Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2016 May 22

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.

May 22

Strange Notation on Pint Glass

I have a pint glass here with the Carling logo on the 'front', and on the 'back' is a picture of the crown, with '2043' underneath it. What does this mean? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 11:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Found the answer: Glasses must be approved with crown stamp as correct size. Number represents manufacturer, 2043 is Cristallerie D'Arques nr. Calais, France. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 11:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

Really the number is the certifying authority, which used to be mostly the weights-and-measures departments of local authorities. Now they let manufacturers effectively self-certify, so it's become de facto a manufacturer code - a list is here, with companies starting at 2043. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 11:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, there's now a CE mark instead of a crown on pint and half-pint glasses. "EU stealing the crown of the great British pint" ranted the Daily Mail in 2007. It's almost enough to make you vote for a Brexit. We once persuaded a German visitor that the Queen had personally checked every pint glass (or at least he was polite enough to go along with the joke). Alansplodge (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The government's 2015 advice about interpreting the 2006 EU regulation (here) says a crown may still be used as a decoration in post-2006 glasses: "The Directive does permit other markings provided the visibility and legibility of the CE mark is not reduced. Stylised crown markings on beer glasses etc are permitted on a voluntary basis as a decoration provided that they are marked in such a way that they could not be confused with the CE marking" (p28). So post-2006 the CE is normative and the crown merely decorative. A typical pint glass manufacturer's indications as to what they print is here. It might we worth noting that this is only for classes "in trade" - for pubs; glasses you might buy in the supermarket for use at home may well not be marked at all. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 11:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Section 22 of that same note also says that glasses in use before 30 October 2006, which don't bear the CE mark, can still be used. I imagine the robustness of the chunky dimpled pint glass, even in trade, might allow some of those at least still to be in service. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 12:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Gosh, I haven't seen a dimple pint glass in a pub for decades, perhaps they're still popular "oop North"? Alansplodge (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Pretty common in real ale pubs in both Norfolk and South Wales, as I can report from extensive on site research. Fgf10 (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm going t'pub tonight - I shall report back. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 17:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I recall back in the 1970s, that "real men" held their pints by gripping the main part of the glass with fingers through the handle; those who held the glass by actually using the handle were suspected of being either foreign, an upper-class twit or some sort of sexual deviant. O tempora o mores!.

I'm told "no", not because of CE marks and the depredations of wicked eurocrats, but because they can't make thick dimpled glasses out of a glass that shatters safely (into lots of tiny, unweaponisable bits). The publican tells me that these days, if you hear of someone being "glassed" in a pub, it was with a bottle, and not a glass. Perhaps I drink in rougher places than Fgf10 and Alansplodge. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 21:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Dimple glasses

Exactly why have dimple glasses in pubs disappeared?--178.106.99.31 (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The BBC explains and Beer glassware#Pint glass covers this too. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Your premise is incorrect, as the BBC source above states as well. They may not be as common as they one were, but they're certainly still around, particularly in real ale pubs. Fgf10 (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Speaking from extensive bar-staffing (and pub-going) experience: non-handled gasses are more efficient for the pub because they are easier to stack, wash and shelve, but most pubs keep a smaller stock of handled glasses/tankards under the counter for those who prefer them; the latter know to ask specifically for one ("... in a handle") when they order, unless they're regulars whose preference the bar staff will remember. In some pubs (typically village pubs) some regulars may have their own personal handled glasses (or pewter tankards) hanging on a rack somewhere above the bar. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Boredom

Do some people get bored more easily than others?--178.106.99.31 (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. Have you ever seen an extrovert aide start work with a senile man? She turns on a soap opera so fast after entering the room it's like a crack addict entering her crack room. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the "aide" is just trying to connect with the senile person, and draw them out of themselves. Bus stop (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Who is bored, in your example? I am assuming it is the extroverted aide, who resorts to expressing herself as if she's in a soap opera, presumably to escape her boredom. Bus stop (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The home health aide turns on the TV and watches soaps and talk shows all day and her commute is likely not long and boring either. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, she literally turns on a soap opera. I misunderstood. I thought she figuratively turned on a soap opera. Bus stop (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

OK so what is the best way to relieve boredom if you have no friends?--178.106.99.31 (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The best way will vary from person to person, and indeed on what sort of boredom is inflicting them at the time, but good ways of relieving boredom in my experience include reading a book, going for a walk, having a wank, washing the car, or to take a large hoe and a shovel also, And dig till you gently perspire. DuncanHill (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Or in Duncan's case, wank until you perspire profusely. :) KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 11:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Personally I get bored stupidly quickly. My fix of choice to entertain me is my phone. I charge it at least twice a day due to playing games and browsing Twitter etc just to relieve boredom. That and the occasional wank too........ gazhiley 14:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The opposite of torture

Torture is a well known thing, but is the opposite of torture (using pleasure instead of pain) also a thing? For example, injecting a spy with heroin and promising more in exchange for secrets? I suppose this could turn into torture by making him experience withdrawal symptoms until he gives up his secrets. In the longer term, getting someone hooked on a drug to the point that their mind breaks and they'll willingly give up anything for another hit?

Has it even been done? What is the success rate compared to traditional pain torture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.104.38.238 (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I think a person's psychological disposition would play a role. If they were opposed to the so-called "pleasure" induced by the drug, I think the rate of addiction in such people would be lower than might be expected. Bus stop (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Hanns Scharff practised what we might call "kindness", or at least "chumminess", trying (per that article) things like "tea with German fighter aces, swimming pool excursions, and luncheons". The problem with torture, if you're actually trying to get useful information (and not just forcing confessions), is that people will tell you anything they think will make the torture stop, true or not. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 18:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Bribery and truth drug might be useful articles. Tevildo (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

There was a film called Barbarella that illustraATED the idea of excessive pleasure turning to unbearable agony. The instrument of pleasure/torture was the orgasmatron. Must go and switch mine on now.--178.106.99.31 (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

While I am Fonda that movie, you'll need a Woody to enter the orgasmatron, since it's not in the same movie. StuRat (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes you are correct.The orgasmatron was in 'Sleeper'. How the memory plays tricks. --178.106.99.31 (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that can certainly be Hanoi-ing. StuRat (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

One method sometimes used with small children to get them to behave is the threat of the tickle torture. It has an advantage that they laugh instead of crying, so it's much less annoying. StuRat (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Is it legal to tickle children? I mean its similar to torture.--178.106.99.31 (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

My niblings elicit tickling and other sorts of roughhousing. Of course I have taught them to say uncle three times if they want me to stop. That caused some confusion at first. μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

"Torture" seems a bit of an exaggeration. I don't expect them to be scarred for life from having been tickled. But, in places where spanking is banned, I suppose that might also be banned. StuRat (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Reid technique may be germane here. As with torture, however, it also tends to produce false confessions. Matt Deres (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Giving children drugs/alcohol/cigarettes in return for sex is a common method of grooming, as they get addicted and will come back for more. It's an unfortunate world we live in. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 11:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Is Australia really "so far away"?

For many years I've been reading about musicians and other entertainers who've never visited Australia, but would dearly love to, but can't fit it into their schedule because "it's so far away". Can anyone explain to me why this is a problem in 2016?

Distance (= time) would have been a real disincentive back in the days when the only practical method of travel was ship, but those days are long, long gone. Maybe they were told by their parents or grandparents when they were little kids that Australia is "very far away, too far to get to", and that message got stuck in there. These days, all you do is hop on a plane. The plane does the actual work, while the passenger sits on their backside for a few hours, catches up with their emails, reading, whatever. With jet lag and all, they'd lose at worst a day out of their lives, a minor inconvenience - a minuscule one given the glories and wonders awaiting them on arrival.

Is their time really that precious? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I would greatly dispute that you'd get over the jetlag in 'at most a day'. Also, 'a few hours'? It still takes the best part of 24h from Europe. Granted, possibly a bit less with a private plane, but still. 86.28.195.109 (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Australia's problem isn't its remoteness alone - it's its relatively low population when combined with the remoteness - and their distribution. Given a logistical base in say Prague, within a 2 hour flight time (1000 miles or so) I can serve pretty much the entirety of Europe, bar the western extent of Iberia - something like 300 million people. Do a similar calculation with the east coast of the US, and its west, and you get maybe 80 million people each. Similarly for Japan, and much more (albeit with less disposable income) for China. But take that 1000 mile distance from say Brisbane, and I get maybe 20 million (probably fewer) Australians. Given an act of modest appeal, a trip to Australia might only fill one or two venues, and then there's an intercontinental hike. But a trip to California and the US West might garner multiple shows in each of Las Vegas, San Diego, LA, and San Francisco, each with a same-or-next day trip. Major acts, who move a hundred or two people between venues, and tons of equipment, employ people dedicated to this kind of logistical analysis. If they're decided that it's not worth the schlep down to Sydney, it's because they don't think they'd make money (compared with the gigs they'd get in denser places instead). If Australia's population was clustered in the north (say Darwin) it might help a bit, but the relative poverty of Australia's northern neighbours (and their limited interest in Western musical acts) would still make a tour of Indonesia, Malaysia, and the southern Philippines an uneconomic affair. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 22:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

But they never give any of those reasons. The only thing they ever mention is the distance from wherever they are to Australia. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

A factor for me would be the extreme discomfort of airplanes. The inability to change my position in the cramped little seat leads me to get leg cramps within minutes, and I'd probably have a DVT/blood clot by the time I got to Aussie. When I try to get up to walk around, as the doctors suggest, the stewardesses start asking me to go back to my seat. The there's the temperature. I need it cool or I sweat profusely. I have very little control over my temperature on a plane, so I would be soaked in sweat in an hour. And, here in the US, the TSA is absurdly inept, failing to catch bombs 97% of the time yet still managing to delay everyone by 3 hours. Also, the thought of spending hours that close to a stranger is off-putting. If they had individual "cabins", where I could control the temperature and stretch out, I might consider it, but then it would probably cost $10k. So, the risk versus reward isn't even close to being worth it. And, to be honest, I live a half hour drive from Canada, and I don't even bother going there anymore, since they started requiring a passport. StuRat (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

That's just an excuse they give. The real reason is the drop bears. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 04:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Think of it this way, JackofOz: The globe has three two-country clusters of predominantly English speaking people. The United States and Canada have about 350 million people, the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland have about 70 million people, and Australia and New Zealand have about 30 million people. California alone has nearly 40 million people. It is a much shorter flight from New York to London than it is from Los Angeles to Sydney. Of course, it is much easier and vastly faster to travel from anywhere on Earth to Sydney in 2016 than it was to travel from Philadelphia to Boston in 1775. But this is 2016 and modern entertainers of moderate worldwide success have to evaluate the logistics of travel and potential crowd size when planning their tours. Touring is grueling, expensive and challenging, and crossing borders is a non-trivial issue if anyone in the party has "black marks" on their record. It is a combination of audience population and distance. The biggest and most successful acts will travel down under from time to time. But it is understandable that the prospect is daunting for many mid-level acts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

So, again I ask, why do they never mention any of those factors? They only ever say "it's so far away". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps because it's a better sound bite than "it's not profitable for us". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

As you can see by the map in Antipodes, Australia is pretty close to being on the opposite side of the globe from the US and Canada. Billy Crystal was on Jimmy Fallon's program last week, and talked about an upcoming tour to Australia. He talked about how long a trip it was the previous time he went, suggesting it felt like 3 days to get there. (Sorry, can't find a clip.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think they do say "it's so far away". You'd need to provide examples to support your claim. The main reason why musicians from the west don't visit Australia is that no-one is willing to put up the money for them to do so. I can't speak for the world of classical music, but in the world of rock, musicians are always looking for opportunities to play live anywhere in the world, including Australia. The problem is that they can only go there if a promoter in Australia invites them. The promoter has to pay all the expenses associated with the trip upfront, including performance fees, air fares and accommodation. They then hope to recoup that outlay in ticket receipts. This is a big financial risk for the promoter, and it's obvious given the cost of air fares that the promoter has virtually no chance of breaking even. Hence the reason why so few western bands visit Australia. --Viennese Waltz 08:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Is it financially easier for a standalone performer such as Billy Crystal to tour Australia? Rather less overhead, I would think. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Viennese Waltz, if you don't think they say this, then it's time for you to think again. Following is a very small sample of sites attesting that "it's too far" is a very commonly adduced reason for not coming down here: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jack. I don't have time to compose a proper reply right now, but not one of those sites backs up your claim. In the first one, Williams is talking about living in Australia, not playing concerts there. --Viennese Waltz 09:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

One of those sources is from 1962, and says that Australia is too far away to travel to in order to see a tennis match. That trip would have involved island hopping. Non-stop commercial trans-Pacific air service to Australia did not begin until 1976, so this source is of no relevance to entertainers traveling in 2016. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The MCC tour of Australia in 1954–55 endured a six week voyage by ship rather than go by air, which was expensive and not entirely safe. There were a number of fatal crashes of passenger planes on their way to Australia in the 1950s. Alansplodge (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Day 36: We're on final approach to England. Only 1 more week left. My fourth love affair with a ship employee has concluded. The novel is almost finished. Cricket skills getting rusty once again. I have forgotten what land looks like. I have a baby sister now apparently — she'll be born soon. And the Tories are in power again. How the fuck did that happen? I won't see winter for 2 years. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Soccer, when players complain to the referee

When a soccer team gets a yellow or red card, or when it's punished with a penalty, players tend to circle the umpire and start to complaint. Does this ever work? Does any umpire reverse ever his decisions? --Llaanngg (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Its the referee, not umpire.--178.106.99.31 (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC) "It's not spaghetti, it's linguini." So what is the answer? Is it a waste of players' time, or is an official sometimes persuaded to change a decision? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC) Spaghetti and linguini are different kinds of pasta. Your metaphor fails. Fgf10 (talk) 06:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC) You must never have seen the movie The Odd Couple, and hence you don't understand the reference. As you and your buddy say, stick to things you know about. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Decision reversal is, I think, very rare, but I can remember (though not cite) decisions which have been reversed after protests from players - though I don't by this mean to suggest causation. Meanwhile I'm sure that part of it is a power game between the teams and the referee; the more the ref can be intimidated, the more reluctant he or she may be to make judgements which provoke that intimidation, etc. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I gather from Instant replay that soccer officials do not use any kind of technological assistance? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

They have stopwatches and very expensive boots. Does that count? I vaguely remember that FIFA dabbles from time to time in such things as goal-line technology, and have the very vaguest recollection of some sort of trials of an off-pitch referee able to provide advice. Mainly, the spirit of the game appears to be, train the referee as well as you can, but accept that she or he is human and prone to error; and unlike USian games, keep the play going; don't stop just because someone's dropped a handkerchief. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Cute. I should have been more specific. :) One thing about hockey, for example, is that the puck is pretty small, and sometimes replay is needed to determine if a goal was scored or not. A soccer ball is rather larger and brighter than a hockey puck, although the article indicates they get it wrong sometimes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Refs have been known to change their initial decision after consulting an assistant referee or fourth official. For example, a free kick may have been awarded but after consultation with a colleague, the decision changed to a penalty; or vice versa. A few examples [11][12][13] Hack (talk) 06:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why are Americans, who can be expected to know nothing about the subject, dominating the answers, and in one case, arguing the point about whether 'umpire' or 'referee' are interchangeable (they're NOT; the correct term is referee). Is it because of the time zone and all the UK/EU editors are asleep? We've been down this route before with a cricket question, and the lack of familiarity with that topic by Americans was astounding. Americans, just keep out of a topic you know nothing about. The non-Americans among us wouldn't dream of lecturing OP's about the finer points of baseball or gridiron. Akld guy (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC) It's not gridiron, it's football. --69.159.60.83 (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC) Welcome to the Refdesk.... Can't agree more with you! Fgf10 (talk) 06:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC) Believe it or not, we have soccer in America. In fact, the American women recently won the World Cup. Pretty good for not knowing anything about soccer. Meanwhile, maybe you can vent your British wrath on whoever redirected umpire to referee? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC) I'm not British. If you'd looked at my page you'd see I'm not. Akld guy (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC) Soytenly. I was talking to Fgf10, an occasional ref desk drive-by who seems to know nothing about America but it doesn't stop him from commenting on it. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC) Nobody said no Americans know anything about football. Just that you and others commenting here don't. Fgf10 (talk) 09:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC) Here we call it soccer. And we know what real football is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC) Some people like to act as if they know something about everything whereas the reality is they know little about very little. They make the ref desk a worse place by declaring errors as facts. This is how some regular Ref Desk contributors behave. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC) You're right, as your infrequent appearances at the ref desk certainly make it a worse place. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC) I only contribute to things I know about, unlike some who contribute to everything they know nothing about. It can't get worse here with some editors answering incorrectly and without a clue. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC) Your stink bombs here are "contributions"??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC) As I said, I contribute to things I know about, unlike some who seem to think they can add to any thread, even though they often add errors. With your ongoing emotional outbursts everywhere, perhaps you're feeling insecure, but if the cap fits.... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC) I am totally secure. But sometimes I can't help but enjoy watching you pop your British Nanny cork. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it's more to try to pressure them to be more lenient in the future. This is often referred to as "working the ref". --71.110.8.102 (talk) 04:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Mind games with officials can happen in other sports, including baseball, basketball and football (American variety). If a batter complains about a strike call, the ump might adjust a little bit on future calls. If a batter is really good, knows the strike zone and doesn't strike out frequently, he can really use some psych on the ump. When guys like Ted Williams and Stan Musial would hold off swinging at a pitch, the ump might be more likely to call it a ball, than if it were someone hitting below the Uecker Line. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC) We don't care about mind games in baseball, basketball, and American football. The question asked about Euro style football, aka soccer. Why do you feel the need to comment off-topic? Akld guy (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC) The first reply to the OP was of no help at all, but it triggered all this tangential discussion. I see that umpire was redirected to referee in 2007, by an editor who last edited in 2009. Should the redirect be removed, since you all are more concerned about the terms used for officials than about actually answering the OP's question? And by the way, Tagishsimon and then Hack actually tried to answer the OP's question, rather than arguing about terms for officials. The audacity! What could they have been thinking? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

To get back to the original question, a famous case happened in the 1982 FIFA World Cup game between France and Kuwait. One of France's goals was disallowed after the Kuwaiti players - and famously Prince Fahad, head of the Kuwait Football Federation - crowd the referee and pressure him to change his decision. It made little difference in the end as France won handily, 4-1. The referee was banned from further work at that level, and the prince was fined for coming unto the pitch. [14]. --Xuxl (talk) 09:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Goal-line technology may also be of relevance.--Phil Holmes (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

And this article is worth reading, to understand some of the pressure Premier League referees are under, especially notable for the discrepancy in wages. And AS Adema 149–0 SO l'Emyrne is an interesting result of upset following certain decision-making... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I can't find research about the effect of pressure from players, but there is evidence that pressure from the crowd (home vs away, crowd size) does influence referee decisions. This 2005 paper says referees "favor the home team by lengthening games in which the home team is behind, and by awarding more disputable and incorrect goals or penalties" and this 2013 paper says "referees tended to punish away teams more harshly with more yellow and red cards, and this was especially the case when the home crowd was large". -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 14:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• Ah now someone very helpfully got rid of all the American nonsense we can get back to the question at hand. The OP might want to look at this for a recent demonstration of the pressures a football ref is under. Also, we might actually want to look at the official rules (here):

Decisions of the referee

The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are final. The referee may only change a decision on realising that it is incorrect or, at his discretion, on the advice of an assistant referee or the fourth official, provided that he has not restarted play or terminated the match.

Fgf10 (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, by all means, keep it confined to British nonsense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note: I think we can keep this thread as a testament to the inane additions and subsequent hattings of the certain editors who are hell bent on creating nationalistic issues where they simply don't exist. As one editor put it, it's not that Americans no nothing about football, it's just that some contributing here clearly don't and thus shouldn't try to answer the questions posed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC) Does this thread win the hatting championship? Or the "looking like a complete dog's dinner" prize? DuncanHill (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC) Just as a reminder that fooling around with hats and arguing over who did what wrong is one thing, modifying the wording of signed comments is quite another. Please no repeats of that. Nil Einne (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC) Please take that kind of comment to the individual editors, and not some nebulous "Ok, own up, who edited someone else's comments...?"-style chastisement. Please, no repeats of that either. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC) The British Nanny is apparently exempt from his own advice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC) Except I'm not asking anyone to own up. I'm telling people not do it. I already warned the editor before posting here, but this is a serious enough violation that I felt it justified posting here as well. And frankly my earlier comment was more relevant to this thread than probably half of the stuff posted here including a big chunk of what you've contributed. (Although you did make some useful contribs.) Let's not forget I was the one who noticed this and tried to correct it although admit I screwed up in not removing the other editor's modification and only added back the initial editor's wording. It also seems the time frame is a lot less than I initially thought so less surprising that no one noticed. Then again, I was also the one to notice my mistake and correct it and the time frame on that was far longer. I'm not saying this to blow my own trumpet, but to explain the multiple reasons I'm annoyed at you reply to my IMO justified comment. As I had already directly notified the editor who did do it, there was no need to mention who did it here and so removed the diff which was present in my initial draft. I intentionally did not wish to name and shame, but to remind editors of proper conduct which was already seriously lacking in this thread before I even noticed the far more serious issue of modifying someone's comment. If there was any confusion despite the IMO reasonable wording, this was all easily visible from my contribution history. Or you could have asked. I admit unlike my earlier one, this comment would best be posted outside this thread, but meh it's already such a mess that I can't be bothered worrying about that. Incidentally, if I did notice a comment which I believed was modified by someone other than the original contributor but either couldn't work out or probably even if I couldn't be bothered to work out who did it, it would be reasonable to ask here who did it and for them to self revert. In fact, I would feel justified in demanding by comment stay unhatted until the problem was resolved. I've defended before certain modifications to other editor's comment which IMO are clearly supported by common practice and policy but what I reverted was clearly not that. Nil Einne (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Interesting stuff, although the fourth link doesn't work for me. At least one of the articles discusses the contrast with rugby and cricket, where abuse of the officials is not allowed. But those are civilized sports. The term "hooligan"[15] is often used in reference to fans, but your links indicate that there also plenty of hooligans on the field. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

As a Season Ticket holder for a English Premier League team I can tell you that crowding the referee is very common, despite clubs being warned that it is not acceptable. A major breaker of that rule is Chelsea Football Club, who are renowned for doing it. The theory being that while it may not change that decision, it could impact the mindset of the referee when making further decisions. In theory any player who touches the referee while doing this can be given a yellow card, however beyond the first game of the season this rarely happens. A lot of what has been said above (other than in the hatted parts!) is true in that it is rare for a decision to change purely because of the referee being crowded, however the decision made by the ref is sometime changed by them referring to a 4th official or a linesman to see what they saw from their viewpoint. Technology in football/soccer is very basic at this time - only goal line technology is used, however there are trials at lower levels of the league structure in the UK to experiment with video technology during natural breaks in play following a contentious decision. As I am in work at this time I cannot provide links as I have a very restricted internet access, I can only provide this information as a long standing football fan. From a non-factual viewpoint I can also say that it does influence the ref's decisions as my team (Swansea City) do not do it, and strangely enough constantly end up losing to teams that do...... There may be a slight level of bias in that last answer though...... gazhiley 15:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Surprised Arthur Shawcross was not listed with lust/genital mutilation killers

Just read his bio, he mutilated a number of his victims. Chuck — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.255.123.185 (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It's unclear exactly what you mean, Chuck. Do we have a list of genital mutilation killers? Or a category of that name? If so, its news to me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

In the specific case of Lust murder, it sounds like the case would need more than genital mutilation. I haven't read Arthur Shawcross so I have no idea if he would fit. However if you find a WP:RS say he did carry out lust murders, feel free to add his name and the RS to the list (and the ref to his aticle if needed). Nil Einne (talk) 23:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)