Entertainment desk
< July 27	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 28

Card Game - Hawaii Five-O ?

My granddaughter said that, when she was at camp, probably two summers ago, she and a cabin-mate played a game that she thinks was called Hawaii Five-O, and that it was a lot of fun. She doesn't recall the details. I can't find a Wikipedia article on any card game with a name similar to that. Can anyone think what game she might be remembering? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not it: 52 Pickup. Dismas|^(talk) 02:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not listed at www.pagat.com. Maybe she misremembered the name. It would help to have more information about how it was played.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a poker variant called Five-O poker. I don't know whether that's the game in question, obviously; but if it were, one would think that your granddaughter would have mentioned the poker connection. Deor (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. She said that the cards spread out all over the bed. She also said, separately, that she doesn't know poker, so it isn't poker. 52 pickup would spread all over, but there would have to be some special rule to make it an actual game in order for her to think it was fun, since normally 52 pickup is just a prank. Can anyone think of a game with a similar name in which the cards spread all over the bed (or all over a table)? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be another name for Concentration, also called Memory or Pelmanism? --65.94.50.73 (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Her sister likes to play Memory, so that if it were Memory, she would have said that it is a name for or form of Memory. Thank you. If she can't remember it, then we don't know what it is. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ask her if the cards were in four rows of 13 with the aces being removed first thing and then cards being moved to after the one they follow (so if there is a gap after the 9 of spaces the 10 of spades can go there) and twos can move to empty spots of the left end...Naraht (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What game would that be? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found the game at http://www.solitairenetwork.com/solitaire/gaps-solitaire-game.html see if that or one of the other ones in the gaps group at www.solitairenetwork.com is it.Naraht (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scoring runs in cricket

Confused by Scoring runs in cricket. Imagine that you hit the ball, run to the other wicket and back, and you return safely before the bails get knocked off the stumps, and your partner simultaneously runs to the other wicket...off the stumps. Have the two of you scored two runs or four? Or in other words, you hit the ball, run to the other end safely, and your partner runs safely to the end you were defending; does the scorer award your side one run or two? Nyttend (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two and one respectively, not four and two. --Dweller (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the obligatory link to the "tea towel explanation". --Dweller (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the runs only count if both batsmen run the full length of the wicket. Law 18: "A run is scored ... so often as the batsmen, at any time while the ball is in play, have crossed and made good their ground from end to end." AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that fact in the article, or in Run (cricket)? If so, I overlooked it in both. If not, could it be added, perhaps in the intro? It's such a basic concept that it ought to be spoon-fed to someone like me who's unfamiliar with the topic. Everywhere I looked could be interpreted as saying either "each guy scores a run each time he makes it safely" or "one run is scored each time both guys make it safely". Nyttend (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is in Run (cricket), in the sentence beginning "The simplest way for a batsman to score a run ..". It's also explained in Laws_of_cricket#Scoring_and_winning: "Runs are scored when the two batsmen run to each other's end of the pitch". But there are other ways that runs can be scored, with no actual running involved (boundaries and extras). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. "Runs are scored when the two batsmen run to each other's end of the pitch" sounds like both of them score runs when that happens. If "a batsman" can score a run, "when the two batsmen run to..." should mean that both of them are scoring. I'm just asking for something that specifically says something like "One run is scored each time that the two batsmen run to each other's end of the pitch without either of them being dismissed." Is that a fair summary? I've changed my proposed phrase several times in the last few minutes because I'm still not confident that I'm understanding rightly. Nyttend (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only person who scores runs is the batsman to whom the bowler is bowling. His partner at the other end doesn't. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so the batsman hits the ball and both batsmen run for their opposite wickets. The one who hit the ball arrives safely, but the other one is put out. So the original batsman remains safe, but no run is tallied. Right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. --Viennese Waltz 15:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. See the link provided above by AndrewWTaylor, subsection 9: "the batting side shall also score runs completed before the wicket was put down." So if they complete 2 runs, but either of them is run out attempting a third, two runs are scored. By contrast, if a wicket falls because of a catch, and somehow the ball was hit so high that a run or runs were able to be completed before the catch, none of them count. --Dweller (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat analogous to the baseball requirement of tagging up when a fly ball is hit, before you can advance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will just comment that this question appears to illustrate how cricket can be confusing to an American, because it is similar to baseball but different from baseball. I am sure that similarly baseball can be confusing to a Briton or Indian, because it is similar to cricket but different from cricket. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They're not so different on a high level: A guy delivers the ball to a guy holding a bat, and he tries to hit it and score runs by running around (between) the "bases". We have an article called Comparison of baseball and cricket. For someone who knows something about each game, the article is a good way to reinforce and expand upon that knowledge. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another way of thinking about it is that both batsmen have to contribute to the running, but the score is attributed to the batsman to whom the ball was bowled and who hit it away. Just as a wicket is always attributed to the bowler who bowled the ball, even if it's not a direct hit on the wickets and the getting-out was mostly a result of the skill of other fielders. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not always - "run out" and "timed out" are just that, no mention of the bowler. Have never seen an instance of "Obstructed the field" and can't remember how that is noted. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just that. Same with hit the ball twice (Law 34) and handled the ball (Law 33). For each, the Laws say "The bowler does not get credit for the wicket." --Dweller (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Known Common Ancestor

Do cricket and baseball have a known common ancestor game of the base-and-ball type, or is that common ancestor lost? (The common ancestor of association football, rugby, the other rugby-like games, and gridiron football seems to have been English town football.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Origins of baseball and History of cricket to 1725. Stoolball is attested from 1450, cricket (by that name) from 1598, and baseball (by that name) from 1744, although it's not obvious that there's a direct line of descent, and there are references to other bat-and-ball games going back to the thirteenth century. Tevildo (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I lived in Barnsley, they played a form of Stoolball called Nipsy, and I was informed that its origins were lost in the mists of time. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Rule #2 for stoolball: Obtain a ball, consisting of hard, spherical ball of stool..." StuRat (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Also see former England and Kent and Cambridge University cricketer (and current Test Match Special commentator) Ed Smith who has written on this subject. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ancient game of Gilli-danda or Tip-cat, in which the batsman hits a short stick rather than a ball, is widespread across Europe and Asia. Our article claims that it is "...believed to be the origin of Western games such as cricket, baseball and softball.[citation needed]". Alansplodge (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can score in a number of ways. One, each time the batting pair run between the wickets ( after the ball has been hit 0 a run is scored. Two, if the ball is hit outside the boundary line extra points are scored. Last, runs can also be scored if the bowler delivers the ball incorrectly. - http://globall.com.au/activities/cricket-information/ -http://cricket-rules.com/ -https://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/hosking/cricket/explanation.htm Breatheblue (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breatheblue (talk • contribs) 17:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is this popular 1970's guitar riff?

Hi there. This has been bugging me for months, what is this 1970's guitar riff? It is from a British film on named Pressure (1975) at 28:00 mins in. I have heard it before but a Shazam search returned nothing. I tried adding the YouTube link in, but it would not let me, so a the top result for a YouTube search on 'This Britain - Pressure' brings the video I am referring too. Thank you. --Manniqaarn (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recognize it, but it's electric guitar, so any experts on early 70's (presumably British) electric guitar ought to take a listen. That was a bit before my time, and I only have vague memories of Peter Frampton and the like. StuRat (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to place, I don't recognize the music directly, but if I had to guess, the music sounds a lot like Santana (band), the percussion especially has that Latin American sound that musicians like José Areas and Coke Escovedo brought to Santana; if it isn't Santana, it's someone trying hard to be Santana. The guitar doesn't sound exactly like Carlos Santana, that's why I have some pause, but it could be him. --Jayron 32 02:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried it on Shazam, AudioTag and Midomi, and none of them recognise it. It's definitely not Santana - the guitarist has tried to get that thick, bassy tone that Santana uses, and that Eric Clapton used in Cream, but he doesn't the same touch or phrasing as either of them. It might not be a record at all - it could be library music in a Cream/Santana-ish style. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on the film Pressure (1975 film). DuncanHill (talk) 07:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't sound like Santana to me. DuncanHill (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The opening (about 27:45) is reminiscent of Ram Jam's Black Betty. The rest of it isn't. DuncanHill (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]