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

161–169 of 169 posts

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#161

Post by QuantumGood »

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…

As a technical writer (off and on, for the U.N. at one point) since the late 1980's, I've learned that much good technical writing must start with some form of "It’s surprisingly simple, actually," or you're choosing to lose some readers right away.

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#162

Post by dismalaf »

pseudohadamard wrote: post #147
dismalaf wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bas…

What's the baseball equivalent to silly mid-off?

Infield shift? Although they recently made rules against it...

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#163

Post by stronglikedan »

shermantanktop wrote: post #53

https://restoringhopebhm.com/blog/wilt-chamberlain-and-the-g... By contrast, underhand free throw shooting is legal in the NBA and it is very effective. But it is seen as unmasculine rather than cheating. Players would apparently rather lose than be seen doing it.

I think you can still cheat without doing something that is explicitly against the rules, by going against the established social contract of whatever league you play in.

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#164

Post by bruce511 »

senthil_rajasek wrote: post #140
topgrain2 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I learned the rules to and terminology of (American) football by playing football video games (mostly nfl2k1 on the Dreamcast). Similar story for ice hockey. What’s the video game to play to understand cricket?

Aahh video games that's clever. I apologize, I am not a video game person. Hopefully someone here knows a good cricket video game. Best.

Cricket 26. Not sure you can learn cricket from that, but it may help solidify the concepts.

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#165

Post by scott_w »

foldr wrote: post #113
scott_w wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s because overhand bowling was just the way you bowled, so nobody considered making a rule to tell you that was necessary until someone didn’t. Imagine playing football and someone picks up the ball and- oh right ;-)

This gets the history a big wrong. Overarm bowling actually had to be explicitly legalized in the mid 19th century before it became common practice: https://www.theguardian.com/observer/osm/story/0,,782938,00....

While you’re correct, it still means that everyone alive had been bowling overarm for over 100 years and I doubt most players are studying the history of their sport beyond knowing its “founding myth.”

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#166

Post by CamouflagedKiwi »

as1mov wrote: post #103
CamouflagedKiwi wrote: post #3

This was pretty bad. Will never be forgotten in NZ. Has probably been forgotten by Australia and everywhere else though.

This along with the Aussie sandpaper-gate is probably one of the most infamous incidents in cricket history. I doubt anyone who follows cricket doesn't about it. Also the 2019 world cup finals! ;)

I wouldn't describe the 2019 final as infamous? Other than us all sitting around shouting "What on earth is a super over?" I don't remember it being very controversial. It was certainly a pretty exciting finish.

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#167

Post by foldr »

scott_w wrote: post #165
foldr wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This gets the history a big wrong. Overarm bowling actually had to be explicitly legalized in the mid 19th century before it became common practice: https://www.theguardian.com/observer/osm/story/0,,782938,00....

While you’re correct, it still means that everyone alive had been bowling overarm for over 100 years and I doubt most players are studying the history of their sport beyond knowing its “founding myth.”

It’s common knowledge in cricketing circles that underarm bowling is legal. The only reason not to do it is that it’s less effective (just like underarm serves in tennis).

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#168

Post by as1mov »

CamouflagedKiwi wrote: post #166
as1mov wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This along with the Aussie sandpaper-gate is probably one of the most infamous incidents in cricket history. I doubt anyone who follows cricket doesn't about it. Also the 2019 world cup finals! ;)

I wouldn't describe the 2019 final as infamous? Other than us all sitting around shouting "What on earth is a super over?" I don't remember it being very controversial. It was certainly a pretty exciting finish.

iirc the real point of contention was the "boundary count" rule. The super over ended in a tie, then instead of having a another super over the winner was decided based on who had hit more boundaries. I'm pretty sure this did lead to the rule being removed[1]

[1]: https://www.cricinfo.com/story/no-more-boundary-countback-as...

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#169

Post by IAmBroom »

stronglikedan wrote: post #163
shermantanktop wrote: post #53

https://restoringhopebhm.com/blog/wilt-chamberlain-and-the-g... By contrast, underhand free throw shooting is legal in the NBA and it is very effective. But it is seen as unmasculine rather than cheating. Players would apparently rather lose than be seen doing it.

I think you can still cheat without doing something that is explicitly against the rules, by going against the established social contract of whatever league you play in.

Policing "normalcy" is one of the most intrinsically evil tendencies of societies.
Post reply on HN