cricket betting betway blog banner small
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23

Thread: Bad Light Ruling

  1. #1
    Cricket Spectator
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    38

    Bad Light Ruling

    I think after the Eng and SA players went off today for bad light when the light did not look as bad as before, and Vaughan said that the light was good, why are the umpires not consistent, and is there a specified number on the light meters that forces the umpires to offer the light?

  2. #2
    International Debutant SpaceMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Worcestershire, UK
    Posts
    2,089
    its a stupid rule.
    They claim its for safety. Yet 99% of the time a team will stay out when offered so called 'unsafe' light if they are at an advantage. Test cricket is apparently losing its appeal atm, so forcing play to stop when the light is poor but certainly playable and disapointing fans at the ground and on tv just makes NO SENSE.
    They should come up with a meter reading that the ICC claims is the least 'playable' light reading. This would be not at the first sign of bad light but when the light is just unplayable (forget this safety crap). Then they go off when this reading is met. No amount of complaining b4 this reading has been reached should matter and play should continue. Problem solved.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,912
    TV cameras can adjust the contrast and brightness levels but the umpire cant. I have read Vaughans comments and I think if it had been in Englands interest to leave the field he would not have said anything. He wants to win and its his way of challenging the South Africans to play on when the light is bad. He may not have said anything if England were 8-148.

    Before you jump down my throat I know that Ponting would do the same and I think its good that Vaughan is trying every tactic available to him to get a result. Just dont blame the umpires as they will allways be in a catch 22 because two teams will allways want what the other doesent and whatever decision they make one team will allways say its the wrong decision.

  4. #4
    Cricketer Of The Year Mr Casson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    9,657
    ^ Of course Vaughan wouldn't have said anything if England was 8-148 because HE would have taken the light. As it stands, he's complaining because he DID NOT want to take the light and his hand was forced by the disgraceful Bucknor.
    'Copperfield,' said Mr. Micawber, 'farewell! Every happiness and prosperity! If, in the progress of revolving years, I could persuade myself that my blighted destiny had been a warning to you, I should feel that I had not occupied another man's place in existence altogether in vain.
    - Wilkins Micawber


  5. #5
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Mister Wright's Avatar
    Burger Time Champion!
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    24,430
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Casson
    ^ Of course Vaughan wouldn't have said anything if England was 8-148 because HE would have taken the light. As it stands, he's complaining because he DID NOT want to take the light and his hand was forced by the disgraceful Bucknor.
    Give it a rest. I bet most of you are not aware that the umpires are legally responsible if any players get seriously injured and it is found that the players should not have been on the field due to bad light or poor conditions. In these days of whimsical litigation, I'm not surprised the umpires go off at the slighest sign.
    Cricketweb Colts Captain



    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    Hayden > Lehmann
    I'm a member of Club Kerry

    I'm Green

    The color of immortality, nature and envy - you are truly a unique person. While clearly the color of nature, you also symbolize rebirth, fertility and hope in the world. On the other side of the spectrum, a natural aptitude to money with green coming to signify money and possibly even *********!

  6. #6
    International Debutant SpaceMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Worcestershire, UK
    Posts
    2,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Wright
    Give it a rest. I bet most of you are not aware that the umpires are legally responsible if any players get seriously injured and it is found that the players should not have been on the field due to bad light or poor conditions. In these days of whimsical litigation, I'm not surprised the umpires go off at the slighest sign.
    So why didnt they force the players off when they first offered the light? The fact of the matter was the light was better than at the start of the day when they played. Certainly no worse.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,912
    Quote Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey
    So why didnt they force the players off when they first offered the light? The fact of the matter was the light was better than at the start of the day when they played. Certainly no worse.
    If the umpires offer the players to go off because of poor light and the players refuse the offer then no problem the umpire has done his job but if one team says the light is a saftey concern then the umpire has no choice.

    The players were not forced off by the umpires, the umpires were reacting to a request from the SA team.

    Vaughan even stated that himself.
    "The umpires have to make a decision," he added, "but at one o'clock, we were batting in indifferent conditions, and then the fielding captain asks for the light when they are in a bit of trouble, and the umpires accept. They just said it was off, and once they tell you, that's it."

    The umpires acted in accordance with the rules laid out before the start of the game and would have done the same thing regardless of who was batting or what position the game was.

  8. #8
    Cricketer Of The Year Mr Casson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    9,657
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Wright
    Give it a rest. I bet most of you are not aware that the umpires are legally responsible if any players get seriously injured and it is found that the players should not have been on the field due to bad light or poor conditions. In these days of whimsical litigation, I'm not surprised the umpires go off at the slighest sign.
    But the light didn't look to be getting very bad. The only thing that was getting worse and worse is Graeme Smith in the umpires' ears.

  9. #9
    Cricketer Of The Year JASON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    At Work
    Posts
    7,558
    Why is this a new thread, instead of being on the England V South Africa thread ?

    On the subject of Bucknor, I think he has become so insecure (as an ump) by bad decisions as well as criticism that the guy is now resorting to keeping Captains happy to stay on the job ,IMO.

  10. #10
    Cricketer Of The Year Mr Casson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    9,657
    Quote Originally Posted by JASON
    Why is this a new thread, instead of being on the England V South Africa thread ?
    Because it is not only about what happened in Jo'burg; it's about the bad light rule in general.

  11. #11
    U19 12th Man
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    272
    When the light meter says the light is below X, the umpires are obliged to offer the light.

    The reason for this is that when they had the discretion, they got accused of bias, so a fixed level was decided on. Now umpires have to make the same decision regardless of who is batting/bowling.

    The rule is supposed to be there to protect the safety of players...almost exclusively the batsmen. The speed of the bowler and quality of the batsman *should* be considered, but that would require a judgement call, and every time the umpires make on of them there is an outcry of bias.

  12. #12
    International Captain Slow Love™'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    6,080
    I'm finding this particular incident to be confusing, probably because I'd always assumed that only batsman were ever consulted in bad light decisions.

    And to make things even cloudier, Steve Bucknor has claimed that the umpires made this decision completely independently, and that Graeme Smith had absolutely nothing to do with it.

    In the Guardian, mention of a new rule was made, but I don't really understand what the purpose behind this rule would be:

    "The second day closed with South Africa on the ropes, their discipline in tatters, grateful for the rule that, when the floodlights are on, offers them the option of going off if the batsmen have turned it down."

    http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cricket/...390953,00.html

    Either way, I'm surprised at Graeme Smith's harping over the light - apparently this isn't the first time, either. I can't remember the last time I ever heard of a fielding side captain pestering the umpires over bad light when the batting side were happy to continue.
    "Youre known for having a liking for men who look like women."
    - Linda

    "FFS I'm sick and tired of having to see a bloke bend over to pick something up or lean over and see their arse crack. For christ's sake pull your pants up or buy some underpants you bogan because nobody want's to see it. And this is a boat building shed (well one of them) not a porn studio."
    - Craig

  13. #13
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    62,601
    Quote Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey
    They should come up with a meter reading that the ICC claims is the least 'playable' light reading.
    I don't actually think that would work because every stadium is different.
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

  14. #14
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    62,601
    Quote Originally Posted by Slow Love™
    Either way, I'm surprised at Graeme Smith's harping over the light - apparently this isn't the first time, either. I can't remember the last time I ever heard of a fielding side captain pestering the umpires over bad light when the batting side were happy to continue.
    Didn't it happen in the 1st Test as well?

    Pity we can't go back to the old rules like back in Pakistan when Moin tried to go at 9 overs an hour.

    At the end of the day, if play over-runs it is almost always the fielding team's fault, so why should they be allowed to not complete their quota if the batsmen are happy to continue?

  15. #15
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Thane India
    Posts
    19,319
    It sems that the two teams had agreed before hand that even the fielding side could have an option to complain against the light and the umpires, once a tandard for bad light were set on the light meter, were obliged to accept the appeal of whoever wanted to go off, fielders or batsmen ! If thats the case, no one can crib but its totally ridiculous and should never have been agreed to in the first place.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. **Dev League Season 7**
    By Mr Mxyzptlk in forum CW Development League
    Replies: 2692
    Last Post: 09-11-2004, 03:12 PM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-07-2004, 10:28 PM
  3. In light of...
    By Mr. P in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 26-10-2003, 07:19 AM
  4. The man who saw it comming a light year away!!
    By Ringua in forum World Cup 2003
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 27-03-2003, 01:10 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •