h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Cricket: How To Get Out - A7709899
Author: Skankyrich [?] - U931109

This was meant to be one of a series, but the series probably won't happen, so I'd like to see if this can stand in isolation

What do you mean 'unknown author'?

A2891478



B

I've seen it on tea-towels and humerous signs to put around the house and all sorts, but never found out who wrote that thing originally. I'd like to believe it was you in 2004, but I'm sure I saw it before then

In my defence, that is a unique version of it that I published in The Post.

How about changing it to 'Anonymous'?

B

Is it? Good grief. I wrote this a while ago, so it's quite possible that I did nick it off there.

Seeing as I can't credit you directly, I'll change it to Anonymous and give you a reference credit - howzat?

"If the batsmen run while the ball is in the air, these runs are disallowed. No runs can be scored if a batsman is out Caught."
-->
"No runs can be scored if a batsman is out Caught. If the batsmen run while the ball is in the air, these runs are disallowed."

(The second is clearer, as the first sounds like a universal rule for all balls that end up in the air.)

Though your section on LBW is clear and to the point, it overlaps with A778070

Oh and a *real* nitpick - the rest of the cricket entries on h2g2 are in the form "Cricket - ......"

Alex

Thanks, Alex - done.

I devoted some space to lbw because in the lbw Entry, it doesn't quite follow a logical route - not to an Ump, anyway. The decision is made chronologically as you see it, so I've tried to reflect that here. If your point is that it detracts from the rest, though, I'll happily pare it down.

I've changed the title of the Entry - should I change the title of the lbw entry to 'Cricket - the LBW Law' too?

It's very hard to find things to moan about round here, y'know...

Ok, I'll let you keep the LBW section

Great entry!

>>
A batsman cannot be given out unless a member of the fielding side 'appeals' to the umpire and, as Law 27.4 says, a simple 'how's that?' suffices in all cases.<<

etc.

What laws are they then? Maybe a footnote or link?


ODI needs a footnote or explanation.


>>If you're silly enough to knock over your own stumps with your bat, or if you fall on them, you probably don't deserve to be batting anyway. There are exceptions, for example if a batsman is trying to make his ground to avoid being run out, but basically, once he has hit the ball (or left it) and started running, he's immune to this method of being out.<<

I don't follow. Is the example that the batsman is returning to his wicket? And is he leaving the ball or the wicket?

What is the difference between Putting Down the Wicket and a Hit Wicket? Is Hit Wicket a subtype of putting down the wicket? Sorry if this is obvious to everyone else

I don't know what possessed me to read an entry on cricket...

"Putting Down the Wicket" isn't a way of getting out, but a term commonly used in a few of the ways of getting out (the wicket can be put down and not count if, say, the batsman is still in the crease but someone fancies knocking off the bails). I think this may need a bit more clarification, as it does curently look like part of the list of ways to get out.

"Well, there's bowled, caught, caught behind, lbw, run out... er... stumped... that's six. Yes, six ways."

Shouldn't that be LBW, upper case?

And wouldn't the link to the LBW Entry be better moved to the LBW section of your Entry?

TRiG.

I think I've clarified all that

I've also added a line at the start of each method of dismissal, from the batsman's point of view - after all, it's meant to be How To Get Out Hopefully an example will make it a bit clearer and more readable.

I really appreciate the input of non-cricket readers, as it shouldn't just be readble to fans, so thank you.

Yes, it should be, Trig - sorry, I missed your post. I'll sort that out now!

Perhaps you could build the mention of the popping crease into the main part of the Entry and add the reason it's called a popping crease.

"build in a mention"...

Wait, no, I was right first time. I'll get me coat...

Good point, badly made

Better than t'other way round...

just delivering a bit of bouncer there...