Cricket Part II

I reckon Ross was avoiding the ball, very unlucky…

On point 2 I agree, but my understanding is that an appeal is never considered an appeal for just one dismissal. Eg. Batsman hit on pad with bat close and ball balloons to fielder. You appeal for a wicket but you’re not asking for LBW or caught… it could be given out for either.

So the umpires should have been considering obstructing the field anyway.
But imo they got it wrong. He was clearly trying to get out of the way

2 Likes

Agree on both your points

While i agree that the ump would probably have looked at it anyway, the fact that Bailey, after watching the replay, then asked the ump to look at it, was not on. The umps actually have discretion at that point to reject the appeal if they feel it wasn’t out run out and not refer it for the obstruction.

1 Like

England have named their squad for NZ Tests: Ballance, Ball and Curran all dropped. Wood, Stokes and Livingstone in. 2 Tests, first day/night.

Stokes selection could change depending on legal situation.

The whole thing’s weird. I don’t think I’d pay obstructing the field, but if he was trying to get out of the way of the ball my pro tip would be don’t change course to run directly at the keeper, because the keeper is probably moving in line with the ball.

Geez, they’ve really wielded the axe there. Presumably a 4-0 drubbing was par-for-the-course…

1 Like

Not surprising on Curran. I don’t see how he’ll ever make it. Not good enough at anything. Would be a very good first class cricketer though and probably could make a career for himself in T20

1 Like

Me either, but wouldn’t be surprised if he comes in if Stokes is charged. He might get some wickets that are more ‘helpful’ for him over there.

That is true re the wickets

Ross crossed the pitch. He’s out!

Livingstone will come in for Ali I reckon.

Wood for Curran

It will be last chance saloon for Vince. You can’t keep going out the same way again and again and keep your spot

Apart from Anderson( apart from the first innings in Adelaide was just amazing) and Overton none of our bowlers had any sort of effect

1 Like

As for the run out, he is out. Once you cross the pitch you are out- those are the rules.

But bailey using the replay to appeal is dodgy AF

Just how many 120 - 130 kmh trundlers did The Poms bring out here? Seemed to be a new one trotted out for each test, all of them equally ineffectual (bar, arguably, Overton).
When will they work out that sub-130 park cricketers do not cut it on our non-swing pitches.
Surely someone in county cricket has some pace & ability about them? Or is that position always filled by the inexhaustable supply of West Indians and South Africans that their teams blow their dough on?

As stated before, appealing for run out is the same as appealing for obstruction. So your last statement is wrong.

An appeal to the umpires covers all modes of dismissal.

A whole 2 weeks! Don’t know how he survived!

As much as this thread criticises how much the cricket world has been affected by T20, my wordy lordy some of you have attention spans a goldfish would be ashamed of.

T20 side sure, but he’s been in and out of WA’s one day side, and generally doesn’t play Shield. You’d like him to bed down a little.

If I was on a computer I’d find the post and quote it.

Leading run scorer in Shield… out of form… idiocy.

Basically, it does — if it’s a straightout simple appeal — “How’s that ?” — without specifying. But there is also a specific appeal, which is not heard too often, for obvious reasons.

I suppose one example of this is when the ball balloons off a batsman’s pad and is caught by a fielder. The appeal, “How’s that ?” is turned down, and someone on the fielding side, assuming the umpire meant “Not out [caught]”, will ask “How’s that for LBW ?”

Maybe Bailey’s appeal for obstructing the field could fall into this category ?

Except Bailey appealed for the run out, the ump said no, he saw the replay then appealed for obstruction.

1 Like