Cricket 24/7  

Welcome to the Cricket 24/7.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   Cricket 24/7 > Cricket Discussion Forums > England
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

View Poll Results: Well, do they?
Of course they do. Only the ignorant would think otherwise 2 14.29%
Absolutely not you nutter 5 35.71%
Has this got its own thread now? 4 28.57%
I don't care. Kill me! 3 21.43%
Voters: 14. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 4th December 2015, 10:18   #81
YAMS
Banned
 
YAMS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
What made you think I'd bother to vote in something like this?

No need to answer that.

Any road up, if you didn't see me vote, then I couldn't have.
It was just a simple question. A 'yes' or 'no' would have sufficed.

I voted for 'yes' by the way, for moral support.
YAMS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2015, 10:24   #82
YAMS
Banned
 
YAMS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,339
Interesting work Ali.

I can vouch as a keeper that I preferred to find out for myself. I never discussed a sign with any bowler.

Anyway, this all came from a certain deliverey where a sign would have been impossible imo.
YAMS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2015, 12:19   #83
D/L
World Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 6,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by YAMS View Post
...Anyway, this all came from a certain deliverey where a sign would have been impossible imo.
The addition of "imo" at this stage is interesting.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2015, 12:32   #84
YAMS
Banned
 
YAMS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
The addition of "imo" at this stage is interesting.
Well it was always 'imo' wasn't it..... Because I typed it.

Not quite sure what you're getting at here?! But then, I doubt you are either.
YAMS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2015, 12:43   #85
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,272
Think there's a suggestion that you're not quite as sure that the bowler couldn't possibly have signalled as you were. My view is that in theory Ali could have signalled he was bowling down leg but this would almost certainly be both impractical given time constraints and very difficult technically for the same reason. How would the keeper even be able to attend to a signal delivered pretty much at the time the ball was bowled? The alternative explanation that he was always planning to bowl that ball down leg and signalled that at some other stage is clearly barking mad, as best outcome majority of the time you do that is one wide and occasionally more wides even if keeper expecting it so clearly tactically stupid in the format.

On the more general question I very much doubt that signalling is commonplace in international cricket as there is just too much scrutiny of the bowler and too high a chance of the code being cracked. I'd also expect some discussion of the phenomenon from comms if it were happening. It may have happened occasionally, of course.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2015, 12:54   #86
D/L
World Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 6,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
Think there's a suggestion that you're not quite as sure that the bowler couldn't possibly have signalled as you were. My view is that in theory Ali could have signalled he was bowling down leg but this would almost certainly be both impractical given time constraints and very difficult technically for the same reason. How would the keeper even be able to attend to a signal delivered pretty much at the time the ball was bowled? The alternative explanation that he was always planning to bowl that ball down leg and signalled that at some other stage is clearly barking mad, as best outcome majority of the time you do that is one wide and occasionally more wides even if keeper expecting it so clearly tactically stupid in the format.

On the more general question I very much doubt that signalling is commonplace in international cricket as there is just too much scrutiny of the bowler and too high a chance of the code being cracked. I'd also expect some discussion of the phenomenon from comms if it were happening. It may have happened occasionally, of course.
Barking mad to think that new signals cannot be agreed before the start of play and even changed during it.

Even more so, on the delivery in question, to think the bowler could never have let the keeper know that the next one's going down the leg side to get a stumping because of the fear that it may not work.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2015, 12:58   #87
D/L
World Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 6,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by YAMS View Post
Well it was always 'imo' wasn't it..... Because I typed it.

Not quite sure what you're getting at here?! But then, I doubt you are either.
No, I think even you may see, as others surely have, the claim was always far more emphatic than that. You didn't see it, therefore it couldn't have happened. Go back and check, if you wish.

By the way, do you believe that atoms exist?
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2015, 13:03   #88
YAMS
Banned
 
YAMS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,339
There is no chance on Earth that Ali gave a signal indicating that he would bowl the next ball down the leg side before seeing the batsman charge.

Absolutely never, ever, ever. To suggest this is an insult to the bowler. He cannot be that stupid to intend to bowl down the leg side on purpose.

That is my issue in this 'debate'. From the delivery in question why would Ali give a pre signal to the eventual outcome?

He simply wouldn't.
YAMS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2015, 13:06   #89
YAMS
Banned
 
YAMS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
No, I think even you may see, as others surely have, the claim was always far more emphatic than that. You didn't see it, therefore it couldn't have happened. Go back and check, if you wish.

By the way, do you believe that atoms exist?
You're reading far too much in to my use of imo....erm, imo.

Ali didn't signal pre delivery on that delivery. Never, ever, ever. He bowled down the leg side after seeing the batsman charge. This happens often when the charge is too early & seen by the bowler.

On the atoms I genuinely don't know. I'm not qualified to answer.
YAMS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2015, 13:08   #90
YAMS
Banned
 
YAMS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
Think there's a suggestion that you're not quite as sure that the bowler couldn't possibly have signalled as you were.
Then the suggestion is incorrect.

I advise all participants in this thread to read the words below my username & avatar.
YAMS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2015, 13:19   #91
Zebroston Chase
Not Lara or Chanderpaul but the best you've got
 
Zebroston Chase's Avatar
When Hope is gone, I will appear.
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Glasgow
Team(s): AFC Hornchurch, Essex, England
Age: 33
Posts: 18,431
Never trust a banned Man Utd supporter.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by High Druid Nathan Barley View Post
I'm fully aware of his thinking, which merely underlines the point that he's an idiot.
Zebroston Chase is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2015, 14:47   #92
YAMS
Banned
 
YAMS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deep Fried McZebra View Post
Never trust a banned Man Utd supporter.
Correct.
YAMS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2015, 15:01   #93
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by YAMS View Post
Then the suggestion is incorrect.

I advise all participants in this thread to read the words below my username & avatar.
To be honest, almost everyone is talking what's obviously a la la la debate too seriously.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2015, 15:05   #94
YAMS
Banned
 
YAMS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
To be honest, almost everyone is talking what's obviously a la la la debate too seriously.
I'm not at all being serious FS, I'm taking D/L down the route he attempts to take everyone else.
YAMS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2015, 15:16   #95
D/L
World Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 6,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by YAMS View Post
Then the suggestion is incorrect.

I advise all participants in this thread to read the words below my username & avatar.
So, it's all a wind up and you were not being serious. Glad to hear it.

For someone who would seem to delight in the practice, though, it must have been a very disappointing effort.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2015, 15:16   #96
D/L
World Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 6,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by YAMS View Post
I'm not at all being serious FS, I'm taking D/L down the route he attempts to take everyone else.
Still digging then?
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2015, 15:27   #97
D/L
World Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 6,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by YAMS View Post
There is no chance on Earth that Ali gave a signal indicating that he would bowl the next ball down the leg side before seeing the batsman charge.

Absolutely never, ever, ever. To suggest this is an insult to the bowler. He cannot be that stupid to intend to bowl down the leg side on purpose.

That is my issue in this 'debate'. From the delivery in question why would Ali give a pre signal to the eventual outcome?

He simply wouldn't.
Repeating it over and over does not make it so.

I understand, however, how it may help you.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2015, 15:46   #98
YAMS
Banned
 
YAMS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
So, it's all a wind up and you were not being serious. Glad to hear it.
Nope, it's not a wind up at all.

Where do you get that idea from?

Last edited by YAMS : 4th December 2015 at 16:08.
YAMS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2015, 15:47   #99
YAMS
Banned
 
YAMS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
Still digging then?
Is a fact now a dig in your invisible World?
YAMS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2015, 15:49   #100
YAMS
Banned
 
YAMS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
Repeating it over and over does not make it so.
Agreed, it was correct the first time so doesn't need to be repeated.

I'm doing all this for your benefit by the way. You're the one who doesn't understand it, not me.
YAMS is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 19:21.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org