Talk:Timed out

Untitled

Was the recent test match between England and Pakistan concluded as a timed out or a forfeit by Pakistan? 81.104.177.44 16:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No, timed out refers to a single batsman. Forfeiting a match because the whole team refuses to play is a different Law. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Change in year 2000

Johnlp just added this:

The Law was first adopted in 1980 and provided for only two minutes until 2000, when it was revised to three minutes.

My memory is that it used to be two minutes to cross the boundary, and became three to be ready to receive the delivery. Is that correct?

Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The original wording was "steps on to the field of play" and this was changed to be "ready to take guard" when the minutes were increased from two to three.

BTW, I can expand on the Heygate incident here or in a separate article if others feel it would be interesting. One of the points about it is that the "two-minute rule" seems to have been adopted unofficially for many years before the Laws put it into black and white. There are contradictory accounts of the exact circumstances, but general agreement that the batsman was given out as "timed out" by the umpire (a Test umpire) at the time, though the record was later amended. Johnlp 21:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I didn't know about that.

I have noted that the 1775 Laws, which were the first printed Laws, already required the umpires "To allow Two Minutes for each Man to come inn when one is out". Our own article on the 1744 English cricket season says that this provision is also found in the original 1744 Laws, but I can't find a copy of those Laws on the web. Can anyone help?

Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Timed out. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927234046/http://acscricket.com/Articles/2/2391.html to http://acscricket.com/Articles/2/2391.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927233847/http://acscricket.com/Articles/2/2537.html to http://acscricket.com/Articles/2/2537.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927234053/http://acscricket.com/Articles/2/2473.html to http://acscricket.com/Articles/2/2473.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130311210212/http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/ to http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)