Cricket Part II


#5388

Interesting question! According to Bailey, the answer is no. But, I wonder.


#5389

Here’s two other similar obstructing the field dismissals for those interested
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2hk5ff


#5390

No real problem with either of those.
The first one is worst. Looks over his shoulder and then covers the stumps.
You could argue the English one was just a wide turning circle, but not very convincingly.

I don’t have a problem with the new rule, so long as fielders get out of the way.
I also hope some allowance is made if a keeper is in the batsman’s line. He should be able to run at full speed.


#5391

I reckon the Roy one is clearly out, - no doubt he knew what he was doing. The Hafeez one is not as clear-cut imo, but I would have given him, he moved too far in front of the stumps for my liking.


#5392

Hurricanes win four in a row. I was thinking that the top 4 had been settled remarkably early, but they’re added some interest now. Good squad that seems to be getting better the longer the tournament goes.

And: If the selectors are going to be picking Lynn’s replacement on BBL form, there is only one player: Darcy Short. He is on fire.


#5393

This rule about the batsman “obsructing the field” by changing his line to cover the stumps is one big crock of stinking shyte. What about the bowler deliberately obstructing the runner’s path ? You’d think the ICC was being run by the AFL bosses.

If they want to act in this area, they’d be better off painting a pair of tramlines down each side of the pitch, and require the batsman to run in between them and ban the fielders from going inside them. It might look ridiculous at first, but it would be fairer and work better than this “obstructing the field” bulldust.

D’Arcy Short ? Fine batsman, blood oath. I wouldn’t mind him getting a Test try-out. At least he’s a wrist spinner — bowls chinamen in fact — what the PC brigade call “left-arm legspin” (which is a contradiction in terms) or what Pommy immigrants call “left-arm unorthodox” (as if there’s something intrinsically wrong with wrist spin). Takes wickets, too.


#5394

#5395

Six FC games with an average of 22.


#5396

Two things on the Ross incident:

  1. why the hell did he change direction when running down the pitch? Basic 101 is that you run straight as it reduces the distance you have to run as an angle can mean you get run out. Also they say that if you run straight it is more likely that you will get in the way and that’s okay, better the ball hit you than the wicket and, if you haven’t changed direction it isn’t obstruction.

  2. How the hell was Bailey able to appeal for obstruction AFTER WATCHING THE REPLAY (which he states he did in his post match interview)? That is not allowed under the laws of the game so the umps should have rejected his request and just decided on the run out scenario.


#5397

I reckon Ross was avoiding the ball, very unlucky…


#5398

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


#5399

Agree on both your points


#5400

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.


#5401

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.


#5402

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.


#5403

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


#5404

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


#5405

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.


#5406

That is true re the wickets


#5407

Ross crossed the pitch. He’s out!