Cricket things that annoy you

[31550]

The England team have been referring to a nighthawk for at least a couple of years. It sounds a bit silly, tbh, but most cricket terms do so one more silly phrase won't hurt anyone.

And, you know, 12th player? Substitute fielders?

Takes about a millisecond to think of alternatives.

Or we could stop being so precious and accept that these random words containing 'man' do not exclude or preclude women from playing cricket. E.g. "mankind" has been perfectly acceptable English for centuries. Is NASA going to send another spacecraft to the Moon to change the plaque to "We came in peace for all humankind?"

What's next? Personkad?

 

[big_e]

Or we could stop being so precious and accept that these random words containing 'man' do not exclude or preclude women from playing cricket. E.g. "mankind" has been perfectly acceptable English for centuries. Is NASA going to send another spacecraft to the Moon to change the plaque to "We came in peace for all humankind?"

What's next? Personkad?

I'm not the one being precious. I'm simply telling you the words and phrases that I prefer to use - you are using increasingly hysterical and nonsensical language in response. Personkad? Really?

But if you must, that's just a run out. If you want more context, run out at the non-striker's end.

Much like left-arm wrist spin, it's a much better term because it actually describes the situation.

 

[4Seasons]

Or we could stop being so precious and accept that these random words containing 'man' do not exclude or preclude women from playing cricket. E.g. "mankind" has been perfectly acceptable English for centuries. Is NASA going to send another spacecraft to the Moon to change the plaque to "We came in peace for all humankind?"

What's next? Personkad?

Of all the things to be offended about

 

[corbies]

Boundary ropes continue to get brought in further and further, bats continue to get bigger and lighter, DRS for LBW’s are so heavily favoured towards the batter it’s not funny.

Shining the ball with saliva’s been outlawed, so good luck shinning the ball on a cold overcast English morning.

Bowlers are frowned upon for running batters out when they’re 2 yards out of their crease before the balls even been bowled, yet if a bowler takes a wicket but oversteps by 0.001mm it doesn’t count.

Bowlers now get every single ball checked by the TV umpire for front foot no balls, yet if a batter gets a faint outside edge and no one appeals for it they can continue on…

It’s a batters game.

Huh? The instances of LBWs are massively up under DRS.

 

[TY24]

Huh? The instances of LBWs are massively up under DRS.

Probably more a reflection on poor umpiring decisions than anything

I think umpires call with LBW’s needs reevaluating anyway. I could be wrong, but I’d like to think in 2024 the technology is accurate enough that we don’t need to allow for half a ball as an error margin anymore. Just feels wrong that a ball can be absolutely smashing the stumps but it’s not out because it was only 49% of the ball hitting the stump and the onfield decision was not out (I get this goes both ways though)

 

[PhatBoy]

Probably more a reflection on poor umpiring decisions than anything

I think umpires call with LBW’s needs reevaluating anyway. I could be wrong, but I’d like to think in 2024 the technology is accurate enough that we don’t need to allow for half a ball as an error margin anymore. Just feels wrong that a ball can be absolutely smashing the stumps but it’s not out because it was only 49% of the ball hitting the stump and the onfield decision was not out (I get this goes both ways though)

Because they don’t know that 49 per cent of the ball IS smashing the stumps for starters.

That’s one of the reasons: the technology is not foolproof so that HAS to be factored in

It also needs to be remembered that while the game does change and evolve, for 130-140 years there are various aspects of the game and conventions by which the game has been ruled. One of which is that there is doubt about certain types of dismissal when the ball is on the periphery of the line of the stumps etc and I don’t really have a problem with that staying in the game in some capacity

 

[TY24]

Because they don’t know that 49 per cent of the ball IS smashing the stumps for starters.

Just seems odd that the same technology is used in other sports with zero error margins. Hawk eye is used in both football and tennis to determine if the whole ball has crossed the line or not, but in cricket we can’t overrule a decision unless more than half of the ball is shown to be contradicting the onfield decision.

 

[corbies]

Just seems odd that the same technology is used in other sports with zero error margins. Hawk eye is used in both football and tennis to determine if the whole ball has crossed the line or not, but in cricket we can’t overrule a decision unless more than half of the ball is shown to be contradicting the onfield decision.

They aren't a projection in those sports like whether the ball is hitting the stumps in cricket. Where the ball pitches isn't a projection either hence why he don't have umpires call for it.

 

[PhatBoy]

Just seems odd that the same technology is used in other sports with zero error margins. Hawk eye is used in both football and tennis to determine if the whole ball has crossed the line or not, but in cricket we can’t overrule a decision unless more than half of the ball is shown to be contradicting the onfield decision.

with sports like tennis at least it’s using data on something that’s based around what’s actually happened, not a prediction.

If the makers of the technology are actively saying ‘this isn’t 100 per cent accurate’ we probably need to believe them

 

[TY24]

They aren't a projection in those sports like whether the ball is hitting the stumps in cricket. Where the ball pitches isn't a projection either hence why he don't have umpires call for it.

Fair point, I hadn’t considered that

 

[31550]

DRS has become a necessary evil as the technology now exists to reveal dodgy decisions which in the past we would have just accepted and moved on.
But I'd like to get rid of player reviews.
DRS should be used by the umpire in cases where they are not 'sure'. No limit on how many times. If a player asks for a review and the umpire is 'sure', he should refuse the review. If he's not sure, have the review. No 'umpires call', but he can change his decision based on DRS if he wants to. This gets rid of players calling for reviews just because they can. It gets rid of the farcical situation of incorrect decisions being upheld because a team had run out of reviews. And it gets rid of the circus where players argue amongst themselves whether to review or not. If an umpire continues to give howlers he won't last long in Test cricket. This doesn't delay the game either. If anything it would be faster. Also a return to 'respecting the umpires decision' in the spirit of cricket.

 

[Gethelred]

Don’t know where to put this so thought this thread might be a good discussion, who is responsible for avoiding a collision between batsman and bowler?

Should a bowler move out of a batsman’s way or is it fine for a bowler to stop after his follow through and the batsman go around if they choose that line to run a single?

By the rules, batter has right of way; bowler gets between them and where they're going, they get to go right through.

It's still a matter of manners though.

 

[worbod]

I am in Perth this week having a holiday. Today I went in to the tourist info centre to make an enquiry. After receiving my answer, I asked the woman employee, who I will guess is about 30 years old, what all the names on the footpath along St George's Terrace were related to. There are names of many famous West Australians along the street and each person has a year next to their name. In explaining what I meant, I said to the woman, "I noticed for example one plaque said '1972, Dennis Lillee' ".
Her instant reply was, "Perhaps that's the year he was born?"

Oh dear.

 

[Rabish Binney]

The reluctance of a batsman to leave the crease immediately after he is dismissed seems to be happening more and more.

Smith and Labuschagne are gold standard on this practice and there have been many instances of it happening in the current India vs England test series (Stokes being the main culprit)

I understand the disappointment of losing your wicket but your out. FFS, don't stand there in bewilderment, get off the ground.

The look of distain that they portray isn't a good look IMHO Smacks of a bit of arrogance ('I am so good, I can't believe I'm out').

 

[ioppolo]

The reluctance of a batsman to leave the crease immediately after he is dismissed seems to be happening more and more.

Smith and Labuschagne are gold standard on this practice and there have been many instances of it happening in the current India vs England test series (Stokes being the main culprit)

I understand the disappointment of losing your wicket but your out. FFS, don't stand there in bewilderment, get off the ground.

The look of distain that they portray isn't a good look IMHO Smacks of a bit of arrogance ('I am so good, I can't believe I'm out').

This is a big one for me. Regulation nick to slip? Best look like a deer in headlights. Ones like Joseph's to Green at the Gabba where it bounced unexpectedly are understandable but if you missed a straight one just heck off.

 

[Dubai Quacker]

The reluctance of a batsman to leave the crease immediately after he is dismissed seems to be happening more and more.

Smith and Labuschagne are gold standard on this practice and there have been many instances of it happening in the current India vs England test series (Stokes being the main culprit)

I understand the disappointment of losing your wicket but your out. FFS, don't stand there in bewilderment, get off the ground.

The look of distain that they portray isn't a good look IMHO Smacks of a bit of arrogance ('I am so good, I can't believe I'm out').

I agree.

Reminds me of the famous story about Dr W G Grace (the ultimate in arrogance on a cricket field). The Doctor was dismissed three times in three balls by Charles Kortright, the first leg before, the second caught behind. Grace stood his ground & received very favourable umpiring decisions (as tended to happen a lot). The third ball sent his middle and leg pegs cartwheeling.

Kortright offered the send-off: “Surely you’re not leaving us, Doctor? There’s one stump still standing.”

 

[31550]

Grace stood his ground

He could probably have got away with it but the longer you stand there, the more of a dickhead you look IMO.

 

[peternorth]

Is Steve Smiths position in the t20 side under threat? It appears that he's been penciled in as the sides opener. I have visions of clarke during his t20 tenure when the selectors et al moved him to open in order to find a spot for him.

 

[Gough]

The reluctance of a batsman to leave the crease immediately after he is dismissed seems to be happening more and more.

Smith and Labuschagne are gold standard on this practice and there have been many instances of it happening in the current India vs England test series (Stokes being the main culprit)

I understand the disappointment of losing your wicket but your out. FFS, don't stand there in bewilderment, get off the ground.

The look of distain that they portray isn't a good look IMHO Smacks of a bit of arrogance ('I am so good, I can't believe I'm out').

I only have limited memories of my grandad but I know this would have infuriated him, he used to absolutely crack it at me and brother if either of us got the shits when we got out.

 

[Jatz]

Is Steve Smiths position in the t20 side under threat? It appears that he's been penciled in as the sides opener. I have visions of clarke during his t20 tenure when the selectors et al moved him to open in order to find a spot for him.

It should be, if it isn't.

 

[swampy]

DRS has become a necessary evil as the technology now exists to reveal dodgy decisions which in the past we would have just accepted and moved on.
But I'd like to get rid of player reviews.
DRS should be used by the umpire in cases where they are not 'sure'. No limit on how many times. If a player asks for a review and the umpire is 'sure', he should refuse the review. If he's not sure, have the review. No 'umpires call', but he can change his decision based on DRS if he wants to. This gets rid of players calling for reviews just because they can. It gets rid of the farcical situation of incorrect decisions being upheld because a team had run out of reviews. And it gets rid of the circus where players argue amongst themselves whether to review or not. If an umpire continues to give howlers he won't last long in Test cricket. This doesn't delay the game either. If anything it would be faster. Also a return to 'respecting the umpires decision' in the spirit of cricket.

Good in theory, but would get overused by the umpires so that anything even remotely close gets reviewed (case in point - runout and fair catch reviews). No umpire would want to take the risk of not referring.

I would just make it 2 reviews max per innings, and 15 secs to decide. That way would only be used when the appealing team is actually convinced it's a mistake, not a tactical review.

 

[31550]

Good in theory, but would get overused by the umpires so that anything even remotely close gets reviewed (case in point - runout and fair catch reviews). No umpire would want to take the risk of not referring.

I would just make it 2 reviews max per innings, and 15 secs to decide. That way would only be used when the appealing team is actually convinced it's a mistake, not a tactical review.

I don't mind umpires referring everything if they want to. Those that 'over-refer' would naturally weed themselves out, and those who confidently made correct calls would be rewarded. At the end of the day it's more important that the correct decision is made. It's better for the game to have umpiring integrity. I don't think it's a good look for the game having players call for reviews - it's tantamount to disputing an umpire's authority, and not in the spirit of cricket. I'd prefer to take it away from players altogether. Just give DRS to the umpires to use when they want it, make their life easier, without the added pressure of having players in their face.

 

[t_94]

Boundary ropes continue to get brought in further and further, bats continue to get bigger and lighter, DRS for LBW’s are so heavily favoured towards the batter it’s not funny.

Shining the ball with saliva’s been outlawed, so good luck shinning the ball on a cold overcast English morning.

Bowlers are frowned upon for running batters out when they’re 2 yards out of their crease before the balls even been bowled, yet if a bowler takes a wicket but oversteps by 0.001mm it doesn’t count.

Bowlers now get every single ball checked by the TV umpire for front foot no balls, yet if a batter gets a faint outside edge and no one appeals for it they can continue on…

It’s a batters game.

You didn’t answer my question with this response

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Out for a walk over the weekend, saw a local junior club playing cricket. The kids would have been no older than 12, if that, so I watched for awhile. Did I see cuts, drives, etc? Nope, at least 4-5 times every over I saw reverse sweeps and ramp shots. The game is going to Hell in a handbasket.

 

[Rabish Binney]

I agree.

Reminds me of the famous story about Dr W G Grace (the ultimate in arrogance on a cricket field). The Doctor was dismissed three times in three balls by Charles Kortright, the first leg before, the second caught behind. Grace stood his ground & received very favourable umpiring decisions (as tended to happen a lot). The third ball sent his middle and leg pegs cartwheeling.

Kortright offered the send-off: “Surely you’re not leaving us, Doctor? There’s one stump still standing.”

There is a story of WG being bowled in the first over of a game. Subsequently hammered the stump back in and continued on like nothing happened.

When the bowler asked what was going on, WG simply said ' the crowd have come here to watch me bat, not to watch you bowl'

He was a well know cheat.....