No runners ever and yes to UDRS

[Daemon]

I see. That's a first for me then. Any other modern players who do it? I was talking about cricketers I know IRL before this btw

 

[smash84]

I see. That's a first for me then. Any other modern players who do it? I was talking about cricketers I know IRL before this btw

What does IRL mean???

 

[Daemon]

in real life

 

[slugger]

Oh....Ranatunga would just take off for a run and then start strolling when he was near the non-striker's crease to force the fielder to have a shy at the stumps. He would do that very often.

it was because he was already tired after running half way down the pitch, had little to do with a strategy ploy,he was also a prolific in using runners through out his career.

 

[vic_orthdox]

never did care too much about the cannot be lbw if it pitched outside the legstump line rule.

to imagine that in the 30s they they had the offstump version of it too...

Negative leg side cricket would be the result.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

DRS isn't exactly a cheap system, I don't think the ICC will pay towards it for very long.

 

[Top_Cat]

Aha, I don't think any jury would hold that the batsman putting themselves in the way of a fast-moving chunk of boiled leather is the natural instinctive reaction.

That's simplfying it just a bit isn't it? Sure you might not willingly put yourself between a ball and a thrower in isolation but under pressure, when you've taken off for a run (which only lasts a couple of seconds anyway) and you're fast running out of time to make decisions about where you're going to run as well as being mindful of the bloke with the rock, you might just make a bad instinctive choice without necessarily wanting to stop the ball from hitting the stumps.

I'm not saying it's true all the time, heaps of batsmen do deliberately try to block the throw I'm sure. But if someone takes that line, it becomes almost impossible to contradict them in a convincing way even arguing the point later with a bazillion replays, let alone out in the middle.

But I don't really care if it's instinctive or not. Breaking the rules instinctively is still breaking the rules.

It's not breaking the rule, has to be wilful obstruction.

Law 37

1. Out Obstructing the field
Either batsman is out Obstructing the field if he wilfully obstructs or distracts the fielding side by word or action.

In the absence of damning evidence that a batsman wilfully got in the way which becomes apparent almost immediately, nothing an umpire can do about it. The only option would be to give umpires more clout to disbelieve batsmen.

Can't think of a single game I've ever seen at any level where the result has been decided or significantly altered by batters obstructing throws so meh @ any rule change for me and probably why umpires haven't really stomped on it over the years.

 

[vcs]

Agree. You're putting your body in the firing line, you deserve a chance to keep your wicket, for mine.

 

[tooextracool]

That's simplfying it just a bit isn't it? Sure you might not willingly put yourself between a ball and a thrower in isolation but under pressure, when you've taken off for a run (which only lasts a couple of seconds anyway) and you're fast running out of time to make decisions about where you're going to run as well as being mindful of the bloke with the rock, you might just make a bad instinctive choice without necessarily wanting to stop the ball from hitting the stumps.

I'm not saying it's true all the time, heaps of batsmen do deliberately try to block the throw I'm sure. But if someone takes that line, it becomes almost impossible to contradict them in a convincing way even arguing the point later with a bazillion replays, let alone out in the middle.



It's not breaking the rule, has to be wilful obstruction.

Law 37



In the absence of damning evidence that a batsman wilfully got in the way which becomes apparent almost immediately, nothing an umpire can do about it. The only option would be to give umpires more clout to disbelieve batsmen.

Going to disagree with you vehemently on this one. Where I think the rule clearly needs to be changed is when the batter dabs the ball down and then runs right in front of the stumps so that the bowler has essentially 0 chance of hitting the stumps or even getting it close to someone who could do the same. This happens almost every other game and theres absolutely no excuse for why any batsman should be allowed to run right in front of the stumps. Bowlers arent allowed to do it (they get warned for running in line with the stumps), why should batsmen? Either run on one side or the other FFS, crisscrossing or running right in front of the stumps should both be banned.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

With regards to doing away with leg byes, that would just create a lot more problems. Say a ball goes down the leg side, either clips the bat or the pad, and then goes for 4. With leg byes in the game it doesn't really matter if the umpire gets it wrong (calling leg byes when it came off a thin edge), it's just a matter of which column to put the runs in. If there were no leg byes then it would either be no runs or 4 runs, so a wrong decision can all of a sudden cost one of the teams 4 runs. It's just easier to have the leg byes.

 

[Top_Cat]

Going to disagree with you vehemently on this one. Where I think the rule clearly needs to be changed is when the batter dabs the ball down and then runs right in front of the stumps so that the bowler has essentially 0 chance of hitting the stumps or even getting it close to someone who could do the same. This happens almost every other game and theres absolutely no excuse for why any batsman should be allowed to run right in front of the stumps. Bowlers arent allowed to do it (they get warned for running in line with the stumps), why should batsmen? Either run on one side or the other FFS, crisscrossing or running right in front of the stumps should both be banned.

Penalising a batsman by losing his wicket when all he does is get in the way of a fielder's throw is a massive imbalance in terms of the punishment fitting the crime I think.

Bowlers not being able to run in the middle of the deck is for completely different reasons, that of pitch preservation because that actually can have a massive impact on the game if left unchecked.

 

[centurymaker]

Going to disagree with you vehemently on this one. Where I think the rule clearly needs to be changed is when the batter dabs the ball down and then runs right in front of the stumps so that the bowler has essentially 0 chance of hitting the stumps or even getting it close to someone who could do the same. This happens almost every other game and theres absolutely no excuse for why any batsman should be allowed to run right in front of the stumps. Bowlers arent allowed to do it (they get warned for running in line with the stumps), why should batsmen? Either run on one side or the other FFS, crisscrossing or running right in front of the stumps should both be banned.

Batsmen shouldn't really be allowed to do that.

"Penalising a batsman by losing his wicket when all he does is get in the way of a fielder's throw is a massive imbalance in terms of the punishment fitting the crime I think."

If they know they are going to have to run right down the middle of the pitch, then they shouldn't take the run in the first place.

 

[Top_Cat]

haha, you're joking son.

EDIT: Anyway, I dunno where this idea came about that batters don't get warned for running on the pitch. Even if not deliberate, of course they do.

 

[Shri]

haha, you're joking son.

EDIT: Anyway, I dunno where this idea came about that batters don't get warned for running on the pitch. Even if not deliberate, of course they do.

Yeah I have seen batsmen being warned for running in the middle of the pitch but what is the punishment if they do it again? I genuinely don't know. Some one to shed light on this.

 

[Top_Cat]

Law 42, fair/unfair play

14. Batsman damaging the pitch
(a) If either batsman causes avoidable damage to the pitch, at the first instance the umpire seeing the contravention shall, when the ball is dead, inform the other umpire of the occurrence. The bowler’s end umpire shall then
(i) warn both batsmen that the practice is unfair and indicate that this is a first and final warning. This warning shall apply throughout the innings. The umpire shall so inform each incoming batsman.
(ii) inform the captain of the fielding side and, as soon as practicable, the captain of the batting side of what has occurred.
(b) If there is any further instance of avoidable damage to the pitch by any batsman in that innings, the umpire seeing the contravention shall, when the ball is dead, inform the other umpire of the occurrence. The bowler’s end umpire shall then
(i) disallow all runs to the batting side from that delivery other than the penalty for a No ball or a Wide, if applicable.
(ii) additionally, award 5 penalty runs to the fielding side.
(iii) return the batsmen to their original ends.
(iv) inform the captain of the fielding side and, as soon as practicable, the captain of the batting side of what has occurred.
(c) The umpires together shall report the occurrence as soon as possible after the match to the Executive of the batting side and to any Governing Body for the match who shall take such action as is considered appropriate against the captain and player or players concerned.

Dunno if it's ever escalated to the point of the fielding side having 5 runs awarded to the their total but rarely has a bowler been removed from the attack either. Have seen some bowlers get heaps of warnings.

 

[smash84]

it was because he was already tired after running half way down the pitch, had little to do with a strategy ploy,he was also a prolific in using runners through out his career.

He was a pretty good runner between the wickets. He was not the SL version of Inzi just because he was fat.

 

[four_or_six]

Or not... BCCI to oppose.

I really hope this is one case that they don't get their own way.

 

[tooextracool]

Penalising a batsman by losing his wicket when all he does is get in the way of a fielder's throw is a massive imbalance in terms of the punishment fitting the crime I think.

Bowlers not being able to run in the middle of the deck is for completely different reasons, that of pitch preservation because that actually can have a massive impact on the game if left unchecked.

The reason why the batsmen is in the way of the throw in the first place is because he knows that he is going to be short of his ground if the bowler hits the stumps down. Hence, its not really considered 'penalising' a batsman with his wicket when he should be out in the first place.

As I said earlier, there is no logical reason for a batter to run right in front of the stumps, when he can run pretty much anywhere on the ground, unless he is blocking a throw.

 

[GIMH]

I hope so too...but they will

 

[tooextracool]

haha, you're joking son.

EDIT: Anyway, I dunno where this idea came about that batters don't get warned for running on the pitch. Even if not deliberate, of course they do.

But the damage has already been done no? Bowlers only get warned for being repeated offenders, batsmen only have to do it once or twice to save their wicket.