really that old ), they allowed underarm simply because they did not anticipate any unsportsmanlke conduct in a game supposedly played to begin with by English nobs who themselves were always above reproach ( a survey of English history with respect to its subduing its Empire might tell us different about the real behaviour of such, but let us continue ) - it is like, when any thing is done, we learn by our mistakes. In 1995 it might have been alright to have a truck park outside a US government building, but by the end of that year, events taught that this was no longer the case. Hindsight, they say, is 20/20. Now I as a Kiwi was of course annoyed by the underarm - I recall watching the game as a teenager and then Robert Muldoon even gets involved in condemning - we made a lot of jokes about that one at Australias's expense, but what we might not have noted is that the Australian fans there that day were booing their own men, because they are keen sports people who like a challenge and like to win fairly. As had been pointed out later, there were similar incidents. Here in Christchurch about four years ago McCullum ran out one of the Sri Lankan batsmen for going to congratulate his partner on his century, when it might have been considered as if he had said " wickets " to indicate as we did when kids, that he was not attempting to run - which I believe the rules say - New Zealand went on to win the match by five wickets - the first victory at Lancaster Park in 12 years. I think it was in the early nineties , that Dean Jones was run out off a no ball which had bowled him. Seeing the stumps in tatters ( and it was a cracker of a delivery ), he obviously did not hear the no ball call, which always comes a bit late.He was attempting to walk, and it was perhaps the fact that the direction of the tunnel to the dressing rooms was ahead of the crease that put him out of his crease, so the West Indians, realising he was not out bowled, picked up the ball and probably uprooted a stump, and he was given run out. I suspect the umpires should have known that he should not have been given out even for that. Then there was the incident between England and NZ in 2008 I think where Sidebottom ran out Elliot, even though there was a collision where Elliot could not get to safety. England was given the option of not taking the wicket, but Vaughn decided to keep it. The Kiwis squeaked through to go on to win the series, and their reactions that day at the point of victory show how angry they had been about the unfair dismissal. All of this serves to show that any team can be the perpetrator or victim of unfairity in sport, and it's alright when the shoe's on the other foot. This also suggests that the rules of all things like this should be looked at seriously. Trouble is in Rugby for instance there is what we in the Southern Hemisphere deem as the Northern resistance to any rule that will make sense. Rules are NOT made to be broken. My thought is, if you have a rule, obey it, enforce it, but then no rule is for ever, so if it is dumb, then get rid of it, or agree to a spirit of the game - but I guess even that would be a rule. It seems if there are conventions followed at certain times there is also some clever dick who will come along and ignore it if the rules are on his side. Back in the nineties I think 48 Hours ( CBS ) did an article on fair play, and showed that in the fifties or sixties a team that realised it had gotten a championship by unknowingly breaching the rules - I think they got seven downs to make ten yards, not six, so they gave the cup to the others. In the nineties a similar thing happened, but the offending coach kept the trophy, because that is the way it is now. What can you do ? The Russian Christopher Lilly 04:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

See Fifth Down Game (1940) and Fifth Down Game (1990). You get four downs to get 10 yards in American football, not six, unless you're in Canada, where you only get three. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Underarm bowling incident of 1981, as an American and non-cricket fan, the Australian action seems like the perfectly logical strategy in the situation. It seems to be to be no different than running out the clock in American football. In football, you have to snap the ball and run a play every 40 seconds. If the team with the lead has a first down with less than 2 minutes left, and the other team has no timeouts, the team with the lead will simply snap the ball and fall on it three times, rather than try to run a real play. This is what has happened in every such situation since 1978, when a team lost a game on a fumbled handoff returned for a touchdown in the final seconds (see The Miracle at the Meadowlands). No one considers this to be "unfair" or "unsportsmanlike" -- if the other team had played better, they wouldn't be in a position to watch the other team run out the clock. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I guess that's a cultural difference. Let me ask you, are there any circumstances at all in which you would regard a player's action to ensure a win as unsportsmanlike, if it's not specifically outlawed by the rules of the game? Chappell's action may indeed have been logical, but it was also disgraceful, and an affront to the moral (as opposed to legal) framework within which cricket is supposed to be played – and, normally, is played. Cricket is not like other sports, you see. --Viennese Waltz 07:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

If there wasn't even a cultural objection to underarm bowling, then the bowling team might as well do it every time, all game long. The correct clock analogy would be running out the clock when you're on defense (which you can't do in football). If underarm bowling were allowed as a tactic, nobody would ever throw a real pitch bowl a real ball. (Am I right? I don't know much about cricket.) Staecker (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No, because then the fielding side would never be able to dismiss anyone. It's practically impossible to take a wicket using underarm deliveries. --Viennese Waltz 13:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, now I see I'm definitely not right. Please ignore... Staecker (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Although, in 1981, Greg Chappell was less focussed on getting a wicket (not that he would have minded), but more on ensuring the batsman did not hit a 6 and tie the match. He instructed the bowler not just to bowl underarm (which would still have given the Kiwis a sporting chance) but to bowl the ball along the ground (like at a bowling alley), making it virtually impossible for it to be hit at all. So, rather than using the skill and experience of the team to ensure the bowler scored no more than 5, he made damn sure he couldn't get any score at all, and abandoned all thoughts of trying to get him out, which should be the main point of every ball that's ever delivered. That was the most unsportsman-like thing about it. He's had many years to reflect that some prices are too high to pay for winning a match. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, again, to someone not familiar with the culture of the sport, it seems like a perfectly logical strategy. Had New Zealand played better in the previous 49 overs, they would not have been in a position where Australia could "run out the clock" by bowling the last ball so it was unhittable. Viennese Waltz asks, "Let me ask you, are there any circumstances at all in which you would regard a player's action to ensure a win as unsportsmanlike, if it's not specifically outlawed by the rules of the game?" I think most Americans would say that soccer players' tendency to roll on the ground pretending to be hurt after being contacted until the referee calls a penalty is unsportsmanlike (and is one of the things that bothers Americans about soccer), but that's deceit and is technically illegal. Also, trying to injure one of the other team's players would be considered unsportsmanlike, but again, that's illegal as well. Generally in American sports, it's considered acceptable to do whatever you can within the rules to win the game, and when that leads to strategies that annoy people, they generally change the rules so the strategy can no longer be employed (as in the case of basketball's four corners stall). In my mind, the people who invented limited-overs cricket should have seen this coming and made underarm bowling a no-ball. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Originally, all bowling was underam, and overarm was illegal. Overarm gradually won acceptance (we all know the story of the girl in a crinoline playing cricket with her brother, who invented roundarm), and displaced underarm because it's easier to get wickets overarm, and makes for a more exciting and entertaining game. DuncanHill (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Read Underarm bowling, Roundarm bowling and Overarm bowling for some of the history and reasons for the evolution of bowling styles. DuncanHill (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Mwalcoff - I could have sworn it was six attempts to go ten yards - unless the rules have changed. In any case, six seems too many to go only that distance, so three or four sound fairer. As for the rules, yes, it seems for instance that running down the clock in say Rugby until you can kick the ball out when the hooter goes might seem unsportsmanlike, but it is the same for everyone - and that is what we need to consider. If there is one rule for some people, and no consistency, then one would have a right to be aggrieved. We accept that a team may run out the clock in Union and League when in possession because we know the other team would, and so no one really moans about that - unless they happen to be on the losing team at the time. As for Your comment on us playing better in the previous 49 overs, you might have a point - certainly if one looks at how Kiwis bat these days, but what about the previous 50, when bowling, and the catch taken by Martin Snedden in the outfield that was disallowed ? If you play that well but are robbed of it, what can you do, since had the wicket been given, the target may have been a lot less. But then well done for the Kiwis to come so close, and it is interesting they do so much and get no where, especially considering Lance Cairns' flurry of Sixes at the same ground two years later in what turned out to be a lost cause - but then that is all about setting up a victory and every batsman doing his part and not wondering what if. So if the others on both those days had done a Lance Cairns, the results may well have differed. I have also found it interesting that Brian McKechnie had received the controversial delivery, considering that two years earlier he was involved in kicking the goal that allowed the All Blacks their first ever Grand Slam in Britain, after Andy Haden's alleged dive from the lineout, even though the Welsh did occur. A twisted sort of justice ? The one thing is, we will continue to get controversy in sport, from the unfair loss of the US in the the 1972 Basketball final at Munich, to the cheating way the Italians got that penalty against Australia in 2006 in the same country. Joga Benito indeed. What is so beautiful about some guy getting touched by another and falling down screaming as if his eyeballs are bleeding. Put him at the bottom of a ruck, then he'd know all about roughness. Or even Eric Cantona's curious attempt to fly in a game in 1995, where he leapt over the advertising to greet and old friend in the crowd. Every sport has it, and either as much as possible is done to at least lessen any thing that could be seen to be unfair, or we say it is in the rules and teach it to our kids as that's the way it is. The Russian Christopher Lilly 06:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)