Cricket Part II


#6851

Worse than what Lyon did, but still not worthy of anything. Just a nice bit of spice.


#6852

Disagree HAP. Rabada has terrible form on this front and will cop a suspension, probably multiple matches.


#6853

Yet again lots of starts in the top order, but nobody cashing in and getting a big score. Bancroft 38, Warner 60-odd, Smith 20-odd, Marsh 20-odd. Paine 36 but he was batting with the tail. To be 0-98 then 243 all out is a fair collapse. We will have to bowl very well to have a 1st innings lead.


#6854

Agree. You can’t do that.


#6855

WA like capitulation. God our worst is terrible


#6856

2 Saffer officials joined in with the crowd and wore SBW masks. Classy bunch


#6857

Jason Gillespie on Rabada: “He could be in a bit of strife. Contact is frowned upon, accidental or not. Unfortunately in this series so far … there’s so many issues.”


#6858

Didn’t look accidental to me.


#6859

The rule speaks of avoidable contact, which it unmistakably was. Rabada lifted his arm to make contact.


#6860

Needs to be reposted each day. Goddam it’s awful. It’s like a deaf New Orleans Funeral is circling the ground endlessly.


#6861

Amia looks like a walking wicket at the moment


#6862

I still don’t get that rule about hitting o/side the line.

WTF does that matter? That was clearly going on to hit the stumps, what did the bowler do wrong? Should be out.


#6863

I’m with you, should be out everyday of the week. The rule is flawed. I can understand the one about pitching outside leg, but not the off stump


#6864

I’ve never played cricket, but the line everyone seemed to toe in footy was sledging about that player specifically or “ya mum” jokes (which we grew out of in about under 16s).

Can still remember the day at Mooroolbark some bloke in the crowd said something about Andy Goodwin’s daughter to him and it took 3 guys to stop him jumping the fence.


#6865

Hasnt that been the rule since forever

Needs to pitch in line and be going on to hit the stumps. Only time it doesn’t come into effect is if batsman doesn’t play a shot.

To the eye that would have been out in any other year pre-DRS, which is a shame, but there are plenty of not out decisions being over turned also

*edit. Needs to hit in line


#6866

Yep.
I suspect…don’t know…that the law is there because hitting outside the line expects an unrealistic prediction from the umpire.


#6867

I don’t know about “Like … Forever”, … I don’t recall anything like it back when I played, (which was a fair time ago), but I’ve just never u/stood it, I don’t know the reasons for it, … and it just seems ridiculous.

The ball is going to hit the stumps, … Yes, Or No??

What the hell does it matter where the bastardd pitches,… Why does it?

The rule is Leg Before Wicket. Why isn’t that still the (Very) simple rule?


#6868

In line = between wicket to wicket

https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-36-leg-before-wicket/


#6869

It can pitch outside off. It only needs to hit in line.
But yes, this has been the rule forever… well at least since the early 80’s when I started watching and playing cricket.
I had vague recollections of this rule being set in the 50’s or 60’s but i’m Only guessing


#6870

With LBW’s the main thing i’d like to change relates to referrals. I reckon anything that is currently deemed “umpires call”… ie this half ball bullshit, should be ruled in the bowler’s favour. I know DRS isn’t great but i reckon it’s still generally better than the naked eye and we should trust it enough for this.
The batsmen have enough advantages these days. Give something back to the bowlers.