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

[TNT]

did you actually read that

Nope, cut and pasted with a blindfold on.

 

[Starfighter]

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.

Except I am talking about deliveries of that height. If you watch, you will see.

Nope, cut and pasted with a blindfold on.

Yup.

 

[Spark]

why are you doing this to yourselves

 

[Debris]

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.

Or they have some perspective and realise that it was a freak accident and that most competitive sport contains some risk. The rule you are talking about certainly would not have helped him.

 

[Victor Ian]

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 tells the umpire how to know if the ball is a short pitched delivery so that the umpire can then consider, the skill of the striker to determine if it is likely to inflict physical harm. The second part is not fact based. It is subjective. The first part is fact based, I guess , to stop umpires from having to call no ball when the ball strikes the pads for an LBW.

 

[TNT]

41.6.3 tells the umpire how to know if the ball is a short pitched delivery so that the umpire can then consider, the skill of the striker to determine if it is likely to inflict physical harm. The second part is not fact based. It is subjective. The first part is fact based, I guess , to stop umpires from having to call no ball when the ball strikes the pads for an LBW.

The umpire can only deem a ball that would have passed over the batsmans shoulder as dangerous, attacking the rib cage for instance cant be classed as dangerous. If you use both eyes and watch when Anderson was struck on the helmet by Cummins (its on utube) he actually ducked his head down into the delivery which if he was standing upright it would not have passed over his shoulder so if the umpire had of called it dangerous then the Australians would have every right to challenge the umpires call.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The umpire can only deem a ball that would have passed over the batsmans shoulder as dangerous, attacking the rib cage for instance cant be classed as dangerous. If you use both eyes and watch when Anderson was struck on the helmet by Cummins (its on utube) he actually ducked his head down into the delivery which if he was standing upright it would not have passed over his shoulder so if the umpire had of called it dangerous then the Australians would have every right to challenge the umpires call.

not "of" , never "of"

"had of", "would of", "could of" etc. are not English

In this case you don't even need "have". Just leave it at "had".

 

[TNT]

not "of" , never "of"

"had of", "would of", "could of" etc. are not English

In this case you don't even need "have". Just leave it at "had".

Hint I'm not english either but if I was I would had of written it differently.

 

[Starfighter]

Or they have some perspective and realise that it was a freak accident and that most competitive sport contains some risk. The rule you are talking about certainly would not have helped him.

I didn't say the rule would have helped. It's the attitude I am taking exception to.

 

[Victor Ian]

The umpire can only deem a ball that would have passed over the batsmans shoulder as dangerous, attacking the rib cage for instance cant be classed as dangerous. If you use both eyes and watch when Anderson was struck on the helmet by Cummins (its on utube) he actually ducked his head down into the delivery which if he was standing upright it would not have passed over his shoulder so if the umpire had of called it dangerous then the Australians would have every right to challenge the umpires call.

I was only pointing out that the whole rule is not fact based. I have no opinion on whether the bouncers were dangerous as I was only listening to the game and not watching it.

Is there any footage of the 4 bouncers bowled to Ball? I'd like to watch that.

The Anderson one is irrelevant simply because he is Anderson and deserves to be hit in the face (Just kidding. Like Cook I also secretly admire Anderson)

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Can't see anything but another defeat here, only way we will compete is if Anderson gets some conditions and uses them to destroy the Aussie first innings and even then we may still lose anyway.

 

[Gnske]

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

lol spikey can't play the short ball, everyone laugh

 

[Ricky Bobby]

WOW looks like test cricket will soon be a game for pussies....you can always depend on an Englishmen for this. If you don't know how to play the short ball (tail-ender or not) and you play international cricket for your country, go and f****ing learn how to play it, especially if you know long before a series starts that the short ball is going to be used to great extent.

 

[Spark]

I kind of sympathise with where Atherton is coming from but it's completely impossible to implement in the way he likes whilst keeping cricket an actual competitive sport.

Imagine the high farce that would erupt if we get another Anderson/Panesar situation with two tailenders hanging on for grim life in a critical Test, and the umpire goes up to Pat Cummins and says "sorry, but you aren't allowed to bowl bouncers, these guys aren't really good enough to play them". Or indeed if the #10 and #11 scrapes together a 30-40 odd partnership, looking comfortable against deliveries that are pitched up. The situation where we ask, as Howe routinely notes, sportsmen who are genuinely terrible at a discipline to go out and display that discipline in vital moments is a severe oddity and worth talking about, but so long as tailenders consistently provide match-turning contributions with the bat then they're as fair game as the top six IMO.

 

[Spikey]

I'm struggling to picture a scenario where that would actually happen. I think it's just as simple as when your 8/180 chasing 500 in the 4th innings with a day to play it might be good if we didn't have balls aimed at the heads of tailenders

 

[Spark]

I'm struggling to picture a scenario where that would actually happen. I think it's just as simple as when your 8/180 chasing 500 in the 4th innings with a day to play it might be good if we didn't have balls aimed at the heads of tailenders

Yes but the thing about rules is they have to be implemented equally regardless of match situation. You can't have one set of rules at 8/180 chasing 500 in the 4th innings with a day to play, and another at 8/180 chasing 190 in the 4th innings with a day to play.

"Captain's agreements" are another matter, and also long gone as a thing in international cricket IMO, sadly.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I kind of sympathise with where Atherton is coming from but it's completely impossible to implement in the way he likes whilst keeping cricket an actual competitive sport.

Imagine the high farce that would erupt if we get another Anderson/Panesar situation with two tailenders hanging on for grim life in a critical Test, and the umpire goes up to Pat Cummins and says "sorry, but you aren't allowed to bowl bouncers, these guys aren't really good enough to play them". Or indeed if the #10 and #11 scrapes together a 30-40 odd partnership, looking comfortable against deliveries that are pitched up. The situation where we ask, as Howe routinely notes, sportsmen who are genuinely terrible at a discipline to go out and display that discipline in vital moments is a severe oddity and worth talking about, but so long as tailenders consistently provide match-turning contributions with the bat then they're as fair game as the top six IMO.

great post

 

[Spikey]

Yes but the thing about rules is they have to be implemented equally regardless of match situation.

We have a rule that says upon the commencement of the last hour of play, 15 overs must be bowled...but that rule only actually applies on the last day of a test match, (ie, the match situation) so I'm not so sure about that. Indeed it seems that "match situation" could be easily tacked onto the existing rule. Umpires have a fair bit of autonomy as well as common sense, it doesn't actually seem to me that it's too unworkable in the scenario of a match which is all over but the shouting

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 and direction they are likely to inflict physical injury on him. The fact that the striker is wearing protective equipment shall be disregarded.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I kind of sympathise with where Atherton is coming from but it's completely impossible to implement in the way he likes whilst keeping cricket an actual competitive sport.

Imagine the high farce that would erupt if we get another Anderson/Panesar situation with two tailenders hanging on for grim life in a critical Test, and the umpire goes up to Pat Cummins and says "sorry, but you aren't allowed to bowl bouncers, these guys aren't really good enough to play them". Or indeed if the #10 and #11 scrapes together a 30-40 odd partnership, looking comfortable against deliveries that are pitched up. The situation where we ask, as Howe routinely notes, sportsmen who are genuinely terrible at a discipline to go out and display that discipline in vital moments is a severe oddity and worth talking about, but so long as tailenders consistently provide match-turning contributions with the bat then they're as fair game as the top six IMO.

I'm struggling to picture a scenario where that would actually happen. I think it's just as simple as when your 8/180 chasing 500 in the 4th innings with a day to play it might be good if we didn't have balls aimed at the heads of tailenders

Trouble is both of you are right here and that is the problem. There is no solution to this that would satisfy everybody. It is a lot better than years ago though when Devon Malcolm was getting peppered with short stuff when it was clear he wasn't up to defending against it.

 

[Spikey]

I mean, it seems that the rule was enforced during the 70s and 80s. Why can't it be now? And why was enforcement of the rule stopped despite "protective equipment" being irrelevant to the matter as per the rule. Again, either enforce it as it's written or re-write the law to reflect the current standards and remove the grey area