Page 89 of 115 FirstFirst ... 39798687888990919299 ... LastLast
Results 881 to 890 of 1147
  1. #881
    Mama said knock you out. LlcoolJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sheffield
    Posts
    10,322


    2 Not allowed!
    Just been listening to the final hour on TMS. Absolutely superb from Aggers and co. He almost lost his voice at the end!

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00076y4
    "I never mentioned horses!"

    • North Stand Chat

      advertising
      Join Date: Jul 2003
      Posts: Lots

        


    • #882
      Resident pedant Triggaaar's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2005
      Location
      Goldstone
      Posts
      42,174


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Audax View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      The rule clearly states it does matter.
      They do not.
      For a run to count, the batsmen *must* have crossed at the point the throw (or willful act) occurred.
      If it said that, we'd be in agreement. But it doesn't say that. It does not say 'wilful act'.
      Thank you Chris, you're a legend.
    • #883
      Brain dead MUG SHEEP Easy 10's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Location
      Location Location
      Posts
      54,555


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Triggaaar View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      I just hope you accept that everyone (in each team) knew that's how it would be done before the start of the match, and it didn't favour one side over the other.
      I bet they didn't.
      "But you accept that there is an increased risk of vehicle/bat collision"
    • #884
      Resident pedant Triggaaar's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2005
      Location
      Goldstone
      Posts
      42,174


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Easy 10 View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      I bet they didn't.
      Well no, you're right, they didn't all know But they should have. There would certainly be people in the team (not just the on-field 11) whose job it is to know and understand the rules, and the team (as a whole) has gone into the competition knowing the deal.
      Thank you Chris, you're a legend.
    • #885

      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Triggaaar View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      It doesn't actually say that. It says 'the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act', but it doesn't clarify whether it means the act that caused the ball to go to the boundary, or whether the act can only mean a wilful act.
      Are you being deliberately obtuse here? The law starts out by clearly stipulating "willful act". It subsequently uses the word "act" without using "willful", but it clearly in the phrasing is referring back to the original statement that opens the law. From the MCC Law 19 "Boundaries" (https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws/boundaries):

      19.8 Overthrow or wilful act of fielder

      If the boundary [1] results from an overthrow [2] or from the wilful act [3] of a fielder [4], the runs scored shall be

      any runs for penalties awarded to either side

      and the allowance for the boundary

      and the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had

      already crossed at the instant of the throw or act [5].

      Law 18.12.2 (Batsman returning to wicket he/she has left) shall apply as from the instant of the throw or act.
      [1] - The law is only activated in the event of a boundary.

      [2] - The law is activated in the event of overthrows; or

      [3] - The law is activated in the event of a willful act.

      [4] - In situation [3], it is only activated if the willful act was by a fielder.

      [5] - This text is only considered once the law has been activated. As such, the reference to an "act" here is blatantly referring to the willful act I've cited at [3], as no other act can trigger the rule.


      It is therefore blindingly obvious that the ball deflecting from Stokes' bat is completely irrelevant for the purposes of this law.

      More importantly still, in this instance the references to an "act" are irrelevant, as we are dealing with the subset of the the law that deals with "overthrows" and "throws". In the instance we saw on the weekend, the law is more simply read as follows:

      19.8 Overthrow

      If the boundary results from an overthrow, the runs scored shall be

      any runs for penalties awarded to either side

      and the allowance for the boundary

      and the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had

      already crossed at the instant of the throw.

      Law 18.12.2 (Batsman returning to wicket he/she has left) shall apply as from the instant of the throw.
      Last edited by Audax; 15-07-2019 at 17:04.
    • #886

      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Triggaaar View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      If that is the accepted interpretation amongst umpires, then fair enough. If that is the case, can you provide examples of where this has been ruled on before?
      I am speculating that it is the accepted interpretation, primarily because a) Taufel is a very well respected umpire, and b) Taufel is part of the MCC laws sub-committee, which makes anything he says on this matter *very* pertinent. If it's not the accepted interpretation amongst umpires, then I'm sure we'll hear from other umpires to dispute his statement.

      I can't cite any examples as it is a rather rare occurrence, and normally happens where the outcome is clear cut or where scrutiny is avoided because the event hasn't occurred at a crucial juncture in a match.


      So you're saying the fielding side would need to be a bit more subtle about it.
      A lot more subtle.

      On a related note - I have previously seen fielding sides deliberately allow a ball to reach the boundary, in order to ensure the striker remains off-strike for the next over (knowing that they would then get a crack at a lower order bunny). That, however, is not considered unfair play, nor is it considered to trigger the law in question here (it doesn't consider a willful non-act).
    • #887
      Resident pedant Triggaaar's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2005
      Location
      Goldstone
      Posts
      42,174


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Audax View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      Are you being deliberately obtuse here?
      When struggling with your argument, resort to insults. Good plan.
      The law starts out by clearly stipulating "willful act". It subsequently uses the word "act" without using "willful", but it clearly in the phrasing is referring back to the original statement that opens the law.
      I disagree. It's certainly not clear, but regardless, there's another, much more important, point that goes against you anyway:

      "and the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act [5]."

      The second part of that is what you're discussing (whether they had crossed at the instant...). The first part is 'runs completed by the batsmen'. That first part does not include the caveat of 'at the instant of the throw or act'.

      The ball is dead when the ball hits the boundary. At that point, the batsmen had completed 2 runs. You add those, plus any runs that were in progress if they had already crossed etc etc. If it was intended to only include runs that were completed before the throw (which would be ludicrous), then it would not separate the completed runs from the runs in progress, as it has.
      Thank you Chris, you're a legend.
    • #888
      Resident pedant Triggaaar's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2005
      Location
      Goldstone
      Posts
      42,174


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Audax View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      I am speculating that it is the accepted interpretation, primarily because a) Taufel is a very well respected umpire
      As are the umpires that made the decision in this game.

      I can't cite any examples as it is a rather rare occurrence, and normally happens where the outcome is clear cut or where scrutiny is avoided because the event hasn't occurred at a crucial juncture in a match.
      It's so rare that we don't yet (others will have discussed this online etc) have a single example to hand. That suggests that it's not actually an accepted interpretation at all, because it's just never discussed, and barely ever happens.
      Thank you Chris, you're a legend.
    • #889
      Members Weststander's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2011
      Location
      Withdean area
      Posts
      26,488


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by LlcoolJ View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      Just been listening to the final hour on TMS. Absolutely superb from Aggers and co. He almost lost his voice at the end!

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00076y4
      I listened to them for a bit post match. Phil Tufnell stood out as charming, intelligent, and yet still a great laugh. Especially when Alec Stewart and a Kiwi (Jeremy Coney?) started bickering a little about the rules, Tufnell stepped in with wit.

      The commentary on the winning moment gives goosebumps.
    • #890
      Members Bevendean Hillbilly's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2006
      Location
      Nestling in green nowhere
      Posts
      12,493


      0 Not allowed!
      The real point is that, across the acres available at Lords, that the fielder managed to pick out Stokes’ bat at 100 yards.

      Providence? Yes...will I take it? ...yes. Was it in the rules that something that flukey would EVER happen? No.

      Edit: but it is now.
      I've killed women and children. I've killed everything that walks or crawls at one time or another. And I'm here to kill you, Little Bill Archer, for what you done to The Seagulls.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •