Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 151
Like Tree101Likes

Thread: Brett Lee - Protected Species?

  1. #1
    Cricket Spectator
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    7

    Brett Lee - Protected Species?

    Explain to me how Brett Lee has had NO action taken against him for bowling a BLATANT bean-ball at Razzaq in the last one-dayer (VB series) ?

    Law 42.8 states :-

    8. Deliberate bowling of high full pitched balls
    If the umpire considers that a high full pitch which is deemed to be dangerous and unfair, as defined in 6(b) above, was deliberately bowled, then the caution and warning prescribed in 7 above shall be dispensed with. The umpire shall
    (a) call and signal No ball.

    (b) direct the captain, when the ball is dead, to take the bowler off forthwith.

    (c) implement the remainder of the procedure as laid down in 7(c) above.

    Despite Razzaq bowling two full pitched deliveries at Lee (although the first one was marginal at best), how is it that NO action was taken against Lee for bowling a 140kmh+ bean-ball. It was quite apparent this was a deliberate, pre-meditated ball, aimed straight for the batsmen and something which is akin to a head-high tackle in League or a deliberate kick into the shins in soccer.

    Nothing, absolutely NOTHING was done about it. Could it be that the Golden Boy is considered sacred and has teflon skin ??

    I'm sure if it was Shoaib Akhtar bowling at Pontings' scon, there would have been some action taken. To make matters worse, they awarded Lee the Player of the Series award a few minutes later !! AND I'm an Australian supporter - it was embarassing to Australian cricket.
    Fred Tetanus likes this.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Whangaparaoa, Auckland
    Posts
    10,872
    Quote Originally Posted by Queenslander
    Explain to me how Brett Lee has had NO action taken against him for bowling a BLATANT bean-ball at Razzaq in the last one-dayer (VB series) ?

    Law 42.8 states :-

    8. Deliberate bowling of high full pitched balls
    If the umpire considers that a high full pitch which is deemed to be dangerous and unfair, as defined in 6(b) above, was deliberately bowled, then the caution and warning prescribed in 7 above shall be dispensed with. The umpire shall
    (a) call and signal No ball.

    (b) direct the captain, when the ball is dead, to take the bowler off forthwith.

    (c) implement the remainder of the procedure as laid down in 7(c) above.

    Despite Razzaq bowling two full pitched deliveries at Lee (although the first one was marginal at best), how is it that NO action was taken against Lee for bowling a 140kmh+ bean-ball. It was quite apparent this was a deliberate, pre-meditated ball, aimed straight for the batsmen and something which is akin to a head-high tackle in League or a deliberate kick into the shins in soccer.

    Nothing, absolutely NOTHING was done about it. Could it be that the Golden Boy is considered sacred and has teflon skin ??

    I'm sure if it was Shoaib Akhtar bowling at Pontings' scon, there would have been some action taken. To make matters worse, they awarded Lee the Player of the Series award a few minutes later !! AND I'm an Australian supporter - it was embarassing to Australian cricket.
    That's what I thought too. Not the first one I've seen him bowl deliberately either. The fact it was bowled to Razzaq who bowled a couple to him made it blatantly obvious it was deliberate and he should have been fined at least.
    Fred Tetanus likes this.

  3. #3
    State Vice-Captain BlackCap_Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Auckland,N.Z
    Posts
    1,392
    Lucky Martin Crowe doesn't browse this forum!
    Batsman for Cricketweb Blue
    Stats:
    --------M-----I----N.O---Runs---Average---50's--100's--HS
    OD: -62---56----15-----1342----32.73-----10------0-------99 (seriously)
    FC: --40---77-----8------2067----29.96-----12------2-----120


    RIP Fardin 1990-2006

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,912
    Quote Originally Posted by Queenslander
    Explain to me how Brett Lee has had NO action taken against him for bowling a BLATANT bean-ball at Razzaq in the last one-dayer (VB series) ?

    Law 42.8 states :-

    8. Deliberate bowling of high full pitched balls
    If the umpire considers that a high full pitch which is deemed to be dangerous and unfair, as defined in 6(b) above, was deliberately bowled, then the caution and warning prescribed in 7 above shall be dispensed with. The umpire shall
    (a) call and signal No ball.

    (b) direct the captain, when the ball is dead, to take the bowler off forthwith.

    (c) implement the remainder of the procedure as laid down in 7(c) above.

    Despite Razzaq bowling two full pitched deliveries at Lee (although the first one was marginal at best), how is it that NO action was taken against Lee for bowling a 140kmh+ bean-ball. It was quite apparent this was a deliberate, pre-meditated ball, aimed straight for the batsmen and something which is akin to a head-high tackle in League or a deliberate kick into the shins in soccer.

    Nothing, absolutely NOTHING was done about it. Could it be that the Golden Boy is considered sacred and has teflon skin ??

    .
    Probably the same reason Razzaq had no action taken against him.

    And how did you arrive at the conclusion that Lee deliberately bowled a pre-meditated beam ball. I hope your not silly enough to say because Razzaq bowler one at him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Queenslander
    I'm sure if it was Shoaib Akhtar bowling at Pontings' scon, there would have been some action taken. To make matters worse, they awarded Lee the Player of the Series award a few minutes later !! AND I'm an Australian supporter - it was embarassing to Australian cricket.
    What a hypocritical statement, first of all you assume if Shoiab bowler a beam ball at Ponting it would be deemed deliberate but when Razzaq bowled a beam ball at Lee it was not deemed deliberate.
    Fred Tetanus likes this.


  5. #5
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Marburg, Germany
    Posts
    27,072
    Usually I would say that bowling a head-high beamer is actually so difficult to bowl accurately (coupled with the fact it's not something one generally practices) that the chance of Lee's being deliberate were so small as to render them insignificant.

    However, at least one of them looked a bit too nasty to be totally accidental to me. It's probably just a perception thing but he didn't seem too sorry to have bowled them.

  6. #6
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Scallywag
    Probably the same reason Razzaq had no action taken against him.
    Which is... what, exactly?
    I'm not totally sure of the rules regarding it, but certainly Razzaq was removed from the attack, which is the one stipulation there definately is.
    Personally I've always thought bowlers should be banned for at least 1 game for bowling head-high Beamers - if you can't control it that badly you shouldn't be playing.
    And yes, I've bowled a few myself and whenever I do I usually ask myself "why are you playing this game". Fortunately it's not extraordinarily dangerous bowling them at 60-odd mph. In the late 70s, it's a different story.
    Fred Tetanus likes this.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,912
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    Which is... what, exactly?
    I'm not totally sure of the rules regarding it, but certainly Razzaq was removed from the attack, which is the one stipulation there definately is.
    Personally I've always thought bowlers should be banned for at least 1 game for bowling head-high Beamers - if you can't control it that badly you shouldn't be playing.
    And yes, I've bowled a few myself and whenever I do I usually ask myself "why are you playing this game". Fortunately it's not extraordinarily dangerous bowling them at 60-odd mph. In the late 70s, it's a different story.
    Razzaq was only removed from the attack after bowling his second beam ball, Lee only bowled one beam ball and like Razzaq was warned after the first one, Lee however did not bowl a second which is when you are removed from the attack.
    Fred Tetanus likes this.

  8. #8
    Cricket Web Moderator Neil Pickup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Posts
    27,193
    I find it hard to believe Lee actually managed to get a ball where he wanted it to be
    MSN Messenger: minardineil2000 at hotmail dot com | AAAS Chairman
    CricketWeb Black | CricketWeb XI Captain
    ClarkeWatch: We're Watching Rikki - Are You?

    Up The Grecians - Exeter City FC

    Completing the Square: My Cricket Web Blog

  9. #9
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Scallywag
    Razzaq was only removed from the attack after bowling his second beam ball, Lee only bowled one beam ball and like Razzaq was warned after the first one, Lee however did not bowl a second which is when you are removed from the attack.
    Right - I was asleep, you see, so this is the first I'd heard of the Lee Beamer.
    I do know the rules about one and two Beamers, y'know.
    Still - a deliberate Beamer is disgraceful. No, of course we don't know it was deliberate but it does seem a bit odd that someone would Beam someone who'd Beamed them the same match.
    As for Razzaq - the first one was bad enough, the second one - I honestly couldn't believe my eyes.
    Fred Tetanus likes this.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Whangaparaoa, Auckland
    Posts
    10,872
    Can we clarify something? I always thought they were called beam-balls but Queenslander referred to them as bean-balls with an n? Then when I goggled both there were far more replies for bean-ball which is taken from baseball when a pitch is aimed at the batter. Now I'm confused whether it's beam or bean. Does anyone have an answer to that?
    Fred Tetanus likes this.

  11. #11
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    The term is Beamer - don't have a clue where it comes from.
    Never heard of a Beaner in my life.
    Fred Tetanus likes this.

  12. #12
    Cricket Spectator
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Scallywag
    Razzaq was only removed from the attack after bowling his second beam ball, Lee only bowled one beam ball and like Razzaq was warned after the first one, Lee however did not bowl a second which is when you are removed from the attack.
    Quite correct on the fact that Razzaq was removed (for the 2nd ball) after being warned already for bowling a (dangerous or unfair) full pitched delivery over waist height (Law 42.7), however Law 42.8 allows for the immediate removal of a bowler for bowling a deliberate high pitched full ball(whether he's been warned once or not). It is obviously a matter of opinion if this ball was deliberate or not. Could well have been a coincidence that Lee happened to be bowling to the same guy who let one go at his head .....

    I'm not suggesting that Razzaq was totally innocent here (don't even particularly like the guy) but the fact is, Lee bowled it after he had copt a couple and didn't seem to apolegitic afterwards. Pleeeaaase, who doesn't think it wasn't deliberate ! Apart from the umpires, commentators (who were obviously "muzzled") and administrators, anyone who was watching the game (apart from the Brett Lee fan club) know it was deliberate.
    Fred Tetanus likes this.

  13. #13
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Queenslander
    I'm not suggesting that Razzaq was totally innocent here (don't even particularly like the guy) but the fact is, Lee bowled it after he had copt a couple and didn't seem to apolegitic afterwards. Pleeeaaase, who doesn't think it wasn't deliberate ! Apart from the umpires, commentators (who were obviously "muzzled") and administrators, anyone who was watching the game (apart from the Brett Lee fan club) know it was deliberate.
    I don't think anyone seriously believes it wasn't deliberate... but you know what it's like these days, if he'd been removed from the attack under that ruling... hell, even I didn't know about it before you posted it here... there'd be an outcry, and when this ruling was finally dug-up and publicised, someone'd find some other excuse... and the Umpire'd be crucified, and it'd all kick-off and before you know it you'd have Emerson-1998\99 all over again.
    Fred Tetanus likes this.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,912
    Well you spelt it out yourself in law 42.8, its only if the umpire deems it deliberate and nobody gives a toss what the fans or commentators think and you said yourself that the umpires dont think it was deliberate

    .8. Deliberate bowling of high full pitched balls
    If the umpire considers that a high full pitch which is deemed to be dangerous and unfair, as defined in 6(b) above, was deliberately bowled, then the caution and warning prescribed in 7 above shall be dispensed with. The umpire shall
    (a) call and signal No ball.
    Fred Tetanus likes this.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Whangaparaoa, Auckland
    Posts
    10,872
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    The term is Beamer - don't have a clue where it comes from.
    Never heard of a Beaner in my life.
    Neither had I but I think the term bean-ball must have been lost in translation from baseball like Chinese whispers
    Fred Tetanus likes this.

Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Brett Lee on the move?
    By age_master in forum World Club Cricket
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-04-2004, 05:06 AM
  2. Brett Lee's action
    By iamdavid in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 25-03-2004, 08:03 PM
  3. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-01-2003, 03:26 PM
  4. Brett Lee Worried About Loosing His Place
    By Rik in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-11-2002, 06:07 PM
  5. Should Australia Drop Brett Lee?
    By Top_Cat in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 15-10-2002, 05:11 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
  •