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

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

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.

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;

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?

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.

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

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?

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

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

Vino blanco wrote:38 inch in height and 4,25 inch wide to clarify.

Is that for 20/20 and test match cricket?

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.

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

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;

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

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.

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.

Was that underneath your cap, CT?

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.

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.

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;

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;

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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

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?

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

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.

Ashingtonclaret46 wrote:No ball in the World Cup was 1 run.

Thanks. I must have been confusing it with the Worsley Cup.

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?

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.

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”.

It was so obvious, somebody had to do it