Ask ***** - CricketWeb's 'Ask the umpire' thread

[Lillian Thomson]

I think batsman who can play well at different gears are ideal. Gavaskar had a SR of about 45 which was standard for the average top order batsman of his era but he could score run-a-ball centuries against the GOAT fast bowling attack and also play a grindy 30 SR style when batting to save a match. This is different from a different 45 SR batsman who had nowhere near the attacking/defensive range of Gavaskar.

Another batsman who was great at this is ABDv.

Good point. Wrong thread.

 

[Teja.]

oops.

 

[honestbharani]

I think batsman who can play well at different gears are ideal. Gavaskar had a SR of about 45 which was standard for the average top order batsman of his era but he could score run-a-ball centuries against the GOAT fast bowling attack and also play a grindy 30 SR style when batting to save a match. This is different from a different 45 SR batsman who had nowhere near the attacking/defensive range of Gavaskar.

Another batsman who was great at this is ABDv.

Good point but rendered null and void by the failure to call AB, AB.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I'm going to repost my pertinent post after it got swallowed by an erroneous one.


I was reminded of this incident recently by an old acquaintance. It happened in 1989 and I’d forgotten it by the following week.
A one day, one innings match at very low level that could be drawn. Not limited overs and one team could bat the whole match if they were stupid.
One ball to go and 9 wickets down for the team batting second who had no realistic chance of winning. The last ball was what should have been a wide but the umpire didn’t call it because it would have been detrimental to the batting side. It was a nothing match, but a last ball scenario that’s possible at the highest level. The controversy didn’t last beyond the pie and pint after the match, but I don’t know if the umpire was correct.

 

[GIMH]

It's an interesting one - I'd have assumed it's the wrong call, personally.

 

[Engle]

If it's a ' nothing ' match, then presumably the ump wanted to get it over and done with so he could get at his pint and pie. In all fairness, he should have called the wide and allowed an extra delivery that could have produced a result.

In the Eng vs Pak 2nd Test, I could have sworn looking at replays that Naseem Shah had Zak Crawley ever so slightly touching the ball with the faintest feather for a catch by the keeper. But why bother delaying it with a review when the match was basically a ' nothing ' match headed for a draw.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It wasn't a nothing match at the time to the players who were playing, just in global significance.

I don't see a bowler not reviewing for a Test wicket because the match is heading for a draw. You were probably the only who thinks they saw it.

 

[cnerd123]

Should call a wide a wide.

 

[Engle]

It wasn't a nothing match at the time to the players who were playing, just in global significance.

I don't see a bowler not reviewing for a Test wicket because the match is heading for a draw. You were probably the only who thinks they saw it.

My bad, it was M. Abbas. Watch closely at 2:32. Possible ball was moving in air, but on very close inspection, it seems like the ball had very faintly touched the bat.

Back on topic

 

[Line and Length]

I see what Engle saw. Surprised there was no reaction.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I see "The uploader has not made the video available in your country."

 

[TheJediBrah]

I see "The uploader has not made the video available in your country."

Get a better country

 

[trundler]

Get a better country

Get a better face

 

[Burgey]

One of the worst things about the little fella returning, apart from him returning, is this dross-filled, self indulgent **** of a thread

 

[andruid]

He's back?

 

[cnerd123]

He's back?

For now.

 

[andruid]

For now.

 

[Bijed]

It's an interesting one - I'd have assumed it's the wrong call, personally.

I would assume so too, but one thing I've long wondered is if the batting side should have the option to decline the extra delivery from a wide/no-ball if they want. It'd only really be a thing when runs are irrelevant and they just need to survive time and it's not like you get that many wides/no-balls anyway, but part of me feels like if a bowler sends down a rank wide in that sort of situation, they should be punished by that delivery being wasted, rather than basically just getting another go.

 

[GIMH]

I would assume so too, but one thing I've long wondered is if the batting side should have the option to decline the extra delivery from a wide/no-ball if they want. It'd only really be a thing when runs are irrelevant and they just need to survive time and it's not like you get that many wides/no-balls anyway, but part of me feels like if a bowler sends down a rank wide in that sort of situation, they should be punished by that delivery being wasted, rather than basically just getting another go.

I always remember the Flintoff magic over to Langer & Ponting at Edgbaston in 05 was 7 balls long as he bowled a no-ball. Got Ponting with the 7th I think.

 

[ataraxia]

The batsman hits a ball to the top of the stumps on the full, where it ricochets off upwards and is caught by a fielder. Is the batsman out?