• The forum software that supports hummy.tv has been upgraded to XenForo 2.3!

    Please bear with us as we continue to tweak things, and feel free to post any questions, issues or suggestions in the upgrade thread.

Amusing Items

EEPhil said:
Wonder what would happen if a batsman consistently ran short. Eg. run three but ran short twice. 1, 2, 3 or no runs?
Click to expand...
Can't run the last short by definition – if the batsman is not within his crease, he'll be run out. Other than that, any short will be docked.

There is a wrinkle though (not sure how it resolves): there could be gaming in that the batsmen might try to swap ends or not swap ends (to keep a particular batsman facing the bowler, which might be at the end of the over and therefore the other end). Why? To prevent a loss of wicket near the end of a game and convert a loss to a draw (or even a win). They can't be allowed to run 2 but very short (scoring 1, but not changing ends), so I think they are made to return to the crease they should be at.
 
Last edited:
There was a recent change to the laws to ensure that the new incoming batter always faces the next ball after a run out.

BTW we now say batter rather than batsman which brings it into line with saying bowler (not bowlsman) and fielder (not fieldsman). Umpsman and scoresman would also be curiosities.
 
Black Hole said:
That said, limited-overs matches between teams of similar ability can be very exciting... but not until the last half a dozen overs of the match (the rest of the match is just the set-up for the drama at the end). EG: six overs to go, two wickets remaining, 30 runs to win.
Click to expand...
Someone once said that Monty Panesar only played one test match ... again and again. That is what pyjama "cricket" is and like the proverbial Chinese takeaway provides no lasting sustenance. I could not even get excited about The Roses T20 match this week even though the whight team won.

OTOH the current test match is a woeful mis-match and does the format no favours.
 
I agree – it's comparable with 'chairman'. Anything else is surrender to the vociferous minority.
 
Black Hole said:
I agree – it's comparable with 'chairman'. Anything else is surrender to the vociferous minority.
Click to expand...
Chairman or "in the chair" (for a radio programme, for example). Chairwoman at a pinch, but chairperson - I suppose we now have to include the LGBTQIA+ (or whatever the preferred set of alphabet spaghetti it is this month) community.
We can hardly call women (are we allowed to call people born female women anymore?) a minority though.
 
It's very simple: the choice to consider any term ending '-man' as not gender-neutral is a personal decision, and taking that decision is gender politics.

EEPhil said:
We can hardly call women a minority though.
Click to expand...
The set of militant feminists does not encompass the entire set of women.
 
Black Hole said:
It's very simple: the choice to consider any term ending '-man' as not gender-neutral is a personal decision, and taking that decision is gender politics.


The set of militant feminists does not encompass the entire set of women.
Click to expand...
If woMAN and woMEN is acceptable then any other title ending in man or men should be, who decided those titles only referred to males anyway.
 
I assume the poster on Twitter X knew the double meaning. Just found it odd that an arm of government should be so bold. All fruit needs washing. Why single out plums? Still, it made me laugh. And my plums aren't prunes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top