Talk:overthrow

overthrow
Rfd-redundant. I'm really not sure about this one, as I know virtually nothing about cricket. The possibly redundant sense is
 * 3. (cricket) The act of a fielder throwing the ball back to the infield, where it is not gathered and continues to the opposite outfield.

—redundant to
 * 2. (sports) A throw that goes too far.

Note also the separate sense
 * 4. (cricket) A run scored by the batting side when a fielder throws the ball back to the infield, whence it continues to the opposite outfield.

&#x200b;—msh210℠ 16:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I know quite a bit about cricket, and sense three looks redundant to sense 2 to me. Sense 4 could also be phrased better - the key thing is that instead of the throw going to another member of the fielding team (or hitting the stumps*), it goes to a position that is sufficiently far from any other fielders that the batsmen have time to run one or more times between the wickets (and thus score one or more runs). This will usually be the outfield on the opposite side of the wicket to the original throw, but need not be. *It is also possible for the stumps to be hit but a batsmen not be dismissed, for the ball to continue past (or to rebound off) the stumps to a position as described in the previous sentence.
 * This needs to be condensed and simplified - something that I'm not good at! Thryduulf (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep the "a run scored " sense but delete the other one, and put at the bottom of the page. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Now see Citations:overthrow. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * erm, that just shows that the "run scored" sense is used, which is not in question here, not is it the sense that msh210 identified as redundant. My comment regarding that sense is only that the definition could be better phrased. Thryduulf (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I already advocate deleting that sense. Msh210 seemed to be asking for clarification on why the 4th since was different, and I hope I've provided it. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't read Msh210's comments re sense 4 as implying he thought it also unnecessary. I understand your comment now. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nor did I. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 18:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sense removed. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have split the senses by etymology. All of the ones at issue should be in Etymology 2. Sorry to mess up the identity between the numberings on this page and in the entry. DCDuring TALK 19:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)