Miscellaneous desk
< July 16	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

July 17

Finding Information on a Company or Business

I have searched the internet and cannot seem to find what I am looking > for and thought maybe you might be able to help. I am looking for a > company or business that made clocks in the 50's or 60's and if they > are still in business today. I have a Dancing Girl Ballerina Musical > TV clock they had made and I need some parts for this clock. The only > information I found on the clock is; Fichter KG Germany also stamped on it is D.B.G.M. Any > information or help you could give me is greatly appreciated. > — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.39.210.193 (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to this discussion on a horological message board, Fichter KG went bankrupt in 1976.

http://mb.nawcc.org/archive/index.php/t-103420.html

There are a few ebay results for Fichter KG. You might find spare parts there. Dalliance (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you can't find spare parts, you could take it to a clock repair shop, which can probably custom make them. Of course, this will be expensive. StuRat (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Offside

After watching the final match of the FIFA World Championship 2014, I saw that there was a goal scored but it was disqualified as an offside. I had to look up the article Offside (association football) to find out what an offside is. Apparently a player is in offside when he's nearer to the opposing team's end of the field than both the ball and any of the opposing team's moving players (i.e. everyone except the goalkeeper) simultaneously, and as such any action by such a player is disqualified. What I don't understand is the reason for this rule. Is it simply to encourage fairer play? JIP | Talk 20:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's so that a player can't "goal-hang", i.e. just stand around the goal waiting for the ball to be passed forward to him. --Viennese Waltz 20:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. That actually makes perfect sense. I cannot imagine why I've never understood this in all my life. Thank you! JIP | Talk 20:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe see Cherry picking (basketball) for the banned practice itself. Also applies to hockey. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer's offside rule, at least in the situation in the World Cup final, to me is closer to the three-second rule or lane violation, i.e. ganging up on the goal. In the World Cup game, even though soccer's offside rule is a bit complicated, it was clear why it was a violation in that case, as there were two offensive players parked near the goalkeeper. Hockey's offside is rather more straightforward: The puck must precede the offensive players into the attacking zone. And the offense has to stay out of the goal crease area, although you'll often see an attacker parked just outside the goal crease, waiting for a pass. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to post here about hockey, then I noticed that some already had, then I noticed they were talking about ice hockey, not the hockey I'm far more familiar with. The offside rule was abolished in Field hockey maybe thirty years ago. Of the other sports mentioned, it's obviously the most similar to soccer/association football. The plan to remove the rule was met with many warnings of terrible consequences, but they didn't occur. I don't know why the rule still exists in soccer, apart from the obvious "We've always done it that way.". HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained why the rule exists. I can't speak for hockey, but it's pretty clear to me that the offside rule in football is an important one and needs to be there. --Viennese Waltz 07:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Offside is the most complicated rule soccer has, and it's not even that complicated. Take it away, and what fun will the game be, for people who like to argue about the rules? --Trovatore (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I was a small child in a boys' Preparatory school (United Kingdom) (don't click the link as it won't tell you anything I didn't just tell you), I was mildly surprised that on one of the few occasions that "weather" was so bad that we couldn't play football... (That is, the groundsmen thought that we might harm the pitch. Harm to the boys from snow, hail, ice, cold etc was disregarded and even encouraged, and at least one boy at my school later died from harm due to sharp metal alongside the pitch.) ... We were all herded into a classroom and a teacher/coach stepped up to the blackboard, chalk in hand, and said, "right, let's go over how offside works". Being very young, I thought blackboards were only for academic use. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The language of soccer is part of the problem in explaining the rule to people not brought up with the game. In real life, my goal is something I'm aiming for. In soccer, my goal is the one behind me, the one I'm defending. And the rule refers to things like "the opponents' goal line". Well, I would have thought the my opponents' goal was the one behind me, the one they're aiming at. HiLo48 (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's that way in most or all of the goal games that I'm familiar with. The terminology is kind of weird, but it's how it is. Kind of like in baseball, where the "foul lines" are in fair territory. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, the footballing game I was brought up with is Australian football. (ALthough there was plenty of soccer played in my neck of the woods too.) In Aussie Rules, players just kick the ball towards the goals. Nobody owns them. HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Whoa.~~ I've heard of Australian football, but I thought it was just another term for rugby. That's almost more like Powerball from American Gladiators. At least in the neutral goal way. Too many rules about tackling in that one. Anyway, thanks for the enlightenment! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so to be clear, if you get the ball, you can kick it through whichever goal is easier to reach, and you score the same either way? I don't see that mentioned in the article (though it also doesn't contradict it). If that's true, I think that should be stated prominently in the article, because it just won't occur to readers familiar with other football codes that that might be the case. --Trovatore (talk) 03:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was more speaking linguistically. Teams aim for opposite ends of the ground. Aussie Rules players speak of kicking for goal, kicking to the goal square, aiming or goal. There is no sense in language of the goals belonging to a particular team. It's pretty obvious where you're aiming. HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Sounded that way from "The main way to score points is by kicking the ball between the two tall goal posts." Not "either of" or anything. I didn't read that much further, but it's clearer now. Not so cool anymore, but still cool to know it isn't rugby. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In various forms of football in the US and Canada, each team is said to be defending one of the two goal lines. Instead of saying "the goal line team A is defending" every time, it's easier just to say "team A's goal". As words, it seems counterintuitive, but the players and fans understand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really counterintuitive; you just need the right metaphor. The languages of sports and war are often similar; and to win in war, you typically have to fight in the enemy's territory. So in sports you score in the opponents' goal, in/at the opponents' half/zone/end of the field/pitch/rink/pool/whatever. I would have expected this to be used for all sports where the teams score at opposite ends of the playing area. --50.100.189.160 (talk) 07:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It pretty much is that way. Basketball and (ice) hockey employ that same usage. I think lacrosse does too. Confusion may arise because of the physical "goal" (line, cage, posts, etc.) vs. the metaphorical "goal" (objective).[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To go back to the earlier question of why the offside rule hasn't been abolished, it's because it would lead to a deluge of goals and would completely change the flow of the game. Less radical proposals have been made to change it, however. The old North American Soccer League, in the 1970s and early 1980s, had tweaked the rule so that the off-side line was not the center line anymore, but a line 35 yards from the goal you're attacking. This created more space for attackers to roam in the middle third of the field and opened up the game a lot without fundamentally changing it. But FIFA did not like the rule, regularly threatened to apply sanctions if the NASL did not go back to using only official rules (there were a couple of other minor changes made, such as the shoot-out to break ties), and the dispute became moot when the league went bankrupt. North American professional leagues since that time have used the standard off-side rule, but that innovation would be worth reviving, even if it was dreamed up by North American barbarians. --Xuxl (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the exact purpose of the offside rules in various sports - to have "optimal" balance between offense and defense. Any radical change would alter the nature of the game. However, with all the low-scoring games in the World Cup (with the glaring exception of Brazil's humiliations), as a non-fan I have to ask: Does the average fan enjoy watching 120 minutes of 1-1 or 0-0 scores? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

0:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Yes,very much hotclaws

It's nothing new, though, low-scoring games have been the norm since the 1960s, and fans would argue that those low scores means that "every goal matters" and thus increases interest. Personally, I would prefer it if scoring was a bit more frequent, hence my support for the old NASL rule, but that's just me. --Xuxl (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the exact opposite, I can't fathom how someone cabn get excited about a sport where there are multiple sores a minute (basketball). If scores are more rare, they are much more exciting, and creating an opportunity to score is exiting in and off itself. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've hit upon why I'm not much of a basketball fan. I like hockey much better. The action can be electric, and it doesn't slow to a snail's pace in the last two minutes like basketball often does. And unlike soccer, the players and fans actually know how much time is left in the period. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I find basketball and soccer to have a very similar "feel", in spite of being at opposite ends of the scoring spectrum. The flaw with both of them, as spectator sports, is that possessions are so short. Both games are more tactical than strategic. You get the ball, and you either score or you don't, and then you go on.

The great thing about American football (again, as a spectator sport; it's a miserable game to actually play) is the long possessions where a team is striving towards an objective, and the structure that that gives to the drama and to the emotional profile of the game. (American) football is a novel; both soccer and basketball are collections of loosely related vignettes. --Trovatore (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In pro wrestling (not a sport, I know), those vignettes are called spots, and people who play rapid style, instead of telling a whole story, are called spot monkeys. Be careful applying that one to American basketball players, though. Like "porch monkey", there's still a certain vibe to it. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, there's one basketball player mentioned by name in the Tropes article, and he's Australian. Brett Rainbow. Though, in my books, Harold Miner would also qualify. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trovatore, have you ever tried explaining that flaw to your Italian friends and colleagues? ;-) ---Sluzzelin talk 22:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your mention of the "center line", by which you mean the halfway line, is making me think. I'm sure there used to be a rule that a player could not be offside if the ball was played to him from within his own half. But I can't find anything about that now in the laws. Am I imagining this, and if not, when was the law changed? --Viennese Waltz 08:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're imagining it; the rule is that a player cannot be offside in his own half. --Xuxl (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever watch small boys playing football in the park in the "Jumpers for Goalposts" style, you see what happens when the offside rule is abandoned. The unpopular chubby or skinny kid gets left in defence and all the other players stand about by their opponent's goal in the hope of scoring and glory; a practice known as "goal-hanging". Alansplodge (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I already referred to that term in the very first response to the OP. --Viennese Waltz 22:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. I'd forgotten by the time I had read to the end of the thread. My apologies. Alansplodge (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The offside rule was abolished in field hockey about thirty years ago. It didn't lead to a deluge of goals. Why does soccer have an offside rule? HiLo48 (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alansplodge has answered that already. Five-a-side football doesn't use offside. --John (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What unskilled schoolkids do in things that aren't really matches, or what happens with fewer than half the usual number of players, doesn't prove much at all. International field hockey is played by the best in the world, like the Soccer World Cup. It's played on similar sized grounds, with the same number of players. There are many other similarities. The removal of the offside rule did not create a problem. Scores are usually still quite low. HiLo48 (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I suspect that the answer is that those with their hands on the levers don't want to change. Reference the difficulty in getting Goal-line technology introduced. Alansplodge (talk) 00:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it too. They see a game that's extremely successful in a large part of the world, and probably think that no change is needed. I'm not in that part of the world, and I can't see the game growing much here in Australia, and in places like the USA, without some changes. Maybe they don't care. Maybe they don't understand. HiLo48 (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rule (unlike goal-line technology) has clear implications for the way the game is played. Remove it and you encourage teams banging the ball long all the time to strikers who sit in the goal box for the whole game. Defences have no reason to push up and as a result pace becomes significantly less important. Strikers would play directly in front of the opposition goalkeeper in an attempt to deflect or poach goals. It would lead to goals being easier to score and the game becoming somewhat monotonous as I see it. It would also cause massive technical rethinking for every club worldwide which doesn't seem desirable. Certainly not going to change - nobody involved in the game really wants it to, and its hardly that complicated (either as a stand alone rule or compared to rules in other sports). Macosal (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like the game isn't monotonous already? But for sure it would be a radical change. To compare with hockey, where if the blue line wasn't there, you would have a game more like basketball... and be it soccer or hockey, taking away the offsides rules would pretty much eliminate the need for a goalie, making it even more like basketball. And basketball is often monotonous as well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Macosal it's not that complicated until you have to explain it to someone. Hack (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like trying to explain the infield fly rule to someone who's never seen a bat-and-ball game. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess sometimes it is easier to just have a video explaining something complicated like this. Hack (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]