Cricket things that annoy you

[Black Diamond]

It is funny how a bouncer called wide also counts as one of two shoulder high deliveries in the over.

Imagine a chest high full toss which passes the batsman over the adjacent pitch.

Also wide, but would that be called a dangerous delivery?

 

[PhatBoy]

It is funny how a bouncer called wide also counts as one of two shoulder high deliveries in the over.

Imagine a chest high full toss which passes the batsman over the adjacent pitch.

Also wide, but would that be called a dangerous delivery?

I get your point but the law is that two balls max depending on who is facing when, can be above the shoulder per over and given how tactical bouncers have become for keeping batsmen on strike etc as well, and the fact that you can bowl unlimited bouncers that are effectively bouncers as long as they aren’t quite head high, I think the rule is ok as it puts an emphasis on bowlers still having to get it right to not waste their bouncers

 

[eddiesmith]

It is funny how a bouncer called wide also counts as one of two shoulder high deliveries in the over.

Imagine a chest high full toss which passes the batsman over the adjacent pitch.

Also wide, but would that be called a dangerous delivery?

Yes, Dirk Nannes was pulled from an innings after 2 waist high full tosses which were off the pitch wide.

 

[Black Diamond]

Yes, Dirk Nannes was pulled from an innings after 2 waist high full tosses which were off the pitch wide.

Ah yes, that incredible game when each of Chris Rogers and Marcus North scored a century in each innings.

I get your point but the law is that two balls max depending on who is facing when, can be above the shoulder per over and given how tactical bouncers have become for keeping batsmen on strike etc as well, and the fact that you can bowl unlimited bouncers that are effectively bouncers as long as they aren’t quite head high, I think the rule is ok as it puts an emphasis on bowlers still having to get it right to not waste their bouncers

So what? If the delivery is considered illegal and therefore a run to the batting team then why should it also be cause for a strike against the bowler?

If a short ball is not at the head then it isn't a bouncer anyway. This is not about wasting bouncers at all.

 

[PhatBoy]

Ah yes, that incredible game when each of Chris Rogers and Marcus North scored a century in each innings.


So what? If the delivery is considered illegal and therefore a run to the batting team then why should it also be cause for a strike against the bowler?

If a short ball is not at the head then it isn't a bouncer anyway. This is not about wasting bouncers at all.

If you can’t get it right, why should you get another go at it? You’ve got your one, plus unlimited balls at a batsman’s shoulder/chest area.

Inaccuracy wouldn’t earn you a second go at the target, I wouldn’t have thought.

 

[cricketnut14]

people that bang on about bowlers not being warned enough about running on the pitch etc in a T20 game.

i mean c'mon - bowlers only send down a maximum of 24 legal balls in a T20 match - how many warnings do they want!

 

[PhatBoy]

people that bang on about bowlers not being warned enough about running on the pitch etc in a T20 game.

i mean c'mon - bowlers only send down a maximum of 24 legal balls in a T20 match - how many warnings do they want!

I didn’t really watch much coverage of the incidents the other night but it struck me as odd that a lot of the commentary related to ‘oh but batsmen were getting away with it.’

Batsmen start in the middle of the pitch. Unless you want them to expose the very things they are there to protect, they have no choice but to at least begin their running by spending 2-3 metres on the pitch, getting off it.

Bowlers do have something of a choice. Yes they can’t just step away at right angles in their follow through but they can change the angle at which they hit the crease.

I remember the only time I ever got warned for running on the pitch, as much as it was a pain in the arse, I just came around the wicket from right behind the umpire and bowled very wide on the crease. It took away a few avenues of attack I guess but immediately it solved the problem and I’m a fat c**t z-grader. Surely at that level they can problem solve at a level good enough to just get a foot wider

 

[cricketnut14]

and while i'm at it - bowlers getting warned by the umpire that their front foot is getting close to the front line.

it's effectively coaching.

i've never seen an umpire warn a batsman (non striker leaving their crease a little early and at risk of a mankad)

or what about the bairstow incident - had he ever been warned - clearly not as the umpires had no idea what was going on at the time and had to come together to discuss.

even when batsmen pick up the ball for the bowler, no umpire warns the batsman - it'll get ugly one day when a bowler appeals for that.

my point is why do bowlers get a 'friendly warning' and not the batsmen?

 

[31550]

and while i'm at it - bowlers getting warned by the umpire that their front foot is getting close to the front line.

it's effectively coaching.

i've never seen an umpire warn a batsman (non striker leaving their crease a little early and at risk of a mankad)

or what about the bairstow incident - had he ever been warned - clearly not as the umpires had no idea what was going on at the time and had to come together to discuss.

even when batsmen pick up the ball for the bowler, no umpire warns the batsman - it'll get ugly one day when a bowler appeals for that.

my point is why do bowlers get a 'friendly warning' and not the batsmen?

I warn them when umpiring juniors or bottom grade with an inexperienced bowler. We aren't playing for sheep stations and unless it's a gun quick bowler they are not getting any advantage. That way if they DO overstep, they don't feel they are being hard done by. Spirit of cricket?

Warnings seem irrelevant in first grade or higher though - players should know the laws of the game.

 

[Black Diamond]

Shouldn’t do it IMO. Among other things, the bowler could well have a reliable run up and be doing it deliberately.

 

[the_interloper]

and while i'm at it - bowlers getting warned by the umpire that their front foot is getting close to the front line.

it's effectively coaching.

i've never seen an umpire warn a batsman (non striker leaving their crease a little early and at risk of a mankad)

or what about the bairstow incident - had he ever been warned - clearly not as the umpires had no idea what was going on at the time and had to come together to discuss.

even when batsmen pick up the ball for the bowler, no umpire warns the batsman - it'll get ugly one day when a bowler appeals for that.

my point is why do bowlers get a 'friendly warning' and not the batsmen?

I think it's good proactive umpiring to be honest. as long as they're only getting close and not over.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

Every sport has laws not rules.

Apart from golf

Tennis has rules too I believe? Rugby Union was codified by lawyers AFAIK hence the term Laws.

Also, from a practical standpoint I believe Rules to be more adamantine and Laws to have some leeway.

 

[Gethelred]

It's also a good way to avoid conflict later on, when you're playing in low grades and have to umpire yourselves. Telling a bowler that they're getting close to the line or running right in front of you means that they've been warned that you might no ball a wicket if they get it and/or you might turn down an LBW because you can't see.

By letting them know, they know what's on the cards later on. They can't very well have a whinge when their shout gets turned down because the umpire's blind if you've warned them about it.

And anything that can reduce the acrimony at park level is all to the good in my eyes. There's an awful lot of extremely shit cricketers behaving like they think they're ****ing Merv Hughes because they can bowl a handy bouncer and do not like it when someone turns down an appeal or get called for a front foot no ball.

 

[31550]

It's also a good way to avoid conflict later on, when you're playing in low grades and have to umpire yourselves. Telling a bowler that they're getting close to the line or running right in front of you means that they've been warned that you might no ball a wicket if they get it and/or you might turn down an LBW because you can't see.

By letting them know, they know what's on the cards later on. They can't very well have a whinge when their shout gets turned down because the umpire's blind if you've warned them about it.

And anything that can reduce the acrimony at park level is all to the good in my eyes. There's an awful lot of extremely shit cricketers behaving like they think they're ****ing Merv Hughes because they can bowl a handy bouncer and do not like it when someone turns down an appeal or get called for a front foot no ball.

Umpiring local cricket is more about common sense than adherence to laws. For example in a recent vets game I was umpiring when a bowler broke down 3 balls into an over. The guy who stepped in to replace him is well known to me, good bloke, but a classic white-line-fever, win at all costs type. He doesn't often bowl in games He proceeded to bowl three pretty innocuous deliveries each about a foot over the line. I probably should have warned him after the first one, and then I could have called the second one. But it was a pretty friendly game, I didn't want any agro from him, and I knew he wasn't going to bowl again, so I just let it go. Made no difference to the game. But because I let the first one go, I didn't really think I should call the second, or the third.

 

[PhatBoy]

Umpiring local cricket is more about common sense than adherence to laws. For example in a recent vets game I was umpiring when a bowler broke down 3 balls into an over. The guy who stepped in to replace him is well known to me, good bloke, but a classic white-line-fever, win at all costs type. He doesn't often bowl in games He proceeded to bowl three pretty innocuous deliveries each about a foot over the line. I probably should have warned him after the first one, and then I could have called the second one. But it was a pretty friendly game, I didn't want any agro from him, and I knew he wasn't going to bowl again, so I just let it go. Made no difference to the game. But because I let the first one go, I didn't really think I should call the second, or the third.

God I hate umpiring my own games. It’s such a hard predicament to be in because you’re obviously usually standing while your own teammates are batting so you want to be fair while still adhering to the rule of ‘only give them out if it’s hitting middle halfway up.’

I remember last time I did it, it was in a second grade match and one of my good mates who I’ve played a tonne of cricket with who has sort of sunk back through the grades with now, was batting, and out of the hand this ball looked for all money like it would snap middle halfway up if he missed it, and I had in my head ‘he’s f**ked if he doesn’t get something on this’ as he aimed a big hoick through mid-on.

Sure enough he DID miss it but the ball also seamed a fair way towards leg as they started to go up.

My finger was already halfway up courtesy of that initial idea that it was cannoning into middle so I basically shot him on an assumption - I couldn’t really put the finger back down after starting to raise it so I just had to give the poor bastard and hope he accepted my apology afterwards.

Fair to say he didn’t pay for a beer that evening

 

[31550]

God I hate umpiring my own games. It’s such a hard predicament to be in because you’re obviously usually standing while your own teammates are batting so you want to be fair while still adhering to the rule of ‘only give them out if it’s hitting middle halfway up.’

I remember last time I did it, it was in a second grade match and one of my good mates who I’ve played a tonne of cricket with who has sort of sunk back through the grades with now, was batting, and out of the hand this ball looked for all money like it would snap middle halfway up if he missed it, and I had in my head ‘he’s f**ked if he doesn’t get something on this’ as he aimed a big hoick through mid-on.

Sure enough he DID miss it but the ball also seamed a fair way towards leg as they started to go up.

My finger was already halfway up courtesy of that initial idea that it was cannoning into middle so I basically shot him on an assumption - I couldn’t really put the finger back down after starting to raise it so I just had to give the poor bastard and hope he accepted my apology afterwards.

Fair to say he didn’t pay for a beer that evening

The worst part is having to give teammates out lbw. That and dealing with opposition teams who make ridiculous appeals or try to argue. But once you are experienced, and make good consistent and confident calls, most oppositions and teammates will respect you. A bit of common sense and a sense of humour goes a long way. I've had a few opposition players come up and congratulate me on my umpiring. Unfortunately, more than have ever praised my batting or bowling

 

[cricketnut14]

Umpiring local cricket is more about common sense than adherence to laws. For example in a recent vets game I was umpiring when a bowler broke down 3 balls into an over. The guy who stepped in to replace him is well known to me, good bloke, but a classic white-line-fever, win at all costs type. He doesn't often bowl in games He proceeded to bowl three pretty innocuous deliveries each about a foot over the line. I probably should have warned him after the first one, and then I could have called the second one. But it was a pretty friendly game, I didn't want any agro from him, and I knew he wasn't going to bowl again, so I just let it go. Made no difference to the game. But because I let the first one go, I didn't really think I should call the second, or the third.

yeah, common sense umpiring and glad common sense prevailed. sometimes the scoreline at the time can help with that kind of decision making as well (when the game isn't on the line).

i think we all know a player (played with or against) like the above , and got some good stories to tell with some of their antics and poor behavior etc.

 

[sabso]

Umpiring local cricket is more about common sense than adherence to laws. For example in a recent vets game I was umpiring when a bowler broke down 3 balls into an over. The guy who stepped in to replace him is well known to me, good bloke, but a classic white-line-fever, win at all costs type. He doesn't often bowl in games He proceeded to bowl three pretty innocuous deliveries each about a foot over the line. I probably should have warned him after the first one, and then I could have called the second one. But it was a pretty friendly game, I didn't want any agro from him, and I knew he wasn't going to bowl again, so I just let it go. Made no difference to the game. But because I let the first one go, I didn't really think I should call the second, or the third.

Adherence to laws is pretty much the same thing as the elusive “common sense”. Cf yank Supreme Court decisions over time which have enacted/repealed laws materially affecting millions of people’s lives. The kanstatootion being the “supreme law” has created issues so holey that people spend lives and write books arguing the toss over single ****ing words.

Ps “laws not rules” is why I despise a particular part of the rugby fandom, particularly the Welsh ones who would always combine it with “this is not socccccccccer”

 

[PhatBoy]

Adherence to laws is pretty much the same thing as the elusive “common sense”. Cf yank Supreme Court decisions over time which have enacted/repealed laws materially affecting millions of people’s lives. The kanstatootion being the “supreme law” has created issues so holey that people spend lives and write books arguing the toss over single ****ing words.

Ps “laws not rules” is why I despise a particular part of the rugby fandom, particularly the Welsh ones who would always combine it with “this is not socccccccccer”

Rugby: a shame not a game

League has become a growing disgrace since they started adhering to rules like Pythagorean geometric equations.

Policing obstructions that happen miles off the ball where a player deliberately throws himself on the ground because he has been caught out of position by a good attacking play and calling it a penalty by the letter of the law rather than applying a modicum of common sense….
Players collected somewhere near the head by a sequence of events the offender had little if any control over; in some cases because he made contact on another part of the body that was simply too hard and the ball carrier’s head rocked forward.


it’s made it growingly difficult to watch

 

[eddiesmith]

With LBWs, no batsman is ever out in their mind, all like Steve Smith.

Had a proper umpire on the weekend and opposition batsman got hit on the ankle, absolutely plumb and given out. Well he stood there for 2 minutes staring and shaking his head, then after game said to the bowler, ‘oh I got stuck into the umpire last week so it wouldn’t have mattered where you hit me he was giving me out’

Such a sook.

But some clubs you play against when you’re umpiring yourself you know you’re not getting any LBWs against.

 

[Rabish Binney]

With LBWs, no batsman is ever out in their mind, all like Steve Smith.

Had a proper umpire on the weekend and opposition batsman got hit on the ankle, absolutely plumb and given out. Well he stood there for 2 minutes staring and shaking his head, then after game said to the bowler, ‘oh I got stuck into the umpire last week so it wouldn’t have mattered where you hit me he was giving me out’

Such a sook.

But some clubs you play against when you’re umpiring yourself you know you’re not getting any LBWs against

That's the worst part.

As you said, some sides you come up against you just know its not even worth appealing sometimes.

Yet those some teams are the ones that whinge, sook and carry on if anything goes against them.

I wouldn't hesitate to give one of our lads out if I thought it was out. Some of my teammates had the attitude that 'f** 'em, if they don't give them then we wont' but I always had a problem with that mindset, as IMHO taking that stance meant that you were no better than the team that you accuse of 'cheating' (by not giving any LBW's).

That said, some decision you have to make are difficult. I've been fielding at mid off when the batsman has hit the cover off of it, caught by the Keeper and given out by their ump...yet I didn't hear a thing.

Other times, everyone hears a nick but the Umpy.....

 

[Gethelred]

With LBWs, no batsman is ever out in their mind, all like Steve Smith.

Had a proper umpire on the weekend and opposition batsman got hit on the ankle, absolutely plumb and given out. Well he stood there for 2 minutes staring and shaking his head, then after game said to the bowler, ‘oh I got stuck into the umpire last week so it wouldn’t have mattered where you hit me he was giving me out’

Such a sook.

But some clubs you play against when you’re umpiring yourself you know you’re not getting any LBWs against.

By the same token, I was facing a left handed finger spinner bowling around the wicket on a very bouncy deck bowling back a length wide of off, and I went back and a long way across to cover my stumps as I left a ball that would've missed the stumps by half a foot. Ball flicks the knee roll of my back leg, and I hold my position - see, here's where it got me, that's how much it's going to miss the stumps - only for the muppet of an official ump to give me out for a ball that a) was bouncing over and b) was on an entire set of stumps wide of off. "Play a shot, mate!" yeah, but still.

LBW is always going to be a shit rule, because an LBW is an opinion. I played in a one day game with two official umps that had 18 LBW's fall across both innings without it being low and slow.

You get some absolutely shithouse LBW calls at all levels of cricket. People being pissed at being given out for balls they hit have a right to be a bit annoyed.

 

[Rabish Binney]

Was umpiring one day, with one of our U16's who was doing square leg to square leg. He had come up to the Seniors because we were short.

One of our batsman attempted to hit their spinner back over his head, missed and was stumped by at least 2 yards. The young guy said not out and I immediately thought 'oh no, here we go'. I thought about whether or not I should (or even could) intervene and give our batsman out (which he clearly was)

Their captain immediately asked why it wasn't given out and our guy said (and this is no word of a lie), 'sorry I wasn't paying attention'.

To the oppo captain's credit, he said well at least you were honest and that defused the situation.

We we were headed for a heavy defeat anyway so it all worked out OK in the end but I hate to think if the game was close what would have happened..

 

[Rabish Binney]

By the same token, I was facing a left handed finger spinner bowling around the wicket on a very bouncy deck bowling back a length wide of off, and I went back and a long way across to cover my stumps as I left a ball that would've missed the stumps by half a foot. Ball flicks the knee roll of my back leg, and I hold my position - see, here's where it got me, that's how much it's going to miss the stumps - only for the muppet of an official ump to give me out for a ball that a) was bouncing over and b) was on an entire set of stumps wide of off. "Play a shot, mate!" yeah, but still.

LBW is always going to be a shit rule, because an LBW is an opinion. I played in a one day game with two official umps that had 18 LBW's fall across both innings without it being low and slow.

You get some absolutely shithouse LBW calls at all levels of cricket. People being pissed at being given out for balls they hit have a right to be a bit annoyed.

Great point.

Never had to umpire our own games until playing C grade later in my career.

Up until then however, we had neutral umpires and honestly, some of the decisions you would cop (or not get) were astonishing.

In our association, think the Umps got $75 per Saturday for umpiring (which I don't have an issue with) but you suspect some of them only did it to get the $$$ and didn't have a great knowledge of cricket.

 

[t_94]

Self umpired cricket isn’t real cricket. Sign up to play that rubbish then cop the inevitable and don’t complain.
Especially if you pot test cricketers on this forum regularly.