Women can't throw hand grenades

[Andrew of Ware]

Originally Posted by Hero_Mike

So here's the question - in cricket, where do you put your weakest thrower when they are fielding?

It depends what you mean by weakest thrower. If you are talking purely on strength then these fieldsmen are usually placed in the slips or gully. These are behind the batsman and very close, often only fifteen yards or so, and are there to catch the ball if the batsman hits the ball with the edge of his bat.

Failing that the weak throwers are placed at square leg or point. These positions are a bit further away than slips or gully, say twenty to thirty yards, but their main job is to stop the ball. If they do need to throw the ball then accuracy is more important than strength. To get a batsman run out you have to hit the wicket itself. A direct hit is one of the great sights in cricket.

Your strongest throwers are in the outfield close to the boundary, up to sixty yards or more from the wicket.

Here is a video from the Indian Premier League of 2012 showing some run outs and you can see that many of them are the result of an accurate, rather than a strong, throw.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnuWA1bsiaE

[nonnieyrissa]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

I'm a nerdy deskjob sailor and I could throw a M67 to safe distance my first try and I have a real hard time thinking I've got a better throwing arm then 45% of female Marines.

I do not believe the OP is accurate of trained female marines(or other branches), but your description leaves out the fact that nerdy/desktop job aside, you are far from a small man, and you have been trained to use that to your advantage. I do think that depending on body size/shape and musculature that it could be harder for some men and women. Men can be smaller too. I think that's where training comes in.

[Beachlife!]

Originally Posted by jimmy101_again

....
On baseball vs Cricket players... if a soldier on the receiving end of the tossed grenade is a Brit (or Indian) they would be much better at batting it back if the grenade bounced once. Americans would be better at hitting it back it it hadn't hit the ground yet....

I gotta believe that if a grenade bounces, it isn't much.

[erwins]

I'm short (5'2") and out of shape, and I have a shoulder injury, but I know how to throw a ball. I'm sure that I could pass a test of throwing a football 15 yards. (I don't know that I could repeat it many times, because of the injury, but I'm sure I could do it at least once). As I mentioned before, I think it has much more to do with knowing how than any physical differences. I wonder if there simply needs to be more training for recruits (of both sexes) who don't have experience with proper throwing technique. It would probably be disproportionately filled with women, but would certainly include some men as well.

[ULTRAGOTHA]

Originally Posted by Andrew of Ware

Here is a video from the Indian Premier League of 2012 showing some run outs and you can see that many of them are the result of an accurate, rather than a strong, throw.

You now make me want to hijack this entire thread trying to find out what the heck it was I just saw.

[nonnieyrissa]

Originally Posted by ULTRAGOTHA

You now make me want to hijack this entire thread trying to find out what the heck it was I just saw.

Do you mean which sport? If so, cricket.

[Mad Jay]

Even the weakest throwers in cricket are expected to be able to throw the ball across the field. Even the fielders positioned near the wicket might have to run after the ball and throw it across. Trust me on this, if you happen to be a boy who cannot throw a ball, you get to be the "umpire". If you are playing pick-up games, no one wants to play with the boy who carries the ball back to the pitch. Throw the NFBSKing ball so we can continue, they say.

[Hero_Mike]

Originally Posted by Chloe

I don't think that's necessarily the case. There are a huge amount of pitches in baseball that also never get anywhere near the fielders. In cricket, an over without a hit is not unusual, but not the norm; in baseball, six pitches without a hit occurs much more frequently.

In baseball, when the ball is put into play, only a fly ball (and even then, with no one on base) will not result in a throw. Any ball hit on the ground will result in a throw - most of those throws being "urgent". But what you say is still correct - in a typical baseball game you might have maybe 15 pitches per inning for about 135 pitches. Anywhere between six and ten will be hits, with one likely being a home run. Of the 27 outs, maybe a half-dozen will be by strikeout, leaving 21 plays where the ball is fielded - maybe half of those will be ground balls in the infield. That's still a lot of pitches which aren't "in play". Outfielders in professional baseball may not have to throw very often, but when they do it's pretty critical. that they do it well.

Originally Posted by Andrew of Ware

It depends what you mean by weakest thrower.
Your strongest throwers are in the outfield close to the boundary, up to sixty yards or more from the wicket.

Thanks - that is a good play. For comparison of distances, across the diagonal of a baseball diamond, the distance is about 126 feet. Third basemen and shortstops will often make throws of this distance or a bit more depending upon their positioning. While moving. Those are not easy.

Outfielders sometimes make direct throws of near 300 feet but the general rule is to relay the throw so it arrives faster and more accurately. (The distance from home plate will vary from the low 300's - usually 330 feet at the corners, to 400 feet and even more in the deepest part of centre field.) In little-league baseball and recreational softball, these distances are much shorter and outfielders can easily make direct throws from the outfield.

Originally Posted by Mad Jay

Even the weakest throwers in cricket are expected to be able to throw the ball across the field. Even the fielders positioned near the wicket might have to run after the ball and throw it across. Trust me on this, if you happen to be a boy who cannot throw a ball, you get to be the "umpire". If you are playing pick-up games, no one wants to play with the boy who carries the ball back to the pitch. Throw the NFBSKing ball so we can continue, they say.

You're kind of missing the point when I say "where do you stick the weakest thrower". It implies that even the kid picked last is obliged to play the field, as is often the case in school. For some reason, gym teachers never let the tragically uncoordinated sit one out or play as the umpire. Same thing happens in adult recreational leagues for softball - some players' speed may best be described as "pylon", and age or injury may render their throwing arm useless - but all players must take the field for at least one inning. I've seen some pretty good hitters who were no longer able to field effectively (either being slow or that they couldn't throw) but still had to take their turn in the field. Actually, the best example of this was a co-ed softball league I played in as a grad student. The team needed a minimum of 3 women in the batting order, and 3 on the field (out of 10 fielders) at all times. We had some women who could play well, but we weren't a good team in general, so we all had our strengths and weaknesses and had to make sure the weak link didn't get exposed. Good hitters often seemed to take more pleasure in hitting it right at a bad fielder, than hitting it as hard as they could.

[thorny locust]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

The M67 weighs 14 ounces, roughly twice that of a softball or the weight of an American football.

So unofficial poll.. could most women here throw a football at least 15 meters?

I am female; 61 years old; 5' 2"; have always been terrible at sports; and have never been taught to throw.

I also have no hand grenades in stock, and not even any footballs. I do, however, have a small roundish winter squash that weighed in at 14 ounces. I just took it out in a field and threw it once, and then measured the distance: a bit over 60 feet, which translates to something over 18 meters*.

I do have more muscle than many women my age and size**. However, I find it extremely implausible that any woman fit enough to seriously consider applying for active field duty in any branch of the armed forces couldn't learn to throw 14 ounces a distance of 15 meters.



*Aim is another matter; the squash landed about twenty feet west of where I thought I was aiming. I told you I'm terrible at sports.

**ETA: within an average USA population. IME, most women who've been farming or doing other physical labor jobs nearly all of their lives are stronger than I am; I got a late start.

[ULTRAGOTHA]

Yes, I know it was Cricket. I just didn't understand any of what the players were doing that made it worth a "greats in Cricket" video. Totally clueless. Also, you're safe if the bat makes it across the line even if you don't?

I do now see why Prince Sameth's Cricket team in Lyrael by Garth Nix used Cricket stumps (correct term?) to pin the undead to the ground, though.
/hijack



unhijack - are we now of a more or less common mind that the statistic in the OP is full of bunk?

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by ULTRAGOTHA

unhijack - are we now of a more or less common mind that the statistic in the OP is full of bunk?

Either bunk, or a single incident (say one training group) that had some statistical anomaly for one reason or another that somehow morphed into the OP.

A 14 ounce grenade is simply not that large or heavy of an object and the differences in the throw to injury range for men so large I don't see it suddenly becoming a danger for women.

Had the statistic said that when given a 14 ounce grenade with a 15 foot injury radius men averaged 30-35 meters and women average 25-30 meters or 20-25 meters or something like that and the question of what dangers being that close to the injury radius might pose was raised... that I might have accepted.

But going from an overwhelming number of men being able to throw a grenade far outside the injury radius to the overwhelming majority of women being well within the injury radius... no I don't see that.

[nonnieyrissa]

Originally Posted by ULTRAGOTHA

Yes, I know it was Cricket. I just didn't understand any of what the players were doing that made it worth a "greats in Cricket" video. Totally clueless. Also, you're safe if the bat makes it across the line even if you don't?

Ah, no clue then. I think taken out of context it's hard to know unless you saw the actual match. I assume they were scoring moments that led to the victory. It's very likely that I am assuming wrong.

I agree the OP is bunk. I think it is likely that some women can't throw as far as some men, I find it highly unlikely that any trained soldier, male or female can't throw a grenade 15 meters.

[Troberg]

Originally Posted by thorny locust

I do have more muscle than many women my age and size**. However, I find it extremely implausible that any woman fit enough to seriously consider applying for active field duty in any branch of the armed forces couldn't learn to throw 14 ounces a distance of 15 meters.

A small clarification:

The 5 m kill radius and the 15 m injury radius are not the upper limits, they are the minimum limits. In other words, you can count on someone being within 5 meters being killed, and someone within 15 m being injured.

However, you are not safe if you are 20 m away, you are simply not guaranteed to get killed or injured. You could, if you are unlucky, get a fragment that kills you if you are 100 m away and a fragment could probably take out your eye at twice that distance.

That's why you need to throw and take cover, regardless if you throw it 5 meters or 50 meters. Heck, sometimes grenades are just lobbed around a corner...

[Dasla]

Originally Posted by ULTRAGOTHA

Yes, I know it was Cricket. I just didn't understand any of what the players were doing that made it worth a "greats in Cricket" video. Totally clueless. Also, you're safe if the bat makes it across the line even if you don't?

Yes, as long as the bat is grounded, that is in contact with the ground over the line, you are safe. The bat is considered part of the body, in this regard. This isn't the case in baseball? I guess I did know that because the tend to throw the bat away when they run?

[Nick Theodorakis]

In baseball the bat is generally discarded when the batter starts to move to first base. The is actually no rule (in Major League Baseball) that requires him to do so, but he may be called out for interference if the umpire judges that his bat interfered with the play. In any case, there is no need for the bat to be carried and it would likely slow the runner.

Nick