BBL Match Match 27 Strikers v Scorchers @ Alice Springs

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Say what you like about them but they can fill some boring airtime with jokey banter, Symonds is boring as batshit, despite being talked up as a character.

They miss Freddie - just doesn’t come naturally to Roy.

The vast majority are fine though, keep it light and enjoyable - Fleming, Waugh, Ponting, Gilchrist, Howard - I like Mel Jones too but she does tend to play the ‘straight woman’.
 
What would’ve happened if the fielding team got a run out off the no-ball? (which they should have)
It would have been out

You sure? Commentators didn't seem to think so.

Doesn't seem fair that you could run someone out when they think a wicket has fallen and have started walking back to the pavilion.
 
You sure? Commentators didn't seem to think so.

Doesn't seem fair that you could run someone out when they think a wicket has fallen and have started walking back to the pavilion.

You would think the umpires would cal it a dead ball at that stage. No runs or run outs.

That said, I don't know the playing conditions on that for the BBL
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Law 27.7 of the Laws of Cricket, which covers Appeals, is titled 'Batsman leaving his wicket under a misapprehension'.

The law states: "An umpire shall intervene if satisfied that a batsman, not having been given out, has left his wicket under a misapprehension that he is out. The umpire intervening shall call and signal Dead ball to prevent any further action by the fielding side and shall recall the batsman."
 
It used to be true that the only way you could get out off a no ball was run out.

Yeah but that's when you're attempting a run, not walking back to the pavilion thinking you're out.

In the spirit of the game I doubt teams would attempt a run out in that situation anyway.
 
You would think the umpires would cal it a dead ball at that stage. No runs or run outs.

That said, I don't know the playing conditions on that for the BBL

Law 27.7 of the Laws of Cricket, which covers Appeals, is titled 'Batsman leaving his wicket under a misapprehension'.

The law states: "An umpire shall intervene if satisfied that a batsman, not having been given out, has left his wicket under a misapprehension that he is out. The umpire intervening shall call and signal Dead ball to prevent any further action by the fielding side and shall recall the batsman."

there ya go...

Even I can get something right on the odd occasion :p
 
Yeah but that's when you're attempting a run, not walking back to the pavilion thinking you're out.

In the spirit of the game I doubt teams would attempt a run out in that situation anyway.
Ah yeah I was speaking in general.

Wasn't there a Dean Jones incident in the Windies along those lines? I think they ran him out when he walked. From memory it was given too.
 
Cartwright has really stepped up nicely this BBL, easy to forget he was still pretty unproven in T20's prior to this summer but is now probably our best batsman.

Agar's consistency is also highly impressive, if you think back more than a year or so you'd at least bank on one loose ball or full toss for the batsman to hit where he chooses. Not so anymore and his batting keeps going strength to strength.

Highly impressed with Kelly again, pace depth is outrageously strong.

For all the bleating and moaning about Bosisto, evidence would suggest I would back Langer's judgement over the chicken littles on the bigfooty board. He doesn't get many wrong and the way Bosisto bowled yesterday was a big part in choking their batting lineup.
 
I almost think Bosisto might be better suited coming in down the order - similar to what the heat did with Pierson.

Key problem then is finding a relatively aggressive opener to partner Klinger.
So not voges then?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top