Group 2 (Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Netherlands)

[Xuhaib]

I think Rauf lost the game more then Nawaz the third.

It was not as such bad bowling it was just not backing his strength got too cute with variations. Had he stuck with fast and straight he could have left Nawaz 24 instead of 16 to defend.

 

[ankitj]

No, this is where you say I was right all along.

LoL after just one bad over? No.

 

[Xix2565]

You mean parochial. If the shoe was on the other foot...

Would be nice if you could actually avoid making dumb implications.

 

[Starfighter]

That's the power of free hits in LOI cricket. Like the ball isn't dead in that scenario, so should people just not run out of solidarity with people baffled with the concept?

Nope. Ball hits the stumps, ball should be dead as normal. Perfectly reasonable position to take. If you miss the ball, you don't get runs by pure luck.

It's called game awareness. Ridiculous from you tbh to not expect it from players on the field.

A lot of the time such a deflection is impossible to stop, squirting off at high speed down leg. Should game awareness include a long stop?

 

[Starfighter]

Would be nice if you could actually avoid making dumb implications.

I've seen enough of your posting here to know they're pretty accurate implications.

 

[Xix2565]

Nope. Ball hits the stumps, ball should be dead as normal. Perfectly reasonable position to take.


A lot of the time such a deflection is impossible to stop, squirting off at high speed down leg. Should game awareness include a long top?

I mean this just sounds like complaining for the sake of complaining because it doesn't fit with your POV. Which is fine but hardly that reasonable when discussing how the game works in LOIs. All sorts of flukes can happen and I'm fine with that, so you do you and complain away I guess. It's not like I said the no ball call was perfectly fine.

I've seen enough of your posting here to know they're pretty accurate implications.

Going from bad to worse from you.

 

[Nintendo]

Nawaz bowled 2 high full tosses and multiple leg side wides when he had 16 to defend and only had to dart it in, not exactly Rauf's fault nawaz choked the final over.

 

[subshakerz]

This was the worst choke I saw from a Pakistan team until tonight.

 

[Bahnz]

How exactly is it "lazy" to allow runs off a deflection that no one expects, owes nothing to the batsman's skill and can go in literally any direction? Ridiculous post.

As far as I’m aware, the sequence of events you describe has never previously happened in a major ICC tournament, so really it was fairly unforeseeable.

 

[subshakerz]

You missed the point. Not being dismissed and getting a reward for completely missing the ball (even with the body) and getting a lucky deflection are not equivalent. If it was dead, and a dot ball, that's fair, you're not out but missed your chance.

I agree. It's quite silly that he should still get runs after getting bowled. Stupid rule but kudos to Kohli for being aware enough to exploit it.

 

[Starfighter]

I mean this just sounds like complaining for the sake of complaining because it doesn't fit with your POV. Which is fine but hardly that reasonable when discussing how the game works in LOIs. All sorts of flukes can happen and I'm fine with that, so you do you and complain away I guess. It's not like I said the no ball call was perfectly fine.

You aren't engaging with my argument. You're basically saying the laws are perfect (clearly they never needed the many revisions). I'm pointing out a scenario where regardless of the intent of a free hit the situation is clearly unfair on the fielding side as the batting team totally failed to utilise their skills without risk and were rewarded anyway. So the implication can be discussed and solutions found.

It's a really bad argument to say 'that's the way it works in LOI cricket'. The rule has been revised over time. For instance, until only a few years ago it applied only to front-foot no balls,.

As far as I’m aware, the sequence of events you describe has never previously happened in a major ICC tournament, so really it was fairly unforeseeable.

I've never heard of it happening either.

There's another point, which is the field can't be changed for free hit. So therefore, the game awareness in order to stop the potential deflection involves having the clairvoyance to know the bowler is going to bowl a no-ball and have the fielder in the correct position for said deflection that ball.

 

[subshakerz]

Nawaz bowled 2 high full tosses and multiple leg side wides when he had 16 to defend and only had to dart it in, not exactly Rauf's fault nawaz choked the final over.

Rauf should have bowled the last over. Far more confident in Rauf defending 10 runs than Nawaz defending 16. Major miscalculation by Babar and frankly its his fault in the first place that he saved a spinner until the final two.

 

[Spark]

That's the power of free hits in LOI cricket. Like the ball isn't dead in that scenario, so should people just not run out of solidarity with people baffled with the concept?

It's called game awareness. Ridiculous from you tbh to not expect it from players on the field.

Are the players meant to simply teleport once the ball hits the stumps? Turn into the Flash and cover the 20m required to get to the ball, which went in a yawning gap in the field, in an instant?

You can argue that it's just bad luck, the rule should remain as it is, fine. To call it lazy by the fielders when it deflects randomly into a gap and the batsman takes runs is ridiculous. By the standard every single run scored in the game of cricket is the result of laziness by the fielders.

 

[subshakerz]

You aren't engaging with my argument. You're basically saying the laws are perfect (clearly they never needed the many revisions). I'm pointing out a scenario where regardless of the intent of a free hit the situation is clearly unfair on the fielding side as the batting team totally failed to utilise their skills without risk and were rewarded anyway. So the implication can be discussed and solutions found.

Same issue with leg byes which should also be banned.

 

[Spark]

As far as I’m aware, the sequence of events you describe has never previously happened in a major ICC tournament, so really it was fairly unforeseeable.

Honestly I think it was just a straight up oversight by the guys making the rules, one of those weird edge cases that pops up every now and then which was never properly considered.

 

[honestbharani]

He's a very complex player

Mohammed Nawaz(i) does not quite have the same catch as 3.

 

[Starfighter]

Honestly I think it was just a straight up oversight by the guys making the rules, one of those weird edge cases that pops up every now and then which was never properly considered.

It's not the first time though. You get absolute farces like this, which make Kohli's game awareness seem like nothing:

 

[honestbharani]

The point of free hits is total safety from being dismissed by most forms of dismissals save those allowed on no balls (namely run outs, hitting the ball twice and obstructing the field). Can it be crucial in some situations, sure, but that's like any other rare cricketing event that laws cover. Not sure why this is such a big issue just because it offends sensibilities.

Nah mate.. it went our way this time and it was perfectly per the current laws but it does not mean the law itself is silly. A batsman has to face some penalty for missing a free hit ball, and the bowler has to get some credit for bowling a ball good enough to defeat the batsman and hit the stumps.

 

[Xix2565]

You aren't engaging with my argument. You're basically saying the laws are perfect (clearly they never needed the many revisions). I'm pointing out a scenario where regardless of the intent of a free hit the situation is clearly unfair on the fielding side as the batting team totally failed to utilise their skills without risk and were rewarded anyway. So the implication can be discussed and solutions found.

It's a really bad argument to say 'that's the way it works in LOI cricket'. The rule has been revised over time - until only a few years ago it applied only to front-foot no balls.

The initial error is on the fielding side for allowing the free hit in the first place by bowling a no ball, which in this match was dubious, and so I'm fine with the general imbalance free hits can offer. I like the power afforded in LOIs, and if there are revisions from this so be it.

Are the players meant to simply teleport once the ball hits the stumps? Turn into the Flash and cover the 20m required to get to the ball, which went in a yawning gap in the field, in an instant?

You can argue that it's just bad luck, the rule should remain as it is, fine. To call it lazy by the fielders when it deflects randomly into a gap and the batsman takes runs is ridiculous. By the standard every single run scored in the game of cricket is the result of laziness by the fielders.

Flukey stuff in cricket that involved no skills happens enough that I don't mind it even if on some occasions it hurts the teams I support. Today though it was lazy to not cut down the runs scored considering it went for 3.

Nah mate.. it went our way this time and it was perfectly per the current laws but it does not mean the law itself is silly. A batsman has to face some penalty for missing a free hit ball, and the bowler has to get some credit for bowling a ball good enough to defeat the batsman and hit the stumps.

Agree to disagree, I'm fine with the separation from Test cricket's version.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

I would simply calculate the precise angle the ball will deflect off the stumps and then run in that direction.