Cricket

[Tigers of Old]

Pretty bad this incident with the Sri Lankan vice Captain accused of raping a woman in Sydney.
Not for the first time he's been close to such an incident either after being involved in another situation 4 years ago..

Sri Lankan cricketer Danushka Gunathilaka refused bail over alleged sexual assault

The 31-year-old has been suspended by Sri Lanka Cricket after his arrest. His lawyer is considering an urgent Supreme Court bail application.

www.smh.com.au

Police question Danushka Gunathilaka over alleged rape of Norwegian woman

Gunathilaka has been left out of the 15-man squad to play a five-match one-day international series against South Africa starting on Sunday.

www.deccanchronicle.com

 

[bigwow]

Vic's getting poleaxed in Brisbane.

 

[Ricemagic]

I’ve gone off cricket quite a bit, partly due to the over saturation of the game now that hit and giggle is all the rage.
Just a question for those in the know, how has Australia gone in general since the departure of Langer?

In all forms of cricket since Langer's departure,

Australia has gone 23 wins, 15 losses, 4 (draw/no result).

55% win percentage in 42 games going back to early February this year when Langer departed.

 

[Ricemagic]

Langer's last 42 games in all forms of cricket - 21 wins, 19 losses, 2 No results - 50% win percentage.

 

[TigerForce]

I never thought I'd see the Balmy Army at a T20 match. Good to see a big Pakistani crowd.

 

[tigersnake]

Isn't the object of the DRS to correct wrong decisions? That ball was slamming into leg, by eye, by ball tracker, by any reality, umps call, not out. Farce. Umps call was a complete clanger. Terrible decision then terrible DRS call when Pakistan need a few to go their way to have any hope.

 

[mrposhman]

Isn't the object of the DRS to correct wrong decisions? That ball was slamming into leg, by eye, by ball tracker, by any reality, umps call, not out. Farce. Umps call was a complete clanger. Terrible decision then terrible DRS call when Pakistan need a few to go their way to have any hope.

Its the intricacy of the rule. The impact was outside the line, so it doesn't matter if its going to hit the wicket.

Personally, I don't like the rule, if its going to hit the stumps, its going to hit the stumps, but the rule is the ball has to impact the pads in line with the stumps and it didn't and seemed pretty clear to me from the naked eye that the impact was outside the line.

 

[tigersnake]

Its the intricacy of the rule. The impact was outside the line, so it doesn't matter if its going to hit the wicket.

Personally, I don't like the rule, if its going to hit the stumps, its going to hit the stumps, but the rule is the ball has to impact the pads in line with the stumps and it didn't and seemed pretty clear to me from the naked eye that the impact was outside the line.

it was hitting the middle of leg, not clipping it, thumping it. but yes I get it. It was a farce. Ump should have given it out, if he had eyeballs.

great to watch, great duel, great bowlers and batmen.

 

[jb03]

it was hitting the middle of leg, not clipping it, thumping it. but yes I get it. It was a farce. Ump should have given it out, if he had eyeballs.

great to watch, great duel, great bowlers and batmen.

I think posh is saying it was not-out based purely on hitting outside the line. Like when a ball pitches outside leg.

England could choke this up.

 

[mrposhman]

I think posh is saying it was not-out based purely on hitting outside the line. Like when a ball pitches outside leg.

England could choke this up.

Exactly. I think snake is getting mixed up with the rules. For LBW to be a valid dismissal, the ball has to hit the wickets AND hit in line with the stumps which it didn't do, which is why the umpire CORRECTLY didn't give it out.

Personally I don't like it but they are the rules, I'm not sure how you can complain about the umpires when they umpire the rules correctly.

 

[tigersnake]

I think posh is saying it was not-out based purely on hitting outside the line. Like when a ball pitches outside leg.

England could choke this up.

I get it, posh is correct, but fair dinkum, ball is smashing into the stump, ump gives not out, DRS in principle is meant to correct it, but can't. They need to adjust the outside the line thing, just have a bigger margin for error. That was a farce. In real time by eye I was with afridi, 'you cannot be serious!'

 

[mrposhman]

I get it, posh is correct, but fair dinkum, ball is smashing into the stump, ump gives not out, DRS in principle is meant to correct it, but can't. They need to adjust the outside the line thing, just have a bigger margin for error. That was a farce. In real time by eye I was with afridi, 'you cannot be serious!'

It was swinging in, you don't give a bigger margin, you either remove the outside the line rule or you leave it as is. Personally I thought by eye that it was outside the line, a bit surprised it came up umpires call really as I thought it was pretty clearly outside the line from the replay (ie. looked like the full ball was outside the line).

I get what you are saying, but to blame the umpire for giving the decision correctly, is a bit of strange take. I get that you probably don't like England as an Aussie but the replay was fairly clear that it was outside the line.

 

[tigersnake]

Exactly. I think snake is getting mixed up with the rules. For LBW to be a valid dismissal, the ball has to hit the wickets AND hit in line with the stumps which it didn't do, which is why the umpire CORRECTLY didn't give it out.

Personally I don't like it but they are the rules, I'm not sure how you can complain about the umpires when they umpire the rules correctly

It was swinging in, you don't give a bigger margin, you either remove the outside the line rule or you leave it as is. Personally I thought by eye that it was outside the line, a bit surprised it came up umpires call really as I thought it was pretty clearly outside the line from the replay (ie. looked like the full ball was outside the line).

I get what you are saying, but to blame the umpire for giving the decision correctly, is a bit of strange take. I get that you probably don't like England as an Aussie but the replay was fairly clear that it was outside the line.

I understand why DRS went umps call, But wouldn't it have been umps call if it was given out?

 

[TigerForce]

Exactly. I think snake is getting mixed up with the rules. For LBW to be a valid dismissal, the ball has to hit the wickets AND hit in line with the stumps which it didn't do, which is why the umpire CORRECTLY didn't give it out.

Personally I don't like it but they are the rules, I'm not sure how you can complain about the umpires when they umpire the rules correctly.

I wouldn't give any full toss out if it was as high as that ball.

 

[tigersnake]

It was swinging in, you don't give a bigger margin, you either remove the outside the line rule or you leave it as is.

I disagree, for example that particular hitting outside line but obviously taking a big piece of stump, out, clipping, not out. hitting in line clipping stump out.

Anyway, the rule is exposed as a bit farcical with Pakistani bowlers looping it around.

 

[mrposhman]

I understand why DRS went umps call, But wouldn't it have been umps call if it was given out?

Yes it would have, because a marginal part of the ball was adjudged to have been in line with the stumps but less than half.

You understand why DRS went umps call but not why the umpire made that call???

 

[mrposhman]

I disagree, for example that particular hitting outside line but obviously taking a big piece of stump, out, clipping, not out. hitting in line clipping stump out.

Anyway, the rule is exposed as a bit farcical with Pakistani bowlers looping it around.

Like I said I don't really like the rule but it is what it is.

For example, Warneys ball of the century right, had that hit the pad it would have been not out, and would never be regarded as the ball of the century.

The bowlers that the rule impacts the most are the spinners.

 

[tigersnake]

Yes it would have, because a marginal part of the ball was adjudged to have been in line with the stumps but less than half.

You understand why DRS went umps call but not why the umpire made that call???

Yes, thats the whole point of the farce! it was slamming into leg, ump should have given it out. Ump was blind, DRS is meant to correct an ump clanger, but can't due to vagaries and technicalities.

 

[tigersnake]

Bowlers are too good to get the edge!

 

[jb03]

Yes, thats the whole point of the farce! it was slamming into leg, ump should have given it out. Ump was blind, DRS is meant to correct an ump clanger, but can't due to vagaries and technicalities.

If the ump gave it out, it would have been overturned by DRS.


Great bowling by Pakistan