**Official** New Zealand in England

[Somerset]

Slow over rates in ODI, who cares? As long as they face 50 overs each who cares. I always thought they only worried because of the TV having to start their news late

And umpires hardly want to to have a cold tea.

 

[NZTailender]

Im not sure if Im reading this right, but by the sound of it you are saying the bowler must move for the batsman.

Its the opposite. The batsman must negotiate the bowler

Yeah I think I may have typed it out incorrectly, the bowler isn't suppose to change his position in any way to obstruct the batsman on purpose.

 

[archie mac]

And umpires hardly want to to have a cold tea.

Microwave?

 

[NZTailender]

It's a different situation here anyway because the bowler is fielding the ball.

Exactly. I don't think either of them are at fault. Elliott didn't deliberately run into Sidebottom - why would he? What's he got to gain?

Sidebottom was trying to field the ball so he could get it back to the stumps ASAP. I don't think he intended to make Elliott tumble.

 

[Leslie1]

Is Collingwood now in doubt for the last game and 3 games against Saffas? Talking about ban coming his way for slow over rate.

What about Elliott, is his injury serious?

 

[Scaly piscine]

Exactly. I don't think either of them are at fault. Elliott didn't deliberately run into Sidebottom - why would he? What's he got to gain?

Sidebottom was trying to field the ball so he could get it back to the stumps ASAP. I don't think he intended to make Elliott tumble.

Elliot is at fault to an extent because it's up to him and him alone to avoid a collision.

 

[biased indian]

Doesn't change the fact that the length of it is over the top. Ban him for one match or whatever and it'll have the exact same impact, but four makes little sense to me.

its depend up on the number of overs that was short i think...

in this case it was 3 overs short after all the allowances and all..if it was less over i think it would have been 2 odi or 1 test match i could be wrong though ????

 

[biased indian]

Elliot is at fault to an extent because it's up to him and him alone to avoid a collision.

so what he should be doing instead of trying to try to reach the other end..look around and see some one is charging down his path to field...

it was an accident and eng could have let it go with out appealing simple

 

[NZTailender]

Elliot is at fault to an extent because it's up to him and him alone to avoid a collision.

Once Sidebottom went for the ball he became a fielder. Elliott set off to get off the pitch (remember you can't run on the pitch). Sidebottom was hurtling at the ball while Elliott was making a bee-line to get to the other end, but they converged and collided. Either both are at fault or it's an accident. Can't blame either of them personally.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Once Sidebottom went for the ball he became a fielder. Elliott set off to get off the pitch (remember you can't run on the pitch). Sidebottom was hurtling at the ball while Elliott was making a bee-line to get to the other end, but they converged and collided. Either both are at fault or it's an accident. Can't blame either of them personally.

It doesn't matter whether Sidebottom became a fielder or whether Elliott set to get off the pitch.

The important thing is that Sidebottom is English, so obviously it was Elliott's fault. Pretty simple if you ask me.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Once Sidebottom went for the ball he became a fielder. Elliott set off to get off the pitch (remember you can't run on the pitch). Sidebottom was hurtling at the ball while Elliott was making a bee-line to get to the other end, but they converged and collided. Either both are at fault or it's an accident. Can't blame either of them personally.

Well you can run onto the danger area to some extent in certain circumstances - I don't think there'd have been any problem if Elliot had here.

Lets try some more extreme examples:

Sidebottom stands still while the ball rolls towards him, batsman runs straight into him.

Sidebottom stands still to take a catch, batsman runs into him.

Sidebottom runs to attempt to take a catch, batsman runs into him.


Now surely you can see that the batsman is wrong in all of these examples, the batsman when running should avoid the bowler. If Sidebottom is having to move to get the ball it doesn't change anything. The only thing that would make it a bit different is if the batsman isn't taking a run and just stands still. But you cannot move into the fielder's way like Elliot did and expect to benefit from it.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Excuse what is probably a silly question, but what was Vettori done wrong exactly?

Pretty OTT on the balcony when the winning runs were hit.

 

[NZTailender]

But you cannot move into the fielder's way like Elliot did and expect to benefit from it.

That's the thing. I do believe he was trying to avoid Sidebottom, but chose the wrong direction to try and avoid him.

 

[Pup Clarke]

TBH I'm not particulary surprised that Collingwood accepted the wicket, of course England want the best possible oppurtunity of winning the match. Of course everyone would love to see "the spirit of the game" upholded by we are living in a bit of a fantasy land if we consider this as what should happen.

 

[Richard]

I really don't mind it...when it's a tight finish such as this one was I don't notice how slow they're going, I'm so completely immersed in it. The longer it lasts, the longer my entertainment lasts as far as I'm concerned.

Tbh I think that's the only time when slow over rates are justified.

Doesn't change the fact that the length of it is over the top. Ban him for one match or whatever and it'll have the exact same impact, but four makes little sense to me.

I'm not actually disagreeing that four games is a bit OTT. But the point is it needs to be - otherwise captains won't get the idea that slow over-rates are not acceptable. It's like the free-hit rule for no-balls - bowlers were being punished, but still not badly enough to realise that they needed to stop overstepping. With the really OTT ruling of free-hits, most bowlers' minds have been concentrated wonderfully.

BTW, aimed @ Rich E - while cricket fans obviously appreciate the game going on as long as possible, it's potentially a disaster for TV stations who have to adjust their schedules. And given that the game in every country is totally dependent on TV stations to balance the books, it makes rather a lot of sense to do everything you can to make it a two-way relationship, with both parties doing their utmost to help t'other.

 

[Pup Clarke]

I'm not actually disagreeing that four games is a bit OTT. But the point is it needs to be - otherwise captains won't get the idea that slow over-rates are not acceptable.

You honestly believe that a four game penalty will hopefully stop captains from slow over-rates in the long run ?, Seems a touch naive to me.

 

[silentstriker]

Can someone explain the rationale about not making it a dead ball? I'd like to know why I can't just instruct my bowlers to do that on purpose and make it look accidental to break a partnership.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Because people like to think that the "spirit of the game" still exists and that it would be bad sportsmanship.

 

[Richard]

I'm surprised Ricardo Patrese hasn't pulled you up for "avoiding the filter" given you've done this twice in the last five minutes (hyperbole, by the way) and Richard usually picks people up for that. Mind you, I shouldn't be surprised as each time you leave, he waxes lyrical about how much he misses you for a good half an hour.

Everytime you go... away... You take a piece of Rich with you...

lol

I'm immune from Richard's disdain

Here's a question that the world has been wanting answered since time immemorial - as fundamental to the universe as the meaning of life.... Has anyone, yourself included, ever succeeded in changing Richard's mind about something without first having to at least bash their head so many times against a brick wall that their head has turned all soft and mushy??

I don't think so, but at least he rarely pulls me up on the things we disagree on....iirc he actually doesn't mind Vettori, rather he thinks he's "utterly innocuous like all left-arm finger spinners are forever destined to be unless the conditions are extremely helpful, in which case Vettori is really rather competent", or something like that.....which I actually kinda agree with, but which is also sorta the reason why it's ridiculous to pin your hopes on that sort of bowler in the first place...

I've changed his mind a couple of times, but I had to go via the mushy head route. It's the only way.

at this.

BTW Heath - I don't "pull people up" for avoiding the filter, 's'not my place ter do that. I simply state fact: "avoiding it ain't the best idea". TBH, Martin should know better I guess. But he's been told-off by James before now, not for that but for summat else.

As regards "Has anyone, yourself included, ever succeeded in changing Richard's mind about something without first having to at least bash their head so many times against a brick wall that their head has turned all soft and mushy??" well Martin doesn't often need to try and change my mind because normally if I think something, he does as well. As Rob said, though - the head-mushy route is the only way, and even that is only something that happens occasionally.

 

[Richard]

Because people like to think that the "spirit of the game" still exists and that it would be bad sportsmanship.

It does still exist, and always will - and those who don't believe in adhering to it have no right to be playing the game IMO. Sportsmanship > winning. It'll always enhance your legacy far more to do both than one without the other.