Terrible sportsmanship

[cnerd123]

If there were five runs to win it wouldn't have made any difference to the result but I should point out that according to Law 19.7.1 six runs can only be awarded if the ball has been struck by the bat.

****ing this

It wasn't a no ball six. It was a no ball + 4 byes. Can't get 6 byes because 6 can only be scored off the bat. By saying 6 no balls they are either implying 2 runs for the no ball, or the umpires did not know the law.

Both of which are unlikely, and in a case of a no ball + 4 byes, the batting team gets 5 runs, which according to the article, wins them the game ("5 runs to win").

The story is completely consistent with the laws. The only reason there is a debate is because of ****ing lazy journalism

 

[Engle]

Hmmm....get's one thinking about scenarios.

What if the bowler tampers with the ball in full view of the umpire (5 runs), bowls a wide no-ball (2 runs), hits the helmet on the ground (5 runs) which races to the boundary (4 runs) ?

Sure, he'll be a real jerk...but statistically what happens ?

 

[_Ed_]

Randiv did something very similar in an ODI once, to deny Sehwag a ton. He denied it being deliberate, but it clearly was.

EDIT: Already mentioned, my bad.

Symcox tried to do it to Astle in the '90s too - bowled a wide that went for four. But IIRC we still needed one to win and Astle was on 96, and he hit a four.

 

[Burgey]

****ing this

It wasn't a no ball six. It was a no ball + 4 byes. Can't get 6 byes because 6 can only be scored off the bat. By saying 6 no balls they are either implying 2 runs for the no ball, or the umpires did not know the law.

Both of which are unlikely, and in a case of a no ball + 4 byes, the batting team gets 5 runs, which according to the article, wins them the game ("5 runs to win").

The story is completely consistent with the laws. The only reason there is a debate is because of ****ing lazy journalism

Leave it to ***** to say in 500 words what someone else has already posted in 25.

 

[Starfighter]

or the umpires did not know the law.

Both of which are unlikely

Bollocks, experience dictates that the umpires not knowing a nuance of the law is actually quite likely.

 

[Bijed]

An update on the OP:

Club bowler banned for nine games after stopping batsman making maiden ton

 

[cnerd123]

Hmmm....get's one thinking about scenarios.

What if the bowler tampers with the ball in full view of the umpire (5 runs), bowls a wide no-ball (2 runs), hits the helmet on the ground (5 runs) which races to the boundary (4 runs) ?

Sure, he'll be a real jerk...but statistically what happens ?

5 penalty runs for tampering
Wide-no ball doesn't exist - it's either one or the other. 1 run
Ball is dead on hitting the helmet - 5 runs

 

[_Ed_]

Apparently Grant Bradburn did it to Mathew Sinclair in a first-class game too. WAC.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/crick...ir-slams-unsporting-shocker-and-calls-for-ban

 

[TheJediBrah]

Bollocks, experience dictates that the umpires not knowing a nuance of the law is actually quite likely.

Played a lower grade game once and the umpire turned down a few plum lbws, upon discussion found out the umpire believed that you couldn't be lbw if the ball pitched outside off. This batsman was hit plumb in front twice in an over. Actually got into a minor argument with the ump about it, basically he cracked the ****s that I questioned his knowledge said something along the lines of "I've been umpiring for 25 years and you can't be lbw if the ball pitches outside off". Can't put it down to dementia either he was only in his 40s or 50s.

Also relevant, the same game I was stuck on 93 or 94 not out chasing 200ish because the guy that came in at no. 4 also made 90-odd off about 50 balls and ****ed me over.

 

[Starfighter]

In last season's semis the umpires shorted our innings a whole over (in 45). There was even a four ball over at one point, and once I saw one of them click their counter over on a wide, and once signal two balls left when only three had gone. Of course when this was pointed out in the scorebook there were just threats made and 'I know how to count' (explain the scorebook then?). The opposition lost no deliveries and won in the last over. If you're getting paid to do something at least make sure you're competent at it.