Topic: Spirit of Cricket? (Read 10523 times)

mdg20 · « **Reply #30 on:** January 17, 2018, 05:50:13 PM »

Quote from: brokenbat on January 17, 2018, 02:12:49 PM

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.

brokenbat · « **Reply #31 on:** January 17, 2018, 06:42:44 PM »

Quote from: mdg20 on January 17, 2018, 05:50:13 PM

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.

shadowlight · « **Reply #32 on:** January 17, 2018, 07:19:34 PM »

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

"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."

edge · « **Reply #33 on:** January 17, 2018, 08:00:56 PM »

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.

ppccopener · « **Reply #34 on:** January 17, 2018, 08:11:30 PM »

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.

Big Mac · « **Reply #35 on:** January 17, 2018, 10:16:28 PM »

Quote from: ppccopener on January 17, 2018, 08:11:30 PM

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.

ProCricketer1982 · « **Reply #36 on:** January 17, 2018, 10:41:28 PM »

Quote from: edge on January 17, 2018, 08:00:56 PM

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

ppccopener · « **Reply #37 on:** January 17, 2018, 11:15:38 PM »

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.

LateBloomer · « **Reply #38 on:** January 17, 2018, 11:28:15 PM »

Quote from: Big Mac on January 17, 2018, 10:16:28 PM

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.

mdg20 · « **Reply #39 on:** January 18, 2018, 12:09:15 AM »

Quote from: brokenbat on January 17, 2018, 06:42:44 PM

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

sgcricket · « **Reply #40 on:** January 18, 2018, 02:44:57 AM »

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.

Kulli · « **Reply #41 on:** January 18, 2018, 07:36:35 AM »

Quote from: sgcricket on January 18, 2018, 02:44:57 AM

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?

sgcricket · « **Reply #42 on:** January 18, 2018, 07:54:19 AM »

Quote from: Kulli on January 18, 2018, 07:36:35 AM

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.

Kulli · « **Reply #43 on:** January 18, 2018, 07:57:50 AM »

Quote from: sgcricket on January 18, 2018, 07:54:19 AM

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?

ProCricketer1982 · « **Reply #44 on:** January 18, 2018, 08:15:28 AM »

Quote from: sgcricket on January 18, 2018, 07:54:19 AM

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)

Author Topic: Spirit of Cricket? (Read 10523 times)

mdg20

Re: Spirit of Cricket?

brokenbat

Re: Spirit of Cricket?

shadowlight

Re: Spirit of Cricket?

edge

Re: Spirit of Cricket?

ppccopener

Re: Spirit of Cricket?

Big Mac

Re: Spirit of Cricket?

ProCricketer1982

Re: Spirit of Cricket?

ppccopener

Re: Spirit of Cricket?

LateBloomer

Re: Spirit of Cricket?

mdg20

Re: Spirit of Cricket?

sgcricket

Re: Spirit of Cricket?

Kulli

Re: Spirit of Cricket?

sgcricket

Re: Spirit of Cricket?

Kulli

Re: Spirit of Cricket?

ProCricketer1982

Re: Spirit of Cricket?