Cricket

There must be more to life than football?
User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14773
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Cricket

Post by mrblackbat » Thu Jun 05, 2014 2:00 pm

Again though, I agree with Atherton; if you don't want to be run out, stay in your crease.

Also, I saw the warnings, they were pretty clear when you were watching the game. Zero sympathy with Buttler and with England.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14773
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Cricket

Post by mrblackbat » Thu Jun 05, 2014 2:07 pm

Rover the Top wrote:I don't think it's as simple as that. Were the warnings fair? Sri Lanka said they made two, Sky only showed one, and I'd have to see it again to check where Buttler actually was at the point where Senanayake would have bowled. The problem I have with the actual run out was that Senanayake aborted his bowling routine before Buttler left the crease. It's one thing to complain about a batsman being a couple of paces down the wicket by the time you've released the ball, another to run someone out because he's timed setting off expecting you to go through with your bowling action. At what point does warning someone go from being a legitimate gripe to being a tactic to slow a batsman down by making him wait to make sure you are playing the game properly? The Sri Lankans have said they did it because they were unhappy with the number of 2s they'd conceded in the previous game - it was a preconceived plan rather than a reaction. As I've said, my issue with it is not with the use of the rule, but with them running in with no intention to bowl. Something they've done before.
I've just looked at the video again, Senanayake isn't even close to having his front foot planted when Buttler is out the crease on both occasions. Which is the point of the rule that states that so long as the bowler hasn't completed his delivery swing; in fact I think it would still count under the old rule regarding being before the delivery stride. Buttler was being dozy.

As for the arguments that all batsmen do it, which is bandied about all over the place, well there are plenty of things the "all" sportsman do that aren't right, such as shirt pulling etc in football. Perhaps we should go back to having the batsman stay in his crease until after the bowler has bowled; seems the point of the crease to me anyway.... :shrug:

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27170
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Cricket

Post by Rover the Top » Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:20 pm

Senanayake never planted his front foot, completed his delivery swing, entered his delivery stride. That's my point. The wording of the rule becomes a bit meaningless, because he didn't go through a normal bowling action. He got to the point where he should have bowled and stopped as he was watching Buttler:

Image

So what would have happened if Buttler was a bit more alert and noticed Senanayake stop?

User avatar
Ethiaa
Site Admin
Posts: 13614
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:22 am
Location: Preston
Contact:

Re: Cricket

Post by Ethiaa » Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:36 pm

He plants his front foot. But that's it.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27170
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Cricket

Post by Rover the Top » Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:45 pm

Ethiaa wrote:He plants his front foot. But that's it.
So as not to fall over, not part of a bowling action. I might be less annoyed by it if he'd hopped up to the stumps... :yeahright:

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14773
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Cricket

Post by mrblackbat » Fri Jun 06, 2014 8:12 am

Of course he doesn't complete his bowling action, if he did he wouldn't be allowed to run him out by the rules and also by the fact he'd have bowled..... :shrug:

He looked to me like he was going to bowl, then pulled out of it because Buttler's wandered off.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27170
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Cricket

Post by Rover the Top » Fri Jun 06, 2014 8:51 am

Disagree entirely. He's not looking where he's bowling at the point where he should start his "delivery swing", he looks across at Buttler. And Buttler still has his bat in his crease at that point. Moments later he's left his ground, but by that point Senanayake has already decided not to bowl, it's impossible for him to resume his action even if Buttler isn't being dopey. Now maybe you'd prefer a game where once or twice every over, the bowler runs in and instead of bowling, has a look to see whether the non-striker has set off a fraction of a second early. Personally I think that would be tedious and was glad that England just got on with playing properly. For me it's like the run out Collingwood upheld when the New Zealand batsman collided with the bowler. By the rules, it was out. But in terms of sportsmanship, it was a crappy thing to do. I hope it comes back to bite the Sri Lankans hard.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14773
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Cricket

Post by mrblackbat » Fri Jun 06, 2014 8:55 am

I disagree. Butler's already out as he's about to enter his stride. And having seen him do it previously, as a bowler, I'd be looking for it to.

Your sportsmanship argument would hold for me if it was the first time it had happened, but it wasn't it was the third. The argument seems to be that it's perfectly fine to leave your crease because it's bad form for the bowler to apply the rules and get you out. Fine for a first infringement, ridiculous on a third. The whole point of the crease is you're supposed to be in it if you don't want to be run out, it's up to the batsman to pay attention to that, and if a bowler applies the rules and you get run out, it's your own fault.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27170
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Cricket

Post by Rover the Top » Fri Jun 06, 2014 9:49 am

Fine, you disagree. I don't think "rules is rules" is the be all and end all. I didn't enjoy us scoring a penalty when Rochina dived at Wolves last year. I didn't enjoy us scoring when Diouf took out Schwarzer. I was glad England didn't benefit in the long run from Collingwood's poor judgement. Sure, Buttler was stupid to fall into the trap knowing they were looking for it. But that doesn't mean Sri Lanka are not guilty of playing against the "spirit of the game". I don't like what they did, I sincerely hope it's a one-off rather than a tactic other teams are going to adopt.

User avatar
Gibbon
Promising manager
Posts: 17961
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:54 am
Location: Location: Location
Contact:

Re: Cricket

Post by Gibbon » Fri Jun 06, 2014 9:53 am

Rover the Top wrote:Fine, you disagree. I don't think "rules is rules" is the be all and end all. I didn't enjoy us scoring a penalty when Rochina dived at Wolves last year. I didn't enjoy us scoring when Diouf took out Schwarzer.
Weren't the acts in those two examples AGAINST the rules? The fact they went unpunished doesn't change that.

Or am I doing that thing I'm prone to, where I haven't got time to read an entire conversation, come in at the end and get the wrong end of the stick? :lol:

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27170
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Cricket

Post by Rover the Top » Fri Jun 06, 2014 10:41 am

Whilst I thought both acts were unsporting and should have resulted in freekicks given against us, the referee's opinion (all that counts) was not to punish them, and it's not against the rules to then score a goal.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14773
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Cricket

Post by mrblackbat » Fri Jun 06, 2014 11:36 am

No, your comparisons don't stand up at all. The analogy for that in cricket would be someone claiming a catch that touched the ground; or possibly a batsman standing his ground after knowingly caught an edge and waiting for the umpire to give a decision.

In this case, there were no rules broken at all and no ambiguity about whether the decision was correct; the only case is an argument around sporting conduct, of which I believe Sri Lanka had already shown by not running Buttler out the first two times.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27170
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Cricket

Post by Rover the Top » Fri Jun 06, 2014 11:57 am

The comparisons stand up perfectly well, particularly the Collingwood one. I made the comparison earlier to goals scored when the ball is expected to be given back to the opposition after an injury - no rules are broken, but everyone knows it's wrong to do it, and usually something is done to make amends. You just don't want to accept the point, because you're determined not to give an inch. Even though I'm sure that deep down you know what a farce the game would become if there were dozens of dead balls in every innings because it became the norm for bowlers to look for potential run out opportunities instead of bowling.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14773
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Cricket

Post by mrblackbat » Fri Jun 06, 2014 11:59 am

No I'm not going to accept the point because I don't think Sri Lanka did anything wrong. They gave Buttler fair chance on two prior occasions and he didn't pay heed. So they ran him out.

Has fat all to do with not wanting to give an inch.... :doh:

As for it becoming a farce, well they changed the rule to the current one because it was becoming a farce at how much ground the non striker could steal "backing up".

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27170
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Cricket

Post by Rover the Top » Fri Jun 06, 2014 9:13 pm

Lancs at it now... :roll:

Post Reply