Entertainment desk
< February 8	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 10 >

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.

February 9[edit]

Finishing kick after the ball rebounds in football penalty[edit]

In association football, when the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper and the opposing team player is allowed to make a finishing kick, is there an actual offside which formally disallows the finishing kick (as the player performing a penalty kick is behind the line of opposing team's defenders)? Having browsed the related FIFA rule, my understanding is that since "the kicks from the penalty mark are not part of the match", the actual offside is disregarded. Brandmeister^talk 12:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an offence to be in an offside position per se. You have to receive the ball from a team mate to be ruled offside. In the above example, the ball came off the goalie. Widneymanor (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not entirely correct. To commit an offside offence you have to be in "active play" in an "offside position", which usually means receiving the ball, but can also mean blocking opponent's view, for example. Also, the fact that it comes off the goalie does not matter - if you're in an offside position when the ball is kicked and the goalie blocks it, you will still commit offside offence if you kick the rebound. Source:[1]

What seams to disqualify the penalty kick situation above is the fact that you can not put yourself in an offside position - the ball has to be kicked or otherwise passed by your teammate. Otherwise, any control of the ball behind the second defender would be an offside.No longer a penguin (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That comment about "the kicks from the penalty mark are not part of the match" is in the section FIFA helpfully describes as "kicks from the penalty mark", known in the English-speaking world as penalty shoot-out. This has different laws. Notably, if the goalkeeper saves a penalty in a shoot-out, that's it - no allowance for follow-up strikes at goal. Offside doesn't apply in those circumstances - see slide 25. All the players apart from the goalie and the penalty-taker go and have a picnic in the centre circle. Also, note that that document isn't the laws of football. It's a training document, meant to help referee training. The laws can be found here --Dweller (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some additions to the above:

Regarding a regular penalty kick, Law 14 says "The players other than the kicker must be located...behind the penalty mark" so they cannot be in an offside position when the penalty kick is taken, and "No longer a penguin"'s point does not apply. The kicker himself is not in an offside position taking the kick (he is behind the ball). None of the attackers can be called for offside when the keeper saves (per Widneymanor, offside applies only when a teammate plays the ball, not when an opponent does).
Regarding a shootout penalty kick, it is not correct to say "All the players apart from the goalie and the penalty-taker go and have a picnic in the centre circle"; the goalkeeper on the same team as the penalty-taker waits where the goal line meets the penalty-box line
"if the goalkeeper saves a penalty in a shoot-out, that's it - no allowance for follow-up strikes at goal." It is misleading to say that that is "different" from the regular penalty kick. The relevant sentence of Law 14 is "Additional time is allowed for a penalty kick to be taken at the end of each half or at the end of periods of extra time." In that case, there is allowance of enough additional time to take (and possibly save) the penalty, but not for anyone to follow up on a save. See Point 7 in Penalty shoot-out (association football)#Procedure. The relevant portion of Law 14 is:

When a penalty kick is taken during the normal course of play, or time has been extended at half-time or full time to allow a penalty kick to be taken or retaken, a goal is awarded if, before passing between the goalposts and under the crossbar: the ball touches either or both of the goalposts and/or the crossbar and/or the goalkeeper. The referee decides when a penalty kick has been completed.

I'd like a citation for the claim that you can't commit an offside offence when playing the ball yourself (the law says "at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team", and he himself is pedantically one of his team); but in any case you normally are further from the goal line than the ball when taking a penalty, so you wouldn't be in offside position.

jnestorius^(talk) 18:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motor vehicle (Survey)[edit]

We don't address opinion-based questions here. See the notice at the top of the page.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello, in your opinion,

Which "Motor Vehicle Brand" do you think about when asked about French cars.
Which car in particular?

Thanks for your answers--DDupard (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citroen, and the Citroën DS in particular. DuncanHill (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rojomoke (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rojomoke, might be helpful to point to the appropriate page then--DDupard (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you are asking but there are clear instructions at the top of this page as to what is and is not appropriate. MarnetteD|Talk 16:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: As I reread your question I realize that another answer is that there is no appropriate page. WP:NPOV applies to articles, their talk pages and ref desks. There plenty of other websites where people debate what cars they like. MarnetteD|Talk 20:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you MarnetteD for the followup. The matter did not adress "likes" but general perception. Thanks anyhow--DDupard (talk) 10:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy book about gaining powers through other people[edit]

I'm looking for a title of a book (or perhaps it was a series) of fantasy fiction where leaders or champions gain super human abilities through other people. It is set in a fantasy world, with basic medieval backdrop(castles, swords, etc.) There is an element (like gold) that is mined and converted into bars or rods. Each rod can be used once to transfer one person's ability to another during an almost religious ceremony. For example, taking someone's sight makes one person blind and the recipient have better vision. Champions emerge where they have dozens or even hundreds of people's abilities, making them super strong/fast/smart. The ability lasts for as long as the giver is alive. The givers are housed and taken care of by the leaders in special compounds. Basically, they are peasants/serfs who "volunteer" to make their leader better. During a war, the "enemy" starts to specifically target these givers - killing them and making the recipient lose their powers. I remember a part where a guy is super fast and is chasing his enemy through the woods. But, he starts to lose his strength and his bones break because he is running so fast and his muscles/bones can't keep up with his speed. I would have read it likely in the early nineties - say 1993-95. Sound familiar?

No, but this sounds like it would make a good chess variant. Thanks for the inspiration! Double sharp (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember the use of an element, but otherwise it sound like the Runelords series by David Farland. Rojomoke (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is a common reason for cannibalism, the belief that they will inherit the abilities of those they eat. StuRat (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those conclusions have been questions by more modern anthropologists. See, for example Flower war#Purpose which shows that some scholars contradict the traditional narrative of role of human sacrifice in Mesoamerican society. --Jayron 32 16:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That article says nothing about cannibalism, much less the purpose for it. StuRat (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but the trope is common. You might find your answer through TV tropes (who also have some literature coverage): Victor Gains Losers Powers. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney Treasures - why a limited series?[edit]

The Walt Disney Treasures DVD sets were produced in limited series, with 250,000 or fewer copies of each volume produced. Have any individuals involved in the production of the series, such as Leonard Maltin, ever indicated why this was done? One might think it was due to limited demand, but similar series such as the Looney Tunes Golden Collection, were not produced in this way, making the decision somewhat mysterious. --131.202.114.96 (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disney tries to create a perception of exclusivity by making their films only available in limited amounts for limited times. The theory is, that even if this means they lose out on some sales up front, the perception they create allows them to sell more, for more money each, later. This is a fairly common strategy in "premium" branding. You will hear them say things like "Get it now before it's locked back up in the Disney vault !". StuRat (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney Treasures sound a lot like plain old diamonds. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gold, on the other hand, needs to keep flowing to work. The Warner Bros. version of the Disney Vault is just a marketplace. Nothing forbidden or alluring about Moby Dick and the Mighty Mightor. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't buy the animated classic The Little Mermaid from the Disney Store, but if you act now, you can pay $1400 for the completely immobile, non-singing version. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]

"We have a responsibility to these films, the filmmakers and Walt Disney," said Tania Moloney, vice president of publicity and marketing for Buena Vista Home Video. "We take great care in how they're presented at the retail level. We don't want to see tons of copies poorly displayed all over the shelves. These films are legendary."

Note that Walt Disney had been dead (or at least on ice) for almost twenty years at that point. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat has it right - that the Disney people release these media for limited times and in limited amounts. Disney himself died long before their classics came available on VHS, let alone DVD. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even before "the best home movies of them all". Soundtrack sold separately! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our article is at artificial scarcity. It's kind of built in to capitalism. You can also thank Disney for the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, so rest assured that their exceptional profits are being spent [2] by buying political influence [3] to protect and increase those profits. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]