Editing 1552: Rulebook

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 8: Line 8:
  
 
==Explanation==
 
==Explanation==
βˆ’
This comic is a direct reference to the 1997 film ''{{w|Air Bud}}''. In the film, a {{w|golden retriever}} becomes the star player on a {{w|basketball}} team. The obvious objection to an animal playing on human team is raised, but is handwaved by the referee responding "ain't no rule says a dog can't play basketball."  
+
This comic is a direct reference to the film ''{{w|Air Bud}}''. In the film, a {{w|golden retriever}} becomes the star player on a {{w|basketball}} team. The opposing team contests the legality of having a dog as a player, but the referee, having reviewed the rulebook, responds "Ain't no rule says a dog can't play basketball." Here, {{tvtropes|RulesLawyer|the opposing team turns the rulebook loophole against the first team}}. Because rulebooks are considered the final arbiter of decisions in most sports, [[Ponytail]] suggests that, since it isn't explicitly prohibited, her team is allowed to kill and eat the dog. Randall is using this logical fallacy to highlight the absurdity of the plot of ''Air Bud'' and other similar movies in which ordinary animals take on human roles. At the same time, Randall has created an absurd and anticlimactic premise for such a movie, and he may be making a more general commentary on {{w|Hollywood}}'s habit of making movies by combining basic tropes that, by themselves, tend to do well in the box office.
  
βˆ’
In organized sports, the rulebook is generally considered to be the final arbiter of decisions, but the interpretation that anything not explicitly considered in the rulebook is allowed is shaky at best. It's impossible for a rulebook to detail every possible scenario that someone could attempt, and certain basic assumptions about gameplay need to be made. [[Ponytail]] highlights this by pointing out that there's also not an explicit rule against killing and eating an opposing player. With human players, this would be covered by laws against murder and cannibalism, but dogs don't enjoy the same level of legal protection (there may be animal cruelty laws, but those are likely to be far less punitive).
+
The title text acknowledges that killing and eating the dog would result in a {{w|technical foul|foul}} (interfering inappropriately with other players), but the benefit of committing the foul (the star player being dead and out of the game) would be worth the resulting penalty (giving the other team a couple of free throws). This of course ignores any local laws that could cover the proposed killing, such as animal cruelty laws. Randall is poking fun at the common practice of intentional fouls, something that happens particularly often in basketball. Although a foul is by definition against the rules, a team may deliberately break those rules and accept the penalty in order to gain some perceived advantage. For example, in association football (soccer), a player may intentionally foul an opposing player with a strong attack to allow his team to regroup and increase its defensive position, starting with blocking the resulting free kick. In basketball, an intentional foul can stop the clock and turn over the ball, or may simply give the team time to rest and/or discuss strategy that it otherwise may not have had.
  
βˆ’
The title text  does acknowledge that killing and eating an opposing player is likely covered under the rules concerning {{w|technical foul|fouls}}, but the benefit of committing the foul (the star player being dead) would be worth the resulting penalty (giving the other team a couple of free throws). This likely pokes fun at the common practice of intentional fouls. It's not uncommon for players to commit fouls intentionally, having calculated that they'll gain some advantage (such as breaking the momentum of a play) which is worth the penalties they'll incur.  
+
The dog in the comic is wearing a jersey with the number 9. In ''Air Bud'', the dog wore a jersey with "K" on one side and "9" on the other, forming "K-9", a popular shortening of the word "canine".
  
 
Randall previously parodied the "animal-as-player" loophole in [[115: Meerkat]]. Rule books are also mentioned in [[330: Indecision]], [[393: Ultimate Game]], and [[1593: Play-By-Play]].
 
Randall previously parodied the "animal-as-player" loophole in [[115: Meerkat]]. Rule books are also mentioned in [[330: Indecision]], [[393: Ultimate Game]], and [[1593: Play-By-Play]].

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)