T20 World Cup - Other Matches
-
@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.
-
@No-Quarter said in T20 World Cup:
@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.
The problem was with the amateur / semi-pro era and all these no ball deliveries were snagging wickets and weren’t getting called. Then there was the debacle period when bowlers were bowling consecutive no balls in both test and ODI’s without much disincentive to it other than conceding one run. There has to be a strong disincentive for it in my view and perhaps it’s removing the free hit and making it worth 2 runs. A bit like when penalties in rugby went from 2 to 3 points way back in the day.
-
-
-
Just watched another replay of that Maxwell hit and he is a very lucky boy. He copped a sharp shortish ball that was rising and it slightly hit his glove/handle and went into his neck when he slightly turned his head.
