Talk:Extra (cricket)

REALLY??? HOW??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.119.28 (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

No balls and wides were not originally including in the bowler's score. When was this changed?

Tabletop 05:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

In Test cricket, starting from 1983. Different countries adopted it in different seasons. Tintin (talk) 11:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The claim here that a penalty is five runs because "while four runs and six runs are common scores, five runs is rather rare" doesn't make a huge amount of sense. Is there a reference for this? 213.249.235.86 14:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it sounds very unconvincing. Couldn't find that explanation in the laws or online sources. I'll wait for a day or two and then remove it unless someone finds a citation by then. Tintin (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Removed it for now, until someone can find a citation for it. Tintin (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Should overthrows be mentioned on this page? Tad Lincoln (talk) 07:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

No, an overthrow, even if deliberate, is not a penalty, and an overthrow is not an extra at all unless the batsmen are running for wide, bye or leg bye extras at the time: it is just part of live play in which a mistake by the fielders allows the batsmen to keep running or benefit from a boundary. The word "overthrow" only occurs in Law 19.8 which deals with the fact that when an overthrow reaches the boundary, all completed runs, and that in progress if the batsmen have crossed, count in addition to the boundary allowance Atconsul (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Extra (cricket). 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/20130105121449/http://www.lords.org:80/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-42-fair-and-unfair-play,68,AR.html to http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-42-fair-and-unfair-play,68,AR.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Having just added enough detail here to itemise penalties under Law 41 (Unfair play) and cover the additions of penalty runs in the new Law 42 (Player Conduct) I sense this article is now rather unbalanced, and that penalty runs are now such a major - but rarely occurring - subspecies of Extras that this page should just mention them and reference a Penalty Runs page. It all depends what role the Extra page plays in the scheme of things: what is it for? If it is primarily an exposition of how the score is built up, it doesn't need to bother its audience with this stuff. Does anyone else have a view? Atconsul (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply