1552: "Rulebook"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Dr What
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:43 am UTC

1552: "Rulebook"

Postby Dr What » Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:26 am UTC

Image
title="It's definitely an intentional foul, but we've decided it's worth it."

Some show dogs were poisoned in March this year, but not eaten. Maybe there's something about eating a dog in the rulebook; or maybe they didn't use chocolate.
Last edited by Dr What on Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:27 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

ps.02
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:02 pm UTC

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby ps.02 » Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:55 am UTC

"There's nothing in the rulebook that says we can't start a comic thread with nothing to say about the comic."

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 915
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby da Doctah » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:17 am UTC

I'll bet you could read the rulebook cover-to-cover and not find anything that prohibits them from killing and eating you, either.

User avatar
Envelope Generator
Posts: 582
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:07 am UTC
Location: pareidolia

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby Envelope Generator » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:45 am UTC

Think twice before taking your dog to a 도그쇼.
I'm going to step off the LEM now... here we are, Pismo Beach and all the clams we can eat

eSOANEM wrote:If Fonzie's on the order of 100 zeptokelvin, I think he has bigger problems than difracting through doors.

User avatar
Neil_Boekend
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 6:35 am UTC
Location: Yes.

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby Neil_Boekend » Fri Jul 17, 2015 6:30 am UTC

Dr What wrote:Some show dogs were poisoned in March this year, but not eaten. Maybe there's something about eating a dog in the rulebook; or maybe they didn't use chocolate.

AFAIK:for humans poisoning is a valid method for either animals you don't want to eat but do want to kill or to sedate so you can take em with you to camp so they can metabolize the poison in captivity. Eating after injecting with a lethal poison messes op the taste, even if it isn't unhealthy due to the lethal poison.
Usually animals for eating are trapped or shot.
Mikeski wrote:A "What If" update is never late. Nor is it early. It is posted precisely when it should be.

patzer's signature wrote:
flicky1991 wrote:I'm being quoted too much!

he/him/his

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby Djehutynakht » Fri Jul 17, 2015 8:35 am UTC

Eh. I'm not particularly fond of this one.

Jonathan589
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 9:51 pm UTC

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby Jonathan589 » Fri Jul 17, 2015 8:43 am UTC

Dr What wrote:
Some show dogs were poisoned in March this year, but not eaten. Maybe there's something about eating a dog in the rulebook; or maybe they didn't use chocolate.

I remember the killing of a Crufts prize-winning red setter in March, which was done with poisoned meat given after the show, but that surely couldn't be the event this comic is commenting on. Was it an American happening? Or a pet show in the Far East?

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4873
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby HES » Fri Jul 17, 2015 8:44 am UTC

I'm surprised the rulebook doesn't reference the bigger, overriding rulebook known as "the law". At the very least that would be destruction of property.
He/Him/His Image

KraZug
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:39 pm UTC

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby KraZug » Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:08 am UTC

Incidentally, the Crufts prize-winning dog was determined to be poisoned when back in Belgium, not at the show itself.

CharlieP
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:22 am UTC
Location: Nottingham, UK

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby CharlieP » Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:14 am UTC

I had to check explainxcd, whose proffered reasoning is that it's a reference to a film called Air Bud, where a golden retriever inexplicably joins a basketball team, under the premise that nothing in the rulebook proscribes said canine's participation.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

NMcCoy
Posts: 390
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 4:25 pm UTC
Location: Portland, OR

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby NMcCoy » Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:58 am UTC

Air Bud and its ilk are definitely the reference here; see [TVTropes warning] Animal Athlete Loophole for a collection of examples.
Image

User avatar
The Moomin
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:59 am UTC
Location: Yorkshire

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby The Moomin » Fri Jul 17, 2015 10:38 am UTC

Is there anything in the rulebook that explicitly states that only that rulebook can be applied to the event in question, or is it taken for granted that people will just refer to the correct rulebook?

As long as you're obeying a rulebook that doesn't explicitly state that it only applies to certain situations, I think it should be allowed.
I possibly don't pay enough attention to what's going on.
I help make architect's dreams flesh.

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 1947
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby cellocgw » Fri Jul 17, 2015 11:16 am UTC

Envelope Generator wrote:Think twice before taking your dog to a 도그쇼.


So, while I was sleeping, the new leetspeek is to write in Korean? Am I missing something here? :oops:
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 1947
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby cellocgw » Fri Jul 17, 2015 11:22 am UTC

HES wrote:I'm surprised the rulebook doesn't reference the bigger, overriding rulebook known as "the law". At the very least that would be destruction of property.


You might think so, but in 'Murica and AFAIK most countries, assaults comitted during a sanctioned sporting event are all but entirely exempt from the legal process. There's almost never been a successful prosecution of an athlete who took out another athlete. Back in the 90s, some college baseball pitcher, during warmups, got mad at an opposing player who he thought was trying to time his pitch motion (even tho' said player was looking theother way) and threw a fastball at him. Said player suffered broken bones in his face and permanent damage to one eye, knocking him out of baseball permanently. No charges filed.

Or more recently, the fiasco over the Texas NFL team's players being offered bounties to injore opposing players. Total punishment: fines and suspensions. No action by the police or district attorneys.

So, no, the rulebook is the presiding arbiter.
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
Eternal Density
Posts: 5551
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:37 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby Eternal Density » Fri Jul 17, 2015 11:29 am UTC

Should have been BHG.
Play the game of Time! castle.chirpingmustard.com Hotdog Vending Supplier But what is this?
In the Marvel vs. DC film-making war, we're all winners.

User avatar
NeatNit
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 9:10 pm UTC

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby NeatNit » Fri Jul 17, 2015 11:33 am UTC

cellocgw wrote:
HES wrote:I'm surprised the rulebook doesn't reference the bigger, overriding rulebook known as "the law". At the very least that would be destruction of property.


You might think so, but in 'Murica and AFAIK most countries, assaults comitted during a sanctioned sporting event are all but entirely exempt from the legal process. There's almost never been a successful prosecution of an athlete who took out another athlete. Back in the 90s, some college baseball pitcher, during warmups, got mad at an opposing player who he thought was trying to time his pitch motion (even tho' said player was looking theother way) and threw a fastball at him. Said player suffered broken bones in his face and permanent damage to one eye, knocking him out of baseball permanently. No charges filed.

Or more recently, the fiasco over the Texas NFL team's players being offered bounties to injore opposing players. Total punishment: fines and suspensions. No action by the police or district attorneys.

So, no, the rulebook is the presiding arbiter.

That's horrible. Are these the exceptions or the norm?

User avatar
jc
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 5:48 pm UTC
Location: Waltham, Massachusetts, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy
Contact:

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby jc » Fri Jul 17, 2015 11:54 am UTC

NeatNit wrote:
cellocgw wrote:
HES wrote:I'm surprised the rulebook doesn't reference the bigger, overriding rulebook known as "the law". At the very least that would be destruction of property.


You might think so, but in 'Murica and AFAIK most countries, assaults comitted during a sanctioned sporting event are all but entirely exempt from the legal process. There's almost never been a successful prosecution of an athlete who took out another athlete. Back in the 90s, some college baseball pitcher, during warmups, got mad at an opposing player who he thought was trying to time his pitch motion (even tho' said player was looking theother way) and threw a fastball at him. Said player suffered broken bones in his face and permanent damage to one eye, knocking him out of baseball permanently. No charges filed.

Or more recently, the fiasco over the Texas NFL team's players being offered bounties to injore opposing players. Total punishment: fines and suspensions. No action by the police or district attorneys.

So, no, the rulebook is the presiding arbiter.

That's horrible. Are these the exceptions or the norm?

Well, we've recently seen "entertainment" things like the Hunger Game movies about a return to gladatorial fight-to-the-death events. But we haven't heard from the police or other authorities saying "We'd never allow that". So draw your own conclusions. ;-)

User avatar
ModestMouse
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 3:26 pm UTC

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby ModestMouse » Fri Jul 17, 2015 12:47 pm UTC

Not a cool comic...

Ayeffkay
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:00 pm UTC

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby Ayeffkay » Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:08 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:
HES wrote:I'm surprised the rulebook doesn't reference the bigger, overriding rulebook known as "the law". At the very least that would be destruction of property.


You might think so, but in 'Murica and AFAIK most countries, assaults comitted during a sanctioned sporting event are all but entirely exempt from the legal process. There's almost never been a successful prosecution of an athlete who took out another athlete. Back in the 90s, some college baseball pitcher, during warmups, got mad at an opposing player who he thought was trying to time his pitch motion (even tho' said player was looking theother way) and threw a fastball at him. Said player suffered broken bones in his face and permanent damage to one eye, knocking him out of baseball permanently. No charges filed.

Or more recently, the fiasco over the Texas NFL team's players being offered bounties to injore opposing players. Total punishment: fines and suspensions. No action by the police or district attorneys.

So, no, the rulebook is the presiding arbiter.


There was the Marty McSorley incident in 2000. He got 18 months probation.

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 1947
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby cellocgw » Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:12 pm UTC

ModestMouse wrote:Not a cool comic...


Clearly you're too young to remember the National Lampoon cover featuring a nice doggie and a man pointing a gun at it, with the caption "Buy this magazine or I shoot the dog."

Now you youngsters get offa my dog-poop-covered lawn.
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
Neil_Boekend
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 6:35 am UTC
Location: Yes.

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby Neil_Boekend » Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:14 pm UTC

reply wrote:There is also nothing in the rulebook about summoning the ghost of the dog you ate to haunt you and your descendants forever.
Mikeski wrote:A "What If" update is never late. Nor is it early. It is posted precisely when it should be.

patzer's signature wrote:
flicky1991 wrote:I'm being quoted too much!

he/him/his

raave
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:11 pm UTC

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby raave » Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:20 pm UTC

Anti-dog-eat dog rule with slight alterations might be of use here.

User avatar
Keyman
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:56 pm UTC

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby Keyman » Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:36 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:
HES wrote:
Or more recently, the fiasco over the Texas NFL team's players being offered bounties to injure opposing players. Total punishment: fines and suspensions. No action by the police or district attorneys.

So, no, the rulebook is the presiding arbiter.

Not to be picky but... It was the New Orleans Saints (not either Texas team). I remember clearly because, while it was a scheme initiated and endorsed by Defensive Coordinator for most of the season, it really came to light after their 2010 NFC Championship Game travesty when their designated victim was Brett Favre - QB for my Minnesota Vikings. After the game, you could see that his ankle and hamstring were a more vivid purple than the Vikings jerseys.
Nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. - A. Hamilton

Plutarch
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:29 am UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby Plutarch » Fri Jul 17, 2015 2:45 pm UTC

They might fall foul of 'unsporting conduct' or something similar in the rulebook. I'd say it definitely would be unsporting conduct to kill and eat your opponent's dog, I just don't think the referee would allow it. Would be a yellow card at least, maybe red.

User avatar
keithl
Posts: 639
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:46 pm UTC

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby keithl » Fri Jul 17, 2015 2:59 pm UTC

I'm antipathic to Big Team sports. What does the rulebook say about wood chippers?

Canonical
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 3:50 pm UTC

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby Canonical » Fri Jul 17, 2015 3:39 pm UTC

I am enlarging and printing this, putting it into a lovely frame and hanging it on my living room wall. I can then point to it when yet another idiot feels compelled to make a hassenpfeffer/"Is his name, "Dinner"? Harharhar." comment about the house-rabbit. "He looks like food to you? Fine, because your dog looks like dinner to my husband and he says BBQ dog is absolutely delicious. Can we move on to humor of higher intellectual value now, like fart jokes?"

User avatar
The Moomin
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:59 am UTC
Location: Yorkshire

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby The Moomin » Fri Jul 17, 2015 3:42 pm UTC

NeatNit wrote:
cellocgw wrote:
HES wrote:I'm surprised the rulebook doesn't reference the bigger, overriding rulebook known as "the law". At the very least that would be destruction of property.


You might think so, but in 'Murica and AFAIK most countries, assaults comitted during a sanctioned sporting event are all but entirely exempt from the legal process. There's almost never been a successful prosecution of an athlete who took out another athlete. Back in the 90s, some college baseball pitcher, during warmups, got mad at an opposing player who he thought was trying to time his pitch motion (even tho' said player was looking theother way) and threw a fastball at him. Said player suffered broken bones in his face and permanent damage to one eye, knocking him out of baseball permanently. No charges filed.

Or more recently, the fiasco over the Texas NFL team's players being offered bounties to injore opposing players. Total punishment: fines and suspensions. No action by the police or district attorneys.

So, no, the rulebook is the presiding arbiter.

That's horrible. Are these the exceptions or the norm?


The only sport I really watch is football, and I could not remember any legal cases against footballers for on-pitch behaviour except for racism. I found this which was quite interesting: When sport becomes a crime
I possibly don't pay enough attention to what's going on.
I help make architect's dreams flesh.

User avatar
Jackpot777
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby Jackpot777 » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:42 pm UTC

The Moomin wrote:The only sport I really watch is football


Did you see that ludicrous display last night? What was Wenger thinking sending Walcott on that early?

The thing about Arsenal is, they always try and walk it in.

speising
Posts: 2281
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby speising » Fri Jul 17, 2015 6:06 pm UTC

Jackpot777 wrote:
The Moomin wrote:The only sport I really watch is football


Did you see that ludicrous display last night? What was Wenger thinking sending Walcott on that early?

The thing about Arsenal is, they always try and walk it in.

I'm not really into pokemon.

Canonical
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 3:50 pm UTC

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby Canonical » Fri Jul 17, 2015 7:59 pm UTC

The only sport I really watch is football, and I could not remember any legal cases against footballers for on-pitch behaviour except for racism. I found this which was quite interesting: When sport becomes a crime


Well, neither football (soccer) nor football (American), but rugby had it's moment with John Hopoate sticking his finger up opposing players bums on the pitch. He was charged with unlawful sexual connection for it.

pixeldigger
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 12:45 pm UTC

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby pixeldigger » Fri Jul 17, 2015 8:05 pm UTC

Jackpot777 wrote:
The Moomin wrote:The only sport I really watch is football


Did you see that ludicrous display last night? What was Wenger thinking sending Walcott on that early?

The thing about Arsenal is, they always try and walk it in.

My favorite quote..

You appear to have some ManUre on your Arsenal

Cervisiae Amatorem
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 5:47 pm UTC

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby Cervisiae Amatorem » Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:22 pm UTC

Just stopping by to see if anybody else thought this comic was rather lame.

Put the caption on this comic however, comedy gold!

http://joshreads.com/images/13/08/i130816famcirc.jpg

robmobz
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2014 2:18 am UTC
Location: IO91NG82

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby robmobz » Sat Jul 18, 2015 1:32 am UTC

ps.02 wrote:"There's nothing inthe rulebook that says we can't start a comic thread with nothing to say about the comic."


Rules for posting a new comic thread: VI.
Provide some commentary below. This is a discussion after all... No point in just posting what's on the front page of xkcd[.]com and providing nothing else of value"


Looks to me to be there in blue and white.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby Whizbang » Sat Jul 18, 2015 1:39 am UTC

Image

rmsgrey
Posts: 3457
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby rmsgrey » Sat Jul 18, 2015 2:29 am UTC

robmobz wrote:
ps.02 wrote:"There's nothing inthe rulebook that says we can't start a comic thread with nothing to say about the comic."


Rules for posting a new comic thread: VI.
Provide some commentary below. This is a discussion after all... No point in just posting what's on the front page of xkcd[.]com and providing nothing else of value"


Looks to me to be there in blue and white.


Looks to me like there's some commentary there now - it's even tangentially related to the comic, which is more than the rule requires...

dtilque
Posts: 132
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 5:53 am UTC
Location: Nogero

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby dtilque » Sat Jul 18, 2015 3:27 am UTC

Well, there was the infamous Dave Winfield killing a seagull with a thrown baseball incident in Toronto way back in 1983. He was actually arrested for it, but the charges were later dropped. It wasn't a pitched ball; he was throwing it to the ballboy.

Now there was a pitched baseball that killed a bird. Randy Johnson hit and killed a pigeon with a fastball during an exhibition game in 2001. The authorities were slacking off on this one; he wasn't even charged.
Whenever visually representing the universe, it's important to include a picture of Saturn!
-- Tom the Dancing Bug

Tova
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:44 am UTC

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby Tova » Sat Jul 18, 2015 6:36 am UTC

Djehutynakht wrote:Eh. I'm not particularly fond of this one.


I'm getting this a lot recently... comics with clever ideas that haven't quite translated. Like they got rushed to publication and were never quite developed into a really good comic.

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 915
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby da Doctah » Sat Jul 18, 2015 7:12 am UTC

dtilque wrote:=Now there was a pitched baseball that killed a bird. Randy Johnson hit and killed a pigeon with a fastball during an exhibition game in 2001. The authorities were slacking off on this one; he wasn't even charged.


That's just as well. I've seen the video, and it's clear that the bird flew into the path of the already-pitched ball. Culpability: not Mr Unit's.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby Copper Bezel » Sat Jul 18, 2015 8:16 am UTC

speising wrote:
Jackpot777 wrote:
The Moomin wrote:The only sport I really watch is football


Did you see that ludicrous display last night? What was Wenger thinking sending Walcott on that early?

The thing about Arsenal is, they always try and walk it in.

I'm not really into pokemon.

Well played, sir or madam.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
Steve the Pocket
Posts: 695
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:02 am UTC
Location: Going downtuuu in a Luleelurah!

Re: 1552: "Rulebook"

Postby Steve the Pocket » Sun Jul 19, 2015 12:59 am UTC

cellocgw wrote:
HES wrote:I'm surprised the rulebook doesn't reference the bigger, overriding rulebook known as "the law". At the very least that would be destruction of property.


You might think so, but in 'Murica and AFAIK most countries, assaults comitted during a sanctioned sporting event are all but entirely exempt from the legal process. There's almost never been a successful prosecution of an athlete who took out another athlete. Back in the 90s, some college baseball pitcher, during warmups, got mad at an opposing player who he thought was trying to time his pitch motion (even tho' said player was looking theother way) and threw a fastball at him. Said player suffered broken bones in his face and permanent damage to one eye, knocking him out of baseball permanently. No charges filed.

Or more recently, the fiasco over the Texas NFL team's players being offered bounties to injore opposing players. Total punishment: fines and suspensions. No action by the police or district attorneys.

This is frequently extended to any actions committed in any context by a person who happens to be a professional athlete, as well as people who just got done attending a sporting event.
cephalopod9 wrote:Only on Xkcd can you start a topic involving Hitler and people spend the better part of half a dozen pages arguing about the quality of Operating Systems.

Baige.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests