BBL Match 37 Brisbane Heat v Sydney Sixers @ the Gabba Wed 5 Jan 2035 ACDT *now playing Weds 19 Jan*

Who will win?

  • Hobart

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Sydney

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
Dec 21, 2012
19,923
15,683
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Chelsea, Redbacks, Adelaide United
Did I see Neser is batting at 7? Lol.

Lehmann is a cretin not sure how he is still coach.

Neser at 7 is the least of their issues. A middle order of Duckett, Heazlett and Peirson shouldn't fill anyone with much confidence. Very average bowling attack too.

Lehmann is only the assistant these days
 
Oct 6, 2011
32,510
9,841
Auckland, New Zealand
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Patriots, Golden State, Wildcats
Typical streaky Lynn innings so far.



Hard to understand why Bartlett isn't in the Heat's first choice team, I'd pick him ahead of Bazley too.



Disappointing news, that's the third time this series has been postponed, I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happens next summer too.
blame Seccombe and Lehmann- team selection has been wrong and tactics have been strange to say the least
 

ptrg

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 19, 2008
13,173
11,845
Space Mountain
AFL Club
Melbourne
Anyone have a link of the actual rule about two full toss no balls?
I didn’t think the u pores had a discretion for whether a fast bowler’s delivery was “dangerous” or not.

The umpires ruled that the first one wasn’t “dangerous” despite it being an on-pace above waist, called no ball.

Pretty sure earlier in the tournament another bowler was removed from the attack, and the commentators confirmed there’s no discretion, if you bowl 2 full toss no balls, you’re out of the attack (they wouldn’t be deemed no balls if they were slow/non-dangerous)
 

corbies

Moderator
Jul 31, 2010
8,747
12,099
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
S'roos, New Jets, Cronulla
Anyone have a link of the actual rule about two full toss no balls?
I didn’t think the u pores had a discretion for whether a fast bowler’s delivery was “dangerous” or not.

The umpires ruled that the first one wasn’t “dangerous” despite it being an on-pace above waist, called no ball.

Pretty sure earlier in the tournament another bowler was removed from the attack, and the commentators confirmed there’s no discretion, if you bowl 2 full toss no balls, you’re out of the attack (they wouldn’t be deemed no balls if they were slow/non-dangerous)
The commentators earlier in the tournament have nfi what they are talking about then. It changed approximately 3 years ago to allow umpires to be subjective of which over the waist no balls would be warned:

From Law 41.7:

41.7 Bowling of dangerous and unfair non-pitching deliveries

41.7.1
Any delivery, which passes or would have passed, without pitching, above waist height of the striker standing upright at the popping crease, is unfair. Whenever such a delivery is bowled, the umpire shall call and signal No ball.

41.7.2 The bowling of a delivery as defined in 41.7.1 is also dangerous if the bowler’s end umpire considers that there is a risk of injury to the striker. In making that judgement the umpire shall:

  • disregard any protective equipment worn by the striker
  • be mindful of:
    • the speed, height and direction of the delivery
    • the skill of the striker
    • the repeated nature of such deliveries.
41.7.3 If the umpire considers a non-pitching delivery, or a series of non-pitching deliveries, to be dangerous under 41.7.2, when the ball is dead, the umpire shall repeat the No ball signal to the scorers and then caution the bowler, indicating that this is a first and final warning. The umpire shall also inform the other umpire, the captain of the fielding side and the batters of what has occurred. This caution shall apply to that bowler throughout the innings.

41.7.4 Should there be any further dangerous such delivery by the same bowler in that innings, the umpire shall

  • call and signal No ball
  • when the ball is dead, direct the captain of the fielding side to suspend the bowler immediately from bowling
  • inform the other umpire for the reason for this action.
The bowler thus suspended shall not be allowed to bowl again in that innings.

The laws of cricket are easily found via google so there's no excuse other than laziness for someone who is paid to commentate on cricket not knowing them.
 
Back