|
|
Post by tippex2 on Jan 17, 2018 9:52:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Jan 17, 2018 12:42:30 GMT
Definitely out under the laws - but as you say, did the umpires speak to the captain about the appeal? They're under no obligation to do so, of course, but you would have thought experienced umpires, in charge of a U19 game, would have had a word with the captain to explain the ramifications.
I didn't have a problem with the WI U19 mankad in the 2016 tournament, that was fair enough, but this one leaves a very sour taste in the mouth. The ball was stationary, there was no danger of a run out, the batsmen weren't looking to run/ gain an advantage. I really hope that the WI captain is regretting his decision not to withdraw the appeal.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Jan 17, 2018 17:43:21 GMT
Absolutely - although it's only Law 43 the umpires ought to see it as a duty to remind captains of the Spirit of Cricket.
|
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Jan 18, 2018 7:46:54 GMT
Don't the ICC have playing conditions that debar umpires from asking captains to think again when an appeal is made?
A disgraceful appeal (unless the batting team was warned not to keep picking up the ball).
|
|
|
|
Post by tippex2 on Jan 18, 2018 9:49:28 GMT
Playing Conditions for the U19 World Cup are here
Section 31 looks to replicate Law 31 in its entirety, including the section about withdrawal of appeals. However, we can't know what guidance is given to umpire in pre-tournament briefings etc. |
|
|
|
Post by David on Jan 22, 2018 19:43:17 GMT
Definitely out under the laws - but as you say, did the umpires speak to the captain about the appeal? They're under no obligation to do so, of course, but you would have thought experienced umpires, in charge of a U19 game, would have had a word with the captain to explain the ramifications. I didn't have a problem with the WI U19 mankad in the 2016 tournament, that was fair enough, but this one leaves a very sour taste in the mouth. The ball was stationary, there was no danger of a run out, the batsmen weren't looking to run/ gain an advantage. I really hope that the WI captain is regretting his decision not to withdraw the appeal. The ball was stationary; neither of the batsmen or any member of the fieliding side, (WK standing back) could have had any further interest in the ball being in play; this should have been apparent to the Bowling End Umpire (BEU). Under the Dead Ball Law (Old & New) BEU should have considered the ball to be dead and given the batsman Not Out. What sort of an example does the decision given set to players of all ages? There is nothing more certain that 'experienced' players will try it on this season and put umpires under more pressure. |
|
|
|
Post by bjmajor on Jan 22, 2018 22:47:53 GMT
Definitely out under the laws - but as you say, did the umpires speak to the captain about the appeal? They're under no obligation to do so, of course, but you would have thought experienced umpires, in charge of a U19 game, would have had a word with the captain to explain the ramifications. I didn't have a problem with the WI U19 mankad in the 2016 tournament, that was fair enough, but this one leaves a very sour taste in the mouth. The ball was stationary, there was no danger of a run out, the batsmen weren't looking to run/ gain an advantage. I really hope that the WI captain is regretting his decision not to withdraw the appeal. I have a feeling that the West Indian Wicket Keeper was the captain. |
|
|
|
Post by bjmajor on Jan 22, 2018 22:50:21 GMT
Definitely out under the laws - but as you say, did the umpires speak to the captain about the appeal? They're under no obligation to do so, of course, but you would have thought experienced umpires, in charge of a U19 game, would have had a word with the captain to explain the ramifications. I didn't have a problem with the WI U19 mankad in the 2016 tournament, that was fair enough, but this one leaves a very sour taste in the mouth. The ball was stationary, there was no danger of a run out, the batsmen weren't looking to run/ gain an advantage. I really hope that the WI captain is regretting his decision not to withdraw the appeal. The ball was stationary; neither of the batsmen or any member of the fieliding side, (WK standing back) could have had any further interest in the ball being in play; this should have been apparent to the Bowling End Umpire (BEU). Under the Dead Ball Law (Old & New) BEU should have considered the ball to be dead and given the batsman Not Out. What sort of an example does the decision given set to players of all ages? There is nothing more certain that 'experienced' players will try it on this season and put umpires under more pressure. The ball was stationary however, it had only just become stationary when it was immediately picked up by the Batsman. 'Experienced' players will only be able to try it on if a batsman handles the ball. The lesson for all batsmen is simply don't touch the ball! |
|
|
|
Post by David on Jan 24, 2018 19:54:52 GMT
Definitely out under the laws - but as you say, did the umpires speak to the captain about the appeal? They're under no obligation to do so, of course, but you would have thought experienced umpires, in charge of a U19 game, would have had a word with the captain to explain the ramifications. I didn't have a problem with the WI U19 mankad in the 2016 tournament, that was fair enough, but this one leaves a very sour taste in the mouth. The ball was stationary, there was no danger of a run out, the batsmen weren't looking to run/ gain an advantage. I really hope that the WI captain is regretting his decision not to withdraw the appeal. I have a feeling that the West Indian Wicket Keeper was the captain. |
|
