Originally posted by Ian68This explains a lot!
Actually, I got the impression that the game was just a bit of fun not taken too seriously....
See, in America we take our sports seriously. We play to win.
I naturally presumed the same thing about other parts of the world.
But now that I understand that Cricket is just a light-hearted way to pass the time, it makes a lot more sense to me.
Who cares if the game ends in a tie?
Why make the batter run, if he doesn't want to?
Let's break for tea!
05 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Red NightActually they were "allowing" the americans to win [if they really did win, that is] so that it would encourage them to play a 'proper' game. 🙂
This explains a lot!
See, in America we take our sports seriously. We play to win.
I naturally presumed the same thing about other parts of the world.
But now that I understand that Cricket is just a light-hearted way to pass the time, it makes a lot more sense to me.
Who cares if the game ends in a tie?
Why make the batter run, if he doesn't want to?
Let's break for tea!
05 Dec 06
Originally posted by Red NightAh, so in American Football, when an entire team is replaced (defence to offence or the other way around) instead of players just staying on and continuing to play the game, this is about the seriousness with which you take the sport and not that the players are pussies?
This explains a lot!
See, in America we take our sports seriously. We play to win.
I naturally presumed the same thing about other parts of the world.
But now that I understand that Cricket is just a light-hearted way to pass the time, it makes a lot more sense to me.
Who cares if the game ends in a tie?
Why make the batter run, if he doesn't want to?
Let's break for tea!
05 Dec 06
Originally posted by Natural ScienceI forgot to add all the different ways of getting out too. How do you get out in baseball? Three strikes, caught, tagged out going for a base and maybe if the umpire sends you off for some sin?
Let me take something mtthw said a little while ago and spin it around. He said that batting in cricket was more in tune with pitching in baseball, in that the pressure is on the batter to succeed. He's not expected to make an out. In baseball, if a batter is hitiing .300 (which is a very good average), he still makes an out 7 out of every 10 at bats. So how can hitting be harder in cricket than it is in baseball?
Well in cricket there is (lifted from wiki):
Caught — When a fielder catches the ball before the ball bounces and after the batsman has struck it with the bat or it has come into contact with the batsman's glove while it is in contact with the bat handle. The bowler and catcher are both credited with the dismissal. (Law 32)
Bowled — When a delivered ball hits the stumps at the batsman's end, and dislodges one or both of the bails. This happens regardless of whether the batsman has edged the ball onto the stumps or not. The bowler is credited with the dismissal. (Law 30)
Leg before wicket (LBW) — When a delivered ball misses the bat and strikes the batsman's leg or pad, and the umpire judges that the ball would otherwise have struck the stumps. The laws of cricket stipulate certain exceptions in favour of the batsman; for instance, a batsman should not be given out LBW if the place where the ball bounced on the pitch is to the leg-side of the area strictly between the two wickets. The purpose of this rule is to prevent the batsman from unfairly using his pads to obstruct the passage of the ball without striking it. The bowler is credited with the dismissal.
Run out — When a fielder, bowler or wicket-keeper removes one or both of the bails with the ball by hitting the stumps whilst a batsman is still running between the two ends. The ball can either hit the stumps directly or the fielder's hand with the ball inside it can be used to dislodge the bails. Such a dismissal is not officially credited to any player, although the identities of the fielder or fielders involved is often noted in brackets on the scorecard.
Stumped — When the batsman leaves his crease in playing a delivery, voluntarily or involuntarily, but the ball goes to the wicket-keeper who uses it to remove one or both of the bails through hitting the bail(s) or the wicket before the batsman has remade his ground. The bowler and wicket-keeper are both credited. This generally requires the keeper to be standing within arm's length of the wicket, which is done mainly to spin bowling. (Law 39)
Hit wicket — When the batsman accidentally knocks the stumps with either the body or the bat, causing one or both of the bails to be dislodged, either in playing a shot or in taking off for the first run. The bowler is credited with the dismissal. (Law 35)
Handled the ball — When the batsman deliberately handles the ball without the permission of the fielding team. No player is credited with the dismissal. (Law 33)
Hit the ball twice — When the batsman deliberately strikes the ball a second time, except for the sole purpose of guarding his wicket. No player is credited with the dismissal. (Law 34)
Obstructing the field — When a batsman deliberately hinders a fielder from attempting to field the ball. No player is credited with the dismissal. (Law 37)
Timed out — When a new batsman takes more than three minutes to take his position in the field to replace a dismissed batsman (If the delay is protracted, the umpires may cause the match to be forfeited). This rule prevents the batting team using time limits of the game to unfair advantage. No player is credited with the dismissal. (Law 31)
Additionally, a batsman may leave the field without being dismissed. For instance, if he is injured or taken ill, this is known as retired hurt or retired ill. The batsman is not out; he may return to bat later in the same innings if sufficiently recovered. Also, an unimpaired batsman may retire, in which case he is treated as being dismissed retired out; no player is credited with the dismissal.
05 Dec 06
Originally posted by lordhighgusIn baseball:
I forgot to add all the different ways of getting out too. How do you get out in baseball? Three strikes, caught, tagged out going for a base and maybe if the umpire sends you off for some sin?
Well in cricket there is (lifted from wiki):
Caught — When a fielder catches the ball before the ball bounces and after the batsman has struck it with the ba ...[text shortened]... ase he is treated as being dismissed retired out; no player is credited with the dismissal.
1. You hit the ball in the air and it gets caught.
2. You get three strikes.
You can get a strike by swinging and missing or by "fouling" (hitting) the ball out of play. You can't record the third strike by fouling the ball, unless it is a foul tip and gets caught by the catcher. If the catcher drops the third strike you can run to first base, but if the ball get's there first, you're out.
3. You can get thrown out if the fielder picks up the ball and throws it to first base before you get there. (Remember you have to run if you bunt the ball in play.)
4. You can get tagged out by a player with the ball anytime you are off of one of the three bases.
5. You're out if you get hit by a batted ball while you are in fair territory.
6. You're out if you interefere with a fielder. (If a fielder interferes with you, you get to advance one base.)
7. You are automatically out if you hit a "pop fly" in the infield with a runner on first and less than two outs.
This is from memory; if I forgot any, someone else should feel free to add.
05 Dec 06
Originally posted by amannionEXACTLY!!
Ah, so in American Football, when an entire team is replaced (defence to offence or the other way around) instead of players just staying on and continuing to play the game, this is about the seriousness with which you take the sport and not that the players are pussies?
The positions are so specialized and the game so strenuous that American Football teams regularly change their line-ups on the field. (Not just on Offense and Defense.)
This obviously contrasts dramatically with Australian Rules which is more akin to a bunch of boys running around aimlessly in short pants.
06 Dec 06
Originally posted by Red NightLOL.
EXACTLY!!
The positions are so specialized and the game so strenuous that American Football teams regularly change their line-ups on the field. (Not just on Offense and Defense.)
This obviously contrasts dramatically with Australian Rules which is more akin to a bunch of boys running around aimlessly in short pants.
I thought this might get your hackles up.
I have to admit, when I played Aussie Rules I ran around aimlessly. (But then, I also have to admit I was crap as a player. As a fan I object to your characterisation, but then, I think rugby is a complete waste of time, so I guess it all evens out in the end.)
06 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by amannionSee the other thread.
LOL.
I thought this might get your hackles up.
I have to admit, when I played Aussie Rules I ran around aimlessly. (But then, I also have to admit I was crap as a player. As a fan I object to your characterisation, but then, I think rugby is a complete waste of time, so I guess it all evens out in the end.)
ESPN used to show Australian Rules and it was pretty entertaining!🙂
BTW: Here is a great picture of Bradman actually shaking the hand of the IMMORTAL Babe Ruth:
http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/bradman/scrapbooks/14/bsb14295.htm
It is a valuable treasure of the archives of the South Australia State Library.
06 Dec 06
Originally posted by Red NightI haven't read the whole thread but I'm sure it's come up before.
See the other thread.
ESPN used to show Australian Rules and it was pretty entertaining!🙂
BTW: Here is a great picture of Bradman actually shaking the hand of the IMMORTAL Babe Ruth:
http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/bradman/scrapbooks/14/bsb14295.htm
It is a valuable treasure of the archives of the South Australia State Library.
In Australia there used to be a lot of crossover between Cricket and Baseball.
Well known national cricketers (the Chappell brothers spring to mind) also played baseball at a state and national level.
I don't think this happens anymore, or not as much anyway. The games have become too professional and players spend their whole time on just one thing.
Since Cricket and Aussie Rules are usually played on the same grounds (Cricket in Summer and Aussie Rules in Winter) young kids grow up playing both. In fact, many of the finest players in both sports had to choose between one or the other when they reached the higher levels. (Shane Warne I think had the option of playing Aussie Rules for St. Kilda at one stage.)
06 Dec 06
Originally posted by amannionSame thing here in the US. Many athletes have to choose between two or more sports at some point.
I haven't read the whole thread but I'm sure it's come up before.
In Australia there used to be a lot of crossover between Cricket and Baseball.
Well known national cricketers (the Chappell brothers spring to mind) also played baseball at a state and national level.
I don't think this happens anymore, or not as much anyway. The games have become too prof ...[text shortened]... ls. (Shane Warne I think had the option of playing Aussie Rules for St. Kilda at one stage.)
There are a number of Australians who have played Major League Baseball here in the States.
I posted a list some place.
Graeme Lloyd and Dave Nillson are the two best known.
But, there is a guy named Justin Huber who may be very good!
06 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by amannionIn1485 the American baseball team went to Australia and whupped them at Australian Rules footy - no problem, next..... 😛
LOL.
I thought this might get your hackles up.
I have to admit, when I played Aussie Rules I ran around aimlessly. (But then, I also have to admit I was crap as a player. As a fan I object to your characterisation, but then, I think rugby is a complete waste of time, so I guess it all evens out in the end.)
06 Dec 06
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveHmmm.
In1485 the American baseball team went to Australia and whupped them at Australian Rules footy - no problem, next..... 😛
1485 eh?
Do you know when Australia was settled by Europeans?
Do you mean 1985 perhaps?
What team did they play? I've never heard of the game before.
06 Dec 06
Originally posted by amannionNah it was definitely 1485 - ask Red Night, I'm pretty sure he'll back me up on these facts. 😕
Hmmm.
1485 eh?
Do you know when Australia was settled by Europeans?
Do you mean 1985 perhaps?
What team did they play? I've never heard of the game before.