Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
That sounds like Calvinball
Underarm bowling incident of 1981
141–150 of 169 posts
Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981
#142Earlier 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…
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…
Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981
#143Earlier 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…
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…
Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plenty of sports do have rules to prevent stalling tactics (either for sportsmanlike reasons or to make the viewing experience more engaging): the two-minute warning in American football, the shot clock in basketball, icing rules in hockey, etc.
Yeah. Passing the ball around the backfield is a risky tactic in association football (which similarly banned the goalkeeper just picking up backpasses because it was too easy to waste time). 'Taking the ball to the corner' is a much lower risk option, but it is possible to win the ball back and quickly go up the other end and score with good play. Deliberate time wasting between plays is a yellow card offence (even…
Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
What do the grabbers do?
Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981
#146> 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…
Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981
#147Earlier 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…
Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
OK, so it isn't nearly as bad as I jokingly made out there (for a start I do understand the scoring for MC, though I don't have the inclination right now to explain it satisfactorily) but when are cricket scores ever a pair of simple run counts? Some current scores picked arbitrarily by a quick Google search: Test 3 of 3, end of day three: NZ 438 & 120/3 Eng 354 Test 1 of 2, end of day three: Sri Lanka 308 & 51/1 Wes…
End of day three: NZ 558 - Eng 354
That's factually accurate, but wouldn't tell you much about where the match actually stands. Breaking the runs totals by innings and showing wickets taken lets a reader infer a great deal more detail.I can't remember where I read it, but I recall a distinction being made between "open" games and "patterned" games. "Open" games, like football, have very few repetitive elements: action is continuous, and every possession is entirely different (eg, ball and players at different starting positions) than the next. Cricket has discontinuous action, and each passage of play begins in the same manner. "Open" games are difficult to notate, and not much about the game itself can be inferred from the scoreline alone; for instance, in your example, the Mariners might have dominated possession, had multiple shots turned away, and felt unlucky in defeat - or else the complete opposite! "Patterned" games are easier to notate, and more about them can be efficiently communicated, because there's much more shared state. Chess, the ultimate patterned game, can be written down in a more-or-less complete form for later study!
[Edit: Please take this thread into the MC weeds! Lol. I want to see HN heads explode.)
Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981
#149https://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.
Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.