Ashes 2015 - Australia tour of England July/September 2015

[PokerAce]

well, about it now we're at the crease. :P I remember Scott Styris' antics were similar in the 2003 WC. Instead, the runs he took off that delivery were deducted. On the contrary, it's pointless whether or not a throw obstructs the batsman while he's behind his crease, unless he makes a late run. Because there's no other basis to appeal. If Stokes was behind his crease, Starc simply wouldn't have thrown the ball in the first place (unless he meant to be vicious/aggressive) and none of it would have caused a moot point.

Throw obstructs the batsman? I think you mean to say that its pointless whether the batsman obstructs the field or the throw if he is already behind the crease. Assuming this is what you are saying.

Again I think even if the batsman is sitting in his crease he cannot just keep swating away throws. He has to be out if he un-necessarily interferes with the play.

 

[KBC]

Either way. The delivery is as good as completed if the batsmen remain in the crease. I can't see why a batsman would obstruct the ball then.

--------------------

Darren Lehmann is having none of it.

Tried to ask Darren Lehmann about Stokes dismissal but was rebuffed.

 

[PokerAce]

Either way. The delivery is as good as completed if the batsmen remain in the crease. I can't see why a batsman would obstruct the ball then.

--------------------

Darren Lehmann is having none of it.

Exactly all the more reason to punish the batsman if he obstructs once he is inside the crease.

 

[KBC]

This is getting tad off brother. Why would a batsman attempt to disrupt the ball while already being in the safety of his batting(!) crease? There's more risk in doing that.
Even if you assume the play is on - batsman's made it to his crease, then decides to 'swat away a throw'; for what purpose? The ball is as good as dead once the batsman completes an action. Late runs from such disruptions don't count and moreover put the batsman at risk trying to attempt one. There's literally no means to help the scorecard tick trying to swat away throws - enough punishment in that. So why would a batsman in his right mind, knowing this, risk his safety by disrupting the ball?

 

[PokerAce]

Where the hell has this discussion gone?

Long story short, going back to the point where this was still relevant, whether a batsman is inside his crease, outside his crease, or on the fking moon ... if he somehow deliberately interferes with play and obstructs the field he is out. Whether he was in the crease or outside teh crease, or with a reasonable chance of reaching the crease before the ball hit the stumps are all things that don't matter.

Now why a Batsman, whether in the crease or outside the crease chooses to interefere is his problem. However once he has done so he is out.

In Stokes' case he was trying to take evasive action and that was his prime intention, and not to catch the ball. Hence Stokes should have been n.o. Rule 37(2) if you read it, instead of pondering about the reasons why a batsman would obstruct the field, distinguishes between accidental handling of the ball and deliberate handling of the ball. In the former the batsman is n.o, in the latter the batsman is out.

Stokes only wanted to get out of the way of the ball, and to shield himself he raised his arm which accidentally hit the ball. Hence n.o.

 

[KBC]

Where the hell has this discussion gone?

Long story short, going back to the point where this was still relevant, whether a batsman is inside his crease, outside his crease, or on the fking moon ... if he somehow deliberately interferes with play and obstructs the field he is out. Whether he was in the crease or outside teh crease, or with a reasonable chance of reaching the crease before the ball hit the stumps are all things that don't matter.


Now why a Batsman, whether in the crease or outside the crease chooses to interefere is his problem. However once he has done so he is out.

In Stokes' case he was trying to take evasive action and that was his prime intention, and not to catch the ball. Hence Stokes should have been n.o. Rule 37(2) if you read it, instead of pondering about the reasons why a batsman would obstruct the field, distinguishes between accidental handling of the ball and deliberate handling of the ball. In the former the batsman is n.o, in the latter the batsman is out.

Stokes only wanted to get out of the way of the ball, and to shield himself he raised his arm which accidentally hit the ball. Hence n.o.

Well if you had read properly, my argument was never about the obstruction rules in place and I agreed. I've pointed out the fact that Stokes would've been out regardless of what the obstruction laws adjudged, and stated the conditions why. All the other responses I cared to explain are conditions you quoted in bold. I can't be arsed to go back on all that if you mixed it up with the current laws to see it in another light. You're arguing about something I never disagreed upon in the first place.

I'll get my coat.

 

[PokerAce]

What are you going on about. You are one who said obstruction should be like LBW, where intent didnt matter. I then pointed out that LBW and Obstruction laws are different and in obstruction the intention has to be there.

Now you are saying you have been in agreement with me all along.

Okay then, I guess that concludes this discussion.

 

[KBC]

I said similar to LBWs but with conditions... eee.. REPHRASE: yes lad you're absolutely right top stuff full marks.

 

[Umair7]

Ponting 8 players from this current side will never play test cricket again !

5 are here !

Chris Rogers retired from International Cricket! (Age.) (38)
Michael Clarke retired from International Cricket! (Form) (34)
Shane Watson retired from Test (Form+Injuries) (34)
Brad Haddin retired from International Cricket! (Form) (37) will be 38 in October
Ryan. Harris retired from International Cricket! (Injuries) (35) will be 36 in October

‪#‎OLDGUARDISGONE‬ ‪#‎TransitionalPeriod‬

 

[cricket_icon]

So if Ali was incapable of bowling for example you'd still have him in the top 5 as a pure batsman?

Of course I would, have you seen him bat? He has a better technique than Roy or Hales or the new flavour of the month Taylor. Add to that he has shown a penchant for runs when given the opportunity and the overs, the guy is an exceptional batsman. That fact that he has done more than ok with the ball even though he is simply a part timer, just goes to show how hard working he is and how he is continuously improving his game. Now I know most people these days can't believe their own eyes and want numbers to some how represent how good a player an individual is so here, I have some for you:

In the ODIs in which he has been in the top order, so that's either opening slot and number 3, the guy averages 32 in 21 innings with 2 centuries and 2 half centuries and a career strike rate of a 100. None of this is taking into account the extra value his bowling holds. Now that's over the course of home and away series as well as a tumultuous world cup campaign.

Even if one doesn't believe he should open, that shows that he is more than good enough to bat in the top 5 of England...remember this isn't exactly the limited overs talent pool of say SL or Australia or India.

 

[grkrama]

the guy averages 32 in 21 innings with 2 centuries and 2 half centuries and a career strike rate of a 100

this despite being thrown around everywhere, im sure if you ask him in the morning of the match where are you going to bat today he wouldn't know the answer.

In odi's Ali can easily fit into the top order, in tests he has to work against his short ball problem which with his flamboyant technique may be difficult to achieve also unless he gets mroe effective with the ball would be difficult to include him against rashid but in odi's i dont think its much of a problem he certainly has delivered more than hales in the limited opportunities. Also he seems to be one of the few who can score at a healthy clip for eng.

Ali if handled properly can do what yuvi was for IND in wc11.

 

[richowebbo]

Hales disappointing again. I've been calling for him to play for ages, and he's made me look like a Muppet!

 

[LiveLoveABD]

Hales disappointing again. I've been calling for him to play for ages, and he's made me look like a Muppet!

He seems to have a genuine problem against pace. I was surprised how late he was on the ball in the one off T20 against PC. He needs to be in front of a bowling machine and bat against that sort of pace. He's not going to find that sort of pace in domestic cricket.

 

[richowebbo]

He seems to have a genuine problem against pace. I was surprised how late he was on the ball in the one off T20 against PC. He needs to be in front of a bowling machine and bat against that sort of pace. He's not going to find that sort of pace in domestic cricket.

The problem he has is, that he's been playing a helluva lot of County Cricket, seeing as he opens in all formats, and the pace just isn't anywhere near that quick. But you're right, bowling machine set on "bloody quick" would be good!

I'm following on the BBC Live Text, and one of the tweets they published just said "one good score and everyone is calling for Taylor to be in the Test team". I'm sure these people don't watch any other cricket than the occasional England match! Taylor has made loads of runs, in all formats, for County and the Lions. He's another one I've been banging on about for god knows how long.

 

[bigred]

The problem he has is, that he's been playing a helluva lot of County Cricket, seeing as he opens in all formats, and the pace just isn't anywhere near that quick. But you're right, bowling machine set on "bloody quick" would be good!

I'm following on the BBC Live Text, and one of the tweets they published just said "one good score and everyone is calling for Taylor to be in the Test team". I'm sure these people don't watch any other cricket than the occasional England match! Taylor has made loads of runs, in all formats, for County and the Lions. He's another one I've been banging on about for god knows how long.

Taylor will definitely go to the UAE. Probably competing with Ian Bell for a starting spot. They'll probably stick with Bell for at least the first two tests.