Cricket things that annoy you

[31550]

Jonny Bairstow wasn't attempting a run either, but that was out.

And two days ago a batter was given out for the apparently heinous act of giving the ball back to the wicketkeeper.

Both of those decisions were correct, although the batting side had every right to feel aggrieved at it being a cheap dismissal.

There have been plenty of obstructing the field/handled the ball dismissals over the years that were instinctive or reactive, but they were still out.

There is an exception in the obstructing the field rule for instances where the "obstruction is to avoid injury" but the ball was headed for Green's pads, not his head, so I can't see that's the reason for the appeal being turned down. The other exception is if the obstruction is accidental, and it wasn't that either.

As you rightly say, Green was out of his crease, Stobo was trying to run him out, and Green hit the ball away, thereby preventing a potential runout. Is it a bit cheap? Yeah, sure. But given Whiteman appealed, it should have been given out.

Agree. Rules of cricket say it's out. (My idea of) 'spirit of cricket' says it's not out, and fielding side should have withdrawn the appeal noting that the batsman was just blocking the ball, rather than deliberately preventing himself from being run out. The question to ask is "was the batsman trying for an unfair advantage by taking this action?" And in this case, no he wasn't. Incidentally the same applies to the Bairstow incident (it's out), but unfortunately for Bairstow he can't argue 'spirit of cricket' because his own previous actions in stumping and running out wandering batsmen shows he doesn't ascribe to this 'spirit'.

 

[corbies]

Jonny Bairstow wasn't attempting a run either, but that was out.

And two days ago a batter was given out for the apparently heinous act of giving the ball back to the wicketkeeper.

Both of those decisions were correct, although the batting side had every right to feel aggrieved at it being a cheap dismissal.

There have been plenty of obstructing the field/handled the ball dismissals over the years that were instinctive or reactive, but they were still out.

There is an exception in the obstructing the field rule for instances where the "obstruction is to avoid injury" but the ball was headed for Green's pads, not his head, so I can't see that's the reason for the appeal being turned down. The other exception is if the obstruction is accidental, and it wasn't that either.

As you rightly say, Green was out of his crease, Stobo was trying to run him out, and Green hit the ball away, thereby preventing a potential runout. Is it a bit cheap? Yeah, sure. But given Whiteman appealed, it should have been given out.

This guy is a MCC Laws Advisor and he reckons it's borderline.

 

[nobbyiscool]

It's such a weird one.

He's not obliged to jump out of the way of it. But if he doesn't play it with his bat, it's crashing into his foot. So we kind of would be creating an expectation that he jump out of the way if he doesn't want to risk a broken foot. And if he jumps out of the way it probably runs him out.

I probably lean towards that tweet posted above.

This guy is a MCC Laws Advisor and he reckons it's borderline.

I think he's taking an action to avoid being hit, so I'm comfortable with it being not out.

I do think it's a rule that could be revisited. So much has happened in cricket over the last decade to improve player safety, it seems crazy that we're arguing a guy should be out because he didn't want to be hit by a ball pegged at him from 15 metres.

 

[PhatBoy]

Jonny Bairstow wasn't attempting a run either, but that was out.

And two days ago a batter was given out for the apparently heinous act of giving the ball back to the wicketkeeper.

Both of those decisions were correct, although the batting side had every right to feel aggrieved at it being a cheap dismissal.

There have been plenty of obstructing the field/handled the ball dismissals over the years that were instinctive or reactive, but they were still out.

There is an exception in the obstructing the field rule for instances where the "obstruction is to avoid injury" but the ball was headed for Green's pads, not his head, so I can't see that's the reason for the appeal being turned down. The other exception is if the obstruction is accidental, and it wasn't that either.

As you rightly say, Green was out of his crease, Stobo was trying to run him out, and Green hit the ball away, thereby preventing a potential runout. Is it a bit cheap? Yeah, sure. But given Whiteman appealed, it should have been given out.

It’s not the batsman’s job to determine if the ball would hit his pads or his feet: he has a right to protect his person. In that instance the fielder has thrown the ball directly at him. Of course he has a right to take some sort of preventative action

 

[big_e]

This guy is a MCC Laws Advisor and he reckons it's borderline.

Looking at it again on the Instagram Reel, Green actually moves towards the ball, to get behind the ball and block it back to the bowler.

Compare it to the Ben Stokes one, in which he was given out.



If you were told one was out and one wasn't, you'd think it was the other way around.

 

[nobbyiscool]

If you were told one was out and one wasn't, you'd think it was the other way around.

Absolutely not, Stokes' hand comes off the bat to block the ball when it wasn't coming at his body. That one's not even in the same "spirit of the game" argument, it's clearly out.

 

[Smoooothy]

Looking at it again on the Instagram Reel, Green actually moves towards the ball, to get behind the ball and block it back to the bowler.

Compare it to the Ben Stokes one, in which he was given out.



If you were told one was out and one wasn't, you'd think it was the other way around.

thats not even in the same universe?! stokes is out every day of the week there

this one would have provided a better argument

 

[31550]

Absolutely not, Stokes' hand comes off the bat to block the ball when it wasn't coming at his body. That one's not even in the same "spirit of the game" argument, it's clearly out.

Stokes has no legitimate reason to use his hand to block the ball here. If he doesn't deliberatley put his hand in the way, the ball misses his body and hits the stumps. Out.

 

[big_e]

Stokes has no legitimate reason to use his hand to block the ball here. If he doesn't deliberatley put his hand in the way, the ball misses his body and hits the stumps. Out.

Yeah, for clarification, I agree the Stokes one is out, too. The comparison is with the attempt to avoid injury.

Stokes is trying to get out of the way - you can see him fling his head back. His hand comes off the bat, I think probably instinctively but it doesn't matter whether he meant it or not - the rule is the rule.

Compare it with Green's response at having a ball thrown at the wicket. The MCC guy points out the rule is to avoid injury, but if he was fearful of being hurt, you'd think he'd have tried to get out of the way, not get behind it and block it.

 

[ioppolo]

Our big one was a mankad in the 19s World Cup against Zimbabwe wasn’t it

Yes, I've just found this however. This is what I was thinking of though the actual events are slightly different. Another one of those that could divide opinion.

 

[PhatBoy]

Yes, I've just found this however. This is what I was thinking of though the actual events are slightly different. Another one of those that could divide opinion.

We shouldn’t have appealed for that imo.

 

[SoYouThink90]

This one annoys the s**t out of me. If you get to senior cricket without at least having some way of playing the short ball, your club and you personally have been completely remiss, in a dangerous way. The one that annoys me the most is when they take their eyes off the ball.

Either you've avoided learning, or someone along the line has let you get away with playing the short ball poorly. If you've got a helmet on, you've no excuses for taking your eye off the ball. You're more likely to get hurt, and less likely to get hit where the helmet is at its strongest if you look away.

Get some backbone, and stare the *er down.

I have been watching old games recently and no one plays the hook shot anymore. Used to be much more common and used to be one way to take on a bouncer. I cannot for the life of me understand why some players NEVER do it? Its like they never learned as juniors. Do yourself a favor and watch Richie Richardson do it

 

[Gethelred]

I have been watching old games recently and no one plays the hook shot anymore. Used to be much more common and used to be one way to take on a bouncer. I cannot for the life of me understand why some players NEVER do it? Its like they never learned as juniors.

It's helmets. Helmets changed the game, alongside the 2 over the shoulder rule.

All of a sudden, a ball aimed at your head wasn't the risk to play at or get hit by it once was. All of a sudden, you could hard press forward as a default, set to and practice driving on the up to score more off the front foot, instead of having to sit back and play a back foot drive or defensive shot to the same ball.

You gain an increased ability to score off more balls, but what's gained causes you to lose the correct positioning to play a cross bat shot higher than your solar plexis with any control due to that strong forward press. No-one plays the hook, because they're in the complete wrong position to play the hook when they're ready to move; they're already moving forward.

Once, the prospect of putting your head at risk forced players to protect themselves. No more.

Do yourself a favor and watch Richie Richardson do it

I'll see if I can find some footage.

 

[peternorth]

I wonder if that's an unintended consequence of the World Test Championship.

Because every match counts you need to play your best team, rather than in the past where you were 3-0 up in a 5 test series and could afford to test new players.

i think you have a good point there.

although im finding it hard to remember a time pre test champs when players were rested allowing for another to take his place.

 

[big_e]

i think you have a good point there.

although im finding it hard to remember a time pre test champs when players were rested allowing for another to take his place.

It's been happening for a long time.

I mean, almost 20 years ago we rested both our captain and vice-captain from an overseas ODI tour. (Ponting and Gilchrist, meaning Michael Hussey captained Australia in New Zealand in 2007.)

 

[peternorth]

It's been happening for a long time.

I mean, almost 20 years ago we rested both our captain and vice-captain from an overseas ODI tour. (Ponting and Gilchrist, meaning Michael Hussey captained Australia in New Zealand in 2007.)

yes but tests?

 

[Phone]

This guy is a MCC Laws Advisor and he reckons it's borderline.

Ed Cowan, who is a board member for NSW and likely got given the document, says that in an interpretive guidance document for the Playing Conditions, we advise umpires not to call obstructing the field in this situation, for the reasons that are obvious to all.



I dare say part of the reason CA has introduced this guidance, although they haven't out and out put it into the playing conditions, is related to a couple of seasons ago when James Pattinson "tried" for a run-out and pinged Daniel Hughes on the ankle: James Pattinson fined, suspended for dangerous throw

It's a very good interpretation imo and it will hopefully reduce the amount of silly throws at the batter. Part of the interpretation is that the batter's eyes should be on the ball, making this different to Bairstow. It's also different to Ben Stokes one given Stokes momentum really did make a run-out a genuine chance. There was no universe where Chris Green, or Daniel Hughes in the above video, would have been ran-out.

 

[big_e]

Ed Cowan, who is a board member for NSW and likely got given the document, says that in an interpretive guidance document for the Playing Conditions, we advise umpires not to call obstructing the field in this situation, for the reasons that are obvious to all.



I dare say part of the reason CA has introduced this guidance, although they haven't out and out put it into the playing conditions, is related to a couple of seasons ago when James Pattinson "tried" for a run-out and pinged Daniel Hughes on the ankle: James Pattinson fined, suspended for dangerous throw

It's a very good interpretation imo and it will hopefully reduce the amount of silly throws at the batter. Part of the interpretation is that the batter's eyes should be on the ball, making this different to Bairstow. It's also different to Ben Stokes one given Stokes momentum really did make a run-out a genuine chance. There was no universe where Chris Green, or Daniel Hughes in the above video, would have been ran-out.

Under the Laws of Cricket, published by the MCC, it's out.

Under the Sheffield Shield Playing Conditions, published by Cricket Australia, it's out.

We know that because instead of referring to either of those documents, a NSW Cricket representative, a day and a half later, is having to rely on some other document that nobody else seemed to know existed and which he is paraphrasing.

But if that's the ruling, then so be it.

 

[Phone]

but then under the ruling made by two umpires.....it wasn't out.

You can listen to him at 32m (Vapes at the Allan Border Medal, funky dismissals, and the ‘same old story’ at the SCG - ABC listen) talk about the digging into it that he's done, which I reckon is more relevant digging than everyone else commenting on it can claim to have done tbh. an umpire or whoever has probably come back to him and said here's why it wasn't given out based on this document and he's either looked at it himself or relied on their word. I agree that a screenshot would be better than paraphrasing. Ideally an CA press release will be issued when the match has ended to clarify it once and for all.

it makes sense to me that following the james pattinson incident, some guidance to umpires was issued to say "yeah, we'd rather the batter just hit the ball rather than themselves get hit in a situation like that, so don't give them out if they do protect themselves like that".

it's not like interpretive guidance documents are some rarely seen thing. for example, I can see an Almanac document for the ICC test playing conditions for 2020. I can't see evidence that the ICC website ever published it, but rather kindly, the website for Sri Lankan scorers published it, and it's pretty interesting to look through. And of course, the main sporting league discussed on this forum, AFL, is kind of infamous for having a published rules document, and then a bunch of interpretations for those rules that are not so easy to find published versions of. These documents should just be published, instead of being able to be accessed by umpires and officials, but for whatever reason despite interpretations and guideance so often being what causes big debate, these documents don't make it to the public space.

(I think the interpretation, as paraphrased by Cowan, makes 100% sense and it should be formally entered into the playing conditions across all countries and formats.)

 

[Phone]

Also, that almanac that the Sri Lankan cricket scores published helped me with a cricket thing I've long wondered about!

I swear that Richie Benaud, perhaps another old C9 commentator like Greig, but I think it was Benaud, used to say that if the arm guard was connected to the glove, and it hit the arm guard, it counted as an extension of the glove and you could be given out, and so it was important to keep a little bit of space between the two. A sweat band might have been used as an example as well. However a year or two ago, there was an appeal where the guard was clearly connected to the glove and it was not given out, so I thought maybe it was just an old tale that was never true. Anyway, in that document, under caught:




So that seems to be focused on players having a long guard and it over-lapping with the glove and how to rule on that, which is different to what Benaud is talking about in my recollection, but it leaves me to suspect that perhaps Benaud at one time was correct and we changed it. Does anyone else have a memory of this tale?

 

[big_e]

but then under the ruling made by two umpires.....it wasn't out.

You can listen to him at 32m (Vapes at the Allan Border Medal, funky dismissals, and the ‘same old story’ at the SCG - ABC listen) talk about the digging into it that he's done, which I reckon is more relevant digging than everyone else commenting on it can claim to have done tbh. an umpire or whoever has probably come back to him and said here's why it wasn't given out based on this document and he's either looked at it himself or relied on their word. I agree that a screenshot would be better than paraphrasing. Ideally an CA press release will be issued when the match has ended to clarify it once and for all.

it makes sense to me that following the james pattinson incident, some guidance to umpires was issued to say "yeah, we'd rather the batter just hit the ball rather than themselves get hit in a situation like that, so don't give them out if they do protect themselves like that".

it's not like interpretive guidance documents are some rarely seen thing. for example, I can see an Almanac document for the ICC test playing conditions for 2020. I can't see evidence that the ICC website ever published it, but rather kindly, the website for Sri Lankan scorers published it, and it's pretty interesting to look through. And of course, the main sporting league discussed on this forum, AFL, is kind of infamous for having a published rules document, and then a bunch of interpretations for those rules that are not so easy to find published versions of. These documents should just be published, instead of being able to be accessed by umpires and officials, but for whatever reason despite interpretations and guideance so often being what causes big debate, these documents don't make it to the public space.

(I think the interpretation, as paraphrased by Cowan, makes 100% sense and it should be formally entered into the playing conditions across all countries and formats.)

Well, that's a good find, cheers.

It helps to understand why Cowan is referring to it being in the playing conditions when it's not actually in the playing conditions (the published version is here: https://resources.cricket-australia...effield-Shield-Second-XI-8-September-2023.pdf or if that doesn't work, they're at the bottom of this page: Playing conditions updates ahead of 2023/24 season | cricket.com.au).

But jeez, if documents like this exist, it would help fans (and the media, none of whom have referred to it) if they were easily accessible.

 

[peternorth]

Hearing people say its not wonder australia lost to the windies when the captain is "woke" etc.

what does it say when australia is winning?

 

[PhatBoy]

Hearing people say its not wonder australia lost to the windies when the captain is "woke" etc.

what does it say when australia is winning?

I just want to know how that impacts on what happens on the field.

I mean yes if Australia was showing blatant sides repeatedly of never having any fight and it was a team wide pattern of gifting wickets and going to water whenever an opposition partnership grew beyond 40-50 runs you MAY have a point that it had somehow lost its edge or something but I’m yet to see any evidence of this.

Khawaja plays steady grafting cricket.
Smith and Marnus play the same way they always have.
Marsh is playing the same way in every game since he returned and frankly while it’s different to before it’s the only method that’s really worked.
Green has been cautious so far
Head is the only player with continuity in the team who’s method has noticeably changed and it has bought basically unchanged output: his average has more or less stayed the same since he started to score quicker.

Teams DO lose their edge and their toughness - several Ashes teams touring here have done it, some Australian teams going to Asia have done it where they seem to not want to bother even batting with a plan be it defensive or attacking, they just waltz out and play silly shots or make up their mind to block every single ball off the front foot etc.

I very much doubt it would come back to the political opinions of their skipper who in Cummins’ case has shown he’s one of the toughest cricketers around repeatedly

 

[Phone]

Well, that's a good find, cheers.

It helps to understand why Cowan is referring to it being in the playing conditions when it's not actually in the playing conditions (the published version is here: https://resources.cricket-australia...effield-Shield-Second-XI-8-September-2023.pdf or if that doesn't work, they're at the bottom of this page: Playing conditions updates ahead of 2023/24 season | cricket.com.au).

But jeez, if documents like this exist, it would help fans (and the media, none of whom have referred to it) if they were easily accessible.

absolutely. my favourite version of this, and this was well over a decade ago now, was that we were into about R4 or R5 of the AFL season, and that season's tribunal guide still hadn't been uploaded to the AFL website....but it was on the NSWAFL website! I think it was a few more rounds until it was uploaded. and of course we had weekly meltdowns about this or that MRP decision throughout that period, all without the document of truth being on the AFL website. similarly, this Almanac document probably exists behind a log in screen for a local scorers and umpires association or something like that when it should just be on the CA website. It's one more small document to upload, just do it! (because I'm now incredibly interested in this, I've sent them an email )

 

[BStaff17]

The continuation by former English Cricketers waxing lyrical about Bazball changing Test Cricket.

They are coming 9th in WTC currently.

I repeat 9th.