statement win

[tonbei]

This is from MLB's web site on the latest game between Padres vs
Dodgers.

In a chippy Game 2, the Padres crushed a postseason-record-tying SIX
homers, Yu Darvish stifled the Dodgers and Jurickson Profar foiled fans
on a HR robbery in a statement win for San Diego.

I have two questions.
1) the meaning of "statement win". I've never seen this phrase.
I guess it means like: a statement of victory

2) foiled fans
I guess this "fans" is fans of the other team, Dodgers.
If so, Jurickson Profar made a mockery of Dodgers' fans who were saying
that a home run had been robbed.

Am I right?

[LionelEdwards]

Post by tonbei
This is from MLB's web site on the latest game between Padres vs
Dodgers.
In a chippy Game 2, the Padres crushed a postseason-record-tying SIX
homers, Yu Darvish stifled the Dodgers and Jurickson Profar foiled fans
on a HR robbery in a statement win for San Diego.
I have two questions.
1) the meaning of "statement win". I've never seen this phrase.
I guess it means like: a statement of victory

"Statement" is rarely used as an adjective. A necklace or
earrings can be "statement" pieces, designed to be worn
by themselves - to make a singular statement.

Post by tonbei
2) foiled fans
I guess this "fans" is fans of the other team, Dodgers.
If so, Jurickson Profar made a mockery of Dodgers' fans who were saying
that a home run had been robbed.
Am I right?

Looks as though you are.

[Snidely]

Lo, on the 10/7/2024, LionelEdwards did proclaim ...

Post by LionelEdwards

Post by tonbei
This is from MLB's web site on the latest game between Padres vs
Dodgers.
In a chippy Game 2, the Padres crushed a postseason-record-tying SIX
homers, Yu Darvish stifled the Dodgers and Jurickson Profar foiled fans
on a HR robbery in a statement win for San Diego.
I have two questions.
1) the meaning of "statement win". I've never seen this phrase.
I guess it means like: a statement of victory

"Statement" is rarely used as an adjective. A necklace or
earrings can be "statement" pieces, designed to be worn
by themselves - to make a singular statement.

It's pretty simple ... the /win/ by the Padres is a /statement/ to the
Dodgers and their fans that the Padres are capable of winning games ...
decisively ... and could beat the Dodgers to win the series (a set of
playoff games).

Post by LionelEdwards

Post by tonbei
2) foiled fans
I guess this "fans" is fans of the other team, Dodgers.
If so, Jurickson Profar made a mockery of Dodgers' fans who were saying
that a home run had been robbed.
Am I right?

Looks as though you are.

Oh my. I think the main reason for the verb "foil" was for
alliteration. Perhaps "frustrate" would have been a better choice.

Profar was successful in robbing Mookie Betts of a home run. It
appears that there was no fan interference on this play, but Profar
teased the fans for a bit ... not immediately showing the caught ball,
keeping his glove closed long enough to set up a "did he or didn't he?"
moment.

There was fan interference later that stopped play ... several threw
baseballs at Profar.

But Profar and his team won anyway, by a huge margin, making a
statement that they were fired up and ready to take on Los Angeles.

/dps

[Stefan Ram]

Post by tonbei
I have two questions.
1) the meaning of "statement win". I've never seen this phrase.
I guess it means like: a statement of victory
2) foiled fans
I guess this "fans" is fans of the other team, Dodgers.
If so, Jurickson Profar made a mockery of Dodgers' fans who were saying
that a home run had been robbed.

Yo, let's rap about that MLB game breakdown:

1st "Statement win"

A "statement win" is when a squad totally crushes it and
leaves everyone shook. In this case, the Padres straight-up
bodied the competition. We're talkin':

- Smokin' the Dodgers (major heavyweights)

- Droppin' a six-pack of dingers (hella impressive)

- Clutch playoff performance (when it really counts)

This kind of W is like the Padres screamin' "We're not here to
play, we're here to slay!" It's the type of game that'll have
the whole league buzzin' like they just chugged a venti cold
brew from the 'Bucks.

2nd "Jurickson Profar foiled fans on a HR robbery"

Aight, so here's the 411:

- Jurickson Profar (Padres' golden glove) went full Spider-
Man and snagged a would-be homer.

- Dude straight-up yoinked that ball outta the bleachers,
robbing the Dodgers of a round-tripper.

- This move left Dodgers fans more bummed than finding out
In-N-Out is closed.

So, Profar didn't clown the fans or nothin'. He just pulled
off some sick defense that had Dodger Nation feeling like
they just hit gnarly traffic on the 405.

[Paul Carmichael]

Post by tonbei
In a chippy Game 2, the Padres crushed a postseason-record-tying SIX
homers, Yu Darvish stifled the Dodgers and Jurickson Profar foiled fans
on a HR robbery in a statement win for San Diego.

Let's call the whole thing off. It may as well be Japanese.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Mon, 07 Oct 2024 11:03:22 +0100, Paul Carmichael =

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by tonbei
In a chippy Game 2, the Padres crushed a postseason-record-tying SIX
homers, Yu Darvish stifled the Dodgers and Jurickson Profar foiled fa=

ns

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by tonbei
on a HR robbery in a statement win for San Diego.

Let's call the whole thing off. It may as well be Japanese.

It's sports journalese at it's most "clever"

-- =

Bah, and indeed, Humbug

[lar3ryca]

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by tonbei
In a chippy Game 2, the Padres crushed a postseason-record-tying SIX
homers, Yu Darvish stifled the Dodgers and Jurickson Profar foiled fans
on a HR robbery in a statement win for San Diego.

Let's call the whole thing off. It may as well be Japanese.

It's fairly standard to fans of the game. I had no problem getting the
meaning.

[Garrett Wollman]

Post by tonbei
This is from MLB's web site on the latest game between Padres vs
Dodgers.
In a chippy Game 2, the Padres crushed a postseason-record-tying SIX
homers, Yu Darvish stifled the Dodgers and Jurickson Profar foiled fans
on a HR robbery in a statement win for San Diego.
I have two questions.
1) the meaning of "statement win". I've never seen this phrase.
I guess it means like: a statement of victory

"Statement" here is flowery sportscaster language, which you could
understand as "decisive" or "well beyond expectation".

Post by tonbei
2) foiled fans
I guess this "fans" is fans of the other team, Dodgers.
If so, Jurickson Profar made a mockery of Dodgers' fans who were saying
that a home run had been robbed.

Not really. This has to be understood in the context of "an HR
robbery", that is to say, it looked like the Dodgers had hit a home
run, which would obviously have pleased the Dodger fans, but at the
last instant, Padres outfielder Profar managed to catch the ball. (I
didn't watch the game but typically you'd expect this to happen by the
outfielder leaping up and catching the ball as it passed over the
outfield fence.) "Foiled", then, means that the Dodger fans' hopes
(of a home run) were dashed.

-GAWollman

[Rich Ulrich]

On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 15:52:37 -0000 (UTC),

Post by Garrett Wollman

Post by tonbei
This is from MLB's web site on the latest game between Padres vs
Dodgers.
In a chippy Game 2, the Padres crushed a postseason-record-tying SIX
homers, Yu Darvish stifled the Dodgers and Jurickson Profar foiled fans
on a HR robbery in a statement win for San Diego.
I have two questions.
1) the meaning of "statement win". I've never seen this phrase.
I guess it means like: a statement of victory

"Statement" here is flowery sportscaster language, which you could
understand as "decisive" or "well beyond expectation".

Moreover,
"This win certainly makes a statement, doesn't it, Tony!"

- is an old sportscaster cliche. Regular fans would have little
trouble with "statement win" where the writer is freshening
the cliche. Or trying to.

[tonbei]

About a HR robbery,
that home run was robbed of or about to be robbed of by which side in
this sentence?

1) Profar caught the ball almost over the fence before it was taken by a
fan, who felt it had been robbed of by the outfielder.
2) A fan almost robbed the ball, but it was foiled by Profar.
From the article quoted here, it's not clear which side is referred to
as a probable robber.

The interpretation of "foil" depends upon it, whether foil means
"humiliate fans" or "deter fans' hopes to catch the ball."

[Tony Cooper]

Post by tonbei
About a HR robbery,
that home run was robbed of or about to be robbed of by which side in
this sentence?
1) Profar caught the ball almost over the fence before it was taken by a
fan, who felt it had been robbed of by the outfielder.
2) A fan almost robbed the ball, but it was foiled by Profar.
From the article quoted here, it's not clear which side is referred to
as a probable robber.

The hitter was robbed of what would have been a home run by Profar's
catch. Some fan was robbed of what would have been a souvenir home
run ball.

Post by tonbei
The interpretation of "foil" depends upon it, whether foil means
"humiliate fans" or "deter fans' hopes to catch the ball."

I don't know how "foil" can mean "humiliate". It means "deprive" in
any context. A fan was deprived of obtaining a home run ball.

I don't know what happened in this particular case, but often the
outfielder who makes one of those catches that would have been a home
run flips the ball into the stands for some fan to have. It's a
souvenir for the fan, but not as valuable to the fan as it would have
been had it not been caught for an out.

[tonbei]

Here's an instance of "foil" listed as meaning: humiliate

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=foil

(v.) To publicly humiliate or embarrass someone. To prove someone wrong
in an embarrassing manner. Synonymous with "own" or "pwn."
HP really foiled Falc by posting his gigantic rambling love letter to
her for everyone else to see on the internet.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by tonbei
Here's an instance of "foil" listed as meaning: humiliate
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=foil
(v.) To publicly humiliate or embarrass someone. To prove someone wrong
in an embarrassing manner. Synonymous with "own" or "pwn."
HP really foiled Falc by posting his gigantic rambling love letter to
her for everyone else to see on the internet.

Contributors to the urban dictionary sometimes have a tendency to add
entries that reflect their own small circle but do not agree with
mainstream English.

[Ross Clark]

Post by Peter Moylan

Here's an instance  of "foil" listed as meaning: humiliate
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=foil
(v.) To publicly humiliate or embarrass someone. To prove someone wrong
in an embarrassing manner. Synonymous with "own" or "pwn."
HP really foiled Falc by posting his gigantic rambling love letter to
her for everyone else to see on the internet.

Contributors to the urban dictionary sometimes have a tendency to add
entries that reflect their own small circle but do not agree with
mainstream English.

True. Contributors to UD are also not professional lexicographers, so
not necessarily good at expressing exactly what words mean, even in
their own personal usage.

Nevertheless: humiliation is probably a frequent effect of being foiled,
(having one's plans or efforts frustrated). This being so, the word is
ripe for misinterpretation, as may have happened in this case.

I don't have enough context for the example sentence to tell exactly
what happened. (Again with UD, one doesn't know whether the illustrative
sentences have really been heard, or are just made up.) Are HP and Falc
celebrities I should know about, or just friends of the writer?

[Tony Cooper]

Post by tonbei
Here's an instance of "foil" listed as meaning: humiliate
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=foil
(v.) To publicly humiliate or embarrass someone. To prove someone wrong
in an embarrassing manner. Synonymous with "own" or "pwn."
HP really foiled Falc by posting his gigantic rambling love letter to
her for everyone else to see on the internet.

I don't consider the Urban Dictionary a reliable source of useful
definitions. What it does is provide the definition that at least one
contributor came up with.

I would not read the example sentence to mean that HP foiled Falc. He
may have embarassed Falc, but there's nothing in the sentence that
indicates HP deterred Falc from accomplishing anything.

Dick Dastardly, when he exclaims "Curses, foiled again", is not
humiliated. He seems to take it as a mere setback.

The Australian example is slang usage, and Urban Dictionary does often
list common slang.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Tony Cooper
Dick Dastardly, when he exclaims "Curses, foiled again", is not
humiliated. He seems to take it as a mere setback.

That takes me back to my childhood. We lived in a garbage dump at the
time. The younger children had the job of searching through the garbage
for useable pieces of aluminium foil. The older boys went on rat hunts.
In the evenings, my mother prepared rat meat wrapped in foil, which she
cooked in a wood fire.

It was a monotonous diet, and I hated it. Now and then I would ask
"What's for dinner?" in the hope of hearing about something different to
eat. But the answer was always the same.

"Rats. Foiled again."

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Tony Cooper

About a HR robbery, that home run was robbed of or about to be
robbed of by which side in this sentence?
1) Profar caught the ball almost over the fence before it was taken
by a fan, who felt it had been robbed of by the outfielder. 2) A
fan almost robbed the ball, but it was foiled by Profar. From the
article quoted here, it's not clear which side is referred to as a
probable robber.

The hitter was robbed of what would have been a home run by Profar's
catch. Some fan was robbed of what would have been a souvenir home
run ball.

The interpretation of "foil" depends upon it, whether foil means
"humiliate fans" or "deter fans' hopes to catch the ball."

I don't know how "foil" can mean "humiliate". It means "deprive" in
any context. A fan was deprived of obtaining a home run ball.

I think you're overemphasizing the detail of a possibly souvenired ball.
The fact that a fan might or might not have obtained a ball to take home
is a vaguely interesting side detail, but is not the main part of the story.

In the originally cited passage, the "HR robbery" refers to the fact
that the batter was robbed of a home run. That is all about what the
fielder did, and nothing to do with what happened to the physical ball
afterwards. By extension, the supporters of that team were robbed of a
victory by their side.

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Tony Cooper

About a HR robbery, that home run was robbed of or about to be
robbed of by which side in this sentence?
1) Profar caught the ball almost over the fence before it was taken
by a fan, who felt it had been robbed of by the outfielder. 2) A
fan almost robbed the ball, but it was foiled by Profar. From the
article quoted here, it's not clear which side is referred to as a
probable robber.

The hitter was robbed of what would have been a home run by Profar's
catch. Some fan was robbed of what would have been a souvenir home
run ball.

The interpretation of "foil" depends upon it, whether foil means
"humiliate fans" or "deter fans' hopes to catch the ball."

I don't know how "foil" can mean "humiliate". It means "deprive" in
any context. A fan was deprived of obtaining a home run ball.

I think you're overemphasizing the detail of a possibly souvenired ball.
The fact that a fan might or might not have obtained a ball to take home
is a vaguely interesting side detail, but is not the main part of the story.

It is not the main point of this incident, but I think you are
underemphasizing the importance to fans of obtaining a home run ball.
There would have been fans who chose to sit in that part of the
stadium just to have a chance at a souvenir ball. Some choose seats
where foul balls often fall.

Post by Peter Moylan
In the originally cited passage, the "HR robbery" refers to the fact
that the batter was robbed of a home run. That is all about what the
fielder did, and nothing to do with what happened to the physical ball
afterwards. By extension, the supporters of that team were robbed of a
victory by their side.

The "supporters" were the Dodger's fans. The final score was 10-2 in
favor of the Padres. That incident did not lead to the loss of a
victory by the Dodgers, but it did set the tone as it occurred in the
first inning.

BTW...the Padres hit 6 balls into the stands for home runs in that
game. Six fans went home with souvenir home run balls. Dunno if the
retrievers of those six balls were Padre or Dodger supporters. Both
are Southern California clubs, so we'd expect some Padre supporters at
Dodger Stadium.

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 15:52:37 -0000 (UTC),

Post by Garrett Wollman

Post by tonbei
This is from MLB's web site on the latest game between Padres vs
Dodgers.
In a chippy Game 2, the Padres crushed a postseason-record-tying SIX
homers, Yu Darvish stifled the Dodgers and Jurickson Profar foiled fans
on a HR robbery in a statement win for San Diego.
I have two questions.
1) the meaning of "statement win". I've never seen this phrase.
I guess it means like: a statement of victory

"Statement" here is flowery sportscaster language, which you could
understand as "decisive" or "well beyond expectation".

"Sportscaster"? In this case, maybe, but I would think the most
common usage of "statement" in this type of context would be in the
fashioncaster area. Jewelry, gowns, and even men's outfits are often
described as "fashion statements".

A "fashion statement" is usually something that describes the wearer
as adopting a style that is different from what other people in the
same field are wearing. Some say that Tim Walz is making a "fashion
statement" by wearing flannel and Carhartt. Billie Elilish's "fashion
statement" is "sloppy casual". John Fetterman's hoodies are a
"fashion statement". Hanging it all out is Kimberly Guilfoyle's
"fashion statement".

[Peter Moylan]

but at the last instant, Padres outfielder Profar managed to catch
the ball. (I didn't watch the game but typically you'd expect this
to happen by the outfielder leaping up and catching the ball as it
passed over the outfield fence.)

Is that legal? In cricket, such a catch counts as a catch only if the
fielder manages to land inside the boundary after the catch. If he lands
with even one foot on the wrong side of the boundary, then officially
the ball has been hit outside the ground.

[Snidely]

Post by Peter Moylan

but at the last instant, Padres outfielder Profar managed to catch
the ball. (I didn't watch the game but typically you'd expect this
to happen by the outfielder leaping up and catching the ball as it
passed over the outfield fence.)

Is that legal? In cricket, such a catch counts as a catch only if the
fielder manages to land inside the boundary after the catch. If he lands
with even one foot on the wrong side of the boundary, then officially
the ball has been hit outside the ground.

Yes, it's legal in baseball. Fans and fielders may be competing for
the catch, but a too-eager fan will result in an interference call, and
the out will be awarded. That can also happen if a fan catches a ball
on the player side of the wall, even if the player could not catch the
ball, because that ball is supposed to still be in play and can be
thrown to the infield to attempt a tag or force out.

/dps

[lar3ryca]

Post by Peter Moylan

but at the last instant, Padres outfielder Profar managed to catch
the ball.  (I didn't watch the game but typically you'd expect this
to happen by the outfielder leaping up and catching the ball as it
passed over the outfield fence.)

Is that legal? In cricket, such a catch counts as a catch only if the
fielder manages to land inside the boundary after the catch. If he lands
with even one foot on the wrong side of the boundary, then officially
the ball has been hit outside the ground.

There are very few instances of a fielder catching a ball that was going
to go over the fence, and landing outside the playing field, and to be
honest, I have no idea what the call would be in that case.

I _think_ that it would still be deemed a catch, though.

[Garrett Wollman]

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Peter Moylan
Is that legal? In cricket, such a catch counts as a catch only if the
fielder manages to land inside the boundary after the catch. If he lands
with even one foot on the wrong side of the boundary, then officially
the ball has been hit outside the ground.

There are very few instances of a fielder catching a ball that was going
to go over the fence, and landing outside the playing field, and to be
honest, I have no idea what the call would be in that case.
I _think_ that it would still be deemed a catch, though.

Yes, when fielder catches a live ball, that's an out regardless of
where on the field the catch was made.[1] There was a very famous one
in a playoff series the Red Sox were involved in, in which an
outfielder made the out but landed in the bullpen (and I think had to
be removed from the game), which at Fenway Park is just beyond the
fence on the right side of center field. Line-drive home runs often
end up in the bullpens; it's very rare for an outfielder to have to
run that far and still be able to catch one. There have been a few
other incidents at Fenway where an outfielder had tumbled over the
wall and landed in the opposing team's bullpen without managing to
make a catch.

-GAWollman

[1] There are circumstances in which a ball can be ruled "dead" before
the fielder catches it.

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Peter Moylan

but at the last instant, Padres outfielder Profar managed to catch
the ball. (I didn't watch the game but typically you'd expect this
to happen by the outfielder leaping up and catching the ball as it
passed over the outfield fence.)

Is that legal? In cricket, such a catch counts as a catch only if the
fielder manages to land inside the boundary after the catch. If he lands
with even one foot on the wrong side of the boundary, then officially
the ball has been hit outside the ground.

The outfielder comes down in-bounds. He leaps up to catch the ball as
it goes over the outfield fence, but comes down on the playing field
side of the fence.

All of the major and minor league ballparks are enclosed by a fence in
the outfield area. The "fence" is actually a wall, but is often
referred to as a "fence".

The wall/fence at Dodger Stadium is 55 in (140 cm) tall with seating
behind the wall/fence.

Loading Image...
Players often go over the wall and end up in the stands when catching
a foul ball in the infield area. As long as the ball stays in the
glove, the catch is legal and an out.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Peter Moylan

but at the last instant, Padres outfielder Profar managed to
catch the ball. (I didn't watch the game but typically you'd
expect this to happen by the outfielder leaping up and catching
the ball as it passed over the outfield fence.)

Is that legal? In cricket, such a catch counts as a catch only if
the fielder manages to land inside the boundary after the catch. If
he lands with even one foot on the wrong side of the boundary, then
officially the ball has been hit outside the ground.

The outfielder comes down in-bounds. He leaps up to catch the ball
as it goes over the outfield fence, but comes down on the playing
field side of the fence.
All of the major and minor league ballparks are enclosed by a fence
in the outfield area. The "fence" is actually a wall, but is often
referred to as a "fence".

OK, that's a big difference. On a cricket ground the fence is what the
audience stands or sits behind. The legal boundary of the playing field
sits a couple of metres inside that. In the simplest case the boundary
is just a painted line. More often these days it is something raised a
few centimetres above ground level; Not much of a barrier, but it's
there to make it clear whether a ball hit the ground just before or just
after the boundary.

That means that a fielder might cross the boundary temporarily while
running, but he still has to grab the ball before it hits the boundary,
or the batsman will score a "four". That's in the case of a rolling
ball. If it's a high ball, then he must catch it before it passes the
boundary, and the proof of that is that after the leap he has to land
inside the boundary.

Of course a more typical case is where the ball is low enough to catch
without leaping. There, obviously, the fielder just has to be in the
right place at the right time. But is has to be inside the boundary.

I'm not sure what happens when the fielder catches the ball inside the
boundary, but then falls over so that his body is outside the boundary.
I think that that still counts as a catch, provided that he doesn't let
the ball touch the ground.

The other case you mentioned, of a foul ball in the infield area,
doesn't create any boundary problems in cricket, because the pitch
(where the batter and bowler are, as well as most of the fielders) is in
the middle of th ground, nowhere near the boundary.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Tony Cooper
The wall/fence at Dodger Stadium is 55 in (140 cm) tall with seating
behind the wall/fence.

I seem to remember some movie or video where the fence was something
like 3 meters. Is that possible?

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 10:45:27 +0200, Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Tony Cooper
The wall/fence at Dodger Stadium is 55 in (140 cm) tall with seating
behind the wall/fence.

I seem to remember some movie or video where the fence was something
like 3 meters. Is that possible?

Oh, yes. The "Green Wall" at Fenway Park (Boston) is 37'2" (11.33
meters), and there are other very high outfield fences (walls).

The newer stadiums, though, want that extra seating area and build
lower walls and tiers of seats behind them.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Tue, 08 Oct 2024 08:41:41 -0400, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 10:45:27 +0200, Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Tony Cooper
The wall/fence at Dodger Stadium is 55 in (140 cm) tall with seating
behind the wall/fence.

I seem to remember some movie or video where the fence was something
like 3 meters. Is that possible?

Oh, yes. The "Green Wall" at Fenway Park (Boston) is 37'2" (11.33
meters), and there are other very high outfield fences (walls).

I've always thought that having a high wall was intended
as compensation for having a shorter distance to the wall.
The Wiki article on Fenway Park says nothing about that,
but the distance to the Green Wall is shorter than the minimum
now mandated for new stadiums, 325 feet.

The Green Monster is the nickname of the 37.167 feet (11.329 m)[65]
left field wall in the park. It is located 310 to 315 feet (94 to
96 m) from home plate; this short distance often benefits
right-handed hitters.

Okay, a rule gives minimum distances. Unlike other sports
I can think of, Home Fields do differ in dimensions.

I wondered about ice hockey -- Google AI says US and Europe
differ in their standards, but there are standards. What I read
once about "home ice advantage" was (as I recall) talked about
"soft ice" and maybe the physical walls.

Post by Tony Cooper
The newer stadiums, though, want that extra seating area and build
lower walls and tiers of seats behind them.

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 08 Oct 2024 11:20:57 -0400, Rich Ulrich

Post by Rich Ulrich
On Tue, 08 Oct 2024 08:41:41 -0400, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 10:45:27 +0200, Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Tony Cooper
The wall/fence at Dodger Stadium is 55 in (140 cm) tall with seating
behind the wall/fence.

I seem to remember some movie or video where the fence was something
like 3 meters. Is that possible?

Oh, yes. The "Green Wall" at Fenway Park (Boston) is 37'2" (11.33
meters), and there are other very high outfield fences (walls).

I've always thought that having a high wall was intended
as compensation for having a shorter distance to the wall.
The Wiki article on Fenway Park says nothing about that,
but the distance to the Green Wall is shorter than the minimum
now mandated for new stadiums, 325 feet.
The Green Monster is the nickname of the 37.167 feet (11.329 m)[65]
left field wall in the park. It is located 310 to 315 feet (94 to
96 m) from home plate; this short distance often benefits
right-handed hitters.
Okay, a rule gives minimum distances. Unlike other sports
I can think of, Home Fields do differ in dimensions.

I'm a "Cubbies" fan, but when I traveled I tried to attend events at
as many stadiums and areas as I could. The view and the coverage of
most sports are better on TV than in person, but there's nothing like
being in the stands for the real experience.

I was (cross-thread alert!) foiled at Fenway Park, though. When in
Boston on business, I had an associate drop me off at Fenway Park so I
could attend a game there. I went up to the box office to purchase a
ticket and discovered I'd left my billfold in my jacket in the
associate's car.

I'd arranged for the associate to pick me up after the game, but I had
no way to contact him to have him return to Fenway. (No cell phones
in those days) Without my billfold, I had neither cash nor a credit
card to use for either transportation back to my hotel or to buy as
much as a cup of coffee. I had to wait around outside the stadium
until the game was over to be picked up.

On a different business trip to Boston, I went to a hockey game at the
old Boston Garden. I'm not a hockey fan, and knew nothing about the
rules of the game, but I wanted to visit The Garden.

I turned to a well-dressed man next to me and asked what "icing the
puck" meant. He gave me a disgusted look and told me to "Read the
fucking rule book" and then ignored me. I still don't understand that
rule.

I had a better experience at the Texas Stadium (where the Dallas
Cowboys played at the time). Some people in the row ahead of me were
eating Nachos sold by the roaming vendors. I'd never seen Nachos
before that, and asked what they were.

One of the people laughed, called over the Nacho vendor, and bought me
a plate of them.

A disappointment at Yankee Stadium: Peanuts come in sealed plastic
pouches, and they'd been packed at some distant time and place. At
Wrigley, in Chicago, they served freshly-prepared peanuts in a paper
sack. Authenticity.

At a hockey game in Madison Square Garden, a multi-fan fist fight
broke out two rows up from me. Not just a few swings, but a full-on
fight.

[Garrett Wollman]

Post by Rich Ulrich
I wondered about ice hockey -- Google AI says US and Europe
differ in their standards, but there are standards. What I read
once about "home ice advantage" was (as I recall) talked about
"soft ice" and maybe the physical walls.

There is an NHL standard and an IIHF/"Olympic" standard rink size. An
NHL rink is smaller than an IIHF rink, so NHL players are somewhat
closer together. That said, most international play in North America
is on NHL-sized rinks because most of the Olympic rinks are used for
figure-skating training, not hockey, and therefore do not have enough
seating for a hockey game. (Likewise, when major figure skating
competitions are held in North America, they are typically on
smaller-than-regulation NHL arenas because of the lack of audience
capacity at the international-spec. rinks, as happened this year in
Montreal and will happen again next year in Boston.)

-GAWollman

[Mark Brader]

Post by Garrett Wollman

Post by Rich Ulrich
I wondered about ice hockey -- Google AI says US and Europe
differ in their standards, but there are standards.

There is an NHL standard and an IIHF/"Olympic" standard rink size. An
NHL rink is smaller than an IIHF rink, so NHL players are somewhat
closer together. That said, most international play in North America
is on NHL-sized rinks...

Back when I watched hockey regularly, all the NHL teams had home
rinks that were the standard 85-foot width, and almost all had the
standard 200-foot length, but there were two or three exceptions.
I think the Boston Garden rink was 188 feet long, one of the newer
teams had a 205-foot rink, and there might have been one that was
about 192 or 195 feet. The variations affected the size of the
center zone, and I don't remember any commentators ever suggesting
that they affected the play of the game significantly.

International rinks were also 200 feet long (or maybe some similar
length in meters), but significantly wider.

[lar3ryca]

Post by Rich Ulrich
On Tue, 08 Oct 2024 08:41:41 -0400, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 10:45:27 +0200, Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Tony Cooper
The wall/fence at Dodger Stadium is 55 in (140 cm) tall with seating
behind the wall/fence.

I seem to remember some movie or video where the fence was something
like 3 meters. Is that possible?

Oh, yes. The "Green Wall" at Fenway Park (Boston) is 37'2" (11.33
meters), and there are other very high outfield fences (walls).

I've always thought that having a high wall was intended
as compensation for having a shorter distance to the wall.
The Wiki article on Fenway Park says nothing about that,
but the distance to the Green Wall is shorter than the minimum
now mandated for new stadiums, 325 feet.
The Green Monster is the nickname of the 37.167 feet (11.329 m)[65]
left field wall in the park. It is located 310 to 315 feet (94 to
96 m) from home plate; this short distance often benefits
right-handed hitters.
Okay, a rule gives minimum distances. Unlike other sports
I can think of, Home Fields do differ in dimensions.
I wondered about ice hockey -- Google AI says US and Europe
differ in their standards, but there are standards. What I read
once about "home ice advantage" was (as I recall) talked about
"soft ice" and maybe the physical walls.

Icing the puck is when a player plays the puck (shooting or attempting
to pass it) on his own side of the red line (centre line), and without
being contacted by another player [1], hits the far wall, missing the
goal or not being played by the goaltender. [2]

[3] If a player on the team who iced the puck gets to the puck before an
opposing player, icing is waved off.

[1] If it is contacted in any way by an opposing player, icing is not
called. If it is contacted by a player on the same team between the
centre line and the opposing blue line, icing is not called.

[2] Icing may be waved off if the opposing player(s) are deliberately
skating slowly in order to generate an icing call.

[3] In the past, the race for the puck was a dangerous activity, in that
the players skating VERY quickly were often slammed into the boards at
a high rate of speed, often resulting in serious injuries.
To enhance player safety, the officials now position themselves in line
with the opposing player's dots in their face-off circles, and as soon
as one player crosses that imaginary line, the whistle is blown if the
opposing player crossed it first. If the other player is first, icing is
waved off.

[jerryfriedman]

On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 3:28:09 +0000, Tony Cooper wrote:
..

Post by Tony Cooper
The wall/fence at Dodger Stadium is 55 in (140 cm) tall with seating
behind the wall/fence.

That sounds as if it's asking for injuries. Players
have been hurt by slamming into a fence at upper-back
height or jumping and coming down on top of a fence.

Post by Tony Cooper
https://img.mlbstatic.com/mlb-images/image/private/t_16x9/t_w2208/mlb/ihqtqmjae9cbhwf2fq7c.jpg
Players often go over the wall and end up in the stands when catching
a foul ball in the infield area. As long as the ball stays in the
glove, the catch is legal and an out.

Maybe the low fence is worth it because the fans in
the front row like the chance of a player crashing into
them.

--
Jerry Friedman