Entertainment desk
< January 20	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	Current desk >

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.

January 21

Numbers in international football

When were numbers first worn in international association football? 1.127.49.93 (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Our article makes it clear that it was the case by 1954 (Squad_number_(association_football)#In_international_football), but that seems to be squad numbering, not shirt numbering, which I guess would precede it. I'll post at WT:FOOTY and see what the experts there think. --Dweller (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"When Chelsea toured Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil at the end of the season, in summer 1929, they also wore numbered shirts, earning the nickname 'Los Numerados' from locals." From our Squad number (association football) article; but not national sides though, it depends on your definition of "international". Alansplodge (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Numbers were worn on the back of [England] players' shirts for the first time at Hampden Park on 17 April 1937" [1]. This must refer to Scotland v England, 17 April 1937. Alansplodge (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody give any affordable alternatives to popular fashion designer ?

Can somebody give any affordable alternatives to popular fashion designer ? I mean, I want to find a new vision of fashion design. New products that are different than textile industry and grandes maisons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebiblanc (talk • contribs) 09:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AAAOffer.ru seems to have a nice knockoff selection. Can't vouch for the quality. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's not asking for replicas of haute couture, he's asking for new alternatives. The answer would be to seek out new young fashion designers in your area. --Viennese Waltz 09:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you're right. I usually read better than that. I'm no expert on what's not stylish yet, but I seem to recall "retro" keeps coming back in waves. You sure don't see a lot of plate mail these days. It might be ahead of the time. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might try visiting one or more Art Colleges (or similar) in your area (assuming they cover clothing design) and talking to students in the relevant departments. Those who have ambitions as fashion designers will doubtless be thinking about this. Their lecturers may also have some opinions. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the money and some ideas of your own, you could also go to a tailor/seamstress and tell them what you had in mind. If I had the money, I'd like to do that myself (I want a man's shirt with two pockets, not one, to keep my nipples covered properly, since I don't wear undershirts). StuRat (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stu's shirt

I have a few two-pocket, button-front, collared shirts. One is Dickies brand, like these [2]. I'm pretty sure there are options available that are not bespoke tailored, but they may not suit your precise needs. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have lots more requirements than that:

1) Dark-colored vertical stripes, except for the yoke ~~yolk~~ (shoulders), which should have horizontal stripes.

2) No flap or buttons on pockets.

3) No button-down collars or knits.

4) Rigid collar and place where button holes go (placket). I hate when those fold over.

5) Permanent press, cotton/poly blend.

6) Short sleeve.

7) Stitching that matches the fabric color.

If you find an off-the-rack shirt which meets all those req's, I'd like to hear about it. StuRat (talk) 04:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, wow, that's pretty specific. I don't think I've ever seen a two-pocket shirt where the pockets had no flaps or buttons. To help with your searches - one common term for the type of stripes you're describing is oxford stripe, which is commonly blue on white, but sometimes brown or black. But it also gets confused with oxford cloth, which I think is usually just a type of cotton, though our article doesn't specify. Unfortunately oxford shirt is just a redirect. Good luck! SemanticMantis (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep that in mind. StuRat (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yoke. —Tamfang (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I knew that, really I did. Corrected. StuRat (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Super Bowl question about cheating

I was reading this article (Former Tampa Bay Quarterback Brad Johnson Admits To Tampering With Footballs In Super Bowl XXXVII) and it prompted my question. Let's hypothetically say that one of the teams who are about to play in the upcoming Super Bowl cheated in the playoff game. So, let's say that the NFL officially acknowledges the cheating. What would happen for the upcoming Super Bowl? Would they just let the loser from the playoff game go to the Super Bowl? Also, has anything like this ever happened? So, to use a current-day scenario: let's say that the NFL officially recognizes that the actions of the New England Patriots in the playoff game (with regard to the deflated football accusations) rises to the level of "cheating". What would happen and who would play in the Super Bowl? Would it be a simple matter of allowing the Indianapolis Colts to play? Or would there be some more complicated method? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

45-7. No amount of cheating (short of a secondary manned by sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads) would have changed that outcome. There's no way those sorry Colts are playing in the Superbowl. That would be ridiculous. The score would be worse than last year's 43-8, and nobody wants that. Besides, it's way too late to make any changes. The Patriots don't seem to be too worried, so I'm guessing a big fine or loss of draft pick(s). Clarityfiend (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My question was about cheating, in general. The 2015 Super Bowl example was just that, an example. But it raised this interesting question in my mind. Thanks. As an aside: are you a Patriots fan or a Colts fan? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heck no. Seahawks all the way. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The official rules do state "The Commissioner’s powers under this Section 2 include the imposition of monetary fines and draft-choice forfeitures, suspension of persons involved in unfair acts, and, if appropriate, the reversal of a game’s result or the rescheduling of a game, either from the beginning or from the point at which the extraordinary act occurred." (bolding mine) But practically, a reversal just isn't going to happen. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does "reversal" mean, in this context? That the winner is declared the loser and vice versa? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, Goodell could declare that game a forfeiture and advance the Colts to the Super Bowl. Certainly highly unlikely, but not beyond the realm of possibility. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If a humongo-quinti-bazillion to one counts as being in that realm, sure. If Goodell doesn't mind the advertisers rising as one to smite him down. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't count on anything where this commissioner is concerned. He seems to lack the P.R. savvy of Rozelle. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The timing makes it impossible. The investigation has just gotten underway, and the report isn't due out for a while. What are they going to do, postpone the Super Bowl? Don't think so. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't any guess on our part as to "what happens now" be just that, a guess? To my knowledge, nothing like this has happened before, so we have no precedent to base our guesses on. Dismas|^(talk) 22:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday they were saying "a few days", which implies it will be out several days before the Super Bowl. As I recall, "Spygate" was uncovered after the Super Bowl had occurred, and the penalties against New Orleans also came after the Super Bowl. This is different. Goodell will be on the spot. But a key issue will be who deflated the balls, and on whose orders... if they can find that out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, even Goodell isn't that goofy (I think). You can't tell the Seahawks to prepare to play one of two teams, have the Colts get back together and start preparing, just in case they get to play, tell the advertisers that they don't know for sure who'll be playing, etc. It's more likely that the Tea Party will endorse Hillary Clinton. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We won't know what will be done, if anything, until the report comes out "in a few days". The question would be what might Commissioner Goodell do, i.e. what is the extent of his authority. As Clarityfiend notes, in theory Goodell could do anything he wants to in order to remedy the situation. I don't recall any case in the modern era of pro football in which a team was yanked from the championship game. I also don't recall, for example, the quarterback being suspended. The NFL is not the NCAA, and they really don't like to reverse what happened on the field. But teams and individuals can pay a price for malfeasance, as the Saints found out recently, and some past star players (Paul Hornung and Alex Karras come to mind) might be given lengthy suspensions in the next season. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? This has never happened before, ever? Cheating, I mean. Some form of it, I'm sure, has had to have occurred over the past 50+ years. Not necessarily cheating in the Super Bowl (or playoffs leading to). But, is there not precedent for cheating in a "regular" game? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant in such an important game. I'm sure there has been cheating (the Pats just recently got fined for cheating) but I can't recall ever hearing about it in the playoffs during such an important game. Dismas|^(talk) 23:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few decades ago, the Oakland Raiders were accused of partially filling their kickoff footballs with helium, to give them extra "hang time". I don't know that that was ever proven, but it might be the reason that the officials now control the kickoff balls. Some latitude is given for normal game-play balls. As Peyton Manning was saying recently, teams try to avoid using new balls as they are harder to get a grip on. One fairly ridiculous attempt at cheating occurred in the championship game of the World Football League, some 40 years ago. It was played in a blinding rainstorm, and a wide receiver was found to have taped thumbtacks onto his fingers to aid in catching the ball. He was sent packing. (As was the league itself within a year, but that's another story.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it showed to just *tell* your kickers that the ball is 1 ounce underweight to make them feel better? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forfeit

Every sport (well, maybe, almost every sport) has a provision for forfeit of a game. In high school play the most common reason for forfeit is failure of one team to show up, or failure to provide enough players to begin play. Another reason for forfeit in high school or college play is the use of ineligible players. In professional play ineligible players are hard to define. One could argue that doped players are ineligible because they are chemically enhanced, but the usual penalty for the use of drugs is suspension after the fact.

In Major League Baseball, and possibly in other sports, games have occasionally been forfeited by the home team (see forfeit (baseball)) due to inability to provide a field of play, because the fans rioted or otherwise misbehaved, and the home team is responsible for providing a field of play.

As was mentioned above, the Commissioner does have the power on paper to reverse the outcome of a game by declaring forfeit in the event of conduct that altered the course of the game that was clearly cheating. There are two reasons why this option is only on paper. First, as mentioned, even if there was deflation of the footballs, and even if it did affect the score, it should be obvious that the game was enough of a mismatch (on game day) that it did not affect the outcome of the game. Two good teams met, and one played well, and one played badly. Second, forfeit isn't what the fans or the sponsors want. The fans and the sponsors want there to be a Super Bowl, and the Patriots will play the Seahawks.

If there was illegal deflation of the footballs, then the penalty should (in my opinion) be sufficiently harsh as to send a signal that similar conduct will never be tolerated. That would be anything up to the loss of multiple 2015 draft choices, and a fine in the millions, and long-term suspension, but forfeit is the wrong answer. Sometimes a wrong cannot really be set right, and the job of justice is to deter future wrongs.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You state: Second, forfeit isn't what the fans or the sponsors want. The fans and the sponsors want there to be a Super Bowl. I was not suggesting that there be no Super Bowl at all this year. I was suggesting a different team play in it in lieu of the Patriots. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Patriots have already been caught cheating in their past, under this coach, and were issued fines and such. The commissioner might decide that stronger measures are needed this time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is my point also. If the charges are found after adjudication to be true, the Commissioner may find it necessary to impose much more severe penalties to deter further misbehavior. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I can't figure out is why they even bothered to cheat (unless they did it all the time, and just forgot to stop). They didn't need that advantage at all, so why risk it for such a trivial gain? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the same kind of question they were asking at the time of "Spygate", and for that matter, the original Watergate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How would they have known in advance that they needed to cheat to get the advantage? Both the Patriots and the Colts were good teams with excellent quarterbacks. The Colts simply played a bad game for a good team. Only in retrospect is it obvious that they didn't need to cheat. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Everyone knew beforehand that the Patriots were a much better team than the Colts, with a stronger defense and running game. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]