This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Cricket Thread
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Teddy Eagle  04 Jul 23 12.54pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle
I'm sure that the substitute fielder for Nathan Lyon was close fielding Yes but the convention in 2005 was to keep them as far away as possible.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Teddy Eagle 04 Jul 23 12.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
ex hibitionist  Hastings 04 Jul 23 3.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64
I don't know what footage you guys have seen, but Bairstow definitely does not ground his bat. He drags his foot back and walks out of the crease. Carey collects the ball and immediately tosses it at the stumps as the ball was still in play. As unsporting as this may have been, and I agree that it was unsporting, it was out. Only Cummins could have altered the outcome. watched it again from side on rather than behind the keeper and you're right he doesn't ground his bat, but he plants his foot in the crease and makes a clear stopping gesture once Carey catches the ball - it was like when a rugby player catches one in the deep and makes a mark, he sort of signalled a full stop but it got treated like a comma.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 04 Jul 23 3.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
A cricket war crime, and must be referred to the International war crimes tribunal. Don't be vague, send it to the Hague.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 04 Jul 23 3.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by JRW2
Thanks for clarifying that. But I didn't suggest the rules couldn't be changed, simply that IMO it would be very difficult to reword the existing rule to ensure that what you rightly called yesterday's "nonsense" couldn't happen again. I've given up trying. One has to ask why a batsman needs to touch ground with his bat when he has crossed the line with both feet. Surely that is sufficient to be in, and a new rule could make that so. The other stumping that is absurd is when a batsman is moving down the wicket as the bowler is running in.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| YT Oxford 04 Jul 23 3.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
A cricket war crime, and must be referred to the International war crimes tribunal. Don't be vague, send it to the Hague.
Crikey, you are older than I thought!
Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| YT Oxford 04 Jul 23 3.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
One has to ask why a batsman needs to touch ground with his bat when he has crossed the line with both feet. Surely that is sufficient to be in, and a new rule could make that so. The other stumping that is absurd is when a batsman is moving down the wicket as the bowler is running in. That is sufficient to be "in", but I suppose the issue is that Bairstow then left the crease again, believing it had been established that the ball was dead. This happens all the time in all forms of cricket, but suddenly the Australians have weaponised it. A minor point that in no way diminishes your final sentence is that what you describe is actually a run-out rather than a stumping.
Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 04 Jul 23 3.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by YT
That is sufficient to be "in", but I suppose the issue is that Bairstow then left the crease again, believing it had been established that the ball was dead. This happens all the time in all forms of cricket, but suddenly the Australians have weaponised it. A minor point that in no way diminishes your final sentence is that what you describe is actually a run-out rather than a stumping. Yes, that's correct. The key point here is that once the ball is dead and the batsman has been in, then that should be it until the bowler has bowled the next ball. It's fairly obvious, without the pedantry. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (04 Jul 2023 3.54pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 04 Jul 23 4.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Australia is a second-rate country full of second-rate people'. How they can talk about 'whinging poms' when they have McGrath I do not know. On and on about Broad not walking, then had a fit over Starc's catch (it was not out according to the rules) and then Bairstow I had to go for a walk to get rid of him. And he's back on Thursday! And Zaha is doing me up like he does every year, on purpose. It's just too stressful, we are only humans.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| YT Oxford 04 Jul 23 4.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Yes, that's correct. The key point here is that once the ball is dead and the batsman has been in, then that should be it until the bowler has bowled the next ball. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (04 Jul 2023 3.54pm) Well since you've taken offence in your characteristics style to a well-intended comment, it's not a matter of pedantry but one of accuracy. Furthermore the laws pertaining to a run-out are completely different to those pertaining to a stumping. Also you've now merged your two examples into one, but in the one involving the bowler, the ball is live throughout so "once the ball is dead" has no meaning.
Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 04 Jul 23 5.00pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Yes, that's correct. The key point here is that once the ball is dead and the batsman has been in, then that should be it until the bowler has bowled the next ball. It's fairly obvious, without the pedantry. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (04 Jul 2023 3.54pm) From memory the bowler can't start his run up until the umpire has said "play". Once he's done so the ball is live unless something happens like him dropping the ball before bowling or the batsman pulls away for some reason and the umpire signals a dead ball.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 04 Jul 23 8.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by YT
Well since you've taken offence in your characteristics style to a well-intended comment, it's not a matter of pedantry but one of accuracy. Furthermore the laws pertaining to a run-out are completely different to those pertaining to a stumping. Also you've now merged your two examples into one, but in the one involving the bowler, the ball is live throughout so "once the ball is dead" has no meaning. I have not taken offence. I am trying to stick to the point, which is that once a batsman has been in, he should not be able to be stumped until the next ball is bowled. I see nothing confusing about that. On the separate issue of a bowler knocking off the bails because the batsman has strayed from his crease in anticipation of a run, then what ever you call it, that is also something that the game does not need. Change the rules for both. Sorted.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.