• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

***Official*** India in South Africa

Dravid

Dravid

International Captain
Dravid and Ganguly our doing good to fight it out. Just bat out this session, get 150+..hopefully around 170, and then just go on an all out attack after tea.

About the time out thing, here is what I feel.

Even if the players were not informed, the team should have at least two batsman with their pads on at all times, and this kind of crap shouldn't be taken that Ganguly was putting on his pads all that time because Sachin come out. I'm an Indian supporter, and even I feel Ganguly got away with that one. Be it the umpires fault or not that they didn't tell you about the time, two guys should always have their pads on.

If saf were to appeal for this, I wouldn't have been surprised that they gave it not out, because the umpires are horrible. They already have 20 bad decisions, and if the batsman is timed out, they should give him out, not add another bad decision to their account.
 
adharcric

adharcric

International Coach
FaaipDeOiad said:
I probably phrased that badly. What I mean is, I think it's reasonable that a batsman not be given out on the time rule if there's been an actual interruption to play that has stopped the batsman from being ready. The three minutes obviously refers to three minutes of active time in the match, and if the game is held up by something you can't be out timed out. Just not knowing that you were meant to be out there isn't anybody's fault but India's and the umpires' for not informing them that Tendulkar couldn't bat. So if there's an appeal, it's out, and Harper shouldn't have been telling them not to appeal so he didn't have to make the decision.

Obviously India would have every right to be upset with the umpires, but that's not the issue.
Click to expand...
By the rules, it wouldn't be India's fault at all. Furthermore, the umpires effectively held up play by providing the information (too late) at that crucial juncture.
 
Slow Love™

Slow Love™

International Captain
silentstriker said:
Lets assume SA appeals, should umpires give them out if the only reason the batsman is not out there is the umpires' fault?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know what you are saying, and morally I agree. I just felt uncomfortable seeing an umpire telling a team that he'd turn down an appeal when the conditions for the dismissal are satisfied - it then should probably shift to a matter of South Africa being sporting or unsporting as far as I can tell, but it feels wrong to me that an umpire would say that, like he's gone beyond his station. Like I said, I don't mind a suggestion, for the sake of the spirit of the game. It might seem strange, but maybe it would be better to say nothing, let the South Africans appeal, and then make his decision and explain it. It's the implication that he's in effect, discouraging the South Africans from appealing that bothers me.

Ultimately though, IMO, the result IS fair, providing this was the sole responsibility of the umpires, and I generally prefer common sense to prevail where a situation where a situation is unprecedented (as this one appears to be). It'll be interesting seeing how it all gets interpreted with the passage of time.
 
Slow Love™

Slow Love™

International Captain
FaaipDeOiad said:
That doesn't really have anything to do with it IMO. If a batsman isn't out there in three minutes and there's an appeal, it should be out, unless there's genuine extenuating circumstances like the batsman has been flattened by the drinks cart or crowd violence something. Obviously the umpires seem to have stuffed up with the info regarding Tendulkar, but I don't like them being unwilling to enforce the rules because it will make them look bad at all.
Click to expand...
That's where adharcric and SS are probably right - you've given extenuating circumstances there that you would make allowances for (in terms of it not being out), but to my knowledge, the rules don't allow for any extenuating circumstances. So we're all essentially acknowledging that common sense should override being a rule nazi where the consequences would be demonstrably unfair. I can't help feeling that Harper could have been more careful with his language though.
 
FaaipDeOiad

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Slow Love™;1031152 said:
That's where adharcric and SS are probably right - you've given extenuating circumstances there that you would make allowances for (in terms of it not being out), but to my knowledge, the rules don't allow for any extenuating circumstances. So we're all essentially acknowledging that common sense should override being a rule nazi where the consequences would be demonstrably unfair. I can't help feeling that Harper could have been more careful with his language though.
Click to expand...
Nah, this was clearly poor wording on my part. What I meant by extenuating circumstances was something which caused the game to be stopped. If there was a crowd riot or an injury to the batsman coming in, the umpires would stop play and the batsman couldn't be dismissed timed out. That's a different situation from everyone standing around for three minutes while Ganguly put his pads on, unless the umpires see that as a situation where they should stop play, which they didn't.

Just to quote the law for reference:

Cricket Law 31 said:
1. Out Timed out
(a) Unless Time has been called, the incoming batsman must be in position to take guard or for his partner to be ready to receive the next ball within 3 minutes of the fall of the previous wicket. If this requirement is not met, the incoming batsman will be out, Timed out.
Click to expand...
"Time being called" is your allowance for "common sense" which people are talking about. As I understand it, the umpires can call time at any point where they feel the game has been interrupted and cannot continue. If they don't do that, which they didn't, then Ganguly was definitely out if the appeal was made.
 
Nate

Nate

You'll Never Walk Alone
Can`t believe Ganguly got out to that shot. Played it a few balls before, got angry at himself... so plays it again.

Does he win the Inzy?
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Last ten overs, run rate is 1.7. Good solid cricket. Good thing they didn't take Turbinator's advice or we'd be six down on this pitch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top