|
|
Post by Acumen on May 7, 2009 16:50:27 GMT
This book has just been published.  I would welcome a review from anyone who has read it. |
|
|
|
Post by wisden17 on May 9, 2009 16:10:10 GMT
Well there's at least one error I've spotted so far: it claims if a non-striker shouts "Drop It" and fielder drops a catch, the striker is Out-Caught!!!
Although it does then go on to suggest you report the Non-Striker for "Obstruction", no mention of "Obstructing the Field" anywhere in the answer . . .
Apart from that, I've had a quick flick through it today and it looks rather good. Not a great review I know, but I'd recommend it based on what I've seen so far, good way to revise/refresh your knowledge of the laws in a slightly more interesting way than say reading Tom Smith's, the Open Learning Manual, or the law book itself.
|
|
ntfc2
Junior Contributor
Posts: 3
|
Post by ntfc2 on May 14, 2009 21:16:42 GMT
Well there's at least one error I've spotted so far: it claims if a non-striker shouts "Drop It" and fielder drops a catch, the striker is Out-Caught!!! Whereas the striker is actually Out Obstructing The Field. Nice spot. Even though the end result is exactly the same you would have thought that someone would pick this up during proof-reading. |
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on May 20, 2009 21:43:22 GMT
Yes the book goes with 'obstruction' right through, which is irritating and sloppy.
I've noticed a couple of errors (or maybe the regulations are different for first-class cricket).
In one part it tells you to give a 'first and final warning' to any accidental beamer over shoulder height.
Later in the book it talks about bad light and to suspend play if conditions are dangerous after 'offering the light to both captains'.
There's a couple of sequence errors within the columns too.
It's a shame that these instances, though few, makes the book seem amateurish but if you can put that aside it's very fun and quite thought-provoking (you may even get caught out yourself!).
2 final things you'll get annoyed by: 1) you have to constantly turn the book upside-down for the answers, and 2) apparently we should signal 6 with fingers pointing upward.
Overall though, very good entertainment, though probably not the best read if you're seriously trying to better yourself as an umpire, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by sillypoint on May 12, 2010 7:58:24 GMT
I think the errors in the book are far from few; there are no fewer than 23 answers with which I take issue at some level. Some are plain incorrect (most glaringly, the obstructing the field instance already noted by others); some are confusing; some are inadequate.
For all its errors though, there are many interesting situations which get you thinking. In Melbourne last season some of the dodgy questions and answers were addressed as a training exercise (what is wrong with this answer?). It's an interesting book from that point of view, but I hope no one ever relies on it for guidance!
|
|
