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

151–160 of 169 posts

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#151

Post by scott_w »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #102
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!

Even the commentators knew. They called it out as it happened. It was absolutely common knowledge.

Commentators typically know more than players. But in any case, the article quite literally contradicts you. The New Zealand captain believed it to be illegal and the commentator said “you can’t do that,” implying he believed it to be illegal at first.

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#152

Post by lelanthran »

dspillett wrote: post #129
lelanthran wrote: post #120

Earlier 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…

Okay, you got me there - that is difficult to understand, but that is not just the score, it's also game state. Think of it like "Bottom of the ninth and all the bases are loaded".

But, on reflection, you're right. A score involves overs, bowls (6 per over), runs and possibly wickets taken. I expect that I sort of know all this because I grew up playing cricket (and soccer). Commonwealth country, and all that.

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#153

Post by [deleted] »

scott_w wrote: post #151
Forgeties79 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even the commentators knew. They called it out as it happened. It was absolutely common knowledge.

Commentators typically know more than players. But in any case, the article quite literally contradicts you. The New Zealand captain believed it to be illegal and the commentator said “you can’t do that,” implying he believed it to be illegal at first.

[deleted]

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#154

Post by _thisdot »

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.

Have to disagree. Even in cricket, I've seen players often get stumped when a rule gets enforced and they had no idea. The 2019 CWC final had multiple such events. An overthrow that hit Ben Stokes and went to the boundary got England six runs when they'd run only two (actually, even by the rules they should've gotten only 5 runs. The umpires made a mistake there). It's something that'd have gotten Ben Stokes out had he done it "intentionally".

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#155

Post by microgpt »

microgpt wrote: post #139
kstenerud wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

It's surprisingly simple, actually. The foo walks into the bar and he qax. The bartender says, what can I do you for? The foo says, breed me daddy. The network bleeps that part out. The foo says, I'll have a beer of pint. The tomato exists. Existence is suffering. Existence is despair.

I swear I planned to finish this but I was falling asleep and must've hit send by mistake. Can't edit or delete now.

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#156

Post by Smoosh »

senthil_rajasek wrote: post #131
topgrain2 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you bowl the ball against the wicket so the batter can try to hit your bowl? And then if the ball you bowled hit another thing that is also a wicket, you got a wicket? Not confusing at all. :-)

There is more... The batter can swing, miss the ball completely and hit the wicket! Then it's a "hit wicket" and the batter is out. You still with me ;-)

Let’s be clear here. If the ball is bowled and strikes the stumps and dislodges a bail, that is “bowled out”. If the batsman contacts the ball but it still hits the stumps and dislodges a bail,that is “played on“. If the batsman in playing the ball dislodges a bail, that is “hit wicket”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit_wicket

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#157

Post by Smoosh »

bruce511 wrote: post #117
topgrain2 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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,…

Also, the three sticks are called the stumps and are topped with two unattached cross-beams which are called the bails. Hitting the wicket (stumps) does not count unless one or both of the bails are dislodged.

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#158

Post by iberator »

foldr wrote: post #109
esperent wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Americans Everyone not from one Uk, India... maybe Australia you mean?

Cricket is the world's second most popular sport. It's actually much more popular than baseball from a global perspective.

It's a british myth. 99% world population outside India doesn't care about cricket.

A better metric is the average % of likes from ALL countries.

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#159

Post by foldr »

iberator wrote: post #158
foldr wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cricket is the world's second most popular sport. It's actually much more popular than baseball from a global perspective.

It's a british myth. 99% world population outside India doesn't care about cricket. A better metric is the average % of likes from ALL countries.

How is it a myth? It has 2.5 billion fans worldwide (in comparison to 3.5 billion for football). That’s 1 billion in excess of the entire population of India, so clearly there are some fans elsewhere!

You’re perhaps forgetting Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Zimbabwe, the Caribbean, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, and various countries in SE Asia apart from India (e.g. Bangladesh, Pakistan).

Re: Underarm bowling incident of 1981

#160

Post by dismalaf »

aidenn0 wrote: post #134
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…

If outs are like in baseball, how can there be a "last ball" known before it is bowled -- in baseball balls are delivered until the final out is made.

True, forgot that difference. In cricket innings are a fixed amount of balls thrown (and fixed intervals for the bowler to be changed aka. overs).
Post reply on HN