England v New Zealand
-
- Posts: 3962
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:00 pm
- Been Liked: 1240 times
- Has Liked: 491 times
Re: England v New Zealand
I agree should perhaps say “if they had crossed at the time of the ball leaving the fielder”
-
- Posts: 2347
- Joined: Mon May 13, 2019 5:46 pm
- Been Liked: 412 times
- Has Liked: 87 times
Re: England v New Zealand
Claret Tony did Danny Reuben the England media man used to work for Burnley Fc?
Re: England v New Zealand
Both batsmen could run 12 yards, only just crossing, and then go back to their own creases - the batsman would keep the strike and they would score a run because only the first run is normally deemed short. Except that this rule about deliberate short runs means that that tactic wouldn't work.Spijed wrote:What's the point of running a short run when you might as well just stay in your crease?
Re: England v New Zealand
No, it wasn't a catch. It was a ball in play, in the air, and it remianed in play until it became a 6.BennyD wrote:It wasn’t a 6 until the fielder touched the rope, it was a catch.
How many times did a fielder make a valiant attempt to save a ball from reaching the boundary, and get a hand on it, but it still went for four? Well, every time that happened, only four runs scored. The batsman didn't get credit for the runs they had already run, because that rule only applies after the fielder has got control of the ball and then takes another action (eg. overthrows) that puts the ball over the boundary. Same with the 6 - the fielder never had control of the ball, so the 6 counts just as if the fielder had never touched it. Incidentally, you can't have 6 overthrows which is what you're trying for.
As for the catch, Law 32 part 3 - "The act of making the catch shall start from the time when a fielder first handles the ball and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control both over the ball and over his own movement.". Yesterday was clearly not a catch.
http://www.rulesofcricket.co.uk/the_rul ... law_32.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: England v New Zealand
Another one for those who know the rules.
Is a batsman allowed to deliberately dispense with his bat whilst running between the wickets if he felt carrying his bat was slowing him down and he had a better chance of making his ground without it?
Is a batsman allowed to deliberately dispense with his bat whilst running between the wickets if he felt carrying his bat was slowing him down and he had a better chance of making his ground without it?
Re: England v New Zealand
Yes. But he would lose the advantage of being able to extend his bat into the crease and buying himself a yard or so.Spijed wrote:Another one for those who know the rules.
Is a batsman allowed to deliberately dispense with his bat whilst running between the wickets if he felt carrying his bat was slowing him down and he had a better chance of making his ground without it?
One thing that I went mad about was Mark Wood coming out in all of his gear for the final ball - pads, gloves, helmet. He wasn't on strike and had no chance of being on strike (with two required to win, Eng would have won if they had run on a no ball or wide). He should have come out with the longest bat he could find and running spikes.
Re: England v New Zealand
Haha, brilliantOne thing that I went mad about was Mark Wood coming out in all of his gear for the final ball - pads, gloves, helmet. He wasn't on strike and had no chance of being on strike (with two required to win, Eng would have won if they had run on a no ball or wide). He should have come out with the longest bat he could find and running spikes.
Are there any rules in place to prevent Wood from doing this? Apart from the massive bat obviously
This user liked this post: Foulthrow
Re: England v New Zealand
I suppose every player is required to wear all the protective gear for safety reasons, batting or not, unless a slow bowler is on and they don't have to wear a helmet.Ric_C wrote:Haha, brilliant
Are there any rules in place to prevent Wood from doing this? Apart from the massive bat obviously
As for the bat. What constitutes a bat exactly? Could a six foot plank of wood by used?
-
- Posts: 5367
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1904 times
- Has Liked: 1980 times
Re: England v New Zealand
Bats have to be a certain size regards height, width etc.
-
- Posts: 5367
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1904 times
- Has Liked: 1980 times
Re: England v New Zealand
38 inch in height and 4,25 inch wide to clarify.
Re: England v New Zealand
Is that for 20/20 and test match cricket?Vino blanco wrote:38 inch in height and 4,25 inch wide to clarify.
-
- Posts: 5367
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1904 times
- Has Liked: 1980 times
Re: England v New Zealand
As far as I know it's for all cricket. However the thickness and shape of the rear of the bat blade can vary to make it heavier for the various types of cricket.
-
- Posts: 5367
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1904 times
- Has Liked: 1980 times
Re: England v New Zealand
Just googled it, the weight can be from 2 lb 7oz to 3 lb
Re: England v New Zealand
Can you post the link? The rule I can find doesn't mention weight.Vino blanco wrote:Just googled it, the weight can be from 2 lb 7oz to 3 lb
https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws/the-bat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
- Posts: 5367
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1904 times
- Has Liked: 1980 times
Re: England v New Zealand
I just googled 'cricket bat weight' and the details came up.
Re: England v New Zealand
I was looking at this the other day, nothing specific in the Laws of the game from what I can see (indeed, I don't think I've ever batted with a lid on). I imagine it would be against Law 42 though, conduct of players and he would be sent back by the umpire.Spijed wrote:I suppose every player is required to wear all the protective gear for safety reasons, batting or not, unless a slow bowler is on and they don't have to wear a helmet.
-
- Posts: 67895
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32546 times
- Has Liked: 5279 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: England v New Zealand
I don’t know but I would have thought all protection would be optional. When I started playing the only protection I used was the pink soap holder.
-
- Posts: 5367
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1904 times
- Has Liked: 1980 times
Re: England v New Zealand
Was that underneath your cap, CT?
Re: England v New Zealand
I don't think you do need to wear protection. I know that there are rules in place for U18s but I don't think there are for adults. I know a runner has to wear the same gear as who he is running for but I think Wood could have not bothered. Might be wrong though.
-
- Posts: 67895
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32546 times
- Has Liked: 5279 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: England v New Zealand
Ha ha - only had one serious injury when I got a ball smashing into my eye. Long before the days of helmets. Other than that, just a broken finger or two.Vino blanco wrote:Was that underneath your cap, CT?
Re: England v New Zealand
Unless the rule's changed, I don't think there is any legal rule. 2.5 to 3 pounds is the norm, but lighter or heavier is allowed.Vino blanco wrote:I just googled 'cricket bat weight' and the details came up.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-actua ... al-matches" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: England v New Zealand
Whilst not mandatory they do have to conform to certain safety standards apparently.ChrisG wrote:I was looking at this the other day, nothing specific in the Laws of the game from what I can see (indeed, I don't think I've ever batted with a lid on). I imagine it would be against Law 42 though, conduct of players and he would be sent back by the umpire.
https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/sport ... et-helmets" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
- Posts: 4200
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:07 am
- Been Liked: 1007 times
- Has Liked: 2048 times
- Location: North Hampshire
Re: England v New Zealand
Bats have tended to become slightly heavier - especially for limited over cricket where the onus is more on hitting big shots.Unless the rule's changed, I don't think there is any legal rule. 2.5 to 3 pounds is the norm, but lighter or heavier is allowed.
Always, though, remember Roy Harper's "old cricketer" song lyrics....(first verse)...
When the day is done and the ball has spun in the umpires pocket away
And all remains in the groundsman's pains for the rest of the time and a day
There'll be one mad dog and his master, pushing for four with the spin
On a dusty pitch with two pounds six of willow wood in the sun.
-
- Posts: 985
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:20 am
- Been Liked: 264 times
- Has Liked: 90 times
Re: England v New Zealand
I was saying this at the time. Why is he wearing a helmet and has pads on!Foulthrow wrote:Yes. But he would lose the advantage of being able to extend his bat into the crease and buying himself a yard or so.
One thing that I went mad about was Mark Wood coming out in all of his gear for the final ball - pads, gloves, helmet. He wasn't on strike and had no chance of being on strike (with two required to win, Eng would have won if they had run on a no ball or wide). He should have come out with the longest bat he could find and running spikes.
Edit: Read down a bit now. No reason to wear a helmet, many batters this world cup haven't worn one. He could have slipped some wicket keeper pads on.
-
- Posts: 16899
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6965 times
- Has Liked: 1484 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: England v New Zealand
If I knew I would be diving into my crease with a ball very likely to be whizzed towards my head I’d rather be wearing a helmet. Also the speed gained by losing the helmet would be negligible. Fair point about the pads though, was there no circumstance at all in which Wood would have faced a ball?claret wizard wrote:I was saying this at the time. Why is he wearing a helmet and has pads on!
Edit: Read down a bit now. No reason to wear a helmet, many batters this world cup haven't worn one. He could have slipped some wicket keeper pads on.
-
- Posts: 18097
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
- Been Liked: 3875 times
- Has Liked: 2073 times
Re: England v New Zealand
You have to wear a helmet when representing any England sides.
This rule was brought in when the Aussie batter died the other year after being hit.
There will be a rule for wearing the correct attire. If a batsman called for a runner they had to come out in the same gear as the batsman.
This rule was brought in when the Aussie batter died the other year after being hit.
There will be a rule for wearing the correct attire. If a batsman called for a runner they had to come out in the same gear as the batsman.
Re: England v New Zealand
I can’t think of one. It was the last ball with two to win. They could have run on a wide or no ball but then that would have been two runs and the win. I’m sure there probably is some convoluted way, but I can’t think of it.Rileybobs wrote:If I knew I would be diving into my crease with a ball very likely to be whizzed towards my head I’d rather be wearing a helmet. Also the speed gained by losing the helmet would be negligible. Fair point about the pads though, was there no circumstance at all in which Wood would have faced a ball?
-
- Posts: 12371
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
- Been Liked: 5210 times
- Has Liked: 921 times
Re: England v New Zealand
What if they would have run a single off a no ball and Stokes was run out. Would that leave the scores level with Wood facing the last ball and if I am correct do I win a prizeFoulthrow wrote:I can’t think of one. It was the last ball with two to win. They could have run on a wide or no ball but then that would have been two runs and the win. I’m sure there probably is some convoluted way, but I can’t think of it.
Re: England v New Zealand
Nope. All out and a tie under that scenario.Devils_Advocate wrote:What if they would have run a single off a no ball and Stokes was run out. Would that leave the scores level with Wood facing the last ball and if I am correct do I win a prize
Re: England v New Zealand
No, because England would be all out - Wood was the number 11 batsman. And I think the no ball would be worth 2 anyway, wouldn't it?Devils_Advocate wrote:What if they would have run a single off a no ball and Stokes was run out. Would that leave the scores level with Wood facing the last ball and if I am correct do I win a prize
-
- Posts: 12371
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
- Been Liked: 5210 times
- Has Liked: 921 times
Re: England v New Zealand
Damn forgot he was #11 and there was me thinking i'd been clever. Your running kit tactic is still winningFoulthrow wrote:Nope. All out and a tie under that scenario.
This user liked this post: Foulthrow
-
- Posts: 3784
- Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:15 am
- Been Liked: 1831 times
- Has Liked: 2635 times
- Location: Ashington, Northumberland
Re: England v New Zealand
No ball in the World Cup was 1 run.dsr wrote:No, because England would be all out - Wood was the number 11 batsman. And I think the no ball would be worth 2 anyway, wouldn't it?
Re: England v New Zealand
Thanks. I must have been confusing it with the Worsley Cup.Ashingtonclaret46 wrote:No ball in the World Cup was 1 run.
-
- Posts: 3784
- Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:15 am
- Been Liked: 1831 times
- Has Liked: 2635 times
- Location: Ashington, Northumberland
Re: England v New Zealand
I am fairly certain that in 40 over cricket in the UK a no ball counts as 2 runs ---it's confusing isn't it?dsr wrote:Thanks. I must have been confusing it with the Worsley Cup.
-
- Posts: 6652
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:03 am
- Been Liked: 2006 times
- Has Liked: 3347 times
Re: England v New Zealand
I actually suspect that although Wood could possibly have tinkered around the edges of the laws of the game and given himself an advantage by dispensing with the helmet and maybe even some other gear, England deliberately chose not to and wanted to make sure everything was done within the spirit of the game, win or lose, as even to top level cricketers, especially at the premier showcase event, that is still very, very important. Earlier Stokes was very apologetic about the boundary off his bat when he was sprawling to make his ground and clearly had no intention of running had the ball not reached the fence, even though as mentioned above, he COULD have run, but a "gentleman" doesn't in that situation, even in a WC final.
This user liked this post: Foulthrow
-
- Posts: 10915
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:56 pm
- Been Liked: 5560 times
- Has Liked: 208 times
Re: England v New Zealand
I’ve not seen it on the highlights again clearly enough but how far did Wood back up?
That could have been a whole new ungentlemanly conduct minefield with the potential of a “Mankad”.
That could have been a whole new ungentlemanly conduct minefield with the potential of a “Mankad”.
-
- Posts: 11531
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:33 pm
- Been Liked: 3191 times
- Has Liked: 1871 times
- Contact:
Re: England v New Zealand
It was so obvious, somebody had to do it
- Attachments
-
- 71BEF89E-256A-4902-9EB4-B49EA55F7478.jpeg (197.65 KiB) Viewed 1796 times