England Cricket Thread 2011

[PaulWinch again]

Coming off for bad light is mental.

[Simon Ward]

There'll be  a riot at the cricket if the umpires make any more stupid bad light decisions!

[Chris Smith]

There'll be  a riot at the cricket if the umpires make any more stupid bad light decisions!

They might offer it to the batsmen, doesn't mean they have to accept it. It dies look a bit black over Bill's mother's though.

[PaulWinch again]

Good century Morgan, got to take your chance when you're given a couple of lives.

[Astral Weeks]

I've got to say England are so much in the ascendant here, just piling up runs, it's actually a bit boring. And I never thought I'd say that about a match where England were 600-3!

Edit:OK, 600-4!

[Whiney MacWhineface]

There'll be  a riot at the cricket if the umpires make any more stupid bad light decisions!

They might offer it to the batsmen, doesn't mean they have to accept it. It dies look a bit black over Bill's mother's though.

That doesn't apply any more Chris. It's now purely down to the umpires. Sadly.

[Chris Smith]

There'll be  a riot at the cricket if the umpires make any more stupid bad light decisions!

They might offer it to the batsmen, doesn't mean they have to accept it. It dies look a bit black over Bill's mother's though.

That doesn't apply any more Chris. It's now purely down to the umpires. Sadly.

Thanks Nick, I didn't realise that. I do wish they'd stop messing with the rules.

[Whiney MacWhineface]

Just don't understand it at all. Bad light was supposed to be a danger thing, so surely the batsmen are the best judge as to their own safety?

The only thing I can think might have triggered it would be situations like that Test in Pakistan where England played on in the dark to win it. Otherwise I'm scratching my head over it.

[hilts_coolerking]

I think it's a change for the better really.  Batsmen very cynically manipulated the light in the past.  Now, you might argue that Dhoni was doing the same by bringing his pacemen on when he knew the light was iffy but they were back out inside 10 minutes and wouldn't have gone off at all if the floodlights had been working.

To be honest, I think 'dangerous' should be taken out of the equation altogether and the umpires should only bring the players off if it is literally too dark to play.  I don't think I've ever heard of a batsman who genuinely thought he was in danger because of the light.  They used to take the light because of the match situation, not the danger.  When all test match venues get floodlights it'll all be a thing of the past anyway, hopefully.

[UK Redsox]

The collapse is on.

Typical England 

[Whiney MacWhineface]

I think it's a change for the better really.  Batsmen very cynically manipulated the light in the past. 

I don't follow the logic on that at all. The bad light decision is triggered by an umpire reading a light meter, not by any theatrics from a batsman. If that had been offered to the batsmen they would not have gone off. What benefit did the game or the spectators gain?

[hilts_coolerking]

The only thing I can think might have triggered it would be situations like that Test in Pakistan where England played on in the dark to win it. Otherwise I'm scratching my head over it.

I think Steve Bucknor did that to teach Moin Khan a lesson, who'd been time-wasting like mad earlier in the day.

[hilts_coolerking]

I think it's a change for the better really.  Batsmen very cynically manipulated the light in the past. 

I don't follow the logic on that at all. The bad light decision is triggered by an umpire reading a light meter, not by any theatrics from a batsman. If that had been offered to the batsmen they would not have gone off. What benefit did the game or the spectators gain?

In the past, if the umpires thought the light was getting bad, they'd check it on their meters and if it had reached a certain measure, they'd offer it to the batsmen.

In that situation, what I'm saying is that the batsmen would go off if they were struggling in the match and stay on if it was advantageous to do so.  In other words it had nothing to do with being in danger. 

Now, to remove that gamesmanship, the umpires bring take everyone off if the light has reached a certain measure and they themselves feel the players are in danger.  It's still relatively new and it'll take a few years to bed down properly, as they get used to make the judgements, but I think it's a better system.

I think it would be a better system still if they removed the 'danger' element altogether, because it's a nonsense.

[Whiney MacWhineface]

Bad light again. Truly stupid and indefensible.

[hilts_coolerking]

Bad light again. Truly stupid and indefensible.

Yep.  It's not dangerous, the lights are on - they should be playing.  The 'danger' part of the rule has to be removed ASAP.