This was pretty bad. Will never be forgotten in NZ. Has probably been forgotten by Australia and everywhere else though.
reminds me of the episode in HIMYM with the Minnesota sports bar
Underarm bowling incident of 1981
11–20 of 169 posts
Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981
#12Cricket will never make sense to me. That just seems like playing the game.
In context, it was a bit like taking advantage of a videogame exploit that others variously hadn't discovered, thought was forbidden, or assumed would not be used by tacit agreement.
Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981
#13Cricket will never make sense to me. That just seems like playing the game.
It's pretty much completely not like playing the game, because the batting team can't meaningfully hit the ball.
Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981
#14A more serious case of unsportsmanlike conduct that was (and still is) within the Laws of Cricket: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodyline
No it is not still within the laws of cricket since the late 1930s.
You might notice the law changes section in that article, that amongst other things you can't have loads of fielders behind square on leg side now.
I would also suggest it is not considered unsportsmanlike to bowl short and aim for the head any more, but rather something people look foster's forward to seeing.
Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981
#15To someone who is coming in cold, this kinda feels like people saying it’s unsportsmanlike to kneel at the end of a gridiron game, or pass the ball around the backfield in stoppage time at a soccer game?
There is still the remote possibility of a fumble or tackling the ball away from the defence in those cases. In the underarm bowling incident it was made physically impossible to win. In baseball terms, he had to hit a home run with the ball on the ground.
(Though as a non-American, I am indeed mystified why the kneel is legal and not regarded as delay of game!)
Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981
#16Cricket will never make sense to me. That just seems like playing the game.
It's a gentleman's game. Like in golf, there are expectations of behavior.
They didn't think they needed a rule.
This was what made me certain they were wrong--the commentary of their own older brother, who's hugely respected:
> As the ball was being bowled, Ian Chappell (elder brother of Greg and Trevor, and a former Australian captain), who was commentating on the match, was heard to call out "No, Greg, no, you can't do that"[10] in an instinctive reaction to the incident, and he remained critical in a later newspaper article on the incident.[11]
Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981
#17don't know anything about cricket, know only about the beginnings of the writings by learned scholar Douglas Adams
Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981
#18Cricket will never make sense to me. That just seems like playing the game.
In context, it was a bit like taking advantage of a videogame exploit that others variously hadn't discovered, thought was forbidden, or assumed would not be used by tacit agreement.
No, everyone had discovered it.
This is like taking oddjob in the final match.
Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
In context, it was a bit like taking advantage of a videogame exploit that others variously hadn't discovered, thought was forbidden, or assumed would not be used by tacit agreement.
No, everyone had discovered it. This is like taking oddjob in the final match.
Underarm bowling was nothing new, but I reckon some had never even thought about literally just rolling the thing.
Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981
#20> Bruce Edgar, who was on 102 not out, was stuck at the non-striker's end the entire over. Now Americans can finally know how Europeans feel when watching baseball
As an American it has taken me nearly half a century of occasionally watching cricket to barely comprehend what that sentence means. I love it.