Talk:hit the ball twice

This doesn't seem at all idiomatic. If Wiktionary were a list of cricket rules this would be warranted but I fail to see any justification for it as a dictionary entry. &mdash; Hippietrail 11:30, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

hit the ball twice
Cricket: Describing the method of getting out in which the batsman deliberately hits the ball with his bat a second time for a reason other than to protect his wicket --Rising Sun talk? contributions 21:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A precise definition of one of the ways of being given out in cricket - what is your objection? SemperBlotto 21:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I too see no problem with this. Certainly not SoP as it's only hitting the ball twice for other reasons than to protect his wicket (whatever a wicket is. I've read THHGTTG and still have no idea, except that it apparently has three pillars and a crossbeam atop).—an ignorant American 22:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I see this is listed as an adjective, not a verb. A verb definition would appear unidiomatic to me. There was an objection at Talk:hit the ball twice. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 08:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's an adverb - he was out hit the ball twice. Hence keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Kept and tagged for cleanup. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, but blech, what an ugly adjective. Can't the cricketeers just say "he was out because he hit the ball twice" or "he was out for hitting the ball twice."? Facts707 12:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Striking. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 18:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for Verification discussion
Rfv-sense: noun. Any cites for 'a hit the ball twice' or 'the hit the ball twice'? Two cites we already have justify the adverb. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh Facts, did you really have to remove the adverb? That now means if the noun fails RFV, this entry will be deleted. Also, I don't see how your citation justifies a noun, any more like "rule 2: hitting a six" justifies a noun entry for hitting a six. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, I just rfv-sensed the adverb as well, so both can be discussed. Facts707 11:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't mean to frustrate you. It just appeared very obvious to me that the entry was a rule:, hence there was no need for the adverb. Apparently you don't see it that way, so I'm happy to discuss it here with others. Facts707 11:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: adverb. The adverb appears to me to be an attributive use of the rule "hit the ball twice". Thus, in cricket:, the rule: is "hit the ball twice" and the ruling: is "out, hit the ball twice", "out 'hit the ball twice'", "out Hit the ball twice", "out (hit the ball twice)", etc. Facts707 11:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly (very clearly) we disagree on what the citations actually support. Try comparing:


 * 1) The batsman was out happily
 * 2) The batsman was out hit the ball twice

It seems to describe the way of being out, in the same way that happily does. That said, we need more input. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mglovesfun, "it seems to describe the way of being out". - -sche (discuss) 04:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cited. Already tagged RFC. Feel free to also tag RFD. - -sche (discuss) 03:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC discussion: May 2010
Isn't this an adverb? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)