Questions about obscure rules in sport

[Cornish Steve]

Let me start the ball rolling: How can a cricketer score five runs on a single hit without running?

[MikeO]

Let me start the ball rolling: How can a cricketer score five runs on a single hit without running?

 

Think that's the penalty if the ball hits a helmet (or possibly any other item of kit) left on the pitch by the fielding team.

[GoodisonRoad]

Let me start the ball rolling: How can a cricketer score five runs on a single hit without running?

If it it's Bowled wide and crosses the boundary for a four?

[Romey 1878]

If it it's Bowled wide and crosses the boundary for a four?

 

 

That's what I was thinking.

[MikeO]

If it it's Bowled wide and crosses the boundary for a four?

 

That's just four.

[Romey 1878]

 

That's just four.

 

Oh yeah, you just get 4 wides.

 

What about a no ball that's bowled wide and goes for four? Then you get the extra run for the no ball.

 

But, seeing as the title of the thread is obscure rules I reckon you've got it right, Mike.

[c1982]

I watch very little cricket and don't know all the rules but I think a no ball is just a free hit and not an extra run.

[Romey 1878]

I watch very little cricket and don't know all the rules but I think a no ball is just a free hit and not an extra run.

 

 

It's not, you get an extra run and the bowler has to bowl the ball again.

 

The free hit only comes into play the shorter formats too.

[MikeO]

Actually just reading up on it it seems that the ball going to the boundary off a wide is five runs.....was certain it was only four; learn something new every day.

 

99% sure the ball hitting helmet is five as well though because I'm sure I saw it happen once.

[GoodisonRoad]

Actually just reading up on it it seems that the ball going to the boundary off a wide is five runs.....was certain it was only four; learn something new every day.

 

 

BOOOOOOOOOOM!

 

 

[c1982]

The question says hit though, is a wide still a wide if the batsman hits it?!

[MikeO]

The question says hit though, is a wide still a wide if the batsman hits it?!

 

Good point, no it isn't!

 

Eat that "BOOOOOOOOOOM!" GR .

[GoodisonRoad]

The question says hit though, is a wide still a wide if the batsman hits it?!

Of course it is! If you get caught from a wide ball, you are not given out because the ball bowled was wide.

 

 

Good point, no it isn't!

 

Eat that "BOOOOOOOOOOM!" GR .

 

 

Nice try Mike!

[MikeO]

Of course it is! If you get caught from a wide ball, you are not given out because the ball bowled was wide.

 

 

 

Nice try Mike!

 

 

Rules of cricket Law 25 paragraph 2 section b says that the delivery is not a wide if, "...the ball touches the striker's bat or person."

 

http://www.rulesofcricket.co.uk/the_rules_of_cricket/the_rules_of_cricket_law_25.htm

 

Nice try yerself .

[msloan78]

I think it's if it's a no ball and is hit for 4.

1 for the nb and 4 (obviously) for the boundary

 

Either that or is it if the ball hits the helmet they sometimes have behind the stumps?

[Cornish Steve]

 

Let me start the ball rolling: How can a cricketer score five runs on a single hit without running?

 

 

 

Think that's the penalty if the ball hits a helmet (or possibly any other item of kit) left on the pitch by the fielding team.

 

This is what I had in mind. I saw this rule applied years ago. The final batsman in an innings hit the ball in the air for an easy catch. The fielder removed his cap, pretended to bow, and caught the ball in his cap. To everyone's surprise, the batsman was given not out and his team was awarded five runs.

[Cornish Steve]

In football, a new substitute may perform only one of the following three things as his first action in the game: (i) take a throw-in; (ii) take a corner kick; (iii) take a free kick. Which is the substitute allowed to do?

[c1982]

Free kick as the sub must be on the field to officially be on and a throw in/corner happens from off the field of play. That's a guess by the way!

[marcopaulo]

think it's a throw-in..not sure why just sure i've seen someone do it

[MikeO]

I'm surprised there are any restrictions on what a sub can do.....didn't know there were any.

[Cake]

Just a guess, I'll go for free-kick as the starting point for the other two is off the field of play.

 

Edit - still free-kick but because the restart of play follows a foul (a sub can take a penalty)?

Edited June 24, 2013 by Cake

[Cornish Steve]

Free kick as the sub must be on the field to officially be on and a throw in/corner happens from off the field of play. That's a guess by the way!

 

Quite right, on all counts. For a throw-in or corner kick, the sub is not yet officially on the pitch and cannot contribute to play.

[Cornish Steve]

Ok, another football question: According to the rules of association football, is a square football pitch allowed?

[MikeO]

Ok, another football question: According to the rules of association football, is a square football pitch allowed?

 

Know this....theoretically yes because the minimum legal length is 100yds and the maximum legal width is 100yds; certainly used to be the case anyway.

[Cake]

maximum legal width is 100yds;

That's just madness! Increasing the width of the pitch brings about far-reaching health & safety concerns. How the hell would someone be able to send a little, big, dinked, whipped, cheeky, curled corner over with a sogging wet casey over the extra distance? All corner takers would needs ankles, knees, thighs and an arse on them like Hulk.

 

And then there's the poor fucker who's got to head it! Broken neck and/or brain damage in an instant.

 

No, it's not that!

[Avinalaff]

Ok, another football question: According to the rules of association football, is a square football pitch allowed?

 

Only in a domestic game.

[Cornish Steve]

 

Ok, another football question: According to the rules of association football, is a square football pitch allowed?

 

 

 

Know this....theoretically yes because the minimum legal length is 100yds and the maximum legal width is 100yds; certainly used to be the case anyway.

 

True.

[Cornish Steve]

What's the fewest number of points a snooker player can score and still win the game?

[Matt]

What's the fewest number of points a snooker player can score and still win the game?

23

[marcopaulo]

i'd go 22...all reds and a black..with the other player scoring 20 potting all the other colours...think that's right?

[MikeO]

None.

 

Opposing player misses the pack when breaking, gets annoyed, breaks his cue over the ref's head and is disqualified .

[Cake]

28 : 15 reds and whatever colours to make the other 13 points (1 black & 1 pink, 2 blues & 1 green........)

 

Once all reds are gone opponent can only then score maximum 27, without successful snookers, by potting all remaining colours

[marcopaulo]

there's a minimum of 42 points to play for if i've added correctly...15 reds and 27 for colours...therefore 22

[MikeO]

there's a minimum of 42 points to play for if i've added correctly...15 reds and 27 for colours...therefore 22

 

Yup; would need for player one to get all fifteen reds (and misses every colour attempted) then player two gets the yellow. P1 then gets the green & brown (15+3+4=22) and P2 cleans up (2+5+6+7=20).

[Cornish Steve]

None.

 

Opposing player misses the pack when breaking, gets annoyed, breaks his cue over the ref's head and is disqualified .

 

Love it!

[Dalziel Kane]

That's not even a viable answer. Not may get more angry than this end but wouldnt take to snooker violence, but then don't even play the game but been watching on and off for thirty years or more. I don't know the answer to this latest trivia. Couldn't even say how many colors are in play at start of game. Maximum score is 147 but then you get bonus for fouls but don't know the minimum requirement. 22 seems good enough if people want to go with that

[rubecula]

Minimum barring disqualification is one point more than the opposition.

[MikeO]

That's not even a viable answer. Not may get more angry than this end but wouldnt take to snooker violence, but then don't even play the game but been watching on and off for thirty years or more. I don't know the answer to this latest trivia. Couldn't even say how many colors are in play at start of game. Maximum score is 147 but then you get bonus for fouls but don't know the minimum requirement. 22 seems good enough if people want to go with that

 

You've been watching it for thirty years and you don't know how many colours are on the table :dont know:.

 

You should pay more attention .

[Zoo]

You've been watching it for thirty years and you don't know how many colours are on the table :dont know:

 

He watches it on a black & white TV because colour TV's irritate him too much.

[Matt]

He watches it on a black & white TV because colour TV's irritate him too much.

 

[Bill]

Player 1 gets all 15 reds then pots yellow and green in order = 20

Player 2 gets brown, blue, pink, black = 22

 

.....

 

Player 1 - 8 reds, yellow, green, brown, blue = 22

player 2 - 7 reds, pink, black = 20

 

Theres a few variations but i think it still works out at 22.

[Cornish Steve]

Minimum barring disqualification is one point more than the opposition.

 

Strictly, this is the most correct answer. Nowhere in the original question is there any requirement that the game must continue until all balls are potted. Indeed, many of the games we watch on TV end when a player throws in the towel. So, strictly speaking, the correct answer to the question is one point.

[Cornish Steve]

This one may be a little difficult since baseball is more an American sport. Still....

 

The Yankees are playing the Braves at baseball. Over nine innings, the Yankees manage 36 hits, their pitcher throws a complete game no-hitter while walking no one, and no errors are charged against the team. Despite these numbers, the Braves still win the game. How is this possible?

Edited June 27, 2013 by Cornish Steve

[rubecula]

 

Strictly, this is the most correct answer. Nowhere in the original question is there any requirement that the game must continue until all balls are potted. Indeed, many of the games we watch on TV end when a player throws in the towel. So, strictly speaking, the correct answer to the question is one point.

 

Bloody hell I got one right :jump for joy:

 

As for the baseball question ... I don't understand the game enough to answer. Basically I don't have a clue. :I surrender:

[Matt]

This one may be a little difficult since baseball is more an American sport. Still....

 

The Yankees are playing the Braves at baseball. Over nine innings, the Yankees manage 36 hits, their pitcher throws a complete game no-hitter while walking no one, and no errors are charged against the team. Despite these numbers, the Braves still win the game. How is this possible?

because the Yankees suck

[marcopaulo]

the yankees didn't score over the nine innings and the braves won it in the 10th?

[Matt]

the yankees didn't score over the nine innings and the braves won it in the 10th?

cant have won it in the 10th if pitcher played a perfect game. 36 hits though could mean they didnt score from any of them. I dont know about the penalties in baseball though

[marcopaulo]

said over 9 innings..thought that was important...to me a perfect game is a victory(a quick wiki confirms it's when a pitcher or combination throw a no hit victory).nit picking that though i guess...

[Matt]

said over 9 innings..thought that was important...to me a perfect game is a victory(a quick wiki confirms it's when a pitcher or combination throw a no hit victory).nit picking that though i guess...

aaah! didnt know that.

 

Not just a pretty face, are ya?

[marcopaulo]

not at all mate

 

i can only think of that or the yankess forfeit because they ran out of pitchers or summat

 

edit: just noticed never said the phrase perfect game...not sure if this matters?

 

2nd edit: dad thinks the pitcher has hit 4 players with a pitch in 1 innings causing a run..he says a hit by pitch doesn't count as an error or a walk

Edited June 27, 2013 by marcopaulo

[Cornish Steve]

the yankees didn't score over the nine innings and the braves won it in the 10th?

I should clarify then: The game was over after nine innings.

[Cornish Steve]

said over 9 innings..thought that was important...to me a perfect game is a victory(a quick wiki confirms it's when a pitcher or combination throw a no hit victory).nit picking that though i guess...

Your definition of a perfect game is not quite accurate. And, I might add, there's no mention of a perfect game in the question.

[Cornish Steve]

because the Yankees suck

 

They, like Boston, are very good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Cornish Steve]

not at all mate

 

i can only think of that or the yankess forfeit because they ran out of pitchers or summat

 

edit: just noticed never said the phrase perfect game...not sure if this matters?

 

2nd edit: dad thinks the pitcher has hit 4 players with a pitch in 1 innings causing a run..he says a hit by pitch doesn't count as an error or a walk

 

Give your dad a pint!

 

The Yankees did not score despite making four hits in each of the nine innings. For example, lead man gets a hit, second hitter hits into a double play: now there's two out and three empty bases. The next three batters each get a hit (bases are now loaded). The next two batters strike out. Four hits, no runs.

 

There's more than one way to score a run without getting a hit, or a walk, or drawing an error. The key is that an 'error' is defined as a fielding error. If the pitcher hits the batter, or if it's a passed ball, it's not counted as an error. (I believe that's also true of a wild pitch or a balk.) So, the first Braves batter reaches base on a passed ball. On the next pitch, the runner at first base steals second. On the next pitch, the runner steals third base. On the next pitch, the batter hits a sacrifice fly, and the runner scored. The pitcher throws a no-hitter, there are no errors and no walks, but his team still loses.

[Cornish Steve]

Why would Bryan Robson, even in his younger days, struggle to play polo? (For the sake of argument, assume he is an excellent horse rider.)

[Matt]

Why would Bryan Robson, even in his younger days, struggle to play polo? (For the sake of argument, assume he is an excellent horse rider.)

was going to say he cant swim, but you mentioned the horses so.... allergy to horses?

 

 

Streeeeeeeeeeeeeech!

Edited June 27, 2013 by Matt

[Romey 1878]

was going to say he cant swim, but you mentioned the horses so.... allergy to horses?

 

 

Streeeeeeeeeeeeeech!

How does that relate to an obscure rule?

[Matt]

How does that relate to an obscure rule?

swimming or allergy? Might be a health and safety rule for either; must be able to swim or must not have an allergy to horses. Makes perfect sense....

 

 

 

 

 

[Romey 1878]

swimming or allergy? Might be a health and safety rule for either; must be able to swim or must not have an allergy to horses. Makes perfect sense....

 

 

 

 

 

Good attempt at a save there .

[Matt]

Good attempt at a save there .

what was there to save?!

 

 

was seemless wasn't it