Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 April 22

= April 22 =

interventionistically
Are there any statistics or surveys which tell us how most Americans feel about the fact that their government has invaded roughly half a dozen countries since the start of the millennium. Plus they have plans to invade more. Hhplactube (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * See Here. I'd implore every other person who wants to answer this question to likewise provide references and avoid giving opinions or speculation.  -- Jayron 32 13:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A couple of articles that might give you a start on this are Public opinion on the Iraq War and International public opinion on the war in Afghanistan. Also take a look at the references for each of the articles which should help you to find some further reading. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what type of numbering system the OP is using, but two (Iraq + Afghanistan) is hardly half a dozen as we learned it in primary school. Half a dozen would be 'six'. 'Roughly half a dozen' would be 'five, or six, or seven'. 'Two' doesn't even get close to that. Evidence by the OP for the supposed US plans to invade more would also be welcome, as we know of no such plans. Bear in mind that countries do not usually release plans to invade other countries - for obvious reasons, so I have no idea what website you have got your information from, but it is very definitely wrong. KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 13:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, besides the formally declared ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. has also conducted military operations in Pakistan, Yemen and Libya. That's just five I can name off the top of my head, without digging deeper.  See Drone strikes in Pakistan, Terrorism in Yemen, 2011 military intervention in Libya.  I'm sure there are more countries the U.S. has conducted military operations in since 2000.  So the OP's premise is perfectly sound: The U.S. has been involved militarily in about a half-dozen countries.  The tenor and tone of his post indicates that he has feelings about this, which we should neither confirm nor deny the legitimacy of.  But demonstratedly, the facts hold up.  -- Jayron 32 14:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * An air attack does not constitute an invasion. KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 15:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Now, you're just splitting hairs just for the sake of debate. Again, I am not affirming the political stance of the OP or his feelings about such events.  But it's certainly true that the U.S. military has been involved in about a half dozen locations around the world.  The word invasion may be inflammatory, but all you're doing is being inflammatory in the other direction by denying that a military action is not military enough for your own definitions.  Rather than engage in the heated political debate the OP wants to get you involved in, it would be best to dispassionately report on the facts. -- Jayron 32 15:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to debate anything, as I know the OP's question is designed for us to fall into that trap. I am merely saying that air attacks do not constitute an invasion, with the inevitable occupation thereafter, whilst a change of government and training of local troops takes place. Military intervention, yes, but not an invasion. Would you call the air attacks against IS in Iraq an 'invasion'? Certainly not. Hey, I'm on your side for once. KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 08:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Define "invaded". Also, review which politicians have supported such, and how they have fared at election time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Here    are a few news articles that report on polls and the views of Americans on the topic of military action in various non-USA countries. Here are a few that are specific to drone strikes   . SemanticMantis (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * And if you want a broader perspective on US public opinion on military intervention, check out the books and papers by Adam Berinsky, Ole Holsti, Christopher Gelpi, Peter Feaver, Matthew Baum etc. Abecedare (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

By following the lists in our Outline of war, I count US involvement in two wars in the 1950s, eight in the 1960s and 1970s (there is some overlap), six in the 1980s and 1990s, five in the 2000s and two in this decade. So, one could draw the conclusion that the number of wars the US is involved in is declining.DOR (HK) (talk) 08:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocking in the back
I am looking for highly technical clarification for what "blocking in the back" means in American Football. As they state it during the games, it is illegal to push someone from behind. Is that for everyone or only certain players? Is it only for offense or only for defense? Does it have to happen in a certain area of the field? Can you avoid getting pushed simply by turning around so the other player has to run around you to push you? 209.149.115.29 (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Block in the back - we have an article but it is very short. Rmhermen (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And it's close-kin, Clipping. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting question to ask in April. The three major professional sports being played in the United States in April do not include American football.  I see that your question has been answered.  I will also note that questions about sports are often asked at the Entertainment Reference Desk.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Defensive players do have less restrictions than offensive players, but not none. Defensive players are not blockers, so cannot be called for "blocking in the back", but the can be called for unnecessary roughness for a number of penalties, including hitting a defenseless receiver in the air.  There are also penalties against defenders grasping the face mask, making contact with a player's head or neck, illegal "horse-collar" tackles, and the like.  -- Jayron 32 20:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A block in the back and clipping are both often called on kick returns. (The nature of play on a normal run from scrimmage is such that blocking in back is unlikely and difficult.)  On a punt return, in particular, the team that had been the offense becomes the "defense", but is still subject to the restrictions on blocking.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Offense/defense is determined by who is in possession of the ball. Prior to the kick, the punting team has possession, so is subject to offensive penalties.  During the return, the receiving team is in possession, so it is subject to offensive penalties.  The same is true on all changes of possession, so, for example, on an interception, offensive blocking penalties can be assessed against the intercepting team.  -- Jayron 32 12:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, so, highly technical. You want the NFL rulebook and casebook (which provides examples of play and the rulings associated with them), available at http://www.nfl.com/rulebook Block in the Back is in rule 12-1-3 (b). There are several technical exceptions, including kick coverage, "close-line play" (which is a region of the field defined by its proximity to where the offensive line began the play, and is particularly relevant for run blocking), loose-ball recovery, the defending player turning his body to make a legal block into an illegal one, and so forth. The casebook has at least four block in the back examples, A.R. 12.8 - A.R. 12.10.a. Note also that rule 12-1-1 is a more comprehensive list of various illegal blocks, including chop blocks, crackback blocks, low blocks, cut blocks, peel back blocks, blindside blocks, and more -- none of them are technically blocks in the back, but several are close enough to be of interest to basically anyone who's not at the level of an official. &mdash; Lomn 14:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)