England v New Zealand

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Hibsclaret
Posts: 2317
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:00 pm
Been Liked: 669 times
Has Liked: 393 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Hibsclaret » Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:46 pm

I agree should perhaps say “if they had crossed at the time of the ball leaving the fielder”

Local cricketer
Posts: 851
Joined: Mon May 13, 2019 5:46 pm
Been Liked: 160 times
Has Liked: 41 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Local cricketer » Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:32 pm

Claret Tony did Danny Reuben the England media man used to work for Burnley Fc?

dsr
Posts: 10494
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 3064 times
Has Liked: 1309 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by dsr » Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:40 pm

Spijed wrote:What's the point of running a short run when you might as well just stay in your crease?
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.

dsr
Posts: 10494
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 3064 times
Has Liked: 1309 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by dsr » Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:44 pm

BennyD wrote:It wasn’t a 6 until the fielder touched the rope, it was a catch.
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.

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;

Spijed
Posts: 11432
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:33 pm
Been Liked: 2000 times
Has Liked: 877 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Spijed » Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:51 am

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?

Foulthrow
Posts: 1929
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:48 am
Been Liked: 586 times
Has Liked: 1207 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Foulthrow » Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:55 am

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?
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.

Ric_C
Posts: 646
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:22 am
Been Liked: 229 times
Has Liked: 46 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Ric_C » Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:03 pm

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.
Haha, brilliant :)

Are there any rules in place to prevent Wood from doing this? Apart from the massive bat obviously
This user liked this post: Foulthrow

Spijed
Posts: 11432
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:33 pm
Been Liked: 2000 times
Has Liked: 877 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Spijed » Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:05 pm

Ric_C wrote:Haha, brilliant :)

Are there any rules in place to prevent Wood from doing this? Apart from the massive bat obviously
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.

As for the bat. What constitutes a bat exactly? Could a six foot plank of wood by used?

Vino blanco
Posts: 2958
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:42 pm
Been Liked: 991 times
Has Liked: 742 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Vino blanco » Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:18 pm

Bats have to be a certain size regards height, width etc.

Vino blanco
Posts: 2958
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:42 pm
Been Liked: 991 times
Has Liked: 742 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Vino blanco » Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:20 pm

38 inch in height and 4,25 inch wide to clarify.

Spijed
Posts: 11432
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:33 pm
Been Liked: 2000 times
Has Liked: 877 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Spijed » Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:42 pm

Vino blanco wrote:38 inch in height and 4,25 inch wide to clarify.
Is that for 20/20 and test match cricket?

Vino blanco
Posts: 2958
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:42 pm
Been Liked: 991 times
Has Liked: 742 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Vino blanco » Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:50 pm

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.

Vino blanco
Posts: 2958
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:42 pm
Been Liked: 991 times
Has Liked: 742 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Vino blanco » Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:54 pm

Just googled it, the weight can be from 2 lb 7oz to 3 lb

dsr
Posts: 10494
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 3064 times
Has Liked: 1309 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by dsr » Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:58 pm

Vino blanco wrote:Just googled it, the weight can be from 2 lb 7oz to 3 lb
Can you post the link? The rule I can find doesn't mention weight.

https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws/the-bat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Vino blanco
Posts: 2958
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:42 pm
Been Liked: 991 times
Has Liked: 742 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Vino blanco » Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:01 pm

I just googled 'cricket bat weight' and the details came up.

ChrisG
Posts: 247
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:10 am
Been Liked: 38 times
Has Liked: 46 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by ChrisG » Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:06 pm

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.
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.

ClaretTony
Posts: 36185
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
Been Liked: 16537 times
Has Liked: 3090 times
Location: Burnley
Contact:

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by ClaretTony » Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:10 pm

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.

Vino blanco
Posts: 2958
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:42 pm
Been Liked: 991 times
Has Liked: 742 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Vino blanco » Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:12 pm

Was that underneath your cap, CT?

Foulthrow
Posts: 1929
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:48 am
Been Liked: 586 times
Has Liked: 1207 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Foulthrow » Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:14 pm

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.

ClaretTony
Posts: 36185
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
Been Liked: 16537 times
Has Liked: 3090 times
Location: Burnley
Contact:

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by ClaretTony » Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:15 pm

Vino blanco wrote:Was that underneath your cap, CT?
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.

dsr
Posts: 10494
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 3064 times
Has Liked: 1309 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by dsr » Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:16 pm

Vino blanco wrote:I just googled 'cricket bat weight' and the details came up.
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.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-actua ... al-matches" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Spijed
Posts: 11432
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:33 pm
Been Liked: 2000 times
Has Liked: 877 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Spijed » Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:18 pm

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.
Whilst not mandatory they do have to conform to certain safety standards apparently.

https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/sport ... et-helmets" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

LeadBelly
Posts: 2388
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:07 am
Been Liked: 648 times
Has Liked: 1306 times
Location: North Hampshire

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by LeadBelly » Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:25 pm

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.
Bats have tended to become slightly heavier - especially for limited over cricket where the onus is more on hitting big shots.
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.

claret wizard
Posts: 624
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:20 am
Been Liked: 147 times
Has Liked: 64 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by claret wizard » Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:28 pm

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.
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.

Rileybobs
Posts: 7752
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 3241 times
Has Liked: 743 times
Location: Leeds

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Rileybobs » Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:34 pm

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.
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?

Quickenthetempo
Posts: 9965
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
Been Liked: 2233 times
Has Liked: 1253 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Quickenthetempo » Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:23 pm

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.

Foulthrow
Posts: 1929
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:48 am
Been Liked: 586 times
Has Liked: 1207 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Foulthrow » Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:21 pm

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?
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.

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 6573
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 2546 times
Has Liked: 486 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Devils_Advocate » Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:24 pm

Foulthrow 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.
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 :D

Foulthrow
Posts: 1929
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:48 am
Been Liked: 586 times
Has Liked: 1207 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Foulthrow » Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:26 pm

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 :D
Nope. All out and a tie under that scenario.

dsr
Posts: 10494
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 3064 times
Has Liked: 1309 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by dsr » Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:32 pm

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 :D
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
Posts: 6573
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 2546 times
Has Liked: 486 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Devils_Advocate » Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:51 pm

Foulthrow wrote:Nope. All out and a tie under that scenario.
Damn forgot he was #11 and there was me thinking i'd been clever. Your running kit tactic is still winning :D
This user liked this post: Foulthrow

Ashingtonclaret46
Posts: 2694
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 1278 times
Has Liked: 1769 times
Location: Ashington, Northumberland

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Ashingtonclaret46 » Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:56 pm

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?
No ball in the World Cup was 1 run.

dsr
Posts: 10494
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 3064 times
Has Liked: 1309 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by dsr » Tue Jul 16, 2019 10:32 pm

Ashingtonclaret46 wrote:No ball in the World Cup was 1 run.
Thanks. I must have been confusing it with the Worsley Cup. ;)

Ashingtonclaret46
Posts: 2694
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 1278 times
Has Liked: 1769 times
Location: Ashington, Northumberland

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Ashingtonclaret46 » Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:34 am

dsr wrote:Thanks. I must have been confusing it with the Worsley Cup. ;)
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?

Dark Cloud
Posts: 3702
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:03 am
Been Liked: 1016 times
Has Liked: 1228 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Dark Cloud » Wed Jul 17, 2019 10:58 am

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

TheFamilyCat
Posts: 6120
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:56 pm
Been Liked: 3049 times
Has Liked: 81 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by TheFamilyCat » Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:12 am

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”.

wilks_bfc
Posts: 5804
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:33 pm
Been Liked: 1742 times
Has Liked: 862 times
Contact:

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by wilks_bfc » Wed Jul 17, 2019 5:48 pm

It was so obvious, somebody had to do it :D
Attachments
71BEF89E-256A-4902-9EB4-B49EA55F7478.jpeg
71BEF89E-256A-4902-9EB4-B49EA55F7478.jpeg (197.65 KiB) Viewed 931 times

Post Reply