• 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***Match #38- Bangladesh vs Sri Lanka - November 6th - Delhi (D/N)

X

Xix2565

International Regular
mr_mister said:
You'd defend the dumbest **** because "it's da law"

Go back in your hole, showing your face to post on this sub forum as soon as the spirit of cricket is under attack again
Click to expand...
Lol **** off with this bullshit. Crying constantly just because you didn't like what you saw even though it's within the laws. Worst kind of fan, the total bitch.
 
OverratedSanity

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Xix2565 said:
Lol **** off with this bull****. Crying constantly just because you didn't like what you saw even though it's within the laws. Worst kind of fan, the total bitch.
Click to expand...
Just because something is technically within the laws doesn't mean it's right.

**** the police etc.
 
Owzat

Owzat

U19 Captain
Ashes81 said:
I think the fact that this is the 1st time a player has been timed out in international cricket says it all.

Mathews can't have been the 1st cricketer to maybe be a bit tardy to the crease or have an equipment issue, but no team previously has ever decided to appeal for a dismissal under such circumstances.

The majority of cricket followers would I'd imagine think is a pretty poor show from Bangladesh.
Click to expand...
I agree, the rarity of some of these controversial dismissals speaks volumes - stumped when the ball should have been called dead, although frankly I'd say it was a run out (doesn't matter if attempting run) aka careycad, the more usual mankad and now timed out

all instances have one thing in common, I sincerely doubt the dismissed batsman (and batswoman) were 'transgressing' any more than lots of other players



one interesting thing from reading the laws yesterday, a quick spot check on stumpings not that I read them for fun (!), to give a batsman out the team has to appeal - as I gather they did, and frankly just sits with the above cads, just another a hole trying to get a cheap wicket, be it Dean, Bairstow or Mathews



31.1 Umpire not to give batter out without an appeal

Neither umpire shall give a batter out, even though he/she may be out under the Laws, unless appealed to by a fielder. This shall not debar a batter who is out under any of the Laws from leaving the wicket without an appeal having been made. Note, however, the provisions of 31.7.


31.7 Batter leaving the wicket under a misapprehension

An umpire shall intervene if satisfied that a batter, not having been given out, has left the wicket under a misapprehension of being out. The umpire intervening shall call and signal Dead ball to prevent any further action by the fielding side and shall recall the batter.

A batter may be recalled at any time up to the instant when the ball comes into play for the next delivery, unless it is the final wicket of the innings, in which case it should be up to the instant when the umpires leave the field.
 
mr_mister

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Xix2565 said:
Lol **** off with this bull****. Crying constantly just because you didn't like what you saw even though it's within the laws. Worst kind of fan, the total bitch.
Click to expand...
You're legit Rex Banner from that Simpsons episode
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
mr_mister said:
You'd defend the dumbest **** because "it's da law"

Go back in your hole, showing your face to post on this sub forum as soon as the spirit of cricket is under attack again
Click to expand...
The RONSBU is as legitimate as any other form of dismissal. But claiming timed out when a batsman had a problem with his helmet is definitely stupid. I am with Howe and others who felt the umpire could have simply ruled not out if Angelo was indeed at the crease within the time limits and the delay was only due to the faulty helmet.

Also, why the personal attacks just because someone does not share your opinion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top