Jump to content

More English Whinging : Umpires must protect England’s tail from bodyline


SK_IH

Recommended Posts

Posted

 

Quote

Former England captain Mike Atherton has called on the umpires during the Ashes to protect England's bowlers from the Australian pace attack, saying that the 'Bodyline' tactics being employed are illegal. 

In his column for The Times, Atherton called on the umpires to take a stand when certain batsmen were at the crease, saying the tactic contravened the laws of the game.

"I did wonder aloud at the time why the umpires were so reluctant to act to protect Ball,' Atherton wrote.

"After all, Law 41.6.1 on the bowling of dangerous and unfair short-pitched deliveries is clear: 'The bowling of short-pitched deliveries is dangerous if the bowler's end umpire considers that, taking into consideration the skill of the striker, by their speed, length, height and direction, they are likely to inflict physical injury on him/her. The fact that the striker is wearing protective equipment shall be disregarded.'"

Atherton called on the umpires to employ the law, not often cited in cricket circles, to protect the England tail.

“Batsmen who cannot bowl are not required to bowl to great players, but the opposite is obviously the case — precisely why the Law is framed as it is, as built-in protection for the incompetent.

 

 

https://wwos.nine.com.au/2017/12/21/12/32/ashes-mike-atherton-australian-bowlers-umpires

 

Athers says follow the rules lulz

Posted (edited)

When England are on top, they don't hesitate in employing similar tactics. Besides nowadays batsmen are well protected with helmets, chest guard, arm guard.....unlike the old days. 

Edited by Gollum
Posted
7 minutes ago, flat_wicket_bully said:

Stupidity from England. You will probably see more bodyline bowling by Aussies in remaining two tests

saw one of Starc's tweet,they are rightly finding it hilarious

Posted

Well the rule is there. And it does make sense.

Everyone here moaning about about England being whiners would suddenly question why the umpires didn't do anything if they had the right to when someone is seriously injured after being peppered by bowlers.

Posted

England does whine a bit.

However, I can understand 1-2 well-directed bouncers followed up by a pitched-up delivery to set up a tail-ender but when you bowl 5-6 bouncers in  succession aimed at tail-ender's head, you are literally trying to kill the dude.

Australians have no moral compass. They would run over their own father in order to win a test match.

Posted
28 minutes ago, GolGappe said:

England does whine a bit.

However, I can understand 1-2 well-directed bouncers followed up by a pitched-up delivery to set up a tail-ender but when you bowl 5-6 bouncers in  succession aimed at tail-ender's head, you are literally trying to kill the dude.

Australians have no moral compass. They would run over their own father in order to win a test match.

only tow bouncers are allowed so where he is the question of 5-6 bouncers in succession.

Posted
33 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

only tow bouncers are allowed so where he is the question of 5-6 bouncers in succession.

they can't bowl 5-6 bouncers but I assume they can bowl 5-6 into the ribcage consecutively assuming that they have the sufficient accuracy. that would be pretty painful if one of them were to connect.

Posted
8 hours ago, GolGappe said:

England does whine a bit.

However, I can understand 1-2 well-directed bouncers followed up by a pitched-up delivery to set up a tail-ender but when you bowl 5-6 bouncers in  succession aimed at tail-ender's head, you are literally trying to kill the dude.

Australians have no moral compass. They would run over their own father in order to win a test match.

Arrey baap re! Itni badi baat bol di!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...