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

31–40 of 169 posts

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#31

Post by berti »

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.

Are you allowed to pitch the baseball along the ground, therefore making it impossible to properly hit with the bat? It's no different in cricket really.

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#32

Post by gedy »

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.

Sure, but baseball has things like walking a batter so they can't hit. Not totally analogous here, but every sport has things like this.

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#33

Post by hliyan »

cjs_ac wrote: post #4

A more serious case of unsportsmanlike conduct that was (and still is) within the Laws of Cricket: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodyline

I was about to post the same thing when I noticed this comment.

For those who might not want to go through the article:

> ...designed to combat the extraordinary batting skill of Australia's leading batsman, Don Bradman... aimed at the body of the batsman in the expectation that when he defended himself with his bat, a resulting deflection could be caught by one of several fielders deliberately placed nearby on the leg side. At the time, no helmets or other upper-body protective gear was worn, and critics of the tactic considered it intimidating, and physically threatening in a game traditionally supposed to uphold conventions of sportsmanship.

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#34

Post by srean »

kiddico wrote: post #27
sejje wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 gentleman…

An under-armed ball is essentially un-hitable.

The sporting thing to do is to give the batsman a chance to score but to defeat him using skill. There is no skill in bowling and underarm ball, the batsmen is not being defeated by skill.

That said, never did I imagine that cricket would interest the HN audience.

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#35

Post by kiddico »

berti wrote: post #31
kiddico wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you allowed to pitch the baseball along the ground, therefore making it impossible to properly hit with the bat? It's no different in cricket really.

No. That would be a foul. It's in the book though lol.

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#36

Post by vonzepp »

The football (soccer) equivalent is someone kicking the ball out of play so that the game is stopped to allow medical attention to come on, and once the medical attention is over, the opposition taking the throw in doesn't throw the ball back to the other team. Occasionally teams have not done this, and scored a goal, shocked by this the goalkeeper will stand aside to allow the opposition to score an equaliser

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#38

Post by raisedbyninjas »

retsibsi wrote: post #24
kiddico wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This seems to describe automobile racing.

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#39

Post by berti »

kiddico wrote: post #35
berti wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you allowed to pitch the baseball along the ground, therefore making it impossible to properly hit with the bat? It's no different in cricket really.

No. That would be a foul. It's in the book though lol.

Yeah, that was the flaw at the time, it wasn't in the book and not thought to be needed in the book.
Post reply on HN