Cricket Thread

[ncurd]

But yeah, if the batsmen or his bat changes the natural direction of the ball after hitting him, the fielding team shouldn't be penalised.

Why shouldn't the fielding team be penalised for throwing the ball at the batsman that has not changed his line or direction?

To me I'd like to see the law put in place that hitting a batsman or any equipment they is currently carrying/wearing provided they did not change line of direction is awarded 1 run, all completed runs and if both batsman were out their crease and travelling towards completing an additional run that run as well. The ball is also declared dead at point of impact with the player.

I agree the 4 runs for the boundary was unfair (but within the laws) but the fielding side should still be penalised for throwing the ball at an opposing player (I accept this was not intentional). I also think the rule about crossing is ********, Stokes/Wood completed that run and they should have taken of when the fielder released the ball? that's also nonsence even if it is in the game what should of happened.

Under this England would of been awarded 3 runs instead 6 they did or the 5 they should have.

 

[ncurd]

It should noted,

- throwing the ball at a player, umpire or another person in an inappropriate and dangerous manner

Is Level 2 offence carrying 5 penalty runs.

Whilst that is clearly not what happened on Sunday, you should still penalise those minor infraction otherwise someday some toss pot will attempt to commit that offence and nothing will happen.

 

[TRF_heineken]

It should noted,

- throwing the ball at a player, umpire or another person in an inappropriate and dangerous manner

Is Level 2 offence carrying 5 penalty runs.

Whilst that is clearly not what happened on Sunday, you should still penalise those minor infraction otherwise someday some toss pot will attempt to commit that offence and nothing will happen.

That's a thin line. Fielders aim at the stumps, and the batsmen is running towards the stumps. But yeah, if the batsmen stays in his line and the fielder aims at him instead of the stumps, then the fielding team should be penalised.

 

[ncurd]

How do you determine aim? Clearly Guptil was aiming at the stumps not Stokes but he hit Stokes meaning his aim was clearly off. Clearly you can't chuck a level 2 offence at him that would nonsense its clearly an error.

Which is why I say just give 1 penalty run in these instances and let them have the runs they would of completed. But don't say its a code of conduct offence. Also then if it ricochets to the boundary the team fielding don't get heavilly penalised for it.

 

[Five Meters Out]

There is a huge irony, or if you will Greek Tragedy, about the manner of the NZ approach to batting in the Cricket World Cup and the subsequent Final result.
In sharp contrast to the 2015 World Cup, NZ clearly had a plan to accumulate, rather than blast, runs. Ones and two's were the order of the day. Old fashioned 50 over cricket, in sharp contrast to most other teams.
In doing so NZ's boundary total was the least of any team. Even below Afghanistan, who didn't win a game.
A cunning, well thought out plan and it so very nearly worked for them. The irony being, that with scores tied after normal play and extra time in the Final, what was used to judge the winner.........................the NZ Black Caps own cunning plan had come back to smite them down.

 

[smartcooky]

ncurd you are completely missing the point - your focus is too narrow.

Why would a player deliberately throw the ball at a batsman when they have nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing so?

Throwing the ball to hit the batsman in order to make the ball dead so they don't give away overthrows? Seriously, is that what you are thinking?

If the fielder does that, and misses the moving target (which is very likely) the chances that there will be another fielder backing up is very small. The fielder is more likely to give away overthrows than to save them.

Why not just not throw the ball at all...then there is ZERO risk of overthrows. If they are running, throw the ball at the stumps. If they throw AT the batsman they are not going to get him out!

In short, there is ZERO incentive for a fielder to throw the ball directly at a batsman, especially from the deep field.

 

[ncurd]

Your missing my point entirely. Throwing a ball a player is a vindictive act and a Level 2 offence. That's already in the law book.

My point is an accidental throw at a player should still carry some penalty. Otherwise I think someone will throw it a player some day as an act of malice someday and they won't be peanlised.

Same reason a beamer is an immediate no ball. Bowlers never intend to bowl it and get a warning for doing so. However if it didn't carry any penalty they'd do it all the time like a bouncer.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

you cant make rules in the anticipation someday a fielder will decide to hit a batter deliberately...its not an issue now so do we really think its worth penilising all the times it happens accidentally for one day...in the distant future it might happen deliberately? you'd basically kill of all the last ball runouts we see because people wont want to give them the "winning run"

I would have thought that even the most malicious person would rather actually get the wicket than hurt the batter and if it was so blatant as to hit someone no where near the wickets then there are process in place to fine them

 

[TRF_heineken]

Just got this joke this morning:

It took England 44 years with
2 South Africans
1 West Indian
1 New Zealander
1 Irishman
2 Pakistanis
and a lame ICC Rule to win a World Cup
With a margin of 0 Runs!!!

And they want Brexit!!???

 

[TRF_heineken]

you cant make rules in the anticipation someday a fielder will decide to hit a batter deliberately...its not an issue now so do we really think its worth penilising all the times it happens accidentally for one day...in the distant future it might happen deliberately? you'd basically kill of all the last ball runouts we see because people wont want to give them the "winning run"

I would have thought that even the most malicious person would rather actually get the wicket than hurt the batter and if it was so blatant as to hit someone no where near the wickets then there are process in place to fine them

Yeah I agree.

In the history of cricket, how many instances have there been where a fielder wanted to hit the batsmen on purpose? I don't think there is a lot.
Fielders throwing at the stumps and in the process hits the batsmen, or his bat or his pads, that happens a lot, but there was no intention from the fielder to hit the batsmen at all. His focus is solely on the wickets and trying to get the batsmen out.

Batsmen know the risks. They wouldn't have worn protective things like pads, helmets, boxes if they didn't know the ball might injure them.

I just think Ncurd is looking at this the wrong way. And perhaps looking at this topic should be more generalised as a whole than the play in the finals.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Just got this joke this morning:

It took England 44 years with
2 South Africans
1 West Indian
1 New Zealander
1 Irishman
2 Pakistanis
and a lame ICC Rule to win a World Cup
With a margin of 0 Runs!!!

And they want Brexit!!???

and a miss call by the umpire

 

[TRF_heineken]

and a miss call by the umpire

Well the umpires missed a call in the SA vs NZ match as well when Williamson edged to the keeper when he was on 8. and then went on to get a 100. So don't ride on that part too much. You had things go your way too in the tournament.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Well the umpires missed a call in the SA vs NZ match as well when Williamson edged to the keeper when he was on 8. and then went on to get a 100. So don't ride on that part too much. You had things go your way too in the tournament.

Yeah, we're bloody lucky whenever Kane gets away with something like that, I'd like to think he wasn't 100% sure if he'd nicked it or not as he's supposed to be a top bloke but you never know, we wouldn't have got anywhere near where we did without him

You literally just posted a list of the things that went into the win, that fact I'm a kiwi doesn't actually change the missed call

 

[ncurd]

Just got this joke this morning:

It took England 44 years with
2 South Africans
1 West Indian
1 New Zealander
1 Irishman
2 Pakistanis
and a lame ICC Rule to win a World Cup
With a margin of 0 Runs!!!

And they want Brexit!!???

2 Pakistani's?

Moeen Ali was born in Birmingham
Adil Rahid was born in Bradford
So are as English as Woakes and Bairstow who were born in the same places.

Curran didn't play a game.

And if we want to go all mistakes made in the game what about some pretty dubious wides including the super over?



Sorry just get annoyed by the whole 'their not English rubbish'

 

[ncurd]

you cant make rules in the anticipation someday a fielder will decide to hit a batter deliberately...its not an issue now so do we really think its worth penilising all the times it happens accidentally for one day...in the distant future it might happen deliberately? you'd basically kill of all the last ball runouts we see because people wont want to give them the "winning run"

I would have thought that even the most malicious person would rather actually get the wicket than hurt the batter and if it was so blatant as to hit someone no where near the wickets then there are process in place to fine them

Yeah I agree.

In the history of cricket, how many instances have there been where a fielder wanted to hit the batsmen on purpose? I don't think there is a lot.
Fielders throwing at the stumps and in the process hits the batsmen, or his bat or his pads, that happens a lot, but there was no intention from the fielder to hit the batsmen at all. His focus is solely on the wickets and trying to get the batsmen out.

Batsmen know the risks. They wouldn't have worn protective things like pads, helmets, boxes if they didn't know the ball might injure them.

I just think Ncurd is looking at this the wrong way. And perhaps looking at this topic should be more generalised as a whole than the play in the finals.

I've seen an adult bowl full pace bouncer at a 11 year old kid. People's capacity for being horrible should never be discounted.

And perhaps looking at this topic should be more generalised as a whole than the play in the finals.

I'd agree but people want to change the current overthrow law based on it something every pundit has said they've never seen happen in their life. In which case I don't believe just calling Dead Ball as smart cookie suggested is enough. Technically in that case the player making a run wouldn't get that run either as was supposed to happen on Sunday. Which I really don't agree with, the law basically states because of a fielding error the batting side are deducted a run....

It should be noted the overthrow law is written with a direct throw to boundary in mind not through a ricochet.

 

[TRF_heineken]

2 Pakistani's?

Moeen Ali was born in Birmingham
Adil Rahid was born in Bradford
So are as English as Woakes and Bairstow who were born in the same places.

Curran didn't play a game.

And if we want to go all mistakes made in the game what about some pretty dubious wides including the super over?



Sorry just get annoyed by the whole 'their not English rubbish'

Haha, oh chill out, it's a joke. And btw, they didn't even use KP or any of the other names before.

But I guess that jokes has served its purpose when it gets a response like yours.

I've seen an adult bowl full pace bouncer at a 11 year old kid. People's capacity for being horrible should never be discounted.I'd agree but people want to change the current overthrow law based on it something every pundit has said they've never seen happen in their life. In which case I don't believe just calling Dead Ball as smart cookie suggested is enough. Technically in that case the player making a run wouldn't get that run either as was supposed to happen on Sunday. Which I really don't agree with, the law basically states because of a fielding error the batting side are deducted a run....

It should be noted the overthrow law is written with a direct throw to boundary in mind not through a ricochet.

Oh I've seen bouncers being bowled by adults to kids a lot. That's the only you get kids to learn how to play and protect themselves. In high school I faced the Phalaborwa express quite a lot, And I tell you he was a lot faster than the adults who bowled at me for training.

Overthrows doesn't distinguish between ricochet or direct throws. Regardless of the ball ricocheting against a wicket, bat, pad, body part, helmet etc. and therefore I think it's time that the ICC look at widening their definitions on certain aspects of the game.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

2 Pakistani's?

Moeen Ali was born in Birmingham
Adil Rahid was born in Bradford
So are as English as Woakes and Bairstow who were born in the same places.

Curran didn't play a game.

And if we want to go all mistakes made in the game what about some pretty dubious wides including the super over?



Sorry just get annoyed by the whole 'their not English rubbish'

Sorry, you must have missed the memo. You aren't allowed to be happy to have won, please issue your apology to every other nation that partook in the world cup post haste.

 

[ncurd]

Haha, oh chill out, it's a joke. And btw, they didn't even use KP or any of the other names before.

But I guess that jokes has served its purpose when it gets a response like yours.

And you'll get a similar response from Kiwi's if you suggest their rugby team is made up Pacific Islanders.

Oh I've seen bouncers being bowled by adults to kids a lot. That's the only you get kids to learn how to play and protect themselves. In high school I faced the Phalaborwa express quite a lot, And I tell you he was a lot faster than the adults who bowled at me for training.

Theres a difference between training and and an actual competition game and you don't know the kid. It was done to deliberately scare and intimidate him to the extent the rest opposing team apologised at the pub afterwards.

Overthrows doesn't distinguish between ricochet or direct throws. Regardless of the ball ricocheting against a wicket, bat, pad, body part, helmet etc. and therefore I think it's time that the ICC look at widening their definitions on certain aspects of the game.

I agree I think it merits discussion.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

I've seen an adult bowl full pace bouncer at a 11 year old kid. People's capacity for being horrible should never be discounted.I'd agree but people want to change the current overthrow law based on it something every pundit has said they've never seen happen in their life. In which case I don't believe just calling Dead Ball as smart cookie suggested is enough. Technically in that case the player making a run wouldn't get that run either as was supposed to happen on Sunday. Which I really don't agree with, the law basically states because of a fielding error the batting side are deducted a run....

It should be noted the overthrow law is written with a direct throw to boundary in mind not through a ricochet.

We probably all have seen similar but was that in and game where offical rules are applied? If so I'd say there was some issues with whatever league that was in

 

[ncurd]

We probably all have seen similar but was that in and game where offical rules are applied? If so I'd say there was some issues with whatever league that was in

It was Sunday League cricket its pretty low tier stuff. It wasn't uncommon to make up numbers players kids played. Umpiring was done by the batting side. Plus it was perfectly legal delivery. Normally there is gentlemen's agreement that you only bowl half pacers to the kids or use your spinners. Your there to help learn cricket and enjoy the game. And if they were batting they were doing so at the tail end, chances were you were going to win. This was also a time before helmets were common place.

Our captain did declare an innings on the 38th over of a 40 over match because of it.