|
|
Post by duncanfrancis on Jun 3, 2014 21:33:48 GMT
Was Jos Butler incorrectly given out run out tonight? Does the bowler not have to attempt the run out before his delivery stride ?
|
|
|
|
Post by gooders on Jun 4, 2014 7:23:55 GMT
Not if the ridiculous ICC playing conditions say otherwise, I'm afraid.
If you check, you'll see the difference stipulated.
|
|
|
|
Post by duncanfrancis on Jun 4, 2014 7:40:28 GMT
Yeah I managed to check the ICC regs this morning and you can affect the run out as long as you haven’t completed your normal delivery swing (of the arm). Let’s hope we don’t get copycat attempts in our league and have to explain it to the players. I have book marked the page in Tom Smith’s in readiness.
|
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Jun 4, 2014 8:00:34 GMT
This whole contraversial and unsatisfactory situation wouldn't have happened if the ICC had simply adopted the laws of cricket and not introduced a playing condition that allows a run out after the delivery stride. Ridiculous that we play cricket to so many different laws/rules/regs/playing conditions/directives etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by tippex2 on Jun 4, 2014 9:10:12 GMT
Not sure it's as bad as people are suggesting - essentially both ICC and MCC are letting the bowler wait until the last possible moment before attempting a run out. The only difference is that, in televised matches with the option of replay, the "last possible moment" is a fraction later, because you don't have the problem of the umpire trying to look in two different directions to watch the bowler's feet and the position of the non-striker.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerryspaniel on Jun 4, 2014 9:26:46 GMT
Havent been on this site in a while. But thought this might provoke some opinions! The laws of cricket should be for all. I just cant understand why the ICC think that they should play by a different set. Besides the arrogance of it, it makes for confused spectators and gives the weekend umpire unnecessary hassle when dealing with kids or adults who lets say like a discussion bout each and every nuance of the laws. Soon the game played by the ICC will have to be given a different name!!
|
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Jun 5, 2014 6:10:12 GMT
... thought this might provoke some opinions! The laws of cricket should be for all.... Don't know why you'd think this contentious. I reckon that around 90% of contributors here - certainly the regulars - think the same. It gets a bit tiresome to have to justify application of the Laws because the ICC (and bodies running other forms of the 'professional' game) choose to tinker to 'fix' something that basically ain't broke. |
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Jun 5, 2014 8:07:15 GMT
I've always said that rugby & football play to the same rules whatever competition; cricket makes itself so confusing and there's no need: wides for bouncers over head high, no runners, more opportunity to run out the non-striker before delivery, 2 for a no-ball...is there any need?!
If somebody tries this run out on Saturday we'll have to explain we'll give it not out because the bowler has entered his delivery stride...to which th answer will be 'well it was good enough for the pros on TV'.
As I mentioned, we wouldn't even be having a discussion on the spirit of this if they just played to the laws because it would be not out!
|
|
|
|
Post by tippex2 on Jun 5, 2014 8:47:50 GMT
I'd disagree that football and rugby apply the same Laws in all competitions (TV replays, 7 substitutes etc etc) but that's beside the point.
While I carry no torch for the ICC whatsoever, I can't see a fundamental difference between the ICC choosing to modify some of the Laws for games played at a high level and decisions to modify some of the Laws for games played at a much lower level. How many 3rd or 4th XI games this weekend will have Laws 3 and 4 implemented in full?
|
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Jun 5, 2014 9:26:13 GMT
Point taken about rugby & football but the modifications are tiny compared to cricket - for my first dozen games this year I've had to read 5 different sets of regulations - local league regs, cup regs, ECB competitions, universities, T20s.
If you really want to dispair - have a look at this new 'Last Man Stands' T20 competition where the game is so different it could almost be another sport in it's own right!
At least laws 3 & 4 should be implemented in full in the lower leagues for which we, sadly, do not have enough officials. In our league there were murmors of having just one umpire appointed below division 3 in order to fill more matches but this was shot down.
|
|
|
|
Post by bearded finger on Jun 5, 2014 20:29:39 GMT
Various playing regs are usually simple changes in overs per innings/bowler, perhaps fielding regs, rain regs and the like. Maybe some clarification on wides, or perhaps free hits. These are perfectly acceptable and do not change the fundemental game. Changes to basic playing conditions are not required and ICC really need to wind their necks in. The whole point of the mankad laws are to stop a bowler conning a batsman into thinking he has delivered the ball in order to effect a run out. If the bowler is swinging his arm over then it would be reasinable for the non striker to be concentrating on what his partner is up to, not be forced to watch the bowler. Interestingly, the bowler was watching JB so clearly never had any intention of bowling the ball and still went into his action with the sole intent of fooling the batsman and getting him to leave his crease! If that isn't cheating then I don't know what is. I have no doubt that this will be repeated by every jumped up idiot who thinks he's better than he actually is, and, worse still, by a number of young players who will think this is acceptable.This is a black mark againgst the bowler, the captain, Sri Lankan cricket, but above all the ICC who basically encouraged it to happen. A sad day for cricket.
|
|
|
|
Post by Middle & Leg on Jun 7, 2014 16:46:43 GMT
Various playing regs are usually simple changes in overs per innings/bowler, perhaps fielding regs, rain regs and the like. Maybe some clarification on wides, or perhaps free hits. These are perfectly acceptable and do not change the fundemental game. Changes to basic playing conditions are not required and ICC really need to wind their necks in. The whole point of the mankad laws are to stop a bowler conning a batsman into thinking he has delivered the ball in order to effect a run out. If the bowler is swinging his arm over then it would be reasinable for the non striker to be concentrating on what his partner is up to, not be forced to watch the bowler. Interestingly, the bowler was watching JB so clearly never had any intention of bowling the ball and still went into his action with the sole intent of fooling the batsman and getting him to leave his crease! If that isn't cheating then I don't know what is. I have no doubt that this will be repeated by every jumped up idiot who thinks he's better than he actually is, and, worse still, by a number of young players who will think this is acceptable.This is a black mark againgst the bowler, the captain, Sri Lankan cricket, but above all the ICC who basically encouraged it to happen. A sad day for cricket. |
|
|
|
Post by Middle & Leg on Jun 7, 2014 16:51:21 GMT
Don't think it is a "black mark against the bowler, the captain, Sri Lankan cricket" It was Butler who was trying to gain an unfair advantage by leaving his ground before the bowler delivered the ball. If there is any cheating involved then it is by the batsman. Ball in play, wicket put down, batsman out of his ground, "on your bike, mate"
|
|
|
|
Post by gooders on Jun 7, 2014 17:41:15 GMT
As a matter of interest, hadn't Buttler been warned twice before he was run out? I had heard that he was told in the last game as well by the bowler.
I suppose it could be argued that he didn't know the laws, very few professional players do know them.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Jun 7, 2014 23:05:02 GMT
|
|
