As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

Post by Dechuck » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:43:23


>> >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.

>> 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.

what unfair distraction?

- Show quoted text -


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


As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

Post by Dechuck » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:44:12


>> 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.

number  is the way to go


As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

Post by ( » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:56:03

On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 17:26:56 -0700 (PDT), jzfredricks


>> >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?

What you snipped suggests that the umpires were advised by the batting
captain that his players would be distracted if Finn knocked over the
wicket. That's corruption simples, and if that did happen as you
report, then there is a job for icc Ronnie and his team.

Hint - if you don't know exactly why the decision was made at mcc
committee, I suggest that you *** up and quit with the shit. You only
make yourself appear more dumb than you try to be.


As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

Post by Bharat Ra » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 10:57:43


> and this is just another BS eg as the only team disadvantaged by the bowler
> knocking the bails off is the bowling team ( before all the changes of
> course)

As a batsman, I completely disagree.  I think the disadvantage is far greater for the batting side...



As expected: Finn's problem a no ball

Post by CaraMi » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 12:25:29

>The Laws have been complicated unnecessarily.

I don't see it - I think this uncomplicates the law.