Cricket | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Cricket

Thought it was no runners anymore if you carried a known niggle into a game, but runners were still allowed if you got obviously injured mid game.
Bit harsh no runner when you've only got one leg to even stand on.
Stupid change to this rule as it benefits the oppo when you have only 9 batsmen. Can't they use the 12th man or have the oppo nominate the runner?
 
On the replay, it did seem that Starc was in control of the ball, even though it touched the ground, it was pretty firmly in his hand.

I've heard everything now, was in complete control of the ball but disallowed because he was not in control of his body o_O :mad:


the Marylebone Cricket Club, which is the custodian of cricket’s laws, issued a statement in support of umpire Erasmus.

“In relation to the below incident, Law 33.3 clearly states that a catch is only completed when the fielder has ‘complete control over the ball and his/her own movement.’ The ball cannot touch the ground before then,” the statement said. “In this particular incident, Mitchell Starc was still sliding as the ball rubbed the ground, therefore he was not in control of his movement.”
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
Plenty of diving classic catches result in the ball hitting the ground while it's being held. I guess they are all umpired incorrectly.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 3 users
The review systems always seem hell bent on disallowing the catch/lbw/goal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Pommies played the smart arses when Lyon was batting especially that Ben Smoakes idiot, but now they're 4 for and should be all out before today ends. Karma.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I thought a player could have a runner if the injury occurred during the game in progress. Which it obviously did, has that rule been rescinded. If it has then that's absolute madness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I thought a player could have a runner if the injury occurred during the game in progress. Which it obviously did, has that rule been rescinded. If it has then that's absolute madness.
Agree. Just stupid as it benefits the other team. Same logic as any SHocking creation.
 
There's nothing better than seeing that middle stump smashed by our fast bowlers. Well done Starc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I've heard everything now, was in complete control of the ball but disallowed because he was not in control of his body o_O :mad:


the Marylebone Cricket Club, which is the custodian of cricket’s laws, issued a statement in support of umpire Erasmus.

“In relation to the below incident, Law 33.3 clearly states that a catch is only completed when the fielder has ‘complete control over the ball and his/her own movement.’ The ball cannot touch the ground before then,” the statement said. “In this particular incident, Mitchell Starc was still sliding as the ball rubbed the ground, therefore he was not in control of his movement.”
Is sHocking and the fARCe in England?
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users