• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Cricket stuff that doesn't deserve its own thread

Q

Qlder

State Vice-Captain
Red said:
So that run out in the T20 last night.

Aus were entitled to appeal at any point before the bowler commences his run up, I believe.

I’m assuming the bowler hadn’t commenced his run up when the vision showed on the big screens and Aus realised the batsman was out.

So, once Aus began discussing it with the umpire, they were entitled to appeal (which I believe Hazelwood) did, and it should’ve been adjudicated on or referred to the tv umpire. Correct?

Or is there a law in international/big league where if a big screen replay is shown an appeal can’t be subsequently made? Because surely there should be, or replays should not be shown before the next ball is bowled as the fielding team can have a second look at a potential LBW or edge or run out.
Click to expand...
Or Australia could have just appealed instead of not bothering and therefore showing disrespect to the umpire?
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Red said:
So that run out in the T20 last night.

Aus were entitled to appeal at any point before the bowler commences his run up, I believe.

I’m assuming the bowler hadn’t commenced his run up when the vision showed on the big screens and Aus realised the batsman was out.

So, once Aus began discussing it with the umpire, they were entitled to appeal (which I believe Hazelwood) did, and it should’ve been adjudicated on or referred to the tv umpire. Correct?

Or is there a law in international/big league where if a big screen replay is shown an appeal can’t be subsequently made? Because surely there should be, or replays should not be shown before the next ball is bowled as the fielding team can have a second look at a potential LBW or edge or run out.
Click to expand...
One of the players actually did appeal at the time, the umpire just didn't notice. But it was a bit weird that none of the players closer to the action appealed.

Main takeaway though is the umpire is an attention-seeking ****
 
Red

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
TheJediBrah said:
One of the players actually did appeal at the time, the umpire just didn't notice. But it was a bit weird that none of the players closer to the action appealed.

Main takeaway though is the umpire is an attention-seeking ****
Click to expand...
it’s the player’s responsibility to ensure the umpire is aware of the appeal, surely
 
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
Red said:
Or is there a law in international/big league where if a big screen replay is shown an appeal can’t be subsequently made? Because surely there should be, or replays should not be shown before the next ball is bowled as the fielding team can have a second look at a potential LBW or edge or run out.
Click to expand...
Yea I think this is it. Might not be a written Playing Condition, but definitely makes sense as a standard practice.
 
Starfighter

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Starfighter said:
More luminaries who bowled 'wobble-seamers' aside from Shahid Nazir: James Hopes, Grant Elliot, Gavin Tonge and Daren Sammy
Click to expand...
Add Roger Telemachus to the list, and Tapash Baisya, who even held the seam canted so was doing it deliberately. I suspect I've made my point that it was in fact very common
 
Last edited:
SeamUp

SeamUp

International Coach
Who has used the most noughties babies? Anyone I've missed, let me know.

Afghanistan (14)
00: Bahir Shah, Azamatullah Omarzai, Ikram Alikhil, Qais Ahmed, Fazalhaq Farooqi, Wafadar Momand
01: Ibrahim Zadran, Rahmanullah Gurbaz, Mujeeb Ur Rahman, Abdul Rahman
02: Riaz Hassan, Mohammed Saleem
03:
04:
05: Noor Ahmed, Naveed Zadran

Pakistan (12)
00: Shaheen Shah Afridi, Arshad Iqbal, Haider Ali
01: Mohammad Haris, Mohammad Wasim, Abbas Afridi, Zaman Khan
02: Saim Ayub, Ihsanullah, Mohammad Hasnain
03: Hasebullah Khan , Naseem Shah

Bangladesh (9)
00: Mahmadul Hasan Joy, Tanzid Hasan, Towhid Hridoy, Nayeem Hasan,
01: Mrittunjoy Chowdhury, Shoriful Islam
02: Shahadat Hossain, Rishad Hossain, Tanzaim Hasan Sakib

India (6)
00: Ravi Bishnoi, Devdutt Padikkal
01: Yashasvi Jaiswal, Sai Sudharsan, Dhruv Jurel
02: Tilak Varma

Sri Lanka (5)
00: Mahesh Theekshana, Dilshan Madushanka
01:
02: Matheesa Pathirana
03: Dunith Wellalage
04: Shevon Daniel

West Indies (4)
00: Kirk McKenzie
01: Jayden Seales
02: Matthew Forde
03: Teddy Bishop

South Africa (4)
00: Tristan Stubbs, Marco Jansen, Gerald Coetzee
01:
02:
03: Dewald Brevis

Australia (3)
00: Todd Murphy
01: Tanveer Sangha
02: Jake Fraser-McGurk

England (3)
00: Jamie Smith
01:
02:
03: Shoaib Bashir
04: Rehan Ahmed

New Zealand (2)
00:
01: Will O'Rourke
02: Ashok Adithya

Ireland (2)
00: Neil Rock
01:
02: Matthew Humphreys
 
Last edited:
Starfighter

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
SeamUp said:
If you born on 1/1/2000 surely, the 20th century is done and the 21st has started.
Click to expand...
Technically no, because the Gregorian calendar has no year zero (and you could also consider the year numbers as ordinal in sense, even though we use the cardinal terms). Unless you want the 1st century to have only 99 years, you need to start the 21st 01/01/2001. But the pull of the digit at the start changing is so strong that only a very few very pedantic people will insist on the correct way.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top