Search by property

Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page provides a simple browsing interface for finding entities described by a property and a named value. Other available search interfaces include the page property search, and the ask query builder.

Search by property

A list of all pages that have property "Query" with value "<p>Comment is welcome on the interpretation of the three cryptic rule descriptions for this 12-player game.</p> <p>[1] "One knock and catch out?"  Could this be taken to define one-out-side-out innings?  Or, that ticks counted as outs if caught behind the batter? Or something else?  <strong>Note: </strong>Richard Hershberger points out that 1OSO rules could not have likely allowed the scoring of 81 runs with no outs.  That would imply that the clubs may have used the All-Out-Side-Out rule.</p> <p>[2] "Each one out for himself?"  Could batters continue in the batting order until retired?  That too, then, might imply the use of an All-Out-Side-Out inning format</p> <p>[3] "Each side one inns?"  So the Whigs made those 81 "counts" in a single inning? </p> <p>Richard Hershberger also surmises that the first two rules are meant to be conjoined: "One knock and catch out, each one out for himself."  That would declare that [a] caught fly balls (and, possibly, caught one-bound hits?) were to be considered outs, and that [b] batters who are put out would lose their place in the batting order that inning; but were there any known variants games for which such catches would <strong>not</strong> be considered outs?   </p>". Since there have been only a few results, also nearby values are displayed.

Showing below up to 2 results starting with #1.

View (previous 50 | next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)


    

List of results

    • 1844.15  + (<p>Comment is welcome on the interpr<p>Comment is welcome on the interpretation of the three cryptic rule descriptions for this 12-player game.</p></br><p>[1] "One knock and catch out?"  Could this be taken to define one-out-side-out innings?  Or, that ticks counted as outs if caught behind the batter? Or something else?  <strong>Note: </strong>Richard Hershberger points out that 1OSO rules could not have likely allowed the scoring of 81 runs with no outs.  That would imply that the clubs may have used the All-Out-Side-Out rule.</p></br><p>[2] "Each one out for himself?"  Could batters continue in the batting order until retired?  That too, then, might imply the use of an All-Out-Side-Out inning format</p></br><p>[3] "Each side one inns?"  So the Whigs made those 81 "counts" in a single inning? </p></br><p>Richard Hershberger also surmises that the first two rules are meant to be conjoined: "One knock and catch out, each one out for himself."  That would declare that [a] caught fly balls (and, possibly, caught one-bound hits?) were to be considered outs, and that [b] batters who are put out would lose their place in the batting order that inning; but were there any known variants games for which such catches would <strong>not</strong> be considered outs?   </p>rong> be considered outs?   </p>)