Talk:Laws of Cricket

message: Is there any reason why this article is at Laws of cricket?  I think it would be far better suited as Laws of Cricket - as this is the official name.  The phrase is used to describe a set of documents which have the title Laws of Cricket.  It seems illogical that they do not have a capital C. Smoddy | Talk 14:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of article

message: Should something be added mentioning the link between HHGG(hitch hiker's guide to the galaxy), 42 ( the meaning of life according to HHGG), the race of cricket (from the same), and the 42 laws of cricket? at least as a tenuous link (we should be sure to mention this.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.238.119.207 (talk) 08:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right about it being tenuous. I don't think it should appear in the article, or we'd have to list every other tenuous link via the number 42; such as, for example, that it's the number of months the Beast will hold dominion over Earth (Revelation 13:5), or that it's the number of lines on each page of the Gutenberg Bible. My point is that, if there is a link, it isn't really appropriate to this particular article. If Douglas Adams did have cricket in mind when coming up with the number, then perhaps it would be more appropriate to mention this link in the article The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything, but according to that very article, Adams selected the number purely at random. So I suppose there is no link. Thanks for bringing this up, though. I wouldn't have noticed it if you hadn't mentioned it :) Cenobite 21:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The planet Krikkit plays a major role in Life, the Universe and Everything, including references to a Wikkit Gate (a pun between two meanings of the word "wicket") and a Golden Bail. So Douglas Adams' books and radio plays (not the TV version) are definitely relevant as a reference to cricket in popular culture. I don't remember any reference to the 42 laws, so that connection is probably an irrelevant coincidence. Perhaps a section entitled "Cricket in popular culture" or "Trivia" should be added to the main cricket article, if anyone feels so inclined. It doesn't belong in the laws of cricket article, anyway. Mtford 18:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy 

message: Is the size and shape of the field boundary undefined in the laws? It's not mentioned anywhere on this page. Mtford 18:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's undefined. There are minimum field size recommendations for various levels of the game, but they are part of variable playing conditions rather than the laws of the game. -dmmaus 22:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dimensions of the field? 

message: This is not clear:"There are two umpires, who apply the Laws, make all necessary decisions, and relay the decisions to the scorers. 2 umpires are on the pitch and a third umpire is in the pavilion helping the 2 umpires."
2 umpires? 3 umpires? Some other number? Please clarify. -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 03:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The laws specify 2 umpires. In practice, in higher level cricket (first-class cricket and List A cricket), specific playing conditions apply that require a third, off-field umpire to be appointed, mainly to adjudicate contentious or marginal decisions with the benefit of a television reply. Nonetheless, this is not required under the laws and the overwhelming majority of ordinary club cricket is played using the two umpires only. I trust this clarifies things. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Most first-class and List A matches don't have a third umpire, though all international matches now do. A third umpire only makes sense if the match is being covered by TV cameras, and that isn't usual for "run of the mill" first-class and List A matches, if only because it would be prohibitively expensive. JH (talk page) 17:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of umpires not clear

message: as a canadian non cricket player trying to learn the rules of cricket I read this wikipedia article today.
on Law 39: Stumped. A batsman is out when the wicket-keeper (see Law 40) puts down the wicket, while the batsman is out of his crease and not attempting a run.
should the "not" in law 39 be deleted?
Law 36: Leg before wicket (LBW). If the ball hits the batsman without first hitting the bat, but would have hit the wicket if the batsman was not there, and the ball does not pitch on the leg side of the wicket, the batsman will be out. However, if the ball strikes the batsman outside the line of the off-stump, and the batsman was attempting to play a stroke, he is not out.
I don't understand "and the ball does not pitch on the leg side of the wicket,".  Not sure what "pitch" and "leg side of the wicket" are.
This is my first editing talk on wikipedia.
Alanb44ca (talk) 05:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Stumped: The "not" is correct. If the batsman was attempting a run, he would be out "run out" rather than stumped. LBW: "pitch" is one of those terms that has multiple meanings, which can be confusing. Here it means "bounce". I've been trying to come up with a concise yet accurate description of "leg side of the wicket", and found it surprisingly difficult. The leg stump is the one of the three stumps that is nearest to where the batsman is standing. If you imagine a line drawn between that and the corresponding stump in the wicket at the other end of the pitch, then the "leg side" (also known as the "on side") is any part of the playing area beyond that. Similarly the "off side" is any part of the playing area beyond the corresponding imaginary line joining the off stump (furthest from where the batsman is standing) and the corresponding stump in the other wicket. If the batsman is right-handed, he will be standing to the left of his stumps if viewed from behind him, and so the leg side will be that on the left. Conversely for a left-hander. If you are a newcomer to the game, I wouldn't start with this article, but with the main cricket article, which aims to explain the game to those unfamiliar with it. JH (talk page) 07:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  comment / questions re article 

message: Since this showed up in "Did you Know?" is a cross reference to Theophilus Wilson appropriate? (I know nothing about cricket.) --Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that if every incident that played a part in the Laws subsequently being changed was mentioned in the article it would detract from its purpose of setting out and explaining the Laws. Just considering this one case, if you mentioned Wilson then you would also need to mention the bowler, Wells, and the captain who ordered Wells to bowl so as to concede wides. There is a separate article devoted to the follow-on, and I think that would be a more appropriate place to mention the incident involving Wilson. JH (talk page) 10:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theophilus Wilson 

message: The statement is made here that a bouncer over head height is a Wide.
That is not right. It is a popular misunderstanding because of differences between the governing rules in professional cricket.
 
In the Laws of Cricket a bouncer over head height is a No ball.
Since this article is about the Law one could perhaps stop there.
The Laws are modified by the ICC Playing Regulations, and otherwise, so that any bouncer over head height is a Wide, and repetition of bouncers over *shoulder* height are No balls, according to which type of cricket is being played, e.g. T20 allows one such bouncer per over, Test cricket two. See No ball where there is a more detailed discussion of the difference between Law and Regulation, and where a discussion of the historical and political roots of the difference between the codes might perhaps be better placed.
Atconsul (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Laws are rather confusing on this, but you seem to be right. It's not covered in the laws on no-balls and wides as one might expect, but in Law 42, section 6, (a), (ii) of the 2000 edition of the Laws. JH (talk page) 17:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Any doubt is clarified by MCC elsewhere, for example in Marylebone Cricket Club, Tom Smith's Cricket Umpiring and Scoring, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2011 p231 "Although such a ball comes within the definition of Wide, it is to be called a No ball. A No ball call gives the striker protection from dismissal from this unfair and dangerous delivery..." There is no confusion in the Law in the sense that there might be a contradiction or lack of consistency: No balls also result from Laws other than the No ball Law (Law 24) in Law 40, 41, and 42, all as identified in Law 24.8, and the catch-all in Law 24.10 says a No ball overrides a Wide. Atconsul (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wide 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Laws of Cricket. 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/20140531173955/http://www.icc-cricket.com/about/38/rules-and-regulations to http://www.icc-cricket.com/about/38/rules-and-regulations
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) 19:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Replaced by an updated link. JH (talk page) 10:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: While editing single wicket cricket I stumbled upon these laws from 1831 which might be of interest. The Laws of Cricket, Revised by the Marylebone Cricket Club, 1831, The New Sporting Magazine, 1831, p.296. Adpete (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  1831 laws