Author Topic: Redd - a Cricket question  (Read 144 times)

Offline beet1e

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7848
Redd - a Cricket question
« on: August 13, 2004, 07:20:05 AM »
I saw part of the third Test yesterday, and Richie Benaud was there. During the lunch break, he commented on an interesting ball in the Windies' first innings. A ball was bowled, and was struck out to long on and was caught in the air. But the batsman was not given out because the umpire had called a no-ball. In a discussion about the meaning of the crease, Richie explained that the no-ball wasn't called because the bowler had overstepped the crease, but because there is another crease - some distance behind the batsman's wicket - which marks an area in which the fielding side is allowed to have only two fielders. At the time the ball was bowled, England had three fielders in this area.  

Do you know anything about this rule? I'd never heard of this.

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
Redd - a Cricket question
« Reply #1 on: August 13, 2004, 07:33:49 AM »
Well the answer is obvious...

When the crease was breeched the batsman's on was got by the rearman and the frontman in violation of the creases line-on-through. When the bowler presented-in the googlie was found by the umpire to be outer.

duh!

Offline Curval

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11572
      • http://n/a
Redd - a Cricket question
« Reply #2 on: August 13, 2004, 07:37:45 AM »
I've never heard of that rule before and thought that variants on rules were limited to one-day matches.
Some will fall in love with life and drink it from a fountain that is pouring like an avalanche coming down the mountain

Offline Redd

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1316
Redd - a Cricket question
« Reply #3 on: August 13, 2004, 10:12:00 PM »
Beet,


I'm pretty sure you guys are actually responsible for that rule  - due to the Bodyline series. 1932-33


To counter Don Bradman , the pommies put almost everyone in the field on the legside around the bat - and proceeded  to bowl bouncers at the batsmens head and body non-stop for 5 tests. This was at a time when the batsmen had no head and body protection like they do today.

England stopped Bradman   ( nearly killed him) won the series , but the rules were soon changed to only allow 2 fielders behind square leg.


Probably, the most embarassing legacy the English have left to cricket  ;)  Glad you brought it up  lol


In AH terms   - they were gaming the game !


Read all about it here  - it's actually a great story - was made into a mini-series.

http://abc.net.au/bodyline/
I come from a land downunder

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
Redd - a Cricket question
« Reply #4 on: August 13, 2004, 10:13:46 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by midnight Target
Well the answer is obvious...

When the crease was breeched the batsman's on was got by the rearman and the frontman in violation of the creases line-on-through. When the bowler presented-in the googlie was found by the umpire to be outer.

duh!


:rofl

Offline beet1e

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7848
Redd - a Cricket question
« Reply #5 on: August 14, 2004, 10:29:25 AM »
Redd - thanks for that explanation.  
Quote
Originally posted by Redd
In AH terms   - they were gaming the game !
ROFL!! Yes, those overs against Bradman must have looked like P51/LA7 pork-n-vulch moves. I'm glad the cricket organisers (TCCB?) saw fit to change the rules, just as HTC is about to deal with GtG in AH. :lol
:aok