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

111–120 of 169 posts

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#111

Post by foldr »

srean wrote: post #34
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…

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.

It's not inherently unhitable. Overarm bowling is a relatively recent development in the history of the sport (rather like overarm serves in tennis). But of course, in this case, the ball was simply rolled along the ground rather than being bowled on the usual understanding of the term.

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#112

Post by topgrain2 »

dismalaf wrote: post #100
senthil_rajasek wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bas…

> 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)

I thought a wicket is what you call an out? Now it’s something else, too?

(This kind of thing is why being a baseball fan having cricket explained at you by a Brit feels exactly the same as listening to people play mornington crescent)

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#113

Post by foldr »

scott_w wrote: post #74
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…

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....

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#114

Post by awesomeusername »

aunty_helen wrote: post #110

It’s an expectation as a New Zealander that you hold this against the aussies. Honestly it should be on the citizenship test. If you answer favourably towards throwing underarm, your test is rescheduled the following week in Canberra.

You should have made that law when you were Prime Minister

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#115

Post by awesomeusername »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #22

To those not familiar with cricket and why this is so scandalous the English/Australian/New Zealand phrase “it’s not cricket” is used to describe an action or behaviour that is “unfair, dishonest, or goes against basic moral principles”

Why was this comment downvoted? Like seriously can someone who did please post?

This is a factually correct and informative comment.

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#117

Post by bruce511 »

topgrain2 wrote: post #112
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…

> 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) I thought a wicket is what you call an out? Now it’s something else, too? (This kind of thing is why being a baseball fan having cricket explained at you by a Brit feels exactly the same as listening to people play mornington cr…

Yes. Actually "wicket" is used for 3 different things.

Behind the batter, between the batter and the catcher are 3 vertical sticks. This is called the wicket. The batter is protecting those sticks, the bowler is trying to hit them.

If the bowler succeeds he has "got a wicket" and the batter has "lost his wicket." These 2 terms are used though regardless of the actual manner of the out.

To make things more confusing, the strip of land between the bowler and the batter is also called "the wicket". (Its slso called the "pitch", but I digress.) And this is a really important part of the game..

In baseball the ball is thrown at the batter, but in the air, not touching the ground (ie not bouncing.)

In cricket the ball may bounce before it gets to the batter. Indeed it almost always does. (A ball that doesn't bounce is usually easier to dispatch.)

Since the ball bounces, what it bounces off becomes really important. The hardness, amount of grass, smoothness, cracks and so on all become elements of the game, and all are different at each game.

The "art" of cricket is the way the bowler can manipulate the ball to not just move through the air (like in baseball) but also move off the pitch (aka the wicket). This movement is the key. Without it the game is dull - it becomes too easy for the batter.

If the pitch moves the ball too easily, it can become too hard for the batter, and the game can end up being too short (and dull in a different way.)

A "good" pitch thus balances the skills of the bowler with the skills of the batter. Creating a good pitch is art, not science though.

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#118

Post by teruakohatu »

topgrain2 wrote: post #112
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…

> 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) I thought a wicket is what you call an out? Now it’s something else, too? (This kind of thing is why being a baseball fan having cricket explained at you by a Brit feels exactly the same as listening to people play mornington cr…

A wicket is a physical wooden structure. To take a wicket means to physically hit the wicket with a ball causing the batter to be out.

A wicket has the same function as a catcher in baseball.

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#119

Post by FireBeyond »

berti wrote: post #39
kiddico wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It was getting that way - it was in some of the books and this was the incident that lead to it being in all of the books, so to speak.

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#120

Post by lelanthran »

dspillett wrote: post #72
kiddico wrote: post #7

Cricket will never make sense to me. That just seems like playing the game.

> Cricket will never make sense to me Cricket is my analogy for life: a lot of standing around, interspersed by bouts of running back & forth often with people shouting at you, and a scoring system that seems almost as deliberately obtuse as Mornington Crescent (the true gentleman's game!).

> a scoring system that seems almost as deliberately obtuse

I don't even watch cricket, but even I find the scoring to be as simple as every other sport - 1 pt for each run a player does (batters two at a time).

When the score says "102 runs", that's exactly what it means.

Post reply on HN