***Official*** Australia in England (The Ashes)

[aussie]

Hopefully Warne can come up with something to make up for his idiotic dismissal...

well he better produce something magical, I dont know what the f**k he was thinking when he played that shot.

 

[luckyeddie]

It's a pity about the Dizzy LBW, but as far as I understand it, the rule says if you're struck in front on the full, the umpire's to assume it was going to go straight on - so I don't see how Koertzen had much choice..

The umpire it to assume that the ball will continue on its current trajectory

 

[Slow Love™]

I happen to agree that Koertzen is fairly ordinary (second to Bucknor on the international panel for poorness, as I think I may have said in another recent thread), but I think you guys are missing the point re: the Dizzy dismissal. I don't think there was any discretion available for Rudi under the circumstances.

 

[Shane Warne]

I happen to agree that Koertzen is fairly ordinary (second to Bucknor on the international panel for poorness, .

No coincidence that he is probably second oldest to Bucknor as well.

The poor old man should be in a home somewhere by now, not out there in the middle.

 

[vic_orthdox]

The umpire it to assume that the ball will continue on its current trajectory

I was pretty sure that in the last few years, they've changed it to the ridiculous rule that Slow Love has alluded to. Or at least that's how many an LBW has been explained over here.

 

[Slow Love™]

The umpire it to assume that the ball will continue on its current trajectory

Ah, fair enough... Bad call from Rudi then. I thought it was a matter of being struck in line on the full and being judged accordingly.

 

[steds]

Leave your mother out of this, cheerleader chick.

Come on. You can do better than that. That was neither funny nor anywhere insulting enough. I've seen 4 year olds do better. Have another go, you need to prove you're not like the real Warne - a considerable weight full to the brim of sh*t.

 

[Shane Warne]

well he better produce something magical, I dont know what the f**k he was thinking when he played that shot.

He may as well be opening the bowling.

These two idiots have barely taken a wicket between them all tour.

 

[Scaly piscine]

The key word was "intelligently".

Not sure taking so many singles off the first ball of the over was particularly intelligent. I think England were happy with 1 run an over with 5 balls at Gillespie. He didn't to go into slog mode or anything, but there were 2s to be had and 4s with his ability.

 

[aussie]

i hope Lee has learnt form his 1st innings hammering and properly this time around.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

He may as well be opening the bowling.

These two idiots have barely taken a wicket between them all tour.

Sorry? Lee who was devastating all through the ODIs, in the first tour match, and in the first test? Hasn't taken a wicket all series? Right...

 

[vic_orthdox]

Not sure taking so many singles off the first ball of the over was particularly intelligent. I think England were happy with 1 run an over with 5 balls at Gillespie. He didn't to go into slog mode or anything, but there were 2s to be had and 4s with his ability.

Situation of "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't", really.

 

[Slow Love™]

I was pretty sure that in the last few years, they've changed it to the ridiculous rule that Slow Love has alluded to. Or at least that's how many an LBW has been explained over here.

That's what I thought.... I just did a quick search, and only came up with a few matches on my search terms (which means I need to refine them), but what I found seemed to imply that I was right in the first place... Will have to check further.

 

[aussie]

These two idiots have barely taken a wicket between them all tour.

who are you talking about???, Dizzy yes but not Lee

 

[luckyeddie]

I was pretty sure that in the last few years, they've changed it to the ridiculous rule that Slow Love has alluded to. Or at least that's how many an LBW has been explained over here.

Nope.

From the ECB site, incorporating the 2000 and 2003 changes...

Law 36 (Leg before wicket)
1. Out LBW
The striker is out LBW in the circumstances set out below.
(a)The bowler delivers a ball, not being a No ball

and (b) the ball, if it is not intercepted full pitch, pitches in line between wicket and wicket or on the off side of the striker's wicket

and (c) the ball not having previously touched his bat, the striker intercepts the ball, either full pitch or after pitching, with any part of his person

and (d) the point of impact, even if above the level of the bails
either (i) is between wicket and wicket
or (ii) is either between wicket and wicket or outside the line of the off stump, if the striker has made no genuine attempt to play the ball with his bat

and (e) but for the interception, the ball would have hit the wicket.

2. Interception of the ball
(a) In assessing points (c), (d) and (e) in 1 above, only the first interception is to be considered.

(b) In assessing point (e) in 1 above, it is to be assumed that the path of the ball before interception would have continued after interception, irrespective of whether the ball might have pitched subsequently or not.

3. Off side of wicket
The off side of the striker's wicket shall be determined by the striker's stance at the moment the ball comes into play for that delivery.

Look at 2(b) in conjunction with 1(e)

 

[Slow Love™]

Not sure taking so many singles off the first ball of the over was particularly intelligent. I think England were happy with 1 run an over with 5 balls at Gillespie. He didn't to go into slog mode or anything, but there were 2s to be had and 4s with his ability.

Meh, Gillespie was doing all right, and has earned the trust. They had been travelling along nicely up to that point, and Dizzy's generally very good at blocking up an end. I think Gilly was just facing some decent bowling and didn't want to start saying "no" to the singles available.

 

[luckyeddie]

Not sure taking so many singles off the first ball of the over was particularly intelligent. I think England were happy with 1 run an over with 5 balls at Gillespie. He didn't to go into slog mode or anything, but there were 2s to be had and 4s with his ability.

I seem to recall certain Australians (the absent idiot AND the one striving to take his title) said precisely the same thing regarding Pietersen's batting in the first test.

It was silly then, it's silly now, but maybe it's more to do with the amount of faith the batters have in the tail-enders nowadays.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Situation of "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't", really.

Well the thing was that England would have pretty much given Gilchrist a single off the 3rd or even 4th ball of the over anyway. So he has 2-3 balls to try and hit a 2 or 4, or he can just take a dot ball. In the end Gillespie lasted 37 balls - which is quite a decent length of time, but the partnership was only 26 (Gillespie got 7 of those).

 

[vic_orthdox]

I seem to recall certain Australians (the absent idiot AND the one striving to take his title) said precisely the same thing regarding Pietersen's batting in the first test.

It was silly then, it's silly now, but maybe it's more to do with the amount of faith the batters have in the tail-enders nowadays.

Still Gillespie was unlucky. And keep in mind that Australia have been doing it for the last 10 years - Duncan Fletcher talked in the ODIs how it was a psychological win for England when someone (can't remember who) refused to give strike to a tail-ender towards the end of an innings, because Australia never does it.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Still Gillespie was unlucky. And keep in mind that Australia have been doing it for the last 10 years - Duncan Fletcher talked in the ODIs how it was a psychological win for England when someone (can't remember who) refused to give strike to a tail-ender towards the end of an innings, because Australia never does it.

If Gillespie had been able to get singles, I'd have agreed with it, but he only got 3 singles in 37 balls and some of those might have been last ball of the over.