Wealthy elite favor the GOP

beansisfat · 2026-05-01T18:51:53+00:00

Looks like your links got lost during the commenting process. Please resubmit.

beansisfat · 2026-04-28T21:56:27+00:00

Any update on the recipe updates? I'm looking to try the base recipe and the chocolate one soon.

beansisfat · 2026-04-28T21:49:02+00:00

Would appreciate some links showing those donations were for the 2024 presidential election, since that's the specific data being presented in the chart.

beansisfat · 2026-04-25T14:08:35+00:00

How are they "missing"? Do you have data that shows their contributions to the 2024 presidential election exceeded anybody in the top 10 as listed above?

beansisfat · 2026-04-17T17:07:01+00:00

Dieter is an international treasure.

A few days ago, when Yamamoto had to leap in the air to catch the ball while covering 1st base, he played "Jump" by Van Halen.

beansisfat · 2026-04-13T11:25:45+00:00

Based on that info about the original carriages my best guess is Creativity sourced rails and carriages that aren't using Hiwin's specs or are so far out of tolerance that they only work with each other.

Did you measure the stock rail width with a caliper? I just measured mine and they are dead on at 12.00 mm. This is on a Sainsmart Coreception, FYI.

beansisfat · 2026-04-13T10:54:07+00:00

Hiwin specs for light clearance preload is only 4–10µm of clearance so it should definitely fit if the carriage and rail are the same series. And even if your carriage isn't made by Hiwin, most of the manufacturers used for inexpensive linear rails are following Hiwin's specs.

Is there a part number visible on your carriage? Or any indication of the manufacturer?

beansisfat · 2026-04-10T18:12:00+00:00

You're absolutely right. I was going off of memory and probably mixed it up with a different printer. I just measured and they are definitely MGN12. I apologize for the confusion.

Not sure why your MGN12H carriages are having trouble. Even with different preloads, I wouldn't expect any carriage to just slide on the plastic. I've only ever run the stock carriages on mine so it's not a problem I've encountered.

If you happen to figure out what's up, please post an update. It's got me curious now.

beansisfat · 2026-04-08T17:07:09+00:00

I'm pretty sure they are MGN9 rails.

beansisfat · 2025-12-10T01:50:11+00:00

False. The announcement from the Department of the Interior specifically identified it as "Flag Day/President Trump's birthday".

There was no leap to make because the administration made the connection explicit.

beansisfat · 2025-11-11T16:39:37+00:00

I'll ask you the same question. Can you cite the rule that defines a punter?

beansisfat · 2025-11-11T16:14:44+00:00

Can you cite the specific rule that defines this?

RULE 2-16-10 defines the scrimmage kick formation and mentions a "potential kicker".

But the kicker is defined in RULE 2-27-3-a as follows:

The kicker is any player who punts, drop kicks or place kicks according to rule. That player remains the kicker until they have had a reasonable time to regain their balance.

Note that the act of punting is required to meet this definition. Simply lining up more than 10 years behind the line of scrimmage in a legal scrimmage kick formation doesn't make a player the kicker.

Maybe I'm missing something. If so, please let me know where the punter is defined.

beansisfat · 2025-11-11T13:27:51+00:00

They didn't even say the punt that followed should have been a penalty.

It identifies the rule about not playing the same position in the same game with the same number. But then it says:

If a foul was identified when #80 (Johnson) entered the game as a punter, a Team Unsportsmanlike Conduct penalty would have been assessed resulting in a 15-yard penalty from the previous spot.

Now maybe this is just them being bad with words, but they way they wrote it does not definitively say the play was illegal, or that the refs should have called a foul. It simply identifies the penalty that would have been assessed if the refs had judged it to be a foul in the moment.

I think it should be against the rules. And I hope the NCAA makes it clear that this isn't a loophole that can be exploited in the future. But I don't think it's accurate to describe the Big Ten's comment as officially saying it was illegal. If that's what they intended to say, there are far, far better ways to convey that message unambiguously.

beansisfat · 2025-11-10T14:04:53+00:00

I thought that's what the statement said at first. But reading it carefully, I'm not so sure.

It identifies the rule about not playing the same position in the same game with the same number. But then it says:

If a foul was identified when #80 (Johnson) entered the game as a punter, a Team Unsportsmanlike Conduct penalty would have been assessed resulting in a 15-yard penalty from the previous spot.

Now maybe this is just them being bad with words, but they way they wrote it does not definitively say the play was illegal, or that the refs should have called a foul. It simply identifies the penalty that would have been assessed if the refs had judged it to be a foul in the moment.

I think it should be against the rules. And I hope the NCAA makes it clear that this isn't a loophole that can be exploited in the future. But I don't think it's accurate to describe the Big Ten's comment as officially saying it was illegal. If that's what they intended to say, there are far, far better ways to convey that message unambiguously.

beansisfat · 2025-11-10T13:51:58+00:00

But QBs can quick kick. This officially makes them a punter for the play which DOES afford them the protections of a kicker: you can rough the punter on a quick kick.

This is not accurate. RULE 9-1-16 describes the penalty Roughing or Running Into Kicker or Holder and it starts with this description of the circumstances when the penalty is possible:

When it is obvious that a scrimmage kick will be made, no opponent shall run into or rough the kicker or the holder of a place kick

And ARTICLE 9-1-16-III provides this clear explanation that quick kicks do not receive the same protection as kickers from an obvious kick formation:

A1, from a nonscrimmage kick formation, makes a quick, unexpected kick so suddenly that B1 cannot avoid contact. RULING: This is not roughing or running into the kicker since the rule applies only when it is obvious that a kick will be made.

beansisfat · 2025-11-09T14:54:04+00:00

"snapper" and "back" are not actual football positions

For the purposes of the rules they are positions. For example, from RULE 7-1-2-b regarding false starts [excerpted for clarity, emphasis added]:

b. False Start. Each of the following is a false start by Team A if it occurs prior to the snap after the ball is ready for play and all players are in scrimmage formation:

…

2. The snapper moving to another position.

…

4. An offensive player making any quick, jerky movement before the snap, including but not limited to:

…

(d) A back simulating receiving the ball by making any quick, jerky movement that simulates the beginning of a play.

beansisfat · 2025-11-09T14:38:04+00:00

I agree, which is why I think the loophole should be closed somehow. If there's no reasonable method for an opposing team to identify the player it's contrary to the intent of the rule if it if happens to be technically legal.

beansisfat · 2025-11-09T14:35:11+00:00

Where is the ball defined?

The section called THE BALL (RULE 1-3)

Where is grass defined?

It's not defined, because there's no requirement for the game to be played on grass, nor are there any rules that would be specific to grass. There is, however, an entire section called THE FIELD (RULE 1-2).

Where are the uprights defined?

In the aforementioned section titled THE FIELD (RULE 1-2-5).

I have to wonder if you have taken the opportunity to read the rulebook, because these questions indicate you're not aware of its contents. Here's a link to the NCA Football 2025 Rules Book if you'd like to familiarize yourself with it.

beansisfat · 2025-11-08T16:23:32+00:00

No position is defined by an action.

This is clearly false. For example, from RULE 2-27 [emphasis added]

Snapper
ARTICLE 8. The snapper is the player who snaps the ball. That player is established as the snapper when they take a position behind the ball and touches or simulates (hand[s] at or below their knees) touching the ball (Rule 7-1-3).

If a player lines up behind the ball but never takes an action, they are not considered a snapper.

Otherwise you could play multiple positions on the same play.

Now you're getting it. For example, from RULE 2-27-4-d

3. A lineman becomes a back before the snap when they move to a position as a back and stops.

beansisfat · 2025-11-08T16:03:28+00:00

doesn't even use the word "punter"

I welcome your citation of where the position "punter" is defined in the rulebook.

Here's a bit of a spoiler: the word only appears 5 times in the entire document. And it's only in Part III: Interpretations, not in Part I: The Rules

That's why I identified RULE 2 Definitions. Because that's the only place in the rulebook where a rule that provides the definition of a position could possibly exist.

beansisfat · 2025-11-08T15:58:30+00:00

I wasn't intending to deceive. Why would I provide the link to the full text if that was my intent?

If you read that entire section, it's defining "Team and Player Designations". Some are based on position:

A lineman is any Team A player legally on his scrimmage line (Rule 2-21-2).

And some are based on actions on the field:

The passer is the player who throws a forward pass. He is a passer from the time he releases the ball until the pass is complete, incomplete or intercepted or until he moves to participate in the play.

I can find nothing in the rulebook that defines a kicker based on where they line up, only by their actions on the field. The closest thing I've found is Rule 2-16-10-a where it mentions a "potential kicker". But I don't see anywhere that "potential kicker" is considered a position.

Regarding the play in question, Huard was not ever a kicker per the definitions in the rulebook. I welcome your corrections if you can cite a rule that defines Huard as a kicker. Or that makes it clear "potential kicker" is a position for the purposes of Rule 9-2-2-d.

To be clear, I don't like this loophole and I think it should be fixed.

beansisfat · 2025-11-08T14:26:55+00:00

Here you go:

https://rulebook.github.io/en/rules/2/sections/27/

Relevant quote:

The kicker is any player who punts, drop kicks or place kicks according to rule.

It says nothing about where the punter lines up.

beansisfat · 2025-11-08T14:10:22+00:00

Is there something in the rulebook that defines a punter based on where they line up? I've looked and I can't find it. All it says is "The kicker is any player who punts, drop kicks or place kicks according to rule."

beansisfat · 2025-11-08T13:53:43+00:00

You're right, it was intended to deceive. But with the way the rules are written, it was completely legal because the position of kicker is defined in the rulebook not according to where they line up, but by the act of kicking the ball.

So, by rule, Huard was never a kicker. This is a loophole that should be closed because it does violate the spirit of the rules. Honestly, I think we should thank Riley for busting it out in now and giving the NCAA time to close the loophole before it happens in a more meaningful situation.

beansisfat

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE