*Official* England Tour of Sri Lanka 2018

[trundler]

England ought to bat Curran in the top 6 soon and Foakes ought to replace Bairstow. Has exceeded his output in both departments.

 

[greg]

Good point - I guess the start point has to be irrelevant otherwise batsmen taking guard outside of their crease would have to ground their bat before setting off for a run.

Another question: How close do you have be to correctly completing the run before taking the second for it to count as one short, rather than just turning back? Might sound a silly question, but I'm guessing that if you ran like 18 yards down the pitch, plonked your bat down, then ran back to where you started you wouldn't get any runs? Just wondering where the cut-off is

I would assume that the basic criteria is that the batsmen cross. That guarantees that they’ve completed a single run (ie. 1+1) between them

 

[jimmy101]

Good rear-guard stuff from SL. Highlights of the match so far are going to be a joy to watch.

 

[Maximas]

TBF in this condition it just sounds like they got penalised for carelessness:

Which seems quite unfair and overbearing to me, the punishment of losing the runs that weren't run properly should be enough to cover the carelessness.

Given there was no strike farming or other manipulation tactics at play I think common sense ought to have prevailed, the SL camp isn't really concerned it seems though

 

[Migara]

I can't think of the last time someone nightwatchmanned for an opener. I know Morne Morkel opened in place of Graeme Smith in that Sydney test where Smith broke his hand and came out to bat at the end, but SA faced 26 overs before the end of that day so he wasn't really a nightwatchman, more genuinely promoted (I assume based on his 40 in the first innings, though even without the hindsight of his 2-ball duck in the second, it seems an odd choice).

Similarly, I think Philander opened at one point when SA last toured India, but again I think it was an experiment to protect van Zyl, rather than him as nightwatchman.

Herath opened as the night watchman some time back.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'm sure you're correct per the laws, but why isn't it considered that you've scored no runs here, as if you didn't run all the way between each crease for the first one, you can't have done so for the second? Is it just because you'll have certainly done one run's worth of running?

This is exactly what I was thinking. It's an example of cricketing laws not really making sense. If the batsmen cross and then go back to their respective ends right away they don't get given a run, but if they make it most of the way then go back they do? At what point do you draw the line that a run has been scored then?

Another one is overthrows being bonus runs (eg. single + overthrows to the boundaries = 5 runs). If you hit the ball and a fielder misfields it over the boundary you only get 4. Where is the line drawn that you get extra runs? Is it because there's a shot at the stumps? What if the throw is so bad it goes nowhere near the stumps?

 

[Prince EWS]

Another one is overthrows being bonus runs (eg. single + overthrows to the boundaries = 5 runs). If you hit the ball and a fielder misfields it over the boundary you only get 4. Where is the line drawn that you get extra runs? Is it because there's a shot at the stumps? What if the throw is so bad it goes nowhere near the stumps?

Pretty much if the fielder throws it then it's overthrows. The rule exists like this to stop a fielder just throwing it over the rope should the batsman run five (which I suspect was more common when arms were sometimes slightly weaker and there were no boundary ropes).

 

[Maximas]

Would have been quite funny if SL had managed to blow a review on the nightwatchman, pity really

 

[Maximas]

Btw haven't been able to catch any of the match - is Pushpakumara test standard or nah?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Btw haven't been able to catch any of the match - is Pushpakumara test standard or nah?

Doesn't look like it at first glance. Unusual style and looks like he'd be virtually useless on a wicket that isn't turning a lot. Looks barely Test-standard on this wicket tbh and it's giving him a lot of assistance.

 

[cnerd123]

This is exactly what I was thinking. It's an example of cricketing laws not really making sense. If the batsmen cross and then go back to their respective ends right away they don't get given a run, but if they make it most of the way then go back they do? At what point do you draw the line that a run has been scored then?

Actually they could get 1 run in this circumstance. It's just that umpires apply common sense and don't give it to them. If the batsmen were to argue they should get that 1 run, they will be correct, but then they will most likely get hit with the 5 run penalty for a deliberate short run too (because that is what they will be admitting to).

Cricket's Laws are deliberately vague and defer to umpires discretion because cricket is a sport with so many possible scenarios that it's impossible to dictate how each and everyone one of them should be handled. No matter how many laws you write or how hard you try to predict scenarios, things will happen that aren't covered clearly in the book, and so the easiest solution is often to just to keep the laws vague and leave it up to the umpires. That's why what makes a good umpire isn't just a knowledge of the Laws, but understanding the intent behind them and knowing how and where they are to be applied. A robot could call wides and LBWs, but understanding how to apply the Laws is why we need trained professional humans in this role.

It's also why you see the same situation handled differently in different leagues/competitions/countries. It's just different applications and interpretations, and the ICC generally favours a stricter application of the laws. More zero-tolerance stuff.

 

[Howe_zat]

Well they’re all getting out playing sweeps again but at least they’re scoring some runs with it

Must be odd for Rory Burns to be here under the strength of how well he plays county seamers and then immediately need to play completely differently. It’d be cruel for him to not get another series.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Actually they could get 1 run in this circumstance. It's just that umpires apply common sense and don't give it to them. If the batsmen were to argue they should get that 1 run, they will be correct, but then they will most likely get hit with the 5 run penalty for a deliberate short run too (because that is what they will be admitting to).

That doesn't really have much to do with what I said. Sure, "apply common sense", but then where is the point where common sense dictates if it's a run or not? 1 foot from the crease? 2 feet?

 

[cnerd123]

That doesn't really have much to do with what I said. Sure, "apply common sense", but then where is the point where common sense dictates if it's a run or not? 1 foot from the crease? 2 feet?

Wait misread your post. Are you seriously asking me to define common sense for you?

If you want to know when it's become a short run or not then just apply common sense

 

[theegyptian]

Root looks like he could be out any ball. Burns playing really well again- so much better than first test.

 

[hazsa19]

That is awful cricket from Stokes. Like, really really bad.

 

[Spark]

not sure the english bats have this whole sweeping thing down pat

 

[theegyptian]

Stokes dismissal was poor and I'd be critical but all the rest in perfectly fine with. I think they've played the sweep pretty well generally this game. They'd have been sitting ducks otherwise.

 

[Howe_zat]

It's mostly a result of the fields being set anyway.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Well if we double this lead we will have a good chance, pitch playing up more and batting on day 4 will be even harder.