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

91–100 of 169 posts

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#91

Post by retsibsi »

scott_w wrote: post #81
retsibsi wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's too strong. The underarm ball was a case of playing within the rules, but against most people's notion of fair play. The hand of god would fit most people's definition of actual cheating.

It was actual cheating by even the rules of the game, just the referee didn’t see it.

I think I agree, but I hedged because I thought one could argue that it's not 'cheating' in the same way as, say, sneaking into the scorer's shed and writing in an extra goal would be. A deliberate handball is 'just' an in-game action that should have been penalised but wasn't (due to referee error), and deliberately breaking the rules isn't always considered cheating. For example, basketball and soccer both have their own version of the 'professional foul', and even in soccer where this earns the player a card, it seems to be considered an accepted tactical trade rather than cheating. I don't think this argument really holds up, though, because the hand of god goal depended entirely on getting away with the rule breach, whereas professional fouls involve getting caught and accepting the consequences.

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#92

Post by kstenerud »

pdpi wrote: post #52
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

It’s surprisingly simple, actually. A cricket pitch is a long strip. Bowler bowls from one end, batter strikes the bowl from the other. Scoring is done by running from one end of that strip to the other (the unit of scoring is literally called a run). Six legal bowls make an over. There are two batters in play at each point in time, one at each end of the pitch, and they both must run towards the other end of the pit…

It's surprisingly simple, actually.

The bariet takes a pull at the fumbler, and then one of two things happens: Either he misses, or hits it (towards the flange or along the foul line to the base). There are three spichies who can try to deflect the fumbler, either towards the simulcum or out to the field.

The simulcum is the more audacious play, giving an instant spiel if they succeed in darving the bariet. But it runs a serious risk of a spurn, so unless a spichie is particularly strong, the field is the safer play.

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#93

Post by notahacker »

billfor wrote: post #48
notahacker wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine the strike zone was just convention and pitchers were technically allowed to roll the ball if they were more bothered about preventing home runs than getting the opponent out. Think your baseball mind would be annoyed when someone did it, and the lawmakers would have to step in pretty quick to stop it being a regular thing... (Think there's also a general prejudice against underarm play in professional sport…

I don't think there's a rule against rolling the ball to a batter; it would be called a ball. It would be similar to a wild pitch or an intentional walk (when you had to actually throw the 4 balls).

I'm beginning to feel like Americans trying to understand cricket trying to understand the tactical permutations of intentional walks :D

The equivalent would be bowling a ball rather than a strike in a baseball variant where each innings ended after a fixed number of balls regardless of the number of outs (which is effectively what One Day variants of cricket are). Specifically, walking the batsman when they needed to score a home run or at least a double. I think fans would get upset!

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#94

Post by gamblor956 »

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!)

In baseball it is possible to hit a home run without the ball leaving the playing field. It's happened several times in the past 2 months.

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#95

Post by adastra22 »

pdpi wrote: post #52
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

It’s surprisingly simple, actually. A cricket pitch is a long strip. Bowler bowls from one end, batter strikes the bowl from the other. Scoring is done by running from one end of that strip to the other (the unit of scoring is literally called a run). Six legal bowls make an over. There are two batters in play at each point in time, one at each end of the pitch, and they both must run towards the other end of the pit…

It’s surprisingly simple, actually.

Basically, there's three grabbers, three taggers, five twig runners, and a player at Whackbat. Center tagger lights a pine cone and chucks it over the basket and the whack-batter tries to hit the cedar stick off the cross rock. Then the twig runners dash back and forth until the pine cone burns out and the umpire calls hotbox. Finally, you count up however many score-downs it adds up to and divide that by nine.

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#96

Post by adastra22 »

nkrisc wrote: post #28
zinckiwi wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In other games simply taking an action that intentionally runs down the clock is delaying the game. It’s a ref’s call, and could be done here too.

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#97

Post by scott_w »

sejje wrote: post #89
scott_w wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually suspect they didn’t know. When a sport is played one way for 200 years, you don’t read the rule book to check, you just copy what everyone is doing!

On the local elementary school field, sure. At the highest levels of the sport, they know the rulebook like the back of their hand.

I disagree: players rarely know the rules in-depth. A great example is a YouTube video I watched where a Premier League and World Cup referee told the camera that most players didn’t know where they needed to be placed for kick off and that they needed to kick the ball forward. It was so bad that IFAB changed the rules to allow kick off to backpass because it was causing so much conflict at the start of football matches!

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#98

Post by adastra22 »

notahacker wrote: post #44
kiddico wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Imagine the strike zone was just convention and pitchers were technically allowed to roll the ball if they were more bothered about preventing home runs than getting the opponent out. Think your baseball mind would be annoyed when someone did it, and the lawmakers would have to step in pretty quick to stop it being a regular thing... (Think there's also a general prejudice against underarm play in professional sport…

Watch softball sometime.

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#99

Post by Brendinooo »

gamblor956 wrote: post #94
zinckiwi wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!)

In baseball it is possible to hit a home run without the ball leaving the playing field. It's happened several times in the past 2 months.

I think when the person you're replying to said "he had to hit a home run with the ball on the ground" - that's not talking about the trajectory of the ball after it's hit, it talking about how the ball is thrown.

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#100

Post by dismalaf »

senthil_rajasek wrote: post #55
pdpi wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s surprisingly simple, actually. A cricket pitch is a long strip. Bowler bowls from one end, batter strikes the bowl from the other. Scoring is done by running from one end of that strip to the other (the unit of scoring is literally called a run). Six legal bowls make an over. There are two batters in play at each point in time, one at each end of the pitch, and they both must run towards the other end of the pit…

Explaining Cricket to a Baseball fan only makes it worse. I have tried it many times and failed. Personally, playing a few games of cricket is the best way to learn the rules of the game. As an example, in your explanation ( which is good to this lifelong cricket fan from India) your first sentence starts "A cricket pitch..." And when a baseball fan reads it he is probably asking "What is a cricket pitch?"

Nah, cricket is pretty analogous to baseball.

Instead of 9 innings there's one inning, at least in ODI or T20 formats (best to watch anyway).

Instead of 3 outs there's 10 outs (called wickets).

An out is having a ball caught after you hit it (same as baseball) or the ball hitting the wickets when at bat (kind of like strikeout) or a fielder knocking the wicket off with the ball before you reach the line, which is basically the same as being thrown out in baseball.

Scoring is similar, you score runs when you run the bases. When it gets hit out, it's basically the same as a homerun except if it goes out after bouncing it's only 4 points, straight out is 6.

If anything it's easier to understand than baseball. No strike/ball count, it's basically you hit it, miss it, or are bowled out. Running is easier to understand too, anytime you reach the other side it's a point.

Most of the complication is during test matches because of tactics/tradition. The basic rules are a lot like baseball.

Also, to get anyone into cricket, just show them a T20 match. More action than baseball.

Post reply on HN