Miscellaneous desk
< April 29	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 30

Racehorse Basic Information

Frankel - Racehorse. In the box on right hand side of the page is a list of basic statistics about the horse. One is titled 'Record' Can you explain what the numbers represent please - the legend? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:729:6100:295D:DB1:BEFC:E62A (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience link:

Dismas|^(talk) 00:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template_talk:Infobox_racehorse#Record_parameter_format suggests that it represents Total : Win, Place, Show. For an explanation of those terms, see Horse racing#Types of bets. Dismas|^(talk) 00:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BPL divorce

How would a BPL husband be able to gI've maintenance to his divorced wife? So will the wife not be entitled for mmaintenance? Aryan ( है?) 05:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Below Poverty Line (India) and Divorce#India for context, although this particular point isn't covered in either article. Tevildo (talk) 07:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is a BPL husband? Someguy1221 (talk) 07:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someguy1221 I ment BPL card holder Husband--Aryan ( है?) 08:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tevildo seems to have nailed it. Akld guy (talk) 10:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created this redirect: BPL card, as that appears to be what the OP is talking about. If the term is ambiguous, someone please convert to a disambiguation page. -NorwegianBlue^talk 12:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Success of college clubs

What is it that tends to make college clubs run by students so successful in terms of successfully planning, implementing and executing creative ideas and making them so successful. Of course I'm sure they have challenges but they seem to be more successful than actual businesses and charities in the "real world". Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.233.112.57 (talk) 10:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide some specific examples? If you're simply referring to the standard recreational clubs that students form, I suppose it would come down to a combination of a low threshold definition of success, low or non-existent costs, subsidies, and copious free time. Matt Deres (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

was just thinking generically but I don't think all students have that much free time, some clubs may be expensive to run and some may have a high definition of success. 2A02:C7D:B957:F500:793B:DAC7:981B:4FCA (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, without something specific, it's difficult to provide you with much of an answer. Back an uni, I was a member of a few clubs, but they were all low-key affairs. The costs were low and we were subsidized by the university. I wasn't on any athletic clubs, which would typically be among the most expensive to run, but those are obviously highly subsidized by the university or college; it's not like the players have to chip in to pay rent on the grounds or the salaries of coaches and groundskeepers and so on. Even the engineering clubs, which would also nominally be quite expensive to run, were subsidized by both the university and businesses. Providing the students with a bit of cash or low cost tech is a cheap promotion for manufacturers (who might also be looking to recruit down the road). While you're looking for specific examples of successful clubs, you might also spend some time defining what it would mean for them to "fail". Most are not meant to make money - indeed there are often provisions in place to prevent that very thing - so many are really in a no-lose situation. Matt Deres (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Divorcve -Property Claim

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page. Tevildo (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding cricket

While watching cricket game in TV I saw that different ends like Pavilion end, etc. were written in the info of the bowlers. What does this end mean? sahil shrestha (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not much of a cricketer, but at the end of each over (a set of six balls bowled from one end of a cricket pitch) the fielding team switches ends, and a different bowler is selected to bowl an over from the opposite end of the pitch, while the batsmen do not change ends. So bowling from one end or the other might be easier or harder depending on the light (if the batsman has to peer into the sunset for example), or the state of the pitch which might affect the way that the ball bounces. Alansplodge (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I presume it means that the bowler is bowling from the pavilion end of the pitch. The bowler bowls (delivers) six balls per over. At the end of the over, the umpire calls "Over!" and the entire fielding team changes ends. A new bowler therefore bowls from the end opposite to that of the previous bowler. It can be useful to TV viewers to know which end of the pitch the bowler is bowling from, particularly if the viewer knows the layout of the ground and its sighting peculiarities, eg. sun angle and direction at that time of the day, the wind direction, visual distractions, any of which may affect either the bowler's delivery or the batsman's response to it. Akld guy (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In case the question is asking what a pavilion is, see Cricket pavilion. Akld guy (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At The Oval cricket ground in London, the famous "gasometer end" was nearly done away with when the Victorian gas holder which gave it its name was about to be demolished. After a lengthy campaign, the gas holder was given Grade II listed building status, thus preserving it for posterity. See The Oval Gasholders. Alansplodge (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above comments are all correct, but I will also say it gives the audience a clue as to what else might be affecting play: some pavilions (Trent Bridge) don't have modern sightscreens yet, so when the bowler is bowling from the pavilion end the batsman's vision will not be as good as when they are standing at the opposite end. And Lords is notorious for its slope, which means that the bowler is running downhill at one end and uphill at the other. To get to what the OP was asking, it is convenient to give each end of the pitch a name so that commentators can identify them more easily. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As it says in the article, the slope at Lord's is side to side, so it doesn't affect the bowler's run in - rather the trajectory of the ball which can deveiate after hitting te sloping pitch.--Phil Holmes (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I got confused there - the ball can go up the hill or down the hill depending on the spin and which end it is bowled from. Sorry.--TammyMoet (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually two aspects to the slope at Lords, as it's not neatly defined. It kind of goes diagonally across and it definitely does affect the bowlers' run, which sometimes leads cricketers unfamiliar with it (One reference, but I could cite many) to suffer bouts of no-balls, a term that provokes endless mirth for those unfamiliar with cricket. Including those who have yet to discover the googly. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Twenty20 International cricket grounds gives the names of the ends for most of the grounds on the list (perhaps someone with access to suitable sources could add such a column to List of Test cricket grounds, as well) and the end names should be given in the individual articles for each of the grounds: for example, Eden Gardens has the "High Court end" and the "Pavilion end". Tevildo (talk) 08:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which direction do wickets face? Outdoor baseball fields have a tendency towards making "bowlers" throw WSW (it said SSW, that was my error). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The diamonds in classic ballparks tended to range from southwest to due west. With so many night games being played now, the setting sun is less of a factor in ballpark design, and the diamond can be most anywhere, although putting it in the eastern half of the lot would be rare. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cricketers would not speak of wickets facing in any direction - more likely we would say that the pitch runs (say) East-West. AFAIK there is no predominant direction - it just depends on the direction it was first laid out.--Phil Holmes (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's east-west wouldn't the Sun often be in bowlers' or batters' eyes? Baseball stadiums try to avoid this. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minor complaint to make sure that the uninformed are not misled into thinking the terms are interchangeable: "batter" is not the correct term in cricket. Batsman and batsmen are the terms. Akld guy (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Western Australia, "Cricket pitches must run approximately north/south to minimise the risk of batsmen or bowlers facing a low sun. The pitch axis must point in a direction between 55° and 325° on the compass." - [1] I don't know if that is applied elsewhere. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC

At the WACA ground in Perth, the Adelaide Oval, the Sydney Cricket Ground, the MCG (Victoria) and the Gabba (Brisbane) the orientation is the same (north - south). Remarkably, the Gabba has a "Vulture Road End". On Test Match Special the commentators used to fill in dull moments by describing the movements of the trains in and out of a station which was visible from the commentary box (maybe they still do). I would be interested to know which ground that was. 92.23.52.169 (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old Trafford, IIRC.--Phil Holmes (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I've just found the ECB guidance on pavilions, which also states that the best orientation for a pitch is North-South.--Phil Holmes (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Cricket pitch says, "Cricket pitches are usually oriented as close to the north-south direction as practical, because the low afternoon sun would be dangerous for a batsman facing due west." In connection with this, the cricket ball is very much harder than a baseball, and some fast bowlers are able to achieve deliveries in excess of 142 Km/hr (89 mph). See Fast bowling for confirmation of the speed. Akld guy (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Err.. A quick factual correction. A cricket ball is about the same hardness as a baseball, and the fastest baseball pitch (100.9 mph, Nolan Ryan, 1974) is faster than the fastest cricket delivery (100.2 mph, Shoaib Akhtar, 2003) - see fastball. The baseball pitcher has the advantage of being able to throw the ball, which adequately offsets the disadvantage of not having a run-up. Tevildo (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the bowler's delivery has to hit the ground in front of the batsman, which will tend to slow it down a bit. And although a match starts with a new (and very hard) ball, doesn't it get softened up a bit during the course of the match? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ball does not HAVE to hit the ground in front of the batsman - though it usually does so. See Full toss and Yorker for legally bowled balls which don't. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - fast bowlers will usually prefer the new ball, but spin bowlers are generally brought in when the ball has taken some wear and will spin more effectively. Tevildo (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tevildo: I did not mean to imply that a cricket bowler can bowl faster than a baseball pitcher. I meant only that a speed of 142-160 Km/hr with a hard ball is dangerous to the batsman. How about we stop with the one-upmanship baseball comparisons please. The OP's question was about cricket. Akld guy (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main difference that's important here is that a cricket ball is bowled at the batsman, and is expected to hit him, whereas, in baseball, if the batter is struck it's an automatic walk, so the pitcher tries to avoid it. Anyone unfamiliar with the issue should probably see LBW and Bodyline. Tevildo (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's why batsmen wear protective gear, isn't it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tevildo: You did not cite evidence that a cricket ball is "about the same hardness" as a baseball. At here, a comparison is made: "One main difference, however, is that the ball in cricket is harder and heavier in weight. The legal weight for the ball in baseball is from 5 to 5.25 ounces (142 to 149 g); whereas the ball in cricket must weigh between 5.5 and 5.8 ounces (156 and 164 g)." Your comparison of speeds for the record setters, 100.9 mph for baseball and 100.2 mph for cricket shows there's virtually no difference, so for a harder and heavier ball it is arguable that the risk of injury in cricket is greater. Akld guy (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See this paper, figures 9 and 11. The numbers for the baseball are indeed slightly lower than for the various cricket ball samples, but I wouldn't characterize them as "very much" lower. Tevildo (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That takes us down the slippery slope of whether there is a statistically significant difference. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having held a cricket ball in my hand, it is plainly evident that it's harder than a baseball, at least when it's new. Also, a bounce would slow the ball down. But as noted below, it can still be a deadly missile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not long ago a pro cricketer was hit in a gap in the protection and died (the side of the neck I think). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. Was that from a fast bowler or a spin bowler? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Phillip Hughes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the corresponding terms in baseball were "batman", "fieldman", and "inning". Cricket is a mystery to many people. A woman watching the game asked me during the first innings "Who's winning?" I didn't know how to answer that. 92.23.52.169 (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first two are never used and batsman instead of batter sounds full blown 19th century. It's always batter, fielder, and inning (except it's "hit batsmen" not "hit batter" and the plural of inning is always innings) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The baseball analogy would be if the visiting team has scored in the top of the first and the home team hasn't batted yet. The question "who's winning" would typically be answered "the visiting team." But that's not technically correct. Both teams have to have equal turns at bat. So the question is only meaningful after the first inning is completed. If two cricket teams are playing a five-day match, after the first of the two innings are completed, whoever has more runs could be said to be "winning", though I don't know if cricket fans would use that term. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By way of clarification: by "turn at bat" Bugs is referring to the whole team's turn to be the batting side, i.e. a half-inning, not to a player's turn, called an at-bat. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a team's turn at bat. In baseball, it's three outs. In a traditional five-day cricket match, it's ten "outs" (wickets). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's this about "the bowler's delivery has to hit the ground in front of the batsman"? Is Bugs getting confused with tennis? 92.23.52.169 (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just didn't state it well. If the ball fails to hit the ground before it gets to the batsman, the batsman is under no obligation to swing at it. But if he does, he might well get a 6. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Utter bullshit. The batsman is NEVER under an obligation to strike at the ball. He may ignore any delivery bowled to him. Akld guy (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What a British upper class twit you are to say something like that. Obviously, the batsman can choose not to swing at any delivery. But the point is that if it doesn't bounce, the batsman doesn't need to swing, because if the delivery hits the wicket and knocks the bails off, it doesn't count. The baseball analogy is that if the ball does hit the ground first, it's a free pitch. But if the batter swings at it, the results count. Like with cricket. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is nonsense. It is perfectly possible for a batsman to be out, bowled by a full toss. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your attempt at being relatively civil. Until today, I was under the impression that the bowler is required to bounce it, because they always do. Presumably they don't want to deliver it on the fly because it's liable to yield a 6. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But they don't "always do". Full tosses are legion in cricket. They are the trademark of many bowlers. And zillions of batsmen have been got out clean bowled, or caught if they nicked the ball on the way through, on full tosses that never saw the ground. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see this is already explained below. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With tennis, I think if the ball hits the ground you lose the point. 92.23.52.169 (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Either on the fly or on one bounce. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was a case in the High Court involving a cricket club and a barrister mentioned "hitting a six". The judge said "I know nothing about cricket - can you explain?" so the advocate had to give her a brief explanation of the game and the meaning of the terms "fours" and "sixes". 92.23.52.169 (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sad case involved the delivery of a bouncer. With those you have to make a quick decision whether to attempt a hook or get out of the way. 92.23.52.169 (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is Bugs rewriting the Laws of Cricket? If the ball goes "through the gate" and the batsman doesn't make contact he's "clean bowled". What the ball did before it hit the wicket is immaterial. Recently a county player became the sixtieth player in first - class cricket to be out for ball handling - the ball was rolling towards the stumps and he picked it up and deflected it to safety. 92.23.52.169 (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying the bowler does not have to bounce the ball? If so, why do they bother bouncing it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bouncer is a nasty delivery which is given a particular type of spin to make it jump up and hit the batsman on the body. Some bowlers like to bowl a bouncer when a batsman has taken a lot of runs off them. In cricket you are out if the ball hits the stumps when you are facing. Even if the ball does not hit the wicket you can be out "l.b.w." (leg before wicket) which means that it would have hit if you had not been obstructing the wicket. If you are not the facing batsman and the ball is thrown and knocks off the bails you will be out if you are "out of your ground" (i.e. not behind the "crease", which is where the batsman plays from). This is a "run out". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.52.169 (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They bounce because it's harder to hit. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the batsman just stands there and does nothing, and the bowler takes down the wicket with a delivery that does not bounce, does it count as a wicket taken? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Of course, if you hit the ball and run or you don't hit it and it goes wide so you still run your partner is at risk until he reaches your end and you are at risk until you reach his end. Sometimes both players end up at the same end and then the player who ran is out. Sometimes when the ball is thrown towards the wicket the incoming batsman will hurl himself forward so that he ends up on the ground. Provided the bat is inside the crease he is not out. 92.23.52.169 (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to get a straight answer to this question: Is the bowler required to bounce the ball? Or is it just that he bounces it in order to make it more difficult to hit? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The only relevance of the bounce of the ball is this - if you hit the ball (whether or not you hit it before it bounced) and it goes straight over the boundary rope that's a six. If the ball bounces before the boundary rope, so that it either bounces or rolls across the boundary that's a four. If the ball hits the ground before being caught by the fielder the batsman is not out - the fielder has "missed the catch". Whatever, if the fielder does not catch the ball until it has crossed the boundary the batsman is not out. 92.23.52.169 (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Full toss. The bowler is not obliged to bounce the ball. Tevildo (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a further encouragement to bounce they can't throw a slider or whatever as well cause cricket seams bite the air less but they can do shiite like this: File:Leg break small.gif Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to those who know little or nothing about cricket: please do not respond to a question on the reference desk about cricket. Particularly if your response(s) are factually incorrect. Leave it to those who know the answers. There are no prizes for commenting on every thread here. Apologies to the OP for some of the utter nonsense spouted here by some regulars who appear to be utterly clueless with regard to the question, yet took it upon themselves to attempt to answer the question, only to make matters a hundred times worse because they propounded a heap of nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What, specifically? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your question, nor do most of us understand why you have decided to attempt to contribute to this thread when it's abundantly obvious you know absolutely nothing about the subject matter, thus wasting our time, and misleading the OP. If you have questions of your own about the sport, please let us know, but don't pretend to know what you're talking about when it's clear you really, really don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's question has been well-answered, and there's no rule against tangential discussions. As far as what I've said, I was mistaken about one thing, and everything else I said was correct. And it was other users who brought up baseball first, so I assume you're yelling at them also? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not yelling at anyone. I'm just surprised that you felt you had the capacity to actually answer the query when it was abundantly obvious that you had no clue at all. Your answers were 100% incorrect, you made assertions that were simply untrue. This is nothing to do with "tangential discussions", it's to do with answering the question. If you can't do that with some kind of reliability, please cease and desist from making stuff up. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make anything up. I made one mistake. Everything else I said was correct. Whatever became of your pledge to be civil? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been perfectly civil. I have asked you and others to stop making things up, stop trying to answer questions about subjects you know nothing (which is evidenced from your multiple erroneous assertions) and stop embarrassing yourself and Wikipedia's Reference Desks when doing so. As you clearly know nothing about cricket, don't answer questions about cricket. Leave it to others. You just make Wikipedia (amongst others) look really bad by making unfounded claims, stating them as if they were fact. You need to stop doing this immediately. Stick to baseball, I don't see many cricket aficionados wading into debates about RBIs and other such nausea. Leave the things you know nothing about to those who know something. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that I know nothing about cricket is untrue. Your claim that I make stuff up is untrue. And your continued insistence to the contrary is uncivil. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, here are you greatest hits: the bowler's delivery has to hit the ground in front of the batsman ✗ Fail, after the first of the two innings are completed, whoever has more runs could be said to be "winning", ✗ Fail, In a traditional five-day cricket match, it's ten "outs" (wickets) ✗ Fail, If the ball fails to hit the ground before it gets to the batsman, the batsman is under no obligation to swing at it. But if he does, he might well get a 6. ✗ Fail, But the point is that if it doesn't bounce, the batsman doesn't need to swing, because if the delivery hits the wicket and knocks the bails off, it doesn't count. ✗ Fail, Until today, I was under the impression that the bowler is required to bounce it, because they always do ✗ Fail. "Enough already" as you would say. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How often have you seen the bowler deliberately not bounce the ball in? And how often do ten wickets fall without the innings being done? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have not heard of beamer or full toss? You have not heard of declaration? You have suitably demonstrated my point, time to stop digging further, you don't know enough, and you should, by now, know what a little "knowledge" means. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point but note that it's perfectly forgivable for an American to not know about cricket. You probably wouldn't expect a Brit to know all the common knowledge in our insular sports like "what's a shortstop" or "how many yards does an onside kick have to go?". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's forgiveable not to know all possible knowledge. Not even I could claim that. The prudent thing is to expound on stuff you actually know, and leave all else to those who, er, actually know. That's TRM's point about BB. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know that was his point. What's a shortstop is something most Americans know. I even read a (kid's?) baseball book from the 1950s (when baseball was more popular) and their introductory section of things they said most people already knew (so they could skip it) went up to things much more obscure than shortstop like "rope" (a hard line drive) and "Texas leaguer". I'm sure the sport of cricket is at least as complex. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right. People who claim to be bored by cricket have no conception of its subtleties and complexities. Those who have only a passing interest in cricket (or any other subject, really) and do not profess to know the rules the way a native follower does, have no business in "telling it like it is" and discovering it's not that way at all. Because innocent readers will skim their words and absorb them, and be forever misled. BB's contention that "the bowler is required to bounce [the ball], because they always do" shows just how tragically unlearned he is about the game of cricket. He may know more than the average American, but that still doesn't qualify him to become the instant cricket expert on the WP Reference Desk. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Jack has my view spot on. If you know nothing about a subject, don't try to answer questions about it, leave it to those who can help. By the way, cricket is far from insular, it's played around the world and at the top level by country's whose combined population way exceeds a billion. Unlike American football or even baseball. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer fans often dislike baseball, and possibly cricket as well. I find soccer boring, while cricket is a great game. Unfortunately, the opportunities to watch matches here in America are rather limited. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if Alexander Pope was a cricket lover: A little learning is a dangerous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being Protestant, I don't take the advice of a Pope. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear, The Rambling Man. Far too many editors wrote out of ignorance. The bowler is not required to bounce the ball and may pitch directly at the wicket so as to knock the bails off and cause the batsman to be given out. This is called a full toss. Bowlers do not commonly employ full tosses because the batsman is able to sight the ball much better through the air than if it bounces off the pitch (which becomes worn with play); consequently the batsman is more likely to score runs off a full toss. Bowlers usually bowl full tosses as a break from their usual style in order to catch the batsman off-guard.

The batsman may ignore a ball for any reason, including distractions. No count is made of the number of times he ignores, and he may do so in order to tire or frustrate a bowler. He may be penalized by the umpires if considered to be wasting an excessive amount of time.

Runs, including 'fours' and 'sixes', can be scored off any delivery. If the batsman judges that the ball is too wide to attempt to hit, he should not attempt to hit it. The umpire will then confirm whether or not it's a wide, and if so, that delivery is not counted for the over and another ball is bowled in lieu. If the batsman attempts to hit a ball that would be ruled wide, it's deemed to have been not a wide and is treated as a normal delivery with run count added if runs result.

One editor stated above, "a cricket ball is bowled at the batsman, and is expected to hit him". That is absolutely not true, and from the very earliest origins of cricket it was never an intended style of play. It became a technique (Bodyline) used by England's bowlers to intimidate Australian batsmen in 1932 and was outlawed after Bert Oldfield's skull was fractured.

Cricket is a game with very many subtleties and strategies that both the fielding and batting teams can employ, which are not obvious to the casual, uninformed viewer. Cricket is played by a multitude of national teams, with India/Pakistan alone having 1.5 Billion followers. Akld guy (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An Indian colleague of mine who is a great cricket fan and follower, talked to me once about bouncing the ball in. I said, "What happens if the ball doesn't bounce first?" He said, "Oh, it's going to be a six!" Hard to figure where you got the idea that I was saying that was the only way to get a six. Any ball hit with sufficient power can be a four or a six - like the time Yuvraj Singh hit an over's worth of sixes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Bugs now I see how you got the confusion here! Sounds like you were talking about the bowler bowling so that the ball bounces before it gets to the batsman. Your Indian colleague thought you were talking about what happened to the ball after it had been hit by the batsman! Not quite two countries divided by a common language, but something got lost in translation there. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We understood each other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, a full toss increases the batsman's chance of getting good runs, since he is able to sight the ball better through the air. Akld guy (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soytenly. And how often does a bowler deliberately deliver a full toss? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever he deems it appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oftentimes when he senses that the batsman is losing concentration. He delivers a full toss, hoping to catch the batsman off-guard. Remember, part of the fielding team's strategy is to wear down the batsmen who are in, forcing them into mistakes. This is something that you won't learn from rule books, and is one of the subtleties that I mentioned. Batsmen can be in for hours, even days, unlike baseball. Akld guy (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could also get a beamer delivered to you if the bowler loses control of the ball when it is bowled. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would (I hope) not be "on purpose". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed as it would be against the Spirit of Cricket! --TammyMoet (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And potentially a no ball.--Phil Holmes (talk) 10:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, a beamer is automatically a no ball. Akld guy (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the source says that even if the phrasing here is misleading. Nil Einne (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to clear up any doubt in readers' minds, according to the source cited and others elsewhere, a beamer is always a no ball, whether accidental or deliberate and no matter whether the bowler is sanctioned or not. Akld guy (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether accidentally or on purpose, yes? What if the batsman stands there in otherwise legal stance and lets the ball hit him? In baseball, it's not allowed. Is it allowed in cricket? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For a beamer or in general? Akld guy (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Each. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the beamer, are you serious? The beamer by definition travels towards the batsman at waist height or higher. No batsman is going to willingly stand there and take a hit to his upper body or head, especially if the ball is bowled by a fast bowler at up to 100 mph. This kind of delivery has the potential to break ribs or skull, or stop the heart if taken on the chest. That's why this delivery is so dangerous and the penalties so high for bowling one. If the batsman does happen to be struck, there is no penalty against him, even if the ball then drops down and dislodges the bails, because the beamer is an illegal delivery anyway.

In the case of a normal delivery, if the ball is travelling on a path (whether it bounced or not) so that it would strike the wicket, the batsman is not permitted to block its path with any part of his body (see Leg before wicket), with the exception of a hand that is actually holding the bat. This applies whether he intended to block it or not; the only criterion is that the ball has been prevented from striking the wicket, and the umpire's decision as to whether it would have or not is final (these decisions are often controversial). If the umpire rules that the ball was so obstructed when it would have struck the wicket, the batsman is out lbw. Akld guy (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So there is no rule against a batsman standing stock-still, not obstructing the wicket, and letting the ball hit him? It very seldom happens in baseball, for the same reason, but the rule is there just in case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the ball would not have struck the wicket, there is no penalty against the batsman for obstructing the ball's path with his body or clothing, unless the ball then goes on to dislodge the bails or comes off a hand that is actually holding the bat and is then caught by a fielder. In both cases he is out. The case of the hand is because a hand that is actually gripping the bat is considered part of the bat itself (see what I wrote above about lbw and the hand). Akld guy (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The hand is part of the bat in baseball also. The bottom line: there is no advantage in cricket to letting the ball hit you, hence no need for a rule against it. Thank you for your patience and explanations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The batsman can gain no advantage by letting the ball strike his body. On the contrary, there is a risk that he will be injured or, by misjudging his position, will be out lbw. Occasionally the ball might strike the batsman and drop to the ground dead. If under pressure to make runs and with plenty of wickets in hand (plenty more batsmen waiting), the batsmen might chance a run if the wicketkeeper is a long way behind the wicket and there are no nearby fielders. But it's risky. Can the distant batsman run faster than the wicketkeeper can make it to the ball and knock the bails off? This would not be a tactic deliberately employed. You're welcome. What I've given is a synopsis and you should refer to our articles on the laws for a better understanding of cricket's complexities. Akld guy (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be a bit pedantic, the bat includes a hand holding the bat as well as any part of a glove worn on a hand holding the bat. Bad luck if you're wearing a glove with a large inbuilt sweat band.[2] Hack (talk) 06:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely correct. The batsman's hand includes any glove being worn. I thought readers would understand that. It's not like batsmen avoid being out by wearing gloves to prevent the ball striking the bare hand, lol. If only it were so easy. Akld guy (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a legitimate tactic for a batsman to deliberately play the ball with his body, although it takes courage and judgement, to avoid both serious injury and LBW. Here is footage that has acquired almost mythical status in cricket. The batsman is 45 and over his career developed a well-deserved reputation for being a hard man. He proved it in what tuened out to be his final appearance. Our description of his bravery is, if anything understated. Bear in mind, that cricket helmets were in their infancy in 1976, when this took place - they didn't feature in a Test match until 1978. When Close sways his head out of the way of one delivery on the video, he was close to death, as the bowler that day, Michael Holding, delivered a spell often cited as being the fastest bowling ever and probably inspired a generation of schoolchildren. The "comment" referred to in the commentary was made by another hard man, the England captain. It was ... inadvisable. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely little detail from our article on Close - "Close once stood his ground when fielding at short leg when a batsman played a pull shot, the ball hit him on the forehead, rebounded and was caught at cover". DuncanHill (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that clip reminded me of this gem from the Test Match Special team:

"The bowler's Holding the batsman's Willie".

On another occasion the commentator succumbed to a fit of the giggles after remarking that the batsman "couldn't get his leg over". 92.23.52.169 (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Brian Johnston. There's no recording of him saying the first phrase, although it is reputed to have occurred during the Fifth Test of the 1976 West Indies tour (the above footage of Brian Close being heroic is from the Third Test). The "legover" incident was in the Fifth Test of the 1991 West Indies tour (at the Oval) - Ian Botham was dismissed by Curtly Ambrose. Tevildo (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is he couldn't get his leg over so hilarious? It's not dirty in American. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Getting his leg over" means "fucking" (in the sexual sense). DuncanHill (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of this, and other relevant context, can be seen via the redirect at Leg over incident --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]