I remember watching a field hockey game in high school (yes there was a girl I was interested in on the team) and I couldn’t figure out why they kept stopping play and giving the ball to the other team. I got some of it-you can’t hit with the wrong side of the stick, but there were others I never got.
This is an excellent guide: Cricket for baseball players
So: A cricket batter could be out on the first pitch, BUT would go on batting until someone puts him “out”;
Some batters can stay on base for hours, scoring 50, 100 runs or more!
How could he be out but go on batting?
Overall though, I agree that this is the best attempt I’ve seen.
Still reading. . .
This is good, and mostly matches with my limited understanding of the game. It does seem specific to limited overs cricket however.
Also, one question I’ve had about cricket more generally. I understand the concept of fours and sixes, but have been wondering whether it is possible for more runs to be scored on an individual ball. For instance, the batsman hits the ball near, but not across the boundary, but then the fielders severely misplay the ball.
Not sure if you’re being serious, but yes, you can just stand there. You need to run to the next “base” to score any runs, though (apart form if you hit the ball all the way to the boundary), so there is an incentive to run.
Yep, it’s possible, although rare.
[QUOTE=Cricket for Baseball Players]
So: A cricket batter could be out on the first pitch, BUT would go on batting until someone puts him “out”
[/quote]
This sentence is giving me trouble as well. Why would he continue batting if he were out?
It’s poorly written. I think what he is saying is that a batsman could be out on the very first ball but if he isn’t he will continue batting till he is out.
I don’t know what the article means by that sentence. If he’s out on the first ball, he’s out. He can’t continue batting.
Yes, it is. I’m not volunteering to explain why a 5 day long Test Match can end in a draw though.
Aha. Thank you.
There’s a (possibly apocryphal) story of the great CB Fry scoring 66 off one ball. Apparently, the ball got stuck up a tree (inside the boundary!), and as it was still visible, the ball was deemed in play and not lost. It took the fielding team some time to fetch a ladder. I’ve no idea if this is at all true, but it’s a good story.
Or that it can also end in a tie. And that these are not the same thing. 
As to the OP, I believe the answer will have to be something technical.
I remember reading more than one article about Greco Roman wrestling by reporters who had no idea what constituted a scoring move (in particular people writing about Rulon Gardner).
Certain martial arts are similar - the basic concept is easy (hand-to-hand combat) but the conditions for victory are completely unclear to the uninitiated.
Good point - judo fits this description. The basic idea is pretty clear, but the scoring and reasons why certain techniques and executions are awarded ippon (full point), waza-ari (half point) and yuko (tiebreaker point) can be baffling to a casual viewer.
[QUOTE=Baron Greenback’s link]
A cricket batter could be out on the first pitch, BUT would go on batting until someone puts him “out”;
Some batters can stay on base for hours, scoring 50, 100 runs or more!
[/QUOTE]
This is poorly phrased and thus seriously misleading. Should be rendered as:
A cricket batter continues batting until he is put out; this could happen on the first pitch or after many hours, during which he may have scored 50, 100 runs or more.
After reading the description on wikipedia I’m voting for this, seriously.
I believe your right, I read it, “as opposed to baseball in which a non-swinging batter will get at least three pitches…”
Yeah, I was going to nominate pogolfit but that one has it beat.
What’s hard to understand? Imagine in baseball if you could stay at home plate after hitting the ball and not be out, and have another at bat. You hit a grounder straight to the short stop. Do you run to first?
As distinct from Tight End or Safety? :rolleyes:
If you look for similarities rather than exact matches getting a workable handle on most games isn’t difficult.
Gridiron is what rugby league would look like if the dummy half could throw the ball forward like a quarterback and no offside.
Cricket is what baseball would look like if there wasn’t the concepts of foul territory and forced plays.
I find games where breaches of technical/arcane rule result in match winning scores the most frustrating, even when I do understand the game.
For example in rugby union nobody, including the players and referees, really knows what happens during a ruck or maul. In many instances both sides have players in some technical breach of the rules, and the referee tries to pick the first, or most egregious. Penalty = kick at goal = 3 points. Winning an internationals on a (or series of) dodgy scrum/ruck penalties is routine. Some teams have it as their prime strategy.
Baseball has instances where, despite the fact that one thing actually happened the game proceeds as if it didn’t e.g. foul tips and infield flys. That’s a bit confusing to novices.