text:
Talk:Walk-off home run

Picture Question
The picture used appears to be reversed. It seems to show the runner coming down the first base line. This is confusing to the viewer.108.28.120.122 (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Home Team?
I know nothing about baseball whatsoever, but I don't really see why it would be a requirement for the home team to win for it to be a walk-off? Surely the road team hitting a gamewinner in the bottom of the final inning would also be a walk-off? Koberulz (talk) 07:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Your question raises an interesting point. Up until some time in the 1950s, it was not a requirement that the home team bat "last" in each inning.  They almost always did, but were not required to do so.  In the early part of the 20th century, the home team would occasionally choose to bat first (for some reason or other), and in such cases, it would be possible for the visiting team to abruptly end the game with a home run, or indeed any kind of a run.  The rare home-first cases have proven difficult for researchers to detect, because the line scores within the box scores would often list the visiting team first anyway.  The occasional "x" in the "top" of the ninth was a giveaway, but it wasn't always that easy.

 * However, according to modern practice, only the home team can pull a "walk-off" by virtue of their batting last.WHPratt (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

 * That makes sense, then...usually there are coin tosses and such to sort those sorts of things out, unless it's insanely trivial (selection of ends in an indoor sport, say). I'm still not a huge fan of the sentence, though, because it is, in a way, a redundancy (it already mentions it having to occur in the bottom of the final inning), and doesn't take into account situations where there would be no home team (international tournaments, for example). Koberulz (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Lately, we've seen cases wherein a postponed game has to be made up at the other team's ballpark (to avoid an extra trip), and the displaced team exercises their option to bat last. E.g.: an Oakland at Boston game is rained out, and there is no open date upon which to make it up in the same series.  Oakland does not have another visit to Boston this year, so the game is to be made up when the Red Sox play in Oakland later on.  Boston can elect to treat the makeup game as a home game for them, which gives them the "last bats," plus a few minor perks.  I suppose they can wear the white uniforms if they want to.  If they win on a sudden-death home run, you may or may not call this a "visitor walk off." WHPratt (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, there have always been cases of a suspended game being resumed and finished in the other team’s ballpark because there were no remaining chances to resume it where it had started. Obviously, in these cases, the visitor-home relationship had to remain the same.  E.g., in a suspended game that began in Brooklyn but was finished in Pittsburgh, the Dodgers would still bat last in the resumption, and could thus pull off a "walk off" (though nobody would have called it that) in the Pirates' own park.WHPratt (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a recent example:

http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/2013/B07232CIN2013.htm

Says the Retrosheet comment:

"[T]his was the rescheduled game due to a 7/4

postponement in Cincinnati; the Reds wore their home uniforms

and batted last while the Giants wore their road uniforms[.]"

Had Cincy won in the bottom on the ninth, the media would have trotted out the w-word.

WHPratt (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Who has the record for most walk-off home runs, career?
Is this a statistic that is tracked? Can anyone find out and post? (Added after David Ortiz's seventh walk-off home run with the Red Sox, June 24, 2006)

 * I was wondering that myself. A google search turned up this list:
 * 1. Jimmie Foxx, Mickey Mantle, Stan Musial, Frank Robinson, Babe Ruth (12)
 * 6. Tony Perez (11)
 * 7. Dick Allen, Harold Baines, Reggie Jackson, Mike Schmidt, Albert Pujols (10)
 * Jonpin 05:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Great, thanks! It turns out that the walk-off was his sixth with the Red Sox, but seventh for his career.

 * I'd been wondering myself, but couldn't find anything in online or print sources. MisfitToys 21:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Added Pujols after 6/5/2011 walkoff for the St. Louis Cardinals against the Chicago Cubs.
 * ibuylowandsellhigh 12:00 6 June 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC).
 * Yesterday, Jim Thome set the record with his 13th career walk-off. This was cited in an on-line article at mlb.com, and listed all of the people with 12 or more (Foxx, Mantle, Musial, Robinson, Ruth).  I have no information on the others.  I have added this as a new entry at List of Major League Baseball home run records, and included a wikilink to that record on this page.  I tried following the linke that Jonpin included, but all it did was take me to a player page on Dick Allen.  If anyone can find an alternative source that lists down to 10 walk-offs, please feel free to add this to the appropriate list. 76.29.27.158 (talk) 03:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Is the term necessary?
I can't stand the term 'walk-off' and I refuse to use it; it sounds incredibly lame. Sports writers should go back to speaking plain English and just say 'game-winning.' {Paul1953H}

I agree it is annoying as hell.

just like 'take it to the house' and 'a buck thirty' as soon as I hear the curling term of take it to the house, or a buck instead of a hundred by an announcer I turn of the voice.

walk-off is another failed attempt at pretentiousness and makes me want to watch soccer or Cricket instead of baseball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iowastate (talk • contribs) 01:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

 * A hit can be a game-winning one without being a walk-off, so the term makes a useful distinction. Matchups 01:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm with Paul1953H. Game winning home run, generally, used to imply game ending. Or the writer or announcer would simply say, game ending home run. Walk-off contributes minimally to any of the prior renditions of 'game-ending' home run. So I would argue that its value is really not in adding precision to a working definition of the home run, but instead to increase the sensationalism. My counter argument would be to point to Bill Mazeroski's bottom-of-the-ninth homer in the 1960 World Series. Defining this moment as a walk-off versus a game-ending home run adds neither greater definition nor greater sensationalism. It's implied that Mazeroski's home run was improbable, that it won the game and the series, and that it was an intensely dramatic moment. 10stone5 18:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * One more vote for unnecessary. My very least favorite of the terms is the walk-off walk.  They use the term so much nowadays that any value it once had is gone, all it does is annoy the subset of us who hate the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.11.82 (talk • contribs) 05:53, July 15, 2007
 * Could we make it policy never to use the term anywhere where "game ending" would suffice? Except, perhaps, in direct quotes and only then with a few other cliches tossed in to demonstrate that the speaker is either (1) a well-trained parrot or (2) someone not to be taken seriously. WHPratt (talk) 12:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Sensationalism?" The closest i ever came to enjoying the game at all was among topology-research students in the summer of '66, a building and a half away from Old Main where a Lincoln-Douglas debate had taken place in Galesburg. I made an out on what i suppose was a softball version of a drive to right field, pProbably catching it due to the instinct for self-preservation. But everyone started yelling at me, something about a runner on base, and someone urgently wanting the ball. --Jerzy•t 05:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

When did this term start getting used?
While in Japan during the 1993 campaign, the Japanese used the term all of the time. I asked the players how long that they had used the term and all said as long as they could remember. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.215.58 (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

When did this term start getting used? I have been a fan of baseball for a long time, but I don't remember hearing the term until a few years ago. Did someone (on ESPN?) coin the phrase? (Unsigned by Cacophony) at 25:39, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC))

 * I haven't researched it but my understanding is Dennis Eckersley is given credit for coining the term during his stint as the closer for the Oakland Athletics. While the definition today is generally as described in the article "teams walk off the field" Eckersley's meaning was he threw a pitch and had to "walk off the mound". This is the only story I have ever heard of this origin, if anyone has anymore information I'd like to hear about it so we can update the article. ( Unsigned by Jobrien at 17:03, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC))

 * The article has been updated with some usage history, based on an article in today's Boston Globe article: Term Covers All the Bases, Boston Globe/boston.com 062405. Paul August ☎ 16:33, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm 99% sure Rob Neyer from ESPN.com brought it back into common parlance (he didn't invent it, but he brought it back in the late nineties). I definitely remember reading the column on ESPN.com that discussed walk-off homers, and his was about the only one I read regularly before it became part of ESPN Insider (I also read Peter Gammons, but this definitely seems more like Neyer than Gammons). Within weeks of that column, it was being used on Sportscenter and Baseball Tonight and eventually spread.

 * [Previous part is from an unsigned user, not shanen.] Japanese source? Not sure, but the term 'sayonara ' has been in use in Japan for a long time. I'd say it was already a well-established usage as of 1990. My Japanese reading is not so great, but I wonder if the idea was imported to America? The semantics are the same, though the word essentially means 'bye-bye' and I guess the folksy derivation is that the game goes bye-bye at that point. Perhaps someone who is more fluent in Japanese can consider http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%B5%E3%83%A8%E3%83%8A%E3%83%A9%E3%82%B2%E3%83%BC%E3%83%A0 (which is actually a bit more generic, since this is a term for any game that ends with a walk-off hit). I did notice at least one date of 1952 in the article, and there was also some reference to the English terms. Shanen (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

 * I'd add that it annoys me to no end when announcers or sportswriters call something a walk-off single when there's a play at the plate. 'Walk-off' is supposed to be a very specific term, with one of the conditions being that it's a deadball situation (usually homers, though also walks, balks, etc.).

Dart~Ben

 * I agree. There has to be something "instant" about it to qualify as "walk off," where the game is clinched and the eventual touching of home by the winning run is reduced to a formality (and hence can be accomplished by walking as well as by running). WHPratt (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)WHPratt

 * For reasons that should be apparent, I am uniquely qualified to answer this question. I first started hearing the term about 10 years ago. -- Mwalcoff 04:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Good discussion, to which I hope I have done justice in a new last sentence of paragraph 2 of the article. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

 * In the article on Grand Slams, we find: "On several occasions in major league history . . . a player has hit a walk-off grand slam for a one-run victory; some baseball observers call this an "ultimate grand slam".[2] Roberto Clemente is the only player to date to have performed this feat as an inside-the-park grand slam, helping the Pittsburgh Pirates defeat the Chicago Cubs 9-8 on July 25, 1956 at Forbes Field."
 * Whoops! This feat seems to belie the "walk-off" tag, as Clemente probably had to run like hell and then slide hard! WHPratt (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

 * One can walk, rather than run, when the ball leaves the field. One cannot take one's time on an inside-the-park home run--nor in most of the other plays to which the article says the term "walk-off" has been applied.  Apparently, the walking referred to by the tag is the walking that occurs AFTER your play ends the game.  --Spike-from-NH (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

 * True. But that reduces "walk off" to a synonym for "game ending."  Using a narrower definition contributes something to the language.WHPratt (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

 * (Reformatted up to the horizontal bar.)  By the article and this discussion, I assumed  they were synonyms.  I agree with your point, but it is an opinion about what the term should mean.  --Spike-from-NH (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

 This is after the aforementioned Eckersley reference; but May 21, 1997 Keith Lockhart of the Atlanta Braves hit a game-ending (walkoff) home run. Don Sutton, Braves TV Color Commentator, was interviewing Lockhart after the game. Lockhart said that it was his first-ever walk off home run in any league. Sutton, bewildered, asked what he meant by "walk off". Lockhart replied "you hit a home run and everyone walks off the field." The next season the term started showing up everywhere, and shortly thereafter became an unofficial stat. This instance may be coincidence, but considering the huge audience and popularity of the Braves on TBS, I'm guessing this was at least a trigger to its use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.124.227 (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Greatest Most Famous Walk-Off Home Runs
This is what is listed right now: (*Robin Ventura, 1999 NLCS -- turned into a single when he refused to walk it off. WHPratt (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)) I do not think Puckett and Burke belong on that list. And I'm leaning against Aaron Boone and maybe Chambliss too. In any case, how can this list not include Kirk Gibson in 1988 or Carlton Fisk in 1975? I'd add them, but then the list would be way too long. My proposal is to limit the "Greatest Walk-off Home Runs" paragraph to five examples, them being: Please discuss what an appropriate limit would be for that section, and which examples you would prefer be included within that limit.--DaveOinSF 14:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Bobby Thompson, 1956 1951 Giants
 * Bill Mazeroski, 1960 Pirates
 * Chris Chambliss, 1976 Yankees
 * Kirby Pucket, 1991 Twins
 * Joe Carter, 1993 Jays
 * Aaron Boone, 2003 Yankees
 * Chris Burke, 2005 Astros
 * Thompson
 * Mazeroski
 * Fisk
 * Gibson
 * Carter

 * I'm not sure it's ideal for the article to become a debate about the "greatest"; this isn't a poll. Simply identifying the most notable ones (with reasons) should be sufficient, I think. MisfitToys 20:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

 * The point is that if we choose not to remove any of the ones that are currently listed, I am going to add Gibson's and Fisk's homeruns, which are at least as famous as Burke's, Puckett's, Chambliss' or Boone's, which will then bring the total number of examples in that paragraph to nine. I am sure you will agree that nine examples in that paragraph is too much.

 * I probably should have said "Most Famous" as opposed to "Greatest". As it currently stands, the article states: The subject of the most famous walk-off home run in the history of the major leagues is one that creates a lot of argument and then proceeds to identify the seven famous homeruns listed above.  I am simply proposing that that paragraph should be limited to five examples and we should come to consensus as to what those five examples are.  I am OK with eliminating that paragraph entirely too.--DaveOinSF 22:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm going to restore Boone's. Its claim to notability is reinforced by references to "Aaron friggin' Boone" in current (2006) radio ads in the Boston area.  I also suggest that, along the lines of the vanity rules, fans of a particular team should be circumspect in adding home runs by their favored team to this list. Matchups 21:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I think we need to revisit this topic. It's my opinion that wikipedia should not even designate "famous" walk-offs.  Too much opinion and not enough encyclopedic value.  This article should just list the walk-offs and leave it at that.  The info in that section should be merged into the table of "postseason and all star game" walk-offs. X96lee15 16:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is more trivia than anything else, but upon reading this:

"In a rare occurrence, only four pitchers in major league history have surrendered two game-ending grand slam home runs in one season, according to the Elias Sports Bureau ... " and one of these is Lindy McDaniel of the Chicago Cubs.

McDaniel himself hit an extra-inning, game-ending homer in a 1963 game:

http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1963/B06060CHN1963.htm

I remember thta Jack Brickhouse was so shocked at calling this that he almost swallowed the microphone! WHPratt (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC) Also, McDaniel had just picked a runner off of second base to get out a jam in the top of the inning -- and it was Willie Mays! WHPratt (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Bill Mazeroski looks kinda stiff in the photograph now heading this page. Perhaps the caption should note that it's a statue. (Given the distance marker on the wall, maybe it's actually on the Forbes Field site. WHPratt (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC) Okay, it's in the extended caption if one enlarges the pic. WHPratt (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a piece about the original rule?
I believe, and I could be wrong about some of the details, that Babe Ruth had one extra home run which didn't count as such because it was in a walkoff situation where they were down 1 and had two men on in the bottom of the ninth. He hit it over the fence and it only counted as a double because of the rules of the time. DandyDan2007 12:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

 * From Appendix B (Decisions of the Special Baseball Records Committee) of the 1996 Macmillan Baseball Encyclopedia: "Before 1920, when the team batting last won the game in the ninth or in an extra inning, the ruling was that the team could not win by more than one run. If a man hit an outside-the-park home run, which, under present rules, would have resulted in a victory by more than one run, he was given credit for a lesser hit and only the winning run counted. The committee originally voted that before 1920 any ball hit outside the park in a sudden death situation should be counted as a home run. However, after the committee had a further opportunity to review their ruling and polled their colleagues on the issue, they reversed their decision on May 5, 1969." 40 players lost home runs as a result, ranging from 1884 to 1918; Ruth's, on July 8, 1918, was the third to last. 14 were reduced to triples, 12 to doubles, and 14 to singles. 31 were in NL games, 5 in AL games, 3 in AA games and 1 in the PL. Jimmy Collins and Sherry Magee each lost two, and 36 players lost one each. 8 each were hit by the Boston Braves and NY Giants, and the Phillies had 5; I suspect short fences at the South End Grounds, Polo Grounds and Baker Bowl had something to do with it, and were partially responsible for the reverse decision. (Ruth's HR, which was ruled a triple, would have been at Fenway Park, where left field was 310 feet and the Green Monster hadn't yet been built.) MisfitToys 20:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I recently boiled this discussion down to a paragraph plus footnote, now at the end of Section 2. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Regular season examples -- notability
After seeing this diff, I decided that there should be some guidelines as to what makes a walk-off home run exemplary. Here's what I came up with. Probably it should have at least three to be included: Nomar's hit mentioned at the beginning of this note meets the first four criteria. Matchups 12:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Caps a comeback from a large deficit
 * 2) Extra innings
 * 3) The team was losing at the time of the hit
 * 4) Teams involved in a pennant race
 * 5) Game or home run is otherwise notable

Thomson home run a regular season or playoff home run???
What Bobby Thomson's home run hit in a regular season or playoff game? The only official playoff at the time was the World Series, but his home run was hit during a "playoff" series to determine the pennant. So, it was not a regularly scheduled game, part of the regular season, yet it was not quite a playoff series either. Any thoughts? Editor437 03:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I believe any one-game "playoffs" to determine a playoff berth are considered as part of the regular season. X96lee15 04:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, these games (such as the 1978 AL East playoff) count in the regular season, and Thomson's famous HR is included in his 1951 regular season total. MisfitToys 22:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Eddie Matthews won a NL HR title due to a homer he added in a playoff series in 1959 (he had been tied with Ernie Banks). Ron Guidry picked up his 25th win in a playoff game.  Like it or not, these games are part of the "regular" season, not the "post." WHPratt (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)WHPratt

Incomprehensible sentence
From the lead section:
 * The terms walk-off hit by pitch, the bases loaded base on balls dubbed the "walk-off walk" or walk-off balk have been applied, and the latter has been dubbed a balk-off (these types of questionable walk-offs are seen by some fans as cheapening the concept).

The first part of this sentence is quite incomprehensible to me. It needs rewriting, with quotation marks around the terms that are being mentioned so the reader can tell the difference between them and the active text. Hairy Dude (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

 * "Cheapening the concept" is still there (now at the end of the second paragraph of Section 1 on terminology) and is still incomprehensible, so I will take a stab at it. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 05:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Marlon Byrd's grand slam
I think this should be on here, because I don't think it is any less notable than the other regular-season walk-off homers on this list. --Eastlaw (talk) 03:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's certainly less notable than most of them, though the Dunn and Garciaparra entries are somewhat suspect. Most of these had some historic importance apart from simply being dramatic (pennant-clinching, various records, 500th HR, etc.). What's really notable about Byrd's? MisfitToys (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Chambliss home run
After editing Section 2 to list the baseball rules that govern the walk-off home run--and led to the problematic examples given in that section--I'm going to make the description of the Chris Chambliss home run less florid. I regret deleting the context that the Yankees had not won a pennant in 12 years, but it is irrelevant, as Yankees fans likely would have swarmed onto the field anyway. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

After the Chambliss incident, and again after the Robin Ventura incident (where he broke a tie with an apparent grand slam, yet only completed a single), I was sure that MLB would change the rulebook. Why shouldn't it state that "In [describe sudden death situation], a home run hit out of the playing field that would account for the winning runs shall end the game at once," something like that, so that no police escort to home will be required. But they didn't.

In fact, why not make every homer truly automatic? I'd say that it's more dramatic for batter and runners to stop in their tracks and hurry off the stage, rather than require a wimpy token trot around the bases. WHPratt (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 * W.H., MLB almost never changes the rulebook. "Wimpy token" rituals still have their place in it.  A bigger example is the need to actually throw four balls at a batter you don't want to confront.  Dropping this requirement is often cited as a way to speed up the game (compensating for newly lengthened commercial breaks).  A successful intentional walk, though more certain than a basketball free throw, is not 100% certain, as the catcher must start the play inside the catcher's box but typically ends the play outside the batter's reach.  Requiring that runners actually complete the circuit of the bases is not a big problem and, as it is likewise not 100% certain, does sometimes make the game more interesting.  The need for a police escort is not so much an attribute of baseball as it is of New York City.  --Spike-from-NH (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I understand your points. I used to get impatient with the people who grumbled about the intentional walk, given that it's a drop in the bucket as regards time wasting, and it usually occurs during a tense moment and gives the crowd four chances to boo and hiss.  Now I'm more realistic.  You'd have to witness a thousand intentional walks (that's 4,000 wide pitches) before something interesting happens, and after that the catcher will just cheat a bit more the rest of his career. And, if you wait long enough, someone will miss a base on a home run, which is not exactly a great moment.  Life's too short. WHPratt (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

What about games with a mercy rule like international competitions?
If the mercy rule is in place, the game will be called after seven innings if one team is ahead by 10 runs. Let us say the home team is leading by nine runs in the bottom of the seventh inning and the batter hits a home run, then the game will end by the mercy rule. Is this considered to be a walk-off home run?

 * He hits the homer; the umpire (perhaps consulting the scoreboard or scorekeeper) declares the game ended; everyone walks off the field, exactly like the conventional case. I'd say "Yes." --Spike-from-NH (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The Ultimate Cliché
Quote: "Note that Chris Hoiles' grand slam occurred with the cliché situation: two outs, full count, bottom of the ninth inning, and down by three runs."

My ultimate nit-pick: The "full count" spoils it just a bit, as only one ball was required to keep the comeback alive. I'd say that the same situation but with an 0-2 count would rate higher on the dramatic scale. WHPratt (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

 * An 0-2 count would evidence greater batting prowess (as the pitcher can throw three bad pitches but the batter has no margin for error). But I agree that the 3-2 count is "higher on the dramatic scale" and the broadcast color man might say, "There's no tomorrow."  (It's not maximum drama; not only might Ball 4 or a number of other outcomes short of a home run keep the game alive, and in some cases be a "walk-off," but the next pitch, or the next ten pitches, could be fouled off for no effect at all on the game situation.  Baseball's "drama" often involves letting the fans twist in the wind for a while.)  --Spike-from-NH (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Better walk off pic for article
could we get Rien Bruans walk off grand slam to send the brew crew to the playoffs as the first pic? His reaction with his hands raised above his head is uesd extensivly in the brewer community. it would look better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsj608 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Walk-off triple play
Bruntlett's walk-off play last night was awesome. Nevertheless, the description of it in the second paragraph of Section 1 of the article tugs the paragraph too far. The paragraph is a digression to the other uses of the term "walk-off," increasingly numerous, with an overview of the dissenting opinion that these uses water down the term. "Walk-off triple play" is a notable term, but only because the triple play is notable. At the least, the details should be relegated to a footnote. In contrast, if some cub sports writer coins the term "walk-off ground out" to generate false newsworthiness, I suggest this article not mention it. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

jargon for the sake of jargon
Why not just call the article "game-ending home run"? That's what it's talking about. The article seems more interested in the (very brief) history of the term "walk-off", and obscures whether or not an article on game-enders is really required at all. Why not just merge this into "Home Run" or whatever? 74.65.209.146 (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Shot heard round the world
Shouldn't the Shot Heard Round the World be included on this page somewhere? It has its own article so it is definitely noteworthy. I think it could be included under other postseason home runs section. AnandJRao (talk) 04:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked if it was on yet, but it would most likely be listed under the regular season section.

Grand slam single
Yep, this debate again. Should we list it as an honorable mention? 71.192.117.233 (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Softball?
Shouldn't the lead mention that this term applies to baseball and softball? I only bring this up because softball is mentioned in the "other leagues" listing (college softball world series). 76.29.27.158 (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing, literally, as a Walk-off Home Run
The whole problem with this saying, as well as others in baseball (such as "hit and run"), is that literally there is no such thing. If one examines the laws of the game closely, the batter who hits an immediate game ending home run, must cross all bases. The runner who scores the go ahead run, and all before him, must appropriately touch all bases, including home. (...) And if the batter himself is the go ahead run, he must cross all bases, including home. Therefore, he, and any runner before him, who figures in, and contributes to the go ahead run, must cross all bases: he cannot walk off. There is no "walk-off"; no such phenomenon, and I so agree with many of the comments on this page against this silly usage. All players 'walk off' the field after the game is over, anyway, right? One should simply use the terminology 'Game Ending (home run, or triple, etc.) in place of Game Winning, to make the distinguishment, not the improper, and somewhat ridiculous, term "Walk-off." Even in the situation of a Wild Pitch... the player on third that scores the winning run, must touch home plate, not "walk off" into the dugout...  ''It is was, and should be, intended in reference to the pitcher, who would so walk off in disgust and disappointment. This is what Dennis E. said and intended.'''  (John G. Lewis (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC))

This term also misses the propriety and sanctity of the game to an extent; the seriousness and particularity of Baseball, historically. Part of what makes this game so interesting and venerable. Such as when the catcher does not hold on to the third strike. Although it is recorded, statistically, as a strikeout for the pitcher, it is also a passed ball, and the hitter is allowed to make a run for first base. He will be safe, unless the catcher throws him out. (...) Lose language such as "Walk-off" merely needs to be recognized for what it is, being improper, and should be discontinued. (John G. Lewis (talk) 05:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC))

"Visitors" score game-ending run
The retrosheet.org site has a table of suspended games at http://www.retrosheet.org/suspend.htm and ten of these are annotated as having been resumed in the other ballpark. Thus are documented three instances of game-ending (I refuse to employ the "w" word here) hits (or other plays) by "Visiting" players, though no home runs. WHPratt (talk) 03:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The game of 8/30/1948 began as Brooklyn at Pittsburgh, but was finished in Brooklyn. Pittsburgh scored 6 runs to win 12-11 when Stan Rojek doubled home two runs.
 * On 7/12/1975, a Minnesota at New York game had to be resumed in Minnesota's park. New York won with two runs in the bottom of the 16th, with Lou Pinella singling home Chris Chambliss for an 8-7 win.
 * In a game begun with Houston at Washington on 5/5/2009, Washington eventually won 11-10 when the game was finished in Houston, on an 11th inning error by Miguel Tejada.

Requested moves

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The consensus is that the proposed title is ambiguous and that the current title accurately covers the scope. Jenks24 (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Walk-off home run → Walk-off – This article can easily describe any kind of "walk-off" situation, not just home runs. They can include base hits, bases on balls, wild pitches, stolen bases... virtually any play in which runners can advance bases can occur as a "walk-off". <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the term relates to just home runs, a standard term in baseball. Randy Kryn 11:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The term is not restricted to home runs; for example: New Met Uribe hits walk-off single in 10th Mind  matrix  19:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment a "walk off" appears to be a form of labour action also -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose move to proposed name, but as you state this article should either be renamed to something more generic (eg - walk-off (baseball) or walk-off win), or such an article should be created. Mind  matrix  18:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've changed the intended target to a disambiguation page. Mind  matrix  18:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: note also that by using a generic name per my previous comment would result in more incoming links, as there are quite a few pages using the baseball term "walk off" in a sense other than "home run"; see this Wikipedia search, for example. Mind  matrix  19:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It doesn't make any sense to move "walk off home run" to a disambiguation page, when there is no ambiguity about the term "walk off home run." Rlendog (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 28 September 2015

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus. There is no consensus to move this page at this time. bd2412 T 18:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Walk-off home run → Walk-off win – I agree that the term "walk-off" may be ambiguous, but the article may describe any form of win achieved by a walk-off. Although home runs are a particular form of walk-off wins, they account for a relatively small proportion of wins achieved via the walk-off fashion. As I said above, singles, doubles, triples, bases on balls, hits by pitches, sacrifice flies or bunts, stolen bases... these plays are all means of advancing bases, and can all occur in a walk-off situation. But in any case, the team which makes the walk-off play wins, hence the more generic, yet unambiguous title. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Unnecessary. And it is not just a "win" resulting from a "walk off" item, the other team loses.  Wwlk off win is not a particularly common term, and walk off home run is still the primary subject. Rlendog (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 *  Support  I don't really think you should redirect the more general term to the more specific term, it should be the other way around. So the move should probably be made. -DJSasso (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That could be addressed by reversing the recent changes that redirected Walk-off win to Walk-off home run. It doesn't necessarily require that Walk-off home run be moved as in the proposal.—Bagumba (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Good catch I didn't notice that. I have thus reverted it and no longer have an opinion one way or the other. -DJSasso (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If the article is renamed, will you make the appropriate adjustments to the current sections in this article so their scope is limited to walk-off home runs, and adjust the lead and other sections to emphasize the general concept of walk-off wins? isaacl (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC) ✅ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Some Gadget Geek (talk • contribs) 18:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose It seems that 90% of Walk-off home run currently deals specifically with walk-offs from home runs, and not the more generic topic of walk-off wins. I would suggest first boldly editing walk-off win to deal with the more generic subject. If it is demonstrated that it is worthy of being a standalone article, a merger with the HR article can then be proposed, if necssary.—Bagumba (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * All walk-off home runs result in walk-off wins. However, not all walk-off wins come from home runs. I think it's nice if we keep them separate. Canuck 89 (chat with me) 02:11, October 17, 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Baseball assessment comment
Substituted at 14:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Why does the most recent game-ending grand slam always become encyclopedic?
Okay, this new entry doesn't meet the standard, but let's celebrate anyway. Right.

It happened with one out (hence, no "ultimate," whatever the score). I'll credit the batter with trying to hit a fly ball (but as the announcer noted, he just had to hit it out of the infield to win the game). Then again, a single or even a walk would have been just as good. (Any batter trying to hit a grand slam with two outs should probably be fined rather than listed here.)

Big deal! WHPratt (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit: My mistake! As we're talking about 29 "ultimate" G.S., and thus G.S. only, the baserunner factor doesn't enter into it. However, the inning certainly does. The SABR Home Run Encyclopedia says that for the years 1876-1995, 4,382 grand slam home runs were struck, with 481, about 11%, in the ninth inning or later. Assuming that about half are by the visiting team, then there were approximately 240 grand slams in the home half of said innings, almost all of which probably ended their game. So you'd expect about two such homers per season on average, more in HR-rich eras. It's not something you see every day, but still a long list. WHPratt (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

 * It's included because editors routinely update it. I don't see a good reason to have it, but as long as it's un-eventful I see no reason to not have it. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 16:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

 * Eh, fair enough! WHPratt (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

 * Check the edit history. Back on 10 Oct 2011, someone ended a playoff game with a tie-breaking grand slam, and I knew it would find its way over here. This A later editor was thoughtful enough to redefine "ultimate" to include it and many others. We got yet another new one yesterday.  We need constant vigilance as everybody's favorite player's latest homer tries to sneak in! WHPratt (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

 * If the ESPN account is correct, last night's game-ending grand slam was off a 2-2 pitch and hence isn't "ultimate" by the given definition (which, for some reason, includes "full count"). Good luck correcting it and making it stand! WHPratt (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was wrong here. It happens. The definition of "ultimate grand slam" is for any game-ending homer that erases a 3-run deficit. The deal about two out and a full count was deemed a "cliche situation" when it was brought up, and that has supposedly only happened once or twice. Indeed, the recent event -- 2 and 2 with 2 out -- is about as desperate as one can get, except for 0-and-2. I promise to keep quiet about this in the future. (However, see if the next game-ending grand slam doesn't find its way here, regardless of the final score.) WHPratt (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And, once again, the latest game-ending grand-slam homer is mistakenly credited as an "ultimate," rendering that particular definition meaningless. WHPratt (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's an idea: as this article deals with game-ending home runs and further embellishment isn't required, why not leave the discussion of "ultimate grand-slam" entirely to the Grand slam (baseball) article? Take the word "ultimate" out of here and let anybody who witnesses a game-ending grand slam update the entry, which would then be correct. WHPratt (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Outdated rule numbers
The rule numbers cited in the Relevent rules section ceased to be correct in 2015. That year, the rules were reorganized. Here are the current rules. Please update the cited numbers to reflect their current locations in the rulebook. SMP0328. (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Walk-off home run


text:
Jesse Garon

Jesse Garon may refer to:

 * Jesse Garon (disc jockey), Olean, New York radio host
 * Jesse Garon And The Desperadoes, indie-pop group from Edinburgh, Scotland
 * Jesse Garon (musician), French musician

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Jesse Garon


text:
User:Stebbiv

Almost harmless.

is:Notandi:stebbiv sv:User:stebbiv

title: User:Stebbiv


text: User talk:4.35.155.182

title: User talk:4.35.155.182


text:
Novichok

Novichok (Новичо́к ) is a family of nerve agents, some of which are binary chemical weapons. The agents were developed at the GosNIIOKhT state chemical research institute by the Soviet Union and Russia between 1971 and 1993. Some Novichok agents are solids at standard temperature and pressure, while others are liquids. Dispersal of solid form agents is thought possible if in ultrafine powder state.

Russian scientists who developed the nerve agents claim they are the deadliest ever made, with some variants possibly five to eight times more potent than VX, and others up to ten times more potent than soman. Iran has also been associated with the production of such chemical agents.

In the 21st century, Novichok agents came to public attention after they were used to poison opponents of the Russian government, including the Skripals and two others in Amesbury, UK (2018), as well as Alexei Navalny (2020), but civil poisonings with this substance have been known since at least 1995.

In November 2019, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which is the executive body for the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), added the Novichok agents to "list of controlled substances" of the CWC "in one of the first major changes to the treaty since it was agreed in the 1990s" in response to the 2018 poisonings in the UK.

Design objectives
Novichok agents were designed to achieve four objectives:

 * to be undetectable using standard 1970s and 1980s NATO chemical detection equipment;
 * to defeat NATO chemical protective gear;
 * to be safer to handle; and
 * to circumvent the Chemical Weapons Convention list of controlled precursors, classes of chemical and physical form.

Some of these agents are binary weapons, in which precursors for the nerve agents are mixed in a munition to produce the agent just prior to its use. The precursors are generally significantly less hazardous than the agents themselves, so this technique makes handling and transporting the munitions a great deal simpler. Additionally, precursors to the agents are usually much easier to stabilise than the agents themselves, so this technique also makes it possible to increase the shelf life of the agents. This has the disadvantage that careless preparation may produce a non-optimal agent. During the 1980s and 1990s, binary versions of several Soviet agents were developed and are designated as "Novichok" agents.

History and disclosure
Novichok agents were designed as part of a Soviet program codenamed Foliant. Five Novichok variants are believed to have been adapted for military use. The most versatile is A-232 (Novichok-5). Novichok agents have never been used on the battlefield. The UK government determined that a Novichok agent was used in the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury, Wiltshire, England in March 2018. It was unanimously confirmed by four laboratories around the world, according to the OPCW.

Novichok was also involved in the poisoning of a British couple in Amesbury, Wiltshire, four months later, believed to have been caused by residual nerve agent discarded after the Salisbury attack. The attacks led to the death of one person, left three others in a critical condition from which they recovered, and briefly hospitalised a police officer. The Russian government denies producing or researching agents "under the title Novichok". In September 2020, the German government said that opposition figure and anti-corruption activist Alexei Navalny, who was evacuated from Omsk to Berlin for treatment in late August after becoming ill during his flight, was poisoned by a Novichok agent.

Novichok has been known to most Western intelligence services since the 1990s, and in 2016 Iranian chemists working at a university in Tehran synthesised five of the seven Novichok agents for analysis and produced detailed mass spectroscopy data which was added to the OPCW's Central Analytical Database. Previously, there had been no detailed descriptions of their spectral properties in peer-reviewed general scientific literature. A small amount of agent A-230 was also claimed to have been synthesised in the Czech Republic in 2017 for the purpose of obtaining analytical data to help defend against these novel toxic compounds.

The Soviet Union and Russia reportedly developed extremely potent fourth-generation chemical weapons from the 1970s until the early 1990s, according to a publication by two chemists, Lev Fyodorov and Vil Mirzayanov, in Moskovskiye Novosti weekly in 1992. The publication appeared just on the eve of Russia's signing of the Chemical Weapons Convention. According to Mirzayanov, the Russian Military Chemical Complex (MCC) was using defence conversion money received from the West for development of a chemical warfare facility. Mirzayanov made his disclosure out of environmental concerns. He was the head of a counter-intelligence department and performed measurements outside the chemical weapons facilities to make sure that foreign spies could not detect any traces of production. To his horror, the levels of deadly substances were eighty times greater than the maximum safe concentration.

The Prosecutor-General of Russia effectively admitted the existence of Novichok agents when he brought a treason case against Mirzayanov. According to expert witness testimonies that three scientists prepared for the KGB, Novichok and other related chemical agents had indeed been produced and therefore Mirzayanov's disclosure represented high treason.

Mirzayanov was arrested on 22 October 1992 and sent to Lefortovo prison for divulging state secrets. He was released later because "not one of the formulas or names of poisonous substances in the Moscow News article was new to the Soviet press, nor were locations ... of testing sites revealed." According to Yevgenia Albats, "the real state secret revealed by Fyodorov and Mirzayanov was that generals had lied—and were still lying—to both the international community and their fellow citizens." Mirzayanov now lives in the U.S.

Further disclosures followed when Vladimir Uglev, one of Russia's leading binary weapons scientists, revealed the existence of A-232/Novichok-5 in an interview with the magazine Novoye Vremya in early 1994. In his 1998 interview with David E. Hoffman for The Washington Post the chemist claimed that he helped invent the A-232 agent, that it was more frostproof, and confirmed that a binary version has been developed from it. Uglev revealed more details in 2018, following the poisoning of the Skripals, stating that "several hundred" compounds were synthesised during the Foliant research but only four agents were weaponised (presumably the Novichok-5, −7, −8 and −9 mentioned by other sources): the first three were liquids and only the last, which was not developed until 1980, could be made into a powder. Unlike the interview twenty years earlier, he denied any binary agents were developed successfully, at least up until his involvement in the research ceased in 1994.

In the 1990s, the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) obtained a sample of one Novichok agent from a Russian scientist, and the sample was analysed in Sweden, according to a 2018 Reuters report. The chemical formula was given to Western NATO countries, who synthesized it, then used small amounts to test protective equipment, detection of it, and antidotes to it.

Novichok was referred to in a patent filed in 2008 for an organophosphorus poisoning treatment. The University of Maryland, Baltimore research was funded in part by the U.S. Army.

Professor Leonid Rink, who said he had participated in the creation of Novichok agents, confirmed that the structures leaked by Mirzayanov were the correct ones. Rink was himself convicted in Russia for illegally selling a Novichok agent used in 1995 to assassinate a banker, Ivan Kivelidi, and his secretary.

David Wise, in his book Cassidy's Run, implies that the Soviet program may have been the unintended result of misleading information, involving a discontinued American program to develop a nerve agent code named "GJ", that was fed by a double agent to the Soviets as part of Operation Shocker.

Development and test sites
Stephanie Fitzpatrick, an American geopolitical consultant, has claimed that the Chemical Research Institute in Nukus, Soviet Uzbekistan, produced Novichok agents, and The New York Times has reported that U.S. officials said the site was the major research and testing site for Novichok agents. Small, experimental batches of the weapons may have been tested on the nearby Ustyurt Plateau. Fitzpatrick also writes that the agents may have been tested in a research centre in Krasnoarmeysk near Moscow. Precursor chemicals were made at the Pavlodar Chemical Plant in Soviet Kazakhstan, which was also thought to be the intended Novichok weapons production site, until its still-under-construction chemical warfare agent production building was demolished in 1987 in view of the forthcoming 1990 Chemical Weapons Accord and the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Since its independence in 1991, Uzbekistan has been working with the government of the United States to dismantle and decontaminate the sites where the Novichok agents and other chemical weapons were tested and developed. Between 1999 and 2002 the United States Department of Defense dismantled the major research and testing site for Novichok at the Chemical Research Institute in Nukus, under a $6 million Cooperative Threat Reduction programme.

Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a British chemical weapons expert and former commanding officer of the UK's Joint Chemical, Biological, Radiation and Nuclear Regiment and its NATO equivalent, "dismissed" suggestions that Novichok agents could be found in other places in the former Soviet Union such as Uzbekistan and has asserted that Novichok agents were produced only at Shikhany in Saratov Oblast, Russia. Mirzayanov also says that it was at Shikhany, in 1973, that scientist Pyotr Petrovich Kirpichev first produced Novichok agents; Vladimir Uglev joined him on the project in 1975. According to Mirzayanov, while production took place in Shikhany, the weapon was tested at Nukus between 1986 and 1989.

Following the poisoning of the Skripals, former head of the GosNIIOKhT security department Nikolay Volodin confirmed in an interview to Novaya Gazeta that there have been tests at Nukus, and said that dogs were used.

In May 2018, the Irish Independent reported that "Germany's foreign intelligence service secured a sample of the Soviet-developed nerve agent Novichok in the 1990s and passed on its knowledge to partners including Britain and the US, according to German media reports." The sample was analysed in Sweden. Small amounts of the Novichok nerve agent were subsequently produced in some NATO countries for test purposes.

Description of Novichok agents

Mirzayanov provided the first description of these agents. Dispersed in an ultra-fine powder instead of a gas or a vapour, they have unique qualities. A binary agent was then created that would mimic the same properties but would either be manufactured using materials which are not controlled substances under the CWC, or be undetectable by treaty regime inspections. The most potent compounds from this family, Novichok-5 and Novichok-7, are supposedly around five to eight times more potent than VX. The "Novichok" designation refers to the binary form of the agent, with the final compound being referred to by its code number (e.g. A-232). The first Novichok series compound was in fact the binary form of a known V-series nerve agent, VR, while the later Novichok agents are the binary forms of compounds such as A-232 and A-234. According to a classified (secret) report by the US Army National Ground Intelligence Center in Military Intelligence Digest dated 24 January 1997, agent designated A-232 and its ethyl analogue A-234 developed under the Foliant programme "are as toxic as VX, as resistant to treatment as soman, and more difficult to detect and easier to manufacture than VX". The binary versions of the agents reportedly use acetonitrile and an organic phosphate "that can be disguised as a pesticide precursor."

The agent A-234 is also supposedly around five to eight times more potent than VX.

The median lethal dose for inhaled A-234 has been estimated as 7 mg/m3 for two minute exposure (minute volume of 15 L, slight activity). The median lethal dose for inhaled A-230, likely the most toxic liquid Novichok, has been estimated as between 1.9 and 3 mg/m3 for two minute exposure. Thus the median lethal dose for inhaled A-234 is 0.2 mg (5000 lethal doses in a gram) and is below 0.1 mg for A-230 (10 000 lethal doses in a gram). The agents are reportedly capable of being delivered as a liquid, aerosol or gas via a variety of systems, including artillery shells, bombs, missiles and spraying devices.

Controversy over formulation
Mirzayanov gives somewhat different structures for Novichok agents in his autobiography than those which have been identified by Western experts. The Western formulations suffered from imperfect information, as can be seen in Fig. 1 of Chai et al in which Mirzayanov describes a family of compounds whereas Western scientists instantiate a particular salt.

Mirzyanov makes clear that a large number of compounds were made, and many of the less potent derivatives were reported in the open literature as new organophosphate insecticides, so that the secret chemical weapons program could be disguised as legitimate pesticide research.

Chemistry
According to chemical weapons expert Jonathan Tucker, the first binary formulation developed under the Foliant programme was used to make Substance 33 (VR), very similar to the more widely known VX, differing only in the alkyl substituents on its nitrogen and oxygen atoms. "This weapon was given the code name Novichok."

A wide range of potential structures have been reported. These all feature the classical organophosphorus core (sometimes with the P=O replaced with P=S or P=Se), which is most commonly depicted as being a phosphoramidate or phosphonate, usually fluorinated (cf. monofluorophosphate). The organic groups are subject to more variety; however, a common substituent is phosgene oxime or analogues thereof. This is a potent chemical weapon in its own right, specifically as a nettle agent, and would be expected to increase the harm done by the Novichok agent. Many claimed structures from this group also contain cross-linking agent motifs which may covalently bind to the acetylcholinesterase enzyme's active site in several places, perhaps explaining the rapid denaturing of the enzyme that is claimed to be characteristic of the Novichok agents.

Zoran Radić, a chemist at the University of California, San Diego, performed an in silico docking study with Mirzayanov's version of the A-232 structure against the active site of the acetylcholinesterase enzyme. The model predicted a tight fit with high binding affinity and formation of a covalent bond to a serine residue in the active site, with a similar binding mode to established nerve agents such as sarin and soman.

Detection
A procedure of retrospective detection of Novichok type poisons in victim's tissues has been proposed recently. This method is a modification of the procedure that was developed earlier for identification of sarin poisoning. This method capitalizes on the fact that poisoning by organic phosphonates occurs via phosphonylation of the hydroxy group of serine in the active site of cholinesterases, and that severe poisoning occurs when a major part of these enzymes are inactivated. The concentration of butyryl cholinesterase (HuBuChE) in human plasma is normally about 80 nM. That makes it a good source of adducts that can be subjected to analysis.

The procedure consists of three steps (see the Figure A). First, HuBuChE is obtained from the victim's plasma. Second, the enzyme is subjected to pepsin proteolysis. Third, the peptide mixture obtained is subjected to LC-MSMS analysis. If no poisoning took place, the peptide mixture contains a non-modified nonapeptide FGESAGAAS. However, cholinesterases are inactivated due to a chemical reaction with Novichok type nerve agent, the modified nonapeptide is be detected, and its exact (high resolution) mass (along with the mass of the secondary ion produced during collision induced dissociation) allows unambiguous identification of the fact of poisoning and the exact structure of the poison. Thus, the example at Figure A shows the masses of the primary and secondary ions obtained from the plasma of the victim poisoned by A-230. If a victim is poisoned by other Novichok type agents, the masses are different.

This method allows identification of poisons at few ppb ratio, but that may be insufficient for reliable detection of the isotopic signature of the adducts, and therefore an unambiguous identification of the geographic origin of the poison.

Lifetime
According to Vladimir Uglev, who headed a group that worked on the development of the Novichok agents, at least one liquid form of Novichok is very stable with a slow evaporation rate and can remain potent for possibly up to 50 years. Insufficient research has been conducted to fully understand its persistence in various situations in the environment.

Effects and countermeasures
As nerve agents, the Novichok agents belong to the class of organophosphate acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. These chemical compounds inhibit the enzyme acetylcholinesterase, preventing the normal breakdown of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. Acetylcholine concentrations then increase at neuromuscular junctions to cause involuntary contraction of all skeletal muscles (cholinergic crisis). This then leads to respiratory and cardiac arrest (as the victim's heart and diaphragm muscles no longer function normally) and finally death from heart failure or suffocation as copious fluid secretions fill the victim's lungs.

As can be seen with other organophosphate poisonings, Novichok agents may cause lasting nerve damage, resulting in permanent disablement of victims, according to Russian scientists. Their effect on humans was demonstrated by the accidental exposure of Andrei Zheleznyakov, one of the scientists involved in their development, to the residue of an unspecified Novichok agent while working in a Moscow laboratory in May 1987. He was critically injured and took ten days to recover consciousness after the incident. He lost the ability to walk and was treated at a secret clinic in Leningrad for three months afterwards. The agent caused permanent harm, with effects that included "chronic weakness in his arms, a toxic hepatitis that gave rise to cirrhosis of the liver, epilepsy, spells of severe depression, and an inability to read or concentrate that left him totally disabled and unable to work." He never recovered and, after five years of deteriorating health, died in July 1992.

The use of a fast-acting peripheral anticholinergic drug such as atropine can block the receptors where acetylcholine acts to prevent poisoning (as in the treatment for poisoning by other acetylcholinesterase inhibitors). Atropine, however, is difficult to administer safely, because its effective dose for nerve agent poisoning is close to the dose at which patients suffer severe side effects, such as changes in heart rate and thickening of the bronchial secretions, which fill the lungs of someone suffering nerve agent poisoning so that suctioning of these secretions, and other advanced life support techniques, may be necessary in addition to administration of atropine to treat nerve agent poisoning.

In the treatment of nerve agent poisoning, atropine is most often administered along with a Hagedorn oxime such as pralidoxime, obidoxime, TMB-4, or HI-6, which reactivates acetylcholinesterase which has been inactivated by phosphorylation by an organophosphorus nerve agent and relieves the respiratory muscle paralysis caused by some nerve agents. Pralidoxime is not effective in reactivating acetylcholinesterase inhibited by some older nerve agents such as soman or the Novichok nerve agents, described in the literature as being up to eight times more toxic than the nerve agent VX.

The US Army has funded studies of the use of galantamine along with atropine in the treatment of a number of nerve agents, including soman and the Novichok agents. An unexpected synergistic interaction was seen to occur between galantamine (given between five hours before to thirty minutes after exposure) and atropine in an amount of 6 mg/kg or higher. Increasing the dose of galantamine from 5 to 8 mg/kg decreased the dose of atropine needed to protect experimental animals from the toxicity of soman in dosages 1.5 times the LD50 (lethal dose in half the animals studied).

There have been differing claims about the persistence of Novichok and binary precursors in the environment. One view is that it is not affected by normal weather conditions, and may not decompose as quickly as other organophosphates. However, Mirzayanov states that Novichok decomposes within four months.

Poisoning of Ivan Kivelidi and Zara Ismailova
A Novichok agent was used in 1995 to poison Russian banker Ivan Kivelidi, who died three days later in a hospital at the age of 46. The poison was believed to have been applied to Kivelidi's office phone in Moscow. His secretary Zara Ismailova also developed symptoms one month later and then died a day later in a hospital at the age of 35. Kivelidi was the head of the Russian Business Round Table, and had close ties to Viktor Chernomyrdin, who was at that time Prime Minister of Russia. Russian opposition–linked historians Yuri Felshtinsky and Vladimir Pribylovsky speculated that the murder became "one of the first in the series of poisonings organised by Russia's security services".

The Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs analysed the substance and announced that it was "a phosphorus-based military-grade nerve agent" "whose formula was strictly classified". According to Nesterov, the administrative head of Shikhany, he did not know of "a single case of such poison being sold illegally" and noted that the poison "is used by professional spies".

Vladimir Khutsishvili, a former business partner of Kivelidi's, was subsequently convicted of the killings. According to The Independent, "A closed trial found that his business partner had obtained the substance via intermediaries from an employee of the State Research Institute of Organic Chemistry and Technology (ГосНИИОХТ / GosNIIOKhT), which was involved in the development of Novichok agents. However, Khutsishvili, who claimed that he was innocent, had not been detained at the time of the trial and freely left the country. He was only arrested in 2006 after he returned to Russia, believing that the ten-year old case was closed. Felshtinsky and Pribylovsky claimed that Russia's security services, which had access to the chemical agent, had framed Khutsishvili for the murder, and that the security services had organised the murder on the orders of a senior Russian state official. Boris Kuznetsov, who represented Khutsishvili and believed in his innocence, blames  "rogue intelligence officers".

Leonid Rink, an employee of GosNIIOKhT, received a one-year suspended sentence for selling Novichok agents to unnamed buyers "of Chechen ethnicity" soon after the poisoning of Kivelidi and Izmailova.

Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal
On 12 March 2018, the UK government said that a Novichok agent had been used in an attack in the English city of Salisbury on 4 March 2018 in an attempt to kill former GRU officer Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia. British Prime Minister Theresa May said in Parliament: "Either this was a direct action by the Russian state against our country, or the Russian government lost control of its potentially catastrophically damaging nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of others." On 13 March the BBC asked Vladimir Putin if Russia was "behind the poisoning of" Skripal and he answered "Get to the bottom of it first then we can discuss it" while he delegated a spokesperson to claim that "a circus show in the British parliament" was the upshot. Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, refused to shake hands with Russian ambassador Alexander Yakovenko as he expressed "outrage" over the attack. On the next day, the UK expelled 23 Russian diplomats after the Russian government refused to meet the UK's deadline of midnight on 13 March 2018 to give an explanation for the use of the substance. Addressing the United Nations Security Council on 15 March, Vassily Nebenzia, the Russian envoy to the UN, responded to the British allegations by denying that Russia had ever produced or researched the agents, stating: "No scientific research or development under the title Novichok were carried out."

After the attack, 21 members of the emergency services and public were checked for possible exposure, and three were hospitalised. As of 12 March, one police officer remained in hospital. Five hundred members of the public were advised to decontaminate their possessions to prevent possible long-term exposure, and 180 members of the military and 18 vehicles were deployed to assist with decontamination at locations in and around Salisbury. Up to 38 people in Salisbury have been affected by the agent to an undetermined extent.

Daniel Gerstein, a former senior official at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, said it was possible that Novichok nerve agents had been used before in Britain to assassinate Kremlin targets, but had not been detected: "It's entirely likely that we have seen someone expire from this and not realised it. We realised in this case because they were found unresponsive on a park bench. Had it been a higher dose, maybe they would have died and we would have thought it was natural causes."

On 20 March 2018, Ahmet Üzümcü, Director-General of the OPCW, said that it would take "another two to three weeks to finalise the analysis" of samples taken from the poisoning of Skripal. On 3 April 2018, the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory announced that it was "completely confident" that the agent used was Novichok, although they still did not know the "precise source" of the agent. Experts said that their findings did not challenge the conclusions by UK government: "We provided that information to the Government who have then used a number of other sources to come to the conclusions that they have." On 12 April 2018 the OPCW announced that their investigations agreed with the conclusions made by the UK about the identity of the chemical used.

By September 2018, two Russian "tourists", "Alexander Petrov" and "Ruslan Boshirov", had been identified as suspects. They told Margarita Simonyan, the chief editor of RT television, in an interview that they both worked in the sports nutrition business and that: "Those are our real names.. We're afraid to go out, we fear for ourselves, our lives and lives of our loved ones." The Crown Prosecution Service announced enough evidence was obtained by that date "to convict the two men" of the attack, although it did not apply to Russia "for their extradition because Russia does not extradite its own nationals. [...] However, a European Arrest Warrant has been obtained in case they travel to the EU".

In February 2019, the Bellingcat website published precise allegations that identified GRU Major Denis Vyacheslavovich Sergeev as a man who travelled in March 2018 to London under the false identity of Sergei Fedotov. It is claimed with detailed photograph evidence, and phone, travel, passport, and motoring database records that GRU Colonels Alexander Mishkin and Anatoly Chepiga assumed the identities of Petrov and Boshirov, and placed the poison on Skripal's doorknob. On 28 June 2019, it was reported that Sergeyev received instructions from his GRU superior by cell phone on more than ten occasions during his UK visits.

Poisoning of Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess
On 30 June 2018, Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess were found unconscious at a house in Amesbury, Wiltshire, about eight miles from the Salisbury poisoning site. On 4 July 2018, police said that the pair had been poisoned with the same nerve agent as ex-Russian spy Sergei Skripal.

On 8 July 2018, Sturgess died as a result of the poisoning. Rowley regained consciousness and began recovering in hospital. He told his brother Matthew the nerve agent had been in a small perfume or aftershave bottle, which they had found in a park about nine days before spraying themselves with it. The police later closed and fingertip-searched Queen Elizabeth Gardens in Salisbury.

Poisoning of Emilian Gebrev
In the aftermath of the Skripal poisoning, investigative journalists were able to track some of the people involved also in Bulgaria. This is how another suspected poisoning case dating back to April 2015 during their stay in the country was linked to the Novichok nerve agent. The victim was the Bulgarian arms dealer Emilian Gebrev, who shared two hypotheses why he might have been attacked: The first one links to the fact that his arms manufacturing company Dunarit exports defense equipment to Ukraine. The other one relates to an attempt by an offshore company to take over Dunarit. The takeover attempt was ultimately linked to the influential Bulgarian politician and oligarch Delyan Peevski who has historically been funded by Russia's state-owned VTB Bank. In November 2023 Bulgaria sought the extradition of three Russian GRU officers suspected of the poisoning incident.

Poisoning of Alexei Navalny
On 20 August 2020, Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny fell ill during a flight from Tomsk to Moscow. The plane made an emergency landing in Omsk, where Navalny was hospitalized and put in a medically induced coma. His family suspected his illness was caused by a poison put into a cup of tea he drank before the flight. He was evacuated to the Charité hospital in Berlin, Germany, the following day. On 2 September, the German government said that it had "unequivocal evidence" that Navalny was poisoned by a Novichok agent after tests at a German military lab and had called on the Russian government for an explanation, with labs in France and Sweden corroborating the findings.

On 4 September, the North Atlantic Council was briefed by the German representative on the "appalling assassination attempt on" Navalny. In a post-meeting press conference, Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said that NATO allies "agree that Russia has serious questions it must answer", that the OPCW needed to conduct an impartial investigation, that "those responsible for this attack must be brought to justice" and called on Russia to "provide complete disclosure of the Novichok programme to the OPCW."

Navalny had been out of his coma since 7 September.

On 6 October, the OPCW confirmed the presence of a cholinesterase inhibitor from the Novichok group in Navalny's blood and urine samples. At the same time, the OPCW report clarified that Navalny was poisoned with a new type of Novichok, which was not included in the list of controlled chemicals of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

List of Novichok agents

 * A-230
 * A-232
 * A-234
 * A-242
 * A-262 (Novichok-7)
 * C01-A035
 * C01-A039
 * C01-A042

title: Novichok


text:
Gaius Marius (consul 82 BC)

Gaius Marius "the Younger" (c. 110 BC – 82 BC) was a Roman republican general and politician who became consul in 82 BC with Gnaeus Papirius Carbo. He was the son of the Gaius Marius who was the victor of the Jugurthine and Cimbric wars. He fought in Sulla's civil war. He committed suicide that same year at Praeneste, after his defeat by Sulla and during the city's capture by Quintus Lucretius Afella.

Biography
Marius the Younger was the son of the Gaius Marius who was seven times consul and a famous military commander. His mother, Julia, was an aunt of Julius Caesar. In his youth, Marius was educated with Titus Pomponius Atticus and Marcus Tullius Cicero by Greek tutors. During the Social War, he served under Lucius Porcius Cato, which one source claims Marius killed at the Battle of Fucine Lake over Cato's claims that Cato's achievements were on par with the elder Marius's victory over the Cimbri. Seeking to strengthen his political alliances, the elder Marius married his son to Licinia, a daughter of Lucius Licinius Crassus.

Due to the political turmoil launched by his father in 88 BC to strip his rival Lucius Cornelius Sulla of command of the Roman forces in the First Mithridatic War, the younger Marius accompanied his father into exile when Sulla unexpectedly marched on Rome, forcing them both to flee. At Ostia, young Marius went on ahead of his father and sailed to Africa. There he went to the court of Hiempsal II of Numidia to seek his help against Sulla, but the king decided to hold him captive instead. He managed to escape with the help of one of Hiempsal's concubines whom the young Marius had seduced. He then joined up with his father who had also come to Africa, and they escaped to the Kerkennah Islands.

Learning of Cinna's fight to retain his consulship in 87 BC, father and son returned to Rome, where Marius the elder took control of the situation, gathering an army of slaves and gladiators, and murdering his enemies, both real and imagined. According to Cassius Dio, the younger Marius inaugurated his father's seventh consulship by murdering one plebeian tribune and sending his head to the newly installed consuls, while having another tribune thrown from the heights of the Capitoline Hill. He also banished two praetors, ordering that neither should receive fire or water from any Roman citizen. When his father died of natural causes shortly after taking office, the young Marius assumed leadership of his father's adherents and clients, although overall control of the Marian faction was held by Cinna, who was elected consul for consecutive years until his death in 84 BC.

Marius minor was elected consul for 82 BC and deployed on the frontiers of Latium to oppose Sulla, who had conquered the southern part of Italy after landing in Brundisium the prior year. This was a political move by Gnaeus Papirius Carbo, his consular colleague and the new leader of the Marians after Cinna died, to drum up popular support and enthusiasm for the war against Sulla; Marius was much too young and had not held the prerequisite magistracies to be a legally elected consul. Two talented and better-qualified men among the Marian faction, his cousin Marius Gratidianus and Quintus Sertorius, were passed over in favor of the younger Marius "in the interest of unity". Many of the old veterans from the elder Marius's former armies came out of retirement and flocked to the younger Marius's side, and, by the battle of Sacriportus, his army numbered eighty-five cohorts.

At the Battle of Sacriportus, in 82 BC, Sulla and his army defeated the army of Marius. Marius with around 7,000 surviving troops retreated to the fortress city of Praeneste, along with the treasury of the Capitoline temple. Sulla's lieutenant Quintus Lucretius Afella, conducted the siege,

After his defeat, Marius gave orders to allies in Rome to kill a number of Sullan supporters before Rome was captured by Sulla, including his father-in-law, Quintus Mucius Scaevola Pontifex, the ex-consul Lucius Domitius, Publius Antistius and Gaius Carbo. Although both Gnaeus Papirius Carbo and Lucius Junius Brutus Damasippus attempted to break the siege, they were unsuccessful, with relief forces being intercepted and destroyed en route. After receiving news of Sulla's victory at the Battle of the Colline Gate, Marius made one final attempt to escape, this time by digging a tunnel under the walls, but the attempt was uncovered. Marius committed suicide so as not to fall into enemy hands.

In 45 BC, a man referred to as Pseudo-Marius appeared in Rome, claiming to be the son of the younger Marius.

title: Gaius Marius (consul 82 BC)


text:
Philadelphia Arena

The Philadelphia Arena was an auditorium used mainly for sporting events located at 46th and Market Streets in West Philadelphia.

The address of the building, originally named the Philadelphia Ice Palace and Auditorium, was 4530 Market Street. The building stood next to what would become the WFIL TV studio that broadcast American Bandstand. It was built by George F. Pawling, of George F. Pawling & Co., Engineers and Contractors, and opened on Saturday, February 14, 1920, with a college hockey game between Yale and Princeton Tigers; the Bulldogs won, 4–0, before a crowd of over 4,000 despite the fact that the arena had only one small entrance at the time.

One of the first teams to make the Arena home was the Yale University men's ice hockey team. Yale did not have a suitable on-campus venue in 1920 and played home games in Philadelphia. During the 1920–1921 season, Yale, Princeton, and Penn made the Arena their home ice.

The Tyrrell era
Jules Mastbaum, owner of a movie theater chain (The Stanley Company of America), acquired the building in 1925 and renamed it the Arena. In 1927 the Arena was purchased by Rudy Fried and Maurice Fishman who operated the facility until 1934, when their partnership was placed in receivership. In 1929, Peter A. Tyrrell (1896–1973) joined the Arena as boxing matchmaker and subsequently became the facility's publicist. In 1934 Tyrrell was named a friendly receiver-in-equity by George Welsh, a federal judge. Tyrrell became general manager of the Arena and served in that capacity until 1958, returning the corporation to profitability and enriching the variety of public entertainment.

Historic events and professional sports
The arena was the site of several historic sporting events, including the professional debut of Sonja Henie, fresh from her triumph in the 1936 Winter Olympics. Roy Rogers, cowboy movie star, performed in his first rodeo at the Philadelphia arena in 1943. The Roy Rogers Rodeo played the Arena every season for more than 20 years, and in 1946, when a young cowgirl died after riding a bucking bronco, her funeral was held there. Rogers and the Sons of Pioneers sang "Roundup in the Sky", and after the closing prayer, everybody rode out to the cemetery. It was also the home of the Philadelphia Sports Writers Association Banquet. Professionally, the arena was the home of the Philadelphia Quakers of the NHL in their only season, 1930–1931, as well as home ice for several minor league hockey teams such as the Philadelphia Arrows, Philadelphia Ramblers, the Philadelphia Comets, the Philadelphia Falcons/Philadelphia Rockets and the Philadelphia Ramblers (EHL), as well as the Philadelphia Warriors and part-time home of the Philadelphia 76ers of the NBA when the Philadelphia Convention Center was unavailable.

The arena was also a major venue for boxing and wrestling before the opening of the Spectrum. Throughout the history of the Arena, such legends as Sugar Ray Robinson, Lew Tendler, Gene Tunney, Joe Frazier, Jack Delaney, and Primo Carnera fought there. Several championship wrestling matches occurred there, both for the NWA and the WWWF (including Stan Stasiak winning the WWWF championship belt in 1973, the only time until 1977 the belt ever changed hands outside of Madison Square Garden). Roller Derby also was held there, through the team named the Philadelphia Warriors, not connected with the basketball team, owned by Bill Griffiths, the owner of the Los Angeles Thunderbirds and Roller Games.

"Didja Get Any Onya?" on the album Weasels Ripped My Flesh by Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention was recorded at this venue on March 2, 1969.

Political and other events
The Arena was not used as much for political and other events, as those events tended to be held at Convention Hall. However, many of the city's mayoral inauguration parties were held there. Evangelist Billy Sunday spoke there, and before the United States entered World War II, Charles A. Lindbergh gave a speech before an America First Committee Meeting.

Triangle publications
In 1947 the Arena was sold to Triangle Publications, along with the NBA franchise and the Philadelphia Warriors Basketball team. This transaction made TV station WFIL-TV (Channel 6), owned by Triangle Publications, the first joint ownership of a major professional sports team and TV station. In 1958, a group headed by Tyrrell purchased the Arena from the Walter Annenberg Foundation, to which ownership had been transferred by Triangle Publications. At the time of Tyrrell's retirement in 1965, the Arena building was sold at auction to James Toppi Enterprises, a sports promotion concern.

Final years
The building fell out of popular use in the 1970s, due to the building of the Spectrum in 1967. From 1967 to 1974, the arena was home to the Eastern Warriors, a Roller Derby team, skating every Friday and Sunday, usually to capacity. In 1977, the deteriorating building was auctioned off. It was renovated and renamed in honor of Martin Luther King Jr.

In 1980, the Continental Basketball Association's Lancaster Red Roses relocated to the newly named Martin Luther King Jr. Arena and became the Philadelphia Kings. The Kings were coached by longtime 76er and Basketball Hall of Famer Hal Greer and led on the court by former NBA superstar Cazzie Russell. The franchise lasted just one season at the legendary arena before returning to Lancaster.

The arena was finally destroyed by arson on August 24, 1983. As of 2007, the former site of the arena now contains a housing complex, adjacent to the former TV studio which has become the Ron Brown Commerce Center.

title: Philadelphia Arena


text: User talk:65.71.70.197

title: User talk:65.71.70.197


text:
Tennis the Menace

"Tennis the Menace" is the twelfth episode of the twelfth season of the American animated television series The Simpsons. It originally aired on the Fox network in the United States on February 11, 2001. In the episode, the Simpsons build a tennis court in their backyard and are ridiculed by the entire town because of Homer's inferior tennis ability. Homer therefore tries to please Marge by entering the two into a tournament, but they quickly turn into rivals when Marge replaces Homer with Bart as her partner.

The episode features guest appearances from tennis professionals Andre Agassi, Pete Sampras, and the Williams sisters as themselves. "Tennis the Menace" was directed by Jen Kamerman and written by Ian Maxtone-Graham, who also directed the Williams sisters' performance. The episodes title is a parody of Dennis the Menace. The animators of The Simpsons experimented with digital ink and paint on "Tennis the Menace", making it the first episode of the series to be animated using the process since season 7's "Radioactive Man".

"Tennis the Menace" has received generally positive reviews from critics with particular praise for its guest stars.

Around eight million American homes tuned in to watch "Tennis the Menace" during its original airing, and in 2009 it was released on DVD along with the rest of the episodes of the twelfth season.

Plot
The Springfield Retirement Castle holds a talent show, which the Simpson family attends. Grampa wins the show after performing his version of the song "What's New, Pussycat?". He wins a free autopsy, so the Simpsons visit a funeral salesman to claim the prize. While there, Homer decides to buy a casket and a tombstone for Grampa, who is then offered an expensive funeral plan that Homer cannot afford. The salesman tells Homer that the tombstone is produced from the same amount of cement as a tennis court, and this gives him the idea to build a tennis court in the family's backyard (although he initially regrets this, having confused tennis with foxy boxing).

The court is very popular with Springfield's residents, but they mock Homer and Marge for losing all the time, especially thanks to Homer's poor play. Marge pleads with Homer to take the game seriously, but he is too oblivious to how poorly he plays tennis. Instead, he tries to please Marge by entering the pair in Krusty's celebrity tennis tournament, the "Krusty Kharity Klassic". Marge, tired of being laughed at, ditches Homer and enters with Bart as her new partner. Homer is outraged that he was abandoned for a ten-year-old boy, and tries to get revenge by entering the tournament with Lisa as his partner, despite Lisa's disapproval.

The change in partners leads the Simpson family to begin arguing and aggressively competing against one another. The tournament takes place, and in the stands are leading tennis professionals Andre Agassi, Pete Sampras, Venus Williams, and Serena Williams. At the tournament, Homer ditches Lisa for Venus. In response, Marge replaces Bart with Serena as her partner. Ultimately, Serena and Venus replace Marge and Homer with Sampras and Agassi, respectively. This forces the family to go back to the bench and resume their normal places in the family. As they enjoy the exhibition of top-class tennis, they agree that it is better to watch things than to do things, and Homer offers to buy the family dinner with money that he took from Sampras' wallet.

Production
"Tennis the Menace" was written by Ian Maxtone-Graham and directed by Jen Kamerman as part of the twelfth season of The Simpsons (2000–2001). Maxtone-Graham considers himself to be a bad tennis player and he has always wanted to win against his mother in a tennis match. This served as the inspiration for the episode, as he thought "family dynamics around tennis would be a fun show." Maxtone-Graham did a lot a research for the scenes at the beginning of the episode where the Simpsons visit a funeral salesman at a cemetery.

He read Jessica Mitford's book The American Way of Death Revisited, which discusses the funeral industry, and was able to take a tour with funeral salesmen at Westwood Village Memorial Park Cemetery in Los Angeles. At the time, he did not reveal that this was for research, and instead pretended to have a dying relative. According to Maxtone-Graham, the tour helped him find out "all about urns versus coffins, and cremation. I asked sort of questions about, 'Well, do the bodies smell?' They were very nice and gave me all the answers. It was quite fascinating."

The opening of "Tennis the Menace" is what Maxtone-Graham describes as a "screw you" beginning, as the viewer has "no idea that the twist is going to be tennis". The part of the story revolving around tennis does not begin until around eight minutes into the episode. The Simpsons show runner Mike Scully has said that he thought this was "probably too long to wait before getting the story started."

Maxtone-Graham has similarly said that while he thinks these type of openings "are kind of funny", they may be best avoided. However, Scully liked the fact that the staff included a comment in the episode on its "screw you" beginning by having Homer say "I'll bet you didn't see that coming!" to the viewers when he decides to get the tennis court. The writers had a number of alternate endings to "Tennis the Menace" before deciding on the one eventually used. For instance, at one point, the family was to return home to watch the match in which Serena and Sampras faced off against Venus and Agassi on television. The staff changed it to the final one because they did not want it to feel like the episode petered out.

"Tennis the Menace" features guest appearances from Andre Agassi, Pete Sampras, and sisters Venus and Serena Williams. All of them appeared as themselves. Executive producer Al Jean directed Sampras, who Jean thought delivered his lines "very naturally", while Maxtone-Graham directed the Williams sisters. Agassi recorded his lines in the summer of 2000. The Williams sisters, however, recorded their lines in Los Angeles sometime in the winter of 2000–2001. According to Maxtone-Graham, the sisters were "incredibly nice and incredibly generous with their time."

This is the second episode—after season seven's "Radioactive Man" (1995)—to be animated with digital ink and paint. This kind of digital coloring would not be used permanently on the show until the season fourteen episodes "Treehouse of Horror XIII" and "The Great Louse Detective" (2002). It was used on "Tennis the Menace" primarily to test the technique. The reason for the long gap between this episode and "The Great Louse Detective" was that the staff of The Simpsons wanted to refine the look some more before doing it full-time.

Release
The episode originally aired on the Fox network in the United States on February 11, 2001. It was viewed in approximately eight million households that night. With a Nielsen rating of 8.2, the episode tied the X-Files for the 41st place in the ratings for the week of February 5–11, 2001. The episode was the fourth-highest-rated broadcast on Fox that week, following episodes of Temptation Island, Ally McBeal, and Boston Public.

On August 18, 2009, "Tennis the Menace" was released on DVD as part of the box set The Simpsons – The Complete Twelfth Season. Staff members Mike Scully, Al Jean, Ian Maxtone-Graham, John Frink, Don Payne, Matt Selman, Max Pross, as well as television writer and producer Philip Rosenthal, participated in the DVD audio commentary for the episode.

Critics generally received "Tennis the Menace" quite well.

Jerry Greene of the Orlando Sentinel listed it at number nine on his 2004 list of the show's "Top 10 Sporting Episodes".

Nancy Basile of About.com wrote in her 2003 review that the plot of the episode "allowed us to see more secondary characters than usual. It also gave Springfield a sense of community that we sometimes don't get in recent seasons. Though the blatant use of guest stars has sweeps written all over it, the tennis stars were funny and able to make fun of themselves. Homer had some wonderful lines, too, such as, 'Take your hands off me. They feel like salad tongs.'  Overall, a very funny episode."

In July 2007, Simon Crerar of The Times listed Agassi's performance as one of the thirty-three funniest cameos in the history of the show.

In his review of the twelfth season of The Simpsons, Jason Bailey of DVD Talk wrote that the staff members' "habit of using the first act as a red herring, only semi-connected to the rest of the show, is ingenious and hilarious [...] They'd been doing this kind of thing for years, but it still plays; what's more, they've begun to acknowledge it, and wink about it."

He noted the scene from this episode in which Homer tells the viewers that "I'll bet you didn't see that coming!", adding that a "moment like that is The Simpsons at its best: smart, knowing, and ridiculously funny."

title: Tennis the Menace


text:
Lucius Marcius Philippus (consul 56 BC)

Lucius Marcius Philippus (born before 102 BC) was a politician and senator in the late Roman republic. He was governor of Syria from 61 to 60 and later served in the consulship of 56 BC. He was also step-father of the emperor Augustus.

Biography
and was the son of the consul in 91 BC and censor in 86 BC of the same name. He also had a brother, Quintus, who served as proconsul in Cilicia from 47 to 46 BC.

His first known office was that of praetor in the year 62 BC. After the organisation of Roman Syria, carved out as a province from the Selucid Empire by Pompey in 64 BC, it was governed by two propraetorian governors. Philippus was one of them. He succeeded Marcus Aemilius Scaurus, who had governed the province as Pompey's proquaestor pro praetore; Phillipus served there two years, from 61 through 60 BC.

Consulship
In 56 BC, he entered office as consul with Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus as his colleague. Before the two entered office, they supported putting Publius Clodius Pulcher on trial before elections for aedile; they had secured a senatorial decree to that effect, but after strenuous objections from Clodius' allies in the senate – including Quintus Caecilius Metellus Nepos (then-consul) and Gaius Porcius Cato (a tribune) – it was overruled amid demonstrations by Clodius' supporters. That year, Marcellinus engaged in vehement attacks on Caesar and Pompey, which Philippus supported. The consuls together opposed extension of Caesar's Gallic command and the aims of the so-called First Triumvirate and its members.

When Crassus and Pompey decided to stand for the consulship of 55 BC, Philippus and Marcellinus opposed them; "only by desperate postponement of the elections into the following year", coupled with strong-arm intimidation tactics and Caesar's sending of his men on leave to vote in Rome, were Crassus and Pompey able to overcome the considerable opposition to them and win election as consuls in late January 55 BC.

The next year, 54 BC, Philippus joined Clodius, Cicero, Milo, Pompey, and a number of other senior statesmen (including nine former consuls) in defending Marcus Aemilius Scaurus on charges of repetundae. Scaurus, calling on connections across the aristocracy – "no other trial in the republic evoked the participation of so many distinguished and diverse individuals" – was overwhelmingly acquitted.

Some time after 59 BC and probably also after his consulship in 56 BC, Philippus joined in a marriage alliance with Gaius Julius Caesar via his niece Atia. This marriage made him step-father to Octavia Minor and Gaius Octavius Thurinus (future Roman emperor Augustus).

Civil war
In 49 BC, tensions between Julius Caesar and the senate, led by Pompey, turned to open warfare. He was passed over for command by the anti-Caesarians in early January 49 BC due to his family connection to Caesar. When the Pompeians demanded all senators to vacate Italy and join them across the Adriatic, Philippus sought and received a "special dispensation" from Caesar to settle – possible outside Italy – as a neutral, which was "unlikely to have endeared him to the Pompeians".

After the assassination of Julius Caesar on 15 March 44 BC, Philippus' step-son Gaius Octavius returned to Italy and was met with news of his adoption in Caesar's will. Philippus cautiously advised him to reject the inheritance, but Octavius declared his acceptance, ushering him into political life.

During the short war between the senate, led by Cicero, and Mark Antony, the senate sent a peace embassy of three men, including Philippus, to Antony urging him to withdraw from Cisalpine Gaul and accept senatorial mediation under threat of war. Cicero criticised the dithering of the ultimatum in his Seventh Philippic and Antony's counter-demands were rejected, precipitating passage of a senatus consultum ultimum and declaration of a state of emergency. The war ended in senatorial defeat: after the senate's armies (led by the two consuls and Octavian) defeated Antony at the Battle of Mutina, Octavian assumed command in place of the consuls, who had died in battle, and allied with Antony against the senate to establish the Second Triumvirate.

Atia died during summer 43 BC; The Philippus that married Atia's sister was in fact his son, the consul suffectus of 38 BC.

Family
Philippus had a son, Lucius Marcius Philippus, and a daughter, Marcia. His son married his step-mother's sister Atia and later became suffect consul in 38 BC and then proconsul for Spain; his daughter married Cato the Younger and Quintus Hortensius.

title: Lucius Marcius Philippus (consul 56 BC)


text:
Cristiana Muscardini

Cristiana Muscardini (born 6 November 1948 in Cannobio) is an Italian politician and freelance writer and publicist.

Graduated in philosophy, Cristiana Muscardini was executive of the National University Action Front, the Italian Social Movement and National Alliance. She was also a municipal councillor of Milan from 1980 to 1990 and in 1991 a municipal councillor of Varese.

In the 1983 Italian general election she was elected to the Chamber of Deputies, while in the 1989 European Parliament election she was elected MEP for the first time, re-confirmed in the successive elections of 1994, 1999, 2004 and 2009. From 2000 to 2004 she was Vice-Chairwoman of the Union for Europe of the Nations Group and from 2001 to 2009 General Secretary of the Alliance for Europe of the Nations. In 2009 she was elected to the European Parliament with The People of Freedom and she joined the European People's Party Group. In 2010 she joined the new party of Gianfranco Fini, Future and Freedom, but in 2012 she left this party to found the Conservatives and Social Reformers (CSR), joining the European Conservatives and Reformists Group in the EP.

In the 2014 European Parliament election she was a candidate with European Choice, but the list didn't exceed the threshold and she wasn't re-elected.

Decorations

 * Commander of the Order of St. Maurice and St. Lazarus

title: Cristiana Muscardini


text: User talk:70.22.81.8

title: User talk:70.22.81.8