Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 February 6

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.

February 6

Commons Pic on Youtube

Can I put a picture from Wikimedia Commons as my profile pic on Youtube? 99.178.102.54 (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, see the actual image and license for attribution requirements.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there an equivalent to 'accidentally scoring a touchdown' in other sports?

I watched the last few minutes of the superbowl, and as a Brit was somewhat bemused by Ahmad Bradshaw's failure to not score a touchdown. ;-) I just wondered, are there other sports where intentionally not scoring points is considered tactically advantageous?

In basketball, in the final seconds, it may be wise not to shoot if ahead, as you would rather run time off the clock or take your shots from the foul line.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Also in basketball, a player will sometimes miss a foul shot intentionally, hoping that his team can snag the rebound and put it back in. Since a foul shot is worth only one point, and a field goal can be worth as much as three, it can be worth it to miss the second foul shot, and get the rebound and hope for a two or three point shot. --Jayron32 04:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Something similar happened in association football as well; consider the 1994 Caribbean Cup between Barbados and Grenada where Grenada, because of a quirk in the rules, spent the latter part of the game trying furiously to score an own goal, after Barbados scored a strategic own goal of its own. It was rather humorous, to say the least. --Jayron32 03:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the first basketball example is rather different, in that it is about weighing up the chances of potentially not scoring and losing possession. Bradshaw looked certain to get the touchdown, and apparently tried not to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That is indeed a common basketball strategy. There are other other reasons not to score. As noted in Sports Illustrated recently, in the Men's NCAA final a couple of years ago, Coach K calculated that it was better for Duke to miss a free throw and keep the clock running, forcing Butler to take a desperation shot. A risky strategy, but it worked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to say, though, that I cannot recall ever seeing a football play in which the offense was trying not to score and the defense was trying to let the offense score. It's funny that the running back's instincts took over and his unnatural attempt to stop short of a touchdown didn't work. However, it worked out for the Giants anyway, as it forced the Patriots to go for a touchdown rather than simply getting within field goal range. The game circumstances really had the Pats backs against the wall, strategy-wise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Bugs, did you see Super Bowl XXXII? The exact same strategy was employed by Mike Holmgren of the Green Bay Packers. It was slightly different in that there was more time on the clock, and it was second down instead of first down (which Holmgren apparently didn't realize) but it was the same idea.

The difference between the reaction of the press between the two events is striking: Holmgren was castigated severely for his supposed affront to the integrity of the game. (I thought that was rather unfair; he was doing what he thought would give his team the best chance to win, and while you may or may not agree that it was the best chance, you at least have to admit that the point is arguable.) This time, on the other hand, the TV dudes actually stated out loud before the start of the play that New York might not want the TD. Maybe they've had time, in the intervening fourteen years, to analyze the point more dispassionately. --Trovatore (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Noting that it "worked for the Giants" ignores the clock issue, however -- the Patriots had to go for a TD, true, but they had roughly a minute and a time out to work with. Had the Giants instead taken a knee and kicked a field goal, New England's scoring needs would have been reduced, but they'd only have had 10ish seconds and no timeouts to work with. Most strategists prefer the latter, and I suspect they'll tend to put the blame for the error on the Giants coach rather than the running back. — Lomn 14:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, certainly, the Giants would much rather have kicked. Belachick unquestionably outcoached here, but although he improved the possibilities for his team due to the Giants' poor reaction (really, all they should have done is centered the ball for the field goal kicker, the difference in percentages between an 18 yard field goal and a 25 yard one is probably close to nil), it didn't succeed. That being said, it was a good move on the part of the Patriots and it shows that Belachick is a great coach, probably an all-time great, whereas Coughlin may not be quite in his class. (Wehwalt)

In baseball, a team leading by a comfortable margin might purposely make outs if there was rain falling, figuring that the umps would call the game as soon as the game was "official" (5 innings, or 4 1/2 innings if the home team is ahead). The team that was trailing might then purposely not try very hard on defense, in hopes of keeping the game going prior to the 5th inning, and forcing its cancellation. They had to be careful about being too obvious, as it could result in sanctions from the league office. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

And add to that the baseball conventions or "unwritten rules" that you shouldn't rub it in by trying for more runs once you are more than four runs up. The fact that the other team can still try hard to get back into range, and sometimes does, seems to escape people. I like what Belichick said when accused of running it in, that he'll stop trying to score if the other team does, seems good to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Am I mistaken, or weren't there tennis discussions in the 80s where players were rewarded by sets and men's finals frequently went to 5 instead only 3, as more confident players wore down their opponents letting them win earlier (less rewarding) sets, but then went on to win (with a larger reward)? Dru of Id (talk) 09:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Super Bowl touchdown, I was at a Jets game two years ago at old Giants Stadium where the Jets tried to let Jacksonville intentionally score under similar circumstances, but the Jaguars did not bite and eventually kicked the winning field goal. But yeah, that has to be the most reluctant final-minute Super Bowl touchdown ever.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, wasn't there some scandal in cricket where a team had a chance to draw on the final ball, but the bowler made it intentionally unplayable, though within the rules, and took considerable heat for violating the spirit of the rules?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You're probably thinking of the Underarm bowling incident of 1981. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There was also an incident in New Zealand where a fielding side intentionally bowled badly, hoping to make the batting side score more runs, edge closer to victory and then become more wayward and hopefully lose the game. See the discussion here. --Viennese Waltz 14:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

When I was in London, I attended part of what was the first or second day of a five-day cricket match. Later I checked to see who won, and it turned out that for some reason, one of the teams engaged in a strategy in which they agreed to let the other team score a bunch of runs. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not uncommon in first-class cricket. The idea would be to encourage the batting side to declare and thereby try and force a result. --Viennese Waltz 08:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Not quite equivalent but the infamous West Germany v Austria (1982) in FIFA World Cup group play comes to mind. After 10 minutes, Germany scored to 1–0. That result would make both teams advance at the expense of Algeria. It appeared neither team attempted to score for the remaining 80 minutes. The rules of future World Cups and many other tournaments were changed because of this match. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Again something slightly different, but in the National Hockey League, a win in regulation is worth two points and a loss is worth zero. However, if the game goes to overtime (including shootout), a loss is worth one point, but a win is still worth two. So if the game is tied near the end of regulation, are you going to go all out to score? Probably not. The two teams have a common interest in getting to OT. --Trovatore (talk) 09:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In the Australian Football League, tanking has been very controversial in the past 15 years because if you win less than 5 games in a season you get an extra early draft pick at the end of the season. So whilst no-one has ever proved that a team actually tried to lose, some teams have made unusual team selection decisions and played players out of position in the final weeks, because a loss is more beneficial in the long term than a win. The-Pope (talk) 14:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

See also Match fixing. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

aikido vs swords

Hello. I went to a martial arts demo the other day. We saw aikido people showing us how they could disarm a guy attacking them with a sword. The next demo was a group who were showing us how to use a sword. These guys used what seemed to be very precise controlled movements including drawing the sword from the scabbard and replacing it; the swords were the same in both cases (Except the aikido guys used wooden ones and the other guys were using sharp metal ones). What would happen if these two groups met? Robinh (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It would seem possible for someone highly-trained in hand-to-hand combat to disarm someone with a sword, especially if the sword-weilder was less trained. However, assuming equal skill level between someone with a weapon, and someone without, I'll take the armed person on any given day, and twice on Sundays. Remember, the aikido demonstration was designed to show you how awesome akido is. In an actual combat situation, where both people are literally fighting for their lives, and both are equally skilled, things may turn out much differently. I'm reminded of the rather memorable scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark where a highly skilled swordsman demonstrates his blade skills threateningly at Indiana Jones who watches calmly, and then shoots him. It would seem the same sort of relationship exists here; it is possible, but unlikely, that an unarmed combatant could disarm a prepared and skilled swordsman. --Jayron32 04:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron. I guess the sword guy could always chuck his sword, so it cannot be a liability. Could I infer that the aikido techniques are only useful against an untrained sword-wielding attacker? Robinh (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Akido (and all hand-to-hand combat) requires the practitioner to get close enough to the sword-wielder to disarm them. For someone with an inadequate level of sword training, this may be very easy, as properly weilding a sword is very hard to do. But for an expert swordsman, trained to kill with their sword in actual battle situations, I would still put my money on them. A properly wielded sword can inflict deadly harm before the akido master can get close enough to disarm. Part of the problem with many demonstration/sports-type martial arts is their lack of applicability in many actual combat situations, especially against other trained fighters. Many martial arts sports have very rigidly defined rules and styles with predefined motions which are highly coreographed and scripted, and competitions which are very limited in scope, or demonstrations which are designed to amaze the audience instead of, you know, incapacitate, maim, or kill someone, which is what true martial skills are supposed to allow the practitioner to do. This was the major criticism of Bruce Lee against all various martial arts disciplines when he designed Jeet Kune Do. --Jayron32 04:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this reminds me of dog breeding, which was originally done to create more useful dogs, but now seems to have the goal of creating unhealthy freaks of nature. The distance thing also reminds me of every bad movie ever made, where the person with the gun gets way too close to the martial arts expert, who then takes it away from him. The gunmen never seem to figure out to stay 20 feet away. StuRat (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(OP) Could you say that aikido is detrimental as it gives the practitioner a false sense of security (if the attacker is indeed well-trained)? Robinh (talk) 05:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe and maybe not. It certainly is better than no training at all, but if some guy is firing a gun at my head, I'm not going to request that he gets into proper tournament fighting stance... --Jayron32 06:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

People who study aikido learn to handle attackers with knives and swords. People who study fencing spend all their time fighting other people with swords and usually don't bother learning how to kill unarmed aikido experts. In a competition between an aikido expert and a fencing expert, there will be no prolonged exchange of blows, the guy with the sword will get to swing once at the aikido expert, and, if that swing does not reach its target, the fencing expert will find himself on the floor three to five seconds later.

Imagine that you are in a situation where you're facing a guy with a three-foot sword who's experienced at swordfighting and wants to kill you. Your options are to run, to defend yourself with a sword, or to defend yourself with aikido. The best option is to run. If you can't run, it's better to know a little aikido than to know a little swordfighting, because aikido gives you a shot to survive, even against an expert.--Itinerant1 (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

My understanding from my daughter's Aikido teacher is that Aikido was originally taught to nobility who did not carry weapons as a "last chance" defence. This would only be used if their bodyguard was defeated (or occasionally when their bodyguard turned on them), and was a case of giving them a small chance instead of none. The instructor's advice to someone confronted with an attacker with a knife is if you get the chance run. If you can't go in hard and fast, using very-close quarter attacks when you can, and joint-breaking techniques that are banned in competition. One of the class members was a police officer who successfully did that when confronted with a deranged man threatening members of the pubic with a knife - though admittedly this was a long way off dealing with a trained fighter. -- Q Chris (talk)

That's not quite right. Read the Aikido#History article if you want the full skinny. It's meant to be a peaceful martial art. It's not very effective in real-world combat. It's not really meant to be. Aikido is fun and pretty straightforward and a good workout. But it's not Krav Maga or Karate or any of those arts which have actually been used extensively by people who actually fight other people under hostile circumstances. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the case, weapons are used in Aikido, as the article states, and a quick google confirms that swords are among them. If they were useless, or even a liability, the first step in combat would be to give your sword to your opponent. IBE (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't really "use" swords in Aikido — they don't teach you how to attack people with them. When you learn Aikido, you do a little swordplay just for the spiritual exercise of it (many of the techniques are derived from sword motions), and you learn how to dodge swords, and how to disarm people with swords, and things of that nature (and so you learn a little basic swordplay so that you can participate in the disarming exercises). But it's not really a form of combat with a sword — it's not about fighting people with the sword, or sword-vs-sword. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the correction. But do they actually tell you the sword is a liability? If they say nothing of the sort, it sounds like they themselves know it is very powerful, in the right hands. Not that the OP's question hasn't been answered, but this would kind of seal it, if Aikido teachers show they know full well not to give up a weapon. The article also says they teach "weapon retention," which suggests as much. IBE (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It's just a non-issue for them. It's not a martial art about using swords. You aren't trained to use it as a weapon. You're trained to remove them as weapons from other people's hands. The entire martial art is about disarming people in a non-violent way. There isn't any way to turn that into a "hack at them with a sword" statement. If you are attacking someone with a sword with the intention to harm them, you aren't doing Aikido, even if you are some kind of Aikido master. It's entirely against the point of what Aikido is about. (Just because a Karate master might choose to use a gun in some situations, doesn't mean Karate is about guns.) --Mr.98 (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Why only in FEBRUARY ?

The total number of days of the month, 28 (non-leap year),or 29 (leap year ) in FEBRUARY : Will you please explain with reason Why only in FEBRUARY, but not allotted for any other month? Kasiraoj (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably because February was the last month of the Roman calender, and they did not bother much about the last month of the year. This may answer your question. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

February is the shortest month of the year, so it seems natural to add the Leap Day to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It would make more sense to have 6 months with 30 days, 5 with 31, and one that toggles. However, the egos of Julius and Augustus got into the way (or at least that's the urban legend I'm glad to spread). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Could "nos" be used as the plural of ego?  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That makes about as much sense as replacing my eyes with you. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 08:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're asking why we only add a day in February, it's because a tropical year (also known as a "solar year") is about 365.25 days long. If we just ignore that quarter day, we end up (after a few years) with midwinter in April, and that throws off farming schedules no matter what hemisphere you're in. So we correct. Rather than mucking about with funny quarter days, we instead add a full day every four years creating a leap year, as 4*365.25 = 3*365 + 366. Adding other days to other months would overcorrect. Note further that 365.25 is itself a rough approximation; the Gregorian calendar calls for a leap year in every year divisible by four, except not in years divisible by 100, except still in years divisible by 400 -- that is, 1800, 1900, and 2100 were not / will not be leap years, but 2000 was. Even then it's a rough approximation, and astronomers estimate that we'll be about one day off the "true" solar year by the year 4000. Note similarly that we periodically insert leap seconds for short-duration corrections. — Lomn 14:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Our articles are Leap year and February 29. I am not sure, but Kasiraoj might be asking if there is any physical reason why our calendar's leap day occurs at the end of February and not some other month. As suggested above, the choice of February is purely historical. The leap year is necessary to keep our calendar in synch with the seasons because there are approximately 365.2425 days in a solar year between vernal equinoxes (thanks Dbfirs). By adding a leap year every four year we bring the average number of days per year to 365.25. By omitting the leap day once every century (1700, 1800, 1900, ...) we bring this down to an average of 365.24 days per year. Finally, by not omitting the leap day on years divisible by 400 (1600, 2000, ...) we bring this back up to an average of 365.2425 days per year (364 + 1/4 - 1/100 + 1/400). That brings our average year to a length correct to about one day in 8000 years, which is pretty good. The same effect would have been achieved had the leap day been added to any other month, all other months in rotation, or no month at all -- we could have had a special leap day that falls between two months and is not officially part of either. The choice of February 29 is purely a historical decision, not a physical one. -- ToE 14:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to add an extra day to a month, it makes sense to add it to the one that has fewer days than any other month. That part's a no-brainer. But neither of the above explain why February had only 28 days in the first place, when all the other months have at least 30 days. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It is easy to explain as obvious what one is used to, but if the leap day was December 32, not interfering with ordinal dates throughout the leap year and giving an extra long New Year celebration every four years, such a date would seem so obvious it wouldn't need explanation as no one would bother asking. -- ToE 01:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Except that leap-days have existed for many hundreds (thousands?) of years longer than December was the last month of the year. Old habits die hard, and adding leap-days to February made perfect sense when it was the last month, and when December (meaning, um, tenth month) was the tenth month. Adding a leap-day to the tenth month would have been arbitrary. --Jayron32 01:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz referred to the story that two Roman Emperors each stole a day from the end of the year so that the months named after them were not shorter months. I don't know how much truth there is in the story. Incidentally, the pattern of leap years is designed to match not the mean solar year of about 365.24219 days, but the the mean time between vernal equinoxes which is approximately 365.2424 days (and slowly increasing). Dbfirs 19:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

We're going to great lengths to figure this out, but our Roman calendar already explains it in detail... Adam Bishop (talk)

And Julian calendar shows that the month that became July already had 31 days before Julius Caesar came along, and that the month that become August gained an extra day to have 31 days in 45 BC, when Octavius was just a teenager and long before he became the emperor known as Augustus. Marco polo (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The shortest month in American history, however, was September 1752 with 19 days. Collect (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Big picture time. That would be British history, because the switch to the Gregorian calendar in 1752 was an act of the UK Parliament which was deemed to extend to all of Britain's then colonies. It's American history only in an incidental sense. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It changed George Washington's birthday -- I rather think it is part of American history as well (noting that Canada is also, last I checked) in North America. Collect (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't deny it's part of American history. I'm saying that to refer to its Americanness in isolation from the change to the British law that made it happen in the Kingdom of Great Britain and throughout the British Empire (including Canada and the then American colonies) is opening oneself up to a charge of cultural amnesia. It's almost like writing a history of the USA and forgetting to mention there was ever a Revolutionary War or a Declaration of Independence, or that there was any need for such events to occur. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It also changed the birthday of anyone who was born in Britain or its empire before that date and died after it, which is potentially millions of people (well maybe not...but it's a lot). James Cook is another example. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not so much "changed" their birthdays as gave them an additional birthday under the new calendar. But this applied not just to those whose lives spanned the changeover in September 1752. It applied to anyone who was born between 15 October 1582 and 14 September 1752. For example, Isaac Newton's birthday during his lifetime was 25 December 1642 (OS), but now it's just as common to see it as 4 January 1643 (NS). Both are correct, depending on which calendar you're using. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

That shift is one of those great myths "give us back our eleven days" as if people were actually thinking their lives were shortened by 11 days. What they objected to was paying a quarter's rent for about 80 days.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)