Father Brown, Fr. Zed was making (as you probably know)an American baseball reference. A "no hitter" is when a pitcher (bowler in cricket) does not allow any batter (batsman) to get a hit. It does allow for the batter to reach base through other means (walks, usually, or through errors by other players on the pitcher's team). It is rare and an occasion for much celebration and footage on sports shows.A perfect game, though, is more rare and the ultimate achievement by a pitcher. It occurs when the pitcher allows no one on the other team to reach base at all.In Christ,
Wikipedia's your friend, Father:-"A no-hitter (also known as a no-hit game) is a baseball game in which one team has no hits. In Major League Baseball, the team must be without hits during the entire game, and the game must be at least nine innings."
So a `no hitter` is a good thing?
It presumably refers to an exhortation in the document to all interested parties not to engage in fisticuffs, verbal or otherwise?
I was wondering just the same thing.
A 'No Hitter' is a very good thing!
Well I understand a `no hitter` is when you stop the opposing team from scoring. Sounds ok but not that exciting. All will be revealed in two days....
No, Father, a no-hitter is not exciting, especially for the losing side. It's sort of like watching soccer--nothing happens--but everybody seems very excited.
Bobd, that made me laugh! I don`t want to open this particular can of worms but why is it that Europe, Latin America and Africa can`t get enough of soccer (aka football) but the USA finds it dull? I find it very strange.
I don't think it's very strange, Father. It has to do with how you look at things. Most sports, objectively speaking, are boring. But most people are not objective. What I suggest is: to do a "taste test"I propose that we organize a group of young ladies (say maybe 20 or so) and have thme watch various games on the telly and see what they think. See if they get excited. That should give us a good barometer.
It's not that the Yanks find football particularly dull, it's just that their attention span is very small and they cannot cope with a game that lasts 45 minutes before there is a break. With American Football they play for about 20 seconds of mayhem and then they all take a time-out to recover and regroup. When it becomes complicated and they need someone to kick the ball over a bar they have to call a specialist kicker from the bench. Baseball is similar in not requiring a long attention span. One player comes out; tries to hit the ball, and then trots off to first base. The next man gets off the bench and he tries to hit the ball so that he can trot off to first base - while the other fellow strolls over to second base. And so on and so on until they have all had a little runaround. It is all one great big yawn. They need all these breaks so that the crowds can keep replenishing their huge buckets of popcorn and ten gallon cups of pepsi. And try to explain to a Yank that a game of cricket can last 5 days. "FIVE DAYS! Gee whiz, how do you cope with that?" Well, you go home and come back the next day. "YOU GO HOME AND COME BACK THE NEXT DAY? AND THE NEXT DAY, AND THE NEXT DAY, AND THE NEXT DAY?" It gets more complicated when you try to explain that even after 5 days the match may be drawn and neither team wins.
Thanks Babe Ruth for your thoughts. To me American foootball always looks too complicated as they seem to be always stopping to talk things over. However the longest I ever watched it was in the Marx Brothers` Horse Feathers film.
Apparently Baseball is the poor, or thick, man's version of the much superior Cat.
Has 1569 'RisWing' been on the drink? His posting was at 10.46 pm which makes me suspect so. It does make for a little confusion. Also, is he saying that because one is poor then it follows that one is thick?
Post a Comment