Custom Bats Cricket Forum
General Cricket => Latest Matches => Topic started by: csnew on January 17, 2018, 10:05:53 AM
-
Overnight in the u19 WC
https://www.icc-cricket.com/video/596614 (https://www.icc-cricket.com/video/596614)
West indies junior team at it again
Disgraceful decision - ball was stationary.
-
Been chatting about this on twitter, not sure if this happened but umpires should have asked captain if he wanted to uphold appeal. If he did then its a shambles!
-
It's a joke isn't it, regardless of whether they appealed/didn't appeal I just don't see how allowing this sort of dismissal is good for the game - ICC/WI should be apologising in my opinion.
-
How is that possible out? Ridiculous. What kind of a moron appeals in that situation.
-
Absolute joke that. Should be ashamed of themselves.
-
Wicket keeper seems to instigate it, umpires should have called a dead ball and moved on.
Especially given he was well in on 47 when they appealed which reeks of sour grapes.
-
That d1ckhead of a WI Captain said,"I asked the Question..." He should be ashamed!
I had a lot of respect for the SA Captain he showed a lot of restraint giving his opinion! If I had of been chatting, I would have told him that it was insane to gove that out. Do these umpires have no brains!? Absolutely mental!
-
How many times do we see this in club cricket where the batsman waits until a fielder says yeah you’re ok to pick the ball up, a little naive from the batsman but should never have appealed
Utter embarrassment of a cricket team second drama they’ve caused recently isn’t it?
-
That d1ckhead of a WI Captain said,"I asked the Question..." He should be ashamed!
I had a lot of respect for the SA Captain he showed a lot of restraint giving his opinion! If I had of been chatting, I would have told him that it was insane to gove that out. Do these umpires have no brains!? Absolutely mental!
WI Captain basically said that in hindsight it wasn’t in the spirit of cricket and he should of rescinded the appeal. He didn’t use those exact words, but the words he did use actually didn’t make much sense!
-
Agree it’s a total farce and should never have been out but these guys are pros. As mentioned above, in amateur cricket most guys would hold their glove up until a close in fielder or wicket keeper says “cheers mate” so why do these guys think they dont have to?!
-
Poor sportmanship Not good for the game but the law states its out.
-
Pretty disgusting if you ask me, you've got to be a bit of a tit to think that this is an acceptable way to get someone out - West indies keeper and captain clearly fall into this category
-
Are the laws of the game outdated? is it time to make clear cut and remove grey areas like this?
So if the ball is stationary you can't be given out handling it.
-
Got to ignore the laws with Incidents like this, common sense should take over. Obvious he was just being polite and passing the ball back, it had stopped and he wasn't gaining an advantage. Umpires shouldn't have even referred it, they could have squashed it before it lead to this
-
When I first saw this, i could not believe how that was given out. Let's hope the Windies captain has taken a lesson from this incident.
The South African coach was very composed in the post innings interview, and avoided making this into a big scandal. He must have been seething though.
-
How many times do we see this in club cricket where the batsman waits until a fielder says yeah you’re ok to pick the ball up, a little naive from the batsman but should never have appealed
Utter embarrassment of a cricket team second drama they’ve caused recently isn’t it?
Never in all my 16 years of cricket. Unless they are swatting it away to stop it hitting the stumps, no issue at all.
West Indies u19's at it again after the whole mankad issue back in 2016
-
Well most of the teams or i would say players dont care about sportsmanship, they casually throw towards keeper hitting batsman standing in between, in club cricket where there are no cameras foul players will do their stuff and get away with it, in club cricket i need to keep my eyes and mind wide open to avoid such foul plays, there are many others ways like coming in the way deliberatly, pushing etc :(
-
Tbh the law is the law. Its harsh but as a pro he should really know better....
-
Glad to see SA still got the win
-
Its just not cricket.
-
Tbh the law is the law. Its harsh but as a pro he should really know better....
The law is irrelevant as the appeal should never ever even have been considered and the law is also up to the umpires discretion upon application. The west Indian blokes are obviously just cocks
-
why does the law even exist?
-
why does the law even exist?
My thoughts exactly, what relevance does it have on the game?
I've seen many an older player in my club just pick up the ball and throw it back even without asking the fielding team, its called manners and being a gentleman. Fair to say like most sports the rules are there to be exploited at all cost now, the Spirit of Cricket is dead and anyone who thinks otherwise if kidding themselves.
-
People do pick up the ball and throw it to the fielder but not before politely inquiring with the fielding team with a raise of a hand. Thats how everyone does it as the ball is still deemed to be in play. What's to stop a batsman from feigning picking up the ball and then steal a single?
-
Since 2017 The rule comes under obstructing the field you can only pick the ball up and not be out if one of the fielders requests you to do so prior to you handling the ball to avoid instances of fielders asking the batsman to return the ball and then appealing and the umpire giving the batsman out has had happened previously.
-
People do pick up the ball and throw it to the fielder but not before politely inquiring with the fielding team with a raise of a hand. Thats how everyone does it as the ball is still deemed to be in play. What's to stop a batsman from feigning picking up the ball and then steal a single?
Moment a batsman picks up a ball, it should be called dead ball and would prevent this from happening along with this silly rule.
-
Moment a batsman picks up a ball, it should be called dead ball and would prevent this from happening along with this silly rule.
I think the issue is that the ball is technically not dead when the batsman is picking it up. Either the batsman should wait for enough time and just ask the fielding side before picking up the ball if thats ok.
-
Is this rule the same as when a batsmen uses his bat to control the ball and roll towards a close fielder or wicketkeeper when it has been defended and landed close by to the batsmen. See this a lot when batsmen play spin and just dead bat the ball (soft hands into the ground) and knock it to a short leg fielder for example.
-
My thoughts exactly, what relevance does it have on the game?
I've seen many an older player in my club just pick up the ball and throw it back even without asking the fielding team, its called manners and being a gentleman. Fair to say like most sports the rules are there to be exploited at all cost now, the Spirit of Cricket is dead and anyone who thinks otherwise if kidding themselves.
I'm appealing if you try it next season Liam.
-
My thoughts exactly, what relevance does it have on the game?
I've seen many an older player in my club just pick up the ball and throw it back even without asking the fielding team, its called manners and being a gentleman. Fair to say like most sports the rules are there to be exploited at all cost now, the Spirit of Cricket is dead and anyone who thinks otherwise if kidding themselves.
While this is a joke of a decision... don't pick the ball up!!
I hate batsman getting their sweaty mitts on the ball, then as a batter not a chance am I touching it. Some poor fielder has to come and pick it up.
-
why does the law even exist?
I’ve been involved in a game where I’ve appealed for this and had it given out. The batsmen charged down the wicket played a defensive shot where he was 3 yards down the track the ball dropped in between him and short leg the batsmen then picked the ball up and threw it straight to the bowler just ahead of short leg grabbing it and flicking it to me stood up behind the stumps. He prevented us making attempt at running him out.
That’s what the law is for, not nonsense like this.
-
I’ve been involved in a game where I’ve appealed for this and had it given out. The batsmen charged down the wicket played a defensive shot where he was 3 yards down the track the ball dropped in between him and short leg the batsmen then picked the ball up and threw it straight to the bowler just ahead of short leg grabbing it and flicking it to me stood up behind the stumps. He prevented us making attempt at running him out.
That’s what the law is for, not nonsense like this.
in that case, this is the umpire's fault. throwing the ball back to the bowler may, or may not, constitute obstruction of field. in your example it did, yesterday, it did not.
-
I think it was mentioned (Cricinfo) that lots of players on WI team even thought it was dead ball/end of over with folks running on the field with drinks etc.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/22130479/on-reflection-withdraw-appeal-emmanuel-stewart (http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/22130479/on-reflection-withdraw-appeal-emmanuel-stewart)
"As there was a break in play, substitutes ran in with drinks under the assumption that the batsman had taken a break. Even West Indies' boundary riders seemed taken aback by the appeal initially."
-
Best way to get rid of this rubbish would be to change the law so the batsman is out if he handles the ball in any way.
-
Someone needs to have a word with the West Indies kids and tell them a whole lot of history and a legacy even of fantastic players , breathtaking matches and individual brilliance have gone before them that made the people of the islands stand ten feet tall.
Complete nonsense.
-
Someone needs to have a word with the West Indies kids and tell them a whole lot of history and a legacy even of fantastic players , breathtaking matches and individual brilliance have gone before them that made the people of the islands stand ten feet tall.
Complete nonsense.
Plenty of boring people tut-tutted when the great Windies teams were bouncing the crap out of everybody so this incident kinda upholds that legacy in its own way.
Don't pick up the ball unless you've looked at a fielder for approval first, this is basic stuff.
-
Best way to get rid of this rubbish would be to change the law so the batsman is out if he handles the ball in any way.
This.. just don’t touch it. It’s not a nice way but the law is the law and there is no spirit of Cricket now sadly
-
Windies captain on cricinfo now says he knows the letter of the law and should of withdrawn the appeal. That has to be right....same with the collingwood/side bottom run out with grant Elliott...wrong at the time and regretted after
And Big Mac I'm sure you know your cricket history, every team that has had intimidatory fast bowlers has used them. Australia in the 70's , windies in the 80's
The biggest 'culprit for bouncing the crap out of anyone' was
England. Body line.
-
Plenty of boring people tut-tutted when the great Windies teams were bouncing the crap out of everybody so this incident kinda upholds that legacy in its own way.
Don't pick up the ball unless you've looked at a fielder for approval first, this is basic stuff.
The Windies of the 80s only decided to get nasty after Thompson & Lillee bounced their tail in Australia in the late 70s
That is not the same as this incident which is a joke dismissal. Windies captain was wrong Yes but for me the match officials should have been stronger.
-
in that case, this is the umpire's fault. throwing the ball back to the bowler may, or may not, constitute obstruction of field. in your example it did, yesterday, it did not.
I completely agree, umpires just had to say ball was stationary batsmen were not obstructing any close fielders no run was being taken therefore we considered the ball to be dead
-
When it went to the 3rd umpire, he had no choice but to give it out. That was the common sense irrespective of what people might say.
As for the incident, I am with Mitchell Johnson on this: Spirit of the game is in following the laws. This incident happening yesterday and the furore surrounding it will ensure it doesn't happen in future.
-
When it went to the 3rd umpire, he had no choice but to give it out. That was the common sense irrespective of what people might say.
As for the incident, I am with Mitchell Johnson on this: Spirit of the game is in following the laws. This incident happening yesterday and the furore surrounding it will ensure it doesn't happen in future.
so your ok with doing anything that doesn't break a law in order to win the game?
-
so your ok with doing anything that doesn't break a law in order to win the game?
Can you elaborate with an example of what you mean by 'doing anything to win'? Spirit of the game is very arbitrary and subjective. Sledging is a perfect example. Someone might think funny banter is ok but others might perceive it as sledging or a means of upsetting someone's concentration and therefore not in the spirit of the game.
-
Can you elaborate with an example of what you mean by 'doing anything to win'? Spirit of the game is very arbitrary and subjective. Sledging is a perfect example. Someone might think funny banter is ok but others might perceive it as sledging or a means of upsetting someone's concentration and therefore not in the spirit of the game.
You said 'Spirit of the game is in following the laws', do you mean that as long as you follow the law you mean that you're playing the game in the right spirit?
-
Can you elaborate with an example of what you mean by 'doing anything to win'? Spirit of the game is very arbitrary and subjective. Sledging is a perfect example. Someone might think funny banter is ok but others might perceive it as sledging or a means of upsetting someone's concentration and therefore not in the spirit of the game.
You could say law 42 stops sledging and that it’s only because umpires don’t enforce the law that sledging is able to happen. Meaning that just because an umpire doesn’t prosecute the laws at all times doesn’t mean players shouldn’t play to the laws. It’s not that subjective really, the problem is umpires not enforcing the laws fully and so we now have a situation where the laws actually don’t allow verbal distraction before or after a delivery but players believe sledging is allowed.
Just to use your example (although I’ll check law 42 with our resident geek later today)
-
Law 41
Time wasting
How many times do we now see batters not ready to receive the bowlers delivery? The above law states that under normal circumstances the striker must be ready when the bowler is.. and yet, how often do you see batters messing about and the bowler left standing there waiting etc ... again, is that batter wrong ?. He’s been allowed to get away with it because no one has enforced the laws so he might believe that you wait for the batter etc etc ..
A lot of the laws are there already tbh, it’s just they are not being enforced by umpires at all levels properly or consistently and so ambiguity sinks in and then we get all mannor of interpretation.
Sledge vs no sledge
Wait for the batter to be ready or bowler ?
Time wasting
Over appealing
Etc etc
-
You said 'Spirit of the game is in following the laws', do you mean that as long as you follow the law you mean that you're playing the game in the right spirit?
The rules are there for a reason. And i play in the spirit of the game as well as follow the laws when i play. So to me, the grey area would be less if everyone followed the same rules. Leaves less room for interpretation. In no batsman ever picked up the ball, then this kind of situation will never occur.
-
This is all just an example of what you get when you try to help someone out.
The rule is wrong, yes, I think we can all agree on that. But what sort of a person appeals for that? There must have been some thought behind it, as you wouldn't appeal for it unless you knew that was a rule and had some degree of planning?
Someone within the West Indies set up must have read that rule and thought 'we're going to get someone like that' and then waited for it to happen.
Absolute shambles frankly, maybe if they concentrated on their cricket a bit more rather than this petty bullshit (remember the Mankad from the last U19's team?) the West Indies would be the superpower it once was
-
This is all just an example of what you get when you try to help someone out.
The rule is wrong, yes, I think we can all agree on that. But what sort of a person appeals for that? There must have been some thought behind it, as you wouldn't appeal for it unless you knew that was a rule and had some degree of planning?
Someone within the West Indies set up must have read that rule and thought 'we're going to get someone like that' and then waited for it to happen.
Absolute shambles frankly, maybe if they concentrated on their cricket a bit more rather than this petty bullshit (remember the Mankad from the last U19's team?) the West Indies would be the superpower it once was
The initial appeal happened in the heat of the moment perhaps but he had plenty of time to take it back and he chose not to. We can only speculate what was going through his mind. But ridiculous to think that they planned it. You cannot plan for a batsman to pick up the ball. Personally I have picked up the ball a couple of times to pass to a fielder but I signal before doing that.
-
This is all just an example of what you get when you try to help someone out.
The rule is wrong, yes, I think we can all agree on that. But what sort of a person appeals for that? There must have been some thought behind it, as you wouldn't appeal for it unless you knew that was a rule and had some degree of planning?
Someone within the West Indies set up must have read that rule and thought 'we're going to get someone like that' and then waited for it to happen.
Absolute shambles frankly, maybe if they concentrated on their cricket a bit more rather than this petty bullshit (remember the Mankad from the last U19's team?) the West Indies would be the superpower it once was
No issues with mankad, since backing up early CAN unfairly help the batting team. But this was silly.
-
http://www.espncricinfo.com/video/clip?id=22377771 (http://www.espncricinfo.com/video/clip?id=22377771)
More stinky bantz in the windies.
-
[url]http://www.espncricinfo.com/video/clip?id=22377771[/url] ([url]http://www.espncricinfo.com/video/clip?id=22377771[/url])
More stinky bantz in the windies.
What’s wrong with West Indian cricketers?? It’s from top to bottom.
Rob key suggested it was marlon Samuels at fault being captain. Wouldn’t surprise you would it
-
[url]http://www.espncricinfo.com/video/clip?id=22377771[/url] ([url]http://www.espncricinfo.com/video/clip?id=22377771[/url])
More stinky bantz in the windies.
Spirit of Cricket is dead. It’s win at all costs now. This is also pro Cricket so they’ll do anything.. the only thing they had to play for was denying him a ton so they did. Meh.. not cool but meh.
-
I can’t understand what sense of achievement they get from doing this?
-
I can’t understand what sense of achievement they get from doing this?
I don’t get it at all, if anything i’d have been lobbing down a pie to let the bloke belt a four and get off to lick your wounds.
-
Does anyone know who the fielder was?
I think looking at it the bowler wasn't to blame in this instance, it looked like he was trying to bowl wide Yorkers to Crawley and was just rubbish then bowling straighter at the stumps to the other batter.
-
I can’t understand what sense of achievement they get from doing this?
It’s not achievement. It’s just not letting the oppo get another positive
Ps I don’t think it was right btw.. but it is what it is now
-
Does anyone know who the fielder was?
I think looking at it the bowler wasn't to blame in this instance, it looked like he was trying to bowl wide Yorkers to Crawley and was just rubbish then bowling straighter at the stumps to the other batter.
He was trying to bowl leg side sides when the other bloke got on strike.