Random Cricket Thread (International Cricket)

[andy]

Why isn't babar there? His odi record is very good the PCB is bloody useless

[Arthur Crabtree]

Maybe hanging around for a hundred contract.

[andy]

No he was dropped, it's a baffling decision

[andy]

Pakistan batting first in the second odi and are 58-0 after 8 overs

[andy]

And then they get bowled out for 274...

[Arthur Crabtree]

Usual collapse.

[sussexpob]

Controversy in the BD v PAK game. Rizwan knocks a tame prod down the wicket back at his partner Agha with the ball rolling to a stop at the non-strikers feet, Agha attempts to back-up into his crease but finds Mehedy Hasan in his way attempting to field the ball, he reaches down to pick it up to give to the bowler but Hasan gets it first, turns, and throws down the stumps as an initially shocked, then extremely angered Agha looks on......



I don't know why umpires indulge this stuff. As the picture shows, Agha was retreating back to his crease where Hasan then blocks him. Hasan then prevents him from passing, and runs him out. How on gods earth can the batsman be given out?

Third Umpire should be fired, its a ridiculous call

[andy]

Must admit I was baffled when I heard this had happened, umpires 100% should have stepped in but it's also painfully bad sportsmanship from Bangladesh absolutely abysmal all round!

[sussexpob]

Must admit I was baffled when I heard this had happened, umpires 100% should have stepped in but it's also painfully bad sportsmanship from Bangladesh absolutely abysmal all round!

People are taking about it like its a spirit of cricket issue similar to Bairstow-Carey, but its literally not, its a total failure of applying the rules. You cannot obstruct a non-striking batsman as part of Law 41, I am at a total loss to understand how the third umpire does not conclude this was obstructing, Hasan literally has his arm round him to stop him getting back, then shoves him in order to win the ball. Had he not initiated that contact, Agha would have had time to smoke a cigar before Hasan picked up the ball and threw down the stumps.

The ball should have been ruled dead, no wicket is applied, Hasan should have received a warning, and Pakistan then get to choose who faces the next ball. That's the rule. It wasn't applied. It's not even remotely debatable either, its clear as day. I can't think of a worst decision across any sport since video umpiring came in.

And yes, once again BDs on field conduct letting their nation down. They are despicable bunch this lot.

[sussexpob]

I just saw that Australia are (is?) ranked as the best team in test cricket.
The fallout of the retirements or even deselection (say it ain't so, Georgie!) of the fast bowling quartet that is inevitable, should ensure this, but the fact that our batting is doing "enough" is worrying.

To make matters worse, the Shield has been a wasteland for batters this season. Peter Handscomb is near retirement age and has previously failed, and he is the only player to score enough runs to be elevated. Renshaw played a few games and did well, but he looked like a tailender in his test career when a deck wasn't a total road - average under 20 in 9 away test matches.

I think Australia have to pick Renshaw with his recent form and overall previous pedigree, but that away record is a huge worry. There is doing bad, being out of form, being exposed to tough situations... but 19 runs an innings isn't just bad, its total loss of hope bad. They resisted re-picking him this summer after a very good year, so maybe that speaks for itself and his previous performance has done him.

The rest. Well its just barren isnt it. Are they serving up potato fields to bat on?

[GarlicJam]

I came here to post how Handscombe led the batting totals for the Sheffield Shield season - averaging 36.23!

All 8 of the highest scorers over the season averaged less than 40.

I don't think it is the pitches so much.

[alfie]

Have to disagree with the belief that that run out call was wrong , having watched the whole thing. Though I certainly think Bangladesh were rather poor sports not to withdraw their appeal !

Collisions happen. And sometimes result in run outs (Though I am old enough to remember a great Australian wicket keeper , Wally Grout , choosing not to run out a West Indian batsman in such circumstances - in a Test Match ! And at a crucial stage : not sure many would be so ethical these days )

The batsman really should have just reached his bat back to safety - he had time if he hadn't gone to pick up the ball. Obviously he thought it was dead. But it wasn't. That's the law.

[sussexpob]

The batsman really should have just reached his bat back to safety - he had time if he hadn't gone to pick up the ball. Obviously he thought it was dead. But it wasn't. That's the law.

Maybe you can explain how the batter is supposed to osmosis through Hasan to get back in? My first photo posted shows Hasan grabbing his arm and kicking out his leg in the path the batsman to block him, the ball at that stage is a few meters above the batsman and nowhere remotely near Hasan's outstretched leg, so this movement has nothing to do with fielding the ball. In the second photo, Hasan's movement completed shows he has given the batsman no way of getting back. Reaching back to safety would only have been possible if the batter physically knocked the bowler out his way.

If this is not obstruction under law 41.5, then what is? What happens becomes irrelevant after the second photo as dead ball should have already been called. And as per law 41.5, no dismissal is valid.

[alfie]

MCC says you are wrong there , SP. And I presume they saw the same pictures ... as did I . You reckon the bowler deliberately blocked the batsman ? But why would he as at that point the ball was still loose : more likely he was just trying to get past him to field the ball ; and clearly the umpires - and MCC - agreed.

The ball cannot be declared "dead" until both sides have accepted that it is so (and harking back to the Bairstow/Carey incident the obvious point of comparison is that while Jonny thought it dead Carey didn't so he was legally out). In this case the batsman clearly thought it was dead which is why he attempted to pick it up instead of regaining his ground - as he could easily have done , just had to reach out with his bat. Bowler disagreed...

Really is a pretty clear case under the laws , rough on the batsman though it might appear. On the matter of "Spirit of the Game " , another thing entirely. But I am afraid that doesn't get much of a look in these days !

[sussexpob]

You reckon the bowler deliberately blocked the batsman ?...... more likely he was just trying to get past him to field the ball ; and clearly the umpires - and MCC - agreed

The terms "deliberate" and "intentional" are often erroneously used interchangeably, but when applied to the process of judging someone's physical actions, they are completely distinct and communicate different things. For something to be "Deliberate", it is simply necessary to consider if the action was carried out consciously. The specific purpose or goal resulting from that action would define ones intention. As an example, if someone breaks into my house and I want to defend myself by shooting them in the foot, I would "Deliberately" shoot that person, but I would not "intend" to kill them if they subsequently died.

The first question we ask ourselves is, has Hasan obstructed Agha. The Cambridge dictionary defines sporting obstruction as follows....

In sport an occasion when one player gets in the way of another and so prevents them from moving freely

Would Agha have got back to the crease without Hasan blocking him? Yes. Agha turns to ground his bat, Hasan blocks his way. At this point, Hasan trying to get to the ball, grabs Agha's upper right arm and uses it as leverage to balance himself while stretching fully to kick the ball, his momentum leading with the shoulder hits Agha and makes him partially stumble back. Can someone (a) being grabbed by the arm (b) having said person spread their body round them making it impossible to pass them (c) being pushed physically back by the momentum of that person leading with their shoulder, be considered to be in the position to move freely? No, clearly not. Hasan clearly obstructs him.

We then ask if its deliberate. In this respect, we have three possibilities of the purpose of his actions. The first is, he moved into the way of Agha with the specific purpose of obstructing him. The second, he was honestly fielding the ball and obstructed him. The third, its purely accidental and utterly random that he found himself there. I think we can rule out the third option without considering it. In the former case, I have no idea what his intention is, but I don't need to prove that level of mindfulness because the actual rule does not require me to do so.

Your own post quoted basically ends up proving the point. Between possibility 1 and 2, its more likely he was trying to field the ball. This would constitute a wilful and conscious act that ended up blocking the batter, and is therefore a deliberate action.

As soon as you start to mention anything to do with the purpose of that action, it becomes a discussion about his intention - that is not mentioned in the rules, and is completely irrelevant in defining if an action is deliberate.

Once correctly applied, the ball becomes dead at the point of obstruction, and anything that happens after it is also irrelevant. Law 41.5 states no batter can be given out.