Sport Today

by **(max.it** » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:19:39

On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 16:54:20 -0700 (PDT), jzfredricks

Quote:

>>current Test Playing Conditions say that it's an auto-dead ball (perhaps o=
>nly >after the batting team has said it's a distraction? not sure about thi=
>s part).

>A CI article said this about the "old/current" PCs;

>"Previously, when the non-striker's end stumps were broken in the delivery =
>stride a dead-ball was called, following an initial warning, regardless of =
>the outcome of the delivery. The new regulation provides clarity on what ha=
>d been an issue of controversy."

>So the first one was free, all others were auto-dead-balls.

***ery Jaysus wept. I have it. The umpire is required to
transmeditate and discover the nature of a distraction that is in the
mind of someone who has decided to cry distracted after the
event.................. What ***n signal do you suggest? I reckon the
umpire should stick his finger up his ass and sit on his elbow and
wave nicely at the batsman until the scorers figure it out.

Simples, this incident has become an issue because of international
exposure, and mcc are worried that it may become a fashion or tactic.
A Pre-emptive law change strike which is something mcc don't often do,
and without any apparent consideration of the effect of the change on
other laws, which is amazing.

max.it

by **jzfredrick** » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:20:11

Quote:

> > Smith CAN'T hit a boundary... the ball is called dead. He can't be run
> > out.

> seems to have hit the ball to the boundary

You could hit the ball into the neighbouring paddock but that doesn't mean diddly if the umpire calls it dead.

"27.2 Finn to Smith, no run, wider of the off stump and left alone
Finn knocks over the bails, dead ball called, it was driven for four but of course it won't count."

You see? He "hit it to the boundary" but "no runs were scored". Amazing!

by **(max.it** » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:24:17

On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 17:16:08 -0700 (PDT), jzfredricks

Quote:

>> originally it wasn't a dead ball if the bowler knocked the bails off. This
>> is how it should of remained

>The Finn Dead-Ball incident at Headingley was played under the 'old' Laws and PCs. The ones you love so much.

>The 'old' Laws allowed this to be called Dead Ball if the batsman clearly indicated to the umpire that it was a distraction.

>As I understand it Smith spoke to the umps prior to the match, and said that their entire team found it distracting when the bowler did this.
>The umpires considered this a clear enough indication, and decided to call ALL of these incidents Dead Balls.

That's simple corruption.

max.it

Quote:

>Yep, those old Laws were awesome! And uncomplicated!

>(nb: can't be arsed looking up articles from the time,
>my version of history re the umpire talks might have missed a few things or got some things wrong - above is how I remember it)

by **jzfredrick** » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:25:28

Quote:

> A Pre-emptive law change strike which is something mcc don't often do,
> and without any apparent consideration of the effect of the change on
> other laws, which is amazing.

How is it "pre-emptive"? Did the Headingley Test not happen?

I'm sure they DID consider the effect of the change, and they concluded that "it is worth it".

Embrace it. It's a good change. As an umpire, these are the kind of Laws that you should be fighting FOR, not against.

Previously you had to consider;
1. did the batsman try to indicate to me, in a timely manner (ie not after getting out) that he was distracted
2. if he did indicate as such, did he have a valid reason to be distracted (ie was he just faking it for some silly reason, perhaps to***the bowler off)

Now all you have to consider is;
1. did the bowler knock the bails off

by **jzfredrick** » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:26:56

Quote:

> >The umpires considered this a clear enough indication, and decided to call
> ALL of these incidents Dead Balls.
> That's simple corruption.

If the world's best umpires can't get it right, perhaps it was time for a Law simplification?

by **Dechuck** » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:28:32

Quote:

>> originally it wasn't a dead ball if the bowler knocked the bails off.
>> This
>> is how it should of remained

> The Finn Dead-Ball incident at Headingley was played under the 'old' Laws
> and PCs. The ones you love so much.

> The 'old' Laws allowed this to be called Dead Ball if the batsman clearly
> indicated to the umpire that it was a distraction.

> As I understand it Smith spoke to the umps prior to the match, and said
> that their entire team found it distracting when the bowler did this. The
> umpires considered this a clear enough indication, and decided to call ALL
> of these incidents Dead Balls.

> Yep, those old Laws were awesome! And uncomplicated!

> (nb: can't be arsed looking up articles from the time, my version of
> history re the umpire talks might have missed a few things or got some
> things wrong - above is how I remember it)

than the change should of been made to take away the batsman's whinge. Not
to much of a distraction if the ball is hit to the boundary

by **jzfredrick** » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:28:58

Quote:

> "27.2 Finn to Smith, no run, wider of the off stump and left alone
> Finn knocks over the bails, dead ball called, it was driven for four but of course it won't count."

CI's a bit funny, not sure which delivery it was that over. How can you leave it alone and drive it for 4?
Still, this happened, twice IIRC.

by **Dechuck** » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:29:38

Quote:

>>> The Laws have been complicated unnecessarily.

>> Complicated? I suggest you read the current Laws and PCs.
>> This change makes them extremely simple, compared to the old version.

>> I've little issue with people saying the new Law sucks, or was
>> unnecessary, or is unfair to a particular team, or whatever... but to say
>> "The Laws have been complicated" is *completely* wrong.

>> NB: There was no need to include "complicated *unnecessarily*" just then,
>> as the "unnecessarily" part is totally irrelevant. The Laws have been
>> SIMPLIFIED, regardless of the need of this change.

> Go back to the original situation where if the bails were knocked off by
> the bowler it was play on.

but the beauty of having it a dead ball is it disadvantages the batting side
as well for their whinging

by **Dechuck** » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:31:43

Quote:

>> A Pre-emptive law change strike which is something mcc don't often do,
>> and without any apparent consideration of the effect of the change on
>> other laws, which is amazing.

> How is it "pre-emptive"? Did the Headingley Test not happen?

> I'm sure they DID consider the effect of the change, and they concluded
> that "it is worth it".

> Embrace it. It's a good change. As an umpire, these are the kind of Laws
> that you should be fighting FOR, not against.

> Previously you had to consider;
> 1. did the batsman try to indicate to me, in a timely manner (ie not after
> getting out) that he was distracted
> 2. if he did indicate as such, did he have a valid reason to be distracted
> (ie was he just faking it for some silly reason, perhaps to***the
> bowler off)

> Now all you have to consider is;
> 1. did the bowler knock the bails off

if you want to change the PC the dead ball option was the way to go as it
disadvantages both sides. My preferred option is of course to say play on as
it used to be

by **Dechuck** » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:33:28

Quote:

>> > Smith CAN'T hit a boundary... the ball is called dead. He can't be run
>> > out.

>> seems to have hit the ball to the boundary

> You could hit the ball into the neighbouring paddock but that doesn't mean
> diddly if the umpire calls it dead.

> "27.2 Finn to Smith, no run, wider of the off stump and left alone
> Finn knocks over the bails, dead ball called, it was driven for four but
> of course it won't count."

> You see? He "hit it to the boundary" but "no runs were scored". Amazing!

because of the stupidity of the dead ball change made even more stupid by
changing it to a no-ball. This is a classic example of why it should be play
on if the bowler knocks the bails off

by **(max.it** » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:34:27

On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 17:20:11 -0700 (PDT), jzfredricks

Quote:

>> > Smith CAN'T hit a boundary... the ball is called dead. He can't be run
>> > out.

>> seems to have hit the ball to the boundary

>You could hit the ball into the neighbouring paddock but that doesn't mean diddly if the umpire calls it dead.

>"27.2 Finn to Smith, no run, wider of the off stump and left alone
>Finn knocks over the bails, dead ball called, it was driven for four but of course it won't count."

>You see? He "hit it to the boundary" but "no runs were scored". Amazing!

While fully certified in advance as being distracted. Told you Smith
isn't overly bright his attempt to knobble the bowler and corrupt the
umpires cost him runs.
What is ***n amazing is the new law actually gives him a run for free
without having to corrupt the spirit of the game...Amazing!

max.it

by **jzfredrick** » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:35:51

Quote:

> than (sic) the change should of (sic) been made to take away the batsman's whinge. Not to (sic) much of a distraction if the ball is hit to the boundary

I'm not too sure what you mean by the batsman's "whinge". I assume you mean the right to indicate to the ump that he was distracted. If so, that means to possible outcomes;

1. The umpire has to decide, event-by-event, if it was enough of a distraction to call Dead. This has to be based on the events at the non-striker's end alone (ie the batsman must be ignored)
2. allow the bowler to do this without sanction

Meh. Silly ideas.

by **jzfredrick** » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:37:25

Quote:

> because of the stupidity of the dead ball change made even more stupid by
> changing it to a no-ball. This is a classic example of why it should be play
> on if the bowler knocks the bails off

So, you're saying the bowler should be allowed to deliberately knock the non-striker's stumps over during delivery?

by **jzfredrick** » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:40:31

Quote:

> >You see? He "hit it to the boundary" but "no runs were scored". Amazing!
> While fully certified in advance as being distracted. Told you Smith
> isn't overly bright his attempt to knobble the bowler and corrupt the
> umpires cost him runs.

Of course, this same "corruption" saved him earlier, as he was caught when on 5 runs to a Finn Dead Ball (Smith went on to score 52.

Quote:

> What is ***n amazing is the new law actually gives him a run for free
> without having to corrupt the spirit of the game...Amazing!

It's not "free". The bowler is being punished for causing an unfair distraction.

If one of the results of this Law is to reduce corruption of the Spirit you should be happy.

by **Dechuck** » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:42:42

Quote:

>> because of the stupidity of the dead ball change made even more stupid by
>> changing it to a no-ball. This is a classic example of why it should be
>> play
>> on if the bowler knocks the bails off

> So, you're saying the bowler should be allowed to deliberately knock the
> non-striker's stumps over during delivery?

the Umpire can decide if it was deliberate or not or better still just let
it occur as it is only a disadvantage to the bowling side

Sport Today

As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

As expected: Finn's problem a no ball