View Full Version : Change the law or just outside the spirit
whats_at_stake
19 Aug 2010, 16:26
A few days ago in the Tri-series between India, Sri Lanka and New Zealand India was about to win (needed 1 run) with Sehwag on 99*. The bowler Randiv bowled a no-ball (which Sehwag hit for 6 but the 6 does not count as you have already gone past the score).
After the match Sehwag said Randiv did it on purpose and has since apologised (Randiv admitted it as did the Sri Lankan board who has today suspended Randiv for one game + match fees and Dilshan for match fees who told him and egged him on to do it due to spirit of cricket violations.
http://www.cricinfo.com/sl-tri2010/content/current/story/473077.html
I cannot help but think all this could be avoided (and it is outside the spirit- but not as big a deal as it is an individual innings and India won regardless) with the rules.
Surely if you need one run to win and its a no ball you hit for 6 that should be 7 runs? The MCC should change this.
dr nick
19 Aug 2010, 17:55
imagine how racist that would be if an Australian bowler did that
meh, had he been on 70 no-one would have said a word
just another odd part of the game
imagine how racist that would be if an Australian bowler did that
Hahaha, love the way you've phrased this.
It is a bit of a nothing rule and I'm not sure why they would have it as it is. No harm in allowing the runs to stand I wouldn't have thought unless someone can enlighten me...
meh, had he been on 70 no-one would have said a word
just another odd part of the game
Had he been on 70-odd, he wouldn't have tried to bowl a no-ball on purpose (and from all reports it was a BIG no-ball).
No need for a chance in law, but it is pretty poor stuff by the Lankans when they had absolutely nothing to gain from it.
stmookeyj
19 Aug 2010, 23:57
Should change it to give him the runs.....
whats_at_stake
20 Aug 2010, 14:01
Hypothetically you could have a similar situation if they changed the rules where 1 wicket in hand 1 run to win. Bowler bowls a no ball and player runs and is run out. Then the team batting won the game by 0 wickets if the game is not over at the no ball. Maybe that was the orginal rational behind the rule in the first place.
Tyrone Biggums
20 Aug 2010, 22:51
Why would the player run if its already been called a no ball . Unless hes a moron
lewigie
22 Aug 2010, 18:59
That is ****ing awesome. How smart is that bloke?
Dujon11
24 Aug 2010, 01:23
Haha thats gold, definitely deliberate!
The side on replay is at 2:27 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a7yMEAH6HQ
holybishop
24 Aug 2010, 02:35
He's been punished, and if anyone does it again they're going to get punished. What more needs to be done? Dont encourage the ICC to be like the AFL and introduce a law change at every rare incident.
MattyB_76
24 Aug 2010, 02:44
It doesn't make sense. If a no-ball is bowled in regular play and you hit a 6 or a 4, then it counts as 7 or 5.
The ball shouldn't be dead until it is in a fielder/wicket keeper's hands or over the boundary.
whats_at_stake
24 Aug 2010, 12:08
It doesn't make sense. If a no-ball is bowled in regular play and you hit a 6 or a 4, then it counts as 7 or 5.
The ball shouldn't be dead until it is in a fielder/wicket keeper's hands or over the boundary.
I think that should be the case (Sehwag hit a six but gets zero off that ball due to this rule) but equally in my scenario say it was a no ball, 1 wicket in hand and 1 run to get which you charge and get stumped (technically run out) you then win by 0 wickets.
Was poor form by Randiv regardless- have to say the Sangakarra 4 byes seem suspect in the video as well.
holybishop
24 Aug 2010, 16:13
It doesn't make sense. If a no-ball is bowled in regular play and you hit a 6 or a 4, then it counts as 7 or 5.
No it makes perfect sense. In this scenario the game ended immediately when the no-ball was made, as the 1 run required to win was achieved. In your case the game is still going.
I think that should be the case (Sehwag hit a six but gets zero off that ball due to this rule) but equally in my scenario say it was a no ball, 1 wicket in hand and 1 run to get which you charge and get stumped (technically run out) you then win by 0 wickets.
Was poor form by Randiv regardless- have to say the Sangakarra 4 byes seem suspect in the video as well.
can't be stumped off a no-ball, and it won't be run out because he isn't attempting a run.
same as a team winning a match by penalty-runs.
Just an oddity of the game.
whats_at_stake
24 Aug 2010, 22:02
can't be stumped off a no-ball, and it won't be run out because he isn't attempting a run.
same as a team winning a match by penalty-runs.
Just an oddity of the game.
Really? I thought you could be stumped off a no ball but it was called a run out??
Changing back to my another scenario if he was attempting a run (for some stupid reason) and the game did not end and was run out- a win by 0 wickets.
nope, can't be stumped off a no-ball, and it won't be a run out (it'll be a different story if the 'keeper was to throw the ball to slip then throw it back to knock the bails off, but that theory is so far fetched). Law 38 Run Out and Law 39 Stumped should answer that question for you.
Your other scenario about win by 0 wickets: there is no such thing. If they need 1 to win, and they run - they cross for the first (and make good their ground) then the game is complete no matter what they do after that.
If they run off the no-ball with 1 to win, then the no-ball is the winning run and whatever happens after that is null and void (except penalty runs)
There is no such thing as winning by 0 wickets (as such) the only way to win by 0 wickets is called a "win by penalty runs"
whats_at_stake
25 Aug 2010, 17:13
nope, can't be stumped off a no-ball, and it won't be a run out (it'll be a different story if the 'keeper was to throw the ball to slip then throw it back to knock the bails off, but that theory is so far fetched). Law 38 Run Out and Law 39 Stumped should answer that question for you.
Your other scenario about win by 0 wickets: there is no such thing. If they need 1 to win, and they run - they cross for the first (and make good their ground) then the game is complete no matter what they do after that.
If they run off the no-ball with 1 to win, then the no-ball is the winning run and whatever happens after that is null and void (except penalty runs)
There is no such thing as winning by 0 wickets (as such) the only way to win by 0 wickets is called a "win by penalty runs"
Yeah I think I was thinking of wides. My point was that the reason why the law exists is to avoid a win by 0 wicket scenario (e.g. stumped off wide)- that is probably why they will not change it.
The bloke is an idiot he should just have bowled a wide then there'd be no debate whatsoever.
You couldn't ever prove that someone purposefully bowled a wide and the batsman remains stranded.
They're idiots for admitting to it as well.
Cooldude
26 Aug 2010, 20:40
Well Hoggard kinda bowled a wide to ruin Gilly's chance of breaking Viv's record for the quickest Test ton. No one said it was deliberate at the time coz you can't prove it
So the Sri Lankans are just dumb, there are better ways to crash a party than something so completely obvious
Well Hoggard kinda bowled a wide to ruin Gilly's chance of breaking Viv's record for the quickest Test ton. No one said it was deliberate at the time coz you can't prove it
Was it called a wide, surely if it was it wouldn't count as a ball faced would it?
And if he pushed it wide saying go on then have a crack at that then what's the problem, I'd have thought that that was clever thinking, maybe getting the bloke out having a dash at one he shoulddn't.
Jimpson
28 Aug 2010, 00:30
MS Dhoni contributed as much to gifting Sehwag a century as Randiv did by taking it away. Had Dhoni not dead-batted the last dozen deliveries he faced, Sehwag would have ended on about 80.
Centuries are earned, serves them right for trying to manipulate one.
whats_at_stake
28 Aug 2010, 12:21
MS Dhoni contributed as much to gifting Sehwag a century as Randiv did by taking it away. Had Dhoni not dead-batted the last dozen deliveries he faced, Sehwag would have ended on about 80.
Centuries are earned, serves them right for trying to manipulate one.
Did not see the entire game just the end- I guess that is an interesting question- should other players let others get a century (assuming Dhoni was not naturally being defensive which he has been of late).
The worst "century" I have seen is Clarke's one against Pakistan a few summers ago. Opened the innings, should have been given plumb lbw twice, was dropped twice and then caught cleanly once (but the stupid fielder was unsure), missed run-out. Even Ponting got frustrated at the end and told Clarke to hurry up after he deadbatted two overs in a row.