Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 133

Thread: ICC announce ODI law changes

  1. #16
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    It was nice to read a piece in Wisden a few years back where, apparently, Kookaburra refused to even attempt to manufacture such a ball, in response to a request from on high which was blatantly saying "bowlers are getting too much help" (and this, remember, was in 2004 sort of time - as if!)

    Let's hope this nonsense is revealed for what it is. Mandatory ball-change? What utter crap.

    Like the other two, though, I have to say. I've always said free-hit rulings help bowlers rather than batsmen, because discouragement from bowling no-balls is badly needed by most bowlers. If it's used on the highest stage of all (that is, obviously, excluding the long-form game) maybe it'll be high-profile enough get people actually thinking about it. Hopefully this is last we'll see of spinners bowling no-balls!

    And any ruling that relaxes field-restrictions tends to be a good one IMO.
    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

  2. #17
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Pratyush View Post
    Who cares whatever the rules are.
    Quite a few people, actually.

  3. #18
    Cricket, Lovely Cricket Pratters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Kolkata
    Posts
    30,071
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Quite a few people, actually.
    My post was to emphasise the fairly less importance of ODIs to a section of fans like myself. Obviously you didn't get it and yet, needed to make a smart ass remark.

  4. #19
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    58,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Pratyush View Post
    My post was to emphasise the fairly less importance of ODIs to a section of fans like myself. Obviously you didn't get it and yet, needed to make a smart ass remark.
    And in attempting to take a hypothetical question literally, he failed to even do that - as you asked who and not how many.
    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
    'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'


    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey Tucker
    Someone asked me the other day if I believe in conspiracies. Well, sure. Here's one. It is called the political system. It is nothing if not a giant conspiracy to rob, trick and subjugate the population.
    Before replying to TJB, always remember:
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJediBrah View Post
    Next week I'll probably be arguing the opposite

    Code:
    Pixie Caramels won by an Innings and 258 runs.


  5. #20
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Pratyush View Post
    My post was to emphasise the fairly less importance of ODIs to a section of fans like myself. Obviously you didn't get it and yet, needed to make a smart ass remark.
    It was nothing but a tit-for-tat, and I'm surprised you didn't notice it. It'd have been more accurate to say "I don't care" rather than "who cares" which suggests most people don't.

  6. #21
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    And in attempting to take a hypothetical question literally, he failed to even do that - as you asked who and not how many.
    Not really sure how I inaccurately reflected that.

  7. #22
    Cricket, Lovely Cricket Pratters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Kolkata
    Posts
    30,071
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    It was nothing but a tit-for-tat, and I'm surprised you didn't notice it. It'd have been more accurate to say "I don't care" rather than "who cares" which suggests most people don't.
    CBF having a debate over this.

  8. #23
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    58,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Not really sure how I inaccurately reflected that.
    "Quite a few" doesn't actually express who cares though - simply the amount of people. To answer his question (which didn't intend to be answered), you'd have had to give a list of people and/or groups of people.

  9. #24
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    "Who" can refer to an amount of people, though.

  10. #25
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Pratyush View Post
    CBF having a debate over this.
    Good, TBH, 'cos neither can I.

  11. #26
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    58,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    "Who" can refer to an amount of people, though.
    .... and that's where you are wrong.

  12. #27
    World Traveller Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Super Happy Fun Sugar Lollipop Land!
    Posts
    34,127
    Question, with the new changes regarding the relaxing of fielding restrictions during the Power Plays might make teams reconsider when they might take them or do the stock standard and get them out of the way straight away (which is something I don't like)?

    As for the SuperSub rule, I liked it and thought it had potential, it just wasn't used right by the ICC.
    Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick once and you suck forever...

    RIP Fardin Qayyumi, a true legend of CW

    Quote Originally Posted by Boobidy View Post
    Bradman never had to face quicks like Sharma and Irfan Pathan. He wouldn't of lasted a ball against those 2, not to mention a spinner like Sehwag.

  13. #28
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    58,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig
    Question, with the new changes regarding the relaxing of fielding restrictions during the Power Plays might make teams reconsider when they might take them or do the stock standard and get them out of the way straight away (which is something I don't like)?
    I don't think it'll have an effect on that either way.

  14. #29
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    40,325
    As long as these things don't infect FC and Test cricket, it matters little to me. However, and perhaps I am in the minority, but I don't really see a need to punish the bowlers more than they already are for no-balls. Some bowlers have way too many no balls but I don't see the problem out of hand or anything. The fact that they have to bowl the delivery again and the batsman gets free runs if he manages to hit it seems a fair compromise.

    I agree with loosening the fielding restrictions though.
    Quote Originally Posted by KungFu_Kallis View Post
    Peter Siddle top scores in both innings....... Matthew Wade gets out twice in one ball
    "The future light cone of the next Indian fast bowler is exactly the same as the past light cone of the previous one"
    -My beliefs summarized in words much more eloquent than I could come up with

    How the Universe came from nothing

  15. #30
    State Captain Lostman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,946
    drinks are taken in the 32nd over and the ball is going to be changed in the 35th over. I cant wait to see the 1st game where the 4th umpire is going to run out on the field and interrupt the game by changing the ball instead of giving the ball during the drinks break or moving the drinks break upto the 35th over. With the ICC it justs seems like something this must happen. In fact, i would be slightly dissappointed if it didnt happen like this.
    For as long as there is limited overs cricket - of ten, twenty or fifty overs - there will remain the Sri Lankan spinners' mid-innings choke

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Were the icc right to announce the twenty twenty world cup ?
    By cover drive man in forum Twenty20 World Cup
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 26-07-2007, 10:42 AM
  2. BCCI Announce Contracts
    By Perm in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 17-06-2007, 09:13 AM
  3. ECB announce NZ 2008 tour
    By James in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 13-06-2007, 06:50 AM
  4. FA Announce First Ever International Fixture
    By Blewy in forum Cricket Web XI Football
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 02-12-2006, 10:13 PM

Posting Permissions

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