Talk:Laws of cricket

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Laws of cricket is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by editing the article Laws of cricket, or visit the project page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

This is a former WikiProject Cricket collaboration of the fortnight.

In the comment about bails, the bail length is mentioned to be changed from 7" to 8". That does not seem to be right - because that is too long. In the official rules the length of the bails is stated as 4 5/16" In my 18+ years of playing cricket, i have never seen a 7-8" bail.

Contents 1 Name of article 2 Plan for COTF? 3 Run-on 4 Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy

[edit] Name of article

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)

[edit] Plan for COTF?

So, to get things started, how do we want to see this article organised? At the moment, there is a long list of names of laws, all of which link to other pages. Some of the subpages are specifically about that law (such as Fair and unfair play) whereas other laws (such as The wickets) link to a more general article. Then there is a list of historical landmarks in the evolution of the laws.

I don't have a clear idea about how to rewrite this page, but I do have a few musings:

1. Do we want a description of the how the game is played, or does that belong somewhere else?
2. I think we probably want a sentence or two about what each law covers. Do we also want to link to subpages, one for each law, as at present?
3. If so, should any of the subpages be renamed? It seems a bit silly to me that a page on Fair and unfair play should be specifically about cricket, but on the other hand, we could wait to disambiguate until there's a conflict.
4. I would like to see some description of who's in charge of the laws, and how changes can be made.

I'm sure I was going to say some other things, but I can't think of them now.

Stephen Turner 13:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. The description of the game itself is on cricket. Clearly we have to touch upon what the game is, but we don't want to reproduce that article.

2. I unconvinced that we should cover each and every law in any detail. Some are more important than others. Also I think we should delve into the history of some of the more interesting ones a bit more (eg no ball, lbw, bowling overarm, fair and unfair play)

3. I can't imagine anyone would actually type "fair and unfair play" into a search box - so I'm happy to leaave as is.

4. Agree with you fully on the last point, jguk 18:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. Concur with jguk.

2. Every law deserves at least a basic overview. Some (e.g. LBW, the players, no ball) deserve their own article, with a summary on this page. I have a very good book (by Don Oslear) on the history of the laws, as well as Tom Smith's guide to the 2000 code

3. "Fair and unfair play" isn't a law, is it?

4. Also concur, and Oslear's book will be helpful there. smoddy 18:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3. Have you not heard of Law 42? :) jguk 19:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3. Well I never. I have always thought of it as "Law 42"! smoddy 19:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3. Maybe Substitutes would have been a better example. Stephen Turner 15:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

>> Every law deserves at least a basic overview. Some (e.g. LBW, the players, no ball) deserve their own article, with a summary on this page.

Can someone make a start on this. I still don't have much of an idea about what should go in here and how long it should be. Tintin 16:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm very short of time at the moment, but I've had a go at the first five laws, although I haven't Wikified them yet. Is that a good sort of length of summary? Do other people want to have a go at some others, otherwise I'll try and get round to the rest gradually through the next few days. Stephen Turner 07:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A fair start. I've added some more brief summaries and tried to add a structure. I think if we are to cover all 42 laws, then the length you've chosen is right - after all, we do link to a more detailed article for each of them, jguk 10:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've added précis for several more laws. Does anyone else want to have a go at the last few? Or wikify the ones jguk and I have already done? Stephen Turner 16:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Run-on

"The point to note in this case is, if the batsmen start making runs while the ball is still in the air to be caught and if it is caught and the batsmen have crossed each other chasing a run, the new batsmen are deemed to have changed the strike and the new batsman (replacing the one who made the shot and got caught) comes at the running end and not at the striking end."

Please someone tell me there is a better way to say this. I would edit it, but I'm not exactly sure what it means. These kinds of explanations are exactly why people find cricket so hard to fathom.86.42.2.243 12:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's terrible, isn't it? It's not complicated, it's just written by someone who can't write good English. I've removed it, and another sentence he wrote at the same time, because I felt they added far too much detail anyway. Thanks for pointing it out.

And if you still want to know what it means — if the batsmen have crossed when the ball is caught, the not-out batsman stays at the end he's gone to.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy

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).