[Sir Thursday]

England need 25 off 24 overs...easy you say? They are 7 wickets down though...I'm just hoping Yardy and Mahmood can bring us home...


Sir Thursday

[Obdigore]

Sir Thursday;113970 said:

If you are using America as an example of a welfare state I'm afraid you are a little misled...European countries have much larger welfare systems. Over here we see the US as a country where the government doesn't coddle the people who are 'slackers' as much...but then again, my view may be equally misled.


Sir Thursday

Ahh, I think the US Welfare system is too forgiving. there are points where it works, but many other points where it does not. If I had my way, It would pretty much be done away with. Same with Social Security as its not going to survive the next 30 years anyway.

[Sir Thursday]

If they reappropriated some of the military budget I'm sure they could keep Social Security et al. going...

England managed to pull of a win! Yay!

Sir Thursday

[Thelomen Toblerone]

I don;t like this new trend of England winning, it scares me. When I was a lad, England couldn't win a raffle with the whole book of tickets, and the Ashes were a constant reminder that we suck at all things sporting.

Now, we're rugby world chaps (though not for much longer) and winning at cricket! Thank God we're still ***** at football or I'd be really scared.

Things just feel unnatural, is all I'm saying.

[iscariot]

Yippee, a cricket thread!!! (and I'm only a year late).

The pajama cricket is all good, but you can't beat a test match for intrigue and strategy; it's like war with a white uniform and, like all good wars, it's complex.

It's not, however, complicated.

Certain permutations and subsequent interpretations of the rules can cause debate, like the LBW (leg before wicket) but that's part of the fun.

For example: The basic interpetation states that if the batsman is hit in front of the stumps by a ball that pitches in line with the stumps and that the trajectory of the ball would take the ball on to hit the stumps then the batsman is out.

Simple enough.

However, the umpire has to determine if the ball would have indeed hit the stumps an interpretation that can be affected by bounce, swing and seam.

The batsman can't be given out if he hit's the ball before it hits his pads/ body.

You can be Leg before wicket if:
[1] The ball pitches outside the line of the off-stump, hit's the batsman in front
[2] The ball pitches outside the line of off-stump and hits the batsman outside the line but -a- the ball would have continued on to hit the stumps and -b- the batsman was not playing a shot.

You cannot be out Leg Before Wicket if:
[1] The ball pitches outside leg stump (no matter what the ball would have hit).

BTW: Just to make in interesting - the term "leg' is inclusive of the entire body, where the body is interposed between ball adn wicket adn it meets the above criteria - it's quite amusing watching a batsman given out LBW when hit on the helmet as the duck into a bouncer that didn't get up or, a cleverly disguised slower ball that fools them completely.

See...it's SIMPLE!!!
One reason I would have thought the yanks would have gone for it is that the game is a statistical wonderland

[paladin]

cricket isnt booming nearly as much as lacrosse, which on top of having a national professional league is now being played in highschools instead of only preppy colleges

[Tsundoku]

Rise from the dead ...Riiiiiiiiise!

Oversized gloves for catching? Ppppffffttt! Who needs 'em?

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 09 December 2021 - 12:42 PM