abhi
Regular Contributor
Posts: 21
|
Post by abhi on Aug 31, 2010 14:39:11 GMT
Some day ago,in an international match a substitute act as a wicket keeper!!..I dont know in which match!..
Please help me!
|
|
|
|
Post by Acumen on Sept 1, 2010 1:28:36 GMT
This has happened on many occasions prior to 2000 when the Law was less specific - in those days, the substitute could field anywhere unless specifically restricted by the captain of the batting side.
One notable incident happened at Lords in late 1990s when a specialist keeper was brought out as a substitute for the genuinely injured keeper and performed better than the original! I am almost certain he was English.
Perhaps another correspondent can recall the exact date and names involved?
|
|
abhi
Regular Contributor
Posts: 21
|
Post by abhi on Sept 1, 2010 20:48:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Acumen on Sept 2, 2010 13:43:19 GMT
Strictly speaking thios is contrary to Law 2.
However I am pleased that common sense prevailed in this catastrophic situation.
Personally I would like to see the Law revert to the previous version whereby the Batting Captain could restrict any specialised fielding position.
|
|
|
|
Post by heavybails on Mar 8, 2011 23:26:24 GMT
Bob taylor kept wicket as a replacement for england a few years back, a replacement player can take full part in the game , has to be approved by the opposing captain.
|
|
|
|
Post by sillypoint on Mar 11, 2011 0:19:41 GMT
Sorry to take issue with the Acumen Administrator (reply #1), but Law 2.2 in the 1980 Code specifically states: "no Substitute shall act as Wicket-Keeper". One has to go back to the 1947 code to find the "less specific" wording referred to.
Nonetheless, I heartily endorse Acumen's comment on the Sri Lanka v NZ match (reply #3)—and full marks to Sangakkara (SL captain) for his compassion and common sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsingh on May 2, 2012 7:34:02 GMT
Can't agree that we should allow 'common sense' to violate the Law as it stands. Common sense might also dictate that the substitute be allowed to bowl in the extreme circumstances.
Replacement of the player could have dealt with the situation perhaps.
But I agree with Acumen when he says that reverting to the earlier Law would be best.
|
|
