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

It's always interesting to me when cricket fans talk about certain tactics not being "cricket", even if strictly speaking they are not against the rules (I know, Laws).

IMHO, the US sports fans cheer on use of the "rules" (or lack thereof) in the name of "winning".

An example - a local university football team was leading very late in the game by about 3 points. They had the ball very near their own goal line with a fourth down, so they punted from deep in their own endzone, risking not only a blocked punt with subsequent touchdown and seven point loss, but also a fair catch on the punt and subsequent field goal for three points and a tie. The coach was asked after the game why he didn't call for an intentional safety - the quarterback runs out the back of the endzone, two points to the other team and a free kick from the 20 yard line - no danger of a blocked kick and the opposing team gets the ball well out of field goal range with virtually no time left.

A friend told me this, so I'm not entirely clear on the details, but I assume such use of the "rules" might be considered "not cricket".

Intentional saftey is definitely not cricket. It's within the rules but is a cynical attempt to block the other team's chances. Punting it to them gave them a chance and most importantly of all, ensured an entertaining end to the game. This sounds like the sort of coach who would understand the value of a good off drive.

Remember: Victory without honour is not worth having.

While I am somewhat sympathetic to your point, I am virtually certain that the majority of US fans would be ... uhhh, unsympathetic. Using the "rules" to win has become, IMHO, a basic element of US culture in many areas. "If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."

The discussion brought to mind the book "The Culture of Narcissism - American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectiations" by the late Christopher Lasch. Published in 1979, I think its premise is still valid. A few excerts from the Chapter titled "The Degradation of Sport":

"The mania for winning has encouraged an exaggerated emphasis on the competitive side of sport to the exclusion of ... cooperation and competence."

"People today associate rivalry with boundless aggression and find it difficult to conceive of competition that does not lead directly to thoughts of murder."

"Athletes now regard the inspirational appeals of old-fashioned coaches with amused cynicism."

"Growing investment in (college level) sports led in turn to a growing need to maintain a winning record: a new concern with system, efficiency, and the elimination of risk." (The intentional safety example)

OTOH, I recall a coach a few years ago, when asked if an upcoming game were a "must-win", replied "World War II was a must win. This is a football game." Probably got fired the next season.

I'm not sure I understand the reference to "the value of a good off drive".

OK, this tactic could be used to win a one day cricket match but you could never use it to win a test match as to win there then you *must* get the whole team out when they are batting and you can't do that using grass cutters.

Trevor Chappell was the bowler, acting on the instructions of his captain and brother Greg Chappell. There was another Chappell, older brother Ian, who was also an Australian captain. I am pretty sure that the batsman was not (Sir) Richard Hadlee but I can't remember now. I think that Hadlee batted left handed and bowled right handed and the batsman facing Chappell was right handed.

Interestingly, another Australian batsman demonstrated after the "incident" that it is in fact possible to hit a six from an underarm "mully grubber". Doug Walters advanced far enough down the pitch to make the LBW law inoperative (too much doubt that the ball would in fact roll onto the stumps), put his foot in front of the ball to make it flick up to a hittable height and then hoiked it over the fence. However, on the night, I think that the mood of the batsman was a little too dark to have this presence of mind.

Also, I understand that bowling in the early days of cricket used to be always underarm. Overarm bowling was apparently "invented" by a girl no doubt trying to join in a backyard game of cricket with her brothers. She was physically unable to bowl underarm due to restrictions from her hooped skirt. The use of overarm bowling developed more and more over time and no-one had thought to change the rule .... until the fateful night of which Trevor Chappell no doubt hates to be reminded.

But if the ball bounces more than twice before reaching the batsman, or rolls along the ground, the umpire will (if he knows what he's doing) call "No ball".

Test match cricket is the only true sport that I can think of. All the rest are gladiatorial contests.

In test cricket, two teams can play their heart out for 5 days and, if at the end of 5 days neither team has been so dominant that they have been able to force a win, then it's called a draw and they line up again next time. It doesn't matter that one team has been on its knees, all but finished, if they can hold on for a draw. Some of the most exciting test matches have finished in such an honourable fashion.

Actually a no ball would be good for the batsman, but I am not sure that multiple bounces qualifies as a no ball. "Long hops" I think is the term used to describe a ball that bounces more than once.

"Some of the most exciting test matches have finished in such an honourable fashion."

I've read the same thing about chess at the highest levels. OK, a little geekier, but believe it or not, chess does require physical stamina to maintain concentration for hours. Some spectators (like me sometimes) complain that there are way too many draws, but others say some of the most fascinating play is in the draws, with the threat of a loss at every move.

Also, I have seen some stunning moves in an apparently hopeless position, where one player is way behind in material, but forces a stalemate (i.e. there is no move left without moving into check, which is illegal), thus obtaining the draw and 1/2 point, instead of a loss and giving away a full point.

OTOH, there are "Grandmaster draws" where both experts (GM's) in a tough tournament agree to an early draw to get a rest. I'd ask for a refund on my ticket.

IMHO, Americans are not receptive to draws in sport. Virtually every sport requires playing on until somebody wins. My local pro baseball team went 18 innings (twice the normal) during the playoffs before winning one game. They had no more players for substitutes, so I guess if somebody got hurt or thrown out of the game for arguing, they would have forfeited.