The General Cricket Thread
13-08-2005, 16:04
|
#181
|
|
Guest
|
Re: Cricket
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
You're just still narked about that quiz question...! 
|
 - well, not 'narked', as it wouldn't have made any difference to the result, it just seemed ironic that having guessed an answer, it then occurred 
|
|
|
|
|
13-08-2005, 16:15
|
#182
|
|
Inactive
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Belfast
Age: 44
Posts: 4,594
|
Re: Cricket
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Nope, IIRC it's either one or the other, not both.
|
Quote:
13. Runs resulting from a No ball †“ how scored
The one run penalty for a No ball shall be scored as a No ball extra. If other penalty runs have been awarded to either side, these shall be scored as in Law 42.17 (Penalty runs). Any runs completed by the batsmen or a boundary allowance shall be credited to the striker if the ball has been struck by the bat; otherwise they also shall be scored as No ball extras.
Apart from any award of a 5 run penalty, all runs resulting from a No ball, whether as No ball extras or credited to the striker, shall be debited against the bowler.
http://www.sheetudeep.com/cricket/rule_noball.html
|
|
|
|
|
13-08-2005, 17:13
|
#183
|
|
Oh Lanky Lanky.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Shaw, Oldham, Lancashire.
Services: 2 TV 360 boxes. 500mb BB, Phone line.
Posts: 7,960
|
Re: Cricket
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by homealone
(p.s. did you see Flintoff's no ball, there, which carried to the boundary and gave away 5 runs  )
|
Seeing as we are all being pedantic, it was Jones, not Flintoff. 
|
|
|
|
|
13-08-2005, 19:22
|
#184
|
|
Oh Lanky Lanky.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Shaw, Oldham, Lancashire.
Services: 2 TV 360 boxes. 500mb BB, Phone line.
Posts: 7,960
|
Re: Cricket
Well, he may have taken the winning catch in the last match, but time will tell just how costly the two dreadful mistakes by Jones the Keeper are going to be. I know the old adage of "don't change a winning team" but Hoggard and Jones the Keeper need to pull their fingers out to justify remaining in the side.
Most local club keepers would have snaffled those two. 
|
|
|
|
|
14-08-2005, 11:05
|
#185
|
|
R.I.P.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: London
Services: 20Mb VM CM, Virgin TV
Posts: 5,983
|
Re: Cricket
Most grandmothers would have had a chance too. Still, the King of Spin just held onto one to get Warne out for 90, so hopefully the last two won't hang about and we can get England batting again.
|
|
|
|
|
14-08-2005, 12:40
|
#186
|
|
Oh Lanky Lanky.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Shaw, Oldham, Lancashire.
Services: 2 TV 360 boxes. 500mb BB, Phone line.
Posts: 7,960
|
Re: Cricket
Well done, Jones the Bowler, excellent performance. Strauss has just worn one from Lee again.
|
|
|
|
|
15-08-2005, 02:06
|
#187
|
|
Inactive
Join Date: May 2005
Age: 59
Posts: 3,170
|
Re: Cricket
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gazzae
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Nope, IIRC it's either one or the other, not both.
|
Quote:
|
13. Runs resulting from a No ball †“ how scored
|
|
Ah, I see what you're getting at, but it's not quite the same thing.
With the no ball going to the boundary, there are two *separate* events, ie firstly the one run for a no ball is "instantly" awarded, then, subsequently, if it goes to the boundary *another* four runs are added.
Whilst this totals five, of course, it's actually one extra plus four extras, not an automatic award of five immediately.
Here's the Lord's cricket site with the full laws of the game: http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/
__________________
Anyway, back to the game:
Full credit to the Aussies for surviving this (well, yesterday!) evening, although they were a) a little lucky and b) pushing their luck with a risk of an (optional!) five penalty runs for delay of play!
399 to win, not impossible, but can England get 10 wickets???
|
|
|
|
|
15-08-2005, 03:29
|
#188
|
|
Guest
|
Re: Cricket
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gazzae
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Nope, IIRC it's either one or the other, not both.
|
Quote:
|
13. Runs resulting from a No ball †“ how scored
|
|
Ah, I see what you're getting at, but it's not quite the same thing.
With the no ball going to the boundary, there are two *separate* events, ie firstly the one run for a no ball is "instantly" awarded, then, subsequently, if it goes to the boundary *another* four runs are added.
Whilst this totals five, of course, it's actually one extra plus four extras, not an automatic award of five immediately.
Here's the Lord's cricket site with the full laws of the game: http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/
__________________
Anyway, back to the game:
Full credit to the Aussies for surviving this (well, yesterday!) evening, although they were a) a little lucky and b) pushing their luck with a risk of an (optional!) five penalty runs for delay of play!
399 to win, not impossible, but can England get 10 wickets??? |
was Bell 'guilty' of scoring too slowly, - should freddie have been put in to tickle the scoreboard .... 
|
|
|
|
|
15-08-2005, 04:55
|
#189
|
|
Inactive
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Treasure Island
Age: 78
Services: NTL cable 20mb Broadband, V+ package.
Posts: 1,971
|
Re: Cricket
Was impressed by Vaughans bowling last evening, he should step up more often, and on the question can we bowl them out today, i seriously think we can.
|
|
|
|
|
15-08-2005, 09:05
|
#190
|
|
Inactive
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Belfast
Age: 44
Posts: 4,594
|
Re: Cricket
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
With the no ball going to the boundary, there are two *separate* events, ie firstly the one run for a no ball is "instantly" awarded, then, subsequently, if it goes to the boundary *another* four runs are added.
Whilst this totals five, of course, it's actually one extra plus four extras, not an automatic award of five immediately.
|
Thats exactly what I said earlier in the thread..
4 extras for the boundary + 1 for the no-ball AFAIK
|
|
|
|
|
15-08-2005, 13:27
|
#191
|
|
Inactive
Join Date: May 2005
Age: 59
Posts: 3,170
|
Re: Cricket
Well it's currently 129 for 2.
Unless England do something special PDQ it looks like the Aussies are going to be able to grind out a draw
|
|
|
|
|
15-08-2005, 14:03
|
#192
|
|
Inactive
Join Date: May 2005
Age: 59
Posts: 3,170
|
Re: Cricket
165 for 4, there's still hope...
... trouble I've got to get on with some work, so I won't be watching, but I'll be listening to TMS.
|
|
|
|
|
15-08-2005, 14:06
|
#193
|
|
Trollsplatter
Cable Forum Team
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: North of Watford
Services: Humane elimination of all common Internet pests
Posts: 36,929
|
Re: Cricket
Can someone please explain, for the benefit of someone who finds cricket completely uninteresting (except when England look like they might beat Australia!) why England declared yesterday when they could have piled on a load more runs and left the Aussies an impossible target?
|
|
|
|
|
15-08-2005, 14:08
|
#194
|
|
Inactive
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Punmeister Towers
Age: 48
Services: Will provide gags for cash
Posts: 9,211
|
Re: Cricket
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chris T
Can someone please explain, for the benefit of someone who finds cricket completely uninteresting (except when England look like they might beat Australia!) why England declared yesterday when they could have piled on a load more runs and left the Aussies an impossible target?
|
TBH, Mrs Nug asked me exactly the same question yesterday, and I couldn't think of a good answer.
The only reason I could think of is that, sledging and bodyline aside, cricket is still a 'gentlemans game' and, as such, it was a sporting decision to give the Australians a chance.
Other than that, it makes absolutely no sense 
|
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:35.
|
Join CF
You are here: 
