1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

International Cricket

Discussion in 'general sports' started by planetgeli, Jul 26, 2017.

  1. planetgeli

    planetgeli There's no future in England's dreaming

    Indeed. One match, seven wickets, test best of 6-39 which is already going to take some beating. Bye Dale, there's a 21 year old overtaking on the inside.
     
  2. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus one of Maxwell's demons

    Compare and contrast with England, for whom an aging and slowing Anderson is still their best bowler. England need new talent and fast or an era of 90s-style mediocrity beckons.
     
  3. squirrelp

    squirrelp Well-Known Member

    It's an excellent rule as shown by the fact that it virtually never needs to be applied. Just don't touch the ball unless invited to do so. Simple.
     
  4. squirrelp

    squirrelp Well-Known Member

    Still live, surely? Batsmen are quite entitled to run on a ball that is not moving.
     
    SpookyFrank likes this.
  5. Reiabuzz

    Reiabuzz Well-Known Member

    squirrelp likes this.
  6. squirrelp

    squirrelp Well-Known Member

  7. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus one of Maxwell's demons

    I would argue that once the ball had stopped moving, the batsman was no longer concerned that it might roll onto the stumps. He wasn't trying to run and neither was his partner. The keeper was jogging up to collect the ball, but wasn't trying to effect a run-out, hence it was just a gentle jog. As I understand it, once both teams consider the ball to be dead, the ball is dead, and that was the situation here. I think they got this wrong, not just in terms of the spirit but also in terms of the letter of the law. It hinges on the demeanour of the keeper here, imo, which is clearly that of someone who thinks the ball is dead.
     
    Spymaster likes this.
  8. OzT

    OzT Online early mornings when at work ....

    Certainly on sunday cricket that I played me many a time batters just looks at the bowler after a defensive stroke and both nod and just throw the ball back to the bowler.

    different I guess to letter of the law and in professional cricket.
     
  9. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus one of Maxwell's demons

    Don't think so. This is the relevant law:

    In this case, they referred it upstairs. IMO it should have been clear to the third ump that all concerned considered the ball dead.
     
    squirrelp likes this.
  10. OzT

    OzT Online early mornings when at work ....

    Oh I agree with you littlebabyjesus, just us part timers on Sunday leagues just use common sense and know there was never a run attempted and it was just helpfullness tossing the ball back :)
     
  11. squirrelp

    squirrelp Well-Known Member

    I've always wanted to run a cheeky single when the ball doesn't finally rest with the wicketkeeper or bowler and the fielders start lobbing it around. Although maybe it wouldn't work now :(
     
  12. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus one of Maxwell's demons

    One more thing - it was shite that the umps referred it upstairs. What exactly was the bowler's end umpire looking at that prevented him from making the decision.
     
  13. squirrelp

    squirrelp Well-Known Member

    I can be super popular on a cricket field. Once I was fielding at slip and there was an LBW appeal. The batsman leant forwards and held the the pose to say, 'look how far forward I am' (yes we didn't have DRS available). As the umpire considered his not out verdict, the ball trickled out to me and I scampered up and whipped off the bails. The captain withdrew my appeal
     
  14. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus one of Maxwell's demons

    Nice of the skip to withdraw the appeal, but this was less dodgy than the video here. I guess the point here is that a batsman cannot unilaterally decide the ball is dead, even if it appears to be the case. But once the fielding side starts acting like it's dead, then I reckon it should be ok.

    It's a fine line. When Ian Bell was run out by India after assuming the ball was dead and trooping off for tea, I was in the camp that said England should not have complained and India should not have withdrawn the appeal during the break (although they perhaps could have withdrawn it at the time). There is some responsibility for the batsman to pay heed to the fielders.
     
  15. Spymaster

    Spymaster Cockney Wanker

    The umpires on the field should be able to judge intent quite easily. That was silly.
     
  16. Spymaster

    Spymaster Cockney Wanker

    Which is why he shouldn't have appealed.
     
    littlebabyjesus likes this.
  17. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus one of Maxwell's demons

    And why the umps should have rejected his appeal. It's a thumbs down all round. To the keeper for appealing, to the onfield umps for not making the decision themselves and to the third ump for making the wrong decision.

    Other than that, nothing wrong with it.
     
    Spymaster likes this.
  18. Reiabuzz

    Reiabuzz Well-Known Member

    There might be something wrong with this though

     
    squirrelp likes this.
  19. squirrelp

    squirrelp Well-Known Member

    Something's a bit mixed up there
     

Share This Page