Captaincy responsibilities. It either changes for the good or the best version of yourselfWhat happened to Pollard? This is the best form he's ever been in I think.
yea so as per the copy of Tom Smith's I have lying around, Gunathilaka was hard done there. I'm not convinced he knew where the ball was. hard to judge that act as wilful.huh, not often you see that
I think intent does not matter under current laws but would have to double check
Has there ever been one that’s needed?That was a needless run out.
This isn’t a court where we use case law, should be out regardless of what Stokes coppedyea so as per the copy of Tom Smith's I have lying around, Gunathilaka was hard done there. I'm not convinced he knew where the ball was. hard to judge that act as wilful.
Then again, as mentioned earlier, there is precedent for this in the past where they've interpreted the word 'wilful' to essentially mean 'in control of his actions'. IE, the batter didn't slip or trip his way into obstructing the field, but was in control of his movements that then lead to the runout.
SL imploding now, terrible running. Wonder if Akeal gets credited with that runout lol
i mean they are literally the 'Laws' of cricketThis isn’t a court where we use case law, should be out regardless of what Stokes copped
I would say the Pollard return catch was the turning point, but yeah, that didn't help.That obstructing the field call has completely changed this game
I’ll amend my comment and say that that was **** running between the wickets.Has there ever been one that’s needed?
civil law not common lawi mean they are literally the 'Laws' of cricket