Sport Today

by **adipol** » Sat, 08 Oct 2005 20:36:22

Make s sangakkara run out . even before that he should have
run himself out . that time somehow he responded. And later
he gets out. He is really past his prime !!

by **RodP** » Sat, 08 Oct 2005 20:27:02

adipoli says...

Quote:

> Make s sangakkara run out . even before that he should have
> run himself out . that time somehow he responded. And later
> he gets out. He is really past his prime !!

Again, Sang's run out is his own fault. It was a suicide run
on his call and it should never have been attempted. It would
have been better for the World side if Kallis sacrificed his
wicket though.

Cheers,
Rod.

by **Airw0l** » Sat, 08 Oct 2005 20:58:55

Sangakkara has only himself to blame for his run out, however Kallis should
definitely have at least *tried* to cross over and sacrifice himself.

Kallis' procrastination really ramped up the pressure on Sangakkara, and
then Lara and Dravid. Kallis' own run out was also due mostly to a sluggish
response to Dravid's call.

Overall, Kallis was almost completely useless at #4. Lara or Dravid would
have in hindsight been better choices to send in.

Quote:

> Again, Sang's run out is his own fault. It was a suicide run
> on his call and it should never have been attempted. It would
> have been better for the World side if Kallis sacrificed his
> wicket though.

> Cheers,
> Rod.

by **yeska** » Sat, 08 Oct 2005 22:37:32

Quote:

>Again, Sang's run out is his own fault. It was a suicide run
>on his call and it should never have been attempted. It would
>have been better for the World side if Kallis sacrificed his
>wicket though.

>Cheers,
>Rod.

Agreed, Kallis should have sacrificed and it was Sanga's fault.
Was Kallis actually run out? It seemed that when the ball hit the
wickets, he was outside
the crease, but the bail had not been clearly dislodged. When the bail
was clearly dislodged,
he was in. In such a split second timing, the BOD should have gone to
the batsman.
The Third ump (Dar) was wrong in this case, as Holding (the comm) went
on about how
breaking the wicket means the bail should be clearly dislodged, while
the other comm (Nicholas ?)
disagreed with him.

What does the rule actually say ?

by **Phil** » Sat, 08 Oct 2005 23:54:12

Quote:

> >Again, Sang's run out is his own fault. It was a suicide run
> >on his call and it should never have been attempted. It would
> >have been better for the World side if Kallis sacrificed his
> >wicket though.

> >Cheers,
> >Rod.

> Agreed, Kallis should have sacrificed and it was Sanga's fault.
> Was Kallis actually run out? It seemed that when the ball hit the
> wickets, he was outside
> the crease, but the bail had not been clearly dislodged. When the bail
> was clearly dislodged,
> he was in. In such a split second timing, the BOD should have gone to
> the batsman.
> The Third ump (Dar) was wrong in this case, as Holding (the comm) went
> on about how
> breaking the wicket means the bail should be clearly dislodged, while
> the other comm (Nicholas ?)
> disagreed with him.

> What does the rule actually say ?

LAW 28 THE WICKET IS DOWN
1. Wicket put down
(a) The wicket is put down if a bail is completely removed from
the top of the stumps, or a stump is struck out of the ground by
(i) the ball.
(ii) the striker's bat, whether he is holding it or has let go of
it.
(iii) the striker's person or by any part of his clothing or
equipment becoming detached from his person.
(iv) a fielder, with his hand or arm, providing that the ball is
held in the hand or hands so used, or in the hand of the
arm so used.
The wicket is also put down if a fielder pulls a stump out
of the ground in the same manner.
(b) The disturbance of a bail, whether temporary or not, shall not
constitute its complete removal from the top of the stumps, but if a
bail in falling lodges between two of the stumps this shall be
regarded as complete removal.

Phil.

by **RodP** » Sun, 09 Oct 2005 05:40:24

yeskay says...

Quote:

> The Third ump (Dar) was wrong in this case, as Holding (the comm) went
> on about how
> breaking the wicket means the bail should be clearly dislodged, while
> the other comm (Nicholas ?)
> disagreed with him.

> What does the rule actually say ?

- 1. Wicket put down
- (a) The wicket is put down if a bail is completely removed from
- the top of the stumps, or a stump is struck out of the ground by
- (i) the ball.

I guess technology has highlighted this flaw in runouts and stumpings.
How you would expect an umpire to know exactly when a bail has been
removed from both grooves while a batsmen is attempting to make his
ground has to be bordering on impossible, especially in a situation
like this without the aid of technology. An onfield umpire would
largely be going on the sound of the ball striking the wicket (?) and
you could see how far Kallis was able to move while the bail was
thinking of falling...

One of the spigots was clearly out of the groove but the other one was
borderline compared to where Kallis was, we never got an end on shot
with Kallis in the picture. I would interpret that a bail being
completely removed as both spigots have come out of both grooves and
that the bail doesn't come to rest back in the grooves according to the
Law. I'm happy to see decisions given when one of the spigots is free
from its groove and the bail doesn't come back to rest in its groove.

Cheers,
Rod.

by **FRAN** » Sun, 09 Oct 2005 07:10:12

Quote:

> yeskay says...

> > The Third ump (Dar) was wrong in this case, as Holding (the comm) went
> > on about how
> > breaking the wicket means the bail should be clearly dislodged, while
> > the other comm (Nicholas ?)
> > disagreed with him.

> > What does the rule actually say ?

> - 1. Wicket put down
> - (a) The wicket is put down if a bail is completely removed from
> - the top of the stumps, or a stump is struck out of the ground by
> - (i) the ball.

> I guess technology has highlighted this flaw in runouts and stumpings.
> How you would expect an umpire to know exactly when a bail has been
> removed from both grooves while a batsmen is attempting to make his
> ground has to be bordering on impossible, especially in a situation
> like this without the aid of technology. An onfield umpire would
> largely be going on the sound of the ball striking the wicket (?) and
> you could see how far Kallis was able to move while the bail was
> thinking of falling...

> One of the spigots was clearly out of the groove but the other one was
> borderline compared to where Kallis was, we never got an end on shot
> with Kallis in the picture. I would interpret that a bail being
> completely removed as both spigots have come out of both grooves and
> that the bail doesn't come to rest back in the grooves according to the
> Law. I'm happy to see decisions given when one of the spigots is free
> from its groove and the bail doesn't come back to rest in its groove.

> Cheers,
> Rod.

And given the "benefit of the doubt" maxim applied with the line, I'm
astonished that this was given. It seemed a clear case for not out.

Fran

by **Penis caught on rusty barbed wire fenc** » Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:50:14

Kallis will run when Kallis wants to, not when he is called through by
a black man.

by **maie** » Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:56:13

Quote:

> Kallis will run when Kallis wants to, not when he is called through by
> a black man.

slave whipper if i ever saw one. i'm not looking forward to a whole summer
of kallis, tests, then one dayers, then more tests, then more one dayers.
lets hope the aussie sget him cheaply, could be very very boring otherwise.

Sport Today

bozo kallis !!!

bozo kallis !!!

bozo kallis !!!

bozo kallis !!!

bozo kallis !!!

bozo kallis !!!

bozo kallis !!!

bozo kallis !!!

bozo kallis !!!

bozo kallis !!!