**Official** New Zealand in South Africa

[Tricia McMillan]

Originally Posted by _Ed_

Haha. Know that feeling.

I had less of an excuse. I should be up at 9 on a Sunday morning (which is when it started in my time zone).

Sleeping through a 5 a.m. start time is more understandable. Next one is at 5:30 a.m. on Wednesday morning for me, I don't imagine I'll catch any of it.

[BeeGee]

Originally Posted by Tricia McMillan

We played well when I slept through the match?

Fair enough.

NZ did not play well.
Guptill played outstandingly well. The rest were average to crap.

[BeeGee]

Originally Posted by hendrix

Guptill was out LBW twice

No. Wrong. Incorrect.

[hendrix]

Originally Posted by BeeGee

No. Wrong. Incorrect.

He was plumb in Peterson's first over and there was a sweep shot he played against Phangiso around over 10 or 11 which was even more plumb.

Just not a convincing win at all.

[Meridio]

Originally Posted by hendrix

He was plumb in Peterson's first over and there was a sweep shot he played against Phangiso around over 10 or 11 which was even more plumb.

Just not a convincing win at all.

Na, the sweep was going down leg, Hawkeye confirmed it. The one in the first over should've been out though, yeah.

[hendrix]

Originally Posted by Meridio

Na, the sweep was going down leg, Hawkeye confirmed it. The one in the first over should've been out though, yeah.

Nope I'm not talking about the one they showed on hawkeye. This was one a couple of overs before that shout.

edit: just found it on cricinfo:
10.6 Phangiso to Guptill, no run, tossed up on leg stump, it was full and Guptill gets hit on the pads as he attempts a sweep. That was very close but the umpire doesn't show interest in that appeal. very close.

this is the one you're talking about:
13.5
Phangiso to Guptill, no run, tossed up and Guptill misses his sweep, get hit on the back pad. It was very close again.

[Meridio]

Originally Posted by hendrix

Nope I'm not talking about the one they showed on hawkeye. This was one a couple of overs before that shout.

edit: just found it on cricinfo:
10.6 Phangiso to Guptill, no run, tossed up on leg stump, it was full and Guptill gets hit on the pads as he attempts a sweep. That was very close but the umpire doesn't show interest in that appeal. very close.

this is the one you're talking about:
13.5
Phangiso to Guptill, no run, tossed up and Guptill misses his sweep, get hit on the back pad. It was very close again.

Ah, can't remember that one, therefore I will assume it didn't happen

[hendrix]

Still a good innings, but I just can't bask in a win because we really played no better than we did in the first game.

Our strategy and planning was just awful again.

[Smudge]

Haha, so now the coach and captain can't shake each other's hand after a win without earning the wrath of angry, sad little CWers. Great stuff.

[BeeGee]

Originally Posted by Smudge

sad little CWers.

Takes one to know one.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Howsie

Wouldn't that be in regards to a spinner? Because I have no idea how an umpire is suppose to rule on what is and isn't a slower ball.

It isn't the ball in particular that matters, it is the bowler. The 'slow bowler' primarily refers to spinners, however the interpretation is generally along the lines of any bowler to whom the wicketkeeper would normally stand up to the stumps.

As soon as a bowler breaches that interpretation, they are to be considered a fast bowler for the remainder of the innings, regardless of the specific pace of any individual ball.

[Neil Pickup]

Originally Posted by rvd619323

It isn't the ball in particular that matters, it is the bowler. The 'slow bowler' primarily refers to spinners, however the interpretation is generally along the lines of any bowler to whom the wicketkeeper would normally stand up to the stumps.

As soon as a bowler breaches that interpretation, they are to be considered a fast bowler for the remainder of the innings, regardless of the specific pace of any individual ball.

Really? Source? The only time I've seen that definition in terms of what makes a fast bowler is within the ECB's fast bowling directives in terms of length of spell permitted for U19 and younger... a definition that is hugely open to, er, manipulation if you have a good wicketkeeper.

I got entrusted with writing rules for a local festival last summer:

In addition to the Laws of Cricket, the umpire shall call and signal “no ball”, regardless of the pace of the bowler, if:
(a) Any high full pitched ball passes (or would pass) above waist height of a striker standing upright in his crease
(b) Any delivery bounces more than once or rolls along the ground

It's the way forward...

[Neil Pickup]

Originally Posted by rvd619323

It isn't the ball in particular that matters, it is the bowler. The 'slow bowler' primarily refers to spinners, however the interpretation is generally along the lines of any bowler to whom the wicketkeeper would normally stand up to the stumps.

As soon as a bowler breaches that interpretation, they are to be considered a fast bowler for the remainder of the innings, regardless of the specific pace of any individual ball.

Really? Source? The only time I've seen that definition in terms of what makes a fast bowler is within the ECB's fast bowling directives in terms of length of spell permitted for U19 and younger... a definition that is hugely open to, er, manipulation if you have a good wicketkeeper.

I got entrusted with writing rules for a local festival last summer:

In addition to the Laws of Cricket, the umpire shall call and signal “no ball”, regardless of the pace of the bowler, if:
(a) Any high full pitched ball passes (or would pass) above waist height of a striker standing upright in his crease
(b) Any delivery bounces more than once or rolls along the ground

It's the way forward...

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Neil Pickup

Really? Source? The only time I've seen that definition in terms of what makes a fast bowler is within the ECB's fast bowling directives in terms of length of spell permitted for U19 and younger... a definition that is hugely open to, er, manipulation if you have a good wicketkeeper.

That's the same definition as the Cricket Australia fast-bowling rules. To be honest, it seems more like a common-sense interpretation than anything codified in the laws.

And I may have manipulated it somewhat a few years back by wicketkeeping up to the stumps to all bar our opening bowlers.

I agree with your version of the law anyway, just make it waist-high regardless of pace.

[Neil Young]

Originally Posted by BeeGee

Worst part of the win. Can't stand seeing that gremlin with a smile on his face.

Great win but this. Hesson is such a little gimpoid.