June 9

Leonard Nimoy played the role of "Konig" is one of his original Outer Limits episodes: Production and Decay of Strange Particles. He later co-stared with Walter Koenig in the original Star Trek. Just a coincidence ? StuRat (talk) 04:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What else could it be? (Also, I think you mean co-starred, though I suppose they both stared at a lot of things; Nichelle was quite a looker). Are you suggesting Nimoy influenced the hiring to commemorate the earlier episode somehow? I'm honestly perplexed. Matt Deres (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps Nimoy knew Konig before they worked together in Star Trek, so suggested that name for his character. Just one of many possibilities. StuRat (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems highly unlikely. The history of the making of Star Trek as been covered in numerous books and documentaries and it is hard to imagine that it wouldn't have been mentioned before. BTW the names are not pronounced the same. Looks like you are having a fun journey down the

WP:SYNTH road. Note I am not criticizing. It is fun and I have done things like that before. For example Star Trek and Dr Who both did shows about the Gunfight at the OK Corral withing a couple years of each other but I have never found that ST did it because of the DW episode. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 23:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

In the episode Nick of Time (The Twilight Zone), Shatner plays a guy bedeviled by a fortune telling machine. In the Star Trek episode The Devil in the Dark, Shatner comes to the creature's defense just in the nick of time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and Nimoy appeared in

Mission Impossible, playing a character that replaced one played by Martin Landau, who eventually went on to play... gasp... Commander John Koenig

( in other words, it's possible to find random coincidences in almost any set of data )

90.244.137.60 (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One time in Mission:Impossible, Nimoy got to say "He's dead, Jim." —Tamfang (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"... but not as we know it". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am watching the set of DVDs with highlights of each of the World Cup tournaments. I notice that, from the 30's to the 50's, some of the goalies are wearing caps and I don't mean this Cap (sport) :-). They look like the Newsboy cap although that may not be the right name for them. I am wondering of there was some story behind the wearing of these. They disappear by the sixties so I also wonder if they just fazed phased out through young players not wanting to wear them or were rules enacted saying they couldn't be worn. Any info will be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 21:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, goalkeepers wear different colored uniforms than the rest of the team to make them easy to identify. Could the cap have been used in that regard; as a means to give the goalkeeper something to make them stand out? --Jayron32 00:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is a possibility. With the exception of some hand tinting that was added to the film of the first final between Uruguay and Argentina all the footage is in black and white. Still there does look to be some differentiation between goalie and team unis. Also, some of the goalies are not wearing caps. It is amazing to see some of the picturesque towns and small stadiums that were used when Switzerland, Sweden and Chile were hosts. Thanks for the suggestion J. MarnetteD | Talk 01:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goalkeepers (and any other players) are still permitted to wear hats (Section 22 Goalkeeper Cap) although none wear them all the time. The main reasons for wearing them are to protect from sunlight glare and also for warmth (As the Goalkeeper isn't the most active player on the pitch, some have worn wool hats in the winter). I would surmise that one of the reasons they have dropped out of fashion is due to the development of the stadiums. With the addition of higher and larger stands over the years - low angle sunlight is less of a problem during most games in higher leagues and competitions. Nanonic (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goalkeepers with caps were once a common sight in club football too in the UK. In fact, Subbuteo used to make figurines of goalkeepers both with and without caps. I'd guess that Nanonic's probably not far off the truth. --Dweller (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link N. Interesting info. Thanks to you as well D. I saw those Subbuteo figurines in one of the Britcoms that aired here in the US on PBS back in the 70's though, for the life of me, I can't remember which one at the moment. MarnetteD | Talk 15:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nanonic: FYI the documentary for 1966 proved exactly what you have described. In the final the West German goalie Hans Tilkowski is seen bareheaded in the first half. He has a hat on in the second and the camera shows the sun's rays covering his end of the field. This was the first documentary in colour so it was much easier to see what you described. Thanks again for sharing your knowledge. MarnetteD | Talk 02:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I was learning about the rest of the worlds football as a young 'un there were two different free kicks. Indirect, where two players had to touch it before going in the goal, and direct, where it could be kicked directly into the goal. If memory serves it was the severity of the foul that determined which would be used. I could be wrong but I think these rules were still in place into the 1980's as Toby Charles was talking about them in the Soccer Made in Germany series that we watched on PBS. I can certainly understand why the distinction was fazed phased out as it is a complete judgement call for the officials. I do wonder when the rules were changed and did they disappear all at once or was it at different times in each country. Again, info provided is much appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 21:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the distinction between a

indirect free kick? St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Those are the ones. I notice that neither article mentions that the distinction has been fazed phased out. I would mention that I haven't heard an announcer mention these in decades which seems odd if they are still in the rule book. Thanks for the links S. MarnetteD | Talk 22:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, but that would be "phased out" Britmax (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite correct. Is that a

WP:ENGVAR thing or is it just that I have been watching too many shows set in and about the sixties recently :-) MarnetteD | Talk 23:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

A quick look at wikitionary taught me the errors of my way. Thanks again Britmax. MarnetteD | Talk 23:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I was dazed and confused. MarnetteD | Talk 23:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better than being tired and emotional. Britmax (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! Very true. Thanks for the link to that article B. I might never have found it otherwise. MarnetteD | Talk 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction has not been phased out - it still applies. A direct free kick is awarded when a player commits a deliberate foul or handball outside the penalty area. An indirect free kick is awarded when a player commits another type of infringement such as obstruction or dangerous play, or if a goalkeeper handles a back pass, etc. The referee signals that an indirect rather than direct free kick has been awarded by raising his hand above his head. More info here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update G. The link is much appreciated. Interesting to know. I guess that it is just the announcers that have stopped mentioning the difference between the two. MarnetteD | Talk 15:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]