desire Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 That run out was so bad lol the coach said all the players were crying. Anyone else see that Six from Guptill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Winged Shadow Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Shaun Marsh is useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ants Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Wow, the captain of the side when asked if it was in the spirit of the game said "Probably not". That said, its happened a few times historically (3 in the article), so something to be aware of. It would be interesting to know how many captains in the same situation (likely the difference between making finals or not) would agree with the umpires to withdraw the appeal or stick with what the bowler did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consigliere Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 3 hours ago, ants said: Wow, the captain of the side when asked if it was in the spirit of the game said "Probably not". That said, its happened a few times historically (3 in the article), so something to be aware of. It would be interesting to know how many captains in the same situation (likely the difference between making finals or not) would agree with the umpires to withdraw the appeal or stick with what the bowler did. The first time I saw an incident like this was in '92 involving Kapil Dev and Peter Kirsten. Kapil Dev had warned Kirsten twice before in the series for backing up too far and the third time, he ran him out. The incident didn't go down well as SA felt that what Dev did was unethical. I think that the bowler should give the batsman a warning first and if the batsman does it again then the bowler is well within his right to run him out. I don't think there is anything the umpires can do if the fielding side wishes to uphold the appeal as this is within the laws of the game. Personally, I think that what the West Indian bowler did was unethical and not within the spirit of the game. He should have warned the batsman first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 I'm pretty sure England being good at ODI cricket is one of the Signs of The End Times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljkeane Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 That's a catch and a half from Stokes. It may well be a match winner as well given how dark it looks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davrum Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 7 hours ago, Consigliere said: The first time I saw an incident like this was in '92 involving Kapil Dev and Peter Kirsten. Kapil Dev had warned Kirsten twice before in the series for backing up too far and the third time, he ran him out. The incident didn't go down well as SA felt that what Dev did was unethical. I think that the bowler should give the batsman a warning first and if the batsman does it again then the bowler is well within his right to run him out. I don't think there is anything the umpires can do if the fielding side wishes to uphold the appeal as this is within the laws of the game. Personally, I think that what the West Indian bowler did was unethical and not within the spirit of the game. He should have warned the batsman first. We were always taught that too. The rules don't mandate a warning, but the spirit of the game does. If the non striker continues to try and cheat at the crease after being warned that's on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ants Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 15 hours ago, Consigliere said: The first time I saw an incident like this was in '92 involving Kapil Dev and Peter Kirsten. Kapil Dev had warned Kirsten twice before in the series for backing up too far and the third time, he ran him out. The incident didn't go down well as SA felt that what Dev did was unethical. I think that the bowler should give the batsman a warning first and if the batsman does it again then the bowler is well within his right to run him out. I don't think there is anything the umpires can do if the fielding side wishes to uphold the appeal as this is within the laws of the game. Personally, I think that what the West Indian bowler did was unethical and not within the spirit of the game. He should have warned the batsman first. I've no problem when the batsmen has been warned, even if that warning came over several prior matches. But its not etiquette to do it without a warning. Especially when you've only got one wicket, they need three runs, and it feels like this is a way of avoiding losing. Especially given the batsman was only just out of his crease - it might be different if he was two feet outside. What happened just feels wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davrum Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Yeah, the fact it was only by a hair makes it even worse. The batsman may well have thought he was still in the crease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Winged Shadow Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 No sympathy for the batsmen. Stay in your damn crease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desire Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Oh dears the boys are whining more then the poms after the match against NZÂ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davrum Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Batsman refuses to walk when he knows he's out. Acts like a crybaby about it when he's given out anyway and members of his nation's cricket press act similarly crybabyish, accusing the opponents of lacking sportsmanship when the cricketers of their nation are the most famous in the world for failing at sportsmanship. Then there's Mathew "Dumbasfuck" Wade going at Grant Elliot with his "Only cowards sledge after an opponent is out" bollocks. Cue montage of Australian after Australian going at NZ batsmen after they're out from very recent games. Just embarrassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Well, during the RWC I was against TV producers spontaneously showing footage at the ground that showed a ref's decision to be wrong. So I have to be consistent and say that the TV people should not have shown that caught and bowled in a way that clearly showed Marsh was out. Especially given there really wasn't any real appeal from the Black Caps. I suppose one could argue that Henry's raised arm could constitute an appeal, but there have been situations where an umpire has said there was not a properly made appeal and so they have refused to make a decision. Technically the right decision was made, but again I think there needs to be proper ICC rules about live replays on the big screen. Can or can't the captain make an appeal after a big screen replay? If the umpire judges the immediate response to not be a properly made appeal then IMO there is no appealing after replay. If there is an appeal and it is turned down, then I think it should be permissable for the captain to ask for a review after seeing a replay because the umpire made a wrong decision. In this case the umpire made no decision because there was no initial appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impmk2 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 I don't think that appeals, or for that matter reviews should be able to be asked for on the basis of a replay on the big screen. Play was proceeding and the next ball about to be bowled. Halting play for a review, entirely due to a replay for the crowd, at that stage is kinda ridiculous. And surely in this case the time limit to send things for review should've passed anyway? Or is that only enforced in LBW reviews? When it comes down to it I don't think the big screen, and the bias of what is or isn't shown, and how fast the TV people can get the right angle or hotspot replay up there should be a factor in any match. This is especially true as usually the only wrong decisions shown up there are ones that negatively impact the home team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 There's some people debating whether Henry's imediate reaction constituted an appeal. To me he didn't appeal. It was just a reaction to a bunted ball that was "damnit if only it had been a legit catch". At what point is a team no longer allowed to appeal for a wicket? There is a difference between this situation and the RWC Fiji try/no try. In the RWC the ref second guessed his own decision. In this game NZ didn't really appeal, and then they appealed, and the umpire only got involved once NZ decided to properly appeal and the umpire had to make a decision as to whether the appeal was legit. An appeal is legit any time between the alleged dismissal and some cut off point. Is it when the batsman gets into position at the crease, or when the bowler gets to the top of his run up? Or some other cut off? I don't think the umpire can tell the fielding team that they can't appeal on the basis of a replay as long as the team appeals within the timeframe allowed. Does the Indian ban on DRS preclude umpires asking for video help if they are unsure of what decision to make? i.e. does this incident give comfort to the Indian ban on DRS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impmk2 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Easiest way around it would just be to mandate that you can't show replays on the big screen (unless they're part of a third umpire referral) until after the next ball is bowled, and it can't influence the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljkeane Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Going for a green seamer doesn't appear to be working out for New Zealand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 I think it was important to win the toss and field. If we keep getting the sort of weather we've had over the last month or so the wicket will dry out fast and so Aussie will really be the only team to benefit from a green wicket. But in weather related news, there's meant to be a cyclone on the way. Might not arrive in time to affect the match, and most of its effects might be limited to the north. Also spare a thought for Vanuatu because they've been hit by a few cyclones in the last year or so, and this one looks to be forming in their vicinity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 This would seem to be an especially poor time to try and figure cricket out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 There's never a good time to figure it out. You just have to decide you want to and get started until you either get it or give up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.