peasy23 Posted July 2, 2023 Share Posted July 2, 2023 36 minutes ago, Bully Wee Villa said: You can't bowl more than one bouncer per over under the current rules. I'm sure it's one in T20 and two in all other forms of the game, but a short ball only counts as a bouncer if it passes the batsman above shoulder height. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bully Wee Villa Posted July 2, 2023 Share Posted July 2, 2023 Ah, sorry. Missed the distinction between test and limited overs cricket. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB1994 Posted July 2, 2023 Share Posted July 2, 2023 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
die hard doonhamer Posted July 2, 2023 Share Posted July 2, 2023 Both of the ‘controversial’ incidents in the past 2 days are complete non-issues, as far as I’m concerned, and the correct decision was arrived at both times. If Carey fucks that up and the ball flies in to no-man’s-land, England would absolutely have been looking for the run. It’s out, end of. Having said that, huge fan of Broad’s shitehousery in the aftermath. Lovely stuff. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Khaki Posted July 2, 2023 Share Posted July 2, 2023 51 minutes ago, die hard doonhamer said: Both of the ‘controversial’ incidents in the past 2 days are complete non-issues, as far as I’m concerned, and the correct decision was arrived at both times. If Carey fucks that up and the ball flies in to no-man’s-land, England would absolutely have been looking for the run. It’s out, end of. Having said that, huge fan of Broad’s shitehousery in the aftermath. Lovely stuff. That's an important point, and I agree with you. They can't argue the players had decided the ball dead because they absolutely would have looked to scamper overthrows had it gone down to Long Off or something, and I don't think the Umps would have waived it dead had that happened either. The only possible defence I can see is if the Bowler's end Ump has declared 'over' as the ball passed Bairstow's stumps on the way to Carey, as that's the timeframe in which Bairstow could have conceivably concluded he was free to wander out of his ground, but I doubt very much that happened because the ball really should be in the keepers' gloves before the Ump even considers declaring the over bowled, and in reality, it shouldn't be declared until the keeper is up out of his stance and looking to cycle the ball to a team mate, and neither batsman is attempting to run. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibsFan Posted July 3, 2023 Share Posted July 3, 2023 4 hours ago, Boo Khaki said: I really don't understand where the ire at the Aussies is coming from because it's entirely Bairstow's own intransigence that has led to this. The ire comes from the wee guy English sporting mentality that means anything questionable that they do is 'intelligent, clever play' (see also: Harry Kane's diving) whilst anything that Johnny Foreigner does to get one over on England is an affront to the King himself. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btb Posted July 3, 2023 Share Posted July 3, 2023 Looked like there was a lot more than 3 MCC members gathered to abuse the Aussies in the Long Room at the start of Tea yesterday. *************** On the playing front is it possible that Jonny Bairstow's leg break has affected his ability to stand for periods required in Test Matches? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScarf Posted July 3, 2023 Share Posted July 3, 2023 They can never just accept defeat these cunts, can they? Football, F1, Cricket. They gurn like fuck whenever they lose a Rugby match too. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuctifano Posted July 3, 2023 Share Posted July 3, 2023 19 hours ago, Fuctifano said: I've ignored washout and no result scenarios in this as it hasn't affected the tournament so far. Of course it's now rain stopped play in Netherlands vs Oman While a washout here would be a tremendous result for us, quick check of the forecast suggests it's not likely to last. Forecast for tomorrow is dry which is good as washout tomorrow is less good for us. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swarley Posted July 3, 2023 Share Posted July 3, 2023 Fair to say the Australian viewpoint centres entirely around the whinging Poms whinging as usual. DHD's point about if the ball missed the stumps then England would have tried for a run is a great one. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
printer Posted July 3, 2023 Share Posted July 3, 2023 15 hours ago, Bully Wee Villa said: You can't bowl more than one bouncer per over under the current rules. How many can you bowl within the spirit of the rules? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasy23 Posted July 3, 2023 Share Posted July 3, 2023 Watching it back none of the commentary team or pundits had an issue with the dismissal at the time, it was all about how careless Bairstow was to wander out of his crease. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuctifano Posted July 3, 2023 Share Posted July 3, 2023 Netherlands have set Oman 363 to win so looks quite likely we have to win both games now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasy23 Posted July 3, 2023 Share Posted July 3, 2023 Was a big finish from the Dutch, added 80 runs or so in the last 8 overs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bully Wee Villa Posted July 3, 2023 Share Posted July 3, 2023 Thanks a fucking lot Oman, twats. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted July 3, 2023 Share Posted July 3, 2023 I don’t know much about cricket, but I watched that ‘controversial’ Bairstow incident, and my limited cricket knowledge tells me that Bairstow made a kunt of the situation, while the Aussie wicket keeper acted quickly. What transpired afterwards seems to me to be the English getting their knickers in a twist over something that was their own fault, and not Aussie shenanigans. What maybe really upset the English chaps is that certainly, the Aussie cricket team can, and sometimes do, indulge in shenanigans and are a somewhat arrogant bunch of kunts in general. Looks like you put two sets of kunts together, and unsurprisingly, you end up with kuntery. I know little about cricket though, so I may have called this one wrong. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuctifano Posted July 3, 2023 Share Posted July 3, 2023 Netherlands won by 70 ish runs on DLS but they haven't overtaken us on NRR. Must win tomorrow, which will probably be our hardest game outside Sri Lanka, but if we do then it does leave a small window where we can lose to the Netherlands and still qualify. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingswellsRed Posted July 3, 2023 Share Posted July 3, 2023 What I find interesting is that almost everyone considers mankading completely unacceptable while yesterday’s incident has generally been seen as ok. I have always thought a mankade is perfectly justified, particularly in T20 when batsmen are trying to cheat and it can have a crucial impact on the result. Yesterday I am less sure about as even the umpires had started their walk and there was clearly no intention to gain any advantage. Having said that, I don’t blame the Aussies taking the wicket. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonD Posted July 3, 2023 Share Posted July 3, 2023 If the umpires had started their walk, indicating that the ball was dead, then why did they give Bairstow out? Conversely, if they did give him out, then they felt the ball wasn't dead. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB1994 Posted July 3, 2023 Share Posted July 3, 2023 2 hours ago, GordonD said: If the umpires had started their walk, indicating that the ball was dead, then why did they give Bairstow out? Conversely, if they did give him out, then they felt the ball wasn't dead. I don’t think the on-field umpires did give him out? It seemed to go straight to a review from the third umpire, who didn’t have much choice but to give him out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.