BBL BBL Match 24; Heat v Hurricanes @ Brisbane.

[SSwans2011]

The sad think is the Venom directed at George Bailey , I can tell you he is a man of the highest credibility , has led his country and Tasmania with great passion , as fair and caring as anyone playing cricket in this country even tho he has had the rough end of the stick from Australian selectors over the years

He did nothing wrong last night , Ross did Brendan can take his after match higher than mighty comments and put them where the sun don't shine , if reversed what would have done ? Yes folks the same !

So move along the decision was correct under the rules , Ross never needed to run at the wickets other than to make it hard to hit them. No one deviated in how many run outs in this match or even the entire competition ?

Nah, big fan of Bailey, but he should have called him back.

Would they have gotten Ross out if the ball didn't hit him? Not even close. Ross wasn't advantaged at all by changing his line, so it's pretty poor sprotsmanship to request the umpires check for it, and then even worse to allow him to be out for it.

 

[Stumpy Pete]

Nah, big fan of Bailey, but he should have called him back.

Would they have gotten Ross out if the ball didn't hit him? Not even close. Ross wasn't advantaged at all by changing his line, so it's pretty poor sprotsmanship to request the umpires check for it, and then even worse to allow him to be out for it.

Your position here lacks real world application. If the test is “would Ross have been out if it didn’t hit him” then you would need to have camera positioned all over the ground to deliver hawk-eye like analyses and where the ball wasn’t going to hit the stumps but instead would have have beentaken by the keeper/fielder you would need to assume some time taken to obtain the bowl and dislodge the bails. At the same time you would need to simulate the speed of the batsman running and the motion for him to stretch out and make his ground.

In the absence of that occurring the onus needs to be on the batsman not to deviate, it is only the manner in which this can be effectively policed.

As i mentioned in my previous post - why did Ross end up parallel to the stumps if he wasn’t attempting to get in the way of the ball? How does it possibly reduce his chance of getting hit?

Regards

S. Pete

 

[Stumpy Pete]

More generally I have to ask those thinking the decision was incorrect or harsh exactly how many more advantages do they want to give to batsmen? You want them to be able to veer all over the pitch claiming “safety” and only be given out if it can somehow be determined that they were deliberately obstructing and that they would have been out?

Regards

S. Pete

 

[Stumpy Pete]

Should have been given not out, there is too much ambiguity in the rule and in the actions of Alex Ross. Alex has come out and stated that he was trying to avoid the ball, and even though his attempt was perhaps clumsy, it is difficult to see how the umpires could come to the decision they did, especially taking into consideration the period in the game, and the pressure of the situation.

What do you expect Ross to say “Yep, I was trying to cheat by getting in the way of the ball.”

Regards

S. Pete

 

[SSwans2011]

Your position here lacks real world application. If the test is “would Ross have been out if it didn’t hit him” then you would need to have camera positioned all over the ground to deliver hawk-eye like analyses and where the ball wasn’t going to hit the stumps but instead would have have beentaken by the keeper/fielder you would need to assume some time taken to obtain the bowl and dislodge the bails. At the same time you would need to simulate the speed of the batsman running and the motion for him to stretch out and make his ground.

In the absence of that occurring the onus needs to be on the batsman not to deviate, it is only the manner in which this can be effectively policed.

As i mentioned in my previous post - why did Ross end up parallel to the stumps if he wasn’t attempting to get in the way of the ball? How does it possibly reduce his chance of getting hit?

Regards

S. Pete

No. Ross was home way before the ball would have hit the stumps. That's all there is to it.

 

[madmug]

No. Ross was home way before the ball would have hit the stumps. That's all there is to it.

No its not. Read the rules. The umpires did.

 

[SSwans2011]

No its not. Read the rules. The umpires did.

That's all there is to it being bad sportsmanship to not call him back. Please read what you are responding to before responding to it.

 

[Stumpy Pete]

No. Ross was home way before the ball would have hit the stumps. That's all there is to it.

How sure are you of this given he was well short of his ground when the ball hit his bat and only 2/3 of the blade of the bat was over the line when the bails were dislodged.

Regards

S. Pete

 

[SSwans2011]

How sure are you of this given he was well short of his ground when the ball hit his bat and only 2/3 of the blade of the bat was over the line when the bails were dislodged.

Regards

S. Pete

His bat was in his crease when the ball hit it.

 

[Stumpy Pete]

His bat was in his crease when the ball hit it.

Review the video in this link, particularly the view from stump cam, and I think you will find you are incorrect.

http://www.news.com.au/sport/cricke...e/news-story/7077ae51f34b90703956d1969eafac94

Regards

S. Pete

 

[SSwans2011]

Review the video in this link, particularly the view from stump cam, and I think you will find you are incorrect.

http://www.news.com.au/sport/cricke...e/news-story/7077ae51f34b90703956d1969eafac94

Regards

S. Pete

My mistake. Nonetheless, what were the chances of Wade stumping him in time if the ball didn't hit Ross' bat? I'd suggest somewhere around 0%.

 

[The Passenger]

It's frustrating for Heat fans, especially in such a close game. But the law applied correctly.

But this happens. Law gets made (or changed - I think OTF was changed a few months back to deal with this changing the line of running), then an incident happens where the rule is applied correctly but the general consensus is the rule is wrong. Provisions get made and the law updated. I think that is what happens.

Brendan McCullum didn't mention the rule being wrong but only in the spirit of cricket he should've been called back.

To me spirit of cricket is playing the game in the right spirit. Not captains calling back opposition players based on poor rules. There was that famous incident where Murali was run out whilst celebrating a teammates century about a decade ago.

 

[Stumpy Pete]

Also I’m not a fan of players being able to claim the need for safety in this situation as the ball and the batsman are always going to be headed to the same vicinity.

Regards

S. Pete

 

[Sarcoidevo]

Bottom line as has been mentioned before is that a common sense approach is what was needed here by the 3rd umpire.

Did the throw even closely look like it was going to hit the stumps? NO

If the throw missed Ross's bat and Wade collected the ball cleanly and removed the bails would Ross had made his ground? YES

The fact of the matter is the ball hit Ross's bat and deflected onto the stumps quicker than it would have if Wade collected the ball and broken the stumps and Ross still made his ground easily after that happened

Absolutely shocking decision - one of worst if not the worst I have have ever seen

Even the field umpire looked as if he was reluctant and embarrassed to put his finger up

Rule needs to be looked at and also the 3rd umpire's betting accounts

 

[Underdog]

The ball was coming from Ross's right, by moving to the left he was actually opening up the angle for the fielder, not closing it down. I struggle to see intent.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[Lebbo73]

Clearly your very well expressed opinion. The Umpires & Cricket Australia & a lot on BF agree with me. Who agrees with you?? Anyone who counts????

The rule allows for the batsman to avoid being hit by the ball. That means it is automatically not out. Although, I have enjoyed baiting you on the issue!

 

[Sarcoidevo]

The ball was coming from Ross's right, by moving to the left he was actually opening up the angle for the fielder, not closing it down. I struggle to see intent.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Spot on!!

The fielder at all stages had clear vision of stumps even when the ball hit Ross's bat

Even when Ross did change direction at no stage did Ross come between the ball and the stumps

Adding the fact that Wade had more chance of fondling Oprah's boobies on stage at the Globes than he had running Ross out if the ball got through to him cleanly.

Terrible terrible decision and those saying it was correct (even to the letter of the law) are braindead

 

[Lebbo73]

It's frustrating for Heat fans, especially in such a close game. But the law applied correctly.

But this happens. Law gets made (or changed - I think OTF was changed a few months back to deal with this changing the line of running), then an incident happens where the rule is applied correctly but the general consensus is the rule is wrong. Provisions get made and the law updated. I think that is what happens.

Brendan McCullum didn't mention the rule being wrong but only in the spirit of cricket he should've been called back.

To me spirit of cricket is playing the game in the right spirit. Not captains calling back opposition players based on poor rules. There was that famous incident where Murali was run out whilst celebrating a teammates century about a decade ago.

A South Captain told the umpires here in Australia about seven years ago that they were declining an appeal because an Australian batsman had obstructed the field. David Hussey I think it was who was the offending culprit. Bailey could learn a thing or two from that incident.

 

[Lebbo73]

That was against India. Maybe it was another incident.

 

[madmug]

The rule allows for the batsman to avoid being hit by the ball. That means it is automatically not out. Although, I have enjoyed baiting you on the issue!

No its not automatically anything. Ive also enjoyed you making a fool of yourself.

 

[kozi]

Should have appealed to have Khawaja out obstructing the field.

 

[The Passenger]

A South Captain told the umpires here in Australia about seven years ago that they were declining an appeal because an Australian batsman had obstructed the field. David Hussey I think it was who was the offending culprit. Bailey could learn a thing or two from that incident.

Maybe so, but there's no requirement under the spirit of cricket for a captain to bring back an opposing player the umpire has given out.

Absolutely shocking decision - one of worst if not the worst I have have ever seen
Rule needs to be looked at and also the 3rd umpire's betting accounts

And someone mentioned those on those out side were being emotive.

The rule is wrong. But the rule was applied as it is. That's the umpires job. They aren't there to make quick emotion based decisions on whether the rule is fair or not. A bit like a copper giving out a jay walking ticket at 3am where there are no cars anywhere nearby on the road (this has happened to a couple of Irish mates of mine many years back).

I haven no doubt based on this incident the rule will be changed. And I think those at the ICC will be very happy this occurred in a BBL match and not a huge series deciding test with the match coming down to the wire.

Th rule was changed in 2011 (I thought it was more recent) to take into account a batsmen's change of direction when running. Jason Roy was given out obstructing the field about 2 years ago. This incident was exactly what the rule was designed for. I don't believe the Alex Ross incident was, but unfortunately he's been caught up in it. Like I said, I will be surprised if it was not changed and have provisions for whether run out was a realistic possibility.

 

[eddiesmith]

To me spirit of cricket is playing the game in the right spirit. Not captains calling back opposition players based on poor rules. There was that famous incident where Murali was run out whilst celebrating a teammates century about a decade ago.

Which funnily enough was McCullum! Easy to say 10 years later you were wrong then complain when others don’t recall batsmen in the heat of battle

Whilst all this talk of he ran away from the stumps, he ran straight at Matthew Wade who he could see exactly where he was and therefore where the ball was coming in. So once again I’d say if a player runs off his line and obstructs a player from fielding it, that would be obstructing the field...

 

[madmug]

Which funnily enough was McCullum! Easy to say 10 years later you were wrong then complain when others don’t recall batsmen in the heat of battle

Whilst all this talk of he ran away from the stumps, he ran straight at Matthew Wade who he could see exactly where he was and therefore where the ball was coming in. So once again I’d say if a player runs off his line and obstructs a player from fielding it, that would be obstructing the field...

Tell the knowall's on here. All the experts on the rules who refused to see the reality of where Ross ran. What Ross said was irrelevant. The decision was based on what he did.
McCullum just showed what a sanctimonious wenka he is. Fronting Bailey on TV like a big hero. Tossa.

 

[Stumpy Pete]

Spot on!!

The fielder at all stages had clear vision of stumps even when the ball hit Ross's bat

Even when Ross did change direction at no stage did Ross come between the ball and the stumps

Adding the fact that Wade had more chance of fondling Oprah's boobies on stage at the Globes than he had running Ross out if the ball got through to him cleanly.

Terrible terrible decision and those saying it was correct (even to the letter of the law) are braindead

I disagree and I’m pretty sure I’m not braindead.

Whether the ball was going to hit the stumps or not is irrelevant as is the out-fielder’s view of the stumps.

What is relevant is whether a fielder was obstructed, and Wade was clearly obstructed from fielding the throw.

Regards

S. Pete