by Michael Banne » Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:00:08
> > <snip>
> > > Do not quite understand SMGPH so a URL would be useful.
> > Sydney Morning Gutter Press Herald. Some people refer to it by the
> > shortened form: Sydney Morning Herald:
> > http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/23/1077497518501.html
> > Andrew
> Thanks for the clarification Andrew. Is this the top Aussie paper as far
as
> cricket is concerned?
by RodP » Thu, 26 Feb 2004 16:11:53
Do you have any thoughts on why you can't be given out in such an
instance? I can't see any logical reason why you can't be stumped
on a no-ball, yet can be stumped on a wide. Unless in the case of
a bean ball (which in itself would probably require a super-human
effort by the keeper to gather and remove the bails), you're more
likely to receive a reachable delivery than a ball speared down
the legside to thwart an advancing batsmen.
Cheers,
Rod.
by RodP » Thu, 26 Feb 2004 16:13:54
Cheers,
Rod.
by Gill » Thu, 26 Feb 2004 17:29:13
> If a guy who was once the fastest bowler in the world bowled two beamers
> straight at my head, i'd be pretty pissed off too, as would anyone
> around the world be if anyone (including Aussies) had done it to them.
by The Wo » Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:13:02
> > This may not immediately make sense to you--or maybe it will--but if
> > you think about it a bit you will see that it is only fair. If you
> > can't be stumped on a no-ball, how can you be fairly out under the
> > exact same circumstances just by calling it a runout instead of a
> > stumping?
> Makes perfect sense as usual, Ron.
> Do you have any thoughts on why you can't be given out in such an
> instance? I can't see any logical reason why you can't be stumped
> on a no-ball, yet can be stumped on a wide.
Wog
by The Wo » Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:14:28
> Many thanks.
> Do not quite understand SMGPH so a URL would be useful.
Unfortunately I don't have a URL to the article because I read it on a large
piece of paper about 24x18".
Wog
by The Wo » Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:15:44
> > <snip>
> > > Do not quite understand SMGPH so a URL would be useful.
> > Sydney Morning Gutter Press Herald. Some people refer to it by the
> > shortened form: Sydney Morning Herald:
> > http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/23/1077497518501.html
> > Andrew
> Thanks for the clarification Andrew. Is this the top Aussie paper as far
as
> cricket is concerned?
by CiL » Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:27:11
>Well it's from NSW...
by Ron Knigh » Fri, 27 Feb 2004 01:11:49
>> > This may not immediately make sense to you--or maybe it will--but if
>> > you think about it a bit you will see that it is only fair. If you
>> > can't be stumped on a no-ball, how can you be fairly out under the
>> > exact same circumstances just by calling it a runout instead of a
>> > stumping?
>> Makes perfect sense as usual, Ron.
>> Do you have any thoughts on why you can't be given out in such an
>> instance? I can't see any logical reason why you can't be stumped
>> on a no-ball, yet can be stumped on a wide.
>Way it's been explained to me is that a wide isn't considered "unfair" in
>the sense of a bowler taking unfair advantage (throwing, bowling from too
>close, "dangerous and unfair" bowling, unfair field placement etc. It's
>simply "wide."
Take it easy,
Ron Knight
by RodP » Fri, 27 Feb 2004 04:47:14
Cheers,
Rod.
by K » Fri, 27 Feb 2004 11:12:41
> > As I live in Sydney, I would read it before any other publication. Readers
> > in other states would name other publications.
> ...and yet I tend to avoid it due to the fact it's double the height
> and double the width of your average paper making it very inconvenient
> to read. But then I'm lucky to pick up a newspaper once a fortnight.
> Cheers,
> Rod.