Talk:bowled out

bowled out
Listed as a noun. Even an adjective (which we don't have) would seem dubious, the only sense of this which is in widespread use would be - which we also don't have. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it would be better as an adjective, and as the past of the verb to bowl out: - I'll do that. SemperBlotto 07:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Does this attestably prove out as an adjective? It seems like just a past/past part. DCDuring TALK 15:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would not include this word as an adjective as its meaning is not distinct from its verb counterpart. e.g. New Zealand have been bowled out for 167 (runs). (I know, should've been the Aussies :P). The first definition is dubious however. One could say: Taylor is out bowled for 49, just shy of a half-century. (ie. he's been dismissed and the method of dismissal is having had the ball hit his stumps), but not Taylor is bowled out for 49. - which makes no sense to me. So delete adjective sense(s).Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 08:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem to be an adjective, just use of the passive voice. Still, a month won't do any harm, it's not patent nonsense or an attack page (which we do get here at RFV). Mglovesfun (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

RFV failed, adjective section removed. —Ruakh TALK 18:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)