Re: Cricket vs. Baseball.
There's nothing obscure about LBW! You protect the wicket with your bat, not your leg. Doing so with your leg is automatic dismissal for being a dashed cheating bounder and cad.
BORN to HURL: Man's shoulders are head and shoulders above apes, gorillas, chimps etc
Top-level bone fondlers delving back into humanity's remote past say that the key adaptation which lifted us from the ruck of other primates was a change to the shoulder permitting us - among other things - to play cricket by hurling balls and wielding bats. "These changes in the shoulder, which were probably initially driven …
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
Wednesday 9th September 2015 12:36 GMT iranu
Re: Cricket vs. Baseball.
"There's nothing obscure about LBW! You protect the wicket with your bat, not your leg. Doing so with your leg is automatic dismissal for being a dashed cheating bounder and cad."
Incorrect. If the ball pitches outside leg stump you cannot be out LBW. In fact it's accepted practice to defend the stumps by "padding" the ball away (blocking it's path to the stumps with the leg) when the ball pitches outside leg stump. This is often done against spin bowling.
So yes it is more obscure.
-
-
Wednesday 9th September 2015 11:06 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Cricket vs. Baseball.
LBW is simple. If the ball was going to hit the wicket but you stop it with your leg ( rather than bat ), you're out.
If you want obscure rules, look up the Duckworth Lewis Method * for determining the winner in a short form match that has been cut short by rain.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duckworth%E2%80%93Lewis_method
-
Wednesday 9th September 2015 12:38 GMT iranu
Re: Cricket vs. Baseball.
"LBW is simple. If the ball was going to hit the wicket but you stop it with your leg ( rather than bat ), you're out."
Nope, totally wrong. You cannot be out LBW if the ball pitches outside leg stump. You cannot be out LBW if the ball pitches outside off-stump if you are playing a shot. Read Law 36.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Friday 11th September 2015 11:42 GMT DocJames
Re: Cricket vs. Baseball.
@iranu "You cannot be out if the ball pitches outside off-stump if you are playing a shot. "
No. You cannot be out LBW if the ball _HITS_ you outside of off-stump if you are playing a shot. See what I mean in my original post now? :-)
And to reinforce this, if bowling down leg side and the ball pitches outside leg stump, the batsman cannot be out LBW. Whether the batsman plays a shot or not. And once you strike the ball with your bat, you are then free to kick merrily away at the ball as much as you wish.
I think. It's been a while...
Icon for enjoying with cricket. And to the Douglas reference.
-
-
-
Wednesday 9th September 2015 14:50 GMT TheVogon
Re: Cricket vs. Baseball.
"Primitive monkeys, apes etc are of course well known for their poo-flinging antics"
A bit harsh to refer to our Australian Cricket playing friends like that, but only fair I suppose:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/9143892/Aussie-politician-in-faeces-throwing-row
-
Wednesday 9th September 2015 21:17 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Cricket vs. Baseball.
As a Yank I say baseball is definitely more of a p*ssy sport. Neither are that high on the Carlin criteria of a true sport but at least the cricket ball can be lethal and tends to cause more nasty injuries as well. In baseball about the only time you see life threatening injuries is due to hitbacks at the pitcher and maybe once a generation in the pros on a hit batter as well.
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 9th September 2015 15:51 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Nothing?
However, so the story goes, John Willes became the first bowler to use a “round-arm” technique after practising with his sister Christina, who had used the technique, as she was unable to bowl underarm due to her wide dress impeding her delivery of the ball.
Used not invented? It may very well be that John Willes invented the technique for his sister.
What about the 'banned' citation?
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thursday 17th September 2015 14:25 GMT Sarah Balfour
Re: Only one thing to say
I'm a bit late (as per usual) but what was that Sellers skit, with the chess board to the side of the wicket, and they had to make a move between each over…? It was called summat like 'How Cricket Looks To An American/The Americans', tried searching YT, but I can't be searching for the right string, coz I can't feckin' find it!
Either that, or nobody's uploaded it, but I feel certain I've found it on there before! I could be muddling my Peters and it was Cook, but it seems more a Sellers thing to me…
Anyone…?
-
Wednesday 9th September 2015 10:09 GMT Anonymous Custard
Gorillas?
Having seen some of the flinging abilities of beasts such as Mountain Gorillas, one cannot help but wonder how a test batsman would actually cope against a ball bowled by one. Given they seem to be both quite accurate, and in possession of roughly 10x the strength of the average human.
-
Wednesday 9th September 2015 12:26 GMT Eric Olson
Re: Gorillas?
Having seen some of the flinging abilities of beasts such as Mountain Gorillas, one cannot help but wonder how a test batsman would actually cope against a ball bowled by one. Given they seem to be both quite accurate, and in possession of roughly 10x the strength of the average human.
Well, it you believe the prior article by Roach et al., the structures of the human form are uniquely suited to the act of throwing a projectile with great force and accuracy. While it focused on chimps, the theory is that among primates, only our shoulders and the associated kinetic chain has the ability to generate and release the energy in a concentrated manner. This apparently was also noted by Darwin, without the luxury of motion-capture and high-speed photography.
However, I certainly would not want to try to out-hug a gorilla. I feel as though it would end quite quickly... and definitely not in my favor.
-
-
Wednesday 9th September 2015 15:29 GMT Dazed and Confused
Re: Gorillas?
> Aye - I'd have also thought that the huge strength advantage would negate any technical disadvantage
It would probably allow the gorilla to throw a ball 10 times the weight of a human, but not necessarily with 10 times the speed of release.
Of course bowlers in cricket have to use a very inefficient action, they're not allowed to chuck the ball using all the joints to generate a whip like action.
-
-
Wednesday 9th September 2015 10:12 GMT Alister
A contradiction
You quite rightly quote The Hitchhiker's Guide with regard to the origins of Krikkit and yet earlier in the same piece you say:
the trusty bat that is the mark of an advanced civilisation with time to devote to leisurely, non-warlike pursuits.
Only on Earth was the memory of the dreadful Krikket wars remembered dimly, and considered a fit subject to turn into a slow, boring, incomprehensible game by the race known as the English, and it is for this reason that the rest of the galaxy shuns us.
-
Wednesday 9th September 2015 10:31 GMT TitterYeNot
Poo-flinging antics
"Primitive monkeys, apes etc are of course well known for their poo-flinging antics, but it seems that in fact they are ill-suited physically to this task and if modern humans were to throw dignity to the winds (along with some faecal matter) the monkeys would come off worst in any contest."
Blimey, don't let our worthy Parliamentarians know about this, Prime Minister's Questions could dissolve into a scatalogical farce. On second thoughts though, thinking about the entertainment value...
Joking aside, its always interesting to read this sort of research into the science of human developement and the way it gives the lie to guff like intelligent design. If we aren't evolved from ancestors who used to live in trees and walk on all fours, but were 'designed' to be the way we are today, why do we have shoulders which are "comparatively flimsy and prone to breakdowns such as rotator cuff injuries" relative to current day apes, and have an 'S' shaped spine that allows us to stand upright at the expense of common lumbar vertebrae problems (i.e. the vast majority of humans experience lower back damage and pain.)
-
Wednesday 9th September 2015 10:58 GMT Anonymous Coward/2.0
Re: Poo-flinging antics
"Joking aside, its always interesting to read this sort of research into the science of human developement and the way it gives the lie to guff like intelligent design. If we aren't evolved from ancestors who used to live in trees and walk on all fours, but were 'designed' to be the way we are today,"
That's easy to explain. God really doesn't like us thats why he intelligently designed in all the flaws.
-
Wednesday 9th September 2015 13:22 GMT I ain't Spartacus
Re: Poo-flinging antics
That's easy to explain. God really doesn't like us thats why he intelligently designed in all the flaws.
This statement is flatly contradicted by the Pub Landlord. Who through a rigorous chain of deductions demonstrates that the existence of bacon proves that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
-
Friday 11th September 2015 11:47 GMT DocJames
Re: Poo-flinging antics
Blimey, don't let our worthy Parliamentarians know about this, Prime Minister's Questions could dissolve into a scatalogical farce. On second thoughts though, thinking about the entertainment value...
See "Great Apes", by Will Self.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1408827409?keywords=great%20apes&qid=1441971994&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1
-
-
Wednesday 9th September 2015 15:16 GMT Your alien overlord - fear me
All the world's civilised (civilized for the USA readers) nations (aka ruled by GREAT Britain at one time) play the proper game. Only one doesn't and lets face it. Civilised?
I also believe they drive their cars on the wrong side of the road. Why? Because they're dicks I presume.
(Just trying to get my downvote score up)
-
Wednesday 9th September 2015 16:28 GMT Anonymous Coward
I guess by your definition you consider Japan not a civilized nation, though their industrial progress would indicate otherwise. Also, they found American baseball to be pretty fun and have adopted the game as well, to the point they have their own professional league comparable in nature to that of the US.
As for driving on the wrong side, well, that was mainly the result of the postilion. Stagecoach drivers and the like tended to favor sitting on the left side with the whip in the typically-strong right hand and driving on the right since their concern was more collisions than running off a vaguely-defined edge of road in mostly-level terrain. If there was a passenger to the driver's other side, he tended to be the guard, thus why we call that the "shotgun" seat.
-
Friday 11th September 2015 11:28 GMT TheVogon
"Also, they found American baseball to be pretty fun and have adopted the game as well"
They also sell used "Scratch and Sniff" underwear in vending machines as fun: http://imgur.com/gallery/RZHEfwh
So I'm not sure Japan being the prime example of adoption of your national sport is particularly a good thing...
-
Tuesday 15th September 2015 19:28 GMT MattPi
"So I'm not sure Japan being the prime example of adoption of your national sport is particularly a good thing..."
Baseball is a America's National Pastime much like England rules the waves: it was once true, and still kind of is, but most people know it's not really true.
As for baseball being related to Cricket, if, as an American with some baseball knowledge, I can watch 30 minutes of a match and map most of the Cricket play into baseball rules without much difficulty, there must be some common ancestry there.
-
-
-
Wednesday 23rd September 2015 00:56 GMT roger stillick
Blame it on the Atlatl and natural selection
IMHO= the Atlatl w/it's unique bone launching hook and twin-holed stone weight has been found in every cave site on every continent that pre-history man lived in as far back as 50k years ago.
This simple weapon allowed man to kill just about everything else for food... got us out of the caves...spears and bows n arrows MUCH later for warefare use...RDS.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
