Jump to content

Ask ICF

Precambrian

By Precambrian
in Cricket Talk

Recommended Posts

Kalia_Test Newbie

Kalia_Test

Posted
Posted

OK...This is prompted by a comment in cricinfo in one of the recent matches on DRS Last batting pair is on the crease. Last ball of the match. Scores are level. Ball hits the pad and umpire gives out LBW. Batsmen run 1 ( for leg bye) and then review the decision which comes as NOT OUT ( ball missing stumps ). Did the batting team win the match or was it a tie?

Lord Grand Master

Lord

Posted
Posted
OK...This is prompted by a comment in cricinfo in one of the recent matches on DRS Last batting pair is on the crease. Last ball of the match. Scores are level. Ball hits the pad and umpire gives out LBW. Batsmen run 1 ( for leg bye) and then review the decision which comes as NOT OUT ( ball missing stumps ). Did the batting team win the match or was it a tie?
Tie.ball becomes dead when umpire gives a decision
Kalia_Test Newbie

Kalia_Test

Posted
Posted
Tie.ball becomes dead when umpire gives a decision
Good job :two_thumbs_up:...It is not fair as the umpire's call becomes important...If the umpire had given not out and bowling team had reviewed it, batting team would have won....
Lord Grand Master

Lord

Posted
Posted
Good job :two_thumbs_up:...It is not fair as the umpire's call becomes important...If the umpire had given not out and bowling team had reviewed it' date=' batting team would have won....[/quote'] no still it would be tie.if after review its reversed as out why would the run count
Kalia_Test Newbie

Kalia_Test

Posted
Posted
no still it would be tie.if after review its reversed as out why would the run count
You are misunderstanding....If the umpire gave it as not out, it does not become a dead ball and batsmen have run one. NOW, if the bowling team reviews and it comes as NOT OUT, batting team has won. Point I am trying to make is the SAME scenario i.e it was not out but umpire giving out and not giving out INITIALLY has an impact on outcome of match
bowl_out Grand Master

bowl_out

Posted
Posted

A silly question.... If a bouncer goes above the batsman's head, it is called WIDE... But when the batsman hits such a ball, it is called NO-BALL... Why the difference in the categorization? Shouldn't both of them be called No-Ball? :winky: Taking a parallel of regular wides, if a bowl is bowled Horizontally wide, it called WIDE, but if the batsman hits it, it is a legal ball.... So, why the difference in treatment for Vertical WIDE (bouncers)

Kalia_Test Newbie

Kalia_Test

Posted
Posted
A silly question.... If a bouncer goes above the batsman's head, it is called WIDE... But when the batsman hits such a ball, it is called NO-BALL... Why the difference in the categorization? Shouldn't both of them be called No-Ball? :winky:
1. If it touches bat, it can't be a wide...simple...wide means a batsman is not able to play a proper cricket shot for the delivery...what you might be referring to is no ball when it is more than the allowed bouncers ( as per format ) for the over. 2. If the ball DOES NOT LAND i.e it is full toss above waist, it is no ball irrespective of whether batsman touches or not ( atleast thats what I think )
bowl_out Grand Master

bowl_out

Posted
Posted

^ No. My question is when the ball is horizontally wide, it is called wide, but if the batsman hits it, it becomes a legal delivery... Should it not be the same case with Vertical wides as well? If it bounces and goes above my head, I still hit the ball, shouldn't it be legal? It is still called No-ball Not referring to two bouncers or full toss above the waist.

Lord Grand Master

Lord

Posted
Posted
^ No. My question is when the ball is horizontally wide, it is called wide, but if the batsman hits it, it becomes a legal delivery... Should it not be the same case with Vertical wides as well? If it bounces and goes above my head, I still hit the ball, shouldn't it be legal? It is still called No-ball Not referring to two bouncers or full toss above the waist.
no no ball is called only if two bouncers limit is crossed.
Crookbond Newbie

Crookbond

Posted
Posted
^ No. My question is when the ball is horizontally wide' date=' it is called wide, but if the batsman hits it, it becomes a legal delivery... Should it not be the same case with Vertical wides as well? [b']If it bounces and goes above my head, I still hit the ball, shouldn't it be legal? It is still called No-ball Not referring to two bouncers or full toss above the waist.
A wide-ball is a ball outside reach but a no-ball is an illegal delivery for unfair advantage. Note that even for the first two bouncers if the ball is above head high it is called a wide and not a NO ball.
BeautifulGame Newbie

BeautifulGame

Posted
Posted
A silly question.... If a bouncer goes above the batsman's head, it is called WIDE... But when the batsman hits such a ball, it is called NO-BALL... Why the difference in the categorization? Shouldn't both of them be called No-Ball? :winky: Taking a parallel of regular wides, if a bowl is bowled Horizontally wide, it called WIDE, but if the batsman hits it, it is a legal ball.... So, why the difference in treatment for Vertical WIDE (bouncers)
Actually when a batsmen hit a bouncer above head high its not called no ball.Its a legal delivery just as it the case with the horizontal wide. Remember the Bopara wkt in CT final to Ishant .Its only called no ball when it crosses the 2 bouncer limit for the over
Sidhoni Newbie

Sidhoni

Posted
Posted
Nice thread OP, and good work with statsguru, Kalia. :nice: I would like to know something statsguru wouldn't be able to answer : how many batsmen have scored centuries in ODIs whilst being ill or sick. Weird question I know but shows the commitment of players. Cramps occurring during match don't count. P.S i know Dhoni scored one :P
Anyone?
Kalia_Test Newbie

Kalia_Test

Posted
Posted
Anyone?
This is a bit subjective...how does one know if the injury is real or feigned? How long after injury or illness is it OK to come back and not get tagged "batting while ill"? Too many non-quantifiable criteria IMO
Kalia_Test Newbie

Kalia_Test

Posted
Posted

Q1) OK...Slightly easier one... a) In ODIs where a team has won chasing, which pair was at the crease most often ( when winning runs were scored )? I will throw in random combos to make it interesting Mahela - Sanga Dhoni - Raina Inzi-Yousuf Pollock - Rhodes Dhoni - Yuvraj Azhar - Tendu ABD - Duminy Clarke - Symonds Kohli Raina Answer is in one the combos mentioned

Lord Grand Master

Lord

Posted
Posted
OK...Slightly easier one... In ODIs where a team has won chasing, which pair was at the crease most often ( when winning runs were scored )? I will throw in random combos to make it interesting Mahela - Sanga Dhoni - Raina Inzi-Yousuf Pollock - Rhodes Dhoni - Yuvraj Azhar - Tendu ABD - Duminy Clarke - Symonds Kohli Raina Answer is in one the combos mentioned
Dhoni-Yuvi?
Kalia_Test Newbie

Kalia_Test

Posted
Posted

^^^ Will wait for a few more answers ..why do you think it is Dhoni-Yuvi and not say Clarke-Symonds? Also, it will be interesting if you can guess the number of such instances for each combo..just to see how they stack when actual results are revealed

Kalia_Test Newbie

Kalia_Test

Posted
Posted

^^^ Will wait for a few more answers ..why do you think it is Dhoni-Yuvi and not say Clarke-Symonds? Also, it will be interesting if you can guess the number of such instances for each combo..just to see how they stack when actual results are revealed

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
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...