Talk:Underarm bowling incident 1981

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The point of the historical article underarm bowling is to discuss a vital and essential aspect of cricket's history and NOT to dwell at length and ad nauseum on the doings of the Chappell family. I have therefore followed precedent where a controversial incident is deemed worthy of inclusion on the site by giving it its own article. That means the key article can be developed according to its context and perspective in historical terms and not in the terms of modern media sensationalism.

Incidentally, I doubt if underarm bowling was ever used (i.e., legitimately) by first-class teams in Australia or New Zealand, hence the key article does not belong in the categories covering the histories of those countries. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] underarm bowling?

So, I do not know anything about cricket. As an American, I know I am not alone in that respect. The entire thrust of this article baffles me. What is "unsportsmanlike" and "contrary to the spirit of the game" about underarm bowling? Correct me if I am wrong: you can either bowl underarm or overarm. One or the other. If one of your (only) two options is considered so galling as to have only been attempted a handful of times in history and to have created an international incident, why was it ever legal to begin with? And why wasn't it done more often? Can a comparison with a tactic or incident in a non-commonwealth-specific sport like soccer/football or baseball be provided to further illuminate this incident?--Dmz5 01:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the article on underarm bowling does not shed any light for me.--Dmz5 01:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

In football, there have been some cases, where a player is injured, and the ball is not knocked out of play and stopped. It is considered unsporting to continue playing when an opponent has fallen. In some cases, and perhaps comewhat frequently, teams have continued playing whilst their opponents are injured and scored a goal. In this case, the player actually rolled the ball on the ground, exploiting a loophole so the batter could not hit it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not really the same, because it's dealing with an injury. But in many sports, teams do do things they wouldn't usually do, to protect the lead. In gridiron, they waste time getting in position, and run down the clock (I believe 45 seconds is allowed). In many ball sports, the team with the ball can simply keep possession. Even in cricket, a team can bowl more defensively to protect its lead. All these are within the rules and not considered unsporting. But sometimes things in sport within the rules are considered unsporting. Deliberate time-wasting between points in tennis comes to mind. Calling for the ball when the other team is in possession in basketball (and other ball sports) is another. Just why underarm bowling falls in the "unsporting" rather than the "sporting" category is quite hard to define, now I think about it. Perhaps because it was a rarely-used, forgotten, rule. Perhaps also because cricket, like golf, is meant to be gentleman's game so the expected rules of conduct are a bit different. Rocksong 03:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)