The Cricket Thread 2013

[paul_e]

I agree you'd prefer to see players walk and that you'd hope we can be above whatever the ozzies do but I'd rather win the series than lose because we walked and they didn't.

Importantly if they hadn't wasted reviews trying to get 50/50s in their favour they'd have been able to refer it and they'd have got him, so it's their own fault for not using drs properly.

No sympathy from me I'm afraid.

[Dave Cooper please]

No, sorry, two wrongs don't make a right and just because The Aussies might have cheated it doesn't make what Broad did correct in the spirit of the game. The other decisions you are talking about were marginal, and in the Trott dismissal the third umpire didn't see the edge so it couldn't have been that obvious.

I remember the Starc thing now, he was just pumped up, the umpire could have done with warning him but he wasn't cheating. Broad cheated, and I don't like it cheats in any sport.

[PGW]

100 partnership up - sound just hope Belly can get a minimum of another 11

[PaulWinch again]

It was very obvious, in any case I agree it's not ideal but it happens all the time. Clarke has done it, Smith has done it, Hughes has claimed a catch when it clearly didn't carry. It's not ideal but it happens.

[PaulWinch again]

Anyway this detracts from the fact that Bell has played a magnificent innings and Broad has been really really good.

[paul_e]

It's not cheating though, it's not in the spirit of the game but there is nothing to say he has to walk so he hasn't done anything that can be called cheating.

Walking is very rare and has been for years and there is a system in place to allow the players to correct wrong decisions, that the australians used that system to try to get wickets they didn't deserve is closer to cheating and is the reason why they didn't get him.

It really is that simple and I don't think any other country would respond so negatively to one of their own players not walking.

[PaulWinch again]

Also the pumped thing from Starc, it's fair enough if you do it when the decision is given immediately and you're on the run through. It's more calculated when you wait for a decision.

[paul_e]

Anyway this detracts from the fact that Bell has played a magnificent innings and Broad has been really really good.

I think both of them have done a fantastic job and have put us in with a big chance of winning from here.

[PaulWinch again]

Calm down James, and there you go appealing for massive inside edge.

[spangley1812]

The Aussies are close to losing it here............

[Dave Cooper please]

It's not cheating though, it's not in the spirit of the game but there is nothing to say he has to walk so he hasn't done anything that can be called cheating.

There's nothing in the laws of football that says you can't dive like Tom Daley when you get the slightest touch on your arm in the penalty area, but it's still cheating in my book.

[paul_e]

Calm down James, and there you go appealing for massive inside edge.

yep, what pattinson did there double appealing for lbw on a big edge is just as bad.

[Dave Cooper please]

Calm down James, and there you go appealing for massive inside edge.

yep, what pattinson did there double appealing for lbw on a big edge is just as bad.

Have you ever played the game? I was a spin bowler and it's pretty difficult to tell when a batsman has got an edge on a delivery that is going to hit the stumps, you aren't really looking at the batsman on your follow through, you are running off the pitch. Doubly hard for a pace bowler I'd have thought. Unless I heard the nick I appealed.

[paul_e]

It's not cheating though, it's not in the spirit of the game but there is nothing to say he has to walk so he hasn't done anything that can be called cheating.

There's nothing in the laws of football that says you can't dive like Tom Daley when you get the slightest touch on your arm in the penalty area, but it's still cheating in my book.

Yes there is...

USSF answer (September 2, 2009):
The following standard applies at all levels of the game: Simulation occurs when the player “attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled.” Whether the contact would or would not have caused the player to fall is relevant to a decision about a foul, but not to a decision about misconduct. In other words, the caution is for faking or exaggerating — where the faking is usually focused on whether a foul occurred whereas the exaggerating is often focused on whether a foul went beyond “careless” and should be carded. A player might well have been fouled (i. e., the contact did indeed unfairly cause him to fall), but if he then screams, moans, groans, rolls, etc. in an attempt to “sell” a card, then it is included as a cautionable offense. In all cases, we are punishing efforts to con the referee into a favorable decision — which could be to call a foul that wasn’t or to card for a true foul that didn’t involve misconduct.

source

[paul_e]

Calm down James, and there you go appealing for massive inside edge.

yep, what pattinson did there double appealing for lbw on a big edge is just as bad.

Have you ever played the game? I was a spin bowler and it's pretty difficult to tell when a batsman has got an edge on a delivery that is going to hit the stumps, you aren't really looking at the batsman on your follow through, you are running off the pitch. Doubly hard for a pace bowler I'd have thought. Unless I heard the nick I appealed.

Twice?