honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
The scary part is it is a level higher than that of Michael Vaughan's.Well yeah but "on the level of English cricket journos" is not a standard the rest of us should be holding ourselves to.
The scary part is it is a level higher than that of Michael Vaughan's.Well yeah but "on the level of English cricket journos" is not a standard the rest of us should be holding ourselves to.
I'm including him in that group ftr. But yes it is something to see them go "oh ho ho what a clever piece of gamesmanship" when if it had been, say, Steve Smith or Marnus Labuschagne (who has form in that regard) it probably would have been back page of tomorrow's Daily Mail.The scary part is it is a level higher than that of Michael Vaughan's.
Bavuma did the right thing in post-match media and acknowledged that de Kock did it deliberately " Yeah it was clever from Quinny. " .... but then showed that he doesn't know rules by saying " I don't think he broke the rules in any kind of way".Yea i gotta say i don't know him but i don't look at bavuma and think he should be captaining in any format of the game. Maybe he shall grow into the role because that seemed to affect De Kock too. He didn't set the right fields or make the right changes today and got nervous at the end when it could have been avoided easily.
41.5 ??? Which I think was introduced after fake fielding was becoming more common (e.g. ring fielder sliding towards ball, then fakes to throw after ball has passed fielder and is heading into outfield, but fielder's body has obscured batsman's view of the ball).No laws were broken. Some of you here and elsewhere on social media are overreading what 'deceive' means in that quoted rule.
That would be a terrible thing to penalize. Fielders often run hard and collect and throw from muscle memory. Even when they miss collecting the ball. Are you telling me a batsman can legit call himself deceived by this simply because the fielder's body prevented him from seeing the ball?41.5 ??? Which I think was introduced after fake fielding was becoming more common (e.g. ring fielder sliding towards ball, then fakes to throw after ball has passed fielder and is heading into outfield, but fielder's body has obscured batsman's view of the ball).
If it became a court room argument, the outraging party would be laughed out of the court with a penalty for frivolous petition.The play by QdK was fine before the new change to the fake fielding law. Now that it is there, he is in clear violation of it. although I can see how he can get away with it if it became like a court room argument.
The Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) has weighed in on Fakhar Zaman's contentious run-out on Sunday night in the second ODI against South Africa, saying it was "up to the umpires to decide" if Quinton de Kock had attempted to distract or deceive the batsman.
There are replays. Umpires can use them to judge the intentions of players - see recent obstructing the field incident WI vs SL.i gotta say though real time it was hard for me to tell that he was trying to deceive the batsman there and it can't always be that easy to prove that it happened deliberately in such a situation....
And by the reaction of other South African players, they also knew what had just happened as it wasn't just a standard response to a wicket falling.The hand pointing to the bowler AFTER the throw had come in was definitely the clincher for me.