MacGill in trouble again

[wagstaff]

Stuart MacGill has been cited for abusive language towards an umpire again after yesterday's domestic one-dayer against Tasmania.

http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,5925281-23212,00.html

I was watching at the time the incident happened and I could tell that he was in one of his "disturbed" periods.

During the over, he managed to get Jamie Cox out at a crucial time of the match but seemed rather underwhelmed by it all, and I'm pretty sure had a few words to say to Cox after the dismissal.

Then next ball, there was a big appeal against Dan Marsh for a ball that hit him on the full and looked to be heading onto the stumps; but the umpire reasoned that it was going down leg and gave it not out. Here MacGill lost the plot a bit and had a few words to say to the umpire, and continued onto the end of the over.

Assuming the charges are proven, there's a fair chance he will get suspended for a match or so and yet another black mark will go against MacGill in the behaviour category.

 

[Perty4]

He should be suspended and sent to anger management classes. It is an all too frequent occurence for MacGilla, which is sad.

 

[Diego]

I don't like the way he carries on after he has taken a wicket.

It's like he deserves to take a wicket every ball he bowls and if he doesnt he cracks the ****.

Then when he takes a wicket he has this frown of his face and this "too cool for school" attitude.

Find a bit of charisma McGilla!

 

[JUBJUB]

It's about time they suspended him for a game or two.He makes Lleyton Hewitt look like a saint.

 

[Langer's_Babe]

i was at the game yesterday

i was at the game when was stuey supposed to of said to the umpire i cant belive he has done it again

 

[mattyc2422]

Further proof that MacGill is an utter clown.

 

[Bomber Spirit]

Originally posted by Perty4
He should be suspended and sent to anger management classes. It is an all too frequent occurence for MacGilla, which is sad.

Failing that, we could drop Stuie and replace him with:

 

[wagstaff]

Stuart MacGill has been suspended for the next two interstate games:

http://www-aus.cricket.org/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2003/FEB/131766_AAP_03FEB2003.html

Considering his previous disciplinary record, the suspension doesn't come as a surprise.

 

[P76]

Gives the Vics a bit of a chance in the Milk game - we might even (gulp) host the final!!

 

[Perty4]

What Hope. Hand the Sheild to Queensland now, even without Maher, Hayden, Symonds and Bichel.

 

[Langer's_Babe]

i think the warriors queensland and maybe blues

i think that the warriors and queensland really have a good chance

 

[Silver Balls]

Suspended. How pathetic i saw it on tv. Hardly did a thing. Its the bloody useless ump who should be suspended. That was as plumb LBW as you can get nowadays with the ruling. It doesnt matter if it was going down leg, it hit him plumb in front on the full, which means OUT.

All you fairies saying how bad he is are pathetic.

 

[Spogs]

What rules are you going by. Of course it matters if the ball's going down leg. If it's going to miss....NOT OUT.

Still can't go off at the ump everytime a decision goes against you.

 

[ScouseCat]

Originally posted by Silver Balls
Suspended. How pathetic i saw it on tv. Hardly did a thing. Its the bloody useless ump who should be suspended. That was as plumb LBW as you can get nowadays with the ruling. It doesnt matter if it was going down leg, it hit him plumb in front on the full, which means OUT.

All you fairies saying how bad he is are pathetic.

So based on that theory, Matthew Hayden shouldn't have been fined for his little outburst after being given out LBW in the 5th test at Sydney when he was clearly NOT OUT.

That is why you have to accept the umpire's decision no matter what. There will be days when you get some go your way and there'll be other days when you don't.... that's all part of the game.

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by Silver Balls
Suspended. How pathetic i saw it on tv. Hardly did a thing. Its the bloody useless ump who should be suspended. That was as plumb LBW as you can get nowadays with the ruling. It doesnt matter if it was going down leg, it hit him plumb in front on the full, which means OUT.

All you fairies saying how bad he is are pathetic.

you goose. if the ball hits him on the full, the the umpire is to assume the ball would have gone straight on, ie not spun. it doesnt matter if it hits him in front, if the angle is taking it down leg side, it aint out

 

[Silver Balls]

According to Richie Benaud:

If the ball hits the batsmans pad on the full the umpire MUST assume it is going straight on.

Read it again MUST assume it is going straight on.

Does not matter if it is actually going to miss, Richie was perfectly clear on this.

Maybe he is wrong and I am repeating smething that is wrong but I'll take his advice over yours any day

 

[Spogs]

Richie was smething wrong

 

[Holycrap]

MacGill is a farking spoilt brat who can't admit to himself that Warne is the best leg spinner in the country and that he has imperfections.

The ******* deserves a suspension not only in state cricket but at grade cricket - that will teach the smartass to keep his trap shut and learn some humility!

 

[Zombie]

Originally posted by Silver Balls
According to Richie Benaud:

If the ball hits the batsmans pad on the full the umpire MUST assume it is going straight on.

Read it again MUST assume it is going straight on.

Does not matter if it is actually going to miss, Richie was perfectly clear on this.

Maybe he is wrong and I am repeating smething that is wrong but I'll take his advice over yours any day

By straight on he means continue on the direction that it was going before striking the pad, if this means that the angle was taking the ball down the leg side then it is 'not out'.

It is a simple rule that is basically designed for the 'what if the ball had bounced and spun away from the stumps' question. No one, let alone the umpire, can determine if the ball would have spun and how much. The umpire can't even tell which way the would have spun, so it is assumed that the ball will not spin at all and continue its path.

I think you have misunderstood what Richie was saying. he was explaining that the potential spin if the ball had bounced has to be ignored. You seem to have interpreted it as him saying if the batsmen is hit on the full inline with the stumps then he is automatically 'out' regardless of the angle of the delivery, this is not what he meant and is not the case.