|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 112
member
|
member
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 112 |
>There no such thing as a foul ball in cricket
Yes there is, when the bowler oversteps the line (crease), or when the Umpire deems the ball to have been thrown, instead of bowled. However that action is really difficult to determine. The Umpire will signal "No Ball", and the batting side scores an extra run, while the bowler gets to deliver another ball, giving the batter another opportunity to score. That will make the Over seven (or 9) runs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 81
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 81 |
I think a 'no ball' is much more like a baseball 'ball' (a ball pitched not in the strike zone) in that it is a bowler/pitcher error. A foul ball is a ball hit into a none playing area (behind the batter) and is a error by the batter. Their is no foul area in cricket and this sort of error by a batsman ( letting the ball hit the bat and glance backwards) can result in an out if the ball is caught by the slips.
There are several mistakes than can result in the batting side getting extra runs.
A wide - a ball bowled way off target (there are two 'strike zones' in cricket: the small wicket, which if hit results in the batsman being 'bowled out' and a wider zone, basically the area that the batsman can reach with his bat at full stretch, which if missed results in a wide and a run being given to the batting side)
A bye - a run scored because of a fielding error where the ball is not hit but the fielding side don't stop the ball before the batsman makes a run (a tiny bit like a stolen base)
These runs scored because of bowling or fielding errors are not give to the batsman individual score but added as 'extras' to the batting sides score. Fast bowlers who run at speed before releasing the ball can often make mistakes, but are also sometimes very effective when on target, so you get the situation where extras are the largest single part of the score for the batting side.
Is all this british culture getting to much in culturally challenge Arkansas?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
BBC Radio4 Broadcasts live on the web. I tried to listen to the cricket today - but although it's on the radio, it didn't seem to be on the website http:// http://www.bbc.co.uk/audiovideo/. Maybe there are other links where people can hear Cricket and Baseball commentaries, so they can listen to some of the terminology that has been discussed and make up their own minds about the relative strengths and weaknesses.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 460
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 460 |
There's a fascinating book 'Beyond the boundary' by C R L James, published in the late forties (I think) and recently reprinted. It's a history of West Indies cricket and is a mix of cricket and politics and race issues. It's apparently something of a classic among books about cricket.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
>>this sort of error by a batsman ( letting the ball hit the bat and glance backwards) can result in an out if the ball is caught by the slips.<< in baseball, this sort of "error" by a batter can result in an out if caught by any fielder. I emphasize error because the 'pitch' may be basically unhittable, in terms of putting it efficaciously into play, and a skillful batter may purposely 'foul' it off (if he already has two 'strikes') to prolong his 'at bat'. I think that we should all just agree that cricket and baseball are different. http://members.aol.com/tsuwm/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 81
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 81 |
"I think that we should all just agree that cricket and baseball are different."
But that takes the competition out of discussing competitive games. Rather misses the half the point of sport if your not competitive about it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
> Rather misses the half the point of sport if your[sic] not competitive about it. You're{!} right, Philip... baseball is better! 8-) http://members.aol.com/tsuwm/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 81
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 81 |
I recognise Tsuwm reluctant acknowledgement that he is not the arbiter of what is, or is not to be, discussed on this Bulletin Board.
I thank him for pointing out a simple error that I have made (twice in one short post of two sentences). I shall take this lead and point out some errors in manners of his. He has on at least two occasions taken it upon himself to speak for all members of this BB ("I think that we should all just agree that cricket and baseball are different." and "but we digress; this is the stuff of political forums."). I find this offensive. Tsuwm is perfectly at liberty to disagree with my posts, ignore them or even be abusive about them but to pretend to speak for others is at best a very careless use of language and at worst a partonising violation of others independence.
His bland "baseball is better" without any supportive statement in response to my series of posts about the terminology and qualities of cricket and baseball (which included some praise of the qualities of baseball) appears, to me, to be a dull attempt to quench a topic which he does not feel in control of.
No bracket or other 'smileys' as I am very cross.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
Perhaps those of us who post regularly to the group should agree on a few rules of engagement, now we are coming of age.
In my limited knowledge of group dynamics it is perfectly normal to pass through to a stage where everyone is very polite to each other to another, where people feel more able to be critical. Another issue (and its not only related to testosterone levels) is some kind of bid for leadership. Anyone who's read "Lord of the Flies" will know the natural conclusion.
Amongst adults there are a number of possible end points which include - (i) acceptance of a hierarchy (it involves less thinking) (ii) a code of practice which recognises people's individuality or (iii) murder.
Whilst option (iii) can be very cathartic it has unpleasant consequences for society and is best avoided. Given the nature of the group option (i) is unlikely to work as:
(a) people will come and go; (b) we are all computer literate intelligent adults, capable of thinking; (c) the internet (at least at this early stages in its development) it a kind of anarchic environment (at least in so far as it defies traditional structures) and this type of environment does not always respect traditional leadership styles.
So, I have a few proposals for discussion & to follow one of my rules I will move over to miscellany to post it. Follow me if you dare!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 81
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 81 |
An additional comment with regards to Tsuwm posting.
I personally think he was trying to cover a go at me by pretending to make a joke. I'd rather he was straight forward as I shall undoubtable be accused of not having a sense of humour. It's a cowardly preemptive attempt to deflect someone's anger and I've come across it often before. If it had just been the sentence "You win - baseball is better" it, of course, would have been a joke but the function of that 'joke' in the context of the whole message is clearly not to be ironic or humorous but to undermine my possible responses.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,602
Members9,187
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
157
guests, and
3
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
