Australia vs South Africa

[LostDoggy]

Re: Australia vs South Africa

Thatr Mitch Johnson dismissal was just about the worst LBW decision I've ever seen. I'm not saying it cost Australia too much because it was only the #10 batsman, but to be given out when you are hit on the pad by a full toss bowled by a bowler who is bowling right arm around the wicket is plain bad luck.

I dunno, I thought you can't get plumber than that?
I'm not an expert but he hit him in line, low(shoes) and on the crease then the ball is going no where else but the stumps.

[Twodogs]

Re: Australia vs South Africa

I dunno, I thought you can't get plumber than that?
I'm not an expert but he hit him in line, low(shoes) and on the crease then the ball is going no where else but the stumps.

The ball hadnt pitched so there was doubt as to which way it would move off the wicket and bowlers just shouldnt get LBWs bowling right arm around. It's too hard to judge whether the ball has pitched in line with the stumps, and from a personal POV, it rewards bowlers for bowling in a fundamentally negative manner.

[Bornadog]

Re: Australia vs South Africa

I would put either Klinger, on current form, or Hughes, on potential, ahead of Rogers. He didn't look comfortable even for a second last summer when he got his shot.

early days for Hughes.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Australia vs South Africa

Was that Sarfraz Nawaz?

Sarfraz could bowl.

This was little Paki dart thrower. Can't remember his name - his career was not long lasting

[Twodogs]

Re: Australia vs South Africa

Sarfraz could bowl.

This was little Paki dart thrower. Can't remember his name - his career was not long lasting

Sikander Bakht?

[LostDoggy]

Re: Australia vs South Africa

The ball hadnt pitched so there was doubt as to which way it would move off the wicket and bowlers just shouldnt get LBWs bowling right arm around. It's too hard to judge whether the ball has pitched in line with the stumps, and from a personal POV, it rewards bowlers for bowling in a fundamentally negative manner.

I still don't understand, off the wicket? The ball was just about to pitch right on the base of the stumps. Had it pitched before the stumps, on middle as it was there, is no way it would have deviated that much in the short space to miss the stumps either side. I've never seen a ball deviate just about square especially at that sort of pace.

The batsman get it too easy already, if those aren't out then boring games with scores of 600+ are in.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Australia vs South Africa

Sarfraz could bowl.

This was little Paki dart thrower. Can't remember his name - his career was not long lasting

I know I was joking.
I remember Chapell said a player was 'suspect' after a one day interenational in Australia.
Thought is was the Sri Lankan Graham Labrooy?

[LostDoggy]

Re: Australia vs South Africa

Sikander Bakht?

You mean the skinniest bowler to ever play the game - told him to get off the track one day for fear he would disappear down one of the cracks never to be seen again. Nah wasn't him.

I looked it up - he had the unfortunate name of Ijaz Faqih

[Twodogs]

Re: Australia vs South Africa

I still don't understand, off the wicket?

Sorry, I meant to say "outside the line" but I fell into cricketers jargon.

the following will help a beginning cricket fan to understand what is this debatable rule..

4 points to consider - Height, how forward was the batsman from batting crease, where the ball pitched (outside leg stump, in line with stumps or outside off stump) & did the batsman get an edge on it before it hit his pads.

**If batsman edges the ball before it hits his pads - not out!
**Ball cannot pitch outside leg stump line. if it does, even though batsman is not playing a shot, he can't be out.
**Ball can pitch outside off stump for a batsman to be out lbw, but if batsman was attempting to play a shot & had missed the ball - he can't be out if ball struck his pads outside the line of off stump. Ball has to strike in line with stumps for a Umpire to rule a batsmen out if he was offering a shot.
**If a batsman doesn't offer a shot to a ball pitched outside off-stump, umpires just have to make sure the ball would have hit his stumps and he can rule the batsman out.. irrespective of it hit him in line or outside the line of stumps.
**A full toss hitting batsman's pads - umpires are allowed to imagine the ball would have traveled in straight line & can rule a batsman out if it was going to hit the stumps!

Katich played a shot.

[Twodogs]

Re: Australia vs South Africa

You mean the skinniest bowler to ever play the game - told him to get off the track one day for fear he would disappear down one of the cracks never to be seen again. Nah wasn't him.

I looked it up - he had the unfortunate name of Ijaz Faqih

I remember the name but I cant place him. With what Rodney Hogg would have called him it would have left plenty of room for humourous misunderstandings I reckon...

[LostDoggy]

Re: Australia vs South Africa

Sorry, I meant to say "outside the line" but I fell into cricketers jargon.

**Ball can pitch outside off stump for a batsman to be out lbw, but if batsman was attempting to play a shot & had missed the ball - he can't be out if ball struck his pads outside the line of off stump. Ball has to strike in line with stumps for a Umpire to rule a batsmen out if he was offering a shot.

Katich played a shot.

Twodogs

Not sure where the highlighted quote comes from but it is incorrect.

Ball can pitch outside the line of the off stump and providing it hits in-line then he can be given out irrespective of whether he was offering a shot.

The issue of offering a shot only comes into play when the batsman is hit outside the line.

The best way of looking at it is to separate things into the following:

1. Where did the ball pitch - It can pitch in line or outside the line of off stump
2. Where did the ball strike the batsman - it can hit in line or outside the line of the off stump but
3. If it hits outside the line of the off stump providing the batsman was playing a shot he is safe and
4. Where was the ball going (was it going to hit the stumps)

[Twodogs]

Re: Australia vs South Africa

Twodogs

Not sure where the highlighted quote comes from but it is incorrect.

Ball can pitch outside the line of the off stump and providing it hits in-line then he can be given out irrespective of whether he was offering a shot.

The issue of offering a shot only comes into play when the batsman is hit outside the line.

The best way of looking at it is to separate things into the following:

1. Where did the ball pitch - It can pitch in line or outside the line of off stump
2. Where did the ball strike the batsman - it can hit in line or outside the line of the off stump but
3. If it hits outside the line of the off stump providing the batsman was playing a shot he is safe and
4. Where was the ball going (was it going to hit the stumps)

Sorry my bad I forget to provide the link;

http://www.itsonlycricket.com/entry/660/

What about if the ball doesnt actually pitch at all as in Katich's case? It hit his foot on the full outside the line of off stump.

[The Coon Dog]

Re: Australia vs South Africa

If the ball strikes the batsman on the full, doesn't the umpire have to assume the ball would have gone straight on? Funny with Warney bowling on the 5th day.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Australia vs South Africa

Sorry my bad I forget to provide the link;

http://www.itsonlycricket.com/entry/660/

What about if the ball doesnt actually pitch at all as in Katich's case? It hit his foot on the full outside the line of off stump.

If it doesn't pitch then it coms back to where it hit.

You are of the view that it hit Katich outide the off stump. If that in fact was the case (I don't think it was) then if he played a shot he would be safe but if he didn't play a shot he will be out PROVIDING the ball was going to hit the stumps.

On the surface it would appear that judging LBW's on TV is a fairly simple matter. But I am of the view that the TV offers a poor view of things because you are watching it with a one dimensional view - you are unable to see it as a three dimensional view. Therefore you cannot assess depth.

This severely restricts the viewer's assesment of where the ball was going. Judging height on TV is hopeless and that thingy that says this is what would have happened is mostly absolute bull$hit

[LostDoggy]

Re: Australia vs South Africa

If the ball strikes the batsman on the full, doesn't the umpire have to assume the ball would have gone straight on? Funny with Warney bowling on the 5th day.

Yes - straight on along the line it was travelling (unlike what IM Chappell had to say last night.