Talk:One Day International

message: Might be worth mentioning that some of the early ODIs (eg NZ v Eng 1974/75) were played as 35 8-ball overs. Loganberry (Talk) 01:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: What's up with this text:
"If the number of runs scored by both teams are equal when the second team loses all of its wickets or exhausts all its overs, it shall get decided by Which team lost fewer wickets to reach the score, if no result, the team with the higher run rate at the start of the innings shall win, if still no result, the match then goes into a bowl off."
Every ODI I've seen, when both teams score the same runs, it's a tie. I've heard of the number of wickets being used to determine a winner (never seen it though); both teams would have a run rate of 0 at the start of the innings; and what on earth is a "bowl off"?   BlueXR6Turbo
:This info was only recently added to the article (diff). It contradicts the ODI laws on the ICC website, which state:Law 21.3.1  If the scores are equal, the result shall be a tie and no account shall be taken of the number of wickets which have fallen.
:I've reverted to the previous (accurate) wording. As for the "bowl off", I can only guess the editor was referring to a bowl-out. --Muchness 12:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rules - ties 

message: How about mentioning the ball change in the 35th over rule. Is this a rule?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.170.40 (talk) 06:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ball change 

message: This should be moved to 'One-day International' or 'One-Day International' if the rules of English are to be followed. Or simply 'ODI', if common usage is preferred ('odi' redirects here). I notice the direction to the women's version at the top has it correct - but it turns out to be a redirect! Rothorpe (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Cricket World Cup trophy.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: The article is wrong. Fielding restrictions were not introduced in 1992. All the reference says is they were changed in 1992.
From memory: there was a game in which all English fielders, including the wicket keeper, fielded on the boundary during the last over. I think that was 1979-80, meaning the restrictions were introduced, in Australia at least, in 1980-81. There were certainly restrictions in 1980-81 because Australia had one too many fielders outside the circle during the infamous Underarm bowling incident of 1981.  Adpete (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  fielding restrictions 

message: Basin acharya Babin Acharya1 (talk) 08:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  NCL Ranking 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on One Day International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090809143624/http://thehub.natwest.com/Cricket/Default.aspx to http://thehub.natwest.com/Cricket/Default.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060323081414/http://www.icc-cricket.com/icc-iccss/content/story/211848.html to http://www.icc-cricket.com/icc-iccss/content/story/211848.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060323081406/http://www.icc-cricket.com/southafrica/content/story/212296.html to http://www.icc-cricket.com/southafrica/content/story/212296.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: How is starting date of Zimbabwe's permanent ODI status as 1-Feb-1992. They got Permanent Status in 1992. They made their test debut against India in 1992. They also played a ODI in that series on 25-Oct-1992. Should this not be the staring date?  Shubham389 (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zimbabwe-Permanent ODI Status 

message: Why only NatWest Series in this Article? Sherifkk (talk) 06:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that its merged here from a deleted Article, But it looks irrelevant Here. Nominating to Delete this section from here. Sherifkk (talk) 06:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why NatWest Series in this Article