T20 WC 2014

crackit

KevIRL wrote: »

Also why not run 2 off the second las ball?

Very true. It was an incredibly bad piece of cricket but we got through in the end so no harm done. I'd expect my skipper in my ear for doing something like that at my very, very, very moderate level so I'm sure Simmons will have a word!

I wouldn't have liked to have seen what would have happened if Thompson had been decked a yard or two short of his ground and been run out. The fielder made a bit of a show of making it look an accident but no doubt in my mind that he was intent of impeding Thompson.

That said, Davis and Erasmus are two very experienced umpires so you'd like to think they'd have done the right thing.

What would the ruling be if he'd been deemed to have done it intetionally? 5 penalty runs is my best guess? There are umpires on here. What say you lads!

TrueDub

I was checking the laws before I responded!

Law 42 section 5 is the one that applies (https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-42-fair-and-unfair-play/)

it is unfair for any fielder wilfully to attempt, by word or action, to distract or obstruct either batsman after the striker has received the ball.

The key word here is "wilfully" the umps need to be absolutely sure the action was deliberate.

If they are, the result is 5 penalty runs, warnings all round and the ball not to count in the over. Crucially, though, section f says

Additionally, the run in progress shall be scored whether or not the batsmen had already crossed at the instant of the offence.

So we'd have won either way.

riffmongous

TrueDub wrote: »

I was checking the laws before I responded!

Law 42 section 5 is the one that applies (https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-42-fair-and-unfair-play/)



The key word here is "wilfully" the umps need to be absolutely sure the action was deliberate.

If they are, the result is 5 penalty runs, warnings all round and the ball not to count in the over. Crucially, though, section f says



So we'd have won either way.

I wasn't aware of the section f bit, thanks for that.

Was there not an incident within the last year though where a player was run out after a collision or a fielder didnt run him out and it was noted for being a great piece of sportsmanship? Sorry its so vague but I just have an idea in my head that something did happen like that recently

KevIRL

Netherlands look like putting up a big win v UAE. They are 69-0 after 6.3 ovs chasing a target of 152 to win

TrueDub

riffmongous wrote: »

I wasn't aware of the section f bit, thanks for that.

Was there not an incident within the last year though where a player was run out after a collision or a fielder didnt run him out and it was noted for being a great piece of sportsmanship? Sorry its so vague but I just have an idea in my head that something did happen like that recently

Can't remember that incident, but it sounds like one where the collision was accidental i.e. not "wilful".

In that case, it's considered a racing accident and the ump has no choice but to give the player out - unless, of course, the fielding captain chooses to withdraw the appeal, thus reprieving the player. The skipper is completely at liberty to not do so of course.

This happens more often than you think - I remember standing in a match where it happened, and as soon as it did I thought "x won't withdraw this, here comes World War 3". X was the fielding captain, renowned as the most competitive, cantankerous and unpleasant captain in a club famous for them. An appeal was made, and X announced "F*ck that, I'm not winning like that. Appeal withdrawn". As soon as I recovered from the shock we carried on as normal...

KevIRL

KevIRL wrote: »

Netherlands look like putting up a big win v UAE. They are 69-0 after 6.3 ovs chasing a target of 152 to win

Comfortable for Netherlands. 152-4 in 18.5 ovs

keps

Was watching an exiting match there between Sri Lanka and India - and at the end they said it was only a 'warm-up':D

riffmongous

TrueDub wrote: »

Can't remember that incident, but it sounds like one where the collision was accidental i.e. not "wilful".

In that case, it's considered a racing accident and the ump has no choice but to give the player out - unless, of course, the fielding captain chooses to withdraw the appeal, thus reprieving the player. The skipper is completely at liberty to not do so of course.

This happens more often than you think - I remember standing in a match where it happened, and as soon as it did I thought "x won't withdraw this, here comes World War 3". X was the fielding captain, renowned as the most competitive, cantankerous and unpleasant captain in a club famous for them. An appeal was made, and X announced "F*ck that, I'm not winning like that. Appeal withdrawn". As soon as I recovered from the shock we carried on as normal...

I did it a bit of googling and it seems like I am remembering the run out of Grant Elliot in a game against England in ....2008...

I did often wonder about how an umpire handles the 'wilfull' part though, like if a bowler turns his back on the fielder and walks to the stumps while not deliberately getting in the way he is forcing the batsman to either run around him or have a collision, both of which the bowler can claim he knew nothing about as he couldn't see....

On a related note, have you ever had to deal with a runner obstructing a throw from the field during an attempted run out?

TrueDub

riffmongous wrote: »

I did often wonder about how an umpire handles the 'wilfull' part though

Same as for an LBW, you have to be sure of your decision.

riffmongous wrote: »

On a related note, have you ever had to deal with a runner obstructing a throw from the field during an attempted run out?

I'm reluctant to go into this in too much detail, because it's off-topic and because I don't want an avalanche of "this happened to us" stories, but the short answer is yes, I've seen runners get in the way of the throw, but no, I've never given anyone out obstructing the field. There are differences, and subtleties in the law in this area that make it a minefield.

D3PO

your right truedub that could spiral out of control as a topic alright. So to bring it back on track.

Next match would you guys make any lineup changes ?

Cusack's lack of variety was badly exposed yesterday and although hes a capable bat he hasnt shown that very often for Ireland in the recent past either. Murtagh back in for Cusack would be the one change Id make.

djimi

Yeah I think we need to take a look at the bowling alright. Im not sure if it was just that match, or if its a general problem with out attack on those pitches, but our seamers were not effective yesterday at all (apart from KOB perhaps, who didnt go for too many). Part of me would like to see a fourth spinner introduced, but perhaps Murtagh is the more sensible choice (for Cusack).

D3PO

we dont have a 4th spinner in the squad though do we ?

i think given the conditions in Bangladesh (although they may be more condusive to seam with the dew factor so more relvent a comment for daytime games) taking pace off the ball and bowling slow medium similar to Kev's bowling would be the best option for Sorenson/Cussy and or Murtagh on these pitches

KevIRL

Bad news for UPC subscribers, Sky are showing the England v Windies warm up game tomorrow afternoon with Ireland v UAE only on the red button. Glad I didnt arrange to get the afternoon off work now. Wish UPC would sort out interactive

djimi

Yeah I'm really annoyed about that. Hoping to find a stream online.

KevIRL

djimi wrote: »

Yeah I'm really annoyed about that. Hoping to find a stream online.

Its understandable from Sky's point of view, England is their main audience. My gripe is with UPC for not having sorted interactive long before now

KevIRL

Zim off to a great start v Netherlands. I suppose best for us here is a close result nrr wise. Although win the 2 remaining games and it won't matter

Lovely Bloke

Zim chasing 141, should be relatively easy for them.


11/0 after 2 ovs

keps

amazing the betting on cricket- just see that on Betfair alone €6m has been matched on the outcome of Zim v Nr

Zim are currently 5/1 ON

djimi

Good knock that from Cooper to get Holland up to a better score than they were looking at at one point!

Lovely Bloke

it's tight now. Zim need 52 off 36 balls

KevIRL

15 from 12. Zim win preferred for us

KevIRL

Taylor out 13 from 11 needed

KevIRL

8 from 7 required...

Lovely Bloke

7 from 6

Westernyelp

<snip>

jamesbondings

holy god, zimbabwe like taking it to the line some game

Lovely Bloke

WICKET!!!!

1 reqd from 1

Lovely Bloke

SIX!!!!

KevIRL

Pretty much the perfect result for us. Win this afternoon Needed but a big win would be lovely.

Also we play second tomorrow so will know exactly what's needed in a worse case scenario

djimi

Another tight finish.

What I have taken from these games so far is that Zimbabwe are no better than us associates... I saw nothing on Monday to suggest that they are any better than us in any department of the game. Id love to see how we would fare against them in a 5 day match.