Talk:Handled the ball

Untitled

>> when he inexplicably picked up the moving ball that was going nowhere near his stumps. This was quite controversial. Since Vaughan seemed to be picking the ball up to pass it back to the Indians, it is unclear why he wasn't given out 'obstructing the field'. The last line is odd. If the ball was nowhere near the stumps, and wasn't a possible catch, why should he be given obs-the-field ? Tintin 00:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Because the Laws of Cricket state that if a batsman touches the ball with his hand in an effort to return it to the fielding side, he is not out handled the ball (Law 33.2), but is out obstructing the field (Law 37.4). -dmmaus 01:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I was under the impression it is o-t-f only if the batsman was in danger of getting out. Tintin 02:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Should the incident mentioned in this article be mentioned in the list? 58.96.101.222 (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Handled the ball/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 05:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Looking good from the first read through

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Fixed a minor grammatical error. Also according to the MOS there should not be links within quotes If ye Striker touches or takes up ye Ball before she is lain quite still, unless asked by ye Bowler or Wicket Keeper, its out.. Smokers goes to a DAB page. Is this intentional? If so it is probably overlinking.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The latter situation is rarely applied, as the fielding side generally accept that the batsman is being helpful in returning the ball is possibly original research. So too the dismissal was far less controversial than that of Hilditch.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The description for the Andrew Hilditch photo is wrong, should be fixed if possible.

7. Overall: Just want to check the references and hoping you can convince me about the possible original research and this should be good to go.

   Pass/Fail:

• Not sure if true or not, but I have heard a story of a case when the ball got stuck in the players clothing and he tried to run to the boundary to score a six while being chased by the fielders who wanted to claim a catch? Not relevant to this article I know, but the part about the ball being caught in the clothing reminded me of it. I can't even find any mention of it so it may just be a myth.

• I've not heard of it myself, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's been attempted somewhere at some level! In response to your OR points: "The latter situation is rarely applied, as the fielding side generally accept that the batsman is being helpful in returning the ball" is referenced to #2, where it states "Quite often the batsman is merely trying to be helpful and many sides would not want to take advantage of his actions, so the captain may well choose to say permission has been given, even if retrospectively." With regards to the second phrase "the dismissal was far less controversial than that of Hilditch." The references for the Hilditch dismissal refer to it being controversial, while none state the same for the Mohsin Khan dismissal. So you may well have a point: I can remove it if you think that's best.

Fine with the batsmen being helpful. The Hilditch/Khan comparison does sound like OR, particularly with the "far less" qualifier. Maybe "received less controversy" with a note explaining why, but f you are happy to remove it I would feel more comfortable with passing. Spot check of references checks out. AIRcorn (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, I've cut that out. Harrias ^talk 06:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm a little confused about your statement "The description for the Andrew Hilditch photo is wrong, should be fixed if possible." As far as I can tell, it isn't wrong; can you clarify what you think is wrong about it? Harrias ^talk 10:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It says that it is AB de Villiers in the discription at the File:Andrew Hilditch 2.jpg page, which is obviously wrong. AB de Villiers at a training session at the en:Adelaide Oval. Not sure on the protocol on changing another editors description and I think Yellow Monkey might be retired. I assume he wouldn't mind, but will leave it up to you. Not fail worthy by any means. Bedtime here, so I will look at the rest tommorrow. AIRcorn (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh! I thought you meant the caption, but that makes sense! I've fixed it now. Harrias ^talk 14:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Passing. Congratulations. AIRcorn (talk) 08:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)