*Official* Pakistan v Australia in UAE 2014

[Pratters]

Well obviously you can because we did

IMO, it's similar to a fielder's shadow on the pitch - no movement = ok

IMO the fielding captain should just best leave it to the common sense solution of letting the bloke in the white hat work it all out and just concentrating on how to get the ****er out.

I am not sure about this. This is why it would come under the Spirit of Cricket. The rules can cover many things but not every thing. Cricket rules are not as specific as golf rules and even in golf ambiguity happens.

There is a fine line as far as bending the rules is concerned where it becomes unspirited. It was a non issue today as Azhar Ali didn't mind it too much and he wasn't as finicky about it as say a Tendulkar. If Ali was out though after this tactics was employed, it would have lead to a big controversy and it wouldn't have been such a small topic.

Nigel Llong shouldn't have allowed it either, though I am not sure if he had powers not to allow it.

 

[SteveNZ]

Perhaps so, but two steps either way is such a small margin that it starts to run into the question of "well, where do you draw the line, where is this invisible box that you decree 'distracting' and everything outside is 'not distracting'" and under the principle of precise arbitrariness often leading into hilarious self-contradictions, IMO the fielding captain should just best leave it to the common sense solution of letting the bloke in the white hat work it all out and just concentrating on how to get the ****er out.

I suppose any argument I mount is offset by the fact the batsman, in this instance, never found enough issue with it to raise it with the white coats. So your points are fair (apart from the trivial tag, I'd hate you to acquire RSI attributing that to every topic discussed on CW)

 

[Spark]

I am not sure about this. This is why it would come under the Spirit of Cricket. The rules can cover many things but not every thing. Cricket rules are not as specific as golf rules and even in golf ambiguity happens.

There is a fine line as far as bending the rules is concerned where is becomes unspirited. It was a non issue today as Azhar Ali didn't mind it too much and he wasn't as finicky about it as say a Tendulkar. If Ali was out though after this tactics was employed, it would have lead to a big controversy and it wouldn't have been such a small topic.

Nigel Llong shouldn't have allowed it either, though I am not sure if he had powers not to allow it.

This is precisely why it should be the umpire who decides it, though, not the fielding captain, who is under absolutely no obligation to do anything other than try to get the batsman out under the rules of the game - which do include a provision about distracting the batsman during the delivery.

 

[hendrix]

The problem isn't in the setting, it's in the weird contradictions that result. It's a little like umpire's call for UDRS, when you get a ball which is smashing leg stump out of the ground but because it's 1mm to the legside of the middle of leg stump, it doesn't get overturned. When you try to impose strict but arbitrarily set bounds where previously no such thing applied, you often run into odd situations like that. You might, for example, get a situation where a batsman legitimately feels distracted by a fielding position but because the fielder is just outside the width of the pitch it's decreed OK (or vice versa). The umpire can then intervene, of course, but then you have to ask why the hell you bothered with the pitch width rule in the first place.

Nah these things don't equate.

Arbitrary boundaries are always set in sport. The height of the stumps could be said to be arbitrary. The width of the wide line could be said to be arbitrary.

The UDRS thing doesn't make sense because if the ball is missing the stumps by 1mm the same error bar does not apply; i.e. it's a one way street.

 

[Spark]

Nah these things don't equate.

Arbitrary boundaries are always set in sport. The height of the stumps could be said to be arbitrary. The width of the wide line could be said to be arbitrary.

The UDRS thing doesn't make sense because if the ball is missing the stumps by 1mm the same error bar does not apply; i.e. it's a one way street.

It's not that something is arbitrary, it's the sudden imposition of precision where it previously didn't exist on top of that arbitrariness. You're trying to take a general, unquantifiable principle - don't distract the batsman, and trying to "quantify" it somehow according to murky processes and in the end just come down to "well, this sounds like a good number". These things often run into problems, IMO.

This, FWIW, is a very general complaint of mine, applicable in a hell of a lot of situations in cricket discussions. Particularly stats-related ones.

 

[social]

Such a bull**** issue

Virtually every kids cricket match played on the planet has a fieldsman behind the bowler (as well as guys from another match fielding amongst your own)

But ooh, it's test cricket so we cant do that any more

It's like the tennis players that complain about someone eating a Twistie in row z during a point - half of them learned the game on a dung heap beside a highway with their siblings running across the court during a point

 

[hendrix]

It's not that something is arbitrary, it's the sudden imposition of precision where it previously didn't exist on top of that arbitrariness. You're trying to take a general, unquantifiable principle - don't distract the batsman, and trying to "quantify" it somehow according to murky processes and in the end just come down to "well, this sounds like a good number". These things often run into problems, IMO.

Fewer problems than just thrusting it upon umpires to make a judgement call. I'm not trying to quantify it by the way, I'm trying to qualify it. Which we do anyway; we don't talk while a bowler is in his delivery stride, fielders whose shadows are on the pitch aren't allowed to move in the delivery stride...etc etc.

 

[Pratters]

This is precisely why it should be the umpire who decides it, though, not the fielding captain, who is under absolutely no obligation to do anything other than try to get the batsman out under the rules of the game - which do include a provision about distracting the batsman during the delivery.

This stream of thought has created controversies in the game before like Bodyline (whose legitimacy as a tactic is still argued till today). Why malign the captain for Bodyline and not the umpires? It is because captains have an onus to not bend the rules where it cries ugly till it stinks. Then, it's just not cricket.

 

[SteveNZ]

Such a bull**** issue

Virtually every kids cricket match played on the planet has a fieldsman behind the bowler (as well as guys from another match fielding amongst your own)

But ooh, it's test cricket so we cant do that any more

It's like the tennis players that complain about someone eating a Twistie in row z during a point - half of them learned the game on a dung heap beside a highway with their siblings running across the court during a point

I'm sure you can sppreciate the difference between a kids cricket game and one involving adults who bowl at 140km/ph.

 

[Flem274*]

there's always that one kid who has allegedly been clocked at 130 or 140 though, and then the number 11 (usually me) gets sent in as a sacrifice to "see off the new ball"

 

[wiff]

there's always that one kid who has allegedly been clocked at 130 or 140 though, and then the number 11 (usually me) gets sent in as a sacrifice to "see off the new ball"

You can borrow my box

 

[Furball]

I don't see what you arguing, Spark, tbh. One cannot place a fielder behind the bowler's arm. It is against the spirit of the game. There is no denying that.

Bull****.

Batsmen don't get a ****ing free go at scoring runs for **** sake. A captain is entitled to put a fielder wherever the **** he wants. If a fielder there is distracting to the batsman then I'd suggest he concentrates on the ball a bit more.

 

[hendrix]

...anyway.

Younis Khan...

I really want a clip of his hundred in the second innings of the first test. That drive over extra cover of Johnson...

 

[Riggins]

 

[Spikey]

Clarke will hate that

 

[Riggins]

The sunglasses are really doing it for me.

 

[BeeGee]

So what's the target for Pakistan? Assuming they're able to declare and given the state of the pitch, what would they be looking at? 600?

 

[flint]

Sorry I didn't catch a lot of the game. Did the batsman at any time complain? Is it still the case that a batsman can object to the fielding position of a twelth man? And if so he should be able to move a fielder if he can convince the umpires he is being obstructed in some way. Thus leaving it with the umpires as suggested by others on this thread. Though I would suggest that a close fieldsman niggling the batsman whilst a delivery is in progress would constitute a greater obstruction, and this is now common place.

 

[adub]

So what's the target for Pakistan? Assuming they're able to declare and given the state of the pitch, what would they be looking at? 600?

Why declare? They'll bat til lunch on day three if they can. Cook Australia for as long as possible and then let em try and prove they really can play spin.

 

[SteveNZ]

Sorry I didn't catch a lot of the game. Did the batsman at any time complain? Is it still the case that a batsman can object to the fielding position of a twelth man? And if so he should be able to move a fielder if he can convince the umpires he is being obstructed in some way. Thus leaving it with the umpires as suggested by others on this thread. Though I would suggest that a close fieldsman niggling the batsman whilst a delivery is in progress would constitute a greater obstruction, and this is now common place.

I'm led to believe they didn't complain.

I wasn't aware a batsman could object to the fielding position of the 12th man? Sounds like a fair rule, however.

I would say the batsman definitely would have had the right to ask for the fielder to move, just as Dean Jones had the right to ask Curtley to take his wristbands off (as idiotic as it was).

It's possibly a storm in a tea cup but isn't that why we love Test cricket? Every little thing matters, unlike in T20 where nothing matters except lifting your head and giving it full arse.