Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

[Pedantic] Absent Hurt recorded as wickets?

82 views
Skip to first unread message

tendulkar.com

unread,
Dec 27, 2012, 10:31:26 PM12/27/12
to
Should SLK be 103/9 or 103/7?

jzfredricks

unread,
Dec 27, 2012, 11:16:09 PM12/27/12
to
Yeah, I noticed that too. It bugged me as well.

Only thing I can think of is absent hurt == timed out (which count as wickets, but are not awarded to the bowler)

alvey

unread,
Dec 27, 2012, 11:29:49 PM12/27/12
to
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 19:31:26 -0800 (PST), tendulkar.com wrote:

> Should SLK be 103/9 or 103/7?

Neither.
As the game is in Orstralia then it's wickets/runs. As it should be.



alvey

Brian Lawrence

unread,
Dec 28, 2012, 3:30:56 AM12/28/12
to
On 28/12/2012 03:31, tendulkar.com wrote:

> Should SLK be 103/9 or 103/7?

SL were 103 all out, having lost 7 wickets, with three batsmen unable to
bat.

--

Brian W Lawrence
Wantage
Oxfordshire

jzfredricks

unread,
Dec 28, 2012, 3:35:41 AM12/28/12
to
On Friday, December 28, 2012 6:30:56 PM UTC+10, Brian Lawrence wrote:
> SL were 103 all out, having lost 7 wickets, with three batsmen unable to
> bat.

Why does the scorecard say 9 wickets fell, rather than 7.
Sangakarra batted, but retired hurt.

Brian Lawrence

unread,
Dec 28, 2012, 4:17:56 AM12/28/12
to
Which scorecard says that?

Not this one: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/573012.html
Nor this one:
"http://www.cricketarchive.co.uk/Archive/Scorecards/452/452036/452036_bbb.html"

There may be others that are in error, but I haven't seen them.

Sangakarra was unable to resume his innings which retirees can often
do.

Well over 150 Test innings have been completed (all out) with less than
10 wickets falling. It's not that unusual, although perhaps some media
types are not familiar with the concept.

jzfredricks

unread,
Dec 28, 2012, 4:58:38 AM12/28/12
to
On Friday, December 28, 2012 7:17:56 PM UTC+10, Brian Lawrence wrote:
> Which scorecard says that?
> Not this one: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/573012.html

This one did. It's been corrected/completed.

tendulkar.com

unread,
Dec 28, 2012, 5:51:18 PM12/28/12
to
Yes, there was a brief moment where it was 103/9. May be a work-around for their software to 'out' all the batsmen to get all-out status and we caught in the middle of that.

jzfredricks

unread,
Dec 28, 2012, 6:47:23 PM12/28/12
to
On Saturday, December 29, 2012 8:51:18 AM UTC+10, tendulkar.com wrote:
> Yes, there was a brief moment where it was 103/9. May be a work-around for their software to 'out' all the batsmen to get all-out status and we caught in the middle of that.

Oh well.
I wonder if a new scoring convention is needed (if it doesn't already exist)? Something like this;

230/10 == 10 wickets, innings completed due to all out
230/4i == 4 wickets, innings completed due no more available batsmen (i for injured)
230/4d == 4 wickets, innings completed due to declaration
230/4t == 4 wickets, innings completed due to end of allowed time
230/4o == 4 wickets, innings completed due to end of allowed overs
230/4r == 4 wickets, innings completed due to result (win, loss, or tie)
0/0f == forfeited innings

add "fo" to any of these to indicate follow on

I wonder if Edward Tufte would approve...

With plenty of whipping, this could work I tell you!
0 new messages