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

Yes, Steve, as you say Linus was basically right, it was the fact that in the league section, losing heavily might have meant that Somerset didn't qualify, whereas losing by a small margin they certainly would.

Rose's real crime, which was the underlying reason Somerset were expelled, was that the paying public only saw 10 minutes' play for their entrance fee (which I believe was refunded) - bad for the image of the game, bad for box office, bad business. Or perhaps I'm cynical. The tactics you've mentioned don't deny the spectator his show!

The 60-run over was an extreme example of something called "declaration bowling". As I mentioned before, sometimes by setting a team a tempting target, you get them to play more aggressively rather than defending for a draw - and thereby give your own team more of a chance of winning.

Under the old league scoring system, there was no points difference between drawing and losing (except your opponents got the points for a win), so there were lots of "manufactured" results, where a captain was better off having a 50% chance of a win - or even a 25% chance - than a certain draw. Now points are awarded for a draw (4 for a draw, 12 for a win, I believe), this happens much less.

Steve - Firstly, if no result is achieved it is a draw. A tie is when the scores are equal. Cricket is the only game I am aware of which makes a distinction between the two terms.

Secondly, it isn't so much that the cricketers are more into the spirit of the game but that the Laws state that the game must be played in this spirit. (Law 42.1 - The responsibility lies with the captains for ensuring that play is conducted within the spirit and traditions of the game, as described in The Preamble - The Spirit of Cricket, as well as within the Laws)

And I'd just like to say that it's good to know that Aussie cricketers have made an impact on the Laws: Law 24.1(b) - Underarm bowling shall not be permitted except by special agreement before the match

Considering that the first overarm bowler was a woman, are women still allowed to bowl underarm?

I probably said this before, but the reason I find cricket so intriguing is that its not like anything I've ever experienced in the US

Tie and draw, right, I've heard that somewhere, but it will never stick with me which is which. (At least I got the title of this forum chaged to "laws" from "rules")

And the laws say you have to play in the spirit of the game, and that apparently does work. Fascinating. We currently have a hockey player facing jail time for hitting another player in the head with his stick - big debate on whether this should be in the court or decided as "part of the game". Similar attacks are not all that uncommon is all the sports. I gather that brawling is rare to non-existent in cricket? (Not counting the spectators).

I'm also confused (but getting used to it) about the underarm bowling. That generally only happens in softball in the US, although some "fast-pitch" softballers can really get some speed. In baseball, some players will throw with a "submarine" delivery, but its basically just that they lean their shoulder way down, still more or less an overhand delivery. Is there some advantage in cricket for an underhand delivery? Seems like it would be difficult to throw underhand and still bounce the ball.

Underarm bowling would mean the ball having a lower trajectory and thus not bouncing up very high - pretty much a guarantee of a "Yorker" on every bowl. Of course, to do so at pace (remember, the arm must still be straight) would be tricky.

I think brawling is out because of the fact that two men on the pitch are armed with bats...it would be madness to attack them, all things considered

The rule about underarm bowling was brought in after a one-day game between Australia and New Zealand in which NZ required 6 runs off the final ball of the final over to win the game. Greg Chappell, the Australian captain instructed his brother Trevor to bowl that last ball underarm. Not only that, but he told him to bowl it along the ground, thus affording the NZ batsman no chance whatsoever of scoring the runs.

Not surprisingly, there was uproar. Even Ian Chappell, the elder brother of the two Australian players, and reckoned to be one of the most competitive players ever to wear the green and gold, was not impressed. However, there was nothing in the rules then to prevent this, so the result stood.

Gooday Steve K,

Draws and ties. A draw is a 'no result'. Not a draw as in honours even, like a football game all square at full time, just no result. A tie is what everyone else in the sporting world would call a draw. When the runs scored are equal after each side has COMPLETED its allotted number of innings, that is a tie. If the runs scored are equal at the end of the allotted time BUT one or more innings have not been completed, that is a draw. And another thing: bye, must run.

Walter.

I don't know about the bats supressing brawls. Baseball seems to have a LOT of brawls, bats or not. Typically, a batter will "rush the mound" (run at the pitcher) after being hit by a pitch - especially if its revenge for a pitcher's teammate being hit previously. This happened to Nolan Ryan, a fairly large Hall of Famer who pitched for Houston for some years. The batter was a fairly small player who unfortunately left his bat laying back near home plate. Standing on the mound, Mr. Ryan proceeded to hold him in a head lock, beating him repeatedly on top of the head until help arrived from the batter's dugout, approximately the same time more help arrived from Mr. Ryan's dugout and fielders. I'm sure when the batter's head cleared the next day, he said, "Guess Ryan won't throw at me again, huh?"

But it sounds like brawling just does not happen in cricket matches.

One more question on time/declaring. The longest game discussed back several messages was described as "timeless", only stopping after ten days due to the boat departing. I assume declaring was moot in this case, the only limit being a number of innings? Is this "timeless" setup still used?

No, Steve, there's no brawling. It's probably because cricket is less macho, more thoughtful than most sports. Anyway, anyone brawling would be banned for a very long time - we just don't see it as part of the show.

The nearest cricket gets is 'sledging', which is a bit like basketball's trash-talking. The Assies are the undisputed kings at this.

Timeless tests haven't been played since probably the '50s. They would have been set up for two completed innings, so no declarations - though you still might have declared if it meant getting to bowl at your opponents on a temporarily difficult wicket, such as one drying after a rain-shower.

The game is a lot more homogenous now - 5-day tests, 6-ball overs. The local colour has been lost a bit. But at least there aren't so many local rules to remember

The semi-finalists have been found at the ICC KnockOut 2000 tournament being played in Nairobi. South Africa v India, New Zealand v Pakistan.

Does this signal the decline of the once powerful (lucky) Australian one-day side or is it a cunning marketing ploy to get more bums on seats when Aus next play the Poms?

A pygmy went to his first cricket match and was describing it to his witch-doctor on his return. 'It was a beautiful Sunday,' he said. 'A big crowd of people had gathered around this big field of grass. And in the middle there was a thin strip of mowed grass. And there were three sticks at either end. And a man in a long overcoat came out with two men in sweaters. And he tossed something silvery into the air. They went out and in came 11 men in sweaters and white pants. One of them was padded and had great big gloves. Then out came two men with pads on their legs and small gloves holding big sticks. They took positions at either end of the strip and another man came running towards them and threw a red ball at the person holding the stick. And at that very minute it started to pour. Those white men sure know how to make it rain.'

3

JOTD: If at first you don't succeed, redefine success.

LOL nice one Jester

Loony, my goodness you must have been waiting a long time for NZ to win something (make the most of it is my advice)

Us Aussies heve trouble taking these things serious unless they are really important like, say, the World Cup...

Good story, Jester

It reminds me of comedian Bob Newhart's routine on baseball. He's a game company publisher who gets a call from Abner Doubleday, the inventor of baseball - we only hear the publisher's side of the conversation.

" ... okay, if its above the knees and below the shoulders, it's a strike. What if it's not?

... it's a ball. Well, Abner ..."

NAIROBI, Oct 11 (Reuters) - New Zealand reached the final of the ICC Knock-out Trophy after beating Pakistan by four wickets with just six balls to spare in a thrilling match on Wednesday.

Carrying a first prize of $US340,000, this tournament is treated by the competing nations as the Mini World Cup. With only the Test playing nations competing, the overall standard of play is higher at this tournament.

Gooday Loonytunes,

As sure as night follows day you had to make an appearance somehwere on h2g2 with that news. The mini World Cup?!! What, like mini golf? And the overall standard of play can't be that crash hot if the Enzedders made it to the final - perhaps that tune-up loss in the one day series against Zimbabwe sharpened them up.

What's the prize money for a Nobel award? Take care, ecstatic one,

Walter.

Walter, on NZTV it was ball-by-ball action until 3.30am this morning. The commentary team, (led by Mr Hookes of Aus) were excellent. Not a Channel Nine has-been to be heard.

An excellent highlight package of Brian Lara scoring 277 (before he ran himself out) runs against the Aussies at the SCG in 1991 was shown during the lunch interval. The spluttering Channel Niners were hilarious to listen to.

Loony, a tired, but happy camper.

Loony,

Sorry to be the one to break this to you, but Hooksy IS a Channel Nine has been. He must be something woeful if he couldn't make it with Packer. Talking of has beens, Brian who was that? Take care, tired but happy one,

Walter

Has beens; Hansie Cronje has been banned for life by the United Cricet Board of South Africa for his role in bribery and match fixing between 1996 and 2000.

An expected outcome but still sad that he felt he should do it

The UCB president also wants the ban to extend to commentating.

I would have thought that would hardly be necessary. Surely no one would want him as a commentator...unless they want to know the result before the game starts.

So Hansie, what do you think will happen now?

Hansie: i think you will find the next delivery will be pitched outside leg stump so the batsman can easily avoid the stacked off side field and hit a boundary...

I don't want to even start thinking about that

I was in England in 1996 and watched a cricket game on the BBC. For about 10 minutes nothing happened - just rain on a playing field. So I hopped out to the pub for a bit, and returned to the television a few hours later. It was still just a live video image of rain on a playing field. Cricket must be one of those British things, like marmite.