***Official*** 4th Test at the MCG

[TheJediBrah]

Given the choice between four more failures from Cook and 4-1, or a big hundred and 5-0, I'd probably go for the 4-1 but I'd think twice. With some of the dick head millennials currently polluting the England camp, a bona fide legend like Cook doesn't deserve to go out like this.

As an aside, the way Cook immediately rose above the Aussie 'sledging' early doors on this tour was absolute class. Everything short of looking down at his shoes and giving it 'you missed a bit'.

I get the feeling that Cook is just above that sort of thing. If I was one of the Aussies I wouldn't even bother sledging him, and I would feel bad about it if I did.

He's just a supreme gentleman

 

[Spikey]

https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricke...n/news-story/4d399ec20cc277ae1263779d5e540972

god this is so stupid from johnson

 

[TheJediBrah]

https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricke...n/news-story/4d399ec20cc277ae1263779d5e540972

god this is so stupid from johnson

I don't see what's stupid about it at all

 

[Gnske]

https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricke...n/news-story/4d399ec20cc277ae1263779d5e540972

god this is so stupid from johnson

This is utterly correct though.

 

[Spikey]

I don't see what's stupid about it at all

it's essentially the equivalent of the bully hitting someone and saying "stop punching yourself", and he hasn't actually acknowledged the rule that Atherton has mentioned while at the same time acknowledging the very poor level of skill of some batsman (" yeah, some guys struggle to hold the bat"). Instead it's just lame jingoistic trolling (which I get is Johnson's thing now and unfortunately for the next 40 years, so perhaps I'm stupider for even acknowledging it) but there's actually an issue here. There's a rule there to protect **** batsman and it doesn't have as a footnote "but hey suck it up you **** **** get better or enjoy getting hit in the head". But the rule doesn't get enforced. The only time bowlers get called out for dangerous bowling is when they accidentally bowl a beamer which seems odd when we seeing Broad being repeatedly targeted essentially because he got hit and now he's a bit cooked. I mean, it didn't even get called out when Clarke was saying get ready for a broken ****ing arm. If Johnson had said something constructive like "well I think the rule is obsolete and should be removed from the laws of the game" I wouldn't be calling it stupid, but he's just straight up ignored the matter to do some stupid trolling. For my part, going back to 3 bouncers an over but being more protective towards tail order batsman would be a happy compromise

 

[TNT]

Dont know why Atherton is all upset, Ball and Anderson are nearly averaging the same as their opener Cook so that should make them fair game.

 

[Starfighter]

Atherton's right, Johnson is a moron as usual. There have been quite a number incidents that are clearly in breach of the law 41.6, the wording of which is pretty clear. Jake Ball receiving four in a row at Brisbane was quite disgusting, both the wicket delivery and the ball before should have been no-balled.

You'd think in a world after the death of Phil Hughes people would be more concerned about the bowling of such deliveries to batsmen who are far worse at playing them that he was. But apparently that is subordinate to being all tough and macho.

 

[Victor Ian]

How do you be more protective to tail order batsmen? I don't mind if they actually enforce the rule, but you'd have to do it to all batsmen or none, because I don't see how you can define a tail order batsmen. Does that mean anyone past the keeper? Then you could put your number 3, who has been found out against short stuff at 8. Does it mean you have to average less than 20? Or is it just up to the umpire to determine if you are **** on the day. I could see people complain about that the way I complain that the umpires are more prone to give lbw's for England rather than make them use up their reviews (ie, sour grapes when it doesn't go your way)

 

[Starfighter]

If you want to think about it the exact rule from the playing conditions is:

41.6 Bowling of dangerous and unfair short pitched deliveries

41.6.1 Notwithstanding clause 41.6.2, the bowling of short pitched deliveries is dangerous if the bowler’s end umpire considers that, taking into consideration the skill of the striker, by their speed, length, height anddirection they are likely to inflict physical injury on him. The fact that the striker is wearing protective equipment shall be disregarded.

In the first instance the umpire decides that the bowling of short pitched deliveries has become dangerous under 41.6.1:
41.6.1.1 The umpire shall call and signal No ball, and when the ball is dead, caution the bowler and inform the other umpire, the captain of the fielding side and the batsmen of what has occurred. This caution shall apply to that bowler throughout the innings.
41.6.1.2 If there is a second instance, the umpire shall repeat the above procedure and indicate to the bowler that this is a final warning, which shall apply to that bowler throughout the innings.
41.6.1.3 Should there be any further instance by the same bowler in that innings, the umpire shall:- call and signal No ball
- when the ball is dead, direct the captain of the fielding side to suspend the bowler immediately from bowling
- inform the other umpire for the reason for this action.

The bowler thus suspended shall not be allowed to bowl again in that innings.

41.6.2 A bowler shall be limited to two fast short-pitched deliveries per over.
41.6.3 A fast short-pitched delivery is defined as a ball, which passes or would have passed above the shoulder height of the striker standing upright at the popping crease.
41.6.4 The umpire at the bowler’s end shall advise the bowler and the batsman on strike when each fast short pitched delivery has been bowled. 41.6.5 In addition, a ball that passes above head height of the batsman, standing upright at the popping crease,that prevents him from being able to hit it with his bat by means of a normal cricket stroke shall be called a Wide. See also clause 22.1.1.2
For the avoidance of doubt any fast short pitched delivery that is called a Wide under this playing condition shall also count as one of the allowable short pitched deliveries in that over.

41.6.7 If a bowler delivers a third fast short pitched ball in an over, the umpire, after the call of No ball and when the ball is dead, shall caution the bowler, inform the other umpire, the captain of the fielding side and the batsmen at the wicket of what has occurred. This caution shall apply throughout the innings.
41.6.8 If there is a second instance of the bowler being No balled in the innings for bowling more than two fast short pitched deliveries in an over, the umpire shall advise the bowler that this is his final warning for the innings.
41.6.9 Should there be any further instance by the same bowler in that innings, the umpire shall:
- call and signal No ball
- when the ball is dead, direct the captain of the fielding side to suspend the bowler immediately from bowling
- inform the other umpire for the reason for this action.
The bowler thus suspended shall not be allowed to bowl again in that innings.


EDIT: I've cut some of the unnecessary crap about informing such and such etc.

 

[Compton]

Yeah that rule is essentially unenforceable in any way that even almost secures parity of treatment.

It’s a knobby thing to moan about not being enforced as well though. It’s no different to coming out to moan about not getting lbw decisions and having umpires questioned in that way is nothing more than trying to pressure them into making those decisions in your favour in the next test.

It’s nothing like bodyline, and they’re not sending down six head-heighters an over.

Game on.

 

[Spikey]

How do you be more protective to tail order batsmen? I don't mind if they actually enforce the rule, but you'd have to do it to all batsmen or none, because I don't see how you can define a tail order batsmen. Does that mean anyone past the keeper? Then you could put your number 3, who has been found out against short stuff at 8. Does it mean you have to average less than 20? Or is it just up to the umpire to determine if you are **** on the day. I could see people complain about that the way I complain that the umpires are more prone to give lbw's for England rather than make them use up their reviews (ie, sour grapes when it doesn't go your way)

No you don't...? I mean that seems insanely obvious. If it was to actually be enforced, I think I'd be more than happy for it to be handled case by case with some general guidelines (which would be, you know, whatever is in the rule). But my thing is either enforce it or scrap it. You can't tell me there hasn't been stuff that could fall under the rule that Starfighter posted, but it hasn't been called, fine, get rid of it then. Leaving the whole thing alone is just running the risk of it suddenly and randomly being enforced and that would lead to people complaining. (god imagine if it happened with a couple of Indian bowlers trying to face Cummins/Starc)

 

[Starfighter]

Yeah that rule is essentially unenforceable in any way that even almost secures parity of treatment.

What's the obsession with parity? It's designed to protect a batsman who is put in danger by short deliveries. If they are poor at avoiding them, then apply the rule accordingly.

It’s a knobby thing to moan about not being enforced as well though. It’s no different to coming out to moan about not getting lbw decisions and having umpires questioned in that way is nothing more than trying to pressure them into making those decisions in your favour in the next test.

I think it's different when physical danger is involved. And also we're talking about clear breaches of a rule here, a rule that isn't being enforced properly. Even the two bouncers per over rule has not been enforced properly, and it's unambiguous.

It’s nothing like bodyline, and they’re not sending down six head-heighters an over.

They didn't send down six in bodyline either. And they didn't bowl bodyline at the tail, or left handers even, and Larwood didn't go around the wicket to bowl it.

 

[Victor Ian]

No you don't...? I mean that seems insanely obvious. If it was to actually be enforced, I think I'd be more than happy for it to be handled case by case with some general guidelines (which would be, you know, whatever is in the rule). But my thing is either enforce it or scrap it. You can't tell me there hasn't been stuff that could fall under the rule that Starfighter posted, but it hasn't been called, fine, get rid of it then. Leaving the whole thing alone is just running the risk of it suddenly and randomly being enforced and that would lead to people complaining. (god imagine if it happened with a couple of Indian bowlers trying to face Cummins/Starc)

Having just read it (thanks SF) it is too cumbersome. I don't mind it from 41.6.2, but 41.6.1 is too subjective. I agree with you.

Is the beam ball another rule altogether, because a beam ball is not short pitched?

 

[TNT]

If you want to think about it the exact rule from the playing conditions is:

41.6 Bowling of dangerous and unfair short pitched deliveries

41.6.1 Notwithstanding clause 41.6.2, the bowling of short pitched deliveries is dangerous if the bowler’s end umpire considers that, taking into consideration the skill of the striker, by their speed, length, height anddirection they are likely to inflict physical injury on him. The fact that the striker is wearing protective equipment shall be disregarded.

In the first instance the umpire decides that the bowling of short pitched deliveries has become dangerous under 41.6.1:
41.6.1.1 The umpire shall call and signal No ball, and when the ball is dead, caution the bowler and inform the other umpire, the captain of the fielding side and the batsmen of what has occurred. This caution shall apply to that bowler throughout the innings.
41.6.1.2 If there is a second instance, the umpire shall repeat the above procedure and indicate to the bowler that this is a final warning, which shall apply to that bowler throughout the innings.
41.6.1.3 Should there be any further instance by the same bowler in that innings, the umpire shall:- call and signal No ball
- when the ball is dead, direct the captain of the fielding side to suspend the bowler immediately from bowling
- inform the other umpire for the reason for this action.

The bowler thus suspended shall not be allowed to bowl again in that innings.

41.6.2 A bowler shall be limited to two fast short-pitched deliveries per over.
41.6.3 A fast short-pitched delivery is defined as a ball, which passes or would have passed above the shoulder height of the striker standing upright at the popping crease.
41.6.4 The umpire at the bowler’s end shall advise the bowler and the batsman on strike when each fast short pitched delivery has been bowled. 41.6.5 In addition, a ball that passes above head height of the batsman, standing upright at the popping crease,that prevents him from being able to hit it with his bat by means of a normal cricket stroke shall be called a Wide. See also clause 22.1.1.2
For the avoidance of doubt any fast short pitched delivery that is called a Wide under this playing condition shall also count as one of the allowable short pitched deliveries in that over.

41.6.7 If a bowler delivers a third fast short pitched ball in an over, the umpire, after the call of No ball and when the ball is dead, shall caution the bowler, inform the other umpire, the captain of the fielding side and the batsmen at the wicket of what has occurred. This caution shall apply throughout the innings.
41.6.8 If there is a second instance of the bowler being No balled in the innings for bowling more than two fast short pitched deliveries in an over, the umpire shall advise the bowler that this is his final warning for the innings.
41.6.9 Should there be any further instance by the same bowler in that innings, the umpire shall:
- call and signal No ball
- when the ball is dead, direct the captain of the fielding side to suspend the bowler immediately from bowling
- inform the other umpire for the reason for this action.
The bowler thus suspended shall not be allowed to bowl again in that innings.


EDIT: I've cut some of the unnecessary crap about informing such and such etc.

So it is only when the umpire considers it to be dangerous and not when Atherton or Anderson or some random poster decides its dangerous.

Pretty simple then isn't it, the umpires don't consider it is dangerous so that's the end of it.

 

[Spikey]

mate there's these unbelievable things called "commentary" and "analysis" and "opinion"

 

[Spikey]

Having just read it (thanks SF) it is too cumbersome. I don't mind it from 41.6.2, but 41.6.1 is too subjective. I agree with you.

Is the beam ball another rule altogether, because a beam ball is not short pitched?

beamers are in that section (Law 41) but under it's own heading

41.7.1 Any delivery, which passes or would have passed, without pitching, above waist height of the striker standing upright at the popping crease, is to be deemed dangerous and unfair, whether or not it is likely to inflict physical injury on the striker. If the bowler bowls such a delivery the umpire shall immediately call and signal No ball. When the ball is dead, the umpire shall caution the bowler, indicating that this is a first and final warning. The umpire shall also inform the other umpire, the captain of the fielding side and the batsmen of what has occurred. This caution shall apply to that bowler throughout the innings.

https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-41-unfair-play/

Obviously that law is in stark contrast to the short ball law (ie very fact based, no real interpretation required from the ump)

 

[Starfighter]

So it is only when the umpire considers it to be dangerous and not when Atherton or Anderson or some random poster decides its dangerous.

Pretty simple then isn't it, the umpires don't consider it is dangerous so that's the end of it.

Expect 1) the two bouncers an over rule has been violated multiple time, which is cause for action in itself and 2) the umpire's judgement is quite clearly wrong, in Atherton's (and my) opinion.

The umpires aren't doing their job thanks to point 1, and arguably aren't thanks to point 2.

 

[TNT]

beamers are in that section (Law 41) but under it's own heading



https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-41-unfair-play/

Obviously that law is in stark contrast to the short ball law (ie very fact based, no real interpretation required from the ump)

Dangerous bowling is fact based.


41.6.1 Notwithstanding clause 41.6.2, the bowling of short pitched deliveries is dangerous if the bowler’s end umpire considers that, taking into consideration the skill of the striker, by their speed, length, height anddirection they are likely to inflict physical injury on him. The fact that the striker is wearing protective equipment shall be disregarded.

41.6.3 A fast short-pitched delivery is defined as a ball, which passes or would have passed above the shoulder height of the striker standing upright at the popping crease.

 

[Spikey]

did you actually read that

 

[TNT]

Expect 1) the two bouncers an over rule has been violated multiple time, which is cause for action in itself and 2) the umpire's judgement is quite clearly wrong, in Atherton's (and my) opinion.

The umpires aren't doing their job thanks to point 1, and arguably aren't thanks to point 2.

Ducking under a ball does not make it a bouncer, it must pass over shoulder height if the batsman was standing upright in the crease. Maybe Atherton and yourself are getting a little confused.