Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2016 May 17

= May 17 =

Buzzer beater
In basketball, if you release a shot before the buzzer sounds to end the period but the ball goes in after the buzzer, the shot counts. Is the same true in lacrosse? ice hockey? field hockey? soccer? Loraof (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Lacrosse rules (NCAA, as of 2015-2016): Yes, Ice Hockey (NHL, 2014-2015 rulebook): No. Field Hockey (FIH, 2015 rules): Doesn't say.  Soccer (FIFA, 2015/2016 Laws of the Game): doesn't say, though I think the game ends the moment the whistle is blown.  -- Jayron 32 01:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For football ('soccer'), the game doesn't end as long as the ball is in play. There is no buzzer to beat. 213.105.166.119 (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, 213, that simply isn't true. The end of a football (soccer) game can occur with the ball in play (unlike in Rugby Union), although the referee often waits until the team in possession loses the ball. There was a case in a World Cup a number of years ago where the referee blew the final whistle between a player taking a shot and it going into the net; the goal did not count, and it caused a lot of controversy at the time. I'll see if I can find a ref for this. BbBrock (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Aha, Clive Thomas (I seemed to remember he was Welsh). BbBrock (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Fitting, as it seems several of his victims got "welched". In soccer, only the officials know how much time is left in the game, which opens the game up to officiating corruption. Not that anyone in soccer would ever do anything corrupt. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the referee blows the final whistle, but normal time is usually visible to all on scoreboards, and time added on for injuries and substitutions is announced to the crowd via a board and usually via the PA system before half time and full time. Almost invariably, the referee waits until the added on time is up and blows the full time whistle in the next uncontroversial portion of play, e.g. when the ball is not likely to cross the goal-line.  I cannot recall one single instance in the history of the game where this has been related to "officiating corruption", so please provide a reliable source for that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How reliable is the posted clock time? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A lot more reliable than your claims to understand how cricket or "soccer" work. Please answer the previous question regarding your claim of corruption, or else make a clear statement that it is your own personal opinion and has no place at this Ref Desk. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not claim the referees are corrupt. And as far as corruption in general, maybe you're unaware of the FIFA scandal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stop muddying the waters. Your personal opinions have nothing to do with the OP's question. Pack it in, stick to things you know something about because tangential and unreferenced bollocks is not what the Ref Desk needs. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You've been unable to answer my question about the clock, so maybe it's you that's muddying the waters. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You have attempted to answer questions about sports you know nothing about twice, each time making gross errors and misleading the OPs. Please now stop. If you want to open your own thread to ask questions to answer your own ignorance of subjects like cricket, passports, football etc, fine, but stop pretending you know what you're talking about. It is doing Wikipedia a disservice and making you look more foolish by the edit. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The Fergie Time thing, noted below, is obvious corruption; abuse of the system. And FIFA itself is known to be corrupt. To deny those facts is doing Wikipedia a disservice and making you look more foolish. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Good to see you didn't even read the article. Stop it now, Wikipedia doesn't need your ignorant replies to things about which you know nothing, and worse, spout lies and fallacies as if they were truth. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Take your own advice. Also, it's not kosher to attack other editors. Stop it before it gets you into further trouble. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Then stop making things up and lying to OPs at the Ref Desk. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't lie and I don't make things up. You're describing yourself here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Look, please stop trying to answer questions you know nothing about. It's misleading and embarrassing for all of us. You have made numerous errors and misled readers with those errors. I guess the only way ahead is to seek sanctions to stop you doing it again. In the meantime, do yourself a favour and stop making things up about sports you zero knowledge of. It's not helping Wikipedia, is it? The Rambling Man (talk),
 * It's only embarrassing for you because you've been shown up. Everything I said in this section has been proven true. So go, and never darken my towels again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stop peddling lies and misinformation. I will make sure you can't do it again. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You've been proven wrong here. Plus you're in violation of the personal attacks rule. Being an admin doesn't give you any special privilege to violate that rule. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not at all. You have lied, time and again, whether deliberately or through ignorance, and it's time for it to stop. Good luck, I think you need it. The Rambling Man (talk)|
 * Honest mistakes are not lies. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * As TRM says, the posted clock time is reliable. Unlike some sports, in soccer the clock doesn't stop when the ball goes dead, but just runs on, hence the need for extra time for injuries and substitutions. Whether the added time is justified can be controversial, see Fergie time. BbBrock (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If the audience doesn't know precisely when the actual time has expired, then the officials have a monopoly on it, and as you suggest, it leaves the process open to questions of possible corruption. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop talking bollocks. Provide us with something sourced and reliable, this is an encyclopaedia ok? Your personal tangent is flawed, pathetic and typically ignorant so stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you don't believe the Fergie Time and 2015 FIFA corruption case articles, maybe you should stop issuing your personal attacks here, and instead go and improve the articles. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What has FIFA corruption case got to do with this question? Not one thing. As for Fergie Time, if you don't read the article, you look even more stupid by the second. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You haven't actually read a single thing I've said. Run along now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've read it all and you are making things up again. Stop lying to our readers. You got it SO wrong with cricket, now you're wrong with football. Just stick to baseball. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you don't think the fact of Fergie Time amounts to corruption, you're wearing blinders. And stop lying about cricket, too. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I stick to reliable sources rather than just making up lies like you do (e.g. Your embarrassing cricket response which contained no fewer than five errors.) Time for you to own up and stick to things you may know something about. Cricket and football certainly you do not. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you don't think the Fergie Time article is reliable, don't yell at me about it. And if the officials can continue play well beyond the clock, the clock is not reliable. It's you that's lying and making things up. Buzz off. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop making things up and lying yet again. I said read the article which is reliably sourced and concludes that it's statistically insignificant, like your positive contributions to this and the cricket discussions. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The existence of Fergie Time proves that the stadium clock is not reliable and that the footbollocks referees are subject to corruption. If you don't like the cold, hard facts, that's your problem. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep and you need to hand your passport to the stewardess on an international flight and many other lies about cricket. What next? Footballs have to be made of pig skin or they don't count? I don't think you know how Wikipedia works at all. But that soon won't be an issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I may get my facts wrong from time to time, but I don't lie and I don't make things up. Nor can you prove otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You have been asked to stop. I suggest you do. Ciao. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You have also been asked to stop. Being an admin does not make you immune from scrutiny. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * (time shown on board is minimum and rounded down to minute), "Notification of stoppage time has rapidly become established as one of football’s rituals.", FT, 2010, "boards were used for the first time at the 1996 European Championships and for the first time in a World Cup match two years later" and U.S. college soccer does not use injury time (2014), also Manchester United gets an extra minute on average in home games when losing or tied Rmhermen (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Corruption, demonstrated. Well done. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Bollocks and actually a legal claim that needs backing. Read the article dummies. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks are against the rules, even by admins. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And lying to OPs at the Ref Desk will soon cease for you. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk),
 * Would that your own lying would cease. And why does your signature end in a comma? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See you soon Bugs! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Any objections to boxing up this sub-section? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * See also Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2012 September 18. Nanonic (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Televoting at the Eurovision Song Contest
At Eurovision, the song that receives the most votes from a country's TV audience gets 12 points, the one with the second most votes gets 10 points, the next one gets 8 points, then 7, 6, and so on.

Whether the voting country is as big as Russia or as small as San Marino, that's 12 points for the top-ranked song. Whether a song has been immensely popular in a country and has got 95% of its votes, or has only got 7% of the votes and has claimed a very narrow win in a very evenly distributed televote, that's 12 points for that song.

I have never seen any statistics showing the actual number of votes cast to songs. Is that information available anywhere, or is it classified? The latter wouldn't surprise me, because such rankings would probably contain massive discrepancies with the official results calculated by the points system.

I'm aware that the televoting points are eventually combined with the jury's points to form the final results, but let's ignore this for the purposes of this question. --Theurgist (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This doesn't appear to have been tackled by anyone, so I will just weigh in as a Eurovision fan. I have never seen any official totals of votes (other than the order of the highest votes) for any country released, but the best place to start looking would be the official Eurovision website . I have done a fairly extensive search online (as much as my work place internet filter will allow) and I will admit I cannot find more than just a breakdown of the votes cast in order of highest to lowest - nowhere seems to mention the actual figures. There is however a contact us section under the help/faq section on the official site that may be able to help guide you to the information if it is publicly available. I hope this helps? gaz hiley  14:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)