Printable View
Chris Gayle has just been bowled by Mitchell Starc, but, for the third time in the tournament, the bails did not fall off despite the stumps being given the sort of whack where you'd expect the bails to definitely come off. I wonder if the lights in the bails which flash when they are disturbed are too heavy causing them to stay in place when they shouldn't?
Yes that's the theory. The balls were hitting the stumps during the IPL as well and the bails were staying put.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
As if it's not tough enough to take wickets.
Ridiculous.
Happened in the England match ,didn't it ?
I'm stumped for a reason why .
Perhaps the varnish is starting to melt and acting like glue. It happened in Africa once. Mind it was a warm day.
Should the batsman walk? Clearly they got beat and the spirit of the game might suggest they should, but on the other hand the rules don’t question whether the ball hits the stumps (categoric proof that the bowler beat the batter) rather that the bowler dislodged the bailes. I like cricket for many reasons but primary is the common understanding that the game is played with the spirit of honesty and fair play. I appreciate that being bowled out but the bailes staying in tact is different to nicking one to the keeper but the umpire not spotting it, but the difference is only one of fortune vs human error. In both cases the honest result is that the bowler got the better of the batter so I don’t really understand why good fortune in physics trumps good fortune in human error.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
The thing is, while you are right that the rules of the game say that the bails have to be dislodged for someone to be deemed out bowled, as far as I'm aware, there is no expectation on the part of the fielding team that a batsman should walk if their stumps are hit, but the bails don't fall off. Speaking for myself, my annoyance would be directed at the makers of the bails (if they are thought to be the reason for the number of times batsmen have not been bowled in the tournament after the ball hit the stumps pretty hard) rather than the batsman if I was in, say, the Australian team yesterday.Quote:
Originally Posted by Optimistic Nick
Also World Cup related, I see our fine upstanding young men are having to contend with all sorts of dastardly tricks by those dirty, rotten foreigners as they seek to bring the trophy back (oh hang, on they've never won it have they!) to its rightful home;-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cr...t-England.html
I know Pakistan got fined for a slow over rate after they beat England, but, remind me, which team was it who had players a couple of players fined 15% of their match fees for "an audible obscenity" and "obvious dissent" respectively?
Glad you had your spell check on for bails 🤔.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
When it flicked the bail, they showed the snickometer which proved that Gayle hadn't hit it, and that it had flicked the stump. But the next step is to go to ball tracking. If they had gone to ball tracking that would have shown that Gayle had been bowled.
Seeing as an appeal is for all forms of dismissal rather than just the one and the umpire had already given him out, the Gayle should have been given out by the third umpire as bowled. The umpires initial decision was out, so even though flicking the bails would have been "umpires call", they couldn't have changed the umpire's decision.
If the umpire hadn't given him out caught behind and Australia had appealed he wouldn't have been out bowled as the "umpires call" would have been not out to start with.
The bails have to be removed for a batsman to be out bowled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot Shot Hamish.
The old chewing gum ruse seems to be alive & kicking👍👍👍
I loves a bit of Lonnie Donegan me :hehe::hehe:Quote:
Originally Posted by splott parker
For our older listeners :hehe:
When it flicked the bail, they showed the snickometer which proved that Gayle hadn't hit it, and that it had flicked the stump. But the next step is to go to ball tracking. If they had gone to ball tracking that would have shown that Gayle had been bowled.
Seeing as an appeal is for all forms of dismissal rather than just the one and the umpire had already given him out, the Gayle should have been given out by the third umpire as bowled. The umpires initial decision was out, so even though flicking the bails would have been "umpires call", they couldn't have changed the umpire's decision.
If the umpire hadn't given him out caught behind and Australia had appealed he wouldn't have been out bowled as the "umpires call" would have been not out to start with.
Yes, I know the bails have to fall off to be given out. But as Gayle had been given out what I.m trying to say but not very successfully, is that as it was referred to the third umpire if they had used the ball tracking feature, I assume that as the ball hit the stumps Hawkeye would have shown the bails falling off even though in reality they somehow didn't. So would the third umpire have to have given him out bowled seeing as his original decision was out?Quote:
Originally Posted by qccfc
And it happened again tonight. Bangladeshi tried to pull Ben Stokes. The ball gets caught up in the batsman and bounced onto the middle stick quite hard but the bails stayed on again.
Stokes then castled him next ball!
I've seen it happen occasionally down the years, but being bowled is the most comprehensive and most spectacular dismissal in the game and, in a sport which is already loaded in favour of the batsman, the knowledge that there is a small chance that even this mode of dismissal does not give the bowler their due rewards should be tackled immediately. Even if the flashing bails can be a useful addition to the game and an aid to umpires at times, it seems obvious that they are, inadvertently having a negative impact on the tournament and, as such, should be replaced by ordinary ones from now on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot Shot Hamish.
AgreeQuote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
and again somethings not right with these bails
This one was Bumrah to Warner and the ball hit the stumps with a real thump - that's five times in the tournament now.Quote:
Originally Posted by poc
They shoud switch to normal stumps and bails immediately. This is getting ridiculous now.
I dont think ive ever seen someone bowled and it having to go to the 3rd umpire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot Shot Hamish.
If the bails had been knocked off hed have been given out bowled.
Gayle would have walked off anyway.
This seems easily solvable. In keeping with the tradition of governing bodies being f**king useless they have already said they won’t change them, so the teams should sort it themselves. Each team brings a set of stumps and bails, giving them to the umpires and explain that they will be using these normal ones or there will be no game today.
Or of course the umpires could easily solve it (and probably should) by removing the bails and taking it upon themselves to determine whether the wicket has been broken.
Listening to a podcast yesterday seemed to suggest that it is a problem with the stumps rather than the bails. If you look at the stumps used for international cricket. They contain a stump camera and a stump microphone, and as such have been made much firmer and heavier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Optimistic Nick
They wont change the equipment part of the way through a tournament, because teams could argue the playing field wasn't level.
TV coverage demands different angles, gimmicks and coverage. I cannot see teams bringing their own equipment, when the tv companies are paying their wages.