Discussion:
Knocked for Six?
Add Reply
BCD
2017-04-05 17:25:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"I was completely knocked for six," said a man in an interview about the
finding of an old notebook which has Shakespearean connections
(https://www.mhpbooks.com/a-400-year-old-critique-of-shakespeare-was-just-discovered-in-england-is-not-that-strange/).
From the context, I take it that he was expressing astonishment; but
I've never heard the expression before, and was wondering what it
alludes to. Boxing? Bowling? Something else perhaps not starting with
a "B"? Is this a common expression? Where?
Cricket.
When a batsman strikes the ball so hard that it crosses the boundary
rope (or line) without touching the ground, he scores six runs (without
he and his partner actually having to run up and down between the wickets).
Thus, a ball that is "knocked for six" has been struck with considerable
force. This is a relatively rare occurrence (by which I mean that it
might happen several times in a match, but is unlikely to occur as often
as, say, once per over, although /of course/ there is at least one
example of six sixes being struck in a single over - Garry Sobers for
Nottinghamshire against Malcolm Nash for Glamorgan in 1968).
"I was completely knocked for six", by analogy, means "I was
unexpectedly and very significantly affected" by whatever it is. On
reflection, I would say that the phrase is most often used when both the
factors - the force of the impact and the unexpectedness thereof - are
present.
***Clear and complete. Many thanks!

Best Wishes,

--BCD
Richard Heathfield
2017-04-05 17:20:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"I was completely knocked for six," said a man in an interview about the
finding of an old notebook which has Shakespearean connections
(https://www.mhpbooks.com/a-400-year-old-critique-of-shakespeare-was-just-discovered-in-england-is-not-that-strange/).
From the context, I take it that he was expressing astonishment; but
I've never heard the expression before, and was wondering what it
alludes to. Boxing? Bowling? Something else perhaps not starting with
a "B"? Is this a common expression? Where?
Cricket.

When a batsman strikes the ball so hard that it crosses the boundary
rope (or line) without touching the ground, he scores six runs (without
he and his partner actually having to run up and down between the wickets).

Thus, a ball that is "knocked for six" has been struck with considerable
force. This is a relatively rare occurrence (by which I mean that it
might happen several times in a match, but is unlikely to occur as often
as, say, once per over, although /of course/ there is at least one
example of six sixes being struck in a single over - Garry Sobers for
Nottinghamshire against Malcolm Nash for Glamorgan in 1968).

"I was completely knocked for six", by analogy, means "I was
unexpectedly and very significantly affected" by whatever it is. On
reflection, I would say that the phrase is most often used when both the
factors - the force of the impact and the unexpectedness thereof - are
present.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-04-05 18:49:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BCD
"I was completely knocked for six," said a man in an interview about the
finding of an old notebook which has Shakespearean connections
(https://www.mhpbooks.com/a-400-year-old-critique-of-shakespeare-was-just-discovered-in-england-is-not-that-strange/).
From the context, I take it that he was expressing astonishment; but
I've never heard the expression before, and was wondering what it
alludes to. Boxing? Bowling? Something else perhaps not starting with
a "B"? Is this a common expression? Where?
Cricket.
When a batsman strikes the ball so hard that it crosses the boundary
rope (or line) without touching the ground, he scores six runs (without
he and his partner actually having to run up and down between the wickets).
Thus, a ball that is "knocked for six" has been struck with considerable
force. This is a relatively rare occurrence (by which I mean that it
might happen several times in a match, but is unlikely to occur as often
as, say, once per over, although /of course/ there is at least one
example of six sixes being struck in a single over - Garry Sobers for
Nottinghamshire against Malcolm Nash for Glamorgan in 1968).
"I was completely knocked for six", by analogy, means "I was
unexpectedly and very significantly affected" by whatever it is. On
reflection, I would say that the phrase is most often used when both the
factors - the force of the impact and the unexpectedness thereof - are
present.
***Clear and complete. Many thanks!
Best Wishes,
--BCD
This has 11 example sentences using the phrase:
<https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/knock_(or_hit)_someone_for_six>
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
BCD
2017-04-05 19:22:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by BCD
"I was completely knocked for six," said a man in an interview about the
finding of an old notebook which has Shakespearean connections
(https://www.mhpbooks.com/a-400-year-old-critique-of-shakespeare-was-just-discovered-in-england-is-not-that-strange/).
From the context, I take it that he was expressing astonishment; but
I've never heard the expression before, and was wondering what it
alludes to. Boxing? Bowling? Something else perhaps not starting with
a "B"? Is this a common expression? Where?
Cricket.
When a batsman strikes the ball so hard that it crosses the boundary
rope (or line) without touching the ground, he scores six runs (without
he and his partner actually having to run up and down between the wickets).
Thus, a ball that is "knocked for six" has been struck with considerable
force. This is a relatively rare occurrence (by which I mean that it
might happen several times in a match, but is unlikely to occur as often
as, say, once per over, although /of course/ there is at least one
example of six sixes being struck in a single over - Garry Sobers for
Nottinghamshire against Malcolm Nash for Glamorgan in 1968).
"I was completely knocked for six", by analogy, means "I was
unexpectedly and very significantly affected" by whatever it is. On
reflection, I would say that the phrase is most often used when both the
factors - the force of the impact and the unexpectedness thereof - are
present.
***Clear and complete. Many thanks!
<https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/knock_(or_hit)_someone_for_six>
***That's quite helpful, thanks! I had never run across the expression
before.

***In all, or nearly all, of those examples, I'd feel comfortable
substituting "knocked flat."

Best Wishes,

--BCD
Don Phillipson
2017-04-06 14:39:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BCD
From the context, I take it that he was expressing astonishment; but
I've never heard the expression before, and was wondering what it
alludes to. Boxing? Bowling? Something else perhaps not starting with
a "B"? Is this a common expression? Where?
Cricket.
. . .
Post by BCD
***That's quite helpful, thanks! I had never run across the expression
before.
***In all, or nearly all, of those examples, I'd feel comfortable
substituting "knocked flat."
There is a difference. Like baseball, cricket is won or lost by
how many runs the team scores; and a boundary 6 is the most
runs that can be scored off any single ball. A closer analogy
would be a baseball home run with the bases loaded, scoring
4 runs. (A baseball hit out of the park with no one on base
scores only one run. A cricket ball hit over the boundary, but
which bounces en route, scores only 4 runs.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Sam Plusnet
2017-04-06 18:53:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by BCD
From the context, I take it that he was expressing astonishment; but
I've never heard the expression before, and was wondering what it
alludes to. Boxing? Bowling? Something else perhaps not starting with
a "B"? Is this a common expression? Where?
Cricket.
. . .
Post by BCD
***That's quite helpful, thanks! I had never run across the expression
before.
***In all, or nearly all, of those examples, I'd feel comfortable
substituting "knocked flat."
There is a difference. Like baseball, cricket is won or lost by
how many runs the team scores; and a boundary 6 is the most
runs that can be scored off any single ball.
Now you've done it!
I expect a number of posts pointing out occasions when nine or more runs
have been scored off of a single delivery.

The story about 286 runs scored off of one delivery shouldn't be given
too much credence.
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter T. Daniels
2017-04-06 20:41:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Don Phillipson
There is a difference. Like baseball, cricket is won or lost by
how many runs the team scores; and a boundary 6 is the most
runs that can be scored off any single ball.
Now you've done it!
I expect a number of posts pointing out occasions when nine or more runs
have been scored off of a single delivery.
The story about 286 runs scored off of one delivery shouldn't be given
too much credence.
How much credence would be exactly the right amount?

[That, for the benefit of the sociopath, is a speech-act joke.]

[Also, for the benefit of Gordon, it is a joke, not an attack.]
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
2017-04-06 21:56:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
How much credence would be exactly the right amount?
Please ignore lonely master-baiter's stupid question.

See the Loony Master-baiter:
Loading Image...

--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~
The Conscience of AUE
Tony Cooper
2017-04-07 14:07:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:41:22 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Don Phillipson
There is a difference. Like baseball, cricket is won or lost by
how many runs the team scores; and a boundary 6 is the most
runs that can be scored off any single ball.
Now you've done it!
I expect a number of posts pointing out occasions when nine or more runs
have been scored off of a single delivery.
The story about 286 runs scored off of one delivery shouldn't be given
too much credence.
How much credence would be exactly the right amount?
[That, for the benefit of the sociopath, is a speech-act joke.]
[Also, for the benefit of Gordon, it is a joke, not an attack.]
I finally got around to looking up "speech-act joke". There are
several explanations on the web, but what they seem to suggest is that
the definition of a speech-act joke is something that is said that is
not, in any way, funny. A speech-act joke seems to be the very
antithesis of what a joke is supposed be.

PTD's example, and his previous examples, above verify my conclusion.

The meaning of "joke", in this case, is the meaning given at
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/joke as 1.2: "A person
or thing that is ridiculously inadequate".

Inadequate in providing humor, that is.

One source of information on a speech-act joke is this .pdf on
Linguistics 103:
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~rnoyer/courses/103/Ling10309Jokes.pdf
wherein it says, under "Jokes and Speech Act Theory", "speech act:
telling a joke" and "As speech acts, jokes normally report information
(fictional or otherwise), in this sense jokes tell something.

You have to get through Linguistics 101 and Linguistics 102 before you
are ready to learn that jokes tell something?

This guide to Linguistics 103 goes further to explain how speech acts
and jokes tell something by providing examples:

a. tell a story
b. give a prayer
c. pronounce a verdict
d. cast a magic spell
e. offer/give an apology
f. tell a joke

It then goes on to say that "But the principal function of a joke is
to be funny, to amuse, and not to report a story".

Good thing they added that. All prayers, verdicts, and magic spells
should contain at least a kernel of humor.

Comedy Night in the Linguistics Department must be a real hoot.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2017-04-07 20:23:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:41:22 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
The story about 286 runs scored off of one delivery shouldn't be given
too much credence.
How much credence would be exactly the right amount?
[That, for the benefit of the sociopath, is a speech-act joke.]
[Also, for the benefit of Gordon, it is a joke, not an attack.]
I finally got around to looking up "speech-act joke". There are
several explanations on the web, but what they seem to suggest is that
the definition of a speech-act joke is something that is said that is
not, in any way, funny. A speech-act joke seems to be the very
antithesis of what a joke is supposed be.
No, that is not anyone's definition of "speech-act joke."
Post by Tony Cooper
PTD's example, and his previous examples, above verify my conclusion.
The meaning of "joke", in this case, is the meaning given at
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/joke as 1.2: "A person
or thing that is ridiculously inadequate".
Inadequate in providing humor, that is.
One source of information on a speech-act joke is this .pdf on
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~rnoyer/courses/103/Ling10309Jokes.pdf
telling a joke" and "As speech acts, jokes normally report information
(fictional or otherwise), in this sense jokes tell something.
You have to get through Linguistics 101 and Linguistics 102 before you
are ready to learn that jokes tell something?
You really ought to try learning Linguistics 101 before commenting.

Not speech acts AND jokes, you nimcompoop. "Speech-act jokes." Nothing you
quote suggests you made any effort to discover what a "apeech-act joke" is.
Post by Tony Cooper
This guide to Linguistics 103 goes further to explain how speech acts
a. tell a story
b. give a prayer
c. pronounce a verdict
d. cast a magic spell
e. offer/give an apology
f. tell a joke
It then goes on to say that "But the principal function of a joke is
to be funny, to amuse, and not to report a story".
Good thing they added that. All prayers, verdicts, and magic spells
should contain at least a kernel of humor.
The concept of "speech act" was introduced in the short book *How to Do Things
With Words* by the British philosopher J. L. Austin in 1962.

I have mentioned this previously. Speech acts "do things." Speech-act jokes
play on expectations of speech "doing things."
Post by Tony Cooper
Comedy Night in the Linguistics Department must be a real hoot.
It is, but it would be way, way, way over your head.
Tony Cooper
2017-04-07 20:55:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 13:23:57 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:41:22 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
The story about 286 runs scored off of one delivery shouldn't be given
too much credence.
How much credence would be exactly the right amount?
[That, for the benefit of the sociopath, is a speech-act joke.]
[Also, for the benefit of Gordon, it is a joke, not an attack.]
I finally got around to looking up "speech-act joke". There are
several explanations on the web, but what they seem to suggest is that
the definition of a speech-act joke is something that is said that is
not, in any way, funny. A speech-act joke seems to be the very
antithesis of what a joke is supposed be.
No, that is not anyone's definition of "speech-act joke."
Post by Tony Cooper
PTD's example, and his previous examples, above verify my conclusion.
The meaning of "joke", in this case, is the meaning given at
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/joke as 1.2: "A person
or thing that is ridiculously inadequate".
Inadequate in providing humor, that is.
One source of information on a speech-act joke is this .pdf on
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~rnoyer/courses/103/Ling10309Jokes.pdf
telling a joke" and "As speech acts, jokes normally report information
(fictional or otherwise), in this sense jokes tell something.
You have to get through Linguistics 101 and Linguistics 102 before you
are ready to learn that jokes tell something?
You really ought to try learning Linguistics 101 before commenting.
Not speech acts AND jokes, you nimcompoop. "Speech-act jokes." Nothing you
quote suggests you made any effort to discover what a "apeech-act joke" is.
Was that one? You really need to code them as "speech-act jokes" if
you are going to deliver them. Was I supposed to laugh at "apeech"?
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
This guide to Linguistics 103 goes further to explain how speech acts
a. tell a story
b. give a prayer
c. pronounce a verdict
d. cast a magic spell
e. offer/give an apology
f. tell a joke
It then goes on to say that "But the principal function of a joke is
to be funny, to amuse, and not to report a story".
Good thing they added that. All prayers, verdicts, and magic spells
should contain at least a kernel of humor.
Or, "apeech pit of humor" for a larger laugh?
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The concept of "speech act" was introduced in the short book *How to Do Things
With Words* by the British philosopher J. L. Austin in 1962.
I have mentioned this previously. Speech acts "do things." Speech-act jokes
play on expectations of speech "doing things."
Play on, perhaps, but yours leave the expectations unfulfilled.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
Comedy Night in the Linguistics Department must be a real hoot.
It is, but it would be way, way, way over your head.
Two linguists walk into a bar.

They are as clumsy afoot as when telling jokes.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
b***@aol.com
2017-04-10 14:54:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:41:22 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
The story about 286 runs scored off of one delivery shouldn't be given
too much credence.
How much credence would be exactly the right amount?
[That, for the benefit of the sociopath, is a speech-act joke.]
[Also, for the benefit of Gordon, it is a joke, not an attack.]
I finally got around to looking up "speech-act joke". There are
several explanations on the web, but what they seem to suggest is that
the definition of a speech-act joke is something that is said that is
not, in any way, funny. A speech-act joke seems to be the very
antithesis of what a joke is supposed be.
No, that is not anyone's definition of "speech-act joke."
Post by Tony Cooper
PTD's example, and his previous examples, above verify my conclusion.
The meaning of "joke", in this case, is the meaning given at
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/joke as 1.2: "A person
or thing that is ridiculously inadequate".
Inadequate in providing humor, that is.
One source of information on a speech-act joke is this .pdf on
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~rnoyer/courses/103/Ling10309Jokes.pdf
telling a joke" and "As speech acts, jokes normally report information
(fictional or otherwise), in this sense jokes tell something.
You have to get through Linguistics 101 and Linguistics 102 before you
are ready to learn that jokes tell something?
You really ought to try learning Linguistics 101 before commenting.
Not speech acts AND jokes, you nimcompoop. "Speech-act jokes." Nothing you
quote suggests you made any effort to discover what a "apeech-act joke" is.
Post by Tony Cooper
This guide to Linguistics 103 goes further to explain how speech acts
a. tell a story
b. give a prayer
c. pronounce a verdict
d. cast a magic spell
e. offer/give an apology
f. tell a joke
It then goes on to say that "But the principal function of a joke is
to be funny, to amuse, and not to report a story".
Good thing they added that. All prayers, verdicts, and magic spells
should contain at least a kernel of humor.
The concept of "speech act" was introduced in the short book *How to Do Things
With Words* by the British philosopher J. L. Austin in 1962.
I have mentioned this previously. Speech acts "do things." Speech-act jokes
play on expectations of speech "doing things."
But what exactly does "How much credence" do, save stating the obvious, i.e. that "not too much" is a vague idiom, which is not supposed to convey any realistic notion of quantification?

If anything, "How much credence would be exactly the right amount?" is just a rhetorical question.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
Comedy Night in the Linguistics Department must be a real hoot.
It is, but it would be way, way, way over your head.
GordonD
2017-04-08 09:02:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:41:22 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Don Phillipson
There is a difference. Like baseball, cricket is won or lost
by how many runs the team scores; and a boundary 6 is the most
runs that can be scored off any single ball.
Now you've done it! I expect a number of posts pointing out
occasions when nine or more runs have been scored off of a single
delivery.
The story about 286 runs scored off of one delivery shouldn't be
given too much credence.
How much credence would be exactly the right amount?
[That, for the benefit of the sociopath, is a speech-act joke.]
[Also, for the benefit of Gordon, it is a joke, not an attack.]
I finally got around to looking up "speech-act joke". There are
several explanations on the web, but what they seem to suggest is
that the definition of a speech-act joke is something that is said
that is not, in any way, funny. A speech-act joke seems to be the
very antithesis of what a joke is supposed be.
PTD's example, and his previous examples, above verify my
conclusion.
The meaning of "joke", in this case, is the meaning given at
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/joke as 1.2: "A person
or thing that is ridiculously inadequate".
Inadequate in providing humor, that is.
One source of information on a speech-act joke is this .pdf on
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~rnoyer/courses/103/Ling10309Jokes.pdf
telling a joke" and "As speech acts, jokes normally report
information (fictional or otherwise), in this sense jokes tell
something.
You have to get through Linguistics 101 and Linguistics 102 before
you are ready to learn that jokes tell something?
This guide to Linguistics 103 goes further to explain how speech
a. tell a story b. give a prayer c. pronounce a verdict d. cast a
magic spell e. offer/give an apology f. tell a joke
It then goes on to say that "But the principal function of a joke is
to be funny, to amuse, and not to report a story".
Good thing they added that. All prayers, verdicts, and magic spells
should contain at least a kernel of humor.
Comedy Night in the Linguistics Department must be a real hoot.
Like the bar with men sitting round a table, and one says "Seventeen!"
and everybody laughs. Another man says "Twenty-six!" and everybody
laughs again. A third man says "Eleven!" and once more everybody laughs.

A man asks the barman, "What's going on?" and the barman replies, "Well,
they've been telling the same jokes so often that everybody knows them
by heart, so to save time they just say the number and everybody knows
what they mean."

Then one of the men says "Thirty-one!" but nobody laughs. The man at the
bar asks, "Why did nobody laugh there?"

And the barman replies "Well, they keep telling him he can't do a proper
Irish accent..."
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
musika
2017-04-08 09:13:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GordonD
Like the bar with men sitting round a table, and one says
"Seventeen!" and everybody laughs. Another man says "Twenty-six!" and
everybody laughs again. A third man says "Eleven!" and once more
everybody laughs.
A man asks the barman, "What's going on?" and the barman replies,
"Well, they've been telling the same jokes so often that everybody
knows them by heart, so to save time they just say the number and
everybody knows what they mean."
Then one of the men says "Thirty-one!" but nobody laughs. The man at
the bar asks, "Why did nobody laugh there?"
And the barman replies "Well, they keep telling him he can't do a
proper Irish accent..."
Alternative ending:

Then one of the men says "Thirty-one!" and the whole room erupts into
riotous laughter.

The man at the bar asks, "Why did everybody laugh so much at that one?"

And the barman replies "Well, they hadn't heard that one before."
--
Ray
UK
GordonD
2017-04-07 17:31:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Don Phillipson
There is a difference. Like baseball, cricket is won or lost by
how many runs the team scores; and a boundary 6 is the most
runs that can be scored off any single ball.
Now you've done it!
I expect a number of posts pointing out occasions when nine or more runs
have been scored off of a single delivery.
The story about 286 runs scored off of one delivery shouldn't be given
too much credence.
How much credence would be exactly the right amount?
[That, for the benefit of the sociopath, is a speech-act joke.]
[Also, for the benefit of Gordon, it is a joke, not an attack.]
I got that the second time I read it.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
Peter Moylan
2017-04-09 08:00:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Don Phillipson
There is a difference. Like baseball, cricket is won or lost by
how many runs the team scores; and a boundary 6 is the most
runs that can be scored off any single ball.
Now you've done it!
I expect a number of posts pointing out occasions when nine or more runs
have been scored off of a single delivery.
The story about 286 runs scored off of one delivery shouldn't be given
too much credence.
How much credence would be exactly the right amount?
[That, for the benefit of the sociopath, is a speech-act joke.]
[Also, for the benefit of Gordon, it is a joke, not an attack.]
I got that the second time I read it.
I'm still struggling with the notion that a written utterance, as
distinct from a spoken one, can be a speech act.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
bill van
2017-04-09 08:55:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Don Phillipson
There is a difference. Like baseball, cricket is won or lost by
how many runs the team scores; and a boundary 6 is the most
runs that can be scored off any single ball.
Now you've done it!
I expect a number of posts pointing out occasions when nine or more runs
have been scored off of a single delivery.
The story about 286 runs scored off of one delivery shouldn't be given
too much credence.
How much credence would be exactly the right amount?
[That, for the benefit of the sociopath, is a speech-act joke.]
[Also, for the benefit of Gordon, it is a joke, not an attack.]
I got that the second time I read it.
I'm still struggling with the notion that a written utterance, as
distinct from a spoken one, can be a speech act.
Free speech, as understood legally and constitutionally in recent
decades in North America, includes the written word as well as the
spoken. It would be a strange world in which you could say "X" with
impunity, but be subject to prosecution if you wrote it.
--
bill
Peter T. Daniels
2017-04-09 12:54:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bill van
Post by Peter Moylan
I'm still struggling with the notion that a written utterance, as
distinct from a spoken one, can be a speech act.
Free speech, as understood legally and constitutionally in recent
decades in North America, includes the written word as well as the
spoken. It would be a strange world in which you could say "X" with
impunity, but be subject to prosecution if you wrote it.
Isn't that a/the difference between libel and slander?
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
2017-04-09 15:47:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Isn't that a/the difference between libel and slander?
Please ignore that vicious libeler's stupid question.

See the lonesome loony:
http://aman.members.sonic.net/PeteY-Doody.jpg

--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~
The Conscience of AUE
Richard Tobin
2017-04-09 16:36:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by bill van
Free speech, as understood legally and constitutionally in recent
decades in North America, includes the written word as well as the
spoken. It would be a strange world in which you could say "X" with
impunity, but be subject to prosecution if you wrote it.
Isn't that a/the difference between libel and slander?
Up to a point. The difference is how transient the utterance is. A
spoken statement could be libel if broadcast or available on the
internet for example.

(Here in Scotland, both are called "defamation".)

-- Richard
bill van
2017-04-09 18:53:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by bill van
Post by Peter Moylan
I'm still struggling with the notion that a written utterance, as
distinct from a spoken one, can be a speech act.
Free speech, as understood legally and constitutionally in recent
decades in North America, includes the written word as well as the
spoken. It would be a strange world in which you could say "X" with
impunity, but be subject to prosecution if you wrote it.
Isn't that a/the difference between libel and slander?
Yes, I'd say so. I think the point is that you can held liable for
either. In print journalism, I always thought that the written word
required higher standards, since what you write is more or less
permanent, while the spoken word can be fleeting -- unless it is
recorded.

What's happening in U.S. politics of late is interesting in this
context, in that both in writing and speech, truth no longer seems
important; lies appear to have no consequences now.
--
bill
Paul Wolff
2017-04-09 23:31:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bill van
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by bill van
Post by Peter Moylan
I'm still struggling with the notion that a written utterance, as
distinct from a spoken one, can be a speech act.
Free speech, as understood legally and constitutionally in recent
decades in North America, includes the written word as well as the
spoken. It would be a strange world in which you could say "X" with
impunity, but be subject to prosecution if you wrote it.
Isn't that a/the difference between libel and slander?
Yes, I'd say so. I think the point is that you can held liable for
either.
Libel is defamation in a fixed form (writing, typically).

In English law, libel and slander are civil rather than criminal
offences. This means that it is for the offended party to initiate legal
proceedings for the recovery of damages and possible an injunction
against repetition. If there is libel but no damage, expect no more than
a Pyrrhic victory for the claimant.
Post by bill van
In print journalism, I always thought that the written word
required higher standards, since what you write is more or less
permanent, while the spoken word can be fleeting -- unless it is
recorded.
What's happening in U.S. politics of late is interesting in this
context, in that both in writing and speech, truth no longer seems
important; lies appear to have no consequences now.
If there is no damage worth compensating, you may lie and defame at your
leisure. All you will lose will be the respect of your peers. Rather
like here, in some ways.
--
Paul
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-04-10 11:17:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:31:45 +0100, Paul Wolff
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by bill van
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by bill van
Post by Peter Moylan
I'm still struggling with the notion that a written utterance, as
distinct from a spoken one, can be a speech act.
Free speech, as understood legally and constitutionally in recent
decades in North America, includes the written word as well as the
spoken. It would be a strange world in which you could say "X" with
impunity, but be subject to prosecution if you wrote it.
Isn't that a/the difference between libel and slander?
Yes, I'd say so. I think the point is that you can held liable for
either.
Libel is defamation in a fixed form (writing, typically).
In English law, libel and slander are civil rather than criminal
offences. This means that it is for the offended party to initiate legal
proceedings for the recovery of damages and possible an injunction
against repetition. If there is libel but no damage, expect no more than
a Pyrrhic victory for the claimant.
<smile>

This excellent (is that sufficiently non-defamatory?) law firm says:
http://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-libel-and-privacy/faqs/

In both libel and slander cases, you need to prove that:

The allegations have been published to one or more persons
(other than yourself)
The allegations refer to you – either that you are named,
pictured or are identifiable in some other way
That the words tend to lower you in the eyes of right thinking
members of society.
That the publication has caused or is likely to cause serious
harm to your reputation.

-> In slander cases, you will also need to prove that you have suffered
-> financial loss, unless the allegations relate to your profession or
-> an offence punishable by imprisonment.
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by bill van
In print journalism, I always thought that the written word
required higher standards, since what you write is more or less
permanent, while the spoken word can be fleeting -- unless it is
recorded.
What's happening in U.S. politics of late is interesting in this
context, in that both in writing and speech, truth no longer seems
important; lies appear to have no consequences now.
If there is no damage worth compensating, you may lie and defame at your
leisure. All you will lose will be the respect of your peers. Rather
like here, in some ways.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Robert Bannister
2017-04-11 00:23:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by bill van
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by bill van
Post by Peter Moylan
I'm still struggling with the notion that a written utterance, as
distinct from a spoken one, can be a speech act.
Free speech, as understood legally and constitutionally in recent
decades in North America, includes the written word as well as the
spoken. It would be a strange world in which you could say "X" with
impunity, but be subject to prosecution if you wrote it.
Isn't that a/the difference between libel and slander?
Yes, I'd say so. I think the point is that you can held liable for
either.
Libel is defamation in a fixed form (writing, typically).
In English law, libel and slander are civil rather than criminal
offences. This means that it is for the offended party to initiate legal
proceedings for the recovery of damages and possible an injunction
against repetition. If there is libel but no damage, expect no more than
a Pyrrhic victory for the claimant.
Post by bill van
In print journalism, I always thought that the written word
required higher standards, since what you write is more or less
permanent, while the spoken word can be fleeting -- unless it is
recorded.
What's happening in U.S. politics of late is interesting in this
context, in that both in writing and speech, truth no longer seems
important; lies appear to have no consequences now.
If there is no damage worth compensating, you may lie and defame at your
leisure. All you will lose will be the respect of your peers. Rather
like here, in some ways.
Are you sure about the peers? Some of That Man's peers are no better
than they should be.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Robert Bannister
2017-04-11 00:22:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by bill van
Post by Peter Moylan
I'm still struggling with the notion that a written utterance, as
distinct from a spoken one, can be a speech act.
Free speech, as understood legally and constitutionally in recent
decades in North America, includes the written word as well as the
spoken. It would be a strange world in which you could say "X" with
impunity, but be subject to prosecution if you wrote it.
Isn't that a/the difference between libel and slander?
Curse! You beat me to it - probably by half a day.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Robert Bannister
2017-04-11 00:21:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bill van
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Don Phillipson
There is a difference. Like baseball, cricket is won or lost by
how many runs the team scores; and a boundary 6 is the most
runs that can be scored off any single ball.
Now you've done it!
I expect a number of posts pointing out occasions when nine or more runs
have been scored off of a single delivery.
The story about 286 runs scored off of one delivery shouldn't be given
too much credence.
How much credence would be exactly the right amount?
[That, for the benefit of the sociopath, is a speech-act joke.]
[Also, for the benefit of Gordon, it is a joke, not an attack.]
I got that the second time I read it.
I'm still struggling with the notion that a written utterance, as
distinct from a spoken one, can be a speech act.
Free speech, as understood legally and constitutionally in recent
decades in North America, includes the written word as well as the
spoken. It would be a strange world in which you could say "X" with
impunity, but be subject to prosecution if you wrote it.
But isn't or wasn't that the difference between slander and libel?
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
bill van
2017-04-11 03:33:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by bill van
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Don Phillipson
There is a difference. Like baseball, cricket is won or lost by
how many runs the team scores; and a boundary 6 is the most
runs that can be scored off any single ball.
Now you've done it!
I expect a number of posts pointing out occasions when nine or more runs
have been scored off of a single delivery.
The story about 286 runs scored off of one delivery shouldn't be given
too much credence.
How much credence would be exactly the right amount?
[That, for the benefit of the sociopath, is a speech-act joke.]
[Also, for the benefit of Gordon, it is a joke, not an attack.]
I got that the second time I read it.
I'm still struggling with the notion that a written utterance, as
distinct from a spoken one, can be a speech act.
Free speech, as understood legally and constitutionally in recent
decades in North America, includes the written word as well as the
spoken. It would be a strange world in which you could say "X" with
impunity, but be subject to prosecution if you wrote it.
But isn't or wasn't that the difference between slander and libel?
Yes, the point being that they're called different things but you can be
sued and found liable for either.
--
bill
Peter T. Daniels
2017-04-09 12:53:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Don Phillipson
There is a difference. Like baseball, cricket is won or lost by
how many runs the team scores; and a boundary 6 is the most
runs that can be scored off any single ball.
Now you've done it!
I expect a number of posts pointing out occasions when nine or more runs
have been scored off of a single delivery.
The story about 286 runs scored off of one delivery shouldn't be given
too much credence.
How much credence would be exactly the right amount?
[That, for the benefit of the sociopath, is a speech-act joke.]
[Also, for the benefit of Gordon, it is a joke, not an attack.]
I got that the second time I read it.
I'm still struggling with the notion that a written utterance, as
distinct from a spoken one, can be a speech act.
Writing, by definition, represents speech.

It would be fairly difficult to carry out and report linguistic investigations of
speech without some sort of permanentish record of that speech.
Sam Plusnet
2017-04-08 23:15:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Don Phillipson
There is a difference. Like baseball, cricket is won or lost by
how many runs the team scores; and a boundary 6 is the most
runs that can be scored off any single ball.
Now you've done it!
I expect a number of posts pointing out occasions when nine or more runs
have been scored off of a single delivery.
The story about 286 runs scored off of one delivery shouldn't be given
too much credence.
How much credence would be exactly the right amount?
I'm sure you were not looking for an answer.
Nevertheless, the cricket match in which this is supposed to have
happened took place in Australia whilst the report of it appeared in a
UK newspaper (The Pall Mall Gazette).
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter Moylan
2017-04-09 08:07:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Don Phillipson
There is a difference. Like baseball, cricket is won or lost by
how many runs the team scores; and a boundary 6 is the most
runs that can be scored off any single ball.
Now you've done it!
I expect a number of posts pointing out occasions when nine or more runs
have been scored off of a single delivery.
The story about 286 runs scored off of one delivery shouldn't be given
too much credence.
How much credence would be exactly the right amount?
I'm sure you were not looking for an answer.
Nevertheless, the cricket match in which this is supposed to have
happened took place in Australia whilst the report of it appeared in a
UK newspaper (The Pall Mall Gazette).
But "off of" certainly wouldn't have appeared in a newspaper in either
country.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter T. Daniels
2017-04-09 12:51:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Don Phillipson
There is a difference. Like baseball, cricket is won or lost by
how many runs the team scores; and a boundary 6 is the most
runs that can be scored off any single ball.
Now you've done it!
I expect a number of posts pointing out occasions when nine or more runs
have been scored off of a single delivery.
The story about 286 runs scored off of one delivery shouldn't be given
too much credence.
How much credence would be exactly the right amount?
I'm sure you were not looking for an answer.
Nevertheless, the cricket match in which this is supposed to have
happened took place in Australia whilst the report of it appeared in a
UK newspaper (The Pall Mall Gazette).
I appreciate the valiance of attempting an answer!

Is it that UK newspapers routinely misrepresent(ed) Australian news, or that some
figures were garbled in the wire transmission, or that Australians are capable of
truly superhuman feats?
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-04-09 16:27:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 05:51:32 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Don Phillipson
There is a difference. Like baseball, cricket is won or lost by
how many runs the team scores; and a boundary 6 is the most
runs that can be scored off any single ball.
Now you've done it!
I expect a number of posts pointing out occasions when nine or more runs
have been scored off of a single delivery.
The story about 286 runs scored off of one delivery shouldn't be given
too much credence.
How much credence would be exactly the right amount?
I'm sure you were not looking for an answer.
Nevertheless, the cricket match in which this is supposed to have
happened took place in Australia whilst the report of it appeared in a
UK newspaper (The Pall Mall Gazette).
I appreciate the valiance of attempting an answer!
No one seems to know how this newspaper report came about.

The cricket match is said to habe taken place in 1894. That was a only a
few years since the establishment of a telegraph service between
Australian and Britain.
Any report of a cricket match sent from Australia to England by telegaph
would have been brief, little more than a few Twitter tweets today.
There would have been the possibility of an error in the message leading
to a misunderstanding. I think that at that time telegraph/cable
messages were sent in several "hops" with the possibility of human
transcription error at each relay point.

There is apparently no contemporary source for the story in Australia.
The story was published in the Pall Mall Gazette (England) on 15th
January, 1894:
http://sporteology.com/286-runs-in-a-ball/

The same news was published in the Inquirer & Commercial News in
Perth on 2nd March, 1894 and even traveled far to the US, when the
Lowell Daily Sun in Massachusetts published the news later as a fact
on 15th May in the same year. But, some controversies rose up when
the Western Mail in Perth referring to it as ‘that enormous fairy
tale’ and published a story about the imaginative mind of the Pall
Mall Gazette behind 286 runs scored in a single ball. While no other
local newspaper published the story before the Pall Mall Gazette, it
was a bit ridiculous to believe the news they published in UK first
while the match was played in Australia. So, it is technically very
challenging to prove the reality behind the story.

The publication in Perth on 2nd March following its original publication
in England on 15th January is consistent with a copy of the Pall Mall
Gazette being brought to Western Australia by a traveller on a ship.
(When my parents travelled from Western Australia to England 40+ years
later the journey took 30 days.)

Quite apart from anything else about the story, I have considerable
doubt about the idea that the official scorer had been able to make an
accurate records of the runs run under those circumstances.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
GordonD
2017-04-09 16:56:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 05:51:32 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
On Thursday, April 6, 2017 at 2:53:15 PM UTC-4, Sam Plusnet
Post by Don Phillipson
There is a difference. Like baseball, cricket is won or
lost by how many runs the team scores; and a boundary 6 is
the most runs that can be scored off any single ball.
Now you've done it! I expect a number of posts pointing out
occasions when nine or more runs have been scored off of a
single delivery. The story about 286 runs scored off of one
delivery shouldn't be given too much credence.
How much credence would be exactly the right amount?
I'm sure you were not looking for an answer. Nevertheless, the
cricket match in which this is supposed to have happened took
place in Australia whilst the report of it appeared in a UK
newspaper (The Pall Mall Gazette).
I appreciate the valiance of attempting an answer!
No one seems to know how this newspaper report came about.
The cricket match is said to habe taken place in 1894. That was a
only a few years since the establishment of a telegraph service
between Australian and Britain. Any report of a cricket match sent
from Australia to England by telegaph would have been brief, little
more than a few Twitter tweets today. There would have been the
possibility of an error in the message leading to a misunderstanding.
I think that at that time telegraph/cable messages were sent in
several "hops" with the possibility of human transcription error at
each relay point.
There is apparently no contemporary source for the story in
Australia. The story was published in the Pall Mall Gazette (England)
on 15th January, 1894: http://sporteology.com/286-runs-in-a-ball/
The same news was published in the Inquirer & Commercial News in
Perth on 2nd March, 1894 and even traveled far to the US, when the
Lowell Daily Sun in Massachusetts published the news later as a fact
on 15th May in the same year. But, some controversies rose up when
the Western Mail in Perth referring to it as ‘that enormous fairy
tale’ and published a story about the imaginative mind of the Pall
Mall Gazette behind 286 runs scored in a single ball. While no other
local newspaper published the story before the Pall Mall Gazette, it
was a bit ridiculous to believe the news they published in UK first
while the match was played in Australia. So, it is technically very
challenging to prove the reality behind the story.
The publication in Perth on 2nd March following its original
publication in England on 15th January is consistent with a copy of
the Pall Mall Gazette being brought to Western Australia by a
traveller on a ship. (When my parents travelled from Western
Australia to England 40+ years later the journey took 30 days.)
Quite apart from anything else about the story, I have considerable
doubt about the idea that the official scorer had been able to make
an accurate records of the runs run under those circumstances.
I'm sure I once saw something about a cricket match where the ball went
down a rabbit hole and could not be reached (obviously the field was of
less than first class standard) and the batsmen kept running while the
fielders fetched a spade and dug it out. These days the fielding side
can shout "Lost ball!" and the batting side are credited with six runs
or however many they have actually run, whichever is greater. I'm not
sure when that law was introduced.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
Peter Moylan
2017-04-10 01:22:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GordonD
I'm sure I once saw something about a cricket match where the ball went
down a rabbit hole and could not be reached (obviously the field was of
less than first class standard) and the batsmen kept running while the
fielders fetched a spade and dug it out. These days the fielding side
can shout "Lost ball!" and the batting side are credited with six runs
or however many they have actually run, whichever is greater. I'm not
sure when that law was introduced.
In the supposed 1894 game in Perth, it is said that the fielding side
did call "lost ball", but the umpire ruled that the ball was not lost
because it was clearly visible up in a tree.

Of course the story could be different in different versions. The fact
that Perth newspapers didn't report it until after the story arrived
from England has to be treated as suspicious.

Now I'm wondering: how can a ball become lost on a modern cricket field?
Of course it can go lost if hit out of the ground, but that's covered by
a separate rule. The "lost ball" rule seems to be relevant only on
poorly maintained ovals with long grass. (Or rabbit holes, I suppose.)
Now that I'm writing this, though, I'm thinking of other possibilities.
A dog running out on the ground, for example.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Mark Brader
2017-04-10 01:38:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Now I'm wondering: how can a ball become lost on a modern cricket field?
Of course it can go lost if hit out of the ground, but that's covered by
a separate rule. The "lost ball" rule seems to be relevant only on
poorly maintained ovals with long grass. (Or rabbit holes, I suppose.)
Now that I'm writing this, though, I'm thinking of other possibilities.
A dog running out on the ground, for example.
Or a crocodile?
--
Mark Brader | "I couldn't imagine what Americans did at night
Toronto | when they weren't writing novels."
***@vex.net | --Joseph Heller
Peter Moylan
2017-04-10 03:02:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Peter Moylan
Now I'm wondering: how can a ball become lost on a modern cricket field?
Of course it can go lost if hit out of the ground, but that's covered by
a separate rule. The "lost ball" rule seems to be relevant only on
poorly maintained ovals with long grass. (Or rabbit holes, I suppose.)
Now that I'm writing this, though, I'm thinking of other possibilities.
A dog running out on the ground, for example.
Or a crocodile?
I was going to say that a cricket ground was an unlikely place to find a
crocodile. Then I remembered a stay in Port Douglas, far north
Queensland. The local golf course had signs telling golfers to watch out
for the crocodiles.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
charles
2017-04-10 08:11:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by GordonD
I'm sure I once saw something about a cricket match where the ball went
down a rabbit hole and could not be reached (obviously the field was of
less than first class standard) and the batsmen kept running while the
fielders fetched a spade and dug it out. These days the fielding side
can shout "Lost ball!" and the batting side are credited with six runs
or however many they have actually run, whichever is greater. I'm not
sure when that law was introduced.
In the supposed 1894 game in Perth, it is said that the fielding side
did call "lost ball", but the umpire ruled that the ball was not lost
because it was clearly visible up in a tree.
Of course the story could be different in different versions. The fact
that Perth newspapers didn't report it until after the story arrived
from England has to be treated as suspicious.
Now I'm wondering: how can a ball become lost on a modern cricket field?
It bounces into the spectator area where a souvenir hunter pockets it
without anybody else seeing. As fara s the players are concerned, it's
lost.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
Peter Moylan
2017-04-10 13:27:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by charles
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by GordonD
I'm sure I once saw something about a cricket match where the ball went
down a rabbit hole and could not be reached (obviously the field was of
less than first class standard) and the batsmen kept running while the
fielders fetched a spade and dug it out. These days the fielding side
can shout "Lost ball!" and the batting side are credited with six runs
or however many they have actually run, whichever is greater. I'm not
sure when that law was introduced.
In the supposed 1894 game in Perth, it is said that the fielding side
did call "lost ball", but the umpire ruled that the ball was not lost
because it was clearly visible up in a tree.
Of course the story could be different in different versions. The fact
that Perth newspapers didn't report it until after the story arrived
from England has to be treated as suspicious.
Now I'm wondering: how can a ball become lost on a modern cricket field?
It bounces into the spectator area where a souvenir hunter pockets it
without anybody else seeing. As fara s the players are concerned, it's
lost.
If it gets as far as the spectator area then it has passed the boundary
of the field, and there are well-defined rules for that. The score is
either 4 or 6, depending on where it bounced, and it's a case where the
two players at bat do not run. The "lost ball" call is for when the
players are running and the fielders can't find the ball because it's
lost somewhere _inside_ the boundary.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter Moylan
2017-04-10 13:34:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by charles
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by GordonD
I'm sure I once saw something about a cricket match where the ball went
down a rabbit hole and could not be reached (obviously the field was of
less than first class standard) and the batsmen kept running while the
fielders fetched a spade and dug it out. These days the fielding side
can shout "Lost ball!" and the batting side are credited with six runs
or however many they have actually run, whichever is greater. I'm not
sure when that law was introduced.
In the supposed 1894 game in Perth, it is said that the fielding side
did call "lost ball", but the umpire ruled that the ball was not lost
because it was clearly visible up in a tree.
Of course the story could be different in different versions. The fact
that Perth newspapers didn't report it until after the story arrived
from England has to be treated as suspicious.
Now I'm wondering: how can a ball become lost on a modern cricket field?
It bounces into the spectator area where a souvenir hunter pockets it
without anybody else seeing. As fara s the players are concerned, it's
lost.
If it gets as far as the spectator area then it has passed the boundary
of the field, and there are well-defined rules for that. The score is
either 4 or 6, depending on where it bounced, and it's a case where the
two players at bat do not run. The "lost ball" call is for when the
players are running and the fielders can't find the ball because it's
lost somewhere _inside_ the boundary.
Sorry, I've just realised that you were making a different point. If the
players don't know whether it has crossed the boundary, then it's a lost
ball.

Although it seems unlikely that anyone would fail to notice a bounce
into the stands.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
GordonD
2017-04-10 14:10:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by charles
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by GordonD
I'm sure I once saw something about a cricket match where the
ball went down a rabbit hole and could not be reached
(obviously the field was of less than first class standard)
and the batsmen kept running while the fielders fetched a
spade and dug it out. These days the fielding side can shout
"Lost ball!" and the batting side are credited with six runs
or however many they have actually run, whichever is greater.
I'm not sure when that law was introduced.
In the supposed 1894 game in Perth, it is said that the
fielding side did call "lost ball", but the umpire ruled that
the ball was not lost because it was clearly visible up in a
tree.
Of course the story could be different in different versions.
The fact that Perth newspapers didn't report it until after the
story arrived from England has to be treated as suspicious.
Now I'm wondering: how can a ball become lost on a modern
cricket field?
It bounces into the spectator area where a souvenir hunter
pockets it without anybody else seeing. As fara s the players
are concerned, it's lost.
If it gets as far as the spectator area then it has passed the
boundary of the field, and there are well-defined rules for that.
The score is either 4 or 6, depending on where it bounced, and it's
a case where the two players at bat do not run. The "lost ball"
call is for when the players are running and the fielders can't
find the ball because it's lost somewhere _inside_ the boundary.
Sorry, I've just realised that you were making a different point. If
the players don't know whether it has crossed the boundary, then it's
a lost ball.
Although it seems unlikely that anyone would fail to notice a bounce
into the stands.
It's unlikely to happen in a first class match but the laws of cricket
apply to all levels of the game, right down to a gang of kids playing in
a field which might well have bumps and long grass and holes.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
charles
2017-04-10 14:30:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by charles
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by GordonD
I'm sure I once saw something about a cricket match where the ball
went down a rabbit hole and could not be reached (obviously the
field was of less than first class standard) and the batsmen kept
running while the fielders fetched a spade and dug it out. These
days the fielding side can shout "Lost ball!" and the batting side
are credited with six runs or however many they have actually run,
whichever is greater. I'm not sure when that law was introduced.
In the supposed 1894 game in Perth, it is said that the fielding side
did call "lost ball", but the umpire ruled that the ball was not lost
because it was clearly visible up in a tree.
Of course the story could be different in different versions. The
fact that Perth newspapers didn't report it until after the story
arrived from England has to be treated as suspicious.
Now I'm wondering: how can a ball become lost on a modern cricket field?
It bounces into the spectator area where a souvenir hunter pockets it
without anybody else seeing. As fara s the players are concerned,
it's lost.
If it gets as far as the spectator area then it has passed the boundary
of the field, and there are well-defined rules for that. The score is
either 4 or 6, depending on where it bounced, and it's a case where the
two players at bat do not run. The "lost ball" call is for when the
players are running and the fielders can't find the ball because it's
lost somewhere _inside_ the boundary.
Sorry, I've just realised that you were making a different point. If the
players don't know whether it has crossed the boundary, then it's a lost
ball.
Although it seems unlikely that anyone would fail to notice a bounce into
the stands.
I don't watch much cricket, one 1st Class match a year, and on the local
ground the boundary is simply a piece of white rope. It would be quite
easy for a spectaor to make off with a ball.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
Richard Bollard
2017-04-11 05:33:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by charles
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by charles
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by GordonD
I'm sure I once saw something about a cricket match where the ball
went down a rabbit hole and could not be reached (obviously the
field was of less than first class standard) and the batsmen kept
running while the fielders fetched a spade and dug it out. These
days the fielding side can shout "Lost ball!" and the batting side
are credited with six runs or however many they have actually run,
whichever is greater. I'm not sure when that law was introduced.
In the supposed 1894 game in Perth, it is said that the fielding side
did call "lost ball", but the umpire ruled that the ball was not lost
because it was clearly visible up in a tree.
Of course the story could be different in different versions. The
fact that Perth newspapers didn't report it until after the story
arrived from England has to be treated as suspicious.
Now I'm wondering: how can a ball become lost on a modern cricket field?
It bounces into the spectator area where a souvenir hunter pockets it
without anybody else seeing. As fara s the players are concerned,
it's lost.
If it gets as far as the spectator area then it has passed the boundary
of the field, and there are well-defined rules for that. The score is
either 4 or 6, depending on where it bounced, and it's a case where the
two players at bat do not run. The "lost ball" call is for when the
players are running and the fielders can't find the ball because it's
lost somewhere _inside_ the boundary.
Sorry, I've just realised that you were making a different point. If the
players don't know whether it has crossed the boundary, then it's a lost
ball.
Although it seems unlikely that anyone would fail to notice a bounce into
the stands.
I don't watch much cricket, one 1st Class match a year, and on the local
ground the boundary is simply a piece of white rope. It would be quite
easy for a spectaor to make off with a ball.
Were that to happen, in most forms of cricket a substitute ball would
be used. Kids playing in a paddock are not likely to enforce the laws
of the game. They would tend to agree on what rules of play to use
before starting. "No LBW" is common.
--
Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia

To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.
Jerry Friedman
2017-04-10 14:18:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by charles
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by GordonD
I'm sure I once saw something about a cricket match where the ball went
down a rabbit hole and could not be reached (obviously the field was of
less than first class standard) and the batsmen kept running while the
fielders fetched a spade and dug it out. These days the fielding side
can shout "Lost ball!" and the batting side are credited with six runs
or however many they have actually run, whichever is greater. I'm not
sure when that law was introduced.
In the supposed 1894 game in Perth, it is said that the fielding side
did call "lost ball", but the umpire ruled that the ball was not lost
because it was clearly visible up in a tree.
Of course the story could be different in different versions. The fact
that Perth newspapers didn't report it until after the story arrived
from England has to be treated as suspicious.
Now I'm wondering: how can a ball become lost on a modern cricket field?
It bounces into the spectator area where a souvenir hunter pockets it
without anybody else seeing. As fara s the players are concerned, it's
lost.
How very different from baseball, where the slight chance of catching a
ball is an attraction of being a spectator and a chance to show one's
selfishness or generosity to a TV audience.
--
Jerry Friedman
Mark Brader
2017-04-10 18:33:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
How very different from baseball, where the slight chance of catching a
ball is an attraction of being a spectator and a chance to show one's
selfishness or generosity to a TV audience.
An interesting special case here is that of the San Francisco Giants'
home stadium, where a gap in the stands allows a ball hit in a certain
direction to splash down in San Francisco Bay. I don't know if it
happens at regular games, but when the Giants were in the World Series
not so long ago, two or three people had stationed themselves in that
area in small boats.

In a history of the NHL that I no longer have a copy of, I remember
reading something to the effect that sometime around 1930 "was when
fans started to keep pucks that went into the crowd. Until then,
only two or three pucks had been provided for each game."

What happens in basketball or American football?
--
Mark Brader | "Nitwit ideas are for emergencies. The rest of the
Toronto | time you go by the Book, which is mostly a collection
***@vex.net | of nitwit ideas that worked." -- Niven & Pournelle

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Tony Cooper
2017-04-10 19:15:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Jerry Friedman
How very different from baseball, where the slight chance of catching a
ball is an attraction of being a spectator and a chance to show one's
selfishness or generosity to a TV audience.
An interesting special case here is that of the San Francisco Giants'
home stadium, where a gap in the stands allows a ball hit in a certain
direction to splash down in San Francisco Bay. I don't know if it
happens at regular games, but when the Giants were in the World Series
not so long ago, two or three people had stationed themselves in that
area in small boats.
In a history of the NHL that I no longer have a copy of, I remember
reading something to the effect that sometime around 1930 "was when
fans started to keep pucks that went into the crowd. Until then,
only two or three pucks had been provided for each game."
What happens in basketball or American football?
In the NFL, a player (deliberately) throwing or kicking the football
into the stands may be fined by the league. Steeler LeGarrette Blount
was fined $5,512 for doing so in 2014. However, a player may hand a
football to a fan and not be fined. Cam Newton often does this.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Mark Brader
2017-04-10 19:28:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
What happens in basketball or American football?
In the NFL, a player (deliberately) throwing or kicking the football
into the stands may be fined by the league...
Interesting, but I was thinking of it going there accidentally --
for example, on a kick that's very badly aimed or caught by a sudden
crosswind.
--
Mark Brader That would be the opposite of "non idiotic",
Toronto assuming there's some good word for that.
***@vex.net --Ken Jennings
Charles Bishop
2017-04-11 01:08:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Jerry Friedman
How very different from baseball, where the slight chance of catching a
ball is an attraction of being a spectator and a chance to show one's
selfishness or generosity to a TV audience.
An interesting special case here is that of the San Francisco Giants'
home stadium, where a gap in the stands allows a ball hit in a certain
direction to splash down in San Francisco Bay. I don't know if it
happens at regular games, but when the Giants were in the World Series
not so long ago, two or three people had stationed themselves in that
area in small boats.
There are usually more than 2 or 3 people for games of little
importance, For the World Series, I'd think you could walk from one to
another and cross the bay.

I've seen perhaps ~20 boats, kayaks, paddle boards, and the like for a
regular game.
Post by Mark Brader
In a history of the NHL that I no longer have a copy of, I remember
reading something to the effect that sometime around 1930 "was when
fans started to keep pucks that went into the crowd. Until then,
only two or three pucks had been provided for each game."
What happens in basketball or American football?
I don't know about basketball but I don't think it's anything special if
a ball goes into the seats.

In football, it's mostly the same - a football is unlikely to end up in
the stands by accident. However, after a TD, the player with the ball
(run in or pass caught) will sometimes toss the ball to people in the
end zone.
--
charles
Tony Cooper
2017-04-11 02:09:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 18:08:11 -0700, Charles Bishop
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Jerry Friedman
How very different from baseball, where the slight chance of catching a
ball is an attraction of being a spectator and a chance to show one's
selfishness or generosity to a TV audience.
An interesting special case here is that of the San Francisco Giants'
home stadium, where a gap in the stands allows a ball hit in a certain
direction to splash down in San Francisco Bay. I don't know if it
happens at regular games, but when the Giants were in the World Series
not so long ago, two or three people had stationed themselves in that
area in small boats.
There are usually more than 2 or 3 people for games of little
importance, For the World Series, I'd think you could walk from one to
another and cross the bay.
I've seen perhaps ~20 boats, kayaks, paddle boards, and the like for a
regular game.
Post by Mark Brader
In a history of the NHL that I no longer have a copy of, I remember
reading something to the effect that sometime around 1930 "was when
fans started to keep pucks that went into the crowd. Until then,
only two or three pucks had been provided for each game."
What happens in basketball or American football?
I don't know about basketball but I don't think it's anything special if
a ball goes into the seats.
In football, it's mostly the same - a football is unlikely to end up in
the stands by accident. However, after a TD, the player with the ball
(run in or pass caught) will sometimes toss the ball to people in the
end zone.
The times I've seen a basketball go into the stands, if the fan
doesn't immediately return it to play the ushers encourage them to do
so. Strongly.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Adam Funk
2017-04-11 12:28:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Jerry Friedman
How very different from baseball, where the slight chance of catching a
ball is an attraction of being a spectator and a chance to show one's
selfishness or generosity to a TV audience.
An interesting special case here is that of the San Francisco Giants'
home stadium, where a gap in the stands allows a ball hit in a certain
direction to splash down in San Francisco Bay. I don't know if it
happens at regular games, but when the Giants were in the World Series
not so long ago, two or three people had stationed themselves in that
area in small boats.
In a history of the NHL that I no longer have a copy of, I remember
reading something to the effect that sometime around 1930 "was when
fans started to keep pucks that went into the crowd. Until then,
only two or three pucks had been provided for each game."
I'd expect pucks going into the crowd to be fairly dangerous.
--
There’s never enough time to do all the nothing you want.
--- Calvin
bill van
2017-04-11 16:23:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Jerry Friedman
How very different from baseball, where the slight chance of catching a
ball is an attraction of being a spectator and a chance to show one's
selfishness or generosity to a TV audience.
An interesting special case here is that of the San Francisco Giants'
home stadium, where a gap in the stands allows a ball hit in a certain
direction to splash down in San Francisco Bay. I don't know if it
happens at regular games, but when the Giants were in the World Series
not so long ago, two or three people had stationed themselves in that
area in small boats.
In a history of the NHL that I no longer have a copy of, I remember
reading something to the effect that sometime around 1930 "was when
fans started to keep pucks that went into the crowd. Until then,
only two or three pucks had been provided for each game."
I'd expect pucks going into the crowd to be fairly dangerous.
Yes, but for the past decade or so, the areas behind the goals have had
netting installed on top of the plastic barriers to block pucks that
miss the goal. I don't know about minor hockey, but in the NHL,
spectator injuries are rare.
--
bill
Tony Cooper
2017-04-11 16:48:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bill van
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Jerry Friedman
How very different from baseball, where the slight chance of catching a
ball is an attraction of being a spectator and a chance to show one's
selfishness or generosity to a TV audience.
An interesting special case here is that of the San Francisco Giants'
home stadium, where a gap in the stands allows a ball hit in a certain
direction to splash down in San Francisco Bay. I don't know if it
happens at regular games, but when the Giants were in the World Series
not so long ago, two or three people had stationed themselves in that
area in small boats.
In a history of the NHL that I no longer have a copy of, I remember
reading something to the effect that sometime around 1930 "was when
fans started to keep pucks that went into the crowd. Until then,
only two or three pucks had been provided for each game."
I'd expect pucks going into the crowd to be fairly dangerous.
Yes, but for the past decade or so, the areas behind the goals have had
netting installed on top of the plastic barriers to block pucks that
miss the goal. I don't know about minor hockey, but in the NHL,
spectator injuries are rare.
Years ago I took my teenage son with me on a business trip to NYC. We
went to a hockey game at Madison Square Garden. First hockey game
either of us had attended.

My son got bored watching the action on the ice because we didn't know
what the rules were, so he spent the rest of the game wandering around
the arena watching the fans. He saw three fights and two men removed
on stretchers by EMTs. One woman escorted out by the ushers.

The hockey players were continually bumping and pummeling each other,
but the injuries were in the seats and not on the ice.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
bill van
2017-04-11 17:48:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by bill van
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Jerry Friedman
How very different from baseball, where the slight chance of catching a
ball is an attraction of being a spectator and a chance to show one's
selfishness or generosity to a TV audience.
An interesting special case here is that of the San Francisco Giants'
home stadium, where a gap in the stands allows a ball hit in a certain
direction to splash down in San Francisco Bay. I don't know if it
happens at regular games, but when the Giants were in the World Series
not so long ago, two or three people had stationed themselves in that
area in small boats.
In a history of the NHL that I no longer have a copy of, I remember
reading something to the effect that sometime around 1930 "was when
fans started to keep pucks that went into the crowd. Until then,
only two or three pucks had been provided for each game."
I'd expect pucks going into the crowd to be fairly dangerous.
Yes, but for the past decade or so, the areas behind the goals have had
netting installed on top of the plastic barriers to block pucks that
miss the goal. I don't know about minor hockey, but in the NHL,
spectator injuries are rare.
Years ago I took my teenage son with me on a business trip to NYC. We
went to a hockey game at Madison Square Garden. First hockey game
either of us had attended.
My son got bored watching the action on the ice because we didn't know
what the rules were, so he spent the rest of the game wandering around
the arena watching the fans. He saw three fights and two men removed
on stretchers by EMTs. One woman escorted out by the ushers.
The hockey players were continually bumping and pummeling each other,
but the injuries were in the seats and not on the ice.
I've been to perhaps a dozen NHL games in Toronto and Vancouver over the
years and never saw mayhem in the stands. That may be something about
New York and MSG. On the ice, hockey continues to be a tough game,
though on-ice fighting has been reduced by at least 80 per cent in the
past decade or so.

Vancouver did experience a couple of riots after playoff hockey games,
but I can talk at great length about how city authorities invited young
people from the entire region to flood into downtown Vancouver and get
drunk while watching the games in sports bars, and how the police were
completely unprepared to deal with the inevitable result. Both riots
could have been quelled while they were still minor disturbances.
--
bill
Cheryl
2017-04-11 18:10:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bill van
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by bill van
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Jerry Friedman
How very different from baseball, where the slight chance of catching a
ball is an attraction of being a spectator and a chance to show one's
selfishness or generosity to a TV audience.
An interesting special case here is that of the San Francisco Giants'
home stadium, where a gap in the stands allows a ball hit in a certain
direction to splash down in San Francisco Bay. I don't know if it
happens at regular games, but when the Giants were in the World Series
not so long ago, two or three people had stationed themselves in that
area in small boats.
In a history of the NHL that I no longer have a copy of, I remember
reading something to the effect that sometime around 1930 "was when
fans started to keep pucks that went into the crowd. Until then,
only two or three pucks had been provided for each game."
I'd expect pucks going into the crowd to be fairly dangerous.
Yes, but for the past decade or so, the areas behind the goals have had
netting installed on top of the plastic barriers to block pucks that
miss the goal. I don't know about minor hockey, but in the NHL,
spectator injuries are rare.
Years ago I took my teenage son with me on a business trip to NYC. We
went to a hockey game at Madison Square Garden. First hockey game
either of us had attended.
My son got bored watching the action on the ice because we didn't know
what the rules were, so he spent the rest of the game wandering around
the arena watching the fans. He saw three fights and two men removed
on stretchers by EMTs. One woman escorted out by the ushers.
The hockey players were continually bumping and pummeling each other,
but the injuries were in the seats and not on the ice.
I've been to perhaps a dozen NHL games in Toronto and Vancouver over the
years and never saw mayhem in the stands. That may be something about
New York and MSG. On the ice, hockey continues to be a tough game,
though on-ice fighting has been reduced by at least 80 per cent in the
past decade or so.
Vancouver did experience a couple of riots after playoff hockey games,
but I can talk at great length about how city authorities invited young
people from the entire region to flood into downtown Vancouver and get
drunk while watching the games in sports bars, and how the police were
completely unprepared to deal with the inevitable result. Both riots
could have been quelled while they were still minor disturbances.
The only hockey games I have ever attended were amateur ones when I was
a child. Sort of amateur. Some people were said to have been given jobs
by local businesses on the basis of their hockey skills. They then moved
into the town concerned and, being residents, could join the local team.
I mostly enjoyed them, but don't remember any fights; certainly not
among the fans. One fan died, but from a heart attack, not a fight.

I was once in Montreal during hockey season and stayed in a hotel room
high above what I think is now called the Bell Centre. I didn't attend
any games, but noticed an increase in the police presence below that
caught my attention enough that I watched for a while and realized that
people started pouring out of the centre, and almost immediately
afterwards, the police disappeared.

Montreal has had some famous (or infamous) hockey riots.
--
Cheryl
Snidely
2017-04-13 06:42:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Years ago I took my teenage son with me on a business trip to NYC. We
went to a hockey game at Madison Square Garden. First hockey game
either of us had attended.
My son got bored watching the action on the ice because we didn't know
what the rules were,
Ah, I had a headstart on the rules though the magic of Distance
Viewing. I remember as a yewt decorating the Yule Kindling while the
TV set showed Portland Buckaroo Hockey! (I didn't learn about icing at
that time, but after the Mighty Ducks started chillin' in Anaheim,
there was plenty of explication offered.)

/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.)
Peter T. Daniels
2017-04-13 13:19:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
Post by Tony Cooper
Years ago I took my teenage son with me on a business trip to NYC. We
went to a hockey game at Madison Square Garden. First hockey game
either of us had attended.
My son got bored watching the action on the ice because we didn't know
what the rules were,
Ah, I had a headstart on the rules though the magic of Distance
Viewing. I remember as a yewt decorating the Yule Kindling while the
TV set showed Portland Buckaroo Hockey! (I didn't learn about icing at
that time, but after the Mighty Ducks started chillin' in Anaheim,
there was plenty of explication offered.)
I watched the Miracle on Ice at the 1980 Winter Olympics, so the next week I tried
a Chicago Blackhawks game (they had a great slogan, "Cold Steel on Ice"): a totally
different game and far less interesting.
Adam Funk
2017-04-11 12:30:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by charles
Post by Peter Moylan
Now I'm wondering: how can a ball become lost on a modern cricket field?
It bounces into the spectator area where a souvenir hunter pockets it
without anybody else seeing. As fara s the players are concerned, it's
lost.
How very different from baseball, where the slight chance of catching a
ball is an attraction of being a spectator and a chance to show one's
selfishness or generosity to a TV audience.
Do spectators ever throw them back at pro games? When I saw the
Nationals last summer, players would occasionally throw slightly used
balls out to the crowd --- I figured this was because the goodwill
generated was worth the cost of a few balls (especially in comparison
with the ticket revenue).
--
With the breakdown of the medieval system, the gods of chaos, lunacy,
and bad taste gained ascendancy. --- Ignatius J Reilly
Peter T. Daniels
2017-04-11 14:16:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by charles
Post by Peter Moylan
Now I'm wondering: how can a ball become lost on a modern cricket field?
It bounces into the spectator area where a souvenir hunter pockets it
without anybody else seeing. As fara s the players are concerned, it's
lost.
How very different from baseball, where the slight chance of catching a
ball is an attraction of being a spectator and a chance to show one's
selfishness or generosity to a TV audience.
Do spectators ever throw them back at pro games? When I saw the
Nationals last summer, players would occasionally throw slightly used
balls out to the crowd --- I figured this was because the goodwill
generated was worth the cost of a few balls (especially in comparison
with the ticket revenue).
You can't keep "slightly used" balls in play. The umpire will check out every
ball caught by the catcher to see whether it's been damaged in any way -- the
slightest nick affects its aerodynamic performance.

He's also checking for "foreign substances" -- the spitball was outlawed
decades ago, but methods have been devised for adulterating a ball with e.g.
hair gel surreptitiously, "accidentally," transferred to the ball.

At Wrigley Field, homers hit into the stands by opposing teams were routinely
rejected and thrown back by Cubs fans. I suppose it was ok to keep foul balls,
because those didn't contribute to scoring.
Adam Funk
2017-04-12 09:06:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by charles
Post by Peter Moylan
Now I'm wondering: how can a ball become lost on a modern cricket field?
It bounces into the spectator area where a souvenir hunter pockets it
without anybody else seeing. As fara s the players are concerned, it's
lost.
How very different from baseball, where the slight chance of catching a
ball is an attraction of being a spectator and a chance to show one's
selfishness or generosity to a TV audience.
Do spectators ever throw them back at pro games? When I saw the
Nationals last summer, players would occasionally throw slightly used
balls out to the crowd --- I figured this was because the goodwill
generated was worth the cost of a few balls (especially in comparison
with the ticket revenue).
You can't keep "slightly used" balls in play. The umpire will check out every
ball caught by the catcher to see whether it's been damaged in any way -- the
slightest nick affects its aerodynamic performance.
He's also checking for "foreign substances" -- the spitball was outlawed
decades ago, but methods have been devised for adulterating a ball with e.g.
hair gel surreptitiously, "accidentally," transferred to the ball.
By "slightly used" I meant balls that have been in play but not
rejected as worn or damaged by the umpire. I've read somewhere that
it used to be part of the fielders' job to get the ball as dirty &
irregular as possible, until a batter got killed by a ball he couldn't
see sometime in early C.20 --- then the rules were changed to keep the
ball regular & clean.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
At Wrigley Field, homers hit into the stands by opposing teams were routinely
rejected and thrown back by Cubs fans. I suppose it was ok to keep foul balls,
because those didn't contribute to scoring.
OK.
--
A Discordian is Prohibited of Believing What he Reads.
_Principia Discordia_
Tony Cooper
2017-04-12 19:49:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by charles
Post by Peter Moylan
Now I'm wondering: how can a ball become lost on a modern cricket field?
It bounces into the spectator area where a souvenir hunter pockets it
without anybody else seeing. As fara s the players are concerned, it's
lost.
How very different from baseball, where the slight chance of catching a
ball is an attraction of being a spectator and a chance to show one's
selfishness or generosity to a TV audience.
Do spectators ever throw them back at pro games? When I saw the
Nationals last summer, players would occasionally throw slightly used
balls out to the crowd --- I figured this was because the goodwill
generated was worth the cost of a few balls (especially in comparison
with the ticket revenue).
You can't keep "slightly used" balls in play. The umpire will check out every
ball caught by the catcher to see whether it's been damaged in any way -- the
slightest nick affects its aerodynamic performance.
He's also checking for "foreign substances" -- the spitball was outlawed
decades ago, but methods have been devised for adulterating a ball with e.g.
hair gel surreptitiously, "accidentally," transferred to the ball.
By "slightly used" I meant balls that have been in play but not
rejected as worn or damaged by the umpire. I've read somewhere that
it used to be part of the fielders' job to get the ball as dirty &
irregular as possible, until a batter got killed by a ball he couldn't
see sometime in early C.20 --- then the rules were changed to keep the
ball regular & clean.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
At Wrigley Field, homers hit into the stands by opposing teams were routinely
rejected and thrown back by Cubs fans. I suppose it was ok to keep foul balls,
because those didn't contribute to scoring.
OK.
According to one source, 65 baseballs are used in an average Major
League baseball game. Some are
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Tony Cooper
2017-04-12 20:51:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:49:46 -0400, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by charles
Post by Peter Moylan
Now I'm wondering: how can a ball become lost on a modern cricket field?
It bounces into the spectator area where a souvenir hunter pockets it
without anybody else seeing. As fara s the players are concerned, it's
lost.
How very different from baseball, where the slight chance of catching a
ball is an attraction of being a spectator and a chance to show one's
selfishness or generosity to a TV audience.
Do spectators ever throw them back at pro games? When I saw the
Nationals last summer, players would occasionally throw slightly used
balls out to the crowd --- I figured this was because the goodwill
generated was worth the cost of a few balls (especially in comparison
with the ticket revenue).
You can't keep "slightly used" balls in play. The umpire will check out every
ball caught by the catcher to see whether it's been damaged in any way -- the
slightest nick affects its aerodynamic performance.
He's also checking for "foreign substances" -- the spitball was outlawed
decades ago, but methods have been devised for adulterating a ball with e.g.
hair gel surreptitiously, "accidentally," transferred to the ball.
By "slightly used" I meant balls that have been in play but not
rejected as worn or damaged by the umpire. I've read somewhere that
it used to be part of the fielders' job to get the ball as dirty &
irregular as possible, until a batter got killed by a ball he couldn't
see sometime in early C.20 --- then the rules were changed to keep the
ball regular & clean.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
At Wrigley Field, homers hit into the stands by opposing teams were routinely
rejected and thrown back by Cubs fans. I suppose it was ok to keep foul balls,
because those didn't contribute to scoring.
OK.
According to one source, 65 baseballs are used in an average Major
League baseball game. Some are
(sent before completion)

Some are brought in because a foul is hit to the stands, but the home
plate umpire will retire and replace a foul tip even if it is
retrievable. An umpire can call for a ball's removal and replacement
at any time, and will do so if he thinks the ball has been affected in
such a way that will affect the flight of the ball when pitched or
batted. It's not unusual to see the home plate umpire to ask the
catcher for a ball that has been pitched so the umpire can inspect it.

Some players, especially outfielders after making a dramatic catch of
a fly ball, will toss the ball to kids in the stands. Cheap goodwill.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
bill van
2017-04-13 01:47:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:49:46 -0400, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by charles
Post by Peter Moylan
Now I'm wondering: how can a ball become lost on a modern cricket field?
It bounces into the spectator area where a souvenir hunter pockets it
without anybody else seeing. As fara s the players are concerned, it's
lost.
How very different from baseball, where the slight chance of catching a
ball is an attraction of being a spectator and a chance to show one's
selfishness or generosity to a TV audience.
Do spectators ever throw them back at pro games? When I saw the
Nationals last summer, players would occasionally throw slightly used
balls out to the crowd --- I figured this was because the goodwill
generated was worth the cost of a few balls (especially in comparison
with the ticket revenue).
You can't keep "slightly used" balls in play. The umpire will check out every
ball caught by the catcher to see whether it's been damaged in any way -- the
slightest nick affects its aerodynamic performance.
He's also checking for "foreign substances" -- the spitball was outlawed
decades ago, but methods have been devised for adulterating a ball with e.g.
hair gel surreptitiously, "accidentally," transferred to the ball.
By "slightly used" I meant balls that have been in play but not
rejected as worn or damaged by the umpire. I've read somewhere that
it used to be part of the fielders' job to get the ball as dirty &
irregular as possible, until a batter got killed by a ball he couldn't
see sometime in early C.20 --- then the rules were changed to keep the
ball regular & clean.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
At Wrigley Field, homers hit into the stands by opposing teams were routinely
rejected and thrown back by Cubs fans. I suppose it was ok to keep foul balls,
because those didn't contribute to scoring.
OK.
According to one source, 65 baseballs are used in an average Major
League baseball game. Some are
(sent before completion)
Some are brought in because a foul is hit to the stands, but the home
plate umpire will retire and replace a foul tip even if it is
retrievable. An umpire can call for a ball's removal and replacement
at any time, and will do so if he thinks the ball has been affected in
such a way that will affect the flight of the ball when pitched or
batted. It's not unusual to see the home plate umpire to ask the
catcher for a ball that has been pitched so the umpire can inspect it.
Some players, especially outfielders after making a dramatic catch of
a fly ball, will toss the ball to kids in the stands. Cheap goodwill.
I've seen that stat, but 65 balls in a whole game seems too few. There
are at least 54 batters in each game (with the odd exception) and if you
add batters who score and those who are left on base, you get 80 to 90
at-bats in most games. One-pitch at bats are rare; most take four or
five pitches and some 10 or more. I've seen one at-bat take half a dozen
or more balls; they are changed at the drop of a hat.

This site:

<http://mybaseballfantasy.blogspot.ca/2010/11/mlb-trivia-how-many-basebal
ls-in.html>

uses real-game numbers to come up with an average of 120 balls per major
league baseball game, and that makes a lot more sense to me.
--
bill
Peter T. Daniels
2017-04-13 03:31:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bill van
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:49:46 -0400, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by charles
Post by Peter Moylan
Now I'm wondering: how can a ball become lost on a modern cricket
field?
It bounces into the spectator area where a souvenir hunter pockets it
without anybody else seeing. As fara s the players are concerned, it's
lost.
How very different from baseball, where the slight chance of catching a
ball is an attraction of being a spectator and a chance to show one's
selfishness or generosity to a TV audience.
Do spectators ever throw them back at pro games? When I saw the
Nationals last summer, players would occasionally throw slightly used
balls out to the crowd --- I figured this was because the goodwill
generated was worth the cost of a few balls (especially in comparison
with the ticket revenue).
You can't keep "slightly used" balls in play. The umpire will check out every
ball caught by the catcher to see whether it's been damaged in any way -- the
slightest nick affects its aerodynamic performance.
He's also checking for "foreign substances" -- the spitball was outlawed
decades ago, but methods have been devised for adulterating a ball with e.g.
hair gel surreptitiously, "accidentally," transferred to the ball.
By "slightly used" I meant balls that have been in play but not
rejected as worn or damaged by the umpire. I've read somewhere that
it used to be part of the fielders' job to get the ball as dirty &
irregular as possible, until a batter got killed by a ball he couldn't
see sometime in early C.20 --- then the rules were changed to keep the
ball regular & clean.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
At Wrigley Field, homers hit into the stands by opposing teams were routinely
rejected and thrown back by Cubs fans. I suppose it was ok to keep foul balls,
because those didn't contribute to scoring.
OK.
According to one source, 65 baseballs are used in an average Major
League baseball game. Some are
(sent before completion)
Some are brought in because a foul is hit to the stands, but the home
plate umpire will retire and replace a foul tip even if it is
retrievable. An umpire can call for a ball's removal and replacement
at any time, and will do so if he thinks the ball has been affected in
such a way that will affect the flight of the ball when pitched or
batted. It's not unusual to see the home plate umpire to ask the
catcher for a ball that has been pitched so the umpire can inspect it.
Some players, especially outfielders after making a dramatic catch of
a fly ball, will toss the ball to kids in the stands. Cheap goodwill.
I've seen that stat, but 65 balls in a whole game seems too few. There
are at least 54 batters in each game (with the odd exception) and if you
add batters who score and those who are left on base, you get 80 to 90
at-bats in most games. One-pitch at bats are rare; most take four or
five pitches and some 10 or more. I've seen one at-bat take half a dozen
or more balls; they are changed at the drop of a hat.
Foul balls would almost never be returned to play. That 10-pitch inning involves
at least 4 fouls (allowing for 4 balls [a walk] and 2 swing-and-a-miss or
called strikes).
Post by bill van
<http://mybaseballfantasy.blogspot.ca/2010/11/mlb-trivia-how-many-basebal
ls-in.html>
uses real-game numbers to come up with an average of 120 balls per major
league baseball game, and that makes a lot more sense to me.
--
bill
bill van
2017-04-13 03:41:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by bill van
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:49:46 -0400, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by charles
Post by Peter Moylan
Now I'm wondering: how can a ball become lost on a modern cricket
field?
It bounces into the spectator area where a souvenir hunter
pockets it
without anybody else seeing. As fara s the players are
concerned,
it's
lost.
How very different from baseball, where the slight chance of
catching
a
ball is an attraction of being a spectator and a chance to show one's
selfishness or generosity to a TV audience.
Do spectators ever throw them back at pro games? When I saw the
Nationals last summer, players would occasionally throw slightly used
balls out to the crowd --- I figured this was because the goodwill
generated was worth the cost of a few balls (especially in comparison
with the ticket revenue).
You can't keep "slightly used" balls in play. The umpire will check
out
every
ball caught by the catcher to see whether it's been damaged in any
way --
the
slightest nick affects its aerodynamic performance.
He's also checking for "foreign substances" -- the spitball was outlawed
decades ago, but methods have been devised for adulterating a ball
with
e.g.
hair gel surreptitiously, "accidentally," transferred to the ball.
By "slightly used" I meant balls that have been in play but not
rejected as worn or damaged by the umpire. I've read somewhere that
it used to be part of the fielders' job to get the ball as dirty &
irregular as possible, until a batter got killed by a ball he couldn't
see sometime in early C.20 --- then the rules were changed to keep the
ball regular & clean.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
At Wrigley Field, homers hit into the stands by opposing teams were
routinely
rejected and thrown back by Cubs fans. I suppose it was ok to keep
foul
balls,
because those didn't contribute to scoring.
OK.
According to one source, 65 baseballs are used in an average Major
League baseball game. Some are
(sent before completion)
Some are brought in because a foul is hit to the stands, but the home
plate umpire will retire and replace a foul tip even if it is
retrievable. An umpire can call for a ball's removal and replacement
at any time, and will do so if he thinks the ball has been affected in
such a way that will affect the flight of the ball when pitched or
batted. It's not unusual to see the home plate umpire to ask the
catcher for a ball that has been pitched so the umpire can inspect it.
Some players, especially outfielders after making a dramatic catch of
a fly ball, will toss the ball to kids in the stands. Cheap goodwill.
I've seen that stat, but 65 balls in a whole game seems too few. There
are at least 54 batters in each game (with the odd exception) and if you
add batters who score and those who are left on base, you get 80 to 90
at-bats in most games. One-pitch at bats are rare; most take four or
five pitches and some 10 or more. I've seen one at-bat take half a dozen
or more balls; they are changed at the drop of a hat.
Foul balls would almost never be returned to play. That 10-pitch inning involves
at least 4 fouls (allowing for 4 balls [a walk] and 2 swing-and-a-miss or
called strikes).
That's right. Any ball that has been hit with the bat comes out of the
game. Any ball that hits the dirt at home plate comes out. And any ball
that the pitcher, the catcher, and sometimes the batter thinks is not
moving right comes out of the game. The umpire makes the decision but
I've never seen one refuse to replace a ball when asked.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by bill van
<http://mybaseballfantasy.blogspot.ca/2010/11/mlb-trivia-how-many-basebal
ls-in.html>
uses real-game numbers to come up with an average of 120 balls per major
league baseball game, and that makes a lot more sense to me.
--
bill
--
bill
Tony Cooper
2017-04-13 05:04:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bill van
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by bill van
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:49:46 -0400, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by charles
Post by Peter Moylan
Now I'm wondering: how can a ball become lost on a modern
cricket
field?
It bounces into the spectator area where a souvenir hunter
pockets it
without anybody else seeing. As fara s the players are
concerned,
it's
lost.
How very different from baseball, where the slight chance of
catching
a
ball is an attraction of being a spectator and a chance to show
one's
selfishness or generosity to a TV audience.
Do spectators ever throw them back at pro games? When I saw the
Nationals last summer, players would occasionally throw slightly used
balls out to the crowd --- I figured this was because the goodwill
generated was worth the cost of a few balls (especially in comparison
with the ticket revenue).
You can't keep "slightly used" balls in play. The umpire will check
out
every
ball caught by the catcher to see whether it's been damaged in any
way --
the
slightest nick affects its aerodynamic performance.
He's also checking for "foreign substances" -- the spitball was outlawed
decades ago, but methods have been devised for adulterating a ball
with
e.g.
hair gel surreptitiously, "accidentally," transferred to the ball.
By "slightly used" I meant balls that have been in play but not
rejected as worn or damaged by the umpire. I've read somewhere that
it used to be part of the fielders' job to get the ball as dirty &
irregular as possible, until a batter got killed by a ball he couldn't
see sometime in early C.20 --- then the rules were changed to keep the
ball regular & clean.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
At Wrigley Field, homers hit into the stands by opposing teams were
routinely
rejected and thrown back by Cubs fans. I suppose it was ok to keep
foul
balls,
because those didn't contribute to scoring.
OK.
According to one source, 65 baseballs are used in an average Major
League baseball game. Some are
(sent before completion)
Some are brought in because a foul is hit to the stands, but the home
plate umpire will retire and replace a foul tip even if it is
retrievable. An umpire can call for a ball's removal and replacement
at any time, and will do so if he thinks the ball has been affected in
such a way that will affect the flight of the ball when pitched or
batted. It's not unusual to see the home plate umpire to ask the
catcher for a ball that has been pitched so the umpire can inspect it.
Some players, especially outfielders after making a dramatic catch of
a fly ball, will toss the ball to kids in the stands. Cheap goodwill.
I've seen that stat, but 65 balls in a whole game seems too few. There
are at least 54 batters in each game (with the odd exception) and if you
add batters who score and those who are left on base, you get 80 to 90
at-bats in most games. One-pitch at bats are rare; most take four or
five pitches and some 10 or more. I've seen one at-bat take half a dozen
or more balls; they are changed at the drop of a hat.
Foul balls would almost never be returned to play. That 10-pitch inning involves
at least 4 fouls (allowing for 4 balls [a walk] and 2 swing-and-a-miss or
called strikes).
That's right. Any ball that has been hit with the bat comes out of the
game. Any ball that hits the dirt at home plate comes out. And any ball
that the pitcher, the catcher, and sometimes the batter thinks is not
moving right comes out of the game. The umpire makes the decision but
I've never seen one refuse to replace a ball when asked.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by bill van
<http://mybaseballfantasy.blogspot.ca/2010/11/mlb-trivia-how-many-baseballs-in.html>
uses real-game numbers to come up with an average of 120 balls per major
league baseball game, and that makes a lot more sense to me.
--
bill
My figure of 65 came from:
https://www.quora.com/How-many-baseballs-are-used-in-an-MLB-season

Evidently, the averaging of the number of balls used in a MLB game is
a very inexact science. This site says 48:

https://www.quora.com/How-many-baseballs-are-used-over-the-course-of-an-MLB-game

This site says 72 and that the home team must have 90 new baseballs on
hand at the start of the game.

http://colormecurious.blogspot.com/2013/10/how-many-baseballs-get-used-in-game.html
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
bill van
2017-04-13 06:38:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by bill van
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by bill van
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:49:46 -0400, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by charles
Post by Peter Moylan
Now I'm wondering: how can a ball become lost on a modern
cricket
field?
It bounces into the spectator area where a souvenir hunter
pockets it
without anybody else seeing. As fara s the players are
concerned,
it's
lost.
How very different from baseball, where the slight chance of
catching
a
ball is an attraction of being a spectator and a chance to show
one's
selfishness or generosity to a TV audience.
Do spectators ever throw them back at pro games? When I saw the
Nationals last summer, players would occasionally throw slightly
used
balls out to the crowd --- I figured this was because the goodwill
generated was worth the cost of a few balls (especially in
comparison
with the ticket revenue).
You can't keep "slightly used" balls in play. The umpire will check
out
every
ball caught by the catcher to see whether it's been damaged in any
way --
the
slightest nick affects its aerodynamic performance.
He's also checking for "foreign substances" -- the spitball was
outlawed
decades ago, but methods have been devised for adulterating a ball
with
e.g.
hair gel surreptitiously, "accidentally," transferred to the ball.
By "slightly used" I meant balls that have been in play but not
rejected as worn or damaged by the umpire. I've read somewhere that
it used to be part of the fielders' job to get the ball as dirty &
irregular as possible, until a batter got killed by a ball he couldn't
see sometime in early C.20 --- then the rules were changed to keep the
ball regular & clean.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
At Wrigley Field, homers hit into the stands by opposing teams were
routinely
rejected and thrown back by Cubs fans. I suppose it was ok to keep
foul
balls,
because those didn't contribute to scoring.
OK.
According to one source, 65 baseballs are used in an average Major
League baseball game. Some are
(sent before completion)
Some are brought in because a foul is hit to the stands, but the home
plate umpire will retire and replace a foul tip even if it is
retrievable. An umpire can call for a ball's removal and replacement
at any time, and will do so if he thinks the ball has been affected in
such a way that will affect the flight of the ball when pitched or
batted. It's not unusual to see the home plate umpire to ask the
catcher for a ball that has been pitched so the umpire can inspect it.
Some players, especially outfielders after making a dramatic catch of
a fly ball, will toss the ball to kids in the stands. Cheap goodwill.
I've seen that stat, but 65 balls in a whole game seems too few. There
are at least 54 batters in each game (with the odd exception) and if you
add batters who score and those who are left on base, you get 80 to 90
at-bats in most games. One-pitch at bats are rare; most take four or
five pitches and some 10 or more. I've seen one at-bat take half a dozen
or more balls; they are changed at the drop of a hat.
Foul balls would almost never be returned to play. That 10-pitch inning involves
at least 4 fouls (allowing for 4 balls [a walk] and 2 swing-and-a-miss or
called strikes).
That's right. Any ball that has been hit with the bat comes out of the
game. Any ball that hits the dirt at home plate comes out. And any ball
that the pitcher, the catcher, and sometimes the batter thinks is not
moving right comes out of the game. The umpire makes the decision but
I've never seen one refuse to replace a ball when asked.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by bill van
<http://mybaseballfantasy.blogspot.ca/2010/11/mlb-trivia-how-many-basebal
ls-in.html>
uses real-game numbers to come up with an average of 120 balls per major
league baseball game, and that makes a lot more sense to me.
--
bill
https://www.quora.com/How-many-baseballs-are-used-in-an-MLB-season
Evidently, the averaging of the number of balls used in a MLB game is
https://www.quora.com/How-many-baseballs-are-used-over-the-course-of-an-MLB-ga
me
Yes, that was the first hit in the search I conducted. It's not
believable, based on my experience.
Post by Tony Cooper
This site says 72 and that the home team must have 90 new baseballs on
hand at the start of the game.
http://colormecurious.blogspot.com/2013/10/how-many-baseballs-get-used-in-game
.html
Sorry, none of that convinces me of anything. I'm a bit of a television
baseball addict. I watch a lot of games and I pay attention. I see how
frequently balls are replaced. I'm drawing on my own experience. The
number of balls used in an average game is roughly double the number of
your original cite. Try watching a game and keeping track.
--
bill
Tony Cooper
2017-04-13 17:03:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bill van
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by bill van
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by bill van
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:49:46 -0400, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by charles
Post by Peter Moylan
Now I'm wondering: how can a ball become lost on a modern
cricket
field?
It bounces into the spectator area where a souvenir hunter
pockets it
without anybody else seeing. As fara s the players are
concerned,
it's
lost.
How very different from baseball, where the slight chance of
catching
a
ball is an attraction of being a spectator and a chance to show
one's
selfishness or generosity to a TV audience.
Do spectators ever throw them back at pro games? When I saw the
Nationals last summer, players would occasionally throw slightly
used
balls out to the crowd --- I figured this was because the
goodwill
generated was worth the cost of a few balls (especially in
comparison
with the ticket revenue).
You can't keep "slightly used" balls in play. The umpire will check
out
every
ball caught by the catcher to see whether it's been damaged in any
way --
the
slightest nick affects its aerodynamic performance.
He's also checking for "foreign substances" -- the spitball was
outlawed
decades ago, but methods have been devised for adulterating a ball
with
e.g.
hair gel surreptitiously, "accidentally," transferred to the ball.
By "slightly used" I meant balls that have been in play but not
rejected as worn or damaged by the umpire. I've read somewhere that
it used to be part of the fielders' job to get the ball as dirty &
irregular as possible, until a batter got killed by a ball he couldn't
see sometime in early C.20 --- then the rules were changed to keep the
ball regular & clean.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
At Wrigley Field, homers hit into the stands by opposing teams were
routinely
rejected and thrown back by Cubs fans. I suppose it was ok to keep
foul
balls,
because those didn't contribute to scoring.
OK.
According to one source, 65 baseballs are used in an average Major
League baseball game. Some are
(sent before completion)
Some are brought in because a foul is hit to the stands, but the home
plate umpire will retire and replace a foul tip even if it is
retrievable. An umpire can call for a ball's removal and replacement
at any time, and will do so if he thinks the ball has been affected in
such a way that will affect the flight of the ball when pitched or
batted. It's not unusual to see the home plate umpire to ask the
catcher for a ball that has been pitched so the umpire can inspect it.
Some players, especially outfielders after making a dramatic catch of
a fly ball, will toss the ball to kids in the stands. Cheap goodwill.
I've seen that stat, but 65 balls in a whole game seems too few. There
are at least 54 batters in each game (with the odd exception) and if you
add batters who score and those who are left on base, you get 80 to 90
at-bats in most games. One-pitch at bats are rare; most take four or
five pitches and some 10 or more. I've seen one at-bat take half a dozen
or more balls; they are changed at the drop of a hat.
Foul balls would almost never be returned to play. That 10-pitch inning involves
at least 4 fouls (allowing for 4 balls [a walk] and 2 swing-and-a-miss or
called strikes).
That's right. Any ball that has been hit with the bat comes out of the
game. Any ball that hits the dirt at home plate comes out. And any ball
that the pitcher, the catcher, and sometimes the batter thinks is not
moving right comes out of the game. The umpire makes the decision but
I've never seen one refuse to replace a ball when asked.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by bill van
<http://mybaseballfantasy.blogspot.ca/2010/11/mlb-trivia-how-many-basebal
ls-in.html>
uses real-game numbers to come up with an average of 120 balls per major
league baseball game, and that makes a lot more sense to me.
--
bill
https://www.quora.com/How-many-baseballs-are-used-in-an-MLB-season
Evidently, the averaging of the number of balls used in a MLB game is
https://www.quora.com/How-many-baseballs-are-used-over-the-course-of-an-MLB-ga
me
Yes, that was the first hit in the search I conducted. It's not
believable, based on my experience.
Post by Tony Cooper
This site says 72 and that the home team must have 90 new baseballs on
hand at the start of the game.
http://colormecurious.blogspot.com/2013/10/how-many-baseballs-get-used-in-game
.html
Sorry, none of that convinces me of anything. I'm a bit of a television
baseball addict. I watch a lot of games and I pay attention. I see how
frequently balls are replaced. I'm drawing on my own experience. The
number of balls used in an average game is roughly double the number of
your original cite. Try watching a game and keeping track.
I'll take any figure. The figure is an average computed using all
games in a season in all MLB ballparks. Ballparks have different
conditions. The fact that MLB requires a clubhouse to have 90 balls
available for a game indicates that the expected number will be less
than that, though.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
bill van
2017-04-14 04:04:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by bill van
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by bill van
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by bill van
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:49:46 -0400, Tony Cooper
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 10:06:24 +0100, Adam Funk
Post by Adam Funk
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 8:45:06 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by charles
Post by Peter Moylan
Now I'm wondering: how can a ball become lost on a modern
cricket
field?
It bounces into the spectator area where a souvenir hunter
pockets it
without anybody else seeing. As fara s the players are
concerned,
it's
lost.
How very different from baseball, where the slight chance of
catching
a
ball is an attraction of being a spectator and a chance to
show
one's
selfishness or generosity to a TV audience.
Do spectators ever throw them back at pro games? When I saw
the
Nationals last summer, players would occasionally throw
slightly
used
balls out to the crowd --- I figured this was because the
goodwill
generated was worth the cost of a few balls (especially in
comparison
with the ticket revenue).
You can't keep "slightly used" balls in play. The umpire will
check
out
every
ball caught by the catcher to see whether it's been damaged in
any
way --
the
slightest nick affects its aerodynamic performance.
He's also checking for "foreign substances" -- the spitball was
outlawed
decades ago, but methods have been devised for adulterating a
ball
with
e.g.
hair gel surreptitiously, "accidentally," transferred to the
ball.
By "slightly used" I meant balls that have been in play but not
rejected as worn or damaged by the umpire. I've read somewhere
that
it used to be part of the fielders' job to get the ball as dirty &
irregular as possible, until a batter got killed by a ball he
couldn't
see sometime in early C.20 --- then the rules were changed to
keep
the
ball regular & clean.
At Wrigley Field, homers hit into the stands by opposing teams
were
routinely
rejected and thrown back by Cubs fans. I suppose it was ok to
keep
foul
balls,
because those didn't contribute to scoring.
OK.
According to one source, 65 baseballs are used in an average Major
League baseball game. Some are
(sent before completion)
Some are brought in because a foul is hit to the stands, but the home
plate umpire will retire and replace a foul tip even if it is
retrievable. An umpire can call for a ball's removal and replacement
at any time, and will do so if he thinks the ball has been affected in
such a way that will affect the flight of the ball when pitched or
batted. It's not unusual to see the home plate umpire to ask the
catcher for a ball that has been pitched so the umpire can inspect it.
Some players, especially outfielders after making a dramatic catch of
a fly ball, will toss the ball to kids in the stands. Cheap goodwill.
I've seen that stat, but 65 balls in a whole game seems too few. There
are at least 54 batters in each game (with the odd exception) and if you
add batters who score and those who are left on base, you get 80 to 90
at-bats in most games. One-pitch at bats are rare; most take four or
five pitches and some 10 or more. I've seen one at-bat take half a dozen
or more balls; they are changed at the drop of a hat.
Foul balls would almost never be returned to play. That 10-pitch inning
involves
at least 4 fouls (allowing for 4 balls [a walk] and 2 swing-and-a-miss or
called strikes).
That's right. Any ball that has been hit with the bat comes out of the
game. Any ball that hits the dirt at home plate comes out. And any ball
that the pitcher, the catcher, and sometimes the batter thinks is not
moving right comes out of the game. The umpire makes the decision but
I've never seen one refuse to replace a ball when asked.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by bill van
<http://mybaseballfantasy.blogspot.ca/2010/11/mlb-trivia-how-many-base
bal
ls-in.html>
uses real-game numbers to come up with an average of 120 balls per major
league baseball game, and that makes a lot more sense to me.
--
bill
https://www.quora.com/How-many-baseballs-are-used-in-an-MLB-season
Evidently, the averaging of the number of balls used in a MLB game is
https://www.quora.com/How-many-baseballs-are-used-over-the-course-of-an-MLB
-ga
me
Yes, that was the first hit in the search I conducted. It's not
believable, based on my experience.
Post by Tony Cooper
This site says 72 and that the home team must have 90 new baseballs on
hand at the start of the game.
http://colormecurious.blogspot.com/2013/10/how-many-baseballs-get-used-in-g
ame
.html
Sorry, none of that convinces me of anything. I'm a bit of a television
baseball addict. I watch a lot of games and I pay attention. I see how
frequently balls are replaced. I'm drawing on my own experience. The
number of balls used in an average game is roughly double the number of
your original cite. Try watching a game and keeping track.
I'll take any figure. The figure is an average computed using all
games in a season in all MLB ballparks. Ballparks have different
conditions. The fact that MLB requires a clubhouse to have 90 balls
available for a game indicates that the expected number will be less
than that, though.
No, it means that is the number that must be ready for the start of a
game. There are people in the employ of the home team who rub up
additional balls during the game if it appears more are needed.
--
bill
Charles Bishop
2017-04-13 15:08:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[snip-balls used/game]
Post by bill van
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by bill van
I've seen that stat, but 65 balls in a whole game seems too few. There
are at least 54 batters in each game (with the odd exception) and if you
add batters who score and those who are left on base, you get 80 to 90
at-bats in most games. One-pitch at bats are rare; most take four or
five pitches and some 10 or more. I've seen one at-bat take half a dozen
or more balls; they are changed at the drop of a hat.
Foul balls would almost never be returned to play. That 10-pitch inning involves
at least 4 fouls (allowing for 4 balls [a walk] and 2 swing-and-a-miss or
called strikes).
That's right. Any ball that has been hit with the bat comes out of the
game. Any ball that hits the dirt at home plate comes out. And any ball
that the pitcher, the catcher, and sometimes the batter thinks is not
moving right comes out of the game. The umpire makes the decision but
I've never seen one refuse to replace a ball when asked.
Sort of right - PTD mentions a 10 pitch inning, following up your 10
pitch at bat. I also don't see a completed inning - 2 fouls and a strike
is one out, 2 fouls and a strike is 2 outs, but then we have 4 balls for
a walk, and we're one out short.
Post by bill van
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by bill van
<http://mybaseballfantasy.blogspot.ca/2010/11/mlb-trivia-how-many-basebal
ls-in.html>
uses real-game numbers to come up with an average of 120 balls per major
league baseball game, and that makes a lot more sense to me.
--
charles
s***@gmail.com
2017-04-13 19:21:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 8:08:34 AM UTC-7 (yes, same zone as me!),
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by bill van
That's right. Any ball that has been hit with the bat comes out of the
game. Any ball that hits the dirt at home plate comes out. And any ball
that the pitcher, the catcher, and sometimes the batter thinks is not
moving right comes out of the game. The umpire makes the decision but
I've never seen one refuse to replace a ball when asked.
Sort of right - PTD mentions a 10 pitch inning, following up your 10
pitch at bat. I also don't see a completed inning - 2 fouls and a strike
is one out, 2 fouls and a strike is 2 outs, but then we have 4 balls for
a walk, and we're one out short.
I've gotten lost. Where did the 10 pitch inning come from?
Was it an actual game event?

If it is a hypothetical, catch one of the foul balls before it lands,
and then have the 4th batter fly out on the first pitch.

I think I've heard broadcasts where my listening pleasure
included 3-pitch innings ... more than one game.
Unusual in any single game, because Major Leaguers
tend not to swing at first pitches unless they are just tooooo sweeeet.
But 3 fly outs on first pitches happens.

/dps
Tony Cooper
2017-04-13 20:04:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 8:08:34 AM UTC-7 (yes, same zone as me!),
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by bill van
That's right. Any ball that has been hit with the bat comes out of the
game. Any ball that hits the dirt at home plate comes out. And any ball
that the pitcher, the catcher, and sometimes the batter thinks is not
moving right comes out of the game. The umpire makes the decision but
I've never seen one refuse to replace a ball when asked.
Sort of right - PTD mentions a 10 pitch inning, following up your 10
pitch at bat. I also don't see a completed inning - 2 fouls and a strike
is one out, 2 fouls and a strike is 2 outs, but then we have 4 balls for
a walk, and we're one out short.
I've gotten lost. Where did the 10 pitch inning come from?
Was it an actual game event?
If it is a hypothetical, catch one of the foul balls before it lands,
and then have the 4th batter fly out on the first pitch.
Batter 1 strikes out on three pitches. 3 pitches, 1 out.

Batter 2 strikes out on three pitches. 6 pitches, 2 outs.

Batter 3 strikes out on three pitches, but the catcher drops the ball
on the third pitch and doesn't tag the batter or throw it to first
base in time. 9 pitches, 2 outs

Batter 4, on the first pitch hits a fly ball that is caught by an
infielder. 10 pitches, 3 outs. Inning over.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Charles Bishop
2017-04-14 02:59:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by s***@gmail.com
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 8:08:34 AM UTC-7 (yes, same zone as me!),
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by bill van
That's right. Any ball that has been hit with the bat comes out of the
game. Any ball that hits the dirt at home plate comes out. And any ball
that the pitcher, the catcher, and sometimes the batter thinks is not
moving right comes out of the game. The umpire makes the decision but
I've never seen one refuse to replace a ball when asked.
Sort of right - PTD mentions a 10 pitch inning, following up your 10
pitch at bat. I also don't see a completed inning - 2 fouls and a strike
is one out, 2 fouls and a strike is 2 outs, but then we have 4 balls for
a walk, and we're one out short.
I've gotten lost. Where did the 10 pitch inning come from?
Was it an actual game event?
If it is a hypothetical, catch one of the foul balls before it lands,
and then have the 4th batter fly out on the first pitch.
Batter 1 strikes out on three pitches. 3 pitches, 1 out.
Batter 2 strikes out on three pitches. 6 pitches, 2 outs.
Batter 3 strikes out on three pitches, but the catcher drops the ball
on the third pitch and doesn't tag the batter or throw it to first
base in time. 9 pitches, 2 outs
Batter 4, on the first pitch hits a fly ball that is caught by an
infielder. 10 pitches, 3 outs. Inning over.
That was probably what PTD was thinking of.
--
charles
Peter T. Daniels
2017-04-14 03:25:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by s***@gmail.com
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 8:08:34 AM UTC-7 (yes, same zone as me!),
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by bill van
That's right. Any ball that has been hit with the bat comes out of the
game. Any ball that hits the dirt at home plate comes out. And any ball
that the pitcher, the catcher, and sometimes the batter thinks is not
moving right comes out of the game. The umpire makes the decision but
I've never seen one refuse to replace a ball when asked.
Sort of right - PTD mentions a 10 pitch inning, following up your 10
pitch at bat. I also don't see a completed inning - 2 fouls and a strike
is one out, 2 fouls and a strike is 2 outs, but then we have 4 balls for
a walk, and we're one out short.
I've gotten lost. Where did the 10 pitch inning come from?
Was it an actual game event?
If it is a hypothetical, catch one of the foul balls before it lands,
and then have the 4th batter fly out on the first pitch.
Batter 1 strikes out on three pitches. 3 pitches, 1 out.
Batter 2 strikes out on three pitches. 6 pitches, 2 outs.
Batter 3 strikes out on three pitches, but the catcher drops the ball
on the third pitch and doesn't tag the batter or throw it to first
base in time. 9 pitches, 2 outs
Batter 4, on the first pitch hits a fly ball that is caught by an
infielder. 10 pitches, 3 outs. Inning over.
That was probably what PTD was thinking of.
No, carhsel. God you're dumb. Dumber than dirt.
Charles Bishop
2017-04-13 20:46:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 8:08:34 AM UTC-7 (yes, same zone as me!),
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by bill van
That's right. Any ball that has been hit with the bat comes out of the
game. Any ball that hits the dirt at home plate comes out. And any ball
that the pitcher, the catcher, and sometimes the batter thinks is not
moving right comes out of the game. The umpire makes the decision but
I've never seen one refuse to replace a ball when asked.
Sort of right - PTD mentions a 10 pitch inning, following up your 10
pitch at bat. I also don't see a completed inning - 2 fouls and a strike
is one out, 2 fouls and a strike is 2 outs, but then we have 4 balls for
a walk, and we're one out short.
I've gotten lost. Where did the 10 pitch inning come from?
Was it an actual game event?
Oh, I don't know. I don't know how it got snipped in your reply, but
here it is in my original post. I think it was PTD misreading Bill V's
description of an at bat.

[begin quote]
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Charles Bishop
Foul balls would almost never be returned to play. That 10-pitch inning involves
at least 4 fouls (allowing for 4 balls [a walk] and 2 swing-and-a-miss or
called strikes).
[end quote]
Post by s***@gmail.com
If it is a hypothetical, catch one of the foul balls before it lands,
and then have the 4th batter fly out on the first pitch.
I think you can come up with a hypothetical for a 3 pitch inning (you
did, below), possibly in a couple of ways. I was trying to devise a 2
pitch inning and had trouble, and gave up. Would the balls thrown for an
intentional walk count as pitches?

What if a ball hits the batter then hits the guy in the on-deck circle?
One pitch, two on base?
Post by s***@gmail.com
I think I've heard broadcasts where my listening pleasure
included 3-pitch innings ... more than one game.
Unusual in any single game, because Major Leaguers
tend not to swing at first pitches unless they are just tooooo sweeeet.
But 3 fly outs on first pitches happens.
--
charles
Tony Cooper
2017-04-13 21:02:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:46:59 -0700, Charles Bishop
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by s***@gmail.com
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 8:08:34 AM UTC-7 (yes, same zone as me!),
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by bill van
That's right. Any ball that has been hit with the bat comes out of the
game. Any ball that hits the dirt at home plate comes out. And any ball
that the pitcher, the catcher, and sometimes the batter thinks is not
moving right comes out of the game. The umpire makes the decision but
I've never seen one refuse to replace a ball when asked.
Sort of right - PTD mentions a 10 pitch inning, following up your 10
pitch at bat. I also don't see a completed inning - 2 fouls and a strike
is one out, 2 fouls and a strike is 2 outs, but then we have 4 balls for
a walk, and we're one out short.
I've gotten lost. Where did the 10 pitch inning come from?
Was it an actual game event?
Oh, I don't know. I don't know how it got snipped in your reply, but
here it is in my original post. I think it was PTD misreading Bill V's
description of an at bat.
[begin quote]
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Charles Bishop
Foul balls would almost never be returned to play. That 10-pitch inning involves
at least 4 fouls (allowing for 4 balls [a walk] and 2 swing-and-a-miss or
called strikes).
[end quote]
Post by s***@gmail.com
If it is a hypothetical, catch one of the foul balls before it lands,
and then have the 4th batter fly out on the first pitch.
I think you can come up with a hypothetical for a 3 pitch inning (you
did, below), possibly in a couple of ways. I was trying to devise a 2
pitch inning and had trouble, and gave up. Would the balls thrown for an
intentional walk count as pitches?
The rule is changing, you know. Previously, to intentionally walk a
batter the pitcher had to throw four pitches. The new rule is that
the onfield team's manager can point to first base and the batter is
walked with no pitches.

Theoretically, a run could score with no pitches being thrown.
Lead-off batter intentionally walked and then steals second, third,
and home.

Actually, he doesn't have to steal all of the bases. He could advance
on a pitcher's balk.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Charles Bishop
2017-04-14 02:58:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:46:59 -0700, Charles Bishop
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by s***@gmail.com
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 8:08:34 AM UTC-7 (yes, same zone as me!),
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by bill van
That's right. Any ball that has been hit with the bat comes out of the
game. Any ball that hits the dirt at home plate comes out. And any ball
that the pitcher, the catcher, and sometimes the batter thinks is not
moving right comes out of the game. The umpire makes the decision but
I've never seen one refuse to replace a ball when asked.
Sort of right - PTD mentions a 10 pitch inning, following up your 10
pitch at bat. I also don't see a completed inning - 2 fouls and a strike
is one out, 2 fouls and a strike is 2 outs, but then we have 4 balls for
a walk, and we're one out short.
I've gotten lost. Where did the 10 pitch inning come from?
Was it an actual game event?
Oh, I don't know. I don't know how it got snipped in your reply, but
here it is in my original post. I think it was PTD misreading Bill V's
description of an at bat.
[begin quote]
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Charles Bishop
Foul balls would almost never be returned to play. That 10-pitch inning involves
at least 4 fouls (allowing for 4 balls [a walk] and 2 swing-and-a-miss or
called strikes).
[end quote]
Post by s***@gmail.com
If it is a hypothetical, catch one of the foul balls before it lands,
and then have the 4th batter fly out on the first pitch.
I think you can come up with a hypothetical for a 3 pitch inning (you
did, below), possibly in a couple of ways. I was trying to devise a 2
pitch inning and had trouble, and gave up. Would the balls thrown for an
intentional walk count as pitches?
The rule is changing, you know. Previously, to intentionally walk a
batter the pitcher had to throw four pitches. The new rule is that
the onfield team's manager can point to first base and the batter is
walked with no pitches.
Well, this is odd. I have a memory from childhood where that was the
rule then - someone would decide to deliberately walk a batter and the
batter took 1st with no pitches being thrown. I suppose they could
decide on the automatic walk after one pitch was thrown, but I dunno.
However, when I mentioned this previously, everybody said there was no
such rule or circumstance.

The reasoning was that it saved the pitcher some effort which might be
needed in later innings and so gave that team and advantage. If it was
more difficult the pitcher might decide to pitch to the batter anyway,
giving the hitting team a chance an an extra base hit.
Post by Tony Cooper
Theoretically, a run could score with no pitches being thrown.
Lead-off batter intentionally walked and then steals second, third,
and home.
Actually, he doesn't have to steal all of the bases. He could advance
on a pitcher's balk.
Cgares
Peter T. Daniels
2017-04-13 22:03:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by s***@gmail.com
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 8:08:34 AM UTC-7 (yes, same zone as me!),
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by bill van
That's right. Any ball that has been hit with the bat comes out of the
game. Any ball that hits the dirt at home plate comes out. And any ball
that the pitcher, the catcher, and sometimes the batter thinks is not
moving right comes out of the game. The umpire makes the decision but
I've never seen one refuse to replace a ball when asked.
Sort of right - PTD mentions a 10 pitch inning, following up your 10
pitch at bat. I also don't see a completed inning - 2 fouls and a strike
is one out, 2 fouls and a strike is 2 outs, but then we have 4 balls for
a walk, and we're one out short.
I've gotten lost. Where did the 10 pitch inning come from?
Was it an actual game event?
Oh, I don't know. I don't know how it got snipped in your reply, but
here it is in my original post. I think it was PTD misreading Bill V's
description of an at bat.
No, it was chraels failing to recognize a typo or thinko that was interpreted
perfectly clearly by anyone else reading the conversation (specifically bill).
"Inning" is a more likely topic than "at-bat" generally, so is likely to come
out of the fingers in a baseball context where the concentration is on the
details. Which details, unmistakeably, related to a 10-pitch at-bat.
Post by Charles Bishop
[begin quote]
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Charles Bishop
Foul balls would almost never be returned to play. That 10-pitch inning involves
at least 4 fouls (allowing for 4 balls [a walk] and 2 swing-and-a-miss or
called strikes).
[end quote]
Post by s***@gmail.com
If it is a hypothetical, catch one of the foul balls before it lands,
and then have the 4th batter fly out on the first pitch.
I think you can come up with a hypothetical for a 3 pitch inning (you
did, below), possibly in a couple of ways. I was trying to devise a 2
pitch inning and had trouble, and gave up. Would the balls thrown for an
intentional walk count as pitches?
It isn't possible to face 3 batters and throw only 2 pitches, so there's no
such thing as a 2-pitch inning.
Post by Charles Bishop
What if a ball hits the batter then hits the guy in the on-deck circle?
One pitch, two on base?
No.
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by s***@gmail.com
I think I've heard broadcasts where my listening pleasure
included 3-pitch innings ... more than one game.
Unusual in any single game, because Major Leaguers
tend not to swing at first pitches unless they are just tooooo sweeeet.
But 3 fly outs on first pitches happens.
Tony Cooper
2017-04-14 14:56:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 15:03:51 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by s***@gmail.com
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 8:08:34 AM UTC-7 (yes, same zone as me!),
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by bill van
That's right. Any ball that has been hit with the bat comes out of the
game. Any ball that hits the dirt at home plate comes out. And any ball
that the pitcher, the catcher, and sometimes the batter thinks is not
moving right comes out of the game. The umpire makes the decision but
I've never seen one refuse to replace a ball when asked.
Sort of right - PTD mentions a 10 pitch inning, following up your 10
pitch at bat. I also don't see a completed inning - 2 fouls and a strike
is one out, 2 fouls and a strike is 2 outs, but then we have 4 balls for
a walk, and we're one out short.
I've gotten lost. Where did the 10 pitch inning come from?
Was it an actual game event?
Oh, I don't know. I don't know how it got snipped in your reply, but
here it is in my original post. I think it was PTD misreading Bill V's
description of an at bat.
No, it was chraels failing to recognize a typo or thinko that was interpreted
perfectly clearly by anyone else reading the conversation (specifically bill).
"Inning" is a more likely topic than "at-bat" generally, so is likely to come
out of the fingers in a baseball context where the concentration is on the
details. Which details, unmistakeably, related to a 10-pitch at-bat.
Post by Charles Bishop
[begin quote]
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Charles Bishop
Foul balls would almost never be returned to play. That 10-pitch inning involves
at least 4 fouls (allowing for 4 balls [a walk] and 2 swing-and-a-miss or
called strikes).
[end quote]
Post by s***@gmail.com
If it is a hypothetical, catch one of the foul balls before it lands,
and then have the 4th batter fly out on the first pitch.
I think you can come up with a hypothetical for a 3 pitch inning (you
did, below), possibly in a couple of ways. I was trying to devise a 2
pitch inning and had trouble, and gave up. Would the balls thrown for an
intentional walk count as pitches?
It isn't possible to face 3 batters and throw only 2 pitches, so there's no
such thing as a 2-pitch inning.
Batter #1 is intentionally walked, and under the new rules no pitches
are thrown.

Batter #1 steals second or advances on a pitcher's balk.

Batter #2 swings on the first pitch and singles.

Batter #3 hits a line drive on the first pitch but the shortstop
scoops it in before the ball touches the ground, wheels, tosses the
ball to the second baseman who tags the base the Batter #1 has not
returned to (tagged-up), and the second baseman fires it to the first
baseman who also tags the base that Batter #2 has not returned to.

On a caught fly, runners may not advance unless they first tag-up.

Triple play. Two pitches.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2017-04-13 21:58:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 8:08:34 AM UTC-7 (yes, same zone as me!),
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by bill van
That's right. Any ball that has been hit with the bat comes out of the
game. Any ball that hits the dirt at home plate comes out. And any ball
that the pitcher, the catcher, and sometimes the batter thinks is not
moving right comes out of the game. The umpire makes the decision but
I've never seen one refuse to replace a ball when asked.
Sort of right - PTD mentions a 10 pitch inning, following up your 10
pitch at bat. I also don't see a completed inning - 2 fouls and a strike
is one out, 2 fouls and a strike is 2 outs, but then we have 4 balls for
a walk, and we're one out short.
I've gotten lost. Where did the 10 pitch inning come from?
It came from cahrels's apparent inability to follow a conversation.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Was it an actual game event?
If it is a hypothetical, catch one of the foul balls before it lands,
and then have the 4th batter fly out on the first pitch.
I think I've heard broadcasts where my listening pleasure
included 3-pitch innings ... more than one game.
Unusual in any single game, because Major Leaguers
tend not to swing at first pitches unless they are just tooooo sweeeet.
But 3 fly outs on first pitches happens.
No one is willing to answer this question:

Would the Most Perfect perfect game involve just 27 pitches (every batter hits
the first pitch into an out), or just 81 pitches (every one a strike)?
bill van
2017-04-14 03:33:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I'll have a go.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Would the Most Perfect perfect game involve just 27 pitches (every batter hits
the first pitch into an out), or just 81 pitches (every one a strike)?
A perfect game is a perfect game, one in which the pitcher gets 27 outs
without any batter reaching base, regardless of the number of pitches.
The number of pitches may be noted in the news coverage, but it's not
what makes the game perfect. And I'd argue that there is no more perfect
or most perfect, only perfect.
--
bill
b***@aol.com
2017-04-14 04:58:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bill van
I'll have a go.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Would the Most Perfect perfect game involve just 27 pitches (every batter hits
the first pitch into an out), or just 81 pitches (every one a strike)?
A perfect game is a perfect game, one in which the pitcher gets 27 outs
without any batter reaching base, regardless of the number of pitches.
The number of pitches may be noted in the news coverage, but it's not
what makes the game perfect. And I'd argue that there is no more perfect
Except maybe for the pluperfect.
Post by bill van
or most perfect, only perfect.
--
bill
Peter T. Daniels
2017-04-14 12:04:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bill van
I'll have a go.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Would the Most Perfect perfect game involve just 27 pitches (every batter hits
the first pitch into an out), or just 81 pitches (every one a strike)?
A perfect game is a perfect game, one in which the pitcher gets 27 outs
without any batter reaching base, regardless of the number of pitches.
The number of pitches may be noted in the news coverage, but it's not
what makes the game perfect. And I'd argue that there is no more perfect
or most perfect, only perfect.
Come come -- one exhibits the skill of the pitcher, the other the skill of the fielders.

Is "perfect game" a concept in cricket?
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
2017-04-14 15:19:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Is "perfect game" a concept in cricket?
Please ignore the Loony Linguist's stupid question. Thanks.

See the lonesome attention-whore:
http://aman.members.sonic.net/PeteY-Doody.jpg

--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~
The Conscience of AUE

Peter T. Daniels
2017-04-13 21:54:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles Bishop
[snip-balls used/game]
Post by bill van
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by bill van
I've seen that stat, but 65 balls in a whole game seems too few. There
are at least 54 batters in each game (with the odd exception) and if you
add batters who score and those who are left on base, you get 80 to 90
at-bats in most games. One-pitch at bats are rare; most take four or
five pitches and some 10 or more. I've seen one at-bat take half a dozen
or more balls; they are changed at the drop of a hat.
Foul balls would almost never be returned to play. That 10-pitch inning involves
at least 4 fouls (allowing for 4 balls [a walk] and 2 swing-and-a-miss or
called strikes).
That's right. Any ball that has been hit with the bat comes out of the
game. Any ball that hits the dirt at home plate comes out. And any ball
that the pitcher, the catcher, and sometimes the batter thinks is not
moving right comes out of the game. The umpire makes the decision but
I've never seen one refuse to replace a ball when asked.
Sort of right - PTD mentions a 10 pitch inning,
Obviously he was referring to the 10-pitch at-bat mentioned by bill, as was
perfectly clear to bill.

Was that too difficult for caherls to perceive?
Post by Charles Bishop
following up your 10
pitch at bat. I also don't see a completed inning - 2 fouls and a strike
is one out, 2 fouls and a strike is 2 outs, but then we have 4 balls for
a walk, and we're one out short.
Apparently so.
s***@gmail.com
2017-04-13 19:25:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bill van
I've seen that stat, but 65 balls in a whole game seems too few. There
are at least 54 batters in each game (with the odd exception) and if you
add batters who score and those who are left on base, you get 80 to 90
at-bats in most games. One-pitch at bats are rare; most take four or
five pitches and some 10 or more. I've seen one at-bat take half a dozen
or more balls; they are changed at the drop of a hat.
I expect at least one 10-pitch at bat per game, except for games
where the pitcher(s) heavily overmatch the batters.
It gets remarked on when it happens, but only makes the sports desk
if the at-bat is involved in the turn of the game.

I expect a 15-pitch at bat at least once a month.

/dps "I would be the batter not seeing any of the 3 strikes"
Adam Funk
2017-04-13 15:17:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:49:46 -0400, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by charles
Post by Peter Moylan
Now I'm wondering: how can a ball become lost on a modern cricket field?
It bounces into the spectator area where a souvenir hunter pockets it
without anybody else seeing. As fara s the players are concerned, it's
lost.
How very different from baseball, where the slight chance of catching a
ball is an attraction of being a spectator and a chance to show one's
selfishness or generosity to a TV audience.
Do spectators ever throw them back at pro games? When I saw the
Nationals last summer, players would occasionally throw slightly used
balls out to the crowd --- I figured this was because the goodwill
generated was worth the cost of a few balls (especially in comparison
with the ticket revenue).
You can't keep "slightly used" balls in play. The umpire will check out every
ball caught by the catcher to see whether it's been damaged in any way -- the
slightest nick affects its aerodynamic performance.
He's also checking for "foreign substances" -- the spitball was outlawed
decades ago, but methods have been devised for adulterating a ball with e.g.
hair gel surreptitiously, "accidentally," transferred to the ball.
By "slightly used" I meant balls that have been in play but not
rejected as worn or damaged by the umpire. I've read somewhere that
it used to be part of the fielders' job to get the ball as dirty &
irregular as possible, until a batter got killed by a ball he couldn't
see sometime in early C.20 --- then the rules were changed to keep the
ball regular & clean.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
At Wrigley Field, homers hit into the stands by opposing teams were routinely
rejected and thrown back by Cubs fans. I suppose it was ok to keep foul balls,
because those didn't contribute to scoring.
OK.
According to one source, 65 baseballs are used in an average Major
League baseball game. Some are
(sent before completion)
Some are brought in because a foul is hit to the stands, but the home
plate umpire will retire and replace a foul tip even if it is
retrievable. An umpire can call for a ball's removal and replacement
at any time, and will do so if he thinks the ball has been affected in
such a way that will affect the flight of the ball when pitched or
batted. It's not unusual to see the home plate umpire to ask the
catcher for a ball that has been pitched so the umpire can inspect it.
Some players, especially outfielders after making a dramatic catch of
a fly ball, will toss the ball to kids in the stands. Cheap goodwill.
Well, *relatively* cheap. I was surprised to learn how much
professional baseballs cost (but I can't remember now).
--
By filing this bug report, you have challenged my
my honor. Prepare to die!
--- Klingon Programmer's Guide
Tony Cooper
2017-04-13 17:10:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:49:46 -0400, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by charles
Post by Peter Moylan
Now I'm wondering: how can a ball become lost on a modern cricket field?
It bounces into the spectator area where a souvenir hunter pockets it
without anybody else seeing. As fara s the players are concerned, it's
lost.
How very different from baseball, where the slight chance of catching a
ball is an attraction of being a spectator and a chance to show one's
selfishness or generosity to a TV audience.
Do spectators ever throw them back at pro games? When I saw the
Nationals last summer, players would occasionally throw slightly used
balls out to the crowd --- I figured this was because the goodwill
generated was worth the cost of a few balls (especially in comparison
with the ticket revenue).
You can't keep "slightly used" balls in play. The umpire will check out every
ball caught by the catcher to see whether it's been damaged in any way -- the
slightest nick affects its aerodynamic performance.
He's also checking for "foreign substances" -- the spitball was outlawed
decades ago, but methods have been devised for adulterating a ball with e.g.
hair gel surreptitiously, "accidentally," transferred to the ball.
By "slightly used" I meant balls that have been in play but not
rejected as worn or damaged by the umpire. I've read somewhere that
it used to be part of the fielders' job to get the ball as dirty &
irregular as possible, until a batter got killed by a ball he couldn't
see sometime in early C.20 --- then the rules were changed to keep the
ball regular & clean.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
At Wrigley Field, homers hit into the stands by opposing teams were routinely
rejected and thrown back by Cubs fans. I suppose it was ok to keep foul balls,
because those didn't contribute to scoring.
OK.
According to one source, 65 baseballs are used in an average Major
League baseball game. Some are
(sent before completion)
Some are brought in because a foul is hit to the stands, but the home
plate umpire will retire and replace a foul tip even if it is
retrievable. An umpire can call for a ball's removal and replacement
at any time, and will do so if he thinks the ball has been affected in
such a way that will affect the flight of the ball when pitched or
batted. It's not unusual to see the home plate umpire to ask the
catcher for a ball that has been pitched so the umpire can inspect it.
Some players, especially outfielders after making a dramatic catch of
a fly ball, will toss the ball to kids in the stands. Cheap goodwill.
Well, *relatively* cheap. I was surprised to learn how much
professional baseballs cost (but I can't remember now).
https://brokensecrets.com/2011/05/25/pro-baseball-teams-use-900000-balls-each-year/
says an average cost of $6.00 per ball and also says the Milwaukee
Brewers have 72 prepared for a game but may have to add 24 to 36 in
some games.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Sam Plusnet
2017-04-13 23:06:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
https://brokensecrets.com/2011/05/25/pro-baseball-teams-use-900000-balls-each-year/
says an average cost of $6.00 per ball and also says the Milwaukee
Brewers have 72 prepared for a game but may have to add 24 to 36 in
some games.
I'm surprised that no-one has compared this profligacy with cricket. In
cricket they are only able to get a new ball after 80 overs (480
deliveries). If the ball has suffered unduly before that point it may
be replaced - but the replacement is an old ball of similar "age".
In the case of a test match the home team is allowed to choose the make
of ball.
--
Sam Plusnet
Tony Cooper
2017-04-14 00:14:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Tony Cooper
https://brokensecrets.com/2011/05/25/pro-baseball-teams-use-900000-balls-each-year/
says an average cost of $6.00 per ball and also says the Milwaukee
Brewers have 72 prepared for a game but may have to add 24 to 36 in
some games.
I'm surprised that no-one has compared this profligacy with cricket. In
cricket they are only able to get a new ball after 80 overs (480
deliveries). If the ball has suffered unduly before that point it may
be replaced - but the replacement is an old ball of similar "age".
In the case of a test match the home team is allowed to choose the make
of ball.
Do you feel that the condition of the ball is of importance in
cricket?

Baseball balls are replaced because slight disturbances in the cover
can greatly affect the flight of the ball when pitched. The term
"spitball" came into use because human spit applied to the ball by the
pitcher to cause the ball to "move" in flight. Other substances do
the same thing, and nicking the surface is done for the same reason.

I've only watched two cricket matches, but didn't get a feel of what
the bowler tries to accomplish.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Sam Plusnet
2017-04-13 23:12:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
https://brokensecrets.com/2011/05/25/pro-baseball-teams-use-900000-balls-each-year/
says an average cost of $6.00 per ball and also says the Milwaukee
Brewers have 72 prepared for a game but may have to add 24 to 36 in
some games.
The Dukes grade 1 cricket ball - used in county and test cricket - has a
recommended retail price of £115 - which is one reason for making the
most of each one.
--
Sam Plusnet
Charles Bishop
2017-04-14 02:51:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Tony Cooper
https://brokensecrets.com/2011/05/25/pro-baseball-teams-use-900000-balls-eac
h-year/
says an average cost of $6.00 per ball and also says the Milwaukee
Brewers have 72 prepared for a game but may have to add 24 to 36 in
some games.
The Dukes grade 1 cricket ball - used in county and test cricket - has a
recommended retail price of £115 - which is one reason for making the
most of each one.
Does throwing a googly depend on what the surface of the ball is like?

I tried to impart spin when I bowled, but not so much to affect the
curve of the ball, but the direction of the ball after it hit the ground
on the way to the wicket. Not much success, I fear.
--
charles
Richard Yates
2017-04-14 00:15:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:49:46 -0400, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by charles
Post by Peter Moylan
Now I'm wondering: how can a ball become lost on a modern cricket field?
It bounces into the spectator area where a souvenir hunter pockets it
without anybody else seeing. As fara s the players are concerned, it's
lost.
How very different from baseball, where the slight chance of catching a
ball is an attraction of being a spectator and a chance to show one's
selfishness or generosity to a TV audience.
Do spectators ever throw them back at pro games? When I saw the
Nationals last summer, players would occasionally throw slightly used
balls out to the crowd --- I figured this was because the goodwill
generated was worth the cost of a few balls (especially in comparison
with the ticket revenue).
You can't keep "slightly used" balls in play. The umpire will check out every
ball caught by the catcher to see whether it's been damaged in any way -- the
slightest nick affects its aerodynamic performance.
He's also checking for "foreign substances" -- the spitball was outlawed
decades ago, but methods have been devised for adulterating a ball with e.g.
hair gel surreptitiously, "accidentally," transferred to the ball.
By "slightly used" I meant balls that have been in play but not
rejected as worn or damaged by the umpire. I've read somewhere that
it used to be part of the fielders' job to get the ball as dirty &
irregular as possible, until a batter got killed by a ball he couldn't
see sometime in early C.20 --- then the rules were changed to keep the
ball regular & clean.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
At Wrigley Field, homers hit into the stands by opposing teams were routinely
rejected and thrown back by Cubs fans. I suppose it was ok to keep foul balls,
because those didn't contribute to scoring.
OK.
According to one source, 65 baseballs are used in an average Major
League baseball game. Some are
(sent before completion)
Some are brought in because a foul is hit to the stands, but the home
plate umpire will retire and replace a foul tip even if it is
retrievable. An umpire can call for a ball's removal and replacement
at any time, and will do so if he thinks the ball has been affected in
such a way that will affect the flight of the ball when pitched or
batted. It's not unusual to see the home plate umpire to ask the
catcher for a ball that has been pitched so the umpire can inspect it.
Some players, especially outfielders after making a dramatic catch of
a fly ball, will toss the ball to kids in the stands. Cheap goodwill.
Well, *relatively* cheap. I was surprised to learn how much
professional baseballs cost (but I can't remember now).
In 2016 the New York Yankees player payroll amounted to $1,400,000 per
game. The balls were *relatively* cheap.
Tony Cooper
2017-04-13 05:20:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam Funk
By "slightly used" I meant balls that have been in play but not
rejected as worn or damaged by the umpire. I've read somewhere that
it used to be part of the fielders' job to get the ball as dirty &
irregular as possible, until a batter got killed by a ball he couldn't
see sometime in early C.20 --- then the rules were changed to keep the
ball regular & clean.
We did this sometime ago, but the new balls are dirtied before they
are brought into the game. Mud is applied to the balls in the
clubhouse. Special mud. Lena Blackburne Baseball Rubbing Mud.

https://www.milb.com/hooks/news/magic-muck/c-89063070/t-196093310
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Adam Funk
2017-04-13 15:19:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Adam Funk
By "slightly used" I meant balls that have been in play but not
rejected as worn or damaged by the umpire. I've read somewhere that
it used to be part of the fielders' job to get the ball as dirty &
irregular as possible, until a batter got killed by a ball he couldn't
see sometime in early C.20 --- then the rules were changed to keep the
ball regular & clean.
We did this sometime ago, but the new balls are dirtied before they
are brought into the game. Mud is applied to the balls in the
clubhouse. Special mud. Lena Blackburne Baseball Rubbing Mud.
https://www.milb.com/hooks/news/magic-muck/c-89063070/t-196093310
FSVO "dirtied"! I think the Chapman case mentioned there must be the
one I had in mind.

What is the gloss/sheen on the surface of the balls that they have to
remove, & why are the balls manufactured with it if it's undesirable?
--
We do not debug. Our software does not coddle the weak. Bugs
are good for building character in the user.
--- Klingon Programmer's Guide
GordonD
2017-04-10 12:37:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by GordonD
I'm sure I once saw something about a cricket match where the ball
went down a rabbit hole and could not be reached (obviously the
field was of less than first class standard) and the batsmen kept
running while the fielders fetched a spade and dug it out. These
days the fielding side can shout "Lost ball!" and the batting side
are credited with six runs or however many they have actually run,
whichever is greater. I'm not sure when that law was introduced.
In the supposed 1894 game in Perth, it is said that the fielding side
did call "lost ball", but the umpire ruled that the ball was not lost
because it was clearly visible up in a tree.
Of course the story could be different in different versions. The
fact that Perth newspapers didn't report it until after the story
arrived from England has to be treated as suspicious.
Now I'm wondering: how can a ball become lost on a modern cricket
field? Of course it can go lost if hit out of the ground, but that's
covered by a separate rule. The "lost ball" rule seems to be
relevant only on poorly maintained ovals with long grass. (Or rabbit
holes, I suppose.) Now that I'm writing this, though, I'm thinking of
other possibilities. A dog running out on the ground, for example.
That would be an outside influence and the umpire would call 'dead ball'.

Kent County Cricket club's home ground in Canterbury has a tree growing
in it. The tree was destroyed in one of the big storms a few years ago
but was replaced, outside the boundary for now. A local rule said that
if the ball hit the original tree it counted as a four.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Lawrence_Lime
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
John Ritson
2017-04-10 14:51:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by GordonD
I'm sure I once saw something about a cricket match where the ball
went down a rabbit hole and could not be reached (obviously the
field was of less than first class standard) and the batsmen kept
running while the fielders fetched a spade and dug it out. These
days the fielding side can shout "Lost ball!" and the batting side
are credited with six runs or however many they have actually run,
whichever is greater. I'm not sure when that law was introduced.
In the supposed 1894 game in Perth, it is said that the fielding side
did call "lost ball", but the umpire ruled that the ball was not lost
because it was clearly visible up in a tree.
Of course the story could be different in different versions. The
fact that Perth newspapers didn't report it until after the story
arrived from England has to be treated as suspicious.
Now I'm wondering: how can a ball become lost on a modern cricket
field? Of course it can go lost if hit out of the ground, but that's
covered by a separate rule. The "lost ball" rule seems to be
relevant only on poorly maintained ovals with long grass. (Or rabbit
holes, I suppose.) Now that I'm writing this, though, I'm thinking of
other possibilities. A dog running out on the ground, for example.
That would be an outside influence and the umpire would call 'dead ball'.
Kent County Cricket club's home ground in Canterbury has a tree growing
in it. The tree was destroyed in one of the big storms a few years ago
but was replaced, outside the boundary for now.
Sometimes it is within the boundary rope. It depends on which pitch is
being used.
Post by GordonD
A local rule said that
if the ball hit the original tree it counted as a four.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Lawrence_Lime
It is not a local rule, but a local application of a general law: "An
obstacle or person within the field of play shall not be regarded as a
boundary unless so decided by the umpires before the toss."
--
John Ritson

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Charles Bishop
2017-04-09 15:13:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Don Phillipson
There is a difference. Like baseball, cricket is won or lost by
how many runs the team scores; and a boundary 6 is the most
runs that can be scored off any single ball.
Now you've done it!
I expect a number of posts pointing out occasions when nine or more runs
have been scored off of a single delivery.
The story about 286 runs scored off of one delivery shouldn't be given
too much credence.
How much credence would be exactly the right amount?
I'm sure you were not looking for an answer.
Nevertheless, the cricket match in which this is supposed to have
happened took place in Australia whilst the report of it appeared in a
UK newspaper (The Pall Mall Gazette).
You would be correct that he didn't' need an answer. This was another
joke, a play on words, with "too much credence" being the basis.

Your reply though shows that 1) it wasn't obvious that it was such or 2)
you, possibly from past behavior, assumed that PTD was offering a
criticism (as he is wont to do), and so missed the play.
--
charles, Doo doo doo lookin' out my back door
Peter T. Daniels
2017-04-09 20:15:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Don Phillipson
There is a difference. Like baseball, cricket is won or lost by
how many runs the team scores; and a boundary 6 is the most
runs that can be scored off any single ball.
Now you've done it!
I expect a number of posts pointing out occasions when nine or more runs
have been scored off of a single delivery.
The story about 286 runs scored off of one delivery shouldn't be given
too much credence.
How much credence would be exactly the right amount?
I'm sure you were not looking for an answer.
Nevertheless, the cricket match in which this is supposed to have
happened took place in Australia whilst the report of it appeared in a
UK newspaper (The Pall Mall Gazette).
You would be correct that he didn't' need an answer. This was another
joke, a play on words, with "too much credence" being the basis.
Your reply though shows that 1) it wasn't obvious that it was such or 2)
you, possibly from past behavior, assumed that PTD was offering a
criticism (as he is wont to do), and so missed the play.
--
charles, Doo doo doo lookin' out my back door
Oh, fer Chrissake. Sam was playing along with the joke.

The fact that you are second-order humor-deficient doesn't mean that most of the
denizens here are.
Steve Hayes
2017-04-10 00:02:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BCD
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by BCD
"I was completely knocked for six," said a man in an interview about
the finding of an old notebook which has Shakespearean connections
(https://www.mhpbooks.com/a-400-year-old-critique-of-shakespeare-
was-just-discovered-in-england-is-not-that-strange/).
Post by BCD
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by BCD
From the context, I take it that he was expressing astonishment; but
I've never heard the expression before, and was wondering what it
alludes to. Boxing? Bowling? Something else perhaps not starting
with a "B"? Is this a common expression? Where?
Cricket.
When a batsman strikes the ball so hard that it crosses the boundary
rope (or line) without touching the ground, he scores six runs
(without he and his partner actually having to run up and down
between the wickets).
Thus, a ball that is "knocked for six" has been struck with
considerable force. This is a relatively rare occurrence (by which I
mean that it might happen several times in a match, but is unlikely
to occur as often as, say, once per over, although /of course/ there
is at least one example of six sixes being struck in a single over -
Garry Sobers for Nottinghamshire against Malcolm Nash for Glamorgan
in 1968).
"I was completely knocked for six", by analogy, means "I was
unexpectedly and very significantly affected" by whatever it is. On
reflection, I would say that the phrase is most often used when both
the factors - the force of the impact and the unexpectedness thereof
- are present.
***Clear and complete. Many thanks!
<https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/knock_
(or_hit)_someone_for_six>
Post by BCD
***That's quite helpful, thanks! I had never run across the expression
before.
***In all, or nearly all, of those examples, I'd feel comfortable
substituting "knocked flat."
In the context of the example you gave, in which it expressed
astonishment, that would do, though not as well. You could also
substitute "gobsmacked".

But "knocked for six" can also express demolition, destruction or
devastation. The aim of the bowler is to get the batsman out or to
restrict him to as few runs as possible. So being knocked for six is the
worst possible outcome, from the bowler's point of view. "Knocked for
sex" can therefore also mean, in some contexts, that all ones efforts
were in vain.
--
Steve Hayes http://khanya.wordpress.com
Peter Moylan
2017-04-10 01:24:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Hayes
But "knocked for six" can also express demolition, destruction or
devastation. The aim of the bowler is to get the batsman out or to
restrict him to as few runs as possible. So being knocked for six is the
worst possible outcome, from the bowler's point of view. "Knocked for
sex" can therefore also mean, in some contexts, that all ones efforts
were in vain.
I certainly have been knocked back in my day.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Snidely
2017-04-11 07:30:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Steve Hayes
But "knocked for six" can also express demolition, destruction or
devastation. The aim of the bowler is to get the batsman out or to
restrict him to as few runs as possible. So being knocked for six is the
worst possible outcome, from the bowler's point of view. "Knocked for
sex" can therefore also mean, in some contexts, that all ones efforts
were in vain.
I certainly have been knocked back in my day.
Have you been knocked up?

/dps "hey, that typo needs its time in the sun"
--
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
Loading...