***Official*** Under-19 World Cup- South Africa 2024

[kevinw]

If I was a batter, I'd be "f**k it, pick your own ball up". Don't give the fielders any chance to pull that s**t on you.

 

[GotSpin]

the ball is only dead when both teams deem it to be iirc. Clearly Zimbabwe didn't think it was dead. I think you once you get to this standard you'd expect the batsman to not just pick the ball up without the permission of the fielding side. Clearly the bat wasn't trying to gain an advantage but it doesn't matter.

always interesting in club cricket when someone just picks the ball up like this. I always feel kinda sorry for the casual in instances like this because if the more ardent cricket fans like ourselves don't know the rules precisely about things such as when the ball is dead how can you expect a casual to know he shouldn't pick the ball up in situations like this.

Yeah I don’t reckon I’ve ever actually picked up the ball with my gloves when I’m batting. Seems a bit beneath me to be honest

 

[Flem274*]

This isn't going well for NZ

 

[SteveNZ]

Holy ****, we got absolutely dusted up by Ireland. 131-5 chasing 173 off 32 overs is pretty dire.

 

[Jarquis]

Not even the first time it’s happened at an U19 WC

 

[Aidan11]

The simple solution is for no batter to pick the ball up, ever.

Richie Benaud used to get angry on commentary when he saw batters doing it. I didn't realise you can actually be out if you pass the ball to a fielder even if you use your bat to do it.

If the ball goes dead in front of the batter, just stand there and let the fielder pick it up.

 

[Immenso]

Holy ****, we got absolutely dusted up by Ireland. 131-5 chasing 173 off 32 overs is pretty dire.

Is that what we were chasing?
Or, rather, was that what the DLS par was when it happened to end?

Looking at the scorecard, looks like the final act was Reddy getting dismissed? I wonder how many runs that added to the DLS target.

 

[thierry henry]

How many kids even play cricket in Ireland for them to pick a team from? I always figured it was a vanishingly minor sport there.

 

[trundler]

I think Ireland were actually rather decent throughout the tournament. Competitive losses against Bangladesh and NZ, both of whom blew NZ away so this wasn't a shocking result at all. UAE and Nepal also have a randomly strong U19 teams I think.

 

[Third_Man]

Is that what we were chasing?
Or, rather, was that what the DLS par was when it happened to end?

Looking at the scorecard, looks like the final act was Reddy getting dismissed? I wonder how many runs that added to the DLS target.

It was the par score when they came off due to thunder. Normally. I'd say about 10-12 runs.

 

[Third_Man]

How many kids even play cricket in Ireland for them to pick a team from? I always figured it was a vanishingly minor sport there.

minor maybe but probably not vanishing.

 

[SteveNZ]

Is that what we were chasing?
Or, rather, was that what the DLS par was when it happened to end?

Looking at the scorecard, looks like the final act was Reddy getting dismissed? I wonder how many runs that added to the DLS target.

Good point, I thought it was a revised target. Still, I figure they were aware of weather and obviously fell well behind the rate.

I think Ireland were actually rather decent throughout the tournament. Competitive losses against Bangladesh and NZ, both of whom blew NZ away so this wasn't a shocking result at all. UAE and Nepal also have a randomly strong U19 teams I think.

I'm sure they're decent, and I don't mind losing to sub-continent teams at U19 World Cups because (ahem) they seem to mature quicker, and have bowlers that we're just not equipped to face yet. But Ireland, I struggle to think why we can't expect to beat them 9 times out of 10 at age group level.

 

[SteveNZ]

In the instance of the obstructing the field dismissal, it is a piss weak one and Zimbabwe should be ashamed of themselves. I know the law is there, and I'm not evoking the old spirit of cricket nonsense...but surely common sense says that ball is dead. It's nowhere near the stumps. The batsman waits for a few seconds, think it's dead, picks it up and all of a sudden the poor bastard is out because he's being a decent bloke. Does he have to ask 'excuse me chaps, is the ball dead?' And if he kicks it to a close in fielder, he's not out - is he? No, he isn't.

These kids need the adults in the room - ie the umpires and coaches - to guide them to be morally and lawfully right in what they do, or it turns into a circus. The umpire could have easily stepped in and said the ball was dead. And as a coach myself, there is zero chance I would have let the batsman walk off. The Zimbabwean coach shouldn't have let it fly.

 

[trundler]

Good point, I thought it was a revised target. Still, I figure they were aware of weather and obviously fell well behind the rate.



I'm sure they're decent, and I don't mind losing to sub-continent teams at U19 World Cups because (ahem) they seem to mature quicker, and have bowlers that we're just not equipped to face yet. But Ireland, I struggle to think why we can't expect to beat them 9 times out of 10 at age group level.

I don't have a logical reason for it either but based on Ireland's other results in this tournament, I don't think this was a one-off upset. Ireland being this good is mind-blowing.

 

[thierry henry]

I think Ireland were actually rather decent throughout the tournament. Competitive losses against Bangladesh and NZ, both of whom blew NZ away so this wasn't a shocking result at all. UAE and Nepal also have a randomly strong U19 teams I think.

Yeah but with Nepal for example, it's easily understandable because cricket's a major sport there, big games are attended by 1,000s of people etc. Ireland by contrast is a small country who already compete well in multiple other international sports, and as far as I'm aware cricket is a very minor sport there. The international matches played there look like they're being played at a local park with 12 people in attendance. They certainly seem to be squeezing a lot out of a very small player base.

 

[Spark]

In the instance of the obstructing the field dismissal, it is a piss weak one and Zimbabwe should be ashamed of themselves. I know the law is there, and I'm not evoking the old spirit of cricket nonsense...but surely common sense says that ball is dead. It's nowhere near the stumps. The batsman waits for a few seconds, think it's dead, picks it up and all of a sudden the poor bastard is out because he's being a decent bloke. Does he have to ask 'excuse me chaps, is the ball dead?' And if he kicks it to a close in fielder, he's not out - is he? No, he isn't.

These kids need the adults in the room - ie the umpires and coaches - to guide them to be morally and lawfully right in what they do, or it turns into a circus. The umpire could have easily stepped in and said the ball was dead. And as a coach myself, there is zero chance I would have let the batsman walk off. The Zimbabwean coach shouldn't have let it fly.

I think the umpire really should be able to make an adjudication on whether the ball is dead or not irrespective of whether the fielding captain claims straight-facedly that it's not. Or at a minimum, if the ball is literally stationary and both batsmen are in their crease then it's automatically dead, no ifs, buts, or maybes.

 

[SteveNZ]

I think the umpire really should be able to make an adjudication on whether the ball is dead or not irrespective of whether the fielding captain claims straight-facedly that it's not. Or at a minimum, if the ball is literally stationary and both batsmen are in their crease then it's automatically dead, no ifs, buts, or maybes.

Agreed. That would've been a very easy call for an umpire to make, that it was dead.

 

[thierry henry]

I think the umpire really should be able to make an adjudication on whether the ball is dead or not irrespective of whether the fielding captain claims straight-facedly that it's not.

Surely he can though, right? Semantics/legalese perhaps, but even if the rule is about the subjective perspective of the players, it's the umpire who determines what that subjective belief really was. He could've decided that the players didn't genuinely regard the ball as live if he wanted to. The rule doesn't change to literally transfer the umpire's powers to the players?

 

[Spark]

Surely he can though, right? Semantics/legalese perhaps, but even if the rule is about the subjective perspective of the players, it's the umpire who determines what that subjective belief really was. He could've decided that the players didn't genuinely regard the ball as live if he wanted to. The rule doesn't change to literally transfer the umpire's powers to the players?

I mean I don't think he can, otherwise it's very difficult to see how that appeal was even considered in the first place.

 

[thierry henry]

I mean I don't think he can, otherwise it's very difficult to see how that appeal was even considered in the first place.

"The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batters at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play".

What I'm saying is, it still requires a determination by the umpire as to the state of mind of the fielding side. The argument against him declaring the ball dead is not that it is a decision outside of his jurisdiction, but I guess that it might be a willfully incorrect decision on the evidence before him (i.e. the fielder appealed therefore he must've thought it was live). I still reckon he should've just said nah I don't really believe you thought it was live.