Entertainment desk
< September 9	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 10[edit]

Eligible receivers[edit]

In American and Canadian football, why does the eligible receiver rule exist? That is, what benefit did the rulemakers have in mind when they restricted which players can catch a forward pass? --142.112.221.184 (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The forward pass was a relatively late addition to the rules, and from the start it was designed to include limits regarding its usage. For example, it can only be attempted once per play, and only from behind the line of scrimmage. The number of players who can catch a forward pass is also limited. This is all in order to preserve the running game as an integral part of football. --Xuxl (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dubious. (Or, ^{[citation needed]}.) How does the concept of an ineligible pass receiver enhance the running game? Players on the offensive line generally don't run with the ball either. --142.112.221.184 (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone could catch a pass, pass coverage would be almost impossible, completely altering game play. Until 1905, forward passes were illegal. When finally allowed, they came with significant restrictions, some of which still exist (eligible receivers) and some of which have been dropped or modified (the passer needed to be at least 5 yards behind the line of scrimmage until the 1930s). Traditionalists back then thought that real football was trying to run the pigskin through a pack of opposing players, and that this fancy-schmanzy passing stuff was alien to the spirit of the game. A lot of college programs kept playing that way into the late 1970s ("three yards an a cloud of dust"), so that mentality endured for a long time. The sport could have evolved in a completely different direction, but it didn't. See here [1] and here [2] for example. Xuxl (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Pass coverage would be almost impossible": that makes some sense but I'm still dubious without a source.

As to the early days when a forward pass "was alien to the spirit of the game", I understand that. To my mind, that period ended with the rule that an incomplete pass simply ends the play, leaving the same team in possession of the ball and on the same yard line as before the play. Neither of Xuxi's cited sources, nor the Wikipedia articles linked here, say when this rule was introduced, and I'd like to know if the eligible-receiver rule was introduced at the same time, or during the early era, or perhaps at a later time. --142.112.221.184 (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may find this discussion enlightening.[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, DIoc?} carrots→ 02:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --142.112.221.184 (talk) 06:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to know the reason for just about any rule of gridiron football, I highly recommend you find a copy (digital or print) of David M. Nelson's book The Anatomy of a Game. here is the Google Books preview version. It was published posthumously in 1994, and it is the canonical work on the history of American Football rules. Nelson was (and still is, as of 2023) the longest serving chair of the NCAA Football Rules Committee, having held the position for 29 years. Nelson has a lot to say on the evolution of the forward pass rule (from my memory), noting it as one of the the two most tinkered-with rules during the first several decades of American football (the other such rule was the fair catch rule, which Nelson was particularly annoyed with if only because the amount of tinkering, in that case, was inversely proportional to the importance of said rule). --Jayron 32 16:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks! I'll request an interlibrary loan for that one. --142.112.221.184 (talk) 06:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can also look at the rules for the ineligible receivers on the line. In a pass play, they are not allowed to rush down the field and block for receivers. They are only allowed to block for the passer. If it is a running play, they can rush down the field and block for the runner. If everyone was an eligible receiver, you could have blockers keep defense away from the receiver, making the pass play too difficult to defend against. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also see the debates that occur over "picks" vs. "rubs". A "pick", where one receiver deliberately blocks a defender from covering another receiver, is considered pass interference and results in a penalty (the term "pick" comes from the basketball move of the same name), while a "rub" is where a receiver merely causes a defender to alter their path by merely being in the area where the defender is running. It can be a difficult call for officials whether such a situation is offensive pass interference, defensive pass interference, or a clean play. --Jayron 32 13:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone was an eligible receiver, the resulting chaos would look like 43-man Squamish. Most all sports have rules that seek to strike a balance between offense and defense. That's the reason offsides rules exist in so many "goal" games. The "lane violation" rule in basketball serves the same purpose. There's no "offsides" in baseball, but the rules have been tinkered with from time to time to achieve a balance. The increase in the pitching distance in 1893 was done "to increase the batting", a notion which has been discussed even in recent years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scifi movies[edit]

What were the most popular scifi movies in the last 5 years?~~~~ Readergirl22 (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing films#High-grossing films by year would certainly put Avatar: The Way of Water (2022) in the top spot. You can look at the articles for individual years and pick out the science fiction films from there. For example, 2019 in film has Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker at no.7. 2020 in film has Tenet at no. 5. And so on. --Viennese Waltz 08:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]