Hadlee-Chappell ODI 1.0 + 2.0 + dead rubber
-
-
-
@booboo said in Hadlee-Chappell ODI 1.0 + 2.0:
@NTA wasn't Miller v Jackson thw court case that established golfers have no obligation to hit the ball straight? Assume that would apply to cricket as well?
It was a cricket case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v_Jackson
The case is well known for the lyrical opening to Lord Denning's judgment, the first paragraph of which reads:
"In summertime village cricket is the delight of everyone. Nearly every village has its own cricket field where the young men play and the old men watch. In the village of Lintz in County Durham they have their own ground, where they have played these last 70 years. They tend it well. The wicket area is well rolled and mown. The outfield is kept short. It has a good club house for the players and seats for the onlookers. The village team play there on Saturdays and Sundays. They belong to a league, competing with the neighbouring villages. On other evenings after work they practise while the light lasts.
Yet now after these 70 years a judge of the High Court has ordered that they must not play there any more. He has issued an injunction to stop them. He has done it at the instance of a newcomer who is no lover of cricket. This newcomer has built, or has had built for him, a house on the edge of the cricket ground which four years ago was a field where cattle grazed. The animals did not mind the cricket.
But now this adjoining field has been turned into a housing estate. The newcomer bought one of the houses on the edge of the cricket ground. No doubt the open space was a selling point. Now he complains that when a batsman hits a six the ball has been known to land in his garden or on or near his house. His wife has got so upset about it that they always go out at week-ends. They do not go into the garden when cricket is being played. They say that this is intolerable. So they asked the judge to stop the cricket being played. And the judge, much against his will, has felt that he must order the cricket to be stopped: with the consequence, I suppose, that the Lintz Cricket Club will disappear.
The cricket ground will be turned to some other use. I expect for more houses or a factory. The young men will turn to other things instead of cricket. The whole village will be much the poorer. And all this because of a newcomer who has just bought a house there next to the cricket ground"
Quoted in honour of @Miller-V-Jackson
-
In terms of the outcome...
The Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on 6 April 1977. Geoffrey Lane and Cumming-Bruce LJJ held that there was a foreseeable risk of injury to the plaintiffs and their property from the cricket balls and the club could not prevent accidents from happening. The club was guilty of negligence "on each occasion when a ball comes over the fence and causes damage to the plaintiffs".[2] The repeated interference with their property was also held to be an actionable nuisance. Following Sturges v. Bridgman, the fact that the Millers had "come to the nuisance" was no defence. On that basis, the Millers were awarded damages. Lord Denning MR dissented from the finding of negligence and nuisance, holding that "the public interest should prevail over the private interest".[3] However, on the basis that the club had agreed to pay for any damage, Lord Denning was "content that there should be an award of £400 to cover any past or future damage".[3]
Geoffrey Lane LJ would have upheld the injunction. However, Lord Denning MR and Cumming-Bruce LJ held that damages were a sufficient remedy, holding that the discretionary equitable remedy of an injunction was not necessary. In the words of Cumming-Bruce LJ, the court had to "strike a fair balance between the right of the plaintiffs to have quiet enjoyment of their house and garden without exposure to cricket balls occasionally falling like thunderbolts from the heavens, and the opportunity of the inhabitants of the village in which they live to continue to enjoy the manly sport which constitutes a summer recreation for adults and young persons".[4] The Millers had bought a house with the benefit of an open space adjacent to their land, and had to accept that the innocent and lawful use of the open land could restrict the enjoyment of their garden.
It is notable that the court did not hold that holding cricket matches on the ground was negligent, per se; rather, there were separate negligent acts each time a ball left the ground.
Not long after the case, the Millers moved house
-
Currently on the bank at Cazaly's Stadium with @mariner4life after a slightly boozy lunch and a very boozy three days. This is quite tedious watching, especially in this heat...
-
@Smudge said in Hadlee-Chappell ODI 1.0 + 2.0 + dead rubber:
Currently on the bank at Cazaly's Stadium with @mariner4life after a slightly boozy lunch and a very boozy three days. This is quite tedious watching, especially in this heat...
we are not doing ourselves favours here. Australia are just too good for this current team,despite being led by someone so out of touch they're retiring.
-
@nzzp said in Hadlee-Chappell ODI 1.0 + 2.0 + dead rubber:
@Smudge said in Hadlee-Chappell ODI 1.0 + 2.0 + dead rubber:
Currently on the bank at Cazaly's Stadium with @mariner4life after a slightly boozy lunch and a very boozy three days. This is quite tedious watching, especially in this heat...
we are not doing ourselves favours here. Australia are just too good for this current team,despite being led by someone so out of touch they're retiring.
Especially with a modern legend and his slightly inferior clone at the crease.
-
@MN5 said in Hadlee-Chappell ODI 1.0 + 2.0 + dead rubber:
@nzzp said in Hadlee-Chappell ODI 1.0 + 2.0 + dead rubber:
@Smudge said in Hadlee-Chappell ODI 1.0 + 2.0 + dead rubber:
Currently on the bank at Cazaly's Stadium with @mariner4life after a slightly boozy lunch and a very boozy three days. This is quite tedious watching, especially in this heat...
we are not doing ourselves favours here. Australia are just too good for this current team,despite being led by someone so out of touch they're retiring.
Especially with a modern legend and his slightly inferior clone at the crease.
I just jinxed Loose bus change. Sweet, collapse on now.
-
-
@KiwiMurph said in Hadlee-Chappell ODI 1.0 + 2.0 + dead rubber:
Would be interested to know why Neesham has bowled 7 overs and Mitchell 2 overs.
I'm pleasantly surprised that Kane has even bowled Mitch at all...
-
@KiwiMurph said in Hadlee-Chappell ODI 1.0 + 2.0 + dead rubber:
Would be interested to know why Neesham has bowled 7 overs and Mitchell 2 overs.
Probably 69 wickets in 70 ODIs vs one wicket in nine ODIs…..but what would I know ?
-
@MN5 said in Hadlee-Chappell ODI 1.0 + 2.0 + dead rubber:
@KiwiMurph said in Hadlee-Chappell ODI 1.0 + 2.0 + dead rubber:
Would be interested to know why Neesham has bowled 7 overs and Mitchell 2 overs.
Probably 69 wickets in 70 ODIs vs one wicket in nine ODIs…..but what would I know ?
Yes Neesham's career ODI bowling average of 78 vs Aussies is just too good to ignore.....
-
@KiwiMurph said in Hadlee-Chappell ODI 1.0 + 2.0 + dead rubber:
@MN5 said in Hadlee-Chappell ODI 1.0 + 2.0 + dead rubber:
@KiwiMurph said in Hadlee-Chappell ODI 1.0 + 2.0 + dead rubber:
Would be interested to know why Neesham has bowled 7 overs and Mitchell 2 overs.
Probably 69 wickets in 70 ODIs vs one wicket in nine ODIs…..but what would I know ?
Yes Neesham's career ODI bowling average of 78 vs Aussies is just too good to ignore.....
At least he actually has an average vs the Aussies.
I’m sure the solitary wicket that Johns son got vs Scotland sent shock waves through the cricketing world.
-
-
@nzzp said in Hadlee-Chappell ODI 1.0 + 2.0 + dead rubber:
Well played Smith.
Going to take something special here for us to chase whatever they get to. We just don't seem to have the little extra bit of class to roll them when we get ahead in the game.
Conway due a big score surely ?
-
@MN5 said in Hadlee-Chappell ODI 1.0 + 2.0 + dead rubber:
@nzzp said in Hadlee-Chappell ODI 1.0 + 2.0 + dead rubber:
Well played Smith.
Going to take something special here for us to chase whatever they get to. We just don't seem to have the little extra bit of class to roll them when we get ahead in the game.
Conway due a big score surely ?
Australia are making this pitch look easy to bat on. I'm no tsure we'll do the same
