Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Underarm bowling incident of 1981

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 169 posts

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#21

Post by kiddico »

CamouflagedKiwi wrote: post #13
kiddico wrote: post #7

Cricket 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.

I know they're different, but in baseball the pitch is part of the game. Not being able to make good use of a pitch is a problem for the hitter, not the pitcher.

Now that I think of it telling a baseball pitcher that he could throw a pitch, but not too difficult of one at certain times is hilarious.

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#23

Post by stavros »

alt219 wrote: post #20
dvh wrote: post #6

> 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.

As a European, what the hell is going on.

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#24

Post by retsibsi »

kiddico wrote: post #21
CamouflagedKiwi wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty much completely not like playing the game, because the batting team can't meaningfully hit the ball.

I know they're different, but in baseball the pitch is part of the game. Not being able to make good use of a pitch is a problem for the hitter, not the pitcher. Now that I think of it telling a baseball pitcher that he could throw a pitch, but not too difficult of one at certain times is hilarious.

There's definitely an argument for just exploiting edge cases in the rules as hard as you can, seeing how the game evolves from there, and relying on the governing body to fix it if needed. (A la https://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub .) Cricket saw itself unironically as "the gentlemen's game", though, so this didn't really fit the culture.

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#25

Post by alt219 »

RobotToaster wrote: post #8

The "hand of god" of Cricket?

Not to take anything away from Maridona's overall excellence, but his goal was 100% illegal, just none of the referees saw his handball.

Underarm bowling was still allowed when this incident occurred and was therefore legal, just considered very unsportsmanlike and outside the spirit of the game.

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#27

Post by kiddico »

sejje wrote: post #16
kiddico wrote: post #7

Cricket 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…

I suppose my fundamental misunderstanding is that an underarm bowl just seems like the obvious defensive move, not unsportsmanlike.

I said this in another comment and it seems relevant: "I know they're different, but in baseball the pitch is part of the game. Not being able to make good use of a pitch is a problem for the hitter, not the pitcher."

I think my baseballed mind simply cannot warp itself to your gentlemanly ways lol

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#28

Post by nkrisc »

zinckiwi wrote: post #15
Brendinooo wrote: post #5

To 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!)

Essentially the player with the ball is going down on their own, ending the down, same as if they had ran with the ball and been tackled.

They’re considered down when their knee touches the ground while in possession of the ball (“possession” having a specific meaning, with regard to the rules). Again, this is the same as if they had been tackled. The only difference is no one forced them to the ground.

Taking a knee is not something that would normally be considered a good thing since you lose yards and a down.

As for why it’s not a delay of game, that’s likely because it does not delay the game any more than any normal play would. It probably runs down less time on the clock than if they played normally, but of course playing normally is riskier which why they take a knee. The idea is to simply run down the clock as much as possible without risking a turnover and then leaving the other team with too little time to score.

If the rules could be changed to disincentivize taking a knee I think that would be more interesting, but I’m not sure how you do that. It’s also safer in an already dangerous sport.

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#30

Post by bentcorner »

zinckiwi wrote: post #15
Brendinooo wrote: post #5

To 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!)

I am a casual American football viewer but my understanding is that the kneel ends the current play but keeps the clock running. Each team has something like 40s to setup their formation and snap the ball after the previous play has ended. If the game clock is still running (this is concurrent to their 40s of "setup time"), the team that is in possession of the ball can just use the full setup time (idk the formal term for this) to just run out the game clock.

Each team has 4 attempts to move the ball forward 10 yards, where if the ball moves >= 10 yards they get a fresh set of 4 attempts. These are called "downs".

If the team has any downs left when they kneel then they can maintain possession of the ball and can thus run out the clock. Most (all?) of the time the teams end the game even if there is time left on the clock.

Note that either team can call a timeout pre-snap which freezes the game clock. Certain plays also result in the game clock freezing between plays. There is also a 2-minute warning at the end of the 2nd/4th quarter that also freezes the game clock.

IMO clock management adds a very interesting strategic layer to NFL football.

Post reply on HN