Consider the following statements: ...Read more
Poll Results
Please login to vote and see the results.
In cricket, the term "Nelson" refers to scores that are considered unlucky, typically associated with the numbers 111, 222, 333, and so on. These are multiples of 111, and the superstition stems from the belief that these scores resemble a wicketless set of stumps, possibly symbolizing bad luck. OriRead more
In cricket, the term “Nelson” refers to scores that are considered unlucky, typically associated with the numbers 111, 222, 333, and so on. These are multiples of 111, and the superstition stems from the belief that these scores resemble a wicketless set of stumps, possibly symbolizing bad luck.
Origin of the Term:
1. Lord Nelson Connection: The term is often linked to Admiral Lord Nelson, the British naval hero. It is humorously claimed that Nelson had “one eye, one arm, and one leg” during battle, hence the association with 111. However, this claim is historically inaccurate, as Nelson had both legs. Despite this, the superstition persisted in cricket folklore.
2. Superstition in Cricket: The belief is that “Nelson” scores bring bad luck, and a wicket might fall when a team or player reaches such a score.
Practices and Traditions:
Umpire David Shepherd’s Ritual: The superstition gained more attention thanks to David Shepherd, a famous cricket umpire. Whenever the score reached a Nelson (111, 222, etc.), Shepherd would hop on one leg, supposedly to ward off bad luck. This quirky ritual became iconic in cricket.
Fans’ Reactions: Fans and players sometimes exhibit nervousness or perform small superstitions when a team or player is stuck on a Nelson score.
Modern View:
While the “Nelson” superstition is mostly a light-hearted tradition, it remains an entertaining and quirky aspect of cricket culture, highlighting the sport’s blend of historical anecdotes and superstition.
See less
Let's analyze the statements: Statement I: The Supreme Court of India has held in some judgments that reservation policies made under Article 16(4) would be limited by Article 335 to maintain the efficiency of administration. This is correct. The Supreme Court, in various rulings (such as the IndraRead more
Let’s analyze the statements:
Statement I:
The Supreme Court of India has held in some judgments that reservation policies made under Article 16(4) would be limited by Article 335 to maintain the efficiency of administration.
This is correct. The Supreme Court, in various rulings (such as the Indra Sawhney case), has emphasized that while Article 16(4) provides for reservations in public employment, it must be balanced with Article 335, which states that the claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes must be consistent with maintaining the efficiency of administration.
Statement II:
Article 335 defines the term “efficiency of administration.”
This is incorrect. Article 335 does not define “efficiency of administration.” It only mentions that the claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes should be taken into consideration, consistent with the maintenance of efficiency of administration. However, it does not provide a definition of “efficiency.”
Correct answer:
See lessStatement-I is correct but Statement-II is incorrect