That's not cricket

1950`spoolfan said:
Not sure whether you are jesting Mark but since the expansion of women`s cricket and its coverage they are all unisex and so referred to as batters now.
Click to expand...
I am a big fan of the expansion of female participation in sports 50s. However, being the kind of person who even spell checks their texts, I'm not having this "batter" nonsense. Rest assured I shall continue to fight my futile lone crusade!
 
Just watched it.

She essentially throws a dummy.

Horrible way to claim a run out and win a game.

It's a shame an elegant if the crowd don't appear to understand the have otherwise those cheers wouldn't have been heard

Should be embarrassed.

As a poster above says, you can only show the monstrosity of that decision but doing the same over and over and over - ugly - but probably necessary.
 
Raging_Bull said:
I cannot believe any team would take pleasure form winning a game with such antics, it absolutely stinks, no surprise it comes from the Indians, as Davpick mentions the name comes from an Indinan spinner doing it all those years ago, leaves a bad taste in the mouth resorting to such a lowdown way of taking a wicket.
Click to expand...
No I didn't, it was Dave62.
 
Did it only once myself in a 30 yr (very) amateur cricket “career”. But i was only repaying the favour as this c@nt had done it to me in the first innings. It’s bad form IMO
 
How about changing the rule from out to a 5 runs penalty every time the non striking batter strays out the crease?
 
"Summarising the Law changes, the MCC stated specifically that mock fielding, "where a fielder feigns to field the ball and/or feigns to throw a non-existent ball in an attempt to prevent the batsmen running", was regarded as unfair and was a target of this new Law."

There is a suggestion with which I totally agree that feigning to bowl as happened yesterday should now be included along with the new law above .

There is of course a difference between a batter backing up far too soon and being clearly out of the bowlers crease as the bowler approaches the stumps and a bowler pretending to bowl simply to deceive the non striking batsmen which should be declared a dead ball with a 5 run penalty as above to boot.
 
I think we will see more of this now especially in games where there is a little bit of needle.

The law makers really need to introduce either a one warning rule or a 5 run deduction to batting teams. Something needs to give as it's a terrible way to end a game. Yes this has been around forever and any cricket fan knows it is always there - we've even seen bowlers pretend to stump batsmen backing up as a warning but to see it rear it's ugly head again was only a matter of time.
 
Alex Hales is quoted in the ST today as saying something like 'it's not too much to ask for the non-striker to stay in their crease until the ball leaves the arm'.

And then to boo hoo...... are we supposed to take women's cricket seriously?
 
If England had done it I’d be livid. No justification for it at all. As has been said, the bat was still grounded in the crease as the bowler was about to release the ball (though had no intention of doing so). If the bowler felt that strongly about it, then give a warning. The comparisons with the World Cup final are laughable. This was a conscious choice to win by deception rather than skill.
 
1950`spoolfan said:
Not sure whether you are jesting Mark but since the expansion of women`s cricket and its coverage they are all unisex and so referred to as batters now.
Click to expand...
Whilst we still have mens teams and womens teams we should be able to refer to them as batsmen and women. When we have a mixed team then we can call them batters for ease of use.
 
GEER said:
Within the laws of the game but morally wrong.
Click to expand...
Is it any different to the offside rule if someone deliberately steps back to make an opposition player offside as opposed to them going forward to try and gain an advantage? Or is it just what we’re conditioned to accept?
 
traffordtang said:
Is it any different to the offside rule if someone deliberately steps back to make an opposition player offside as opposed to them going forward to try and gain an advantage? Or is it just what we’re conditioned to accept?
Click to expand...

Isn't it more the equivalent of a penalty taker stopping in his run up so that the keeper dives? That isn't allowed.
 
fcblackpool said:
Alex Hales is quoted in the ST today as saying something like 'it's not too much to ask for the non-striker to stay in their crease until the ball leaves the arm'.

And then to boo hoo...... are we supposed to take women's cricket seriously?
Click to expand...
Not many have much respect for Alex Hales the person which is why he`s been out of the England team for so long not because of his form. Morgan had no time for him and Stokes said when he finally got selected again after 3 years absence you don`t have to like someone to play alongside them.
If you`re lining up with Hales you`re scraping the barrel and certainly not strengthening your already very weak argument.. Many other players including Jimmy Anderson have rightly taken the opposite view.
 
Last edited:
scunner said:
Isn't it more the equivalent of a penalty taker stopping in his run up so that the keeper dives? That isn't allowed.
Click to expand...
I think it’s allowed in the run up but not once the run ups been completed, but the principal is the same. The FA have looked at this and decided what to allow. The cricket authorities have also looked at this scenario and decided not to outlaw it in which case they can hardly shout when someone uses it.
 
traffordtang said:
I think it’s allowed in the run up but not once the run ups been completed, but the principal is the same. The FA have looked at this and decided what to allow. The cricket authorities have also looked at this scenario and decided not to outlaw it in which case they can hardly shout when someone uses it.
Click to expand...
Who is looking at the bowler's hand as the non striker? I suggest no one in world cricket at any level, from under 10s local cricket to Ashes tests. You're looking down the pitch to see how your partner is dealing with the delivery. Your bat is grounded but you're on the move in anticipation of having to react to a quick call.

To say don't move until the ball leaves the bowler's hand is arrant nonsense.
 
traffordtang said:
Whilst we still have mens teams and womens teams we should be able to refer to them as batsmen and women. When we have a mixed team then we can call them batters for ease of use.
Click to expand...
I lost my love of cricket when they decided wicketkeepersmen should be called wicketkeepers.
The game’s gone 😞.
 
Perhaps the batters should stand further back, so when the bowler is about to release the ball the batter takes a step forward and so should still be in the crease at the moment of release. It’s a difficult one to monitor as the bowlers feel hard done by that the batter is trying to gain an advantage.
 
fcblackpool said:
Rules are rules, set in Black and White. There can be no 'in the spirit of' applied; that's MCC all over and the toff approach is the reason I detest English cricket authorities.
Click to expand...
Sorry FC, I have to disagree. Not with the MCC angle, fully with you on that, I've no time for them either.

I just see it as the way to play sports. All of them. There's an angle or occurrence in every sport somewhere that allows for, can I call it sportsmanship? Some do it some don't, and that of course is the problem because there's a huge grey area, and I guess you're right that rules are rules, and if followed to the letter more or less remove that.

But personally, I feel whenever I've played sport I've got a fair idea of what I consider right and wrong, and I wouldn't contemplate playing any other way. I don't have a problem with anyone who wants to do it by the rules alone, that's what they're there for and they're entitled to do it.
 
CGP1 said:
Sorry FC, I have to disagree. Not with the MCC angle, fully with you on that, I've no time for them either.

I just see it as the way to play sports. All of them. There's an angle or occurrence in every sport somewhere that allows for, can I call it sportsmanship? Some do it some don't, and that of course is the problem because there's a huge grey area, and I guess you're right that rules are rules, and if followed to the letter more or less remove that.

But personally, I feel whenever I've played sport I've got a fair idea of what I consider right and wrong, and I wouldn't contemplate playing any other way. I don't have a problem with anyone who wants to do it by the rules alone, that's what they're there for and they're entitled to do it.
Click to expand...
Good stuff!

I think sportsmanship goes out the window when you seek to secure a definite advantage as the Eng player was doing, apparently for the 73rd time in her inns. How many runs did Eng score as a result?

I think bowling fast bouncers at No 10's and 11's heads is poor form and come into the bad sportsmanship area, or bowling underarm etc.

It's something that they (ICC) will now have to address probably by saying if a non striker leaves the crease they are fair game. They could change the law as to when the ball is 'live'. Changing to when the ball leaves the bowler legally will have the non-striker wicket hanging at the other end. Tbh there is no law change that can be made, only implementation of existing law.
 
Ok fair enough, I didn't know the details of it, and if the England player had been "encroaching" that often then the bowler obviously felt justified in doing it. I'd hope they'd have given a warning much earlier, then acted accordingly if it was ignored.

Your last para's interesting! Almost a carbon copy of the circumstances in 1882 when Grace enraged an Oz bowler so much (Spofforth was it) that he blitzed through our final innings when we were chasing much less than a 100, leading ultimately to the creation of the Ashes trophy. If that law or something similar had been around then, we might never have had the term at all!
 
fcblackpool said:
Good stuff!

I think sportsmanship goes out the window when you seek to secure a definite advantage as the Eng player was doing, apparently for the 73rd time in her inns. How many runs did Eng score as a result?

I think bowling fast bouncers at No 10's and 11's heads is poor form and come into the bad sportsmanship area, or bowling underarm etc.

It's something that they (ICC) will now have to address probably by saying if a non striker leaves the crease they are fair game. They could change the law as to when the ball is 'live'. Changing to when the ball leaves the bowler legally will have the non-striker wicket hanging at the other end. Tbh there is no law change that can be made, only implementation of existing law.
Click to expand...
A bouncer is part of the game. No reason why you can't bowl one at a no 10 or 11. They all wear helmets and most are handy with the bat. The umpires can deem if the number of bouncers is excessive.
 
Blackpool-rocks said:
A bouncer is part of the game. No reason why you can't bowl one at a no 10 or 11. They all wear helmets and most are handy with the bat. The umpires can deem if the number of bouncers is excessive.
Click to expand...
10 and 11's aren't that adept at moving their feet and getting in position. Even with the gear it can be dangerous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top