[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Okaaaay:

The orginal question:

So, we work backwards to find the answer.

We've heard about 5 different answers to this all of which could result in the batting side being awarded 5 extras off one ball. But Graham asked what "must" happen.

If we work backwards from the result, the only thing which could have happened which would definitely result in the 5 extras would be the ball hitting the keppers hemlmet (I'll say it again ), as that's the only certain event that leads to the result it must be the event in question otherwise we can't say that it must have happened.

Ergo, there is only one possible answer to that question, given the way that it was phrased.

Now.....if the question had been:

"What could happen in a game of cricket cricket for the batting side to be awarded 5 extras off of one ball"

.....

The word "must" implies that it is the "only" way which is obviously not the case. In the case of the only 5 extras in a match being the award of 5 penalty extras for something like tampering with the ball then it is obvious that the use of the word "must" is wrong. Whether you word the question with "must", "could", "can" or whatever you end up with a list of possibilities all of which are equally correct.

To be guaranteed that the only correct answer was the one that Graham thought it could be would be to ask the question

What must happen in a game of cricket for the batting side to be guaranteed the award of 5 extras off one ball?

Thinking about it a bit more the only correct answer to the question asked as it was would be "any one of the following things must have happened" followed by a list of ALL the possibilities. Only giving one of the reasons or part of the reasons means you cannot use the qualifying "must".