Cricket......

[Stretch]

Two of the best chirps on record are probably where a bowler was chirping a batsman on why he is so fat. The batter’s response was: everytime i $&@ your wife she gives me a cookie!

 

The other one was Eddo Brandes replying to Glenn Mcgrath or someone when he quipped: hows your wife and my kids? Eddo replied, my wife’s fine, the kids are retarded.

 

Of course Merv Hughes also has a couple of great ones: he once asked a batsman what’s with the piece of sh_t at the end of his bat? Batsman looked at the toe end of his bat, all confused, when Merv replied: not that end, the other end!

 

Like i said, it happens.

My favourite is still Cullinan and Warne.

 

Warne to Cullinan (who had an edge over Cullinan previous test series): I've be waiting 2 years for this

Cullinan to Warne: looks like you've spent it eating

[gemmerbal]

Hahaha ja i forgot about that one! ????????????????????

 

My favourite is still Cullinan and Warne.

 

Warne to Cullinan (who had an edge over Cullinan previous test series): I've be waiting 2 years for this

Cullinan to Warne: looks like you've spent it eating

[gemmerbal]

https://www.sport24.co.za/Cricket/EnglandinSA/stokes-makes-case-for-test-cricket-as-debate-rages-over-5-day-format-20200109

 

"Kohli spoke earlier this month about his opposition to any move to cut a day from Tests, questioning where it would ultimately lead.

With four-day Tests "you are purely only talking about getting numbers in and entertainment, and I think the intent will not be right," said the India skipper.

"Then you will speak of three-day Tests. I mean, where do you end?"

 

For once I agree with Kohli. The days free'd up by reducing test cricket to 4 days will inevitably be taken up by limited overs cricket. It still amazes me that the PLAYERS all love and cherish the PUREST form of the game, yet the administrators are trying to change the format. Test cricketers LOVE the game, that's why they play it, and I can say that because if they wanted to earn good money they would do what others are doing and become a free agent and play Parkie Cricket (T20) all over the world.

 

My disdain for T20 aside, it has its place and should be used as a vehicle to support cricket GLOBALLY.

 

At the end of the day, for me test cricket sums up why we all start off doing sport: because we have fallen in love with the particular activity. And that's why I will always love Test Cricket the most.

 

I mean, how many sports do you know of where after 5 days of playing, it can come down to a couple of deliveries to determine a winner??? And let's not forget the Timeless Test in Durban in 1939, after 9 days of play (over 12 days, no cricket on Sundays those days), the game had to be called as a draw as the English needed to board their ship home. And then there was the test where England set us 458 back in 2013, which divided a nation as we ended up SO close in achieving what would have been a monumental fete, to fall just short. And of course Faf and ABD's blockathon in Adelaide in 2012...

 

Day/night test matches have added a nice flavour, I enjoy it, much like a test wicket deteriorating over 5 days bringing the spinners more into the game, the D/N test brings with it it's own unique nuance when considering the influence of the change of lighting conditions combined with the pink ball.

 

I don't like cricket, I love it!

[gemmerbal]

Pieter Malan, post match interview:

 

"Somebody asked me earlier about being out there and feeling pressure, but that's not pressure ... that's privilege," he said, providing easily the quote of the series so far. 

"Pressure is playing in a semi-professional game with nobody watching, fighting for your career."

 

Jasss... I like what he said there.

 

https://www.sport24.co.za/Cricket/EnglandinSA/malans-powerful-distinction-between-pressure-and-privilege-20200109

[Vetplant]

 

Pieter Malan, post match interview:

 

"Somebody asked me earlier about being out there and feeling pressure, but that's not pressure ... that's privilege," he said, providing easily the quote of the series so far. 

"Pressure is playing in a semi-professional game with nobody watching, fighting for your career."

 

Jasss... I like what he said there.

 

https://www.sport24.co.za/Cricket/EnglandinSA/malans-powerful-distinction-between-pressure-and-privilege-20200109

 

Seems some of the Rassie Erasmus thinking has found its way into Proteas psyche, good.

[leeubok]

 

Pieter Malan, post match interview:

 

"Somebody asked me earlier about being out there and feeling pressure, but that's not pressure ... that's privilege," he said, providing easily the quote of the series so far. 

"Pressure is playing in a semi-professional game with nobody watching, fighting for your career."

 

Jasss... I like what he said there.

 

https://www.sport24.co.za/Cricket/EnglandinSA/malans-powerful-distinction-between-pressure-and-privilege-20200109

 

Wow! 

 

However, he will at some stage experience the pressure of keeping his spot in the team. Especially if the runs dry up for a period

[LongDonkey]

Anybody watching the BBL? The wicket of Wade. In no manner can that be out. Will try find video and post it but it is impossible. Nice reactions though to be honest.

[LongDonkey]

My colleague Srinath Sripath has the relevant new law for us: 19.4.2 The ball in play is to be regarded as being grounded beyond the boundary if - a fielder, grounded beyond the boundary as in 19.5, touches the ball; - a fielder, after catching the ball within the boundary, becomes grounded beyond the boundary while in contact with the ball, before completing the catch. Seems the third umpire got it right second time

16.5

1

Laughlin to Qais Ahmad, 1 run, full outside off, he drives to mid on

16.4

W

Laughlin to Rose, OUT, Caught and bowled! Super bowling and catching from Laughlin. Clever slower ball, he is deceived, he pops it back to the bowler, Laughlin was following through to his left, he had to stop and dive full length to his right and plucked it in the one hand

CA Rose c & b Laughlin 5 (5b 1x4 0x6) SR: 100.00

16.3

0

Laughlin to Rose, no run, full on off, he drives nicely straight to mid off

16.2

4

Laughlin to Rose, FOUR runs, short ball, clubbed over midwicket! Powerful shot

Matthew Wade on Channel 7: "I had no idea of the rule. The umpire's said he could do that so I knew it was out."

16.1

0

Laughlin to Rose, no run, good length outside off, he's back and chopping to point

END OF OVER:

16 | 3 Runs 1 Wkt | HH: 102/7 | RR: 6.37

• Nathan Ellis0 (1b)
  
• Clive Rose1 (1b)
  

• Josh Lalor3-0-18-2
  
• Ben Cutting1-0-6-1
  

peter: "Catch was not legal. Law 32 e:a fielder catches the ball in the air after it has crossed the boundary in the air, provided that after being struck by the bat, the first contact with the ball is by a fielder, not touching or grounded beyond the boundary, who has some part of his person grounded within the boundary or whose final contact with the ground before touching the ball was entirely within the boundary." There was a clause added Peter. I'm trying to find it

15.6

0

Lalor to Ellis, no run, slower ball, on off, he's back and pushing this to cover

Kalyanaraman : "@Alex, there was a similar catch by Smith in the IPL (Pune Warriors match), that was disallowed........... did the rule change by any chance?" I'm seeking clarification

15.5

1

Lalor to Rose, 1 run, full on middle, he defends to mid off, they take on the man and get a single

15.4

W

Lalor to Rogers, OUT, caught at mid off! Slower ball, back of a length, he backed away trying to go over mid off and miscued to Cutting on the circle

TS Rogers c Cutting b Lalor 17 (24b 0x4 0x6) SR: 70.83

15.3

0

Lalor to Rogers, no run, full on off, he drives firmly to cover

15.2

0

Lalor to Rogers, no run, short and wide, he backs away and misses

15.1

2

Lalor to Rogers, 2 runs, nearly a run out trying for two! Driven to long on, they run hard, the throw was awkward for Lalor to take

END OF OVER:

15 | 6 Runs 1 Wkt | HH: 99/6 | RR: 6.60

• Thomas Rogers15 (20b)
  
• Clive Rose0 (0b)
  

• Ben Cutting1-0-6-1
  
• Mitchell Swepson4-0-33-0
  

14.6

1

Cutting to Rogers, 1 run, full on leg, he drives to long on

BLOKE FROM THE : "Who made that ridiculous rule change should hang their head in shame. What a joke." For those unaware the rule has been changed. Previously that would have been six because he tapped it back without stepping back in but his feet were in the air when he tapped it

14.5

W

Cutting to Wade, OUT, Renshaw might have pulled off a ridiculous catch at long on with Banton in support! Wade went long and high over long on, Renshaw took the catch on the rope, he tossed it up as he stepped out, the ball was dropping over the rope, he jumped and batted it while he was in the air, and he knocked it to Banton who was there! Incredible thinking! But the third umpire says not out on broadcast but it hasn't been confirmed at the ground yet! There's a long delay. The third umpire wants another look. He does and he reverses the decision. Wade is out!

MS Wade c Banton b Cutting 61 (46b 3x4 2x6) SR: 132.60

 

[bertusras]

Anybody watching the BBL? The wicket of Wade. In no manner can that be out. Will try find video and post it but it is impossible. Nice reactions though to be honest.

 

[LongDonkey]

Disagree with top comment from cricinfo. The fielder is deemed to have been grounded outside field of play, once he touches the ground again (after batting ball back into play while in the air) he remains out of bounds. He has not been defined as being within the field of play while he batted the ball. Touching the ground or not makes no difference. 

imho

[Vetplant]

From that, I would think it to be not-out.

 

Else you can just place your fielders outside of the boundary and they can jump-throw it back into play for another fielder to catch it.

 

Me feels a rewriting of the law is coming in the near future to clarify what is allowed in this situation. 

[Vetplant]

Disagree with top comment from cricinfo. The fielder is deemed to have been grounded outside field of play, once he touches the ground again (after batting ball back into play while in the air) he remains out of bounds. He has not been defined as being within the field of play while he batted the ball. Touching the ground or not makes no difference. 

imho

Good wording there on your part. He needs to return to the field of play after having been grounded outside, which he didn't do.

 

Not out

['Dale]

To be honest with you Dale, all Buttler really did was embarrass himself, because that was a k_k chirp! If that’s the best he can come up with, he should rather keep quiet.

 

Sure thing, gemmerbal.

The line he crossed was 'getting personal' as opposed to mental disintegrating or distracting his rival.

It is a fine line.

 

And The Vern is such a cool cat.

Don't think there was a beer shared afterwards.

Edited January 9, 2020 by 'Dale

[Shebeen]

 

Pieter Malan, post match interview:

 

"Somebody asked me earlier about being out there and feeling pressure, but that's not pressure ... that's privilege," he said, providing easily the quote of the series so far. 

"Pressure is playing in a semi-professional game with nobody watching, fighting for your career."

 

Jasss... I like what he said there.

 

https://www.sport24.co.za/Cricket/EnglandinSA/malans-powerful-distinction-between-pressure-and-privilege-20200109

 

overnight success, after 13 years in the game! apparently he really has been putting the hours in, and deserves it all.

 

Michael Hussey made his test debut aged 30, after 12 years as a first class cricketr - he eventually played 79 test matches, he eventually made over 6000 runs averaging more than 50.

 

Adam Voges sits 2nd on the alltime list behind sir Don and made his Test debut about 35! 

[bertusras]

Disagree with top comment from cricinfo. The fielder is deemed to have been grounded outside field of play, once he touches the ground again (after batting ball back into play while in the air) he remains out of bounds. He has not been defined as being within the field of play while he batted the ball. Touching the ground or not makes no difference. 

imho

 

Unfortunately, with the way the rule is written, it's out. It's absolutely nonsensical, but it's out.

 

 

My colleague Srinath Sripath has the relevant new law for us: 19.4.2 The ball in play is to be regarded as being grounded beyond the boundary if - a fielder, grounded beyond the boundary as in 19.5, touches the ball; - a fielder, after catching the ball within the boundary, becomes grounded beyond the boundary while in contact with the ball, before completing the catch

 

19.4 Ball grounded beyond the boundary

 

19.4.1 The ball in play is grounded beyond the boundary if it touches

 

- the boundary or any part of an object used to mark the boundary; Nope.

 

- the ground beyond the boundary; Nope.

 

- any object that is grounded beyond the boundary. Maybe?

 

19.4.2 The ball in play is to be regarded as being grounded beyond the boundary if

 

- a fielder, grounded beyond the boundary as in 19.5, touches the ball; Not grounded.

 

- a fielder, after catching the ball within the boundary, becomes grounded beyond the boundary while in contact with the ball, before completing the catch. First contact within, but is not grounded outside whilst in contact.

 

19.5 Fielder grounded beyond the boundary

 

19.5.1 A fielder is grounded beyond the boundary if some part of his/her person is in contact with any of the following:

 

- the boundary or any part of an object used to mark the boundary; Nope.

 

- the ground beyond the boundary; Nope.

 

- any object that is in contact with the ground beyond the boundary; Nope.

 

- another fielder who is grounded beyond the boundary, if the umpire considers that it was the intention of either fielder that the contact should assist in the fielding of the ball.

 

 19.5.2 A fielder who is not in contact with the ground is considered to be grounded beyond the boundary if his/her final contact with the ground, before his/her first contact with the ball after it has been delivered by the bowler, was not entirely within the boundary.

 

From that, I would think it to be not-out.

 

Else you can just place your fielders outside of the boundary and they can jump-throw it back into play for another fielder to catch it.

 

Me feels a rewriting of the law is coming in the near future to clarify what is allowed in this situation. 

 

Everyone is saying this, but that's also wrong. First contact needs to be within the rope.

 

There is unfortunately ambiguity in the law, but the event was adjudicated correctly. My suggestion would be a modification to 19.5:

 

19.5.1 A fielder is grounded beyond the boundary if some part of his/her person is has been in contact with any of the following:

 

- the boundary or any part of an object used to mark the boundary; Nope.

 

- the ground beyond the boundary; Nope.

 

- any object that is in contact with the ground beyond the boundary; Nope.

 

- another fielder who is grounded beyond the boundary, if the umpire considers that it was the intention of either fielder that the contact should assist in the fielding of the ball.

 

What's the difference between the Wade wicket and catching the ball, backpedaling and realising you're going to tread on the boundary rope, toss the ball up, tread on the rope, step back in and catch the ball. Would the second scenario be legal to you guys?

[LongDonkey]

The big talking point is the Matt Renshaw/Tom Banton catch to remove Wade.

jack: "Can you clarify regarding the rule, does the player touching it originally need to be in the field of play on first touch or can he go stand in the grandstand/hill and jump and bat the ball as many times as needed till reaches the field? If a team needs 6 to win everyone should be beyond the rope."

Here is the detail of when the rule came in.

There are lots of comments asking about Jack's point. A fielder cannot start outside the boundary. The fielder's first contact must be inside but the ball can remain live until the fielder is touching the ball with their feet grounded. So a fielder can juggle it a second time or more as Renshaw did provided they started from inside the boundary when they first touched the ball.

 

From cricinfo.

I don't care that the law is written VERY badly. What the law says can NOT be the intention of the change. Someone bent the intention of the law due to it being written very badly.

Edited January 9, 2020 by LongDonkey