Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2021 June 25

= June 25 =

A couple of hockey questions
If a goal is scored on what turns out to be a delayed double minor, is the scoring team awarded a 2-minute powerplay? The other question is: can a skater hand their own fully functional stick to the goaltender? Bonus points (in my book) for pointing out NHL v. International rules differences. Splićanin (talk) 02:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * First question, NHL rules answer: This is covered twice and both times say the answer is yes. Rule 15 is about when play is stopped to call a penalty and section 15.3 says: "When the penalty to be imposed is applicable under Rule 47 for Head-butting or Rule 58 Butt-ending, Rule 60 High-sticking or Rule 62 Spearing, and a goal is scored, two minutes of the appropriate penalty will be assessed to the offending player. (This will be announced as a double-minor for the appropriate foul and the player will serve two (2) minutes only.)" And Rule 18 is about double minors and section 18.2 says: "When a double-minor penalty has been signaled by the Referee and the non-offending team scores during the delay, one of the minor penalties shall be washed out and the penalized player will serve the remaining two minutes of the double-minor penalty. The penalty will be announced as a double-minor penalty but only two minutes would be shown on the penalty time clock."


 * Second question, NHL rules: again the answer is yes. Rule 10 is about sticks and section 10.4 reads in part: "A goalkeeper may continue to play with a broken stick until a stoppage of play or until he has one legally handed to him by a teammate... A goalkeeper whose stick is broken or illegal may not go to the players’ bench for a replacement but must receive his stick from a teammate. A goalkeeper may participate in the play using a skater’s stick until such time as he is legally provided with a replacement goalkeeper’s stick."


 * --184.145.50.201 (talk) 04:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll make sure to have a thorough read of the rules. The wording is beautiful, and so is yours. Thank you very much. Splićanin (talk) 06:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Gaping plot hole?
There seems to be a gaping hole in the center of the plot for Manchurian Candidate (2004 film). If a presidential candidate dies after polls have closed (and the media has declared the candidate the "winner"), would the running-mate become president? I would think not. "President-elect" doesn't even apply until after the electoral college votes (AFAIK). What would happen if the person "elected" on election day dies prior to the Electoral College convening? Unless I missed something, Contingent election wouldn't apply. 2603:6081:1C00:1187:D850:7CD2:B521:2587 (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * First, media declaring a winner has no effect on anything, except for the viewership. If the media says that I won the election, that does not make it so. It is the actual votes that matter.  Now, I have not seen the movie, but according to  the electoral college may choose to elect the running mate instead or even elect the dead candidate.  In the case that the dead candidate is elected, then the 20th ammendment would apply, and the VP-elect would become president.  And, as always, movies are fiction and liberties are often taken to advance the plot or make things more interesting.  RudolfRed (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * This is not theoretical. There have been deaths right before the general election, between the general election and the electoral college, and even shortly after taking office. So, it is possible to examine actual cases. In this example, you can use Horace Greely, who died between the general election and the electoral college. Some of his electors still voted for him. Others changed their vote. The only real difference is that Greely only took 43% of the popular vote and would have lost the electoral votes anyway. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Left or right corner of the goal?
Another football question. If I, a striker, score a goal in (from my perspective) the right corner of the goal, is it correct for a report on the game to say that I scored in the left corner of the goal (i.e. using the goalkeeper's point of view)? I've been looking at game reports and there seems to be little consensus as to which is the correct point of view to use. Ericoides (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Until the FIFA issues a standard for association football terminology, there is no authority we can rely on to rule either pov choice less correct than the other. If, in the context, the pov (goalie or attacker) is unclear, I'd say that using a left–right attribute is inadequate. --Lambiam 09:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I still get confused with whose goal reports on soccer games are talking about. Is your goal the thing, as in normal English, that you're aiming at, or the thing you're defending? HiLo48 (talk) 09:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's the latter. You'd need to provide me with a quotation or two to be sure, but basically if I read "the England goal", I understand that they're talking about the goal England are defending. As for OP's question, if a report says that the goalscorer shot it into the top right corner of the net, that's from the scorer's perspective, not the goalie's. --Viennese Waltz 09:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

A promising winger is tormenting opposition's left-back all game long down the right-hand side of the pitch, so there's the duality. A vast majority describes goals from scorer's perspective, an abomination in my book given that I usually play as a goalkeeper. I always describe goals from goalie's perspective, be it scored or conceded ones, but not many do. Splićanin (talk) 06:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)