Discussion:
Can you use platoon as a Verb?
(too old to reply)
b***@gmail.com
2017-12-31 18:09:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
as in ... a swat team was platooned?
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2017-12-31 18:27:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
as in ... a swat team was platooned?
Yes, I can.

If you mean is it common to do so, yes, but not in the sense that you require. There's nothing to stop you using it that way and seeing if it catches on, of course.
b***@gmail.com
2017-12-31 18:34:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by b***@gmail.com
as in ... a swat team was platooned?
Yes, I can.
If you mean is it common to do so, yes, but not in the sense that you require. There's nothing to stop you using it that way and seeing if it catches on, of course.
i heard it on NPR and it sounded funny but not ha ha funny
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2017-12-31 18:44:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by b***@gmail.com
as in ... a swat team was platooned?
Yes, I can.
If you mean is it common to do so, yes, but not in the sense that you require. There's nothing to stop you using it that way and seeing if it catches on, of course.
i heard it on NPR and it sounded funny but not ha ha funny
It's most common in baseball terminology where it means to have a number of people covering a position or role; "The Yankees are platooning closers after losing Rivera"
Katy Jennison
2017-12-31 19:11:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by b***@gmail.com
as in ... a swat team was platooned?
Yes, I can.
If you mean is it common to do so, yes, but not in the sense that you require. There's nothing to stop you using it that way and seeing if it catches on, of course.
i heard it on NPR and it sounded funny but not ha ha funny
It's most common in baseball terminology where it means to have a number of people covering a position or role; "The Yankees are platooning closers after losing Rivera"
As another data-point, to my surprise my spellchecker is perfectly happy
with it. (It doesn't like "closers", though.)
--
Katy Jennison
Peter T. Daniels
2017-12-31 21:39:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
It's most common in baseball terminology where it means to have a number of people covering a position or role; "The Yankees are platooning closers after losing Rivera"
As another data-point, to my surprise my spellchecker is perfectly happy
with it. (It doesn't like "closers", though.)
Speaking of puzzling terminology ("closer" is colloquial for 'relief pitcher',
specifically the one who comes in in the ninth inning to be sure the other team
doesn't have a late rally), last night I watched again the Father Brown I saw
earlier in the week that was set in and around some cricket matches. At the
climactic moment, Lady Something-or-other steps in to bat, properly in whites
but with quite dressy shoes. Father Brown's faithful friend-who-is-a-lady
called attention to the unsuitable shoes, and the Lady said, "I have no intention
of running." Even though 6 runs needed to be scored in order for the cricket
pitch not to be sold off so that a dual-lane carriageway (AmE expressway)
could be built through the town.

How does a batsperson score runs without doing any running?

(And why were all the posted scores multiples of 6?)
charles
2017-12-31 21:45:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
It's most common in baseball terminology where it means to have a
number of people covering a position or role; "The Yankees are
platooning closers after losing Rivera"
As another data-point, to my surprise my spellchecker is perfectly
happy with it. (It doesn't like "closers", though.)
Speaking of puzzling terminology ("closer" is colloquial for 'relief
pitcher', specifically the one who comes in in the ninth inning to be
sure the other team doesn't have a late rally), last night I watched
again the Father Brown I saw earlier in the week that was set in and
around some cricket matches. At the climactic moment, Lady
Something-or-other steps in to bat, properly in whites but with quite
dressy shoes. Father Brown's faithful friend-who-is-a-lady called
attention to the unsuitable shoes, and the Lady said, "I have no
intention of running." Even though 6 runs needed to be scored in order
for the cricket pitch not to be sold off so that a dual-lane carriageway
(AmE expressway) could be built through the town.
How does a batsperson score runs without doing any running?
Yes, they can have a "runner".
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(And why were all the posted scores multiples of 6?)
Because a hit which goes clean over the boundary is worth 6. If it touched
the ground on the way, it's only worth 4.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
Peter T. Daniels
2017-12-31 22:07:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by charles
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
It's most common in baseball terminology where it means to have a
number of people covering a position or role; "The Yankees are
platooning closers after losing Rivera"
As another data-point, to my surprise my spellchecker is perfectly
happy with it. (It doesn't like "closers", though.)
Speaking of puzzling terminology ("closer" is colloquial for 'relief
pitcher', specifically the one who comes in in the ninth inning to be
sure the other team doesn't have a late rally), last night I watched
again the Father Brown I saw earlier in the week that was set in and
around some cricket matches. At the climactic moment, Lady
Something-or-other steps in to bat, properly in whites but with quite
dressy shoes. Father Brown's faithful friend-who-is-a-lady called
attention to the unsuitable shoes, and the Lady said, "I have no
intention of running." Even though 6 runs needed to be scored in order
for the cricket pitch not to be sold off so that a dual-lane carriageway
(AmE expressway) could be built through the town.
How does a batsperson score runs without doing any running?
Yes, they can have a "runner".
The side (AmE team) was already down two or three men (thanks to murder and
mistaken arrest).

In an earlier scene, someone carrying a bat was seen trotting toward the wicket
(as if he were scoring a run, with no pressure on him to hasten) and touching
the ground in front of it with the tip of his bat. (I remember from elementary
school attempts to teach us cricket that you had to hang onto the bat, unlike
in baseball, when running whatever stands in for bases.)
Post by charles
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(And why were all the posted scores multiples of 6?)
Because a hit which goes clean over the boundary is worth 6. If it touched
the ground on the way, it's only worth 4.
Then why bother having runners? In football, the various scores depend on what
happens to the ball, not what happens to the players.

The bowler (AmE pitcher) looked really silly sort of galumphing his way across
the field, nearly knocking down a (presumable) umpire who was standing nearly
on what Over Here would be the pitcher's rubber (rectangular plate the pitcher's
foot must be on for delivery of the ball).
charles
2017-12-31 22:49:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
It's most common in baseball terminology where it means to have a
number of people covering a position or role; "The Yankees are
platooning closers after losing Rivera"
As another data-point, to my surprise my spellchecker is perfectly
happy with it. (It doesn't like "closers", though.)
Speaking of puzzling terminology ("closer" is colloquial for 'relief
pitcher', specifically the one who comes in in the ninth inning to be
sure the other team doesn't have a late rally), last night I watched
again the Father Brown I saw earlier in the week that was set in and
around some cricket matches. At the climactic moment, Lady
Something-or-other steps in to bat, properly in whites but with quite
dressy shoes. Father Brown's faithful friend-who-is-a-lady called
attention to the unsuitable shoes, and the Lady said, "I have no
intention of running." Even though 6 runs needed to be scored in
order for the cricket pitch not to be sold off so that a dual-lane
carriageway (AmE expressway) could be built through the town. How
does a batsperson score runs without doing any running?
Yes, they can have a "runner".
The side (AmE team) was already down two or three men (thanks to murder
and mistaken arrest).
In an earlier scene, someone carrying a bat was seen trotting toward the
wicket (as if he were scoring a run, with no pressure on him to hasten)
and touching the ground in front of it with the tip of his bat. (I
remember from elementary school attempts to teach us cricket that you
had to hang onto the bat, unlike in baseball, when running whatever
stands in for bases.)
Post by charles
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(And why were all the posted scores multiples of 6?)
Because a hit which goes clean over the boundary is worth 6. If it
touched the ground on the way, it's only worth 4.
Then why bother having runners?
Runners are used when a batsman is (usually due to injury) unable to run.
Runs, where the two batsmen both have to run are the way the majority of
runs are scored. Four or sixes depend on how good the bowler is. Good
bowlers don't give away boundary shots.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The bowler (AmE pitcher) looked really silly sort of galumphing his way
across the field, nearly knocking down a (presumable) umpire
This was a comedy tv programme, not a real cricket match.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-01 05:43:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by charles
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
It's most common in baseball terminology where it means to have a
number of people covering a position or role; "The Yankees are
platooning closers after losing Rivera"
As another data-point, to my surprise my spellchecker is perfectly
happy with it. (It doesn't like "closers", though.)
Speaking of puzzling terminology ("closer" is colloquial for 'relief
pitcher', specifically the one who comes in in the ninth inning to be
sure the other team doesn't have a late rally), last night I watched
again the Father Brown I saw earlier in the week that was set in and
around some cricket matches. At the climactic moment, Lady
Something-or-other steps in to bat, properly in whites but with quite
dressy shoes. Father Brown's faithful friend-who-is-a-lady called
attention to the unsuitable shoes, and the Lady said, "I have no
intention of running." Even though 6 runs needed to be scored in
order for the cricket pitch not to be sold off so that a dual-lane
carriageway (AmE expressway) could be built through the town. How
does a batsperson score runs without doing any running?
Yes, they can have a "runner".
The side (AmE team) was already down two or three men (thanks to murder
and mistaken arrest).
In an earlier scene, someone carrying a bat was seen trotting toward the
wicket (as if he were scoring a run, with no pressure on him to hasten)
and touching the ground in front of it with the tip of his bat. (I
remember from elementary school attempts to teach us cricket that you
had to hang onto the bat, unlike in baseball, when running whatever
stands in for bases.)
Post by charles
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(And why were all the posted scores multiples of 6?)
Because a hit which goes clean over the boundary is worth 6. If it
touched the ground on the way, it's only worth 4.
Then why bother having runners?
Runners are used when a batsman is (usually due to injury) unable to run.
Baseball has pinch-runners, but the batter has to make it to first base on
his own. Once he's substituted for, of course, he's out of the game (BrE
match) for the duration. (May I make my BBC Sports complaint again? I was
in Dublin during the '92 World Series, and they compressed each of the games
into 1 1/2 hours. After a day or two I realized how they'd done it -- not by
editing out the pauses between pitches, batters, pitcher changes, etc., but
by simply omitting innings in which the score didn't change. That demonstrated
a profound lack of understanding how baseball works. I was very glad that the
flight home had some copies of the International Herald Tribune, in which I
could read a full account of the series. Then some weeks later The New Yorker
published Roger Angell's version.)
Post by charles
Runs, where the two batsmen both have to run are the way the majority of
runs are scored. Four or sixes depend on how good the bowler is. Good
bowlers don't give away boundary shots.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The bowler (AmE pitcher) looked really silly sort of galumphing his way
across the field, nearly knocking down a (presumable) umpire
This was a comedy tv programme, not a real cricket match.
*The Father Brown Mysteries* a comedy? Surely not an intentional one.
Katy Jennison
2018-01-01 09:37:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The bowler (AmE pitcher) looked really silly sort of galumphing his way
across the field, nearly knocking down a (presumable) umpire
This was a comedy tv programme, not a real cricket match.
*The Father Brown Mysteries* a comedy? Surely not an intentional one.
What's the difference between "quite a lot of it is played for laughs"
and "it's a comedy programme"? It's certainly not intended to be taken
seriously.
--
Katy Jennison
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-01 16:20:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The bowler (AmE pitcher) looked really silly sort of galumphing his way
across the field, nearly knocking down a (presumable) umpire
This was a comedy tv programme, not a real cricket match.
*The Father Brown Mysteries* a comedy? Surely not an intentional one.
What's the difference between "quite a lot of it is played for laughs"
and "it's a comedy programme"? It's certainly not intended to be taken
seriously.
Then it's even more distant from Chesterton than has hitherto appeared.

The stories -- everything of his I've tried, in fact -- are unreadable and
their mysteries insoluble.
Katy Jennison
2018-01-01 17:13:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The bowler (AmE pitcher) looked really silly sort of galumphing his way
across the field, nearly knocking down a (presumable) umpire
This was a comedy tv programme, not a real cricket match.
*The Father Brown Mysteries* a comedy? Surely not an intentional one.
What's the difference between "quite a lot of it is played for laughs"
and "it's a comedy programme"? It's certainly not intended to be taken
seriously.
Then it's even more distant from Chesterton than has hitherto appeared.
It's miles and decades from Chesterton, quite deliberately.

The BBC wanted "a home-grown detective show" to fill an afternoon slot,
and they commissioned people to write plots using GKC's main character
(because the character was already known and well-liked) but set in the
1950s. Only a very few of the episodes bear any relation at all to any
of GKC's stories.

See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Brown_(2013_TV_series)

Re it being a "comedy" programme: these days the term "comedy" tends to
mean constant humour, laughter, gags and pratfalls, but think instead of
comedy in the Shakespearean sense. Light-hearted, and usually with a
happy ending.
--
Katy Jennison
the Omrud
2018-01-01 19:14:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Katy Jennison
The BBC wanted "a home-grown detective show" to fill an afternoon slot,
and they commissioned people to write plots using GKC's main character
(because the character was already known and well-liked) but set in the
1950s.  Only a very few of the episodes bear any relation at all to any
of GKC's stories.
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Brown_(2013_TV_series)
Re it being a "comedy" programme: these days the term "comedy" tends to
mean constant humour, laughter, gags and pratfalls, but think instead of
comedy in the Shakespearean sense.  Light-hearted, and usually with a
happy ending.
That Mark Williams went to my school. He was in my (younger) sister's
year - they both played the cello. I occasionally ferried the two of
them around in Dad's car once I could drive.
--
David
Katy Jennison
2018-01-01 21:06:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Katy Jennison
The BBC wanted "a home-grown detective show" to fill an afternoon
slot, and they commissioned people to write plots using GKC's main
character (because the character was already known and well-liked) but
set in the 1950s.  Only a very few of the episodes bear any relation
at all to any of GKC's stories.
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Brown_(2013_TV_series)
Re it being a "comedy" programme: these days the term "comedy" tends
to mean constant humour, laughter, gags and pratfalls, but think
instead of comedy in the Shakespearean sense.  Light-hearted, and
usually with a happy ending.
That Mark Williams went to my school.  He was in my (younger) sister's
year - they both played the cello.  I occasionally ferried the two of
them around in Dad's car once I could drive.
Gosh. His Father Brown definitely grew on me, once I got over expecting
it to be GKCish.
--
Katy Jennison
RH Draney
2018-01-01 19:28:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Katy Jennison
Re it being a "comedy" programme: these days the term "comedy" tends to
mean constant humour, laughter, gags and pratfalls, but think instead of
comedy in the Shakespearean sense.  Light-hearted, and usually with a
happy ending.
WIWAL, we were taught that Shakespeare wrote Histories, Tragedies and
Comedies...the last two were distinguished by counting the number of
dead bodies at the end of the play; if the total was zero, it was a
Comedy (hello, Tempest and Merchant of Venice!)...r
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-01 22:23:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The bowler (AmE pitcher) looked really silly sort of galumphing his way
across the field, nearly knocking down a (presumable) umpire
This was a comedy tv programme, not a real cricket match.
*The Father Brown Mysteries* a comedy? Surely not an intentional one.
What's the difference between "quite a lot of it is played for laughs"
and "it's a comedy programme"? It's certainly not intended to be taken
seriously.
Then it's even more distant from Chesterton than has hitherto appeared.
It's miles and decades from Chesterton, quite deliberately.
The BBC wanted "a home-grown detective show" to fill an afternoon slot,
How odd. Back when we had afternoon TV drama, they were (live) soap operas.
Nearly all of them are gone now, and are taped in advance, but most afternoon
fare is either talk shows, self-help shows, or court shows.
Post by Katy Jennison
and they commissioned people to write plots using GKC's main character
(because the character was already known and well-liked) but set in the
1950s. Only a very few of the episodes bear any relation at all to any
of GKC's stories.
I've seen maybe half a dozen since I first discovered them (back when I brought
up the colored telephone), and every one of them has involved his having to
deal with seeming violations of Catholic orthodoxy, which is very Chestertonian.
Post by Katy Jennison
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Brown_(2013_TV_series)
Re it being a "comedy" programme: these days the term "comedy" tends to
mean constant humour, laughter, gags and pratfalls, but think instead of
comedy in the Shakespearean sense. Light-hearted, and usually with a
happy ending.
Two summers ago, New York Classic Theatre gave *Measure for Measure* in Battery
Park -- a shattering drama of abuse of women, made even more poignant because
it coincided with the "Empty Chair" meme that predated the Harvey Weinstein
revelations by that long. Yet it is classified as a comedy, is it not? To be
sure, a "problem comedy" in fairly recent parlance, but a comedy nonetheless.
Jerry Friedman
2018-01-02 04:48:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The bowler (AmE pitcher) looked really silly sort of galumphing his way
across the field, nearly knocking down a (presumable) umpire
This was a comedy tv programme, not a real cricket match.
*The Father Brown Mysteries* a comedy? Surely not an intentional one.
What's the difference between "quite a lot of it is played for laughs"
and "it's a comedy programme"? It's certainly not intended to be taken
seriously.
Then it's even more distant from Chesterton than has hitherto appeared.
It's miles and decades from Chesterton, quite deliberately.
The BBC wanted "a home-grown detective show" to fill an afternoon slot,
and they commissioned people to write plots using GKC's main character
(because the character was already known and well-liked) but set in the
1950s. Only a very few of the episodes bear any relation at all to any
of GKC's stories.
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Brown_(2013_TV_series)
Re it being a "comedy" programme: these days the term "comedy" tends to
mean constant humour, laughter, gags and pratfalls, but think instead of
comedy in the Shakespearean sense. Light-hearted, and usually with a
happy ending.
I watched the first three today with my family (for reasons having
nothing to do with a.u.e.), and though they had a few laughs, they were
grimmer than anything I could call light-hearted. It's all stylized,
but still.
--
Jerry Friedman
RH Draney
2018-01-01 09:32:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by charles
Post by Peter T. Daniels
How does a batsperson score runs without doing any running?
Yes, they can have a "runner".
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(And why were all the posted scores multiples of 6?)
Because a hit which goes clean over the boundary is worth 6. If it touched
the ground on the way, it's only worth 4.
Tell the truth, now...you make this stuff up as you go, don't you?...r
charles
2018-01-01 10:13:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH Draney
Post by charles
Post by Peter T. Daniels
How does a batsperson score runs without doing any running?
Yes, they can have a "runner".
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(And why were all the posted scores multiples of 6?)
Because a hit which goes clean over the boundary is worth 6. If it
touched the ground on the way, it's only worth 4.
Tell the truth, now...you make this stuff up as you go, don't you?...r
er ---- no.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-01-01 18:18:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by charles
Post by RH Draney
Post by charles
Post by Peter T. Daniels
How does a batsperson score runs without doing any running?
Yes, they can have a "runner".
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(And why were all the posted scores multiples of 6?)
Because a hit which goes clean over the boundary is worth 6. If it
touched the ground on the way, it's only worth 4.
Tell the truth, now...you make this stuff up as you go, don't you?...r
er ---- no.
Even those of us who hated cricket grew up knowing all this stuff.
--
athel
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-01-01 11:34:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH Draney
Post by charles
Post by Peter T. Daniels
How does a batsperson score runs without doing any running?
Yes, they can have a "runner".
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(And why were all the posted scores multiples of 6?)
Because a hit which goes clean over the boundary is worth 6. If it touched
the ground on the way, it's only worth 4.
Tell the truth, now...you make this stuff up as you go, don't you?...r
No he doesn't.

Runs (points) are automatically earned by hitting the ball aross the
boundary without the batsmen having to actually run. The scoring of 4 or
6 is signalled by one of the umpires.

Loading Image...
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-01-01 12:39:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by RH Draney
Post by charles
Post by Peter T. Daniels
How does a batsperson score runs without doing any running?
Yes, they can have a "runner".
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(And why were all the posted scores multiples of 6?)
Because a hit which goes clean over the boundary is worth 6. If it touched
the ground on the way, it's only worth 4.
Tell the truth, now...you make this stuff up as you go, don't you?...r
No he doesn't.
Runs (points) are automatically earned by hitting the ball aross the
boundary without the batsmen having to actually run. The scoring of 4 or
6 is signalled by one of the umpires.
http://www.open.ac.uk/ouclub/main/sites/www.open.ac.uk.ouclub.main/files/image/six%20a%20side%20cricket/umpiresignals.jpg
Just a reminder that it is not necessary for the ball to cross the boundary, only to reach it. Also if the ball is stopped or caught by a fielder in contact with the boundary or with part of his body grounded outside the boundary a 4 or 6 will be awarded irrespective of the ball's position.
Peter Moylan
2018-01-01 23:27:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by RH Draney
In article
Post by Peter T. Daniels
How does a batsperson score runs without doing any running?
Yes, they can have a "runner".
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(And why were all the posted scores multiples of 6?)
Because a hit which goes clean over the boundary is worth 6. If
it touched the ground on the way, it's only worth 4.
Tell the truth, now...you make this stuff up as you go, don't you?...r
No he doesn't.
Runs (points) are automatically earned by hitting the ball aross
the boundary without the batsmen having to actually run. The
scoring of 4 or 6 is signalled by one of the umpires.
http://www.open.ac.uk/ouclub/main/sites/www.open.ac.uk.ouclub.main/files/image/six%20a%20side%20cricket/umpiresignals.jpg
Just a reminder that it is not necessary for the ball to cross the
boundary, only to reach it. Also if the ball is stopped or caught by
a fielder in contact with the boundary or with part of his body
grounded outside the boundary a 4 or 6 will be awarded irrespective
of the ball's position.
I'm not a cricket fan, so I don't watch these things closely, but I have
the impression that the present fashion is to have a sort of bevelled
edge at the boundary, so that the ball will visibly jump as it hits the
boundary.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-01-02 13:43:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 10:27:58 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by RH Draney
In article
Post by Peter T. Daniels
How does a batsperson score runs without doing any running?
Yes, they can have a "runner".
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(And why were all the posted scores multiples of 6?)
Because a hit which goes clean over the boundary is worth 6. If
it touched the ground on the way, it's only worth 4.
Tell the truth, now...you make this stuff up as you go, don't you?...r
No he doesn't.
Runs (points) are automatically earned by hitting the ball aross
the boundary without the batsmen having to actually run. The
scoring of 4 or 6 is signalled by one of the umpires.
http://www.open.ac.uk/ouclub/main/sites/www.open.ac.uk.ouclub.main/files/image/six%20a%20side%20cricket/umpiresignals.jpg
Just a reminder that it is not necessary for the ball to cross the
boundary, only to reach it. Also if the ball is stopped or caught by
a fielder in contact with the boundary or with part of his body
grounded outside the boundary a 4 or 6 will be awarded irrespective
of the ball's position.
I'm not a cricket fan, so I don't watch these things closely, but I have
the impression that the present fashion is to have a sort of bevelled
edge at the boundary, so that the ball will visibly jump as it hits the
boundary.
In some cases those are "boundary wedges" with advertising on them.

One supplier:
https://www.networldsports.co.uk/cricket-boundary-rope-sponsor-wedges.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/y7xtnas6

CRICKET BOUNDARY ROPE SPONSOR WEDGES
Customisable foam cricket boundary marker wedges available in
isosceles or incline shaped wedges. Available with or without
cut-out channel for boundary rope.

The exceptional isosceles wedges are suitable to standard club
cricket and are sure to give your ground the test match touch. For
your six-hitting superstars we offer incline triangle wedges which
meet ECB match specifications, the same wedges which are used in the
ICC World Twenty20 tournament. Hard-wearing and built to last, these
are the perfect wedges to mark your boundaries for seasons to come.

Come rain or shine your boundary rope sponsor wedge's innings need
not come to an end. Inclement weather won't land your boundary
wedges in a sticky wicket, as they are 100% weatherproof, rot proof
and UV treated.

This seems to show a boundary marked with wedges and, further back,
larger "perimeter boards":
Loading Image...
or
http://tinyurl.com/y7h9rc7o
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2017-12-31 21:46:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
It's most common in baseball terminology where it means to have a number of people covering a position or role; "The Yankees are platooning closers after losing Rivera"
As another data-point, to my surprise my spellchecker is perfectly happy
with it. (It doesn't like "closers", though.)
Speaking of puzzling terminology ("closer" is colloquial for 'relief pitcher',
specifically the one who comes in in the ninth inning to be sure the other team
doesn't have a late rally), last night I watched again the Father Brown I saw
earlier in the week that was set in and around some cricket matches. At the
climactic moment, Lady Something-or-other steps in to bat, properly in whites
but with quite dressy shoes. Father Brown's faithful friend-who-is-a-lady
called attention to the unsuitable shoes, and the Lady said, "I have no intention
of running." Even though 6 runs needed to be scored in order for the cricket
pitch not to be sold off so that a dual-lane carriageway (AmE expressway)
could be built through the town.
How does a batsperson score runs without doing any running?
(And why were all the posted scores multiples of 6?)
Hit the ball over the boundary and you get 4 runs, hit it over the boundary
without touching the ground (in the manner of a home run) and you get 6 .
Unlike baseball you are not required to run in either circumstance.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-12-31 22:12:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
It's most common in baseball terminology where it means to have a number of people covering a position or role; "The Yankees are platooning closers after losing Rivera"
As another data-point, to my surprise my spellchecker is perfectly happy
with it. (It doesn't like "closers", though.)
Speaking of puzzling terminology ("closer" is colloquial for 'relief pitcher',
specifically the one who comes in in the ninth inning to be sure the other team
doesn't have a late rally), last night I watched again the Father Brown I saw
earlier in the week that was set in and around some cricket matches. At the
climactic moment, Lady Something-or-other steps in to bat, properly in whites
but with quite dressy shoes. Father Brown's faithful friend-who-is-a-lady
called attention to the unsuitable shoes, and the Lady said, "I have no intention
of running." Even though 6 runs needed to be scored in order for the cricket
pitch not to be sold off so that a dual-lane carriageway (AmE expressway)
could be built through the town.
How does a batsperson score runs without doing any running?
(And why were all the posted scores multiples of 6?)
Hit the ball over the boundary and you get 4 runs, hit it over the boundary
without touching the ground (in the manner of a home run) and you get 6 .
Unlike baseball you are not required to run in either circumstance.
Seems like the 4-run hit is harder to achieve than the 6-run -- just as a
triple in baseball is much rarer than a home run.

So the character was boasting that she was so confident in her ability to hit
the ball (having been required by her six brothers to participate in practices
as a little girl) that she didn't even have to think about running.

It would have been quite a coincidence that the score could get up to 126
without anyone making any number of runs other than 6, or exact combinations
adding up to 6.
Peter Moylan
2018-01-01 03:24:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Speaking of puzzling terminology ("closer" is colloquial for
'relief pitcher', specifically the one who comes in in the ninth
inning to be sure the other team doesn't have a late rally), last
night I watched again the Father Brown I saw earlier in the week
that was set in and around some cricket matches. At the climactic
moment, Lady Something-or-other steps in to bat, properly in whites
but with quite dressy shoes. Father Brown's faithful
friend-who-is-a-lady called attention to the unsuitable shoes, and
the Lady said, "I have no intention of running." Even though 6
runs needed to be scored in order for the cricket pitch not to be
sold off so that a dual-lane carriageway (AmE expressway) could be
built through the town.
How does a batsperson score runs without doing any running?
(And why were all the posted scores multiples of 6?)
Hit the ball over the boundary and you get 4 runs, hit it over the
boundary without touching the ground (in the manner of a home run)
and you get 6 . Unlike baseball you are not required to run in
either circumstance.
But remember that this is fiction. Most commonly the bats(wo)man will
score only run at a time, and for that you do have to run. You'll score
a 4 or a 6 occasionally in a match, but not very often. Getting a whole
run of sixes is sheer fantasy.

Somewhere in this thread (I've lost track) someone suggested that a 6 is
easier to score than a 4. No, it's not. Trying to hit a 6 is dangerous,
because if you send a ball in the air and it's not going to go as far as
you'd hoped then there's a serious risk that someone will catch it, and
then you'll be out. It's safer to send it slightly below horizontal, such
that if the ball is intercepted then it will probably be after it has
hit the ground; and in fact you've improved your chances of getting it
past the fielders and all the way to the boundary.

As in baseball, there can be major discrepancies between where you
intended to send the ball and where it really goes. Especially since the
bowler is trying to mess up your shots.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-01 05:49:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Speaking of puzzling terminology ("closer" is colloquial for
'relief pitcher', specifically the one who comes in in the ninth
inning to be sure the other team doesn't have a late rally), last
night I watched again the Father Brown I saw earlier in the week
that was set in and around some cricket matches. At the climactic
moment, Lady Something-or-other steps in to bat, properly in whites
but with quite dressy shoes. Father Brown's faithful
friend-who-is-a-lady called attention to the unsuitable shoes, and
the Lady said, "I have no intention of running." Even though 6
runs needed to be scored in order for the cricket pitch not to be
sold off so that a dual-lane carriageway (AmE expressway) could be
built through the town.
How does a batsperson score runs without doing any running?
(And why were all the posted scores multiples of 6?)
Hit the ball over the boundary and you get 4 runs, hit it over the
boundary without touching the ground (in the manner of a home run)
and you get 6 . Unlike baseball you are not required to run in
either circumstance.
But remember that this is fiction. Most commonly the bats(wo)man will
score only run at a time, and for that you do have to run. You'll score
a 4 or a 6 occasionally in a match, but not very often. Getting a whole
run of sixes is sheer fantasy.
Somewhere in this thread (I've lost track) someone suggested that a 6 is
me, by analogy with a baseball triple being much rarer than a home run

(a ball that touches the ground in fair territory and bounces into the stands
is a "ground rules double")
Post by Peter Moylan
easier to score than a 4. No, it's not. Trying to hit a 6 is dangerous,
because if you send a ball in the air and it's not going to go as far as
you'd hoped
that merely suggests a lack of attention to power hitting skills
Post by Peter Moylan
then there's a serious risk that someone will catch it, and
how far away are the fences? 400 feet (122 m) is an exceptionally large
dimension for a baseball field; New York's Polo Grounds was notorious for
its 406, I think it was, feet to straightaway center field; Willie Mays made
one of the most spectacular catches in baseball history at the wall.
Post by Peter Moylan
then you'll be out. It's safer to send it slightly below horizontal, such
that if the ball is intercepted then it will probably be after it has
hit the ground; and in fact you've improved your chances of getting it
past the fielders and all the way to the boundary.
As in baseball, there can be major discrepancies between where you
intended to send the ball and where it really goes.
Not if you're talking about professional baseball players.
Post by Peter Moylan
Especially since the
bowler is trying to mess up your shots.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-01-01 11:08:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
As in baseball, there can be major discrepancies between where you
intended to send the ball and where it really goes.
Not if you're talking about professional baseball players.
You CANNOT be serious! All those foul balls and grounding into double plays are on purpose?
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-01 16:23:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
As in baseball, there can be major discrepancies between where you
intended to send the ball and where it really goes.
Not if you're talking about professional baseball players.
You CANNOT be serious! All those foul balls and grounding into double plays are on purpose?
I don't know about cricket, but in baseball the batter is facing eight fielders who are
free to run anywhere in the field in attempting to intercept a batted ball. The ball may go
exactly where the batter intended it to, but his intention may have been anticipated.

But we were talking about power hitters -- those who hit for the fences -- and not the strategic
hitters whose purpose is to get on base.
Peter Moylan
2018-01-01 23:39:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
As in baseball, there can be major discrepancies between where
you intended to send the ball and where it really goes.
Not if you're talking about professional baseball players.
You CANNOT be serious! All those foul balls and grounding into
double plays are on purpose?
I don't know about cricket, but in baseball the batter is facing
eight fielders who are free to run anywhere in the field in
attempting to intercept a batted ball. The ball may go exactly where
the batter intended it to, but his intention may have been
anticipated.
Much the same in cricket. Part of the skill is to hit the ball in a
direction where a fielder is not likely to be able to reach it.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
But we were talking about power hitters -- those who hit for the
fences -- and not the strategic hitters whose purpose is to get on
base.
I don't think cricketers make that distinction. The decision as to
whether to hit the ball hard or just deflect it has to be made at the
very last minute, once the batsman has guessed which way the ball is
likely to bounce. I think most bowlers aim to have it bounce very close
to the batsman, for that reason. But the bowlers also want to keep the
batsman guessing, so it's likely that each delivery will be different
from the last one.

Because baseball pitchers don't bounce the ball on the ground, the
batter is spared some of that uncertainty.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-02 04:32:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
As in baseball, there can be major discrepancies between where
you intended to send the ball and where it really goes.
Not if you're talking about professional baseball players.
You CANNOT be serious! All those foul balls and grounding into
double plays are on purpose?
I don't know about cricket, but in baseball the batter is facing
eight fielders who are free to run anywhere in the field in
attempting to intercept a batted ball. The ball may go exactly where
the batter intended it to, but his intention may have been
anticipated.
Much the same in cricket. Part of the skill is to hit the ball in a
direction where a fielder is not likely to be able to reach it.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
But we were talking about power hitters -- those who hit for the
fences -- and not the strategic hitters whose purpose is to get on
base.
I don't think cricketers make that distinction. The decision as to
whether to hit the ball hard or just deflect it has to be made at the
very last minute, once the batsman has guessed which way the ball is
likely to bounce. I think most bowlers aim to have it bounce very close
to the batsman, for that reason. But the bowlers also want to keep the
batsman guessing, so it's likely that each delivery will be different
from the last one.
Because baseball pitchers don't bounce the ball on the ground, the
batter is spared some of that uncertainty.
The ball is coming toward the batter's head at nearly 100 mph.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-01-02 13:26:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
As in baseball, there can be major discrepancies between where
you intended to send the ball and where it really goes.
Not if you're talking about professional baseball players.
You CANNOT be serious! All those foul balls and grounding into
double plays are on purpose?
I don't know about cricket, but in baseball the batter is facing
eight fielders who are free to run anywhere in the field in
attempting to intercept a batted ball. The ball may go exactly where
the batter intended it to, but his intention may have been
anticipated.
Much the same in cricket. Part of the skill is to hit the ball in a
direction where a fielder is not likely to be able to reach it.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
But we were talking about power hitters -- those who hit for the
fences -- and not the strategic hitters whose purpose is to get on
base.
I don't think cricketers make that distinction. The decision as to
whether to hit the ball hard or just deflect it has to be made at the
very last minute, once the batsman has guessed which way the ball is
likely to bounce. I think most bowlers aim to have it bounce very close
to the batsman, for that reason. But the bowlers also want to keep the
batsman guessing, so it's likely that each delivery will be different
from the last one.
Because baseball pitchers don't bounce the ball on the ground, the
batter is spared some of that uncertainty.
The ball is coming toward the batter's head at nearly 100 mph.
Well it shouldn't be. That tends to get the pitcher thrown out of the game!
But at least the batter has the opportunity to follow the ball all the way
from the pitcher's hand. It's a very different prospect having the ball
bounce in an unexpected direction a few yards in front of you.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-02 15:41:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
As in baseball, there can be major discrepancies between where
you intended to send the ball and where it really goes.
Not if you're talking about professional baseball players.
You CANNOT be serious! All those foul balls and grounding into
double plays are on purpose?
I don't know about cricket, but in baseball the batter is facing
eight fielders who are free to run anywhere in the field in
attempting to intercept a batted ball. The ball may go exactly where
the batter intended it to, but his intention may have been
anticipated.
Much the same in cricket. Part of the skill is to hit the ball in a
direction where a fielder is not likely to be able to reach it.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
But we were talking about power hitters -- those who hit for the
fences -- and not the strategic hitters whose purpose is to get on
base.
I don't think cricketers make that distinction. The decision as to
whether to hit the ball hard or just deflect it has to be made at the
very last minute, once the batsman has guessed which way the ball is
likely to bounce. I think most bowlers aim to have it bounce very close
to the batsman, for that reason. But the bowlers also want to keep the
batsman guessing, so it's likely that each delivery will be different
from the last one.
Because baseball pitchers don't bounce the ball on the ground, the
batter is spared some of that uncertainty.
The ball is coming toward the batter's head at nearly 100 mph.
Well it shouldn't be. That tends to get the pitcher thrown out of the game!
Which is precisely why I didn't say "at," but "toward."
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
But at least the batter has the opportunity to follow the ball all the way
from the pitcher's hand. It's a very different prospect having the ball
bounce in an unexpected direction a few yards in front of you.
Someone said the field is "combed." A baseball field is apparently tended more
carefully than a cricket pitch, since such irregularities and unevennesses are
not tolerated. Moreover, back when we were wondering how many baseballs are
provided and used per game, it was claimed that damage and dirt on the cricket
ball are _welcomed_ as adding to the batsperson's difficulties.
Snidely
2018-01-02 08:14:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, Peter Moylan pointed out that ...
Post by Peter Moylan
I don't think cricketers make that distinction. The decision as to
whether to hit the ball hard or just deflect it has to be made at the
very last minute, once the batsman has guessed which way the ball is
likely to bounce. I think most bowlers aim to have it bounce very close
to the batsman, for that reason. But the bowlers also want to keep the
batsman guessing, so it's likely that each delivery will be different
from the last one.
Because baseball pitchers don't bounce the ball on the ground, the
batter is spared some of that uncertainty.
You meant to say, I'm sure, that baseball pitchers don't
/intentionally/ bounce the ball on the ground. But if the release
point is off just a hair, the ball hits the ground. And quite a few
batters will swing-and-miss at such a ball.

Yes, besbol pitchers try to keep the batter guessing. They work hard
to make their wind-up and delivery not signal what type of pitch they
are trying to throw. They change "location" a lot ... which corner of
the plate will they try to nick, and will it be down at the knees or
up by the letters. If they throw outside the strike zone, will the
batter be fooled and swing at it anyway? If he's expecting a fastball,
can you throw a change-up and get him to swing early?

(For those unfamiliar with the strike zone, think of one of those wire
frames sometimes used for soap bubbles. This one is a rectangle, the
width of the plate, and the inside vertical measurement is knees to
upper chest ("the letters" refers to the team name on the front of the
batter's uniform). If the ball passes through the frame, it's a
strike; outside, it's a ball. In general, the closer to the center of
the zone, the easier it is to hit, and woe betide the pitcher whose
curve ball doesn't curve.

/dps
--
"What do you think of my cart, Miss Morland? A neat one, is not it?
Well hung: curricle-hung in fact. Come sit by me and we'll test the
springs."
(Speculative fiction by H.Lacedaemonian.)
Richard Yates
2018-01-02 14:22:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 10:39:21 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
As in baseball, there can be major discrepancies between where
you intended to send the ball and where it really goes.
Not if you're talking about professional baseball players.
You CANNOT be serious! All those foul balls and grounding into
double plays are on purpose?
I don't know about cricket, but in baseball the batter is facing
eight fielders who are free to run anywhere in the field in
attempting to intercept a batted ball. The ball may go exactly where
the batter intended it to, but his intention may have been
anticipated.
Much the same in cricket. Part of the skill is to hit the ball in a
direction where a fielder is not likely to be able to reach it.
"Hit 'em where they ain't." Wee Willy Keeler, New York Giants,
1892-1910.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-01-01 12:25:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 31 Dec 2017 21:49:58 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Speaking of puzzling terminology ("closer" is colloquial for
'relief pitcher', specifically the one who comes in in the ninth
inning to be sure the other team doesn't have a late rally), last
night I watched again the Father Brown I saw earlier in the week
that was set in and around some cricket matches. At the climactic
moment, Lady Something-or-other steps in to bat, properly in whites
but with quite dressy shoes. Father Brown's faithful
friend-who-is-a-lady called attention to the unsuitable shoes, and
the Lady said, "I have no intention of running." Even though 6
runs needed to be scored in order for the cricket pitch not to be
sold off so that a dual-lane carriageway (AmE expressway) could be
built through the town.
How does a batsperson score runs without doing any running?
(And why were all the posted scores multiples of 6?)
Hit the ball over the boundary and you get 4 runs, hit it over the
boundary without touching the ground (in the manner of a home run)
and you get 6 . Unlike baseball you are not required to run in
either circumstance.
But remember that this is fiction. Most commonly the bats(wo)man will
score only run at a time, and for that you do have to run. You'll score
a 4 or a 6 occasionally in a match, but not very often. Getting a whole
run of sixes is sheer fantasy.
Somewhere in this thread (I've lost track) someone suggested that a 6 is
me, by analogy with a baseball triple being much rarer than a home run
(a ball that touches the ground in fair territory and bounces into the stands
is a "ground rules double")
Post by Peter Moylan
easier to score than a 4. No, it's not. Trying to hit a 6 is dangerous,
because if you send a ball in the air and it's not going to go as far as
you'd hoped
that merely suggests a lack of attention to power hitting skills
Post by Peter Moylan
then there's a serious risk that someone will catch it, and
how far away are the fences?
The boundary is typically marked by a "boundary rope" lying on the
ground. There are exceptions. [1]

The rope is of such a diameter that a ball that rolls and touches it
will jump up in the air on its way across. So the ball's crossing the
boundary will be visible from a distance.
Image: boundary rope and ball
Loading Image...
or
http://tinyurl.com/ybzqjo5w

[1] A cricket oval in Wallendbeen, New South Wales with a white picket
fence, traditionally used as the boundary:
Loading Image...
Post by Peter T. Daniels
400 feet (122 m) is an exceptionally large
dimension for a baseball field; New York's Polo Grounds was notorious for
its 406, I think it was, feet to straightaway center field; Willie Mays made
one of the most spectacular catches in baseball history at the wall.
Post by Peter Moylan
then you'll be out. It's safer to send it slightly below horizontal, such
that if the ball is intercepted then it will probably be after it has
hit the ground; and in fact you've improved your chances of getting it
past the fielders and all the way to the boundary.
As in baseball, there can be major discrepancies between where you
intended to send the ball and where it really goes.
Not if you're talking about professional baseball players.
Post by Peter Moylan
Especially since the
bowler is trying to mess up your shots.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
HVS
2018-01-01 13:30:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 14:24:59 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
But remember that this is fiction. Most commonly the bats(wo)man will
score only run at a time, and for that you do have to run. You'll score
a 4 or a 6 occasionally in a match, but not very often. Getting a whole
run of sixes is sheer fantasy.
Not entirely fantastical - there have been a handful of six sixes
scored in an over, which I think counts as a "a whole run of sixes".
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-01-01 15:58:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HVS
On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 14:24:59 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
But remember that this is fiction. Most commonly the bats(wo)man
will
Post by Peter Moylan
score only run at a time, and for that you do have to run. You'll
score
Post by Peter Moylan
a 4 or a 6 occasionally in a match, but not very often. Getting a
whole
Post by Peter Moylan
run of sixes is sheer fantasy.
Not entirely fantastical - there have been a handful of six sixes
scored in an over, which I think counts as a "a whole run of sixes".
Indeed though there's never yet been 7 sixes in an over (yes it's
possible!)
HVS
2018-01-01 16:27:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by HVS
On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 14:24:59 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
But remember that this is fiction. Most commonly the bats(wo)man
will
Post by Peter Moylan
score only run at a time, and for that you do have to run. You'll
score
Post by Peter Moylan
a 4 or a 6 occasionally in a match, but not very often. Getting a
whole
Post by Peter Moylan
run of sixes is sheer fantasy.
Not entirely fantastical - there have been a handful of six sixes
scored in an over, which I think counts as a "a whole run of sixes".
Indeed though there's never yet been 7 sixes in an over (yes it's
possible!)
Yup -- although I don't think anyone's ever done it.

It should have been even more straightforward in the 1970s, of course, when
Australia and NZ were playing 8-ball overs, but I don't think it happened
even then.
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng (30yrs) and BrEng (34yrs), indiscriminately mixed
charles
2018-01-01 16:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by HVS
On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 14:24:59 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
But remember that this is fiction. Most commonly the bats(wo)man
will
Post by Peter Moylan
score only run at a time, and for that you do have to run. You'll
score
Post by Peter Moylan
a 4 or a 6 occasionally in a match, but not very often. Getting a
whole
Post by Peter Moylan
run of sixes is sheer fantasy.
Not entirely fantastical - there have been a handful of six sixes
scored in an over, which I think counts as a "a whole run of sixes".
Indeed though there's never yet been 7 sixes in an over (yes it's
possible!)
theoretically, even more.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-01 16:41:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by charles
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by HVS
On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 14:24:59 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
But remember that this is fiction. Most commonly the bats(wo)man will
score only run at a time, and for that you do have to run. You'll score
a 4 or a 6 occasionally in a match, but not very often. Getting a whole
run of sixes is sheer fantasy.
Not entirely fantastical - there have been a handful of six sixes
scored in an over, which I think counts as a "a whole run of sixes".
Indeed though there's never yet been 7 sixes in an over (yes it's
possible!)
theoretically, even more.
"Theoretically," a baseball game can last forever, because a baseball game cannot end in a tie.

One of W. P. Kinsella's great stories explores that premise.
Horace LaBadie
2018-01-01 16:58:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by HVS
On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 14:24:59 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
But remember that this is fiction. Most commonly the bats(wo)man will
score only run at a time, and for that you do have to run. You'll score
a 4 or a 6 occasionally in a match, but not very often. Getting a whole
run of sixes is sheer fantasy.
Not entirely fantastical - there have been a handful of six sixes
scored in an over, which I think counts as a "a whole run of sixes".
Indeed though there's never yet been 7 sixes in an over (yes it's
possible!)
theoretically, even more.
"Theoretically," a baseball game can last forever, because a baseball game
cannot end in a tie.
One of W. P. Kinsella's great stories explores that premise.
A MLB game can end in a tie. It doesn't count in the standings. The
stats accumulated during the tie game do count, however.

<https://www.mlb.com/news/cubs-pirates-game-suspended-ends-in-tie/c-20412
1484>
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-01 17:11:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by HVS
On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 14:24:59 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
But remember that this is fiction. Most commonly the bats(wo)man will
score only run at a time, and for that you do have to run. You'll score
a 4 or a 6 occasionally in a match, but not very often. Getting a whole
run of sixes is sheer fantasy.
Not entirely fantastical - there have been a handful of six sixes
scored in an over, which I think counts as a "a whole run of sixes".
Indeed though there's never yet been 7 sixes in an over (yes it's
possible!)
theoretically, even more.
"Theoretically," a baseball game can last forever, because a baseball game
cannot end in a tie.
One of W. P. Kinsella's great stories explores that premise.
A MLB game can end in a tie. It doesn't count in the standings. The
stats accumulated during the tie game do count, however.
<https://www.mlb.com/news/cubs-pirates-game-suspended-ends-in-tie/c-20412
1484>
The game did not end. It was _suspended_. (It stopped.)

If it wasn't resumed the next day, it could be resumed at the end of the season
if the outcome would make a difference in the final standings.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-01-02 13:18:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
"Theoretically," a baseball game can last forever, because a baseball game cannot end in a tie.
Unless it's an All-Star game and the Commissioner is in attendance!
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-02 15:36:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
"Theoretically," a baseball game can last forever, because a baseball game cannot end in a tie.
Unless it's an All-Star game and the Commissioner is in attendance!
I wonder whether that will ever happen again, now that they've made the outcome
of the All-Star Game significant at the end of the season (the winning League
now gets home-field advantage in the World Series).
Rich Ulrich
2018-01-01 20:34:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 14:24:59 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Speaking of puzzling terminology ("closer" is colloquial for
'relief pitcher', specifically the one who comes in in the ninth
inning to be sure the other team doesn't have a late rally), last
night I watched again the Father Brown I saw earlier in the week
that was set in and around some cricket matches. At the climactic
moment, Lady Something-or-other steps in to bat, properly in whites
but with quite dressy shoes. Father Brown's faithful
friend-who-is-a-lady called attention to the unsuitable shoes, and
the Lady said, "I have no intention of running." Even though 6
runs needed to be scored in order for the cricket pitch not to be
sold off so that a dual-lane carriageway (AmE expressway) could be
built through the town.
How does a batsperson score runs without doing any running?
(And why were all the posted scores multiples of 6?)
Hit the ball over the boundary and you get 4 runs, hit it over the
boundary without touching the ground (in the manner of a home run)
and you get 6 . Unlike baseball you are not required to run in
either circumstance.
But remember that this is fiction. Most commonly the bats(wo)man will
score only run at a time, and for that you do have to run. You'll score
a 4 or a 6 occasionally in a match, but not very often. Getting a whole
run of sixes is sheer fantasy.
Somewhere in this thread (I've lost track) someone suggested that a 6 is
easier to score than a 4. No, it's not. Trying to hit a 6 is dangerous,
because if you send a ball in the air and it's not going to go as far as
you'd hoped then there's a serious risk that someone will catch it, and
then you'll be out. It's safer to send it slightly below horizontal, such
that if the ball is intercepted then it will probably be after it has
hit the ground; and in fact you've improved your chances of getting it
past the fielders and all the way to the boundary.
As in baseball, there can be major discrepancies between where you
intended to send the ball and where it really goes. Especially since the
bowler is trying to mess up your shots.
By coincidence, I'm sure - In the wee hours of this morning, I watched
20 minutes of live cricket, Sydney vs Hobart. The bowled ball, it
seems, bounces not far in front of the batter, who wears protection
on his legs. The one bowl that was not hit (may have been "tipped" )
went between the legs of that "catcher", too, whose lack of visible
crotch protection I also noticed. The announcers reminded us that
they had previously mentioned possible "corrugation" ... which must
have been reference in irregularities of the ground.

I did see a couple of balls roll past the rope/wall; but I never
/heard/ mention of scoring, and the number-lines shown on-screen
remained a puzzle. Oh, there was a second guy holding a bat who
stood near the bowler and who ran to where the batsman had been
when the batsman ran to his place.

The other thing I noticed was that the team names were weather-
related, Hurricanes and (googling) Thunder. I saw no team mascots.
Google shows Hobart Hurricanes won.

I went back and changed my "batter" to "batsman" and "pitch/pitcher"
to"bowl/bowler". I suspect that the "catcher" has a different title.
--
Rich Ulrich
charles
2018-01-01 21:05:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HVS
On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 14:24:59 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Speaking of puzzling terminology ("closer" is colloquial for
'relief pitcher', specifically the one who comes in in the ninth
inning to be sure the other team doesn't have a late rally), last
night I watched again the Father Brown I saw earlier in the week
that was set in and around some cricket matches. At the climactic
moment, Lady Something-or-other steps in to bat, properly in whites
but with quite dressy shoes. Father Brown's faithful
friend-who-is-a-lady called attention to the unsuitable shoes, and
the Lady said, "I have no intention of running." Even though 6
runs needed to be scored in order for the cricket pitch not to be
sold off so that a dual-lane carriageway (AmE expressway) could be
built through the town.
How does a batsperson score runs without doing any running?
(And why were all the posted scores multiples of 6?)
Hit the ball over the boundary and you get 4 runs, hit it over the
boundary without touching the ground (in the manner of a home run)
and you get 6 . Unlike baseball you are not required to run in
either circumstance.
But remember that this is fiction. Most commonly the bats(wo)man will
score only run at a time, and for that you do have to run. You'll score
a 4 or a 6 occasionally in a match, but not very often. Getting a whole
run of sixes is sheer fantasy.
Somewhere in this thread (I've lost track) someone suggested that a 6 is
easier to score than a 4. No, it's not. Trying to hit a 6 is dangerous,
because if you send a ball in the air and it's not going to go as far as
you'd hoped then there's a serious risk that someone will catch it, and
then you'll be out. It's safer to send it slightly below horizontal, such
that if the ball is intercepted then it will probably be after it has
hit the ground; and in fact you've improved your chances of getting it
past the fielders and all the way to the boundary.
As in baseball, there can be major discrepancies between where you
intended to send the ball and where it really goes. Especially since the
bowler is trying to mess up your shots.
By coincidence, I'm sure - In the wee hours of this morning, I watched
20 minutes of live cricket, Sydney vs Hobart. The bowled ball, it
seems, bounces not far in front of the batter, who wears protection
on his legs. The one bowl that was not hit (may have been "tipped" )
went between the legs of that "catcher", too, whose lack of visible
crotch protection I also noticed. The announcers reminded us that
they had previously mentioned possible "corrugation" ... which must
have been reference in irregularities of the ground.
I did see a couple of balls roll past the rope/wall; but I never
/heard/ mention of scoring, and the number-lines shown on-screen
remained a puzzle. Oh, there was a second guy holding a bat who
stood near the bowler and who ran to where the batsman had been
when the batsman ran to his place.
The other thing I noticed was that the team names were weather-
related, Hurricanes and (googling) Thunder. I saw no team mascots.
Google shows Hobart Hurricanes won.
I went back and changed my "batter" to "batsman" and "pitch/pitcher"
to"bowl/bowler". I suspect that the "catcher" has a different title.
correct. It's "Wicket Keeper".
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
Sam Plusnet
2018-01-02 00:59:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by charles
Post by HVS
On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 14:24:59 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Speaking of puzzling terminology ("closer" is colloquial for
'relief pitcher', specifically the one who comes in in the ninth
inning to be sure the other team doesn't have a late rally), last
night I watched again the Father Brown I saw earlier in the week
that was set in and around some cricket matches. At the climactic
moment, Lady Something-or-other steps in to bat, properly in whites
but with quite dressy shoes. Father Brown's faithful
friend-who-is-a-lady called attention to the unsuitable shoes, and
the Lady said, "I have no intention of running." Even though 6
runs needed to be scored in order for the cricket pitch not to be
sold off so that a dual-lane carriageway (AmE expressway) could be
built through the town.
How does a batsperson score runs without doing any running?
(And why were all the posted scores multiples of 6?)
Hit the ball over the boundary and you get 4 runs, hit it over the
boundary without touching the ground (in the manner of a home run)
and you get 6 . Unlike baseball you are not required to run in
either circumstance.
But remember that this is fiction. Most commonly the bats(wo)man will
score only run at a time, and for that you do have to run. You'll score
a 4 or a 6 occasionally in a match, but not very often. Getting a whole
run of sixes is sheer fantasy.
Somewhere in this thread (I've lost track) someone suggested that a 6 is
easier to score than a 4. No, it's not. Trying to hit a 6 is dangerous,
because if you send a ball in the air and it's not going to go as far as
you'd hoped then there's a serious risk that someone will catch it, and
then you'll be out. It's safer to send it slightly below horizontal, such
that if the ball is intercepted then it will probably be after it has
hit the ground; and in fact you've improved your chances of getting it
past the fielders and all the way to the boundary.
As in baseball, there can be major discrepancies between where you
intended to send the ball and where it really goes. Especially since the
bowler is trying to mess up your shots.
By coincidence, I'm sure - In the wee hours of this morning, I watched
20 minutes of live cricket, Sydney vs Hobart. The bowled ball, it
seems, bounces not far in front of the batter, who wears protection
on his legs. The one bowl that was not hit (may have been "tipped" )
went between the legs of that "catcher", too, whose lack of visible
crotch protection I also noticed. The announcers reminded us that
they had previously mentioned possible "corrugation" ... which must
have been reference in irregularities of the ground.
I did see a couple of balls roll past the rope/wall; but I never
/heard/ mention of scoring, and the number-lines shown on-screen
remained a puzzle. Oh, there was a second guy holding a bat who
stood near the bowler and who ran to where the batsman had been
when the batsman ran to his place.
The other thing I noticed was that the team names were weather-
related, Hurricanes and (googling) Thunder. I saw no team mascots.
Google shows Hobart Hurricanes won.
I went back and changed my "batter" to "batsman" and "pitch/pitcher"
to"bowl/bowler". I suspect that the "catcher" has a different title.
correct. It's "Wicket Keeper".
Where the "wicket" is that set of three wooden uprights (stumps) with
two smaller horizontal pieces (bails) balanced in shallow grooves on top.
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter Moylan
2018-01-01 23:54:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Ulrich
By coincidence, I'm sure - In the wee hours of this morning, I
watched 20 minutes of live cricket, Sydney vs Hobart. The bowled
ball, it seems, bounces not far in front of the batter, who wears
protection on his legs. The one bowl that was not hit (may have been
"tipped" ) went between the legs of that "catcher", too, whose lack
of visible crotch protection I also noticed. The announcers reminded
us that they had previously mentioned possible "corrugation" ...
which must have been reference in irregularities of the ground.
The groundskeepers will try to keep the pitch smooth, but there are
always departures from perfect smoothness, and a bowler will try to take
advantage of that.

There is crotch protection, but it's hidden under the clothes.

In recent years, there has been more emphasis on head protection. The
ball shouldn't normally go as high as head level, but it happens. Only
three years ago there was a batsman killed by a ball hitting his neck
even though he was wearing protection.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-01-02 07:46:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Rich Ulrich
By coincidence, I'm sure - In the wee hours of this morning, I
watched 20 minutes of live cricket, Sydney vs Hobart. The bowled
ball, it seems, bounces not far in front of the batter, who wears
protection on his legs. The one bowl that was not hit (may have been
"tipped" ) went between the legs of that "catcher", too, whose lack
of visible crotch protection I also noticed. The announcers reminded
us that they had previously mentioned possible "corrugation" ...
which must have been reference in irregularities of the ground.
The groundskeepers will try to keep the pitch smooth, but there are
always departures from perfect smoothness, and a bowler will try to take
advantage of that.
There is crotch protection, but it's hidden under the clothes.
I was surprised at that comment too. Was he expecting something like a
brightly coloured codpiece? When I was at school one could tell that
cricketers wore jockstraps and boxes because one could see them being
put on or taken off in the changing room. Once fully dressed there was
no way to know. Incidentally, although face protection is relatively
new, leg and crotch protection has been standard for a very long time.
Post by Peter Moylan
In recent years, there has been more emphasis on head protection. The
ball shouldn't normally go as high as head level, but it happens. Only
three years ago there was a batsman killed by a ball hitting his neck
even though he was wearing protection.
--
athel
Jerry Friedman
2018-01-02 15:03:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Rich Ulrich
By coincidence, I'm sure - In the wee hours of this morning, I
watched 20 minutes of live cricket, Sydney vs Hobart. The bowled
ball, it seems, bounces not far in front of the batter, who wears
protection on his legs. The one bowl that was not hit (may have been
"tipped" ) went between the legs of that "catcher", too, whose lack
of visible crotch protection I also noticed. The announcers reminded
us that they had previously mentioned possible "corrugation" ...
which must have been reference in irregularities of the ground.
...
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
There is crotch protection, but it's hidden under the clothes.
I was surprised at that comment too. Was he expecting something like a
brightly coloured codpiece? When I was at school one could tell that
cricketers wore jockstraps and boxes because one could see them being
put on or taken off in the changing room. Once fully dressed there was
no way to know. Incidentally, although face protection is relatively
new, leg and crotch protection has been standard for a very long time.
...

Baseball catchers wear, outside their clothes, a "chest protector"
that extends down to the crotch.

Loading Image...

I'd think they wear a cup under their clothes too.
--
Jerry Friedman
Snidely
2018-01-03 07:09:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Rich Ulrich
By coincidence, I'm sure - In the wee hours of this morning, I
watched 20 minutes of live cricket, Sydney vs Hobart. The bowled
ball, it seems, bounces not far in front of the batter, who wears
protection on his legs. The one bowl that was not hit (may have been
"tipped" ) went between the legs of that "catcher", too, whose lack
of visible crotch protection I also noticed. The announcers reminded
us that they had previously mentioned possible "corrugation" ...
which must have been reference in irregularities of the ground.
...
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
There is crotch protection, but it's hidden under the clothes.
I was surprised at that comment too. Was he expecting something like a
brightly coloured codpiece? When I was at school one could tell that
cricketers wore jockstraps and boxes because one could see them being
put on or taken off in the changing room. Once fully dressed there was
no way to know. Incidentally, although face protection is relatively
new, leg and crotch protection has been standard for a very long time.
...
Baseball catchers wear, outside their clothes, a "chest protector"
that extends down to the crotch.
http://d2s0f1q6r2lxto.cloudfront.net/pub/ProTips/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/baseball-catcher-tips.jpg
I'd think they wear a cup under their clothes too.
I'm pretty sure all the players on the field wear a cup, too. I know
that my junior high's team required them, although PE classes didn't
(since PE was "only" softball).


/dps
--
But happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue. One must have a reason
to 'be happy.'"
Viktor Frankl
b***@shaw.ca
2018-01-03 07:39:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
Post by Jerry Friedman
Baseball catchers wear, outside their clothes, a "chest protector"
that extends down to the crotch.
http://d2s0f1q6r2lxto.cloudfront.net/pub/ProTips/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/baseball-catcher-tips.jpg
I'd think they wear a cup under their clothes too.
I'm pretty sure all the players on the field wear a cup, too. I know
that my junior high's team required them, although PE classes didn't
(since PE was "only" softball).
All the infielders in major league baseball almost certainly wear them.
They play close enough to home plate that a hard line drive can sometimes
not be dodged.

Catchers and home-plate umpires would be insane not to wear them.
But there are many easily found Web resources that indicate outfielders
rarely wear cups because they don't have to, they are in no danger of
being hit in the groin by a baseball, and cups are uncomfortable.
You must have seen many moments in televised baseball games showing
infielders putting hands to their groins and squirming and pushing,
trying to get comfortable.

I ran a search of the official rules of baseball and found no requirement
to wear a cup.

bill
Richard Yates
2018-01-03 14:48:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Snidely
Post by Jerry Friedman
Baseball catchers wear, outside their clothes, a "chest protector"
that extends down to the crotch.
http://d2s0f1q6r2lxto.cloudfront.net/pub/ProTips/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/baseball-catcher-tips.jpg
I'd think they wear a cup under their clothes too.
I'm pretty sure all the players on the field wear a cup, too. I know
that my junior high's team required them, although PE classes didn't
(since PE was "only" softball).
All the infielders in major league baseball almost certainly wear them.
They play close enough to home plate that a hard line drive can sometimes
not be dodged.
Catchers and home-plate umpires would be insane not to wear them.
But there are many easily found Web resources that indicate outfielders
rarely wear cups because they don't have to, they are in no danger of
being hit in the groin by a baseball, and cups are uncomfortable.
Until they come up to bat and have 100mph baseballs being thrown
toward them at groin level from less than 60 feet distance (time to
react and dodge = .42 seconds).

Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-02 15:34:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Rich Ulrich
By coincidence, I'm sure - In the wee hours of this morning, I
watched 20 minutes of live cricket, Sydney vs Hobart. The bowled
ball, it seems, bounces not far in front of the batter, who wears
protection on his legs. The one bowl that was not hit (may have been
"tipped" ) went between the legs of that "catcher", too, whose lack
of visible crotch protection I also noticed. The announcers reminded
us that they had previously mentioned possible "corrugation" ...
which must have been reference in irregularities of the ground.
The groundskeepers will try to keep the pitch smooth, but there are
always departures from perfect smoothness, and a bowler will try to take
advantage of that.
There is crotch protection, but it's hidden under the clothes.
I was surprised at that comment too. Was he expecting something like a
brightly coloured codpiece? When I was at school one could tell that
cricketers wore jockstraps and boxes because one could see them being
put on or taken off in the changing room. Once fully dressed there was
no way to know. Incidentally, although face protection is relatively
new, leg and crotch protection has been standard for a very long time.
The genius "enzyme kineticist" who claims to be such an expert on American
culture (having spent a few weeks in Berkeley more than half a century ago)
has never seen, or even seen a picture of, a Major League catcher or umpire,
from which a normal "crotch protection" could easily be identified? Neither
a jock strap nor a cup (BrE "box"???) is adequate. The latter is suitable
for football players, who do not regularly face fast-moving projectiles
aimed directly at their genitalia.
Tony Cooper
2018-01-02 16:25:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 07:34:16 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Rich Ulrich
By coincidence, I'm sure - In the wee hours of this morning, I
watched 20 minutes of live cricket, Sydney vs Hobart. The bowled
ball, it seems, bounces not far in front of the batter, who wears
protection on his legs. The one bowl that was not hit (may have been
"tipped" ) went between the legs of that "catcher", too, whose lack
of visible crotch protection I also noticed. The announcers reminded
us that they had previously mentioned possible "corrugation" ...
which must have been reference in irregularities of the ground.
The groundskeepers will try to keep the pitch smooth, but there are
always departures from perfect smoothness, and a bowler will try to take
advantage of that.
There is crotch protection, but it's hidden under the clothes.
I was surprised at that comment too. Was he expecting something like a
brightly coloured codpiece? When I was at school one could tell that
cricketers wore jockstraps and boxes because one could see them being
put on or taken off in the changing room. Once fully dressed there was
no way to know. Incidentally, although face protection is relatively
new, leg and crotch protection has been standard for a very long time.
The genius "enzyme kineticist" who claims to be such an expert on American
culture (having spent a few weeks in Berkeley more than half a century ago)
has never seen, or even seen a picture of, a Major League catcher or umpire,
from which a normal "crotch protection" could easily be identified? Neither
a jock strap nor a cup (BrE "box"???) is adequate. The latter is suitable
for football players, who do not regularly face fast-moving projectiles
aimed directly at their genitalia.
Actually, outside-the-clothes crotch protectors are not worn by most
baseball catchers. The chest protector can be fitted with a piece of
padding that dangles down to that area, but most catchers feel that it
gets in their way, flops loosely, and makes it more difficult for the
pitcher to read the finger signals* Even if worn, the dangling piece
is not much protection since it is padding and not the rigid material
of a cup/box.

I know you will disagree with my correction to your statement, but
search "baseball catcher" in Google Images and you'll be hard-pressed
to find a photo of a catcher wearing this addition to the chest guard.

Youngest grandson's position is catcher, and he's never worn kit with
the dangling bit.

Loading Image...

Nor do baseball umpires wear out-side-the-uniform crotch protectors.
Most baseball umpires don't even wear outside chest protectors. They
wear rigid chest protector vests under the uniform. Again, I suggest
you search "baseball umpires" in Google Images and find a photo of an
umpire wearing outside kit. What you will find are photos like this
one of a Detroit Tiger game:

Loading Image...

*The "finger signals" are the catcher's way of telling the pitcher
what type of pitch to throw. It is usually the catcher who calls the
type...curve ball, fast ball, slider, etc.

Loading Image...
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Jerry Friedman
2018-01-02 16:36:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 07:34:16 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Rich Ulrich
By coincidence, I'm sure - In the wee hours of this morning, I
watched 20 minutes of live cricket, Sydney vs Hobart. The bowled
ball, it seems, bounces not far in front of the batter, who wears
protection on his legs. The one bowl that was not hit (may have been
"tipped" ) went between the legs of that "catcher", too, whose lack
of visible crotch protection I also noticed. The announcers reminded
us that they had previously mentioned possible "corrugation" ...
which must have been reference in irregularities of the ground.
The groundskeepers will try to keep the pitch smooth, but there are
always departures from perfect smoothness, and a bowler will try to take
advantage of that.
There is crotch protection, but it's hidden under the clothes.
I was surprised at that comment too. Was he expecting something like a
brightly coloured codpiece? When I was at school one could tell that
cricketers wore jockstraps and boxes because one could see them being
put on or taken off in the changing room. Once fully dressed there was
no way to know. Incidentally, although face protection is relatively
new, leg and crotch protection has been standard for a very long time.
The genius "enzyme kineticist" who claims to be such an expert on American
culture (having spent a few weeks in Berkeley more than half a century ago)
has never seen, or even seen a picture of, a Major League catcher or umpire,
from which a normal "crotch protection" could easily be identified? Neither
a jock strap nor a cup (BrE "box"???) is adequate. The latter is suitable
for football players, who do not regularly face fast-moving projectiles
aimed directly at their genitalia.
Actually, outside-the-clothes crotch protectors are not worn by most
baseball catchers.
...

Okay, I retract my earlier statement.
Post by Tony Cooper
I know you will disagree with my correction to your statement, but
search "baseball catcher" in Google Images and you'll be hard-pressed
to find a photo of a catcher wearing this addition to the chest guard.
I had no trouble at all.
Post by Tony Cooper
Youngest grandson's position is catcher, and he's never worn kit with
the dangling bit.
https://photos.smugmug.com/2017-Baseball/April-1st-Antons-Game/i-ZQThB3B/0/ccc33ec5/O/2017-04-01-29.jpg
High, ball 1.
Post by Tony Cooper
Nor do baseball umpires wear out-side-the-uniform crotch protectors.
Most baseball umpires don't even wear outside chest protectors. They
wear rigid chest protector vests under the uniform. Again, I suggest
you search "baseball umpires" in Google Images and find a photo of an
umpire wearing outside kit. What you will find are photos like this
https://cdnph.upi.com/ph/st/th/9761504103948/2017/i/15041050343398/v2.1/Detroit-Tigers-pitcher-Michael-Fulmer-drills-umpire-in-groin-with-fastball.jpg?lg=4
...

Ow!
--
Jerry Friedman
Tony Cooper
2018-01-02 16:49:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 08:36:34 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 07:34:16 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Rich Ulrich
By coincidence, I'm sure - In the wee hours of this morning, I
watched 20 minutes of live cricket, Sydney vs Hobart. The bowled
ball, it seems, bounces not far in front of the batter, who wears
protection on his legs. The one bowl that was not hit (may have been
"tipped" ) went between the legs of that "catcher", too, whose lack
of visible crotch protection I also noticed. The announcers reminded
us that they had previously mentioned possible "corrugation" ...
which must have been reference in irregularities of the ground.
The groundskeepers will try to keep the pitch smooth, but there are
always departures from perfect smoothness, and a bowler will try to take
advantage of that.
There is crotch protection, but it's hidden under the clothes.
I was surprised at that comment too. Was he expecting something like a
brightly coloured codpiece? When I was at school one could tell that
cricketers wore jockstraps and boxes because one could see them being
put on or taken off in the changing room. Once fully dressed there was
no way to know. Incidentally, although face protection is relatively
new, leg and crotch protection has been standard for a very long time.
The genius "enzyme kineticist" who claims to be such an expert on American
culture (having spent a few weeks in Berkeley more than half a century ago)
has never seen, or even seen a picture of, a Major League catcher or umpire,
from which a normal "crotch protection" could easily be identified? Neither
a jock strap nor a cup (BrE "box"???) is adequate. The latter is suitable
for football players, who do not regularly face fast-moving projectiles
aimed directly at their genitalia.
Actually, outside-the-clothes crotch protectors are not worn by most
baseball catchers.
...
Okay, I retract my earlier statement.
Post by Tony Cooper
I know you will disagree with my correction to your statement, but
search "baseball catcher" in Google Images and you'll be hard-pressed
to find a photo of a catcher wearing this addition to the chest guard.
I had no trouble at all.
I responded to PTD's post, and he's the one who doesn't accept
corrections to his posts. Normal people do.
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
Youngest grandson's position is catcher, and he's never worn kit with
the dangling bit.
https://photos.smugmug.com/2017-Baseball/April-1st-Antons-Game/i-ZQThB3B/0/ccc33ec5/O/2017-04-01-29.jpg
High, ball 1.
Post by Tony Cooper
Nor do baseball umpires wear out-side-the-uniform crotch protectors.
Most baseball umpires don't even wear outside chest protectors. They
wear rigid chest protector vests under the uniform. Again, I suggest
you search "baseball umpires" in Google Images and find a photo of an
umpire wearing outside kit. What you will find are photos like this
https://cdnph.upi.com/ph/st/th/9761504103948/2017/i/15041050343398/v2.1/Detroit-Tigers-pitcher-Michael-Fulmer-drills-umpire-in-groin-with-fastball.jpg?lg=4
...
Ow!
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-02 16:59:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 08:36:34 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
I know you will disagree with my correction to your statement, but
search "baseball catcher" in Google Images and you'll be hard-pressed
to find a photo of a catcher wearing this addition to the chest guard.
I had no trouble at all.
I responded to PTD's post, and he's the one who doesn't accept
corrections to his posts. Normal people do.
And that's how you respond to Jerry's correction to your post?
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-01-03 06:33:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 08:36:34 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 07:34:16 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Rich Ulrich
By coincidence, I'm sure - In the wee hours of this morning, I
watched 20 minutes of live cricket, Sydney vs Hobart. The bowled
ball, it seems, bounces not far in front of the batter, who wears
protection on his legs. The one bowl that was not hit (may have been
"tipped" ) went between the legs of that "catcher", too, whose lack
of visible crotch protection I also noticed. The announcers reminded
us that they had previously mentioned possible "corrugation" ...
which must have been reference in irregularities of the ground.
The groundskeepers will try to keep the pitch smooth, but there are
always departures from perfect smoothness, and a bowler will try to take
advantage of that.
There is crotch protection, but it's hidden under the clothes.
I was surprised at that comment too. Was he expecting something like a
brightly coloured codpiece? When I was at school one could tell that
cricketers wore jockstraps and boxes because one could see them being
put on or taken off in the changing room. Once fully dressed there was
no way to know. Incidentally, although face protection is relatively
new, leg and crotch protection has been standard for a very long time.
The genius "enzyme kineticist" who claims to be such an expert on American
culture (having spent a few weeks in Berkeley more than half a century ago)
has never seen, or even seen a picture of, a Major League catcher or umpire,
from which a normal "crotch protection" could easily be identified? Neither
a jock strap nor a cup (BrE "box"???) is adequate. The latter is suitable
for football players, who do not regularly face fast-moving projectiles
aimed directly at their genitalia.
Oh dear. The silly little man really does need to work on his reading
comprehension. The context was the lack of visible crotch protection on
cricketers. My comment was in that context, that is to say it concerned
cricket. How does he think that a knowledge of baseball would have
helped? In one minor sense it did help, as I guessed that "catcher"
probably meant wicket keeper.

Incidentally, a period of three consecutive years (and shorter periods
later) is not usually regarded as "a few weeks".

When have I ever claimed to be an expert on American culture? Citation,
please (except that I know that he never provides evidence for his
statements).
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
Actually, outside-the-clothes crotch protectors are not worn by most
baseball catchers.
...
Okay, I retract my earlier statement.
Post by Tony Cooper
I know you will disagree with my correction to your statement, but
search "baseball catcher" in Google Images and you'll be hard-pressed
to find a photo of a catcher wearing this addition to the chest guard.
I had no trouble at all.
I responded to PTD's post, and he's the one who doesn't accept
corrections to his posts. Normal people do.
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
Youngest grandson's position is catcher, and he's never worn kit with
the dangling bit.
https://photos.smugmug.com/2017-Baseball/April-1st-Antons-Game/i-ZQThB3B/0/ccc33ec5/O/2017-04-01-29.jpg
High, ball 1.
Post by Tony Cooper
Nor do baseball umpires wear out-side-the-uniform crotch protectors.
Most baseball umpires don't even wear outside chest protectors. They
wear rigid chest protector vests under the uniform. Again, I suggest
you search "baseball umpires" in Google Images and find a photo of an
umpire wearing outside kit. What you will find are photos like this
https://cdnph.upi.com/ph/st/th/9761504103948/2017/i/15041050343398/v2.1/Detroit-Tigers-pitcher-Michael-Fulmer-drills-umpire-in-groin-with-fastball.jpg?lg=4
...
Ow!
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-03 14:27:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 08:36:34 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 07:34:16 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Rich Ulrich
By coincidence, I'm sure - In the wee hours of this morning, I
watched 20 minutes of live cricket, Sydney vs Hobart. The bowled
ball, it seems, bounces not far in front of the batter, who wears
protection on his legs. The one bowl that was not hit (may have been
"tipped" ) went between the legs of that "catcher", too, whose lack
of visible crotch protection I also noticed. The announcers reminded
us that they had previously mentioned possible "corrugation" ...
which must have been reference in irregularities of the ground.
The groundskeepers will try to keep the pitch smooth, but there are
always departures from perfect smoothness, and a bowler will try to take
advantage of that.
There is crotch protection, but it's hidden under the clothes.
I was surprised at that comment too. Was he expecting something like a
brightly coloured codpiece? When I was at school one could tell that
cricketers wore jockstraps and boxes because one could see them being
put on or taken off in the changing room. Once fully dressed there was
no way to know. Incidentally, although face protection is relatively
new, leg and crotch protection has been standard for a very long time.
The genius "enzyme kineticist" who claims to be such an expert on American
culture (having spent a few weeks in Berkeley more than half a century ago)
has never seen, or even seen a picture of, a Major League catcher or umpire,
from which a normal "crotch protection" could easily be identified? Neither
a jock strap nor a cup (BrE "box"???) is adequate. The latter is suitable
for football players, who do not regularly face fast-moving projectiles
aimed directly at their genitalia.
Oh dear. The silly little man really does need to work on his reading
comprehension. The context was the lack of visible crotch protection on
cricketers. My comment was in that context, that is to say it concerned
cricket. How does he think that a knowledge of baseball would have
helped? In one minor sense it did help, as I guessed that "catcher"
probably meant wicket keeper.
Asshole Moron's powers of "concentration" manifestly become more and more
limited. The context was set by Rich Ulrich's comparison of BASEBALL CATCHERS.

But that was several lines above where he had fixated on his obsession, trying
to find something to peck it in anything I write.

Or maybe he isn't clever enough to have recognized the _implicit_ comparison
signaled by the term "catcher" in quotes.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Incidentally, a period of three consecutive years (and shorter periods
later) is not usually regarded as "a few weeks".
Must have been "three consecutive years" of blinkered lab work. Or singular
failure of observation.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
When have I ever claimed to be an expert on American culture? Citation,
please (except that I know that he never provides evidence for his
statements).
Passim. Probably hundreds of false assertions.
Rich Ulrich
2018-01-02 18:34:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 08:36:34 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 07:34:16 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Rich Ulrich
By coincidence, I'm sure - In the wee hours of this morning, I
watched 20 minutes of live cricket, Sydney vs Hobart. The bowled
ball, it seems, bounces not far in front of the batter, who wears
protection on his legs. The one bowl that was not hit (may have been
"tipped" ) went between the legs of that "catcher", too, whose lack
of visible crotch protection I also noticed. The announcers reminded
us that they had previously mentioned possible "corrugation" ...
which must have been reference in irregularities of the ground.
The groundskeepers will try to keep the pitch smooth, but there are
always departures from perfect smoothness, and a bowler will try to take
advantage of that.
There is crotch protection, but it's hidden under the clothes.
I was surprised at that comment too. Was he expecting something like a
brightly coloured codpiece? When I was at school one could tell that
cricketers wore jockstraps and boxes because one could see them being
put on or taken off in the changing room. Once fully dressed there was
no way to know. Incidentally, although face protection is relatively
new, leg and crotch protection has been standard for a very long time.
The genius "enzyme kineticist" who claims to be such an expert on American
culture (having spent a few weeks in Berkeley more than half a century ago)
has never seen, or even seen a picture of, a Major League catcher or umpire,
from which a normal "crotch protection" could easily be identified? Neither
a jock strap nor a cup (BrE "box"???) is adequate. The latter is suitable
for football players, who do not regularly face fast-moving projectiles
aimed directly at their genitalia.
Actually, outside-the-clothes crotch protectors are not worn by most
baseball catchers.
...
Okay, I retract my earlier statement.
But you did capture the image that I had in mind, of the combined
chest/crotch protection. Even if I had it wrong, too.

"crotch" came particularly to mind because of the one bowl that
came close. When the ball went past the wicket-keeper, the batsman
ran ... seeming to me like a baseball batter who can try for first if
the catcher does not catch the third strike ("strike-out").

The batsmen, by the way, did have wire cages over their faces

I did not notice the "wicket" having any role in the action.
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
I know you will disagree with my correction to your statement, but
search "baseball catcher" in Google Images and you'll be hard-pressed
to find a photo of a catcher wearing this addition to the chest guard.
I had no trouble at all.
Post by Tony Cooper
Youngest grandson's position is catcher, and he's never worn kit with
the dangling bit.
https://photos.smugmug.com/2017-Baseball/April-1st-Antons-Game/i-ZQThB3B/0/ccc33ec5/O/2017-04-01-29.jpg
High, ball 1.
Post by Tony Cooper
Nor do baseball umpires wear out-side-the-uniform crotch protectors.
Most baseball umpires don't even wear outside chest protectors. They
wear rigid chest protector vests under the uniform. Again, I suggest
you search "baseball umpires" in Google Images and find a photo of an
umpire wearing outside kit. What you will find are photos like this
https://cdnph.upi.com/ph/st/th/9761504103948/2017/i/15041050343398/v2.1/Detroit-Tigers-pitcher-Michael-Fulmer-drills-umpire-in-groin-with-fastball.jpg?lg=4
...
Ow!
--
Rich Ulrich
charles
2018-01-02 20:32:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 08:36:34 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 07:34:16 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Rich Ulrich
By coincidence, I'm sure - In the wee hours of this morning, I
watched 20 minutes of live cricket, Sydney vs Hobart. The bowled
ball, it seems, bounces not far in front of the batter, who
wears protection on his legs. The one bowl that was not hit (may
have been "tipped" ) went between the legs of that "catcher",
too, whose lack of visible crotch protection I also noticed. The
announcers reminded us that they had previously mentioned
possible "corrugation" ... which must have been reference in
irregularities of the ground.
The groundskeepers will try to keep the pitch smooth, but there
are always departures from perfect smoothness, and a bowler will
try to take advantage of that. There is crotch protection, but
it's hidden under the clothes.
I was surprised at that comment too. Was he expecting something
like a brightly coloured codpiece? When I was at school one could
tell that cricketers wore jockstraps and boxes because one could
see them being put on or taken off in the changing room. Once
fully dressed there was no way to know. Incidentally, although
face protection is relatively new, leg and crotch protection has
been standard for a very long time.
The genius "enzyme kineticist" who claims to be such an expert on
American culture (having spent a few weeks in Berkeley more than
half a century ago) has never seen, or even seen a picture of, a
Major League catcher or umpire, from which a normal "crotch
protection" could easily be identified? Neither a jock strap nor a
cup (BrE "box"???) is adequate. The latter is suitable for football
players, who do not regularly face fast-moving projectiles aimed
directly at their genitalia.
Actually, outside-the-clothes crotch protectors are not worn by most
baseball catchers.
...
Okay, I retract my earlier statement.
But you did capture the image that I had in mind, of the combined
chest/crotch protection. Even if I had it wrong, too.
"crotch" came particularly to mind because of the one bowl that came
close. When the ball went past the wicket-keeper, the batsman ran ...
seeming to me like a baseball batter who can try for first if the
catcher does not catch the third strike ("strike-out").
The batsmen, by the way, did have wire cages over their faces
I did not notice the "wicket" having any role in the action.
The bowler is attempting to hit the wicket; the batsman is defending it.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
Snidely
2018-01-03 07:22:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Nor do baseball umpires wear out-side-the-uniform crotch protectors.
Most baseball umpires don't even wear outside chest protectors. They
wear rigid chest protector vests under the uniform. Again, I suggest
you search "baseball umpires" in Google Images and find a photo of an
umpire wearing outside kit. What you will find are photos like this
https://cdnph.upi.com/ph/st/th/9761504103948/2017/i/15041050343398/v2.1/Detroit-Tigers-pitcher-Michael-Fulmer-drills-umpire-in-groin-with-fastball.jpg?lg=4
...
Ow!
You're just remembering The Good Old Days.

<quote>
Baseball umpires wore variations of the outside chest protector for
about 80 years. In the major leagues, National League umpires made the
transistion to inside protectors several years before their American
League counterparts. The result was that NL umps generally called lower
strikes because they tended to squat lower behind the catcher. After
1977, the American League mandated that all new arbiters wear inside
protectors, but veteran umps could retain their balloons. The last
umpire in the big leagues to wear an outside protector was Jerry
Neudecker. He retired after the 1985 season.
</quote>
<URL:http://www.yourememberthat.com/media/12729/Balloon-Style_Chest_Protectors/#.WkyCkd-nHIU>

Image in that:
<URL:Loading Image...>

Also:
<URL:http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/baseball-umpire-calling-out-1960s-high-res-stock-photography/10148408?esource=SEO_GIS_CDN_Redirect>

More baseball history than you wanted:
<URL:http://sabr.org/research/evolution-catchers-equipment>
(In TONG, we have an expert on the Post-Civil-War period of baseball,
but more along the lines of teams and rule changes)

/dps "Is that après-bellum?"
--
Trust, but verify.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-02 16:54:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 07:34:16 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Rich Ulrich
By coincidence, I'm sure - In the wee hours of this morning, I
watched 20 minutes of live cricket, Sydney vs Hobart. The bowled
ball, it seems, bounces not far in front of the batter, who wears
protection on his legs. The one bowl that was not hit (may have been
"tipped" ) went between the legs of that "catcher", too, whose lack
of visible crotch protection I also noticed. The announcers reminded
us that they had previously mentioned possible "corrugation" ...
which must have been reference in irregularities of the ground.
The groundskeepers will try to keep the pitch smooth, but there are
always departures from perfect smoothness, and a bowler will try to take
advantage of that.
There is crotch protection, but it's hidden under the clothes.
I was surprised at that comment too. Was he expecting something like a
brightly coloured codpiece? When I was at school one could tell that
cricketers wore jockstraps and boxes because one could see them being
put on or taken off in the changing room. Once fully dressed there was
no way to know. Incidentally, although face protection is relatively
new, leg and crotch protection has been standard for a very long time.
The genius "enzyme kineticist" who claims to be such an expert on American
culture (having spent a few weeks in Berkeley more than half a century ago)
has never seen, or even seen a picture of, a Major League catcher or umpire,
from which a normal "crotch protection" could easily be identified? Neither
a jock strap nor a cup (BrE "box"???) is adequate. The latter is suitable
for football players, who do not regularly face fast-moving projectiles
aimed directly at their genitalia.
Actually, outside-the-clothes crotch protectors are not worn by most
baseball catchers. The chest protector can be fitted with a piece of
padding that dangles down to that area, but most catchers feel that it
gets in their way, flops loosely, and makes it more difficult for the
pitcher to read the finger signals* Even if worn, the dangling piece
is not much protection since it is padding and not the rigid material
of a cup/box.
I know
You do? I bow to your superior knowledge of all things Little League.
Post by Tony Cooper
you will disagree with my correction to your statement, but
search "baseball catcher" in Google Images and you'll be hard-pressed
to find a photo of a catcher wearing this addition to the chest guard.
Jerry responded 11 minutes later with a disagreement.
Post by Tony Cooper
Youngest grandson's position is catcher, and he's never worn kit with
the dangling bit.
https://photos.smugmug.com/2017-Baseball/April-1st-Antons-Game/i-ZQThB3B/0/ccc33ec5/O/2017-04-01-29.jpg
I'm not in the habit of studying, let alone photographing, adolescent crotches,
but the hair emerging from the helmet -- or is it extensions? -- suggests that
that particular catcher is a girl.
Post by Tony Cooper
Nor do baseball umpires wear out-side-the-uniform crotch protectors.
Most baseball umpires don't even wear outside chest protectors. They
wear rigid chest protector vests under the uniform. Again, I suggest
you search "baseball umpires" in Google Images and find a photo of an
umpire wearing outside kit. What you will find are photos like this
https://cdnph.upi.com/ph/st/th/9761504103948/2017/i/15041050343398/v2.1/Detroit-Tigers-pitcher-Michael-Fulmer-drills-umpire-in-groin-with-fastball.jpg?lg=4
*The "finger signals" are the catcher's way of telling the pitcher
what type of pitch to throw. It is usually the catcher who calls the
type...curve ball, fast ball, slider, etc.
https://mediadownloads.mlb.com/mlbam/2015/11/12/images/mlbf_529085483_th_45.jpg
Tony Cooper
2018-01-02 17:15:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 08:54:03 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 07:34:16 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Rich Ulrich
By coincidence, I'm sure - In the wee hours of this morning, I
watched 20 minutes of live cricket, Sydney vs Hobart. The bowled
ball, it seems, bounces not far in front of the batter, who wears
protection on his legs. The one bowl that was not hit (may have been
"tipped" ) went between the legs of that "catcher", too, whose lack
of visible crotch protection I also noticed. The announcers reminded
us that they had previously mentioned possible "corrugation" ...
which must have been reference in irregularities of the ground.
The groundskeepers will try to keep the pitch smooth, but there are
always departures from perfect smoothness, and a bowler will try to take
advantage of that.
There is crotch protection, but it's hidden under the clothes.
I was surprised at that comment too. Was he expecting something like a
brightly coloured codpiece? When I was at school one could tell that
cricketers wore jockstraps and boxes because one could see them being
put on or taken off in the changing room. Once fully dressed there was
no way to know. Incidentally, although face protection is relatively
new, leg and crotch protection has been standard for a very long time.
The genius "enzyme kineticist" who claims to be such an expert on American
culture (having spent a few weeks in Berkeley more than half a century ago)
has never seen, or even seen a picture of, a Major League catcher or umpire,
from which a normal "crotch protection" could easily be identified? Neither
a jock strap nor a cup (BrE "box"???) is adequate. The latter is suitable
for football players, who do not regularly face fast-moving projectiles
aimed directly at their genitalia.
Actually, outside-the-clothes crotch protectors are not worn by most
baseball catchers. The chest protector can be fitted with a piece of
padding that dangles down to that area, but most catchers feel that it
gets in their way, flops loosely, and makes it more difficult for the
pitcher to read the finger signals* Even if worn, the dangling piece
is not much protection since it is padding and not the rigid material
of a cup/box.
I know
You do? I bow to your superior knowledge of all things Little League.
If you had followed my suggestion and used Google Images, you would
have seen that what I said is true of MLB players.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
you will disagree with my correction to your statement, but
search "baseball catcher" in Google Images and you'll be hard-pressed
to find a photo of a catcher wearing this addition to the chest guard.
Jerry responded 11 minutes later with a disagreement.
And, then, graciously accepted my correction in a post.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
Youngest grandson's position is catcher, and he's never worn kit with
the dangling bit.
https://photos.smugmug.com/2017-Baseball/April-1st-Antons-Game/i-ZQThB3B/0/ccc33ec5/O/2017-04-01-29.jpg
I'm not in the habit of studying, let alone photographing, adolescent crotches,
but the hair emerging from the helmet -- or is it extensions? -- suggests that
that particular catcher is a girl.
No, an unconfused male grandson who chooses to wear his hair that way.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
Nor do baseball umpires wear out-side-the-uniform crotch protectors.
Most baseball umpires don't even wear outside chest protectors. They
wear rigid chest protector vests under the uniform. Again, I suggest
you search "baseball umpires" in Google Images and find a photo of an
umpire wearing outside kit. What you will find are photos like this
https://cdnph.upi.com/ph/st/th/9761504103948/2017/i/15041050343398/v2.1/Detroit-Tigers-pitcher-Michael-Fulmer-drills-umpire-in-groin-with-fastball.jpg?lg=4
*The "finger signals" are the catcher's way of telling the pitcher
what type of pitch to throw. It is usually the catcher who calls the
type...curve ball, fast ball, slider, etc.
https://mediadownloads.mlb.com/mlbam/2015/11/12/images/mlbf_529085483_th_45.jpg
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-02 17:24:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 08:54:03 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 07:34:16 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Rich Ulrich
By coincidence, I'm sure - In the wee hours of this morning, I
watched 20 minutes of live cricket, Sydney vs Hobart. The bowled
ball, it seems, bounces not far in front of the batter, who wears
protection on his legs. The one bowl that was not hit (may have been
"tipped" ) went between the legs of that "catcher", too, whose lack
of visible crotch protection I also noticed. The announcers reminded
us that they had previously mentioned possible "corrugation" ...
which must have been reference in irregularities of the ground.
The groundskeepers will try to keep the pitch smooth, but there are
always departures from perfect smoothness, and a bowler will try to take
advantage of that.
There is crotch protection, but it's hidden under the clothes.
I was surprised at that comment too. Was he expecting something like a
brightly coloured codpiece? When I was at school one could tell that
cricketers wore jockstraps and boxes because one could see them being
put on or taken off in the changing room. Once fully dressed there was
no way to know. Incidentally, although face protection is relatively
new, leg and crotch protection has been standard for a very long time.
The genius "enzyme kineticist" who claims to be such an expert on American
culture (having spent a few weeks in Berkeley more than half a century ago)
has never seen, or even seen a picture of, a Major League catcher or umpire,
from which a normal "crotch protection" could easily be identified? Neither
a jock strap nor a cup (BrE "box"???) is adequate. The latter is suitable
for football players, who do not regularly face fast-moving projectiles
aimed directly at their genitalia.
Actually, outside-the-clothes crotch protectors are not worn by most
baseball catchers. The chest protector can be fitted with a piece of
padding that dangles down to that area, but most catchers feel that it
gets in their way, flops loosely, and makes it more difficult for the
pitcher to read the finger signals* Even if worn, the dangling piece
is not much protection since it is padding and not the rigid material
of a cup/box.
I know
You do? I bow to your superior knowledge of all things Little League.
If you had followed my suggestion and used Google Images, you would
have seen that what I said is true of MLB players.
You've now changed "most" to absence-of-quantifier. That means you may have
noticed _some_ catchers that don't.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
you will disagree with my correction to your statement, but
search "baseball catcher" in Google Images and you'll be hard-pressed
to find a photo of a catcher wearing this addition to the chest guard.
Jerry responded 11 minutes later with a disagreement.
And, then, graciously accepted my correction in a post.
Interesting that you're receiving posts that I'm not. He contradicted your
assertion at 11:36 and hasn't done a message since.
Tony Cooper
2018-01-02 21:31:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 09:24:11 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 08:54:03 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 07:34:16 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Rich Ulrich
By coincidence, I'm sure - In the wee hours of this morning, I
watched 20 minutes of live cricket, Sydney vs Hobart. The bowled
ball, it seems, bounces not far in front of the batter, who wears
protection on his legs. The one bowl that was not hit (may have been
"tipped" ) went between the legs of that "catcher", too, whose lack
of visible crotch protection I also noticed. The announcers reminded
us that they had previously mentioned possible "corrugation" ...
which must have been reference in irregularities of the ground.
The groundskeepers will try to keep the pitch smooth, but there are
always departures from perfect smoothness, and a bowler will try to take
advantage of that.
There is crotch protection, but it's hidden under the clothes.
I was surprised at that comment too. Was he expecting something like a
brightly coloured codpiece? When I was at school one could tell that
cricketers wore jockstraps and boxes because one could see them being
put on or taken off in the changing room. Once fully dressed there was
no way to know. Incidentally, although face protection is relatively
new, leg and crotch protection has been standard for a very long time.
The genius "enzyme kineticist" who claims to be such an expert on American
culture (having spent a few weeks in Berkeley more than half a century ago)
has never seen, or even seen a picture of, a Major League catcher or umpire,
from which a normal "crotch protection" could easily be identified? Neither
a jock strap nor a cup (BrE "box"???) is adequate. The latter is suitable
for football players, who do not regularly face fast-moving projectiles
aimed directly at their genitalia.
Actually, outside-the-clothes crotch protectors are not worn by most
baseball catchers. The chest protector can be fitted with a piece of
padding that dangles down to that area, but most catchers feel that it
gets in their way, flops loosely, and makes it more difficult for the
pitcher to read the finger signals* Even if worn, the dangling piece
is not much protection since it is padding and not the rigid material
of a cup/box.
I know
You do? I bow to your superior knowledge of all things Little League.
If you had followed my suggestion and used Google Images, you would
have seen that what I said is true of MLB players.
You've now changed "most" to absence-of-quantifier. That means you may have
noticed _some_ catchers that don't.
What? I didn't change anything. I used "most" where I actually
thought that "any" would have been right. However, I try to avoid the
categorical type of statement that you so often employ because there's
bound to be an exception. I have not noticed any, though.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
you will disagree with my correction to your statement, but
search "baseball catcher" in Google Images and you'll be hard-pressed
to find a photo of a catcher wearing this addition to the chest guard.
Jerry responded 11 minutes later with a disagreement.
And, then, graciously accepted my correction in a post.
Interesting that you're receiving posts that I'm not. He contradicted your
assertion at 11:36 and hasn't done a message since.
He did? What I read in his 11:36 post was "Okay, I retract my earlier
statement.".* How do you read that as a contradiction? Are you now
providing "Alternative Facts"?

*Referring to his 10:03 post saying: Baseball catchers wear, outside
their clothes, a "chest protector" that extends down to the crotch.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-02 22:55:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 09:24:11 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 08:54:03 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 07:34:16 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Rich Ulrich
By coincidence, I'm sure - In the wee hours of this morning, I
watched 20 minutes of live cricket, Sydney vs Hobart. The bowled
ball, it seems, bounces not far in front of the batter, who wears
protection on his legs. The one bowl that was not hit (may have been
"tipped" ) went between the legs of that "catcher", too, whose lack
of visible crotch protection I also noticed. The announcers reminded
us that they had previously mentioned possible "corrugation" ...
which must have been reference in irregularities of the ground.
The groundskeepers will try to keep the pitch smooth, but there are
always departures from perfect smoothness, and a bowler will try to take
advantage of that.
There is crotch protection, but it's hidden under the clothes.
I was surprised at that comment too. Was he expecting something like a
brightly coloured codpiece? When I was at school one could tell that
cricketers wore jockstraps and boxes because one could see them being
put on or taken off in the changing room. Once fully dressed there was
no way to know. Incidentally, although face protection is relatively
new, leg and crotch protection has been standard for a very long time.
The genius "enzyme kineticist" who claims to be such an expert on American
culture (having spent a few weeks in Berkeley more than half a century ago)
has never seen, or even seen a picture of, a Major League catcher or umpire,
from which a normal "crotch protection" could easily be identified? Neither
a jock strap nor a cup (BrE "box"???) is adequate. The latter is suitable
for football players, who do not regularly face fast-moving projectiles
aimed directly at their genitalia.
Actually, outside-the-clothes crotch protectors are not worn by most
baseball catchers. The chest protector can be fitted with a piece of
padding that dangles down to that area, but most catchers feel that it
gets in their way, flops loosely, and makes it more difficult for the
pitcher to read the finger signals* Even if worn, the dangling piece
is not much protection since it is padding and not the rigid material
of a cup/box.
I know
You do? I bow to your superior knowledge of all things Little League.
If you had followed my suggestion and used Google Images, you would
have seen that what I said is true of MLB players.
You've now changed "most" to absence-of-quantifier. That means you may have
noticed _some_ catchers that don't.
What? I didn't change anything. I used "most" where I actually
thought that "any" would have been right. However, I try to avoid the
categorical type of statement that you so often employ because there's
bound to be an exception. I have not noticed any, though.
You don't see the difference between "are not worn by most baseball catchers"
and "true of MLB players"? Unlike you, I do not assume that the quantifier-
less noun phrase is to be interpreted as a universal; it is to be interpreted
as an existential -- meaning 'at least two', and certainly not meaning 'most'.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
you will disagree with my correction to your statement, but
search "baseball catcher" in Google Images and you'll be hard-pressed
to find a photo of a catcher wearing this addition to the chest guard.
Jerry responded 11 minutes later with a disagreement.
And, then, graciously accepted my correction in a post.
Interesting that you're receiving posts that I'm not. He contradicted your
assertion at 11:36 and hasn't done a message since.
He did? What I read in his 11:36 post was "Okay, I retract my earlier
statement.".* How do you read that as a contradiction? Are you now
providing "Alternative Facts"?
So now it's you who failed to scroll down four lines to "I had no trouble at
all"? (Responding to "you'll be hard-pressed to find a photo of a catcher
wearing this addition to the chest guard.")
Post by Tony Cooper
*Referring to his 10:03 post saying: Baseball catchers wear, outside
their clothes, a "chest protector" that extends down to the crotch.
Tony Cooper
2018-01-02 23:35:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 14:55:59 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter T. Daniels
You do? I bow to your superior knowledge of all things Little League.
If you had followed my suggestion and used Google Images, you would
have seen that what I said is true of MLB players.
You've now changed "most" to absence-of-quantifier. That means you may have
noticed _some_ catchers that don't.
No, nothing was changed. I made a statement about "most baseball
players" and included MLB players in the second statement because you
evidently don't think that "most baseball players" include MLB
players. Just Little League.

I'm allowing for "some" by refraining from the categorical. I've
never noticed one, though.

You are getting silly, here.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Jerry responded 11 minutes later with a disagreement.
And, then, graciously accepted my correction in a post.
Interesting that you're receiving posts that I'm not. He contradicted your
assertion at 11:36 and hasn't done a message since.
He did? What I read in his 11:36 post was "Okay, I retract my earlier
statement.".* How do you read that as a contradiction? Are you now
providing "Alternative Facts"?
So now it's you who failed to scroll down four lines to "I had no trouble at
all"? (Responding to "you'll be hard-pressed to find a photo of a catcher
wearing this addition to the chest guard.")
I know you will disagree with my correction to your statement, but
search "baseball catcher" in Google Images and you'll be hard-pressed
to find a photo of a catcher wearing this addition to the chest guard.
I had no trouble at all.
I take it that Jerry had no trouble at all with my statement. He's
said he retracts his statement that they do wear chest protectors with
crotch guards. I think you've grabbed the wrong end of the stick.
Well, wrong, but your usual end.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
*Referring to his 10:03 post saying: Baseball catchers wear, outside
their clothes, a "chest protector" that extends down to the crotch.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Jerry Friedman
2018-01-03 04:35:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 14:55:59 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter T. Daniels
You do? I bow to your superior knowledge of all things Little League.
If you had followed my suggestion and used Google Images, you would
have seen that what I said is true of MLB players.
You've now changed "most" to absence-of-quantifier. That means you may have
noticed _some_ catchers that don't.
No, nothing was changed. I made a statement about "most baseball
players" and included MLB players in the second statement because you
evidently don't think that "most baseball players" include MLB
players. Just Little League.
I'm allowing for "some" by refraining from the categorical. I've
never noticed one, though.
You are getting silly, here.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Jerry responded 11 minutes later with a disagreement.
And, then, graciously accepted my correction in a post.
Interesting that you're receiving posts that I'm not. He contradicted your
assertion at 11:36 and hasn't done a message since.
He did? What I read in his 11:36 post was "Okay, I retract my earlier
statement.".* How do you read that as a contradiction? Are you now
providing "Alternative Facts"?
So now it's you who failed to scroll down four lines to "I had no trouble at
all"? (Responding to "you'll be hard-pressed to find a photo of a catcher
wearing this addition to the chest guard.")
I know you will disagree with my correction to your statement, but
search "baseball catcher" in Google Images and you'll be hard-pressed
to find a photo of a catcher wearing this addition to the chest guard.
I had no trouble at all.
I take it that Jerry had no trouble at all with my statement. He's
said he retracts his statement that they do wear chest protectors with
crotch guards.
...

Also, I had no trouble finding a picture of a catcher wearing a
chest protector with a crotch guard. It was the second one that
showed up in a Google Image search for "catcher baseball". (In
the first one you couldn't tell.) Based on other pictures, though,
I agree that most catchers now wear chest protectors that go down
to the waist.
--
Jerry Friedman never had the slightest interest in playing catcher.
Tony Cooper
2018-01-03 05:24:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 20:35:21 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 14:55:59 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter T. Daniels
You do? I bow to your superior knowledge of all things Little League.
If you had followed my suggestion and used Google Images, you would
have seen that what I said is true of MLB players.
You've now changed "most" to absence-of-quantifier. That means you may have
noticed _some_ catchers that don't.
No, nothing was changed. I made a statement about "most baseball
players" and included MLB players in the second statement because you
evidently don't think that "most baseball players" include MLB
players. Just Little League.
I'm allowing for "some" by refraining from the categorical. I've
never noticed one, though.
You are getting silly, here.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Jerry responded 11 minutes later with a disagreement.
And, then, graciously accepted my correction in a post.
Interesting that you're receiving posts that I'm not. He contradicted your
assertion at 11:36 and hasn't done a message since.
He did? What I read in his 11:36 post was "Okay, I retract my earlier
statement.".* How do you read that as a contradiction? Are you now
providing "Alternative Facts"?
So now it's you who failed to scroll down four lines to "I had no trouble at
all"? (Responding to "you'll be hard-pressed to find a photo of a catcher
wearing this addition to the chest guard.")
I know you will disagree with my correction to your statement, but
search "baseball catcher" in Google Images and you'll be hard-pressed
to find a photo of a catcher wearing this addition to the chest guard.
I had no trouble at all.
I take it that Jerry had no trouble at all with my statement. He's
said he retracts his statement that they do wear chest protectors with
crotch guards.
...
Also, I had no trouble finding a picture of a catcher wearing a
chest protector with a crotch guard. It was the second one that
showed up in a Google Image search for "catcher baseball".
Yes...that one links to Dick's Sporting Goods page. I give it credit
for being a photo of a chest protector with crotch guard, but it is a
photo taken for an ad for a store that sells the product. Videos from
Dick's Sporting Goods stores also show chest protectors with crotch
guards.



As I said, I'll give it credit, but you really have to find an actual
player wearing one.


Dunno if you know Dick's, but it's one of the big national chains of
sporting goods stores. After Sports Authority closed, Dick's and
Athletic Attic are the only two all-sports sporting goods store in
this area.
Post by Jerry Friedman
the first one you couldn't tell.) Based on other pictures, though,
I agree that most catchers now wear chest protectors that go down
to the waist.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Tony Cooper
2018-01-03 05:51:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 03 Jan 2018 00:24:10 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 20:35:21 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 14:55:59 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter T. Daniels
You do? I bow to your superior knowledge of all things Little League.
If you had followed my suggestion and used Google Images, you would
have seen that what I said is true of MLB players.
You've now changed "most" to absence-of-quantifier. That means you may have
noticed _some_ catchers that don't.
No, nothing was changed. I made a statement about "most baseball
players" and included MLB players in the second statement because you
evidently don't think that "most baseball players" include MLB
players. Just Little League.
I'm allowing for "some" by refraining from the categorical. I've
never noticed one, though.
You are getting silly, here.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Jerry responded 11 minutes later with a disagreement.
And, then, graciously accepted my correction in a post.
Interesting that you're receiving posts that I'm not. He contradicted your
assertion at 11:36 and hasn't done a message since.
He did? What I read in his 11:36 post was "Okay, I retract my earlier
statement.".* How do you read that as a contradiction? Are you now
providing "Alternative Facts"?
So now it's you who failed to scroll down four lines to "I had no trouble at
all"? (Responding to "you'll be hard-pressed to find a photo of a catcher
wearing this addition to the chest guard.")
I know you will disagree with my correction to your statement, but
search "baseball catcher" in Google Images and you'll be hard-pressed
to find a photo of a catcher wearing this addition to the chest guard.
I had no trouble at all.
I take it that Jerry had no trouble at all with my statement. He's
said he retracts his statement that they do wear chest protectors with
crotch guards.
...
Also, I had no trouble finding a picture of a catcher wearing a
chest protector with a crotch guard. It was the second one that
showed up in a Google Image search for "catcher baseball".
Yes...that one links to Dick's Sporting Goods page. I give it credit
for being a photo of a chest protector with crotch guard, but it is a
photo taken for an ad for a store that sells the product. Videos from
Dick's Sporting Goods stores also show chest protectors with crotch
guards.
http://youtu.be/Yyp0xXSOtx8
As I said, I'll give it credit, but you really have to find an actual
player wearing one.
Dunno if you know Dick's, but it's one of the big national chains of
sporting goods stores. After Sports Authority closed, Dick's and
Athletic Attic are the only two all-sports sporting goods store in
this area.
Post by Jerry Friedman
the first one you couldn't tell.) Based on other pictures, though,
I agree that most catchers now wear chest protectors that go down
to the waist.
Just for giggles I checked Under Armour's page for the set shown in
that photo. It's the UA Victory Senior Chest Protector 15.5" Boys'
model. (The throat-to-waist distance if 15.5", so it's for
youngsters.) Oddly, the shoulder protectors are not in the image you
found, and those are more useful than crotch protection.

https://www.underarmour.com/en-us/boys-ua-victory-senior-chest-protector-15-5/pcid1319425-001

There is a giggle there. Note the Question asked: "Do the shoulder
and groan protectors come off? Are they velcrow?"

UA replies that the *groin* protector is fixed and cannot be removed.
Actually, I like "groan protector".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Tony Cooper
2018-01-02 23:38:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 14:55:59 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
What? I didn't change anything. I used "most" where I actually
thought that "any" would have been right. However, I try to avoid the
categorical type of statement that you so often employ because there's
bound to be an exception. I have not noticed any, though.
You don't see the difference between "are not worn by most baseball catchers"
and "true of MLB players"? Unlike you, I do not assume that the quantifier-
less noun phrase is to be interpreted as a universal; it is to be interpreted
as an existential -- meaning 'at least two', and certainly not meaning 'most'.
Are you ready, now, to admit that your statement about baseball
catchers wearing chest guard with crotch protection is incorrect for
almost all baseball players in any level of baseball?

Enough futzing around with quantifiers and other distractions. Prove
or disprove the original statement.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-03 04:06:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 14:55:59 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
What? I didn't change anything. I used "most" where I actually
thought that "any" would have been right. However, I try to avoid the
categorical type of statement that you so often employ because there's
bound to be an exception. I have not noticed any, though.
You don't see the difference between "are not worn by most baseball catchers"
and "true of MLB players"? Unlike you, I do not assume that the quantifier-
less noun phrase is to be interpreted as a universal; it is to be interpreted
as an existential -- meaning 'at least two', and certainly not meaning 'most'.
Are you ready, now, to admit that your statement about baseball
catchers wearing chest guard with crotch protection is incorrect for
almost all baseball players in any level of baseball?
Enough futzing around with quantifiers and other distractions. Prove
or disprove the original statement.
Since you are clearly unable to understand simple English in a simple
conversation, I have nothing more to say to you.
Tony Cooper
2018-01-03 05:26:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 20:06:54 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 14:55:59 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
What? I didn't change anything. I used "most" where I actually
thought that "any" would have been right. However, I try to avoid the
categorical type of statement that you so often employ because there's
bound to be an exception. I have not noticed any, though.
You don't see the difference between "are not worn by most baseball catchers"
and "true of MLB players"? Unlike you, I do not assume that the quantifier-
less noun phrase is to be interpreted as a universal; it is to be interpreted
as an existential -- meaning 'at least two', and certainly not meaning 'most'.
Are you ready, now, to admit that your statement about baseball
catchers wearing chest guard with crotch protection is incorrect for
almost all baseball players in any level of baseball?
Enough futzing around with quantifiers and other distractions. Prove
or disprove the original statement.
Since you are clearly unable to understand simple English in a simple
conversation, I have nothing more to say to you.
I guess there's a retraction in your retreat. Must have been typed
with lemon juice and it's too cold for the secret writing to show.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-03 14:20:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 20:06:54 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 14:55:59 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
What? I didn't change anything. I used "most" where I actually
thought that "any" would have been right. However, I try to avoid the
categorical type of statement that you so often employ because there's
bound to be an exception. I have not noticed any, though.
You don't see the difference between "are not worn by most baseball catchers"
and "true of MLB players"? Unlike you, I do not assume that the quantifier-
less noun phrase is to be interpreted as a universal; it is to be interpreted
as an existential -- meaning 'at least two', and certainly not meaning 'most'.
Are you ready, now, to admit that your statement about baseball
catchers wearing chest guard with crotch protection is incorrect for
almost all baseball players in any level of baseball?
Enough futzing around with quantifiers and other distractions. Prove
or disprove the original statement.
Since you are clearly unable to understand simple English in a simple
conversation, I have nothing more to say to you.
I guess there's a retraction in your retreat. Must have been typed
with lemon juice and it's too cold for the secret writing to show.
As usual, your "guess" is asinine.

It's a pity you don't know, or can't look up, what "quantifier" means.
Katy Jennison
2018-01-02 20:05:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 08:54:03 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
Youngest grandson's position is catcher, and he's never worn kit with
the dangling bit.
https://photos.smugmug.com/2017-Baseball/April-1st-Antons-Game/i-ZQThB3B/0/ccc33ec5/O/2017-04-01-29.jpg
I'm not in the habit of studying, let alone photographing, adolescent crotches,
but the hair emerging from the helmet -- or is it extensions? -- suggests that
that particular catcher is a girl.
No, an unconfused male grandson who chooses to wear his hair that way.
Reading your earlier post, I was thinking of asking, "Have I previously
posted my compliments on his dreads?" If I haven't, I now do so.
--
Katy Jennison
Tony Cooper
2018-01-02 21:25:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 20:05:57 +0000, Katy Jennison
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 08:54:03 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
Youngest grandson's position is catcher, and he's never worn kit with
the dangling bit.
https://photos.smugmug.com/2017-Baseball/April-1st-Antons-Game/i-ZQThB3B/0/ccc33ec5/O/2017-04-01-29.jpg
I'm not in the habit of studying, let alone photographing, adolescent crotches,
but the hair emerging from the helmet -- or is it extensions? -- suggests that
that particular catcher is a girl.
No, an unconfused male grandson who chooses to wear his hair that way.
Reading your earlier post, I was thinking of asking, "Have I previously
posted my compliments on his dreads?" If I haven't, I now do so.
The grandson in question plays football during that season and
baseball in that season. A couple years ago, an African American on
his football team dared him to have his shoulder-length hair done in
dreads. He did, and hasn't changed since.

He normally catches, but pitches on occasion, and this gives a better
view of the hair.

Loading Image...


I am not crazy about the look, but being a wise grandfather and
father-in-law, I don't criticize things like that. His older brother
also has shoulder-length hair, but not done in dreads. It looks
good.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Katy Jennison
2018-01-03 00:14:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 20:05:57 +0000, Katy Jennison
Post by Katy Jennison
Reading your earlier post, I was thinking of asking, "Have I previously
posted my compliments on his dreads?" If I haven't, I now do so.
The grandson in question plays football during that season and
baseball in that season. A couple years ago, an African American on
his football team dared him to have his shoulder-length hair done in
dreads. He did, and hasn't changed since.
He normally catches, but pitches on occasion, and this gives a better
view of the hair.
https://photos.smugmug.com/2017-Baseball/April-1st-Antons-Game/i-kLmcPZz/0/5b7bc2fe/O/2017-04-01-93.jpg
[snip (or not)]

I also, as it happens, have a grandson with dreads, although he's older
than yours. I suspect many people fail to realise that it's a
hair-style which actually takes quite a bit of work to maintain.
--
Katy Jennison
Tony Cooper
2018-01-03 01:17:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 3 Jan 2018 00:14:03 +0000, Katy Jennison
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 20:05:57 +0000, Katy Jennison
Post by Katy Jennison
Reading your earlier post, I was thinking of asking, "Have I previously
posted my compliments on his dreads?" If I haven't, I now do so.
The grandson in question plays football during that season and
baseball in that season. A couple years ago, an African American on
his football team dared him to have his shoulder-length hair done in
dreads. He did, and hasn't changed since.
He normally catches, but pitches on occasion, and this gives a better
view of the hair.
https://photos.smugmug.com/2017-Baseball/April-1st-Antons-Game/i-kLmcPZz/0/5b7bc2fe/O/2017-04-01-93.jpg
[snip (or not)]
I also, as it happens, have a grandson with dreads, although he's older
than yours. I suspect many people fail to realise that it's a
hair-style which actually takes quite a bit of work to maintain.
Yes, it does. More than maintaining my flat top back in the 50s when
all I had to do was smear a little Butch Wax on the front.

At the near-teen and early teen ages, there's a strong desire to
either be different or to blend in completely. I think it takes a
little more strength and self-confidence to be different.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-01-02 18:19:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 07:34:16 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Rich Ulrich
By coincidence, I'm sure - In the wee hours of this morning, I
watched 20 minutes of live cricket, Sydney vs Hobart. The bowled
ball, it seems, bounces not far in front of the batter, who wears
protection on his legs. The one bowl that was not hit (may have been
"tipped" ) went between the legs of that "catcher", too, whose lack
of visible crotch protection I also noticed. The announcers reminded
us that they had previously mentioned possible "corrugation" ...
which must have been reference in irregularities of the ground.
The groundskeepers will try to keep the pitch smooth, but there are
always departures from perfect smoothness, and a bowler will try to take
advantage of that.
There is crotch protection, but it's hidden under the clothes.
I was surprised at that comment too. Was he expecting something like a
brightly coloured codpiece? When I was at school one could tell that
cricketers wore jockstraps and boxes because one could see them being
put on or taken off in the changing room. Once fully dressed there was
no way to know. Incidentally, although face protection is relatively
new, leg and crotch protection has been standard for a very long time.
The genius "enzyme kineticist" who claims to be such an expert on American
culture (having spent a few weeks in Berkeley more than half a century ago)
has never seen, or even seen a picture of, a Major League catcher or umpire,
from which a normal "crotch protection" could easily be identified? Neither
a jock strap nor a cup (BrE "box"???) is adequate. The latter is suitable
for football players, who do not regularly face fast-moving projectiles
aimed directly at their genitalia.
Actually, outside-the-clothes crotch protectors are not worn by most
baseball catchers. The chest protector can be fitted with a piece of
padding that dangles down to that area, but most catchers feel that it
gets in their way, flops loosely, and makes it more difficult for the
pitcher to read the finger signals* Even if worn, the dangling piece
is not much protection since it is padding and not the rigid material
of a cup/box.
I know
You do? I bow to your superior knowledge of all things Little League.
Post by Tony Cooper
you will disagree with my correction to your statement, but
search "baseball catcher" in Google Images and you'll be hard-pressed
to find a photo of a catcher wearing this addition to the chest guard.
Jerry responded 11 minutes later with a disagreement.
Post by Tony Cooper
Youngest grandson's position is catcher, and he's never worn kit with
the dangling bit.
https://photos.smugmug.com/2017-Baseball/April-1st-Antons-Game/i-ZQThB3B/0/ccc33ec5/O/2017-04-01-29.jpg
I'm not in the habit of studying, let alone photographing, adolescent crotches,
but the hair emerging from the helmet -- or is it extensions? -- suggests that
that particular catcher is a girl.
As it's dreadlocks it's far more likely to be male than female but
I think we'd have to call 'insufficient evidence'.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-02 22:46:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
https://photos.smugmug.com/2017-Baseball/April-1st-Antons-Game/i-ZQThB3B/0/ccc33ec5/O/2017-04-01-29.jpg
I'm not in the habit of studying, let alone photographing, adolescent crotches,
but the hair emerging from the helmet -- or is it extensions? -- suggests that
that particular catcher is a girl.
As it's dreadlocks it's far more likely to be male than female but
I think we'd have to call 'insufficient evidence'.
You must have not seen many African Americans (women or men) in recent decades.
Do you know of Whoopi Goldberg?
Ken Blake
2018-01-02 23:39:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 02 Jan 2018 11:25:41 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
*The "finger signals" are the catcher's way of telling the pitcher
what type of pitch to throw. It is usually the catcher who calls the
type...curve ball, fast ball, slider, etc.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always thought the catcher's signals
were meant more as questions to the pitcher: "are you going to throw a
fast ball?" or so, and it was the pitcher who made the decision by
replying yes or no to hi
Tony Cooper
2018-01-03 00:09:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
On Tue, 02 Jan 2018 11:25:41 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
*The "finger signals" are the catcher's way of telling the pitcher
what type of pitch to throw. It is usually the catcher who calls the
type...curve ball, fast ball, slider, etc.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always thought the catcher's signals
were meant more as questions to the pitcher: "are you going to throw a
fast ball?" or so, and it was the pitcher who made the decision by
replying yes or no to his question.
There's no rule or standard, but most MLB and high school and above
catchers call the pitch type. That's why you see pitchers shaking off
a call. The catcher has called a fast ball, for example, but the
pitcher disagrees with the call and shakes it off.

He literally shakes it off by a shake of his head. The shake may be
very slight.

There are managers who signal to the catcher to signal a type of pitch
to the pitcher, but this isn't seen much.

I was surprised how early catchers are trained in calling pitches.
Grandson-the-catcher has been calling pitches for two years now and he
was just 13 in November. Well, calling attempts, anyway. The
pitchers at that age don't have much control or variety in delivery.

At grandson's level, sometimes the signal is just to pitch high or
low. Some batters have a tendency to swing at high or low pitches
that are well out of the strike zone.

The one thing that a catcher always calls is the outside pitch because
he (or she) intends to try to pick off a base runner. The deliberate
outside pitch, that is.

In higher levels of baseball, the catchers watch film and accumulate
data on what particular batters have trouble with. At grandson's
level, the coaches make these notes and pass them along.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-03 04:09:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Ken Blake
On Tue, 02 Jan 2018 11:25:41 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
*The "finger signals" are the catcher's way of telling the pitcher
what type of pitch to throw. It is usually the catcher who calls the
type...curve ball, fast ball, slider, etc.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always thought the catcher's signals
were meant more as questions to the pitcher: "are you going to throw a
fast ball?" or so, and it was the pitcher who made the decision by
replying yes or no to his question.
There's no rule or standard, but most MLB and high school and above
catchers call the pitch type. That's why you see pitchers shaking off
a call. The catcher has called a fast ball, for example, but the
pitcher disagrees with the call and shakes it off.
That, among other things, is why catchers make very good managers -- Yogi
Berra, Joe Torre, Joe Girardi to name three salient examples.
Horace LaBadie
2017-12-31 22:15:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
peaking of puzzling terminology ("closer" is colloquial for 'relief pitcher',
specifically the one who comes in in the ninth inning to be sure the other team
doesn't have a late rally),
Which came first, the closer who closes a deal or the closer who closes
out the game?

Kyra Sedqgwick was a variation on the former.
b***@aol.com
2018-01-02 05:21:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
It's most common in baseball terminology where it means to have a number of people covering a position or role; "The Yankees are platooning closers after losing Rivera"
As another data-point, to my surprise my spellchecker is perfectly happy
with it. (It doesn't like "closers", though.)
Speaking of puzzling terminology ("closer" is colloquial for 'relief pitcher',
"Relief pitcher" sounds like a variety of chamber pot.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
specifically the one who comes in in the ninth inning to be sure the other team
doesn't have a late rally), last night I watched again the Father Brown I saw
earlier in the week that was set in and around some cricket matches. At the
climactic moment, Lady Something-or-other steps in to bat, properly in whites
but with quite dressy shoes. Father Brown's faithful friend-who-is-a-lady
called attention to the unsuitable shoes, and the Lady said, "I have no intention
of running." Even though 6 runs needed to be scored in order for the cricket
pitch not to be sold off so that a dual-lane carriageway (AmE expressway)
could be built through the town.
How does a batsperson score runs without doing any running?
(And why were all the posted scores multiples of 6?)
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2017-12-31 21:42:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by b***@gmail.com
as in ... a swat team was platooned?
Yes, I can.
If you mean is it common to do so, yes, but not in the sense that you require. There's nothing to stop you using it that way and seeing if it catches on, of course.
i heard it on NPR and it sounded funny but not ha ha funny
It's most common in baseball terminology where it means to have a number of people covering a position or role; "The Yankees are platooning closers after losing Rivera"
As another data-point, to my surprise my spellchecker is perfectly happy
with it. (It doesn't like "closers", though.)
It must be a traditionalist. There are many baseball fans and managers who think there can be only one!
Peter Moylan
2018-01-01 03:27:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 10:27:43 AM UTC-8, Madrigal
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by b***@gmail.com
as in ... a swat team was platooned?
Yes, I can.
If you mean is it common to do so, yes, but not in the sense that
you require. There's nothing to stop you using it that way and
seeing if it catches on, of course.
i heard it on NPR and it sounded funny but not ha ha funny
It's most common in baseball terminology where it means to have a
number of people covering a position or role; "The Yankees are
platooning closers after losing Rivera"
As another data-point, to my surprise my spellchecker is perfectly happy
with it. (It doesn't like "closers", though.)
Do BrE dictionaries not allow for things like door closers?

(My AusE dictionary doesn't like "spellchecker" or "platooning".)
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Colonel Edmund J. Burke
2018-01-01 19:19:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
As another data-point, to my surprise my spellchecker is perfectly happy with it.  (It doesn't like "closers", though.)
What....I say WHAT...does a limey twat know about military stuff??
Colonel Edmund J. Burke
2017-12-31 23:29:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
as in ... a swat team was platooned?
Not in Nam, bitch.
Joy Beeson
2018-01-01 04:00:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
as in ... a swat team was platooned?
I've more often heard it as meaning to divide a stream of traffic into
"platoons" to improve flow.

Huh. Wikipedia says that traffic engineering has moved on since I
last heard the term, and "platoon" now refers to cars actively staying
together like a bicycle pace line, rather than the older meaning of
cars released from a traffic light in a bunch that tends to remain
separated from the previous bunch, or the bunches that develop
naturally in a stream of traffic composed of vehicles travelling at
slightly-different speeds.
--
Joy Beeson, U.S.A., mostly central Hoosier,
some Northern Indiana, Upstate New York, Florida, and Hawaii
joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
Jerry Friedman
2018-01-01 16:00:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joy Beeson
Post by b***@gmail.com
as in ... a swat team was platooned?
I've more often heard it as meaning to divide a stream of traffic into
"platoons" to improve flow.
Huh. Wikipedia says that traffic engineering has moved on since I
last heard the term, and "platoon" now refers to cars actively staying
together like a bicycle pace line, rather than the older meaning of
cars released from a traffic light in a bunch that tends to remain
separated from the previous bunch, or the bunches that develop
naturally in a stream of traffic composed of vehicles travelling at
slightly-different speeds.
I'm pleased to learn that "platoon" comes from "peloton".

https://www.etymonline.com/word/platoon

Also that if you type a word followed by "etymology" into Google,
the first thing it shows you is its etymology of the word in a
format I hadn't seen before.
--
Jerry Friedman
Snidely
2018-01-01 19:32:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Joy Beeson
Post by b***@gmail.com
as in ... a swat team was platooned?
I've more often heard it as meaning to divide a stream of traffic into
"platoons" to improve flow.
Huh. Wikipedia says that traffic engineering has moved on since I
last heard the term, and "platoon" now refers to cars actively staying
together like a bicycle pace line, rather than the older meaning of
cars released from a traffic light in a bunch that tends to remain
separated from the previous bunch, or the bunches that develop
naturally in a stream of traffic composed of vehicles travelling at
slightly-different speeds.
I'm pleased to learn that "platoon" comes from "peloton".
https://www.etymonline.com/word/platoon
Also that if you type a word followed by "etymology" into Google,
the first thing it shows you is its etymology of the word in a
format I hadn't seen before.
What's with the
<quote>
literally "little ball," hence, "agglomeration,"
</quote>
that shows up in many of the results?

The missing step seems to be covered by
<URL:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platoon>
where the small ball is the musket ammunition,and the agglomeration is
the group of musketeers firing in alternation with another group.
Remember reloading took a while in those days, and that was true later
on, even at Waterloo, where description of the British squares has 4
rows of soldiers ... 1st row kneeling, 2nd firing over their shoulders,
3rd row passing guns back and forth (IIRC), and the 4th loading them.

British squares were a defense against French cavalry, otherwise the
Redcoats were in lines (the French preferred columns, but that meant
fewer soldiers could fire forwards at any one time).

Again IIRC, when the lines were advancing, the front row would fire,
and the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th row would step forward. The former 1st row
would then reload their weapons.

/dps "The topic is still there, somewhere"
--
Ieri, oggi, domani
Snidely
2018-01-01 19:42:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Joy Beeson
Post by b***@gmail.com
as in ... a swat team was platooned?
I've more often heard it as meaning to divide a stream of traffic into
"platoons" to improve flow.
Huh. Wikipedia says that traffic engineering has moved on since I
last heard the term, and "platoon" now refers to cars actively staying
together like a bicycle pace line, rather than the older meaning of
cars released from a traffic light in a bunch that tends to remain
separated from the previous bunch, or the bunches that develop
naturally in a stream of traffic composed of vehicles travelling at
slightly-different speeds.
I'm pleased to learn that "platoon" comes from "peloton".
https://www.etymonline.com/word/platoon
Also that if you type a word followed by "etymology" into Google,
the first thing it shows you is its etymology of the word in a
format I hadn't seen before.
What's with the
<quote>
literally "little ball," hence, "agglomeration,"
</quote>
that shows up in many of the results?
Well, at least in,
<URL:www.dictionary.com/browse/platoon>.
I thought I saw it several times, but maybe it was just the one result
showing up whether I had scolled up or down; it does seem to be near
the center, so it could be at the bottom of one view and the top of the
the other.
Post by Snidely
The missing step seems to be covered by
<URL:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platoon>
where the small ball is the musket ammunition,and the agglomeration is the
group of musketeers firing in alternation with another group.
Remember reloading took a while in those days, and that was true later on,
even at Waterloo, where description of the British squares has 4 rows of
soldiers ... 1st row kneeling, 2nd firing over their shoulders, 3rd row
passing guns back and forth (IIRC), and the 4th loading them.
British squares were a defense against French cavalry, otherwise the Redcoats
were in lines (the French preferred columns, but that meant fewer soldiers
could fire forwards at any one time).
Again IIRC, when the lines were advancing, the front row would fire, and the
2nd, 3rd, and 4th row would step forward. The former 1st row would then
reload their weapons.
/dps "The topic is still there, somewhere"
--
Maybe C282Y is simply one of the hangers-on, a groupie following a
future guitar god of the human genome: an allele with undiscovered
virtuosity, currently soloing in obscurity in Mom's garage.
Bradley Wertheim, theAtlantic.com, Jan 10 2013
Rich Ulrich
2018-01-02 01:40:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
British squares were a defense against French cavalry, otherwise the
Redcoats were in lines (the French preferred columns, but that meant
fewer soldiers could fire forwards at any one time).
Again IIRC, when the lines were advancing, the front row would fire,
and the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th row would step forward. The former 1st row
would then reload their weapons.
I recall reading that they were pleased to find advances in
applied technology to facilitate faster reloading, so that five rows
could be replaced by four, then four replaced by three.

Increases in effective firepower!
--
Rich Ulrich
Colonel Edmund J. Burke
2018-01-01 19:18:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
as in ... a swat team was platooned?
Yes, unless someone decides to slap you in yer gob...
LOL
Loading...