If you bowled the same number of balls with longer overs it would probably save time given there would be less breaks between overs
I deserved to be punished for rationalizing a claim made by Loko I spose
Actually they used to have 8 ball overs, I don't see a huge problem with it myself but I also don't see the need to change it from 6 balls. "spose" is simply short for "suppose"
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.
I believe so, though about 30 years since the last 8 ball FC match?
CATCHES WIN MATCHES
A TOLL IS A TOLL AND A ROLL IS A ROLL,
AND IF WE DON'T GET NO TOLLS, THEN WE DON'T EAT NO ROLLS
Look at the Laws of Cricket 22-1. 1 over is 6 or 8 balls.
Didn't want to start a new thread on this, but thought someone might be able to answer this for me.
On the weekend at cricket it was so windy that the heavy bails were continually blowing off. The umpire removed them and we played bail-less most of the arvo.
In this situation, is it necessary to remove a stump to effect a run out? Or a stumping?
The batting side come to the last over needing 19 runs to win. During the over there are no no-balls, wides or otherthrows. The first four balls are dot balls. The fielders naturally think that they have won. During and after the fifth ball , again a dot ball, something happens that allows the batting side to win.
time for some new material loko
Exit pursuing a beerOriginally Posted by Jimmy Neesham
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)