Talk:Rounders

Untitled

I decided to add to this article because I had a PNG which could easily be converted to a diagram of a rounders pitch. However, the material I had and that on the web about rules is very confusing (which is why I call it material rather than information), and I've never played rounders in my life, so I have almost certainly made errors of both commission and omission and would be grateful if someone would correct them. Trontonian 00:36, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Was rounders really invented in Ireland? Everything I've read except wikipedia says that it was invented or at least first recorded in England and was a possible descendent of stoolball --203.122.209.186 07:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

If it was invented in ireland, why then is there a sport called Irish Rounders? It's like if there was a sport called Scottish Golf or Gaelic Gaelic football WookMuff 22:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This page is a mess , is their anyone who know how closely related these games are because if they are very different in that they only share a name they need to split (Gnevin 02:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

The assertion that rounders is an Irish game (which I've never heard anywhere else) was posted by an IP address clear back in August. As far as I know, the game most commonly called "rounders" is English, not Irish. As to whether the Irish version is very similar, I couldn't say, but maybe someone could also write a section on how similar rounders was to the "New England game" of baseball, which ultimately lost out to the "New York game" (the opposite of what happened with clam chowder, but that's another dish). Wahkeenah 02:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Rounders isn't all that organised in Ireland, every primary school in the country uses a different set of rules in my experience. EamonnPKeane 19:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Rounders is one smile of the four national sports of Ireland: http://www.gaa.ie/page/rounders.html. The GAA (the biggest sporting organisation in Ireland) suggests that it has existed in Ireland for several hundred years. It is practically unimaginable for such an organisation to adopt an 'English' game as one of its key constituents, especially as it was formed at the height of the Gaelic Revival, which was dintinctly opposed to the influence of Britain in Irish culture and society. Surely this is definitive enough to warrant mention on Wikipedia. Eamonn may be correct in saying that the rules aren't adhered to in schools, but in fact the GAA have very strict rules of play. Such an assertion is no more valid than saying that the rules of soccer aren't adhered to at schools because they use the play yard as a pitch and a couple of jumpers a goal posts- it isn't really relevant.

English or Irish?

I've updated this page with a conciliatory note. Whether rounders is English or Irish is probably up for debate (what the English call rounders is called baseball in the earliest citable incidence and what the Irish call rounders is almost identical to what is called baseball today). However, the earliest national association for "rounders" is recorded by the Irish (the GAA) in 1884 and the Scottish (i.e. a celtic country) formed an association in 1889. Liverpool followed suit in 1889 (suspiciously close to the Welsh border?) but an English association (the NRA) was not formed until 1943. The GAA game is quiet different to the NRA game - although both are comparable in type of game. In the article I have separated both by calling one the GAA game and the other NRA game and ordering both in alphabetical order. Sony-youth 00:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The ultimate origin of different sports are lost in the mists of time. I was completely unaware that rounders was considered an Irish sport or even that it was played outside England. IMO whoever writes the rules first can claim it as theirs.GordyB 15:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay my considered thoughts. This might be worth reading History of cricket, rounders and cricket are similar enough that it is hard to believe that they don't have a common origin. For example the two methods of dismissal in rounders (a direct catch and hitting the post before the run arrives) have direct equivalents in cricket. The original cricket used an underarm bowling technique like rounders. The terminology is fairly similar innings, fielder, batsmen, bowl (rather than pitch or throw) are all found in both games. I suspect that various games were played throughout Britain and Ireland that had a strong resemblance to rounders / baseball / cricket.

The GAA were the first to codify the sport so if it had come from England originally then it must have been played in Ireland long enough to no longer be considered English. The fact that Liverpool and Scotland formed associations I would attribute to the Irish diaspora following the famine rather than any inherent Celtic tradition, though a Welshman did once tell me that a sport called 'baseball' was still played in Wales and wasn't quite the same as rounders. The late creation of an association for England doesn't mean that the sport was not played in England. It just means that it wasn't organised or codified. I have never heard of teams of adults playing rounders, in England it is considered a game for children.GordyB 21:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Origins of baseball also gives much the same story, English literature refers to 'baseball' much earlier than the foundation of the GAA. This is not proof that it is an English game but it was Irish in origin then it must have entered England long before the GAA was set up.GordyB 21:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Part of the trouble is the slippery term "baseball". There is a very specific game called "baseball" now, but the old term "base ball" (or just "ball") was used for most any kind of bat-and-ball game. And since the playing of sports (especially by adults) was considered frivolous, there doesn't seem to have been much published about it before the year 1800. Wahkeenah 22:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the comment about a Welshman mentioning a version of Baseball played in Wales - yes a game called Baseball very unlike rounders is played in South Wales and Merseyside - the ball is very similar to an American baseball, the bases are arranged in a diamond but the batsman bats standing at "pegs" which are a few feet away from base 4. The bat has a flat striking face and could be visualised as a hybrid between a cricket bat and an American baseball bat. Scoring is totally different, the number of runs scored (1,2,3 or 4) depends on the base reached without hesitation from striking the ball, there are no areas where a batsman cannot legally hit the ball, the entire field is "in play". A batsman must run once he has struck at a ball, he must strike at his second "good" ball or he is out. The ball is delivered by the bowler underarm but there is much controversy about whether a bowler has a legal action as very high speeds can be generated by an underarm "flicking" action. Each side has 11 players who all bat, each team has two innings, an innings only ends when all 11 are out, concepts from cricket such as an "innings defeat" and "following on" are used. A great game but sorry to say it not as good as cricket. I have remembered an anecdote whereby a Cardiff Baseball team played the Glamorgan cricket team in the 1960s at both games and the cricketers reputedly would not allow the leading Welsh baseball bowler of the time to bowl in the cricket match underarm due to his excessive speed. --DominicShields 10:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the argument for an Irish origin of rounders (or specifically Irish). Rounders, to whatever extent it may have resembled baseball and whatever it might have been called, "baseball" or "base" or a variety of names, was relegated to a pastime and children's game in England when cricket became a professional sport. That's a fairly ready explanation for the codification of an alternative game in other countries in the British Isles. To assume that it's an Irish game because it gets codified in Ireland seems a bit of a stretch when you can readily see the nationalistic impulse to just do something differently from the English. Cricket meanwhile has been culturally invisible in Ireland, despite being played there pretty well as long as in England. There's not much in favour of Irish rounders except a nationalistic desire to own it, which the GAA achieved through codification. Like the poster above, I've never heard of adults playing rounders or of it being a competitive sport at all, it's just a game for primary school children in the UK.
However, one can always learn, and I've just discovered here that it's enjoying renewed popularity in the UK (or maybe England), including among adults. I note it describes the game as 'quintessentially English... played since Tudor times' but it does bring things up to date with mention of this year's World Cup. Hakluyt bean (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What you’re describing is international baseball. Every year, England plays Wales to contest the Gladstone Rose Bowl. —Wiki Wikardo 05:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Origin?

Baseball originated before Rounders but that would not qualify under the No Original Research rule. 19:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Rounders evolved from Baseball. Baseball appeared in English language dictionaries before rounders made an appearance. 11:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

All that tells you is when the term was recorded. All of these earlier variants were called "ball" or "base ball". As "baseball" came to be more specifically defined, they may well have invented the term "rounders" to distinguish this other ball game in which one runs "round" the bases. Wahkeenah 11:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Modern (American) baseball was certainly codified before either the "Irish" or "English" games, but nothing suggests that the games played in the British Isles were developed from the American game. Rather, the other way around. As pointed out above, the term baseball (or its variants) is certainly quite old, predating all of the three games. I would imagine, giving its similarity and date of being codified that the GAA game could be based on (or mutually based on) the American game.

I'd love to know more about the longer term history. As it is this page suffers from being essentially no more that an explaination of the rules - which as we can see are quite different between the GAA and the NRA. --sony-youth^talk 11:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That suggests there is either insufficient information or, just as likely, insufficient interest. I'm guessing rounders is not a big-money sport overall. Baseball and cricket are big-money bat-and-ball games; there is a much broader base of interest in the games, and in researching them. Arguably, every one of these games began with bored shepherds tossing rocks and someone else swinging at them with a stick. Wahkeenah 12:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Rounders, big money, no. Interest, sure, but local and children. But that should not stop us from writing a good article about it. --sony-youth^talk 13:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Rounders information is near impossible to get, its just not very well organised , at least the GAA version isn't . Finding pictures of the GAA game took me months and the best i could find was a very low quality promo pic (Gnevin 13:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC))

Rounders is played by all age groups in Ireland, including adult/senior level. It also includes mixed teams. It is governed by The Rounders Council of Ireland, rounders.gaa.ie . They also had an exhibition game played in Croke Park 2 years ago, I think, before the Armagh Laois game.

The game of Rounders is not based on Baseball. Rounders was being played in these isles in the 16th century. The American game of Baseball is a descendent of a form of Rounders (either Irish or English), probably brought over to North American by the early settlers.

I am an Irishman living in England for most of my life and going to school in England we played rounders. I have never seen anyone play but I have heard of games which are also school based. The sport in Ireland is played differently (rules) and at a much higher tempo, and is closer to modern baseball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.65.157 (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Irish Name of Game

The name of the game is needed In the Irish Gaelic as well as the english when referring to the GAA rules as this is the Irish Gaelic version of the game so will have a different name in the Gaelic language. The name is also needed as it will be spoken in Irish Gaelic speaking parts of Ireland. I do agree the other languages such as french are unnecessary.--13:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it to the GAA section. It is not relevant elsewhere. TharkunColl (talk) 10:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tharky, the lead paragraph for this article was already much discussed. Following the format of all the traditional Irish sports of hurling, camogie, Gaelic football, Gaelic handball and rounders, the Irish translation follows the opening in the lead paragraph. --Bardcom (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

But it's not an Irish game though. TharkunColl (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

From the GAA point of view it is, As this article covers the Irish version of the game and the English version the name in Gaelic should be included in the intro Gnevin (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Tharky, please respect the consensus that has already formed on this article. I encourage you to debate your research/reasons here, on the talk page, before an inadvertant edit-war is started. The main school of thought is that since the GAA created the first official association and first official rules, it should arguably be called an Irish game. Your argument is much the same debate as has taken place recently on the origins of baseball, because that shares the same origins (still not 100% accepted by some editors, but...). A similar consensus has formed there. There is another argument that says that the Irish game of Rounders is different that the British game, and perhaps a case could be made to split the article. But for now, please consider a proper discussion here first. --Bardcom (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The game originated in England as your own edits made clear, and is not therefore an Irish game. For an article on the Irish version of the game the Irish name would be fine - and in the absence of such an article the only place for the Irish name is in the section dealing with the Irish version. Why should a game originating in England have its Irish name in the lead? TharkunColl (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason, in this particular case, is because the GAA were the first to set up an organization and rules, and for many, it is considered a traditional Irish game. Origination is not the same thing as acknowledging the birth of a "modern" version of the game. Many things originate in one country or culture, and become assimilated into another country and culture. For example, it's much the same argument that soccer is an English game, although evidence supports the origination in China and the Italians also lay claim to it's origination - but because the FA were the first to create the first official rules, for many this is regarded as the birth of the modern game. A similar argument can be made with regard to Rounders. We don't call the game "Stool Ball", which is regarded as where the game originated. It doesn't make it any less an Irish game because it originated in England, and there are competitions where participants from both disciplines compete. The article follows the format of the other traditional Irish games, and acknowledges that it most like originated in England. --Bardcom (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the Irish name for football (or soccer)? I've checked both articles, and its not there. Just because a game has become popular in Ireland doesn't mean it should have an Irish name in the lead. This is, after all, the English language Wikipedia. TharkunColl (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're still missing the point. If the first rules of the game and the first association was set up in Ireland, then an argument could be made for football(soccer) to be an Irish game too. But, since this isn't true, there's no need for the Irish translation. It's not about "popularity", it about creation and formulization. --Bardcom (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Check Gaelic football which is a Gaelic game. Which like rounders organised by the Gaelic Athletic Association Gnevin (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest you create a separate article for the Irish version of rounders. The fact is that rounders is not an Irish game. Only the Irish version of it is organised by the GAA. TharkunColl (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest you build consensus for splitting this article and if you do I would suggest that this page becomes a disambig page such as

• Rounders (English game)
• Rounders (Gaelic game)

currently this page is for Rounders both styles of the game and one which Irish for sure Gnevin (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

As I've already stated, a case can be made to seperate the articles. But there are so many similarities and shared history that consensus appears to have formed around having a single article. And references to back up your assertion that rounders is not an Irish game as doesn't appear to be mentioned in the article... --Bardcom (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not an Irish game because the Irish don't own it - it is English in origin. Since this is the English language Wikipedia, a foreign name in the lead is inappropriate. See, for example, sports like football etc. which similarly don't have an Irish name in the lead, even though they are very popular there. The only place it could conceivably be appropriate is in an article on the Irish version of the game. So go ahead and split the article if you want. TharkunColl (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Nobody "owns" it, and nobody claims to "own" it. But it is regarded as a traditional Irish game, and the article follows the established example of placing the Irish name in the opening. Your continued edits are not justified and are against consensus, please stop. --Bardcom (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't regard it as a traditional Irish game. On the contrary, in England it's a game very popular with schoolgirls and therefore quintessentially English. Just because the Irish regard it as a traditional Irish game doesn't mean it is. Please stop trying to annexe it. TharkunColl (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. Nobody is trying to annexe the game. Are you claiming the English own it? If so, please provide references, etc. Until then, please follow consensus. --Bardcom (talk) 08:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I am NOT claiming the English own it! It is a game that no one owns, and for this reason the only name that's appropriate on the English language Wikipedia is the English one (except in the section dealing specifically with the Irish version). Can you not understand my reasoning here? TharkunColl (talk) 08:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand. The critical point for me is that the GAA name the game as one of the 4 official GAA sports in the original charter of 1884</ref>, and consensus is for GAA sports to have the Irish language translation in the lead paragraph (I gave the references above). I understand your point though, and my best suggestion is to try to get consensus to separate the Rounders article into two. --Bardcom (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that might be a practical solution. The point being, of course, that only the GAA version is an official GAA sport - rounders as a whole is not. The consensus you refer to can only, therefore, apply to the GAA version, and until such time as it gets its own article the Irish name should only appear in the section dealing with that version. TharkunColl (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a very big overlap between the two games - I suppose that's why the consensus was to have one article. The consensus I refer to covers two things. The first is that "traditional" GAA sports have the Irish name in the lead paragraph, and it's therefore also justified and correct in this article. The second is that the English and Irish games are very closely related - so much so that a single article exists. If you can find references that explicitly state that the GAA version is a completely different version, then we have the basis to separate into two articles, and the basis to remove the Irish text from the lead. But until you get consensus, your changes are only representative of your own opinion. I do not see any corrections to factual errors, or any additional material added. --Bardcom (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No matter how similar they are, only the GAA version has any claim to be a "Gaelic" sport, and it is therefore only to the GAA that the consensus you refer to can apply. Rounders is a generic name, like football. If you wish to write an article for the GAA version then go ahead - personally I don't think it's particularly necessary (though I would not oppose it). But it is only that article - or only the section of this article that deals with the GAA version - that falls under your consensus, because the other forms of rounders are not "Gaelic" sports. TharkunColl (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not *my* concensus, it's the consensus of this article and other GAA-related sport articles. And if *you* decide to change it, then *you* must test consensus. --Bardcom (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think all that can be said has been said TharkunColl , the clear consensus is for the status quo there is little point in talking in circles Gnevin (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The consensus only applies to "Gaelic" games. Only the GAA version of rounders falls under this category. Please explain, with references, why the Irish own rounders in all its forms. TharkunColl (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Eh? Are you trying to make an argument that the Irish translation is dependant on proving that "the Irish" *own* rounders? I won't repeat the the discussion above - please reread. And please stop editting the article to push your POV, which is against consensus for this article. --Bardcom (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop trying to claim that a consensus exists when in fact it only applies to "Gaelic" sports, and therefore only to the GAA version of rounders. It is your POV that insists on a foreign name in the lead. TharkunColl (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This article has it's own consensus formed. There is another consensus for traditional Irish sports associated with the GAA. Both separate consensuses support the Irish translation in the lead. I can tell that you are frustrated and that you don't agree (been there myself on a number of articles), and I have tried to suggest ways in which you can test consensus and try to get agreement for your POV to get wider agreement. --Bardcom (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgetting about the Gaelic game for a minutes it still me and Bardcom wanting to keep it versus your self so the consensus is with the two of us as their is only one of you or in other words 2 is more than 1 Gnevin (talk) 10:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Gnevin, be aware that consensus is not a vote, and wikipedia is not a democracy. What counts is the strength of an argument, references, citable sources, scholarly articles, and historical discussions where consensus was tested and formed. When a change is made and disagreed with, the onus is on the editor making the changes to present an argument, and to back it up with the aforementioned references, etc. If after this an agreement cannot be reached, the editor may wish to test consensus and call on other editors to make their opinions known. At this point, a new consensus may be formed. I just wanted to be clear on what is happening - it is most definitely not a case of two editors ganging up on one. And some of Tharky's points may be perfectly valid - such as splitting the article. --Bardcom (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Bard i'm aware of the above but in case's like this where it comes's down to 1 editors stylistic opinion versus other's editors stylistic opinion. The balance is in favour of does with the consensus of which one measure is greater numbers in favour of X .I didn't mean it to sound like it's 2V1 so we win !!'. Was just making the point in this case if you ignore the Gaelic games consensus their as still 2 people in favour of keeping the Irish and one against which in this case shows the consensus to be in favour of the status quo. If you understand? Gnevin (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Even though the different versions of rounders are quite similar to each other, and internationally it is only a minority sport, I suggest that the closest analogy here is with football - namely, a term that covers many different games with their own rules (including, for example, Gaelic football). I had hoped to be able to persuade by the force of logic alone, because it really makes no sense to treat the article on rounders as if the GAA version was somehow normative - and by putting the Irish name in the lead this is exactly what is being implied. The truth is that rounders is also very popular in England - specifically amongst schoolgirls. This is clearly a very different sort of game to that played by men in Ireland, even if the rules are quite similar on paper. The article, for some reason, makes little or no mention of this aspect of the game, but unfortunately I am not so well-informed as to be able to expand on it, since I am not now, nor have I ever been, a schoolgirl. What I do know is that this version of rounders of which I speak is quite possibly closer to the original, since stoolball was also, it is believed by some at least, played primarily by young women (specifically, in this case, milkmaids). None of this comes out in the article, and nor can it if the Gaelic version is regarded as standard. TharkunColl (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that football is the closest analogy - the same game is played in Ireland as in France as in England. Same rules, same bad refereeing decisions, same everything. The article makes it clear that there are different rules. If you want to add references to show that it's mainly a schoolgirl game in England, fire ahead - although that makes me wonder why there are international events. How do schoolgirls manage to compete against wild healthy Irishmen wielding their bats? (sorry - getting carried away). --Bardcom (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

TharkunColl you are now in breach of WP:3RR Gnevin (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in breach of 3RR - the first edit was an edit, and not a reversion (I have encountered this before when the shoe was on the other foot, as it were). To Bardcom, by using the analogy of football I was including all the different games called football - Association (i.e. "soccer"), Gaelic, Australian Rules, etc. The article football discusses all of these and has links to their separate articles as well. Those international events to which you refer, namely English schoolgirls against wild Irishmen, definitely sound like fun, and I think we should write to Sky Sports and suggest it. (Incidentally, according to [1], rounders is played in 86% of all schools in the UK, which is quite a lot really.) TharkunColl (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Between these two edits [2] their are 16 edits with no change apart for the naming issue , 7 by your self you are well in breech Gnevin (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The rule specifies 3 reverts in 24 hours. TharkunColl (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[3] 4 reverts in 24 hours Gnevin (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read the first sentence of my last but one response. And then, please try countering my points with logical argument - if you can think of any. In short, why does this article - by putting the Irish name in the lead - treat rounders as if it were a Gaelic game, when in fact only one version of it is? TharkunColl (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The article treats Rounders are set of games first then discusses English and Gaelic rounders ,putting the Irish in the title doesn't make and claims sort of like Rugby footballGnevin (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If the article is about a set of games (which it is), then why put a foreign language name in the lead, rather than in its own proper section? Please make some attempt to answer this, rather than just ignoring it again. TharkunColl (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Because there is no consensus that it is a set of different games - or to be more accurate, that the consensus is that there is a single game with minor rules differences. Strong likelyhood that it originates in England from Stoolball, we all agree on. But it isn't Stoolball. Or Baseball. Or cricket. Or any other bat, ball, and bases game. Putting the Irish translation in the lead doesn't make an assertion that the game is Irish - same as putting the Irish translation into other terms, like "British Isles", doesn't mean that they're Irish either. Tharky, I get your point - you've made it very well. You believe that there are two games, that are different, and therefore there should be two separate articles. The people that created this article have created a joint article, so the consensus appears to be different than your viewpoint. So far, nobody else has joined in (other than us three) to voice an opinion either way, so for me that indicates that consensus is for no change. --Bardcom (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Softwarestorage (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Repetition: "The earliest nationally formalised rules of play were devised by the GAA in Ireland in 1884" appears twice in the opening (lead) paragraph!! Detailed history/development of the game should be reserved for its own section.

Further, because of the conflicts voiced above, and the distinction between the games(cf Rugby - League and Union), there is a clear case for two articles. Rounders was quite clearly described ("ROUNDERS. In the west of England this is one of the most favourite sports with the bat and ball...") in 1829! (The Boy's Own Book: A Complete Encyclopedia of All the Diversions, Athletic, Scientific, and Recreative, of Boyhood and Youth, by William Clarke, Published by Vizetelly, Branston and Co., 1829 [4]). And how about the venerable Encyclopædia Britannica...: A Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, Literature and General Information By Hugh Chisholm Published by The Encyclopædia Britannica Company, 1911: "Rounders, an English ball game, probably dating from the 18th century...". EB also reveals that NRA was originally NRA of Liverpool and Vicinity and was formed as a governing body in 1889. Rounders was recognized as a game of Great Britain in 1866 by an American! (The Book of American Pastimes: Containing a History of the Principal Base Ball, Cricket, Rowing, and Yachting Clubs of the United States by Charles A. Peverelly published by The author, 1866).

Yes, there is an overtly Gaelic tone to the article which is unwarranted.Softwarestorage (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right. So far as anybody knows it's a game or pastime first recorded in England, and first codified as a sport in Ireland (one may add that this is because the English had already codified cricket). As far as the English are concerned it's an English game, and for the Irish it's an Irish sport. To infer from it's present status in Ireland some historical roots in Ireland is unjustified. The equivalent of folk etymology. Actually it reminds me of the Abner Doubleday myth in U.S. baseball. Hakluyt bean (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Pablomarin (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Reverted revision 280708553 by 90.195.116.220

I have reverted the last change (2008-March-30) made by an unnamed user. The Bases section was changed in an estrange way. It was put all in italics, and had an addition of types of bowling. It was bad-formatted and without explaining the different types (are they local names or are widespread terms?). Probably this was a legitimate entry from an informed user, then please rewrite your entry in the correct section with proper wikipedia format and without typos.

I added some info a while ago about the Rounders World Festival and the first meeting of the World Rounders Association, and there was no team or representation from Ireland. I'm thinking the Gaelic game has got to be a separate sport. Obviously baseball and rounders of both forms are related and derive vaguely from Ireland & Britain, but I think they might be better understood treated separately. At the moment a UK resident might come across this article and regard the Gaelic form as essentially derivative and that can't really be fair. Additionally Irish claims to English rounders traditions are also perhaps a bit misleading. Hakluyt bean (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The "bases" section has the bizarre statement:

Some of the bases may be sprinkled with vinegar for blind players to smell where they are going.

I assume this is made up, but I don't know anything about Rounders, so I can't be sure. --Cryptnotic (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Womens' and childrens' game?

Rounders is played by both sexes in schools. I believe that women play it, but not men in any formal competitions. Surely the article should reflect this so-obvious aspect of rounders? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.106.127 (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Tudor Period

The first sentence of the history section states that the game has been "played in England since Tudor times, with the earliest reference being in 1744." The problem with this is that 1744 was significantly after the tudor era. Is this a factual error, or is there a plausible explanation for this? ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 06:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This does not appear to be an error - the source of the 1744 reference is given. In the absence of further information, one can only assume that the reference alludes to the game having been played in Tudor times. A little more research might help, though. Hohenloh ⁺ 12:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Diagram?

A diagram of the field of play (pitch?) marked with dimensions, direction of run, positions of players, etc, would be useful. 86.166.161.236 (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

In any event do something about the diagram link that automatically downloads to your computer. I get pretty angry when such a thing happens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.106.10.150 (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Really two separate games?

So just to make sure that I'm getting this right, the name "rounders" is really used for two separate but related codes of the game, one originating in England and one in Ireland. As such, I think the article needs to be more clear about the differences between the rule sets, and be more careful about treating the English game as the default. Would be a bit more NPOV as such. Maybe a structure where the each game is more fully described, and then contrasted would be useful. Likewise the contrasts with baseball, softball and Welsh baseball could be separated to the different versions of rounders as well. Ultimately, if it appears prudent, I wonder if separate articles might be most beneficial. oknazevad (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 13 September 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 10:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Rounders → Rounders (game) – Or Rounders (sport). The poker-oriented film of the same has been viewed more than centuries-old children's game/sport, especially last year. Sure, it's a bat-and-ball game, like baseball and cricket. However, the game's significance pales in comparison to the film's popularity... and possible inspiration to poker boom. George Ho (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I fail to be convinced the film has long-term significance, and it is apparently simply a cult hit amongst poker fans. Compared to a centuries-old game, I think the game is clearly the one that is more historically impactful. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  Shoot, I forgot to propose retargeting the current name to Rounder (dabpage). George Ho (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• There are other uses of the generic term though not with articles and other films. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, in agreement with Zxcvbnm about long term significance. A game played by 80% of UK secondary schools (as of 2015) is in my view going to be far more likely to be the primary topic, then a cult film. There are Problems With depending on Page Views, and many cases where pages with many more views are not judged to be the primary topic. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose The film appears to be relatively minor one, while the the game is long-lasting and popular. Personally, I have never lived in the UK, don't have the slightest idea of the rules or gameplay, and have never seen rounders played, but I still know of it. I can't say I've ever heard of the film before. Meters (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Long-term significance is not met by any means. oknazevad (talk) 12:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.