creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

[Bruce Rioja]

It was never really about run-stealing when I played. If you were "out of crease" you could be stumped or run out. We took care not to be. That was it.

You left your bat in. Exactly. Unless, of course, you went to BWFCI's school where they appear to have had something of a cricketing free-for-all.

[TANGODANCER]

It was never really about run-stealing when I played. If you were "out of crease" you could be stumped or run out. We took care not to be. That was it.

You left your bat in. Exactly. Unless, of course, you went to BWFCI's school where they appear to have had something of a cricketing free-for-all.

Aye, and you'd have got a bolloxing for throwing your wicket away for a soft run-out.

[KeyserSoze]

Nah. The bowler gave him two clear warnings. He chose to ignore them, or at the very least call his bluff. A couple of paces outside the crease and he's not trying to steal a run? Really?

Watch any one day game and how many times are the batsman in the crease as the bowler releases the ball? It is almost never.

The rule is to stop someone being halfway down. He's nowhere near that.

I reckon if teams started doing what Sri Lanka did the games would go on for ever as bowlers stop during their actions to run a player out. I reckon you could get a hefty number out that way in any game if you wanted to.

A batsman can't get run out in mankad fashion if the bowler is in his delivery stride, hence why they'll usually be out of the crease by the time the ball's released.

I think the rule is mainly to stop people from batsmen being out of the crease doesn't matter if you're halfway down or half an inch out. You're out of your crease, and that is entirely your responsibility. If you get out in that fashion (prior a warning ofc) then there's only one person to blame.

[BWFC_Insane]

Nah. The bowler gave him two clear warnings. He chose to ignore them, or at the very least call his bluff. A couple of paces outside the crease and he's not trying to steal a run? Really?

Watch any one day game and how many times are the batsman in the crease as the bowler releases the ball? It is almost never.

The rule is to stop someone being halfway down. He's nowhere near that.

I reckon if teams started doing what Sri Lanka did the games would go on for ever as bowlers stop during their actions to run a player out. I reckon you could get a hefty number out that way in any game if you wanted to.

A batsman can't get run out in mankad fashion if the bowler is in his delivery stride, hence why they'll usually be out of the crease by the time the ball's released.

I think the rule is mainly to stop people from batsmen being out of the crease doesn't matter if you're halfway down or half an inch out. You're out of your crease, and that is entirely your responsibility. If you get out in that fashion (prior a warning ofc) then there's only one person to blame.

I don't understand your point. He was in his delivery stride. Then stopped and ran him out. My view is that whilst legal it isn't in the spirit of the game.

But if it is allowed to happen I hope England bowlers do it every ball. See how entertaining one day cricket is when that happens. And it will.

[thebish]

It was never really about run-stealing when I played. If you were "out of crease" you could be stumped or run out. We took care not to be. That was it.

You left your bat in. Exactly. Unless, of course, you went to BWFCI's school where they appear to have had something of a cricketing free-for-all.

I'm with bwfci on this one... I very much doubt that one-day international players are coached or advised (as in school cricket of yesteryear) to leave your bat in...

it's instinct - it's how the game is played... if we now have to stop and throw down the stumps every time a batsman anticipates a run - then it will destroy the game...

it's legalistic loonacy gone mad!

[Bruce Rioja]

You and BWFCI seem to completely gloss over the point that he gave him two warnings first which he didn't have to do. Very much within the spirit of the game, I say. If our lad's too stupid to take heed then that's his own fault.

[thebish]

You and BWFCI seem to completely gloss over the point that he gave him two warnings first which he didn't have to do. Very much within the spirit of the game, I say. If our lad's too stupid to take heed then that's his own fault.

warnings or nay - makes no odds to me.. I don't think he was doing anything that pretty much every other one-day or 20/20 batsmen instinctively does. i don't think he was excessively pushing the boundaries - just doing what it is generally accepted all batsmen do...

i just think it opens the door to petty behaviour and has rthe potential to ruin games

but - hey - we disagree - it's a diverse world!

[bwfcdan94]

The solution would be not to allow run outs of the bowlers run ups in one day cricket shirley?

[bobo the clown]

It's not proper cricket anyway. Fck it.

[Prufrock]

The solution would be not to allow run outs of the bowlers run ups in one day cricket shirley?

The solution would surely be to stay in your fecking crease till it's been bowled?!

If not why not start with them both at the striking end and only one has to run first time.

[Bruce Rioja]

You and BWFCI seem to completely gloss over the point that he gave him two warnings first which he didn't have to do. Very much within the spirit of the game, I say. If our lad's too stupid to take heed then that's his own fault.

warnings or nay - makes no odds to me.. I don't think he was doing anything that pretty much every other one-day or 20/20 batsmen instinctively does. i don't think he was excessively pushing the boundaries - just doing what it is generally accepted all batsmen do...

i just think it opens the door to petty behaviour and has rthe potential to ruin games

but - hey - we disagree - it's a diverse world!

Indeed, no problem at all. I do agree though that it'll be interesting to see what, if any, the upshot will be.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

You and BWFCI seem to completely gloss over the point that he gave him two warnings first which he didn't have to do. Very much within the spirit of the game, I say. If our lad's too stupid to take heed then that's his own fault.

warnings or nay - makes no odds to me.. I don't think he was doing anything that pretty much every other one-day or 20/20 batsmen instinctively does. i don't think he was excessively pushing the boundaries - just doing what it is generally accepted all batsmen do...

i just think it opens the door to petty behaviour and has rthe potential to ruin games

but - hey - we disagree - it's a diverse world!

But on this basis, would it be the same as saying diving/falling in the event of a mild breeze (in football) is generally accepted because they all do it?

[Prufrock]

I think a fairer comparison would be if the other team kept falling over playing dead and kicking the ball out expecting you to keep returning it. If you thought they were taking the piss and so said 'next time you kick it out we're not giving it back' then they kicked it out, you kept it and scored.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

It was more questioning of the view that everyone does it, so let it be. But yes, your football comparison is probably better

[Prufrock]

Aye, you were doing your 'modern football is all rubbish' bit .

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I'm a broken record I know

[thebish]

You and BWFCI seem to completely gloss over the point that he gave him two warnings first which he didn't have to do. Very much within the spirit of the game, I say. If our lad's too stupid to take heed then that's his own fault.

warnings or nay - makes no odds to me.. I don't think he was doing anything that pretty much every other one-day or 20/20 batsmen instinctively does. i don't think he was excessively pushing the boundaries - just doing what it is generally accepted all batsmen do...

i just think it opens the door to petty behaviour and has rthe potential to ruin games

but - hey - we disagree - it's a diverse world!

But on this basis, would it be the same as saying diving/falling in the event of a mild breeze (in football) is generally accepted because they all do it?

no - because it isn't accepted at all. fans moan about it - players moan about it. nobody moans about batsmen anticipating a run as the bowler runs in. nobody is vilified for doing it. you don't hear of cricketers being called "anticipating c&nts"!

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

You and BWFCI seem to completely gloss over the point that he gave him two warnings first which he didn't have to do. Very much within the spirit of the game, I say. If our lad's too stupid to take heed then that's his own fault.

warnings or nay - makes no odds to me.. I don't think he was doing anything that pretty much every other one-day or 20/20 batsmen instinctively does. i don't think he was excessively pushing the boundaries - just doing what it is generally accepted all batsmen do...

i just think it opens the door to petty behaviour and has rthe potential to ruin games

but - hey - we disagree - it's a diverse world!

But on this basis, would it be the same as saying diving/falling in the event of a mild breeze (in football) is generally accepted because they all do it?

no - because it isn't accepted at all. fans moan about it - players moan about it. nobody moans about batsmen anticipating a run as the bowler runs in. nobody is vilified for doing it. you don't hear of cricketers being called "anticipating c&nts"!

But it is generally accepted, it happens many times every match. Yes, some fans moan about it, but it's generally accepted that you can do it and get away with it.

[thebish]

don't agree...

anticipating a run as a batsman is not seen as cheating... diving in football is.

[TANGODANCER]

Anticipating a run isn't cheating, it's chancy. It's a risk you take if you want to chance being run out. He chanced it,after two warnings and he was. Stupidly because it lost the chance of a win for his team. He has no cause to moan only at his own foolishness.