• 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*** New Zealand in Australia 2011

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
Yeah though as per my edit, I believe the umpire is suppose to assume the ball goes straight after impact. Someone to confirm.

Like when a spinner hits the batsman's pad on the full.
You assume it maintains its current path after impact.

Maintaining current path =/= straight, as some player-umpires seemingly don't understand. If a guy bowls a massive in-swinger and hits the guy on leg stump you don't simply assume the ball won't swing post-impact, and suddenly return running parallel to the pitch. Obviously, the swing will give a different trajectory.

Angle on the crease does the same thing - often ignored by many umpires, in my experience.
 

howardj

International Coach
You assume it maintains its current path after impact.

Maintaining current path =/= straight, as some player-umpires seemingly don't understand. If a guy bowls a massive in-swinger and hits the guy on leg stump you don't simply assume the ball won't swing post-impact, and suddenly return running parallel to the pitch. Obviously, the swing will give a different trajectory.

Angle on the crease does the same thing - often ignored by many umpires, in my experience.
Spot on, you're not meant to assume it goes straight in the sense of straigtening up at the wickets, but straight in the sense of its current line.
 

straw man

Hall of Fame Member
You assume it maintains its current path after impact.

Maintaining current path =/= straight, as some player-umpires seemingly don't understand. If a guy bowls a massive in-swinger and hits the guy on leg stump you don't simply assume the ball won't swing post-impact, and suddenly return running parallel to the pitch. Obviously, the swing will give a different trajectory.

Angle on the crease does the same thing - often ignored by many umpires, in my experience.
I did mean 'current path just prior to impact' yes, though I thought the umpire was meant to assume no further swing beyond that point.
 

straw man

Hall of Fame Member
Bracewell has also done the most with the older ball this series. Boult for one looks very much a new ball bowler. Martin also is to a large extent. Southee was once but I'm not really sure what he is these days...
 

Hurricane

Hall of Fame Member
One ND bowler has not used his off cutter or his reverse swing in this series. He made so much progress under Donald - bring Donald back IMO.
 

Flem274*

123/5
Doug Bracewell has really impressed me in this series. After getting pasted in his first spell of the series, then coming back to bowl well with no luck and lots of dropped catches, he's kept charging in and now he's getting the rewards in this test with six wickets in the match and the chance of a few more.

A few bowlers we've debuted in years gone by would have dropped their heads by now.
 

Ausage

Cricketer Of The Year
What's your NZ/Aust combined side for the series so far fellas?
Warner
McCullum
Ponting
Taylor
Clarke
Brownlie
Haddin
Siddle
Pattinson
Lyon
Martin

2-4 has no real standouts, the 3s in particular have all been dire. Couldn't include any of Uzi, Ryder or Williamson. EDIT: Damn you Spark!!
 

Hurricane

Hall of Fame Member
Warner
McCullum
Ponting
Taylor
Clarke
Brownlie
Haddin
Siddle
Pattinson
Lyon
Martin

2-4 has no real standouts, the 3s in particular have all been dire. Couldn't include any of Uzi, Ryder or Williamson.
What about Vettori for his batting?
 

Top