**"Official" **South Africa vs Pakistan : April 2021 ( white ball)

[honestbharani]

Well yeah but "on the level of English cricket journos" is not a standard the rest of us should be holding ourselves to.

The scary part is it is a level higher than that of Michael Vaughan's.

 

[Spark]

The scary part is it is a level higher than that of Michael Vaughan's.

I'm including him in that group ftr. But yes it is something to see them go "oh ho ho what a clever piece of gamesmanship" when if it had been, say, Steve Smith or Marnus Labuschagne (who has form in that regard) it probably would have been back page of tomorrow's Daily Mail.

I don't think it's a big deal though. The stuff-up is on the umpires here, there's a perfectly good and well-written law to cover this situation and they've just... not used it.

 

[slippy888]

England still moaning about pitches i see good

 

[theegyptian]

Do you guys have a crush on England? Came to the thread to read about Fakhar and all I get is a load of chat about England.

 

[honestbharani]

That was such an interesting knock.. He got to 50 off 40 balls or something. Then was on 60 off 80 odd balls and then finished up with 190 off 155 balls or something.

A lot of good shots, a lot of good luck and a LOT of entertainment. Very poor captaincy showing by Bavuma though, has to be said. Did not look calm enough under pressure and decision making was a bit all over the place. Hopefully he learns quickly.

Also was very interesting to see how less involved he was when Markram was bowling. It was basically RvD, Markram and QdK setting the field and discussing etc. Wonder if they are just giving this current cycle to Elgar and Bavuma while Markram finds his feet in international cricket. Will pull the plug on both reigns and hand over to him for the next cycles, I feel.

 

[artvandalay]

Yea i gotta say i don't know him but i don't look at bavuma and think he should be captaining in any format of the game. Maybe he shall grow into the role because that seemed to affect De Kock too. He didn't set the right fields or make the right changes today and got nervous at the end when it could have been avoided easily.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

That fakeout was legit great, shouldn't be illegal imo

 

[vandem]

Yea i gotta say i don't know him but i don't look at bavuma and think he should be captaining in any format of the game. Maybe he shall grow into the role because that seemed to affect De Kock too. He didn't set the right fields or make the right changes today and got nervous at the end when it could have been avoided easily.

Bavuma did the right thing in post-match media and acknowledged that de Kock did it deliberately " Yeah it was clever from Quinny. " .... but then showed that he doesn't know rules by saying " I don't think he broke the rules in any kind of way".

It would be a little sad if it backfires on him in a Collingwood kind of way, but you need your captain to at least get briefed on the rules about a controversial incident before facing the media.

 

[Noumenon]

No laws were broken. Some of you here and elsewhere on social media are overreading what 'deceive' means in that quoted rule.

 

[vandem]

No laws were broken. Some of you here and elsewhere on social media are overreading what 'deceive' means in that quoted rule.

41.5 ??? Which I think was introduced after fake fielding was becoming more common (e.g. ring fielder sliding towards ball, then fakes to throw after ball has passed fielder and is heading into outfield, but fielder's body has obscured batsman's view of the ball).

 

[vandem]

I will add that the gamesmanship was clever. I was on the end of a similar piece playing hockey once, defensive free hit, I moved up to take the push/hit quickly and my eyes were scanning for teammates forward and right, then heard a voice to my left saying "square pass", so I pushed the ball about 10 metres square left without looking ... straight to an attacker who had made the call and now had a 1-1 with the goalie. Cunning.

 

[honestbharani]

The play by QdK was fine before the new change to the fake fielding law. Now that it is there, he is in clear violation of it. although I can see how he can get away with it if it became like a court room argument.

 

[artvandalay]

i gotta say though real time it was hard for me to tell that he was trying to deceive the batsman there and it can't always be that easy to prove that it happened deliberately in such a situation. As the runner though you try and get into the crease asap, not look behind you to see where the ball has gone and just jog slowly.

 

[Noumenon]

41.5 ??? Which I think was introduced after fake fielding was becoming more common (e.g. ring fielder sliding towards ball, then fakes to throw after ball has passed fielder and is heading into outfield, but fielder's body has obscured batsman's view of the ball).

That would be a terrible thing to penalize. Fielders often run hard and collect and throw from muscle memory. Even when they miss collecting the ball. Are you telling me a batsman can legit call himself deceived by this simply because the fielder's body prevented him from seeing the ball?

 

[Noumenon]

The play by QdK was fine before the new change to the fake fielding law. Now that it is there, he is in clear violation of it. although I can see how he can get away with it if it became like a court room argument.

If it became a court room argument, the outraging party would be laughed out of the court with a penalty for frivolous petition.

 

[Spikey]

gee thanks for the input mcc

The Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) has weighed in on Fakhar Zaman's contentious run-out on Sunday night in the second ODI against South Africa, saying it was "up to the umpires to decide" if Quinton de Kock had attempted to distract or deceive the batsman.

The de Kock-Fakhar affair: MCC says 'up to the umpires to decide' if act was wilful

The debate is whether de Kock was trying to deceive the batsman or signalling to his team-mates

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[Dendarii]

I don't know if it was in De Kock's mind when he did it, but it was highly unlikely the umpires were ever going to pick up on it. Watching the replay makes it clear that he was still pointing after the ball had been thrown, but that's not something the umpires would have been looking out for, and I don't know if it would have even been possible for either of the umpires to have both Markram and De Kock in their field of vision from where they were standing. And even if they'd suspected that maybe something fishy was going on, for the third umpire to conclusively prove it he would need to be able to sync multiple cameras, which I doubt he's set up to do and may go beyond any protocol.

 

[vandem]

i gotta say though real time it was hard for me to tell that he was trying to deceive the batsman there and it can't always be that easy to prove that it happened deliberately in such a situation....

There are replays. Umpires can use them to judge the intentions of players - see recent obstructing the field incident WI vs SL.

The South African captain said "Yeah it was clever from Quinny " after the game, which to me means he thinks de Kocks actions were deliberate. Obviously he wasn't going to suggest that to the umpires in real time.

So well done to de Kock for pulling a swifty.

Not well done for Bavuma to admit then try and defend.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah, even I was not thinking that he was doing it deliberately when watching live. But it only took 1 replay for me to figure out it was indeed deliberate. Don't see why the 3rd umpire wont have come to the same conclusion.

The hand pointing to the bowler AFTER the throw had come in was definitely the clincher for me.

 

[Dendarii]

The hand pointing to the bowler AFTER the throw had come in was definitely the clincher for me.

And by the reaction of other South African players, they also knew what had just happened as it wasn't just a standard response to a wicket falling.