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 > International Cricket
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 28th December 2017, 22:42   #861
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ101 View Post
... the laws say protection should be disregarded but not sure how you disregard protection when you're supposed to be judging the likelihood of injury, if you did that any ball in the direction of the batsman would be likely to cause injury, getting hit on the shin with no pads on does sting a bit! ...
I think it's clear what the law means. The umpire is supposed to pretend that the batsman has no protective gear on, then to take his apparent skill into account and think whether the bowling would be likely to injure him were he wearing no helmet. If the umpire thinks it would, then he should call no-ball. In many cases this judgement can be assisted by recollecting what's just happened; i.e., if the batsman has been hit on the head and his helmet has saved him from injury, then if the bowler does that same thing again to the same batsman, it should probably be a no-ball, and perhaps it should even have been a no-ball the first time around. I think it's pretty clear that that isn't what the umpires are doing, and I agree with whoever said that the umpires are massively culpable in this regard. The point about pads isn't germane because Law 41.6.1 is specifically about short-pitched bowling.

Last edited by sanskritsimon : 28th December 2017 at 22:52.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th December 2017, 06:47   #862
AJ101
International Material
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
I think it's clear what the law means. The umpire is supposed to pretend that the batsman has no protective gear on, then to take his apparent skill into account and think whether the bowling would be likely to injure him were he wearing no helmet. If the umpire thinks it would, then he should call no-ball. In many cases this judgement can be assisted by recollecting what's just happened; i.e., if the batsman has been hit on the head and his helmet has saved him from injury, then if the bowler does that same thing again to the same batsman, it should probably be a no-ball, and perhaps it should even have been a no-ball the first time around. I think it's pretty clear that that isn't what the umpires are doing, and I agree with whoever said that the umpires are massively culpable in this regard. The point about pads isn't germane because Law 41.6.1 is specifically about short-pitched bowling.
Ok so no bouncers at all then in your opinion.
AJ101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th December 2017, 08:16   #863
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ101 View Post
Ok so no bouncers at all then in your opinion.
It's not about opinions, it's about what the law says. If the intention had been to outlaw bouncers then the law would presumably have been phrased in a much simpler fashion.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th December 2017, 10:34   #864
AJ101
International Material
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
It's not about opinions, it's about what the law says. If the intention had been to outlaw bouncers then the law would presumably have been phrased in a much simpler fashion.
It is about opinions, the opinion of the umpires, if they imposed the law strictly there wouldn't be any bouncers allowed as any short pitched delivery that somewhat well directed would be "likely" to cause injury, top batsman get him by the ball all the time and if there wasn't protective equipment whether it be arm guards, gloves, chest protectors and helmets there'd be a lot more minor injuries like back in the day.

The law as written is completely stupid.
AJ101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th December 2017, 16:42   #865
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ101 View Post
It is about opinions, the opinion of the umpires, if they imposed the law strictly there wouldn't be any bouncers allowed as any short pitched delivery that somewhat well directed would be "likely" to cause injury, top batsman get him by the ball all the time and if there wasn't protective equipment whether it be arm guards, gloves, chest protectors and helmets there'd be a lot more minor injuries like back in the day.
Loads of short balls are successfully negotiated without impact to any part of the body, so it would be about the umpire's judgement of likelihood to inflict physical injury. How likely does it have to be to be likely?

The mention of speed means that in principle a faster bowler should better use their extra speed to get through to the batsman's stumps, not to his chest and head, because the law requires the umpire to try to some degree to protect the batsman from the extra physical danger that facing a faster bowler must naturally involve.

There's obviously only so much that the law can hope to do, because its intention is for the umpire to stop a bowler from deliberately bowling in a dangerous way, but the bowler might briefly bowl in that way accidentally, and the call of no ball might be too late to protect the batsman. At the end of the day there's a mismatch between the analogue statistical scale that the notion of likelihood involves (e.g. an umpire might imagine that no-ball-call likely = more than 90% likely, or some such thing) and the digital finality of a fatal blow to the head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ101 View Post
The law as written is completely stupid.
If that were the case, it probably wouldn't be the first time. It certainly is a teaser. But then one of the great attractions of cricket is that it facilitates people to display godlike powers, and the umpires are the elder statespeople of that art. So the laws that they shall enforce defy ordinary comprehension.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th December 2017, 17:13   #866
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,789
Dobell not pulling any punches about the tedium of the Aussie press in his latest article.
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2017, 11:18   #867
MRNC4.0
International Material
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Melbourne
Team(s): Victoria
Posts: 1,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali TT View Post
Dobell not pulling any punches about the tedium of the Aussie press in his latest article.
Quite ironic, given the English's press demonization of Wasim and Waqar throughout the 90s. I wonder if George complained about that at the time, he certainly complains about everything now. He's become tedious.

Last edited by MRNC4.0 : 30th December 2017 at 12:14.
MRNC4.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2017, 12:01   #868
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by MRNC4.0 View Post
Quite ironic, given the English's press demonization of Wasim and Waqar throughout the 90s. I wonder if George complained about that at the time, he certainly complains about every now. He's become tedious.
Every?
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2017, 12:21   #869
MRNC4.0
International Material
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Melbourne
Team(s): Victoria
Posts: 1,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali TT View Post
Every?
I fixed it. Agar called into the squad for Sydney, which means SOK has truly lost favour with mgmt if he can't make the team on his own home ground. I imagine he'll play ahead of Bird unless Starc is fit.
MRNC4.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2018, 02:22   #870
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 830 Cummins 149 Wagner 147 TCurran 21 SCurran 9
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20,860
Woakes is out of the 5th Test and Crane makes his debut.

Does that mean we have only 3 fast bowlers playing?
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2018, 08:35   #871
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000yardstare View Post
Woakes is out of the 5th Test and Crane makes his debut.

Does that mean we have only 3 fast bowlers playing?
No, we don't have any fast bowlers. But just 2 innocuous seamers apart from Anderson will make a nice change from the 7 we usually play.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2018, 09:49   #872
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 830 Cummins 149 Wagner 147 TCurran 21 SCurran 9
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20,860
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
No, we don't have any fast bowlers. But just 2 innocuous seamers apart from Anderson will make a nice change from the 7 we usually play.
So Crane will be bowling in the 15th over.
Australia 906/3d.
Root to lose the toss and bowl.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2018, 09:59   #873
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,393
It would be pretty funny to see us play two spinners on a green top though wouldn't it? Would end a triumphant tour for the selectors and management quite beautifully.

Oz will have three fast bowlers and one English style seam bowler while we will have three medium fast and two spinners (one of whom is in shocking form and the other was deemed unselectable until we got desperate). Fantastic.
Sir Virgs and Zamora is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2018, 10:26   #874
Jock McTuffnel v3
World Class
 
Jock McTuffnel v3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): England
Posts: 6,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora View Post
It would be pretty funny to see us play two spinners on a green top though wouldn't it? Would end a triumphant tour for the selectors and management quite beautifully.

Oz will have three fast bowlers and one English style seam bowler while we will have three medium fast and two spinners (one of whom is in shocking form and the other was deemed unselectable* until we got desperate). Fantastic.
* by Sir V.

Gotta feel sorry for Foakes - he appears to be deemed unselectable if he can't get a bat ahead of Moeen.
__________________
Jock McTuffnel v3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2018, 10:29   #875
billyguntheballs
County Pro
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 689
Why don't England just drop Ali and bring in Crane, which works out because A - Ali is in bad form and B - he'll be rested in the build up to the ODIs.

Then they can do a straight swap between Woakes and whatever "pace" bowler they have left.
__________________

I can accept failure...I can not accept not trying again.
billyguntheballs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2018, 10:34   #876
Jock McTuffnel v3
World Class
 
Jock McTuffnel v3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): England
Posts: 6,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by billyguntheballs View Post
Why don't England just drop Ali and bring in Crane, which works out because A - Ali is in bad form and B - he'll be rested in the build up to the ODIs.

Then they can do a straight swap between Woakes and whatever "pace" bowler they have left.
Probably worried about the tail. They are gambling that Moeen will turn the corner with the blade.
__________________
Jock McTuffnel v3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2018, 10:45   #877
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 830 Cummins 149 Wagner 147 TCurran 21 SCurran 9
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20,860
I can't believe the selection. Is Root crazy? He had more faith in Malan than Ali.

Then I look at the fast bowling choices
Overton - says the Test has come to early for him
Woakes - minor side strain but will play the ODIs
Ball - he is in the ODI team
Wood - bowled 16 overs in the tour match, in ODI team.

Couldn't Wood even bowl 15 overs? I think we will only bowl once anyway and follow on.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2018, 11:37   #878
oldandfat
County Pro
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 771
If it is a "green top" then three seamers S/B enough
oldandfat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2018, 11:59   #879
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jock McTuffnel v3 View Post
* by Sir V.

Gotta feel sorry for Foakes - he appears to be deemed unselectable if he can't get a bat ahead of Moeen.
Hopefully he will do well but my man on the ground says he has been very poor in the nets.
Sir Virgs and Zamora is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2018, 12:34   #880
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 830 Cummins 149 Wagner 147 TCurran 21 SCurran 9
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20,860
I am imagining

Anderson 26-11-56-2
Broad 21-9-60-1
Curran 27-3-76-2
Vince 11-2-36-0
Crane 38-1-190-1
Ali 12-0-46-0
Malan 28-4-60-1

Cook 0 16
Stone 18 31
Vince 0 3
Root 51 46
Malan 105 34*
Bairstow 16 29
Ali 16 6
Curran 18 2
Broad 0 14
Crane 34 1
Anderson 0* 4
1000yardstare 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 12:48.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org