T20 World Cup - Other Matches
-
By the logic applied in this case the ball is never dead until back in the bowler’s or keepers hands.
Does that mean that if caught you can continue running until the ball is thrown back?
I guess it does as I think I have seen that before. If you catch it you throw it back immediately. -
-
@Bones said in T20 World Cup:
@Kruse said in T20 World Cup:
If you're taking the piss taking runs that aren't there - run-outs still apply
They do.
Yes. Understood... just rounding out how I believe the rules/laws should be.. including the ones that already exist.
-
Not a bad innings in the end by Sri Lanka. Was a pretty slow start but that final over of 20 was excellent.
So OZ need 158.
Now Fernando has pulled up lame after 5 balls in the first over and leaves the field.
-
Warner gone from a great catch.
Now Marsh looking very dicey.
-
Finch jumping all over the show and not scoring.
RR up to 9+ now. Pressure is on the Aussies.
-
Marsh goneski and in comes Big Show.
2/66 off 9
-
Big Show goes bang bang. He’s raced to 22 off 6 balls.
Oz getting that required rate back down
-
Drama filled.
The bounce has caused some major issues and Maxwell cops one in the neck under the grill. Very lucky.
Sri Lanka drops another catch (the third drop).
Sri Lanka takes a catch right on the boundary line after an effortless pull shot by Maxwell.
Game on
-
Finch gets a move on and Oz end up winning by 7 wickets with 20 balls to spare.
-
I was half asleep at the death and forgot to press post with my Stoinis post. Man that was some brutal hitting. As good as Gilly’s 50 off 17.
-
@Kruse said in T20 World Cup:
I think I'm with @voodoo on this one.
A free hit should be....- You can't get out (from bowled/caught/stumping)
- But... if you DO get bowled/caught/stumping - no runs
- If you're taking the piss taking runs that aren't there - run-outs still apply
Simples? Surely?
Still this is cricket however - a game in which if it looks like the ball is heading towards the stumps, but does not hit the stumps as it hits a part of the batter instead then via the use of the umpires imagination they can determine if the ball would have hit the stumps they did not hit in order to give the batter out.
Because via the use of their all powerful imagination they can determine that the ball would have hit the stumps that the ball did not hit.
Furthermore however there are certain situations that the umpire is not allowed to use their imagination to determine if the ball would have hit the stumps they did not hit, regardless of whether in their imagination they would have thought it did. For example a ball is never capable of hitting the stumps should it pitch outside leg stump, or if the batter plays a shot and the ball hits the batter outside off stump. No matter how much their imagination tells them the ball would have hit the stumps they can't give the batter out.
However if the batter doesn't play a shot, well, all they need to determine in their imagination was if the ball was going to hit the stumps it did not hit because the batter got in the way.
Rules put in place to ensure that unnecessary doubt in the process was done away with I'm sure.
Also did I mention that if it hits the batters hands then the umpire isn't allowed to use their imagination to determine if the ball that did not hit the stumps would have hit the stumps as their hands are considered to be part of the bat they're holding.
For this reason it's called the LBW (leg before wicket rule) though in reality the ball can hit any body appendage (chest, head, torso, swinging dongle) as well as the legs, however excluding the hands which are part of the bat.
It really should be called the "every other body part excluding the hands before wicket rule" but using far to many letters in a acronym is simply confusing.
I do hope I've explained myself adequately here.
-
@Windows97 said in T20 World Cup:
It really should be called the "every other body part excluding the hands before wicket rule" but using far to many letters in a acronym is simply confusing.
an initialism
-
Free hits are stupid. Kiddy cricket. Should just stop there, but ...
Voodoo's point about the nonsensical nature of scoring in act of being 'dismissed' is valid.
Scoring runs from an act of normal dismissal during a free hit is just retarded. justified because .... because you are punishing a bowler for not being good enough the ball before. Doing this by rewarding a batsman for being not good enough this ball.
Mental non-logic.
-
@Rapido agree I've never liked the "free hit" rule, definitely feels like kiddy cricket trying to discourage no-balls as much as possible, has no place in the professional game.
