Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
«1

Comments

  • Options
    World's gone mad!!
  • Options
    Not cricket as I know it.
  • Options

    Not cricket as I know it.

    I think "its not cricket" died when the Chapell brothers decided to bowl the final bowl of a ODI underarm.
  • Options
    That's a disgrace. Absolutely not how you are taught to approach the game.
  • Options
    Did the fielding team appeal for the wicket or was it the umpires decision ?
  • Options
    MrOneLung said:

    Did the fielding team appeal for the wicket or was it the umpires decision ?

    Can't be a wicket without an appeal.
  • Options
    MrOneLung said:

    Did the fielding team appeal for the wicket or was it the umpires decision ?

    You can't be out unless a player appeals. "Handled the ball" is now included in the Law covering "Obstructing the Field".
  • Options
    MrOneLung said:

    Did the fielding team appeal for the wicket or was it the umpires decision ?

    I believe the keeper put his hand up after he had the ball returned.

    I understand the captain of the fielding side can withdraw the appeal, but clearly he didn’t. I might be wrong on that.

  • Options
    How the umpires didn't rule this a dead ball is ridiculous.
  • Options
    bobmunro said:

    MrOneLung said:

    Did the fielding team appeal for the wicket or was it the umpires decision ?

    I believe the keeper put his hand up after he had the ball returned.

    I understand the captain of the fielding side can withdraw the appeal, but clearly he didn’t. I might be wrong on that.

    That is correct and the withdrawal of the appeal must be made before the next ball is bowled or in the case of a last wicket of the innings, before the Umpires leave the field.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    PaddyP17 said:

    How the umpires didn't rule this a dead ball is ridiculous.

    If an appeal is made (and not withdrawn) and there had been a valid form of dismissal, then the umpire cannot do anything other than give the batsman out.

  • Options
    Ok he broke the rules but in the name of sportsmanship its not very good.
  • Options
    PaddyP17 said:

    How the umpires didn't rule this a dead ball is ridiculous.

    The player broke the Laws of the game - the batsman cannot pick the ball up without the permission of the fielding side. There is no provision under the Laws for the Umpire to override that. It is a cheap and nasty way to take a wicket but I bet the batsman never does it again!
  • Options
    If that had happened to me/my team, I would have asked each of the remaining incoming batsmen to then block the ball, pick it up throw it back to the wicket keeper and walk off out.
  • Options

    PaddyP17 said:

    How the umpires didn't rule this a dead ball is ridiculous.

    The player broke the Laws of the game - the batsman cannot pick the ball up without the permission of the fielding side. There is no provision under the Laws for the Umpire to override that. It is a cheap and nasty way to take a wicket but I bet the batsman never does it again!
    Still, the ball is dead. It had stopped moving. The fielding side almost certainly considered the ball dead, and if they didn't then they're absolutely wrong.

    When the ball is dead, surely it can be handled?
  • Options
    Didn't Michael Vaughan get given out like that in India once?
  • Options
    Awful from the fielding side but I reckon the umpires should have just given it not out. Any subsequent kerfuffle would have seen at worst a law change
  • Options
    Cafc43v3r said:

    Didn't Michael Vaughan get given out like that in India once?

    It appears not, in my memory he picked it up and tossed it to short leg, grey matter not what it once was
  • Options
    Leuth said:

    Awful from the fielding side but I reckon the umpires should have just given it not out. Any subsequent kerfuffle would have seen at worst a law change

    Umpires could have just laughed and said not out as he was hardly obstructing the field.
  • Options
    PaddyP17 said:

    PaddyP17 said:

    How the umpires didn't rule this a dead ball is ridiculous.

    The player broke the Laws of the game - the batsman cannot pick the ball up without the permission of the fielding side. There is no provision under the Laws for the Umpire to override that. It is a cheap and nasty way to take a wicket but I bet the batsman never does it again!
    Still, the ball is dead. It had stopped moving. The fielding side almost certainly considered the ball dead, and if they didn't then they're absolutely wrong.

    When the ball is dead, surely it can be handled?
    Under the Laws of the game it cannot be picked up without the permission of the fielding side. I can only assume that it is as it is to avoid a situation where there is a dispute as to whether the ball has actually stopped rolling when the batsman picks it up.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options

    Batsman should have smashed the fella in the fuck pots with his Duncan Fearnley.

    There's one very obvious thing wrong with that - gone are the days when one would see an international cricketer with a Duncan Fearnely!
  • Options
    I imagine the post match "discussions" at the hotel between the teams would have been a bit tasty!
  • Options
    Its out under the laws of the game. A bit like golf, players should know & understand the laws & when they change. A bit like a run-out when backing up. Not pleasant but its in the laws of cricket.

    As @MrOneLung says, the rest of the batsman could have done the same & given the umpires and/or the lawmakers something to think about.
  • Options

    Its out under the laws of the game. A bit like golf, players should know & understand the laws & when they change. A bit like a run-out when backing up. Not pleasant but its in the laws of cricket.

    As @MrOneLung says, the rest of the batsman could have done the same & given the umpires and/or the lawmakers something to think about.

    Yes but lost the game that they would won anyway and probably out of the World Cup as a result. Not many teams would do that.

    And I've changed my mind on being run out backing up as I always thought it was poor play. However, when you see how far the non striker does back up sometimes and then manages to scramble a single to the keeper standing back, he is seeking to gain an unfair advantage.

    The batsman who picked the ball up wasn't and it was appalling from the Windies. However, he still, technically, broke the Laws.
  • Options

    Its out under the laws of the game. A bit like golf, players should know & understand the laws & when they change. A bit like a run-out when backing up. Not pleasant but its in the laws of cricket.

    As @MrOneLung says, the rest of the batsman could have done the same & given the umpires and/or the lawmakers something to think about.

    Backing up is seeking an advantage but I can't see what advantage is gained from picking up a ball which has stopped moving .
  • Options
    In these situations, the ball is only dead when it is on its way back to the bowler, or when the umpire announces or signals that it is dead.
    If the ball passes the bat/wicket and reaches the wicket keeper it remains live until the wicket keeper then moves it on for the next delivery, or the players move to change ends at the completion of an over.
    The ball is live again, when the bowler commences his next run up
    Reprehensibly cynical gamesmanship from the WIndies but a harsh lesson learned for the batsman.
    If the WIndies side is to avoid the stench this creates they need to throw the fielder who appealed and the captain who didn't revoke it under the bus and hang them out to dry as the hollow scumbags they clearly are.
    The umpires had no discretion. If they were properly switched on they could have asked the captain 'are you sure, do you want to dismiss the batsman for that?' But they assuredly have no discretion, unlike the weasel snivelling players.
    Good to see the cheats in this case didn't prosper.
    The ICC obviously need to make the small amendment to the laws that's required but they won't cos it didn't involve the English, Indian or Aussie senior sides and there isn't a major TV company telling them what to do and how much they'll get paid for it.
  • Options
    This was poor sportsmanship... But what are people's views on mankading? For me, it's fine so long as previous warnings had been given.

    I think the spirit of cricket died the day WG Grace replaced the bails after being bowled and announced "they've come to see me bat, not you bowl"
  • Options
    McBobbin said:

    This was poor sportsmanship... But what are people's views on mankading? For me, it's fine so long as previous warnings had been given.
    "

    To "mankad" is to run out the non-facing batsman without having issued a warning. If you've warned him and he carries on he's fair game.
  • Options
    Agree re mankadding.

    I also think that not warning the player in this case is a little unfair. Yes, he may be technically out, but I can't see how dismissing him is within the spirit of the game. What a shame.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!