Most selfish act in international cricket history by an individual player

[Jack1]

My biggest takeaway from that is what a stupid rule

I always thought that. If you get blasted for six that should be on the scorecard. I hope they changed the rule after the incident.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

I remember two West Indian batsmen doing this in an ODI (?) v NZ, and it was pretty much neck and neck. Another one I can't remember where and who it was

Runako Morton and Chanderpaul:

 

[Anil]

it has to be all those pieces of **** who took money to fix games...low life scum like azharuddin, cronje et al...

 

[OverratedSanity]

Apart from match fixing / spot fixing the worst (and funniest) was Ricky ponting choosing to bowl cameron white and Mike Hussey at a crucial stage of a test match in India to get the overrate up because he was worried he'd cop a ban.

 

[Burgey]

I won money on that

So did he.

 

[Burgey]

Apart from match fixing / spot fixing the worst (and funniest) was Ricky ponting choosing to bowl cameron white and Mike Hussey at a crucial stage of a test match in India to get the overrate up because he was worried he'd cop a ban.

Nah, it would have been far more selfish of him to actually continue to bowl Lee or whoever else it was and deliberately ignore what he umpires were telling him imo.

One of those damned if you, damned if you don't moments I suppose.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Apart from match fixing / spot fixing the worst (and funniest) was Ricky ponting choosing to bowl cameron white and Mike Hussey at a crucial stage of a test match in India to get the overrate up because he was worried he'd cop a ban.

Feel like you've got this backwards somehow. If he'd done the opposite you'd have even more reason to call him selfish

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

I don't know if this is selfish, but Pat Symcox attempting to bowl wides to cut off Nathan Astle from scoring an ODI hundred was putrid. I remember it happening recently as well, although it appeared to me to be poorly executed rather than purposeful. Who was that?

Not international cricket, but this happened in the BBL this year when Andrew Tye (I think?) bowled a wide (a very high, leg side bouncer) to end the game and deny James Vince a century.

 

[The Sean]

My biggest takeaway from that is what a stupid rule

Completely agree. They shouldn't stop at the no-ball, they should stop when the delivery and all actions associated with it are complete. If you need one run to win and hit a four then the count doesn't stop at one, you get all four (though that in itself throws up little quirks like the second highest successful fourth innings chase becoming the highest by hitting a four when you need one to win!).

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I know opinion is divided over Lara's 400. But in my opinion no team needs to bat two and half days and score 750 to give themselves the best chance of winning. I think it was personal glory hunting.

 

[Flem274*]

I know opinion is divided over Lara's 400. But in my opinion no team needs to bat two and half days and score 750 to give themselves the best chance of winning. I think it was personal glory hunting.

Probably, but if you can get to 750 in decent time (2 days) then you definitely should.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I don't think it's the most selfish act ever, but I never warmed to the bloke so am going to give a shout out to Fat Gray Smith's decision in the fifth test of our 04/05 tour to run and hide in the middle order because Hoggy had been connecting the new cherry with his big front pad with ribtickling frequency all tour.

He made 25 & 3 at #5, so the decision was obviously vindicated.

 

[GIMH]

Completely agree. They shouldn't stop at the no-ball, they should stop when the delivery and all actions associated with it are complete. If you need one run to win and hit a four then the count doesn't stop at one, you get all four (though that in itself throws up little quirks like the second highest successful fourth innings chase becoming the highest by hitting a four when you need one to win!).

I'm almost certain I shouldn't challenge The Sean on cricketing knowledge ever, but I have always thought the game did stop at the runs.

For example, yes my go-to is in the 05 Ashes, and what.

31.5
2
Warne to Giles, 2 runs
THAT'S IT! England have done it! full and on the pads, flicked through the on side for two of the most valuable runs Ashley Giles has ever scored in his life!

Pretty certain the ball went to the boundary. Granted that might be because the fielders stopped chasing it. But I would argue that's why the rule is the correct one (if I have this right)...

 

[Bijed]

I'm almost certain I shouldn't challenge The Sean on cricketing knowledge ever, but I have always thought the game did stop at the runs.

For example, yes my go-to is in the 05 Ashes, and what.



Pretty certain the ball went to the boundary. Granted that might be because the fielders stopped chasing it. But I would argue that's why the rule is the correct one (if I have this right)...

Stokes' winning 4 at Headingley counted in full when the scores were tied, because he didn't run. I presume if Giles hadn't run (or was in the middle of the second when the ball hit the boundary, even) in your example, he'd have got the 4

 

[Kraken]

Stokes' winning 4 at Headingley counted in full when the scores were tied, because he didn't run. I presume if Giles hadn't run (or was in the middle of the second when the ball hit the boundary, even) in your example, he'd have got the 4

was just about to write that exact thing, running (and batsmen crossing) ends the game in those scenarios, even if the ball goes for 4

 

[The Sean]

I'm almost certain I shouldn't challenge The Sean on cricketing knowledge ever, but I have always thought the game did stop at the runs.

For example, yes my go-to is in the 05 Ashes, and what.



Pretty certain the ball went to the boundary. Granted that might be because the fielders stopped chasing it. But I would argue that's why the rule is the correct one (if I have this right)...

Ah yes, fair point - because they ran those two runs and so the runs were completed before the ball crossed the boundary. Had Giles just watched the ball sail to the fence without running that would have been four.

 

[Bijed]

I wonder what the precise ruling is though - for example, if the scores are tied and you sky the ball and run one before it comes down, the game wouldn't be over until it lands as a catch could be taken. If in the event, the fielder takes the catch but it turns out they're stood on the rope as they do so, do you get the six? I would feel like you should as the game is totally live until the moment the catch is missed, which is the exact same moment as the six. But given that it isn't a wicket, your one a few seconds ago technically did win the game?

 

[The Sean]

That's a really interesting one - I wonder if something like that has ever happened? The precise ruling is as below:

16.6.2 The side batting last will have scored enough runs to win only if its total of runs is sufficient without including any runs completed by the batsmen before the completion of a catch, or the obstruction of a catch, from which the striker could be dismissed.

16.6.3 If a boundary is scored before the batsmen have completed sufficient runs to win the match, the whole of the boundary allowance shall be credited to the side’s total and, in the case of a hit by the bat, to the striker’s score.

I think my interpretation of the law as it stands would be that the game ends at the moment the catch isn't taken and the one run required has been completed, so the six wouldn't count (harsh as that would be!).

 

[Bijed]

That's a really interesting one - I wonder if something like that has ever happened? The precise ruling is as below:

16.6.2 The side batting last will have scored enough runs to win only if its total of runs is sufficient without including any runs completed by the batsmen before the completion of a catch, or the obstruction of a catch, from which the striker could be dismissed.

16.6.3 If a boundary is scored before the batsmen have completed sufficient runs to win the match, the whole of the boundary allowance shall be credited to the side’s total and, in the case of a hit by the bat, to the striker’s score.

I think my interpretation of the law as it stands would be that the game ends at the moment the catch isn't taken and the one run required has been completed, so the six wouldn't count (harsh as that would be!).

I apologise for re-writing my post whilst you were typing this so it looks like you've answered a slightly different question!

 

[The Sean]

I apologise for re-writing my post whilst you were typing this so it looks like you've answered a slightly different question!

Ha, no problem - my own fault for not quoting your original message! I am going to leave my answer as it is for now and people can just assume I can't read...