Custom Bats Cricket Forum
General Cricket => Latest Matches => Topic started by: ManHOOS on December 11, 2012, 11:51:34 AM
-
Yes you heared it right.... if a bowler makes a mistake it must be the bowler who should penalised intstead of batsman ..... I fink batsman has been robbed SIX runs in this case.. watch yourself
http://youtu.be/5kKHlYbhBro
DISCUSS :)
-
Yes you heared it right.... if a bowler makes a mistake it must be the bowler who should penalised intstead of batsman ..... I fink batsman has been robbed SIX runs in this case.. watch yourself
[url]http://youtu.be/5kKHlYbhBro[/url]
DISCUSS :)
Perfectly fair. If he had bowled the guy, by the same question, should he be out?
-
With those flashing stumps, I could see how that would be a distraction!
-
Have to agree with buzz. Should be a dead ball. This was looked at in the SA tests with England.
-
I think the rule should be changed and called a no ball... Batsman still gets a six and can only be run out
-
What did Buzz say? ;)
-
I think the rule should be changed and called a no ball... Batsman still gets a six and can only be run out
That's only fair if, when playing a switch hit, if the batsman moves before he should, the batting side is penalised 5 runs...
-
That's only fair if, when playing a switch hit, if the batsman moves before he should, the batting side is penalised 5 runs...
Really has nothing to do with the bowler breaking the stumps as he bowls
-
Really has nothing to do with the bowler breaking the stumps as he bowls
No, it doesn't, but equally, if the stumps are broken, you can't be run out as easily at that end of the pitch, so making it a no ball with only a run out allowed becomes, shall we say interesting. Dead ball for me is the right answer.
Likewise, if in the run up and delivery, the hand coming through holding the ball knocked the bails off, and someone appealed for a run-out because the non-striker was out of their crease, should that be given?
-
It's all the South Africans fault!
No body cared about the stumps being broken until, in a blatently obvious attempt to put Steve Finn off his game, they started moaning about it. Now, all round the world this kind of thing is happening. I think the ICC should be firmer and say it's not a problem - it's not as if it's a new thing - Shaun Pollock used to do it all the time.
That or the MCC need to make a rule change that leaves it less open to interpretation - it's very confusing for club players as well now
-
I think if the bowlers knocking the bails off, then why should they have the chance for getting a run out easily that end? It should be a no ball IMO. Dead ball just confuses everything, but if it's the same everywhere then I don't see a problem with it. As long as umpires do the same thing all the time
-
No, it doesn't, but equally, if the stumps are broken, you can't be run out as easily at that end of the pitch, so making it a no ball with only a run out allowed becomes, shall we say interesting. Dead ball for me is the right answer.
Likewise, if in the run up and delivery, the hand coming through holding the ball knocked the bails off, and someone appealed for a run-out because the non-striker was out of their crease, should that be given?
Well being harder to run out at the bowlers end is the bowlers fault so he should stop doing it.
And no it shouldn't be given out... It should be a no ball because he has unintentionally broken the stumps and continued to bowl... He hasn't attempted a run out
-
Perfectly fair. If he had bowled the guy, by the same question, should he be out?
Ehrmmmmm ehm Fair :o imo it should be like that if the batsmen score runs, he keeps them, and if he gets out or it is considered as a dot, it's a dead ball. THAT'S CALL " perfectly fair " .
With those flashing stumps, I could see how that would be a distraction!
lol is this thing related to the question asked :)
Have to agree with buzz. Should be a dead ball. This was looked at in the SA tests with England.
still if they call it dead ball wat is the fault of batsmen ???
I think the rule should be changed and called a no ball... Batsman still gets a six and can only be run out
Hmmm make sense if they waana give batsman some reward ;)
What did Buzz say? ;)
Dont know either maybe he has posted in his Pm about this :D
That's only fair if, when playing a switch hit, if the batsman moves before he should, the batting side is penalised 5 runs...
Tim you are mixing it wierdly ehhh even more complicated :(
-
Well being harder to run out at the bowlers end is the bowlers fault so he should stop doing it.
And no it shouldn't be given out... It should be a no ball because he has unintentionally broken the stumps and continued to bowl... He hasn't attempted a run out
I think it should remain as it always has been in the game. Not a dead ball and neither a no ball. The batsman should be given his six runs, and the bowler have to take it. It does seem to be Aussie umpires who call these dead balls rather than their UK equivalents though...
Tim you are mixing it wierdly ehhh even more complicated :(
No, I'm simply making a point. Historically in the game of cricket, accidentally knocking the bails off has never been considered an issue worthy of dead ball or no ball. What's changed (other than Stephen Finn?)
-
Some interesting replies here :)
but in all fairness dont you think that they should ammend this rule to avoid controversies etc
plus for juniors or in some leagues it will be easy to implement the rule & it will much easier to follow ... Let's take example of myself...i dont want my SIXER in the parking area with all my energy & effort turn into a deadball just because that micky mouse has kicked stumps while bowling... ;)
-
Some interesting replies here :)
but in all fairness dont you think that they should ammend this rule to avoid controversies etc
plus for juniors or in some leagues it will be easy to implement the rule & it will much easier to follow ... Let's take example of myself...i dont want my SIXER in the parking area with all my energy & effort turn into a deadball just because that micky mouse has kicked stumps while bowling... ;)
Don't waste your energy and hit six then! ;)
-
Some interesting replies here :)
Being completely diluted by your gibberish!
-
Being completely diluted by your gibberish!
like!
-
Some interesting replies here :)
but in all fairness dont you think that they should ammend this rule to avoid controversies etc
plus for juniors or in some leagues it will be easy to implement the rule & it will much easier to follow ... Let's take example of myself...i dont want my SIXER in the parking area with all my energy & effort turn into a deadball just because that micky mouse has kicked stumps while bowling... ;)
The rule is very straightforward. It is neither a dead ball, nor a no ball. It is a valid ball. The Australian umpires, swayed by Graham Smith and Amla complaining about it being a distraction and attempting to get an upper hand in the mental battle, called it a dead ball. They then proceeded to hit a number of fours which were also called dead balls.
Following this, first class umpires in England were instructed to ignore these examples and continue with what had happened prior, i.e. nothing! This is the way this has always been and should continue to be done.
-
Being completely diluted by your gibberish!
like!
It is obvious some bowlers didnt like it SORRY :)
The rule is very straightforward. It is neither a dead ball, nor a no ball. It is a valid ball. The Australian umpires, swayed by Graham Smith and Amla complaining about it being a distraction and attempting to get an upper hand in the mental battle, called it a dead ball. They then proceeded to hit a number of fours which were also called dead balls.
Following this, first class umpires in England were instructed to ignore these examples and continue with what had happened prior, i.e. nothing! This is the way this has always been and should continue to be done.
Ah ok thanks for clarification
Cheers
-
The rule is very straightforward. It is neither a dead ball, nor a no ball. It is a valid ball. The Australian umpires, swayed by Graham Smith and Amla complaining about it being a distraction and attempting to get an upper hand in the mental battle, called it a dead ball. They then proceeded to hit a number of fours which were also called dead balls.
Following this, first class umpires in England were instructed to ignore these examples and continue with what had happened prior, i.e. nothing! This is the way this has always been and should continue to be done.
But haven't the ICC also issued some 'guidance' to umpires which means they re now being called due to the precedent already set.
-
But haven't the ICC also issued some 'guidance' to umpires which means they re now being called due to the precedent already set.
This is what I can find in the Test Playing conditions from the MCC:
23 LAW 23 - DEAD BALL
Law 23 shall apply subject to the addition of the following to Law 23.4.
23.1 Law 23.4 – Umpire calling and signalling ‘Dead Ball’
In a match where Spydercam is being used, either umpire shall call and
signal ‘dead ball’, should a ball that has been hit by the batsman make
contact, while still in play, with the Spydercam or its cable. The ball shall
not count as one of the over and no runs shall be scored.
-
This is from a CricInfo article
"Finn's tendency was regarded seriously enough to be brought up at the pre-tournament briefing for coaches and captains during which they were told that any bowler breaking the stumps would first receive a warning and on every further occasion the delivery would be ruled as a dead ball"
This was the pre-brief for the 20/20 World Cup but seems to have been adopted elsewhere.