I will need the clarification from a senior Umpire such as @Pedro45 but isn't the game finished as soon as the ball passes the batsman i.e. it is a wide and one run added to the score. I accept that the Umpire would wait, in ordinary circumstances for the ball to cross the line before signalling five wides in case there were a run out, but shouldn't the ball actually became dead way before it reaches the boundary when just one run is required? Equally, any stumping off a wide should not count I believe. Had the batsman hit the ball and they completed a run to pass the opposition's total before it crossed the line then only one run would have been given after all.
I will need the clarification from a senior Umpire such as @Pedro45 but isn't the game finished as soon as the ball passes the batsman i.e. it is a wide and one run added to the score. I accept that the Umpire would wait, in ordinary circumstances for the ball to cross the line before signalling five wides in case there were a run out, but shouldn't the ball actually became dead way before it reaches the boundary when just one run is required? Equally, any stumping off a wide should not count I believe. Had the batsman hit the ball and they completed a run to pass the opposition's total before it crossed the line then only one run would have been given after all.
Ooh I love thinking of scenarios like this, so what would happen if; Batting team need 1 run to win and bowling side need 1 wicket. A wide is bowled and at the same point the ball passes the batsman (or whatever point a wide is determined) he hits his own wicket.
I will need the clarification from a senior Umpire such as @Pedro45 but isn't the game finished as soon as the ball passes the batsman i.e. it is a wide and one run added to the score. I accept that the Umpire would wait, in ordinary circumstances for the ball to cross the line before signalling five wides in case there were a run out, but shouldn't the ball actually became dead way before it reaches the boundary when just one run is required? Equally, any stumping off a wide should not count I believe. Had the batsman hit the ball and they completed a run to pass the opposition's total before it crossed the line then only one run would have been given after all.
Indeed, the game is finished as soon as the winning run is scored (Law 16.6). The wide should be called (to the field) before the ball is dead although only later signalled to the scorers, so to my mind, soon after it passes the stumps the call should have been made, and that negates the fact the ball went to the boundary, and a need for any subsequent signal to that effect.
As an aside, I had a dear departed friend who used to insist that a team (when batting second) won by x wickets and x runs (in this instance, five wickets and four runs), not just by x wickets (as law 16.7 states).
I will need the clarification from a senior Umpire such as @Pedro45 but isn't the game finished as soon as the ball passes the batsman i.e. it is a wide and one run added to the score. I accept that the Umpire would wait, in ordinary circumstances for the ball to cross the line before signalling five wides in case there were a run out, but shouldn't the ball actually became dead way before it reaches the boundary when just one run is required? Equally, any stumping off a wide should not count I believe. Had the batsman hit the ball and they completed a run to pass the opposition's total before it crossed the line then only one run would have been given after all.
Ooh I love thinking of scenarios like this, so what would happen if; Batting team need 1 run to win and bowling side need 1 wicket. A wide is bowled and at the same point the ball passes the batsman (or whatever point a wide is determined) he hits his own wicket.
Just to add, I haven’t a clue.
As soon as the (wide) ball passes the stumps the game is over and the ball dead. The batter (to be out hit wicket) would have to have knocked the bails off when playing at the ball so it's an unlikely scenario, but probably all down to timing, on whether the bails were dislodged prior to the ball passing the wicket (as a wide).
I will need the clarification from a senior Umpire such as @Pedro45 but isn't the game finished as soon as the ball passes the batsman i.e. it is a wide and one run added to the score. I accept that the Umpire would wait, in ordinary circumstances for the ball to cross the line before signalling five wides in case there were a run out, but shouldn't the ball actually became dead way before it reaches the boundary when just one run is required? Equally, any stumping off a wide should not count I believe. Had the batsman hit the ball and they completed a run to pass the opposition's total before it crossed the line then only one run would have been given after all.
Ooh I love thinking of scenarios like this, so what would happen if; Batting team need 1 run to win and bowling side need 1 wicket. A wide is bowled and at the same point the ball passes the batsman (or whatever point a wide is determined) he hits his own wicket.
Just to add, I haven’t a clue.
As soon as the (wide) ball passes the stumps the game is over and the ball dead. The batter (to be out hit wicket) would have to have knocked the bails off when playing at the ball so it's an unlikely scenario, but probably all down to timing, on whether the bails were dislodged prior to the ball passing the wicket (as a wide).
Yeah i thought it’d be down to timing. The square leg umpire would probably be best placed to make the decision. As for an unlikely scenario. After seeing the colfes video at the weekend, nothing is impossible.
I've mentioned it previously but I do think that there will be a bit of a shake up at the end of the season by virtue of the fact that we are consistently not preforming as both a group and as individuals.
Ones that might be leaving us:
Walker - Walks is a first class bloke but the fact that we can't get away from is that this is a results based business. One win from 14 matches is really poor and the only thing that might save him, in my opinion, is winning the Royal London. Is that likely though with most of our best white ball players playing Mickey Mouse cricket?
Stevens - it's almost sacrilegious to even mention the word "retirement" but given his struggles with form this season and the fact that he is unlikely to get better at the age of 47 next season. I'm sure that he would much rather be remembered as a great servant that someone who overstayed his welcome as a player.
DBD - has, somewhat ironically, been regarded as a white ball batsman but has actually performed far better in the CC than The Blast. He is probably safe but that might be more due to one or two of the ones mentioned below leaving.
Denly - injuries/illness seems to have prevented him from playing a lot of games in the last year so much so that his ton the other day was his first 50, let alone 100, in the last year. Does he still have the hunger to do it each and every day he gets up?
Billings - one understands why he goes to the IPL, The Big Bash etc etc. One could equally also understand that, at the age of 31 (next week), that he will want to give himself one last chance to fulfil his England aspirations. Can he do that in a struggling Kent side?
Robinson - can't be happy at not being part of our Blast squad. Assuming Billings does stay he is unlikely, I would have thought, to get an IPL contract next season and it is difficult to see a side with those two and Cox in the CC side. There have been several suitors in the last few years for his services and it wouldn't be a surprise to see him move to be first choice keeper/batsman elsewhere.
Crawley - you just know that there will be whispers in his ear when he meets up with England - "why are you are playing on that bowlers' paradise at Canterbury when you could be batting for two days on the road in SE11?" Whilst Canterbury has performed much better this year, the fact is that The Oval will never be any different. His mentor and the current ECB Director of Men's Cricket might well be saying the very same thing to him.
Podmore - has hardly played in the last couple of years as injuries have taken their toll. Will we be prepared to carry him?
Stewart - recalled from loan but the fact that he was allowed to go to a rival suggests that he wasn't considered as being in the top rank. since then, however, has done reasonably well with bat and ball in both white and red ball and his departure might be down to him more than us.
Logan - this is a really strange one. He did really well last season but the arrival of Linde has, effectively, made him surplus to requirements.
O'Riordan - I don't know what Marcus really is. Is he batsman or a bowler? When he's been played he has always been used as a bowler but batted at 8 or 9 but has never had any real success with the ball - in three years as a contracted player he has 11 CC wickets at 41.72, just one wicket in the Royal London and three in The Blast. If he's a batsman then we must give him a chance to prove himself otherwise he's just a contracted 2nd XI player which is a waste of resource.
Qadri - would have thought that he will stay but he might be another one who is frustrated at the lack of opportunities. Took six wickets in one CC game this season but has lost his place to Linde and won't get in The Blast side with Linde and Qais in the side.
Blake - white ball contract only so probably less vulnerable than many but, at 34 next season, well probably need a couple of meaningful performances to justify a new one.
I should stress that all of the above is speculation and not based on any inside information and I am not aware of the length of contract many of these players currently have. I don't think that too many will argue, though, against the fact that we do need change and as Compton (and Milnes, Quinn and Gilchrist for that matter) has demonstrated there are some good players out there who have yet to be given a chance and that are still, despite numerous knock backs, hungry enough to take any opportunity given.
Comments
It's a bloody rugby ground after all.
Well done boy.
53-2 off 7.5
50 and out for Pepper.
85-3 after 11.2
Still on course for an almighty tonking.
And it's not much better ...
If I was a betting man I'd say we were fooked.
Especially when the first ball of the 16th over disappears over the rope for 6 ...
Scores level ...
Well done, that man !
Just about sums it up.
Kent lose by 7 wickets in a destroyation.
The batting was atrocious, it took a little cameo from Qais Ahmad to get us up to 130 which was nowhere near enough.
I will need the clarification from a senior Umpire such as @Pedro45 but isn't the game finished as soon as the ball passes the batsman i.e. it is a wide and one run added to the score. I accept that the Umpire would wait, in ordinary circumstances for the ball to cross the line before signalling five wides in case there were a run out, but shouldn't the ball actually became dead way before it reaches the boundary when just one run is required? Equally, any stumping off a wide should not count I believe. Had the batsman hit the ball and they completed a run to pass the opposition's total before it crossed the line then only one run would have been given after all.
130 was the lowest, but the highest 1st innings score was only 158
Batting team need 1 run to win and bowling side need 1 wicket.
A wide is bowled and at the same point the ball passes the batsman (or whatever point a wide is determined) he hits his own wicket.
Just to add, I haven’t a clue.
As an aside, I had a dear departed friend who used to insist that a team (when batting second) won by x wickets and x runs (in this instance, five wickets and four runs), not just by x wickets (as law 16.7 states).
As for an unlikely scenario. After seeing the colfes video at the weekend, nothing is impossible.
DBD dropped from squad. Jas Singh and Marcus O'Riordan added
Ones that might be leaving us:
Walker - Walks is a first class bloke but the fact that we can't get away from is that this is a results based business. One win from 14 matches is really poor and the only thing that might save him, in my opinion, is winning the Royal London. Is that likely though with most of our best white ball players playing Mickey Mouse cricket?
Stevens - it's almost sacrilegious to even mention the word "retirement" but given his struggles with form this season and the fact that he is unlikely to get better at the age of 47 next season. I'm sure that he would much rather be remembered as a great servant that someone who overstayed his welcome as a player.
DBD - has, somewhat ironically, been regarded as a white ball batsman but has actually performed far better in the CC than The Blast. He is probably safe but that might be more due to one or two of the ones mentioned below leaving.
Denly - injuries/illness seems to have prevented him from playing a lot of games in the last year so much so that his ton the other day was his first 50, let alone 100, in the last year. Does he still have the hunger to do it each and every day he gets up?
Billings - one understands why he goes to the IPL, The Big Bash etc etc. One could equally also understand that, at the age of 31 (next week), that he will want to give himself one last chance to fulfil his England aspirations. Can he do that in a struggling Kent side?
Robinson - can't be happy at not being part of our Blast squad. Assuming Billings does stay he is unlikely, I would have thought, to get an IPL contract next season and it is difficult to see a side with those two and Cox in the CC side. There have been several suitors in the last few years for his services and it wouldn't be a surprise to see him move to be first choice keeper/batsman elsewhere.
Crawley - you just know that there will be whispers in his ear when he meets up with England - "why are you are playing on that bowlers' paradise at Canterbury when you could be batting for two days on the road in SE11?" Whilst Canterbury has performed much better this year, the fact is that The Oval will never be any different. His mentor and the current ECB Director of Men's Cricket might well be saying the very same thing to him.
Podmore - has hardly played in the last couple of years as injuries have taken their toll. Will we be prepared to carry him?
Stewart - recalled from loan but the fact that he was allowed to go to a rival suggests that he wasn't considered as being in the top rank. since then, however, has done reasonably well with bat and ball in both white and red ball and his departure might be down to him more than us.
Logan - this is a really strange one. He did really well last season but the arrival of Linde has, effectively, made him surplus to requirements.
O'Riordan - I don't know what Marcus really is. Is he batsman or a bowler? When he's been played he has always been used as a bowler but batted at 8 or 9 but has never had any real success with the ball - in three years as a contracted player he has 11 CC wickets at 41.72, just one wicket in the Royal London and three in The Blast. If he's a batsman then we must give him a chance to prove himself otherwise he's just a contracted 2nd XI player which is a waste of resource.
Qadri - would have thought that he will stay but he might be another one who is frustrated at the lack of opportunities. Took six wickets in one CC game this season but has lost his place to Linde and won't get in The Blast side with Linde and Qais in the side.
Blake - white ball contract only so probably less vulnerable than many but, at 34 next season, well probably need a couple of meaningful performances to justify a new one.
I should stress that all of the above is speculation and not based on any inside information and I am not aware of the length of contract many of these players currently have. I don't think that too many will argue, though, against the fact that we do need change and as Compton (and Milnes, Quinn and Gilchrist for that matter) has demonstrated there are some good players out there who have yet to be given a chance and that are still, despite numerous knock backs, hungry enough to take any opportunity given.