• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

*Official* Women's Cricket discussion thread

honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Its funny how the men's side cant find batters who can bowl and bowlers who can bat, and our women's side is basically bristling with allround talent.
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
If you wanna risk wandering out of your crease as a batsman at either end when the ball is in play, its fine but dont complain when you are rightfully run out.
 
B

Brompton

Cricket Spectator
I thought the rule was that a bowler could run the non striker out BEFORE their delivery stride (part of law 42 on unfair play). Dean had her bat grounded in her crease at the point Sharma hit her delivery stride. Smacks of sharp practice to then stop, mid delivery stride, and run someone out. Dean was not backing up as the bowler was hitting her delivery stride - she had her bat grounded behind the crease, so at that point the bowler could not see that she was backing up. Either way I think this incident could see the rule changed back to giving a warning. Leaves a sour taste, and not in the spirit of the game. India had already won the series and only needed one wicket with 20 runs to spare. If they believed that was the only way to win the game it reflects poorly on them.
 
theegyptian

theegyptian

International Vice-Captain
Players should have learnt by now especially vs India. Just **** cricket by England. If the laws say you can do it you can't complain. Interesting this only happened at the end of the game when it was getting close- Kinda looks selective rather than spontaneous.

Is the law still 'If the non-striker is out of his/her ground at any time from the moment the ball comes into play until the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, the non-striker is liable to be Run out. '?

Because if so this looks a contentious decision. Bowler clearly deaccelerates through their action waiting for the batter to leave the crease. If the bowler released at the time they were expected to release the ball it looked borderline whether the batter had left the crease.
 
theegyptian

theegyptian

International Vice-Captain
Most of the english male players whining about it on twitter are ********. If the laws say you can do it, you can't complain. They may not have done it themselves but the 'that's not cricket' argument is just bollocks. They've got to learn by now that you've got to see the bowler release the ball.

I know previously I and many others wouldn't always watch the bowler all the way until they release the ball. You get accustomed to the speed the bowler approaches the crease and releases the ball and time leaving the crease at the same time as the bowler releases the ball. I didn't think I did this to gain an advantage (at the time) but maybe it was a small adaption that I and many others did because there wasn't the threat of being runout. I think I did it mainly because you get into a more relaxed zone the longer you bat and move into an autopilot mode. It's also a bit easier physically and visually to look at the striker a bit earlier (this I guess is an advantage - small though it is). I personally wasn't looking to steal an extra yard before the bowler released the bowler, although some do. Most do it through laziness and because there wasn't the realistic threat of being runout - now there is.

I try and make sure I watch every ball until it's released these days. No professional should be getting runout like this.

Bhogle probably has it right with his tweet below. Would make the law crystal clear. There may be some unintended consequence to it that I can't think of right now

Harsha Bhogle
@bhogleharsha
·
1h

I think the law should be simplified to: non-striker stays within the crease till the ball leaves the bowler's hand.
 
V

vandem

State Captain
Apex Predator said:
Jeez that was far more extreme than Ashwin v Buttler... Deepti took a deliberate pause
Click to expand...
!?

IIRC for the Ashwin incident the batter's bat was inside the crease when the bowlers front foot landed, the bowler then pulled out of the arm rotation, waited for the batter to leave the crease, then made the run out.

In this incident the batter's bat had already crossed the crease line (just) when the bowlers front foot landed.
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Brompton said:
I thought the rule was that a bowler could run the non striker out BEFORE their delivery stride (part of law 42 on unfair play). Dean had her bat grounded in her crease at the point Sharma hit her delivery stride. Smacks of sharp practice to then stop, mid delivery stride, and run someone out. Dean was not backing up as the bowler was hitting her delivery stride - she had her bat grounded behind the crease, so at that point the bowler could not see that she was backing up. Either way I think this incident could see the rule changed back to giving a warning. Leaves a sour taste, and not in the spirit of the game. India had already won the series and only needed one wicket with 20 runs to spare. If they believed that was the only way to win the game it reflects poorly on them.
Click to expand...
Try reading the law again
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top