Talk:Cricket/Archive 4

message: Can we reach some kind of consensus on this issue.  Recently, there has been a lot of changes and reversions relating to the particular terminology.  Whilst the (presumably American-preferred) "inning" seems to be fairly popular, it is also true that the vast majority of cricket players/supporters/administrators are not American and use the term "innings", even if there is no seeming reason for this, bar long-standing convention.  Perhaps some decision is necessary, so we can prevent needless changes and reverts. Smoddy 22:25, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing to reach consensus on. The cricket term is 'innings' (both singular and plural). Full stop. Nothing to argue on. It is always 'innings' in cricket: never, ever 'inning', regardless of whether Americans keep getting it wrong by way of false analogy with baseball. Law 12 of the Laws of cricket makes that clear: See . There's meant to be a way of writing in the text something that doesn't appear on the screen. Maybe we should add text to the effect that 'cricket uses the term innings and NEVER inning - please do not change'. If you know how to do it, please add it to the article. jguk 23:36, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite agree with you.  Thanks. 19:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Done earlier today, by the way. Comments are done by enclosing them with . -- ALoan (Talk) 20:03, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Inning vs Innings

message: I've added a note that an innings cannot be declared in a one-day limited overs game. Like many other laws, this was brought in to deter gamesmanship: an English side (was is Gloucs?) declared their innings closed at 0 for 0 after 1 ball to preserve their net run rate in a league competition. Jongarrettuk 18:01, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Innings

message: In the bowling section, the following (partial) definition of a legal bowl is used:
When bowling, bowlers must release the ball with at least one foot inside the area bounded by the popping crease and the return creases to prevent it from being called a no-ball.
Shouldn't this be both feet, rather than at least one foot?  I don't know the text of the rule, but it looks like this definition would allow a bowl with the back foot just behind the popping crease.
: That's exactly what happens; a no-ball is called for overstepping the crease only if both feet are in front of the popping crease.
:: I thought a no-ball was called if both feet are in front of the bowling crease, or if the front foot is in front of the popping crease, or if both feet are outside the return crease.  I may have technical misunderstandings here; but what's certain is that you cannot bowl with nothing but your back foot behind the popping crease.  Aramael 13:15, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bowling 

message: May I invite you all to a new WikiProject to improve the quality and depth of cricket articles on Wikipedia. It's located on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket. I'm taking the approach of let's see who's interested and let's see which bits we want to improve/expand to begin with. Once we know that, hopefully we can work together to improve Wikipedia's cricket coverage. jguk 16:28, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket]]

message: Does anyone know the early history of the use of helmets in Test cricket?  I'm sure that I read somewhere some time ago (I can't for the life of me remember where it was though) that Graeme Yallop was the first user.  Can anyone confirm or correct this please - Ianbrown 03:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: or maybe it was David Hookes? Ianbrown 05:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There was some discusssion of Viv Richards' aversion to cricket helmets on Talk:Viv Richards - including this comment that I made "The Age makes some interesting comments on the introduction of cricket helmets here." -- ALoan (Talk) 10:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helmets 

message: I have heard that "silly" means something not so silly in Cricket.  Either it means "left" or it means "shallow", I can't remember (and may be totally wrong on that, too).  Could someone please enlighten me on this?  (and preferrably update the article)  Thanks.  --Vik Reykja 10:58, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Fielding (cricket), particularly the section on "Modifiers". --rbrwr± 11:45, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, rbrwr, I hadn't read the satellite articles. My fault. Vik Reykja 12:00, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Strange that there is no entry on cricket terminology. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:04, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is now :-) dramatic 09:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silly