T W A U ... The Chase....today's...
Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Phil Hughes Rip
72 Answers
Just flashing up on Sky News that 2 days after being struck by a delivery, Phil Hughes has sadly passed away.
Australia and the cricketing world mourns, such dreadful news.
Australia and the cricketing world mourns, such dreadful news.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ChillDoubt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
While I agree that this isn't the time for recriminations, what ludwig and sqad have said is nethertheless true. Call me old fashioned if you like but the bowler should be aiming at the wickets, not the batsman, or his head. Its not the first time that injuries of this sort have happened. Afterall, its the prime reason why helmets are normally worn in the first place.
But the bowler can hardly be blamed for doing what the sport expects him to do, and I for one don't blame him personally at all. Perhaps the sport should look to its own rules and regulations, and find a way to prevent this happening again in the future.
But the bowler can hardly be blamed for doing what the sport expects him to do, and I for one don't blame him personally at all. Perhaps the sport should look to its own rules and regulations, and find a way to prevent this happening again in the future.
Thank you Sqad, praise indeed.
I for one would hate to see the bouncer removed from first class cricket. It is an accepted part of that game, a battle of wills and skills if you will.
Most cricket fans recall the Donald/Atherton battle and Atherton said in a masochistic way he enjoyed it, his mettle was being tested and he came through(just), it was a test of character.
The one good thing that will come from this tragedy is that helmets will undoubtedly be looked at again.
Obviously most of the focus in the past has been protecting the temples and face, whereas now it must focus on the rear of the helmet.
Thankfully this is a very rare occurence, quite literally one of a million balls bowled in cricket around the world each year that just happened to cause utter devastation.
I for one would hate to see the bouncer removed from first class cricket. It is an accepted part of that game, a battle of wills and skills if you will.
Most cricket fans recall the Donald/Atherton battle and Atherton said in a masochistic way he enjoyed it, his mettle was being tested and he came through(just), it was a test of character.
The one good thing that will come from this tragedy is that helmets will undoubtedly be looked at again.
Obviously most of the focus in the past has been protecting the temples and face, whereas now it must focus on the rear of the helmet.
Thankfully this is a very rare occurence, quite literally one of a million balls bowled in cricket around the world each year that just happened to cause utter devastation.
-- answer removed --
Randy
ludwig does indeed have a point and he is not being disrespectful in pointing it out.............even today and must be addressed at some point.
Bowling bouncers is an aggressive form of intimdating one's opponent and is meant to cause physical hardship......whatever that may involve.
A tragedy for all concerned....Hughes and the bowler were big "buddies."
09:10 Thu 27th Nov 2014
ludwig does indeed have a point and he is not being disrespectful in pointing it out.............even today and must be addressed at some point.
Bowling bouncers is an aggressive form of intimdating one's opponent and is meant to cause physical hardship......whatever that may involve.
A tragedy for all concerned....Hughes and the bowler were big "buddies."
09:10 Thu 27th Nov 2014
We will have to agree to disagree, sqad. Deliberate intimidation is not permitted under the laws of cricket.
I quote from the Laws
or fast short pitched bowling, there are a number of considerations. It does not become dangerous and unfair until the umpire so decides, according to both sections of 42.6(a). That decision will be based on the ability of a particular batsman to handle such bowling, remembering that this ability will be eroded by repetition. This decision cannot apply to other batsmen. Once it is made, however, not only will a warning be issued, but any single repetition of the same type of bowling to that batsman will require further warning. On the other hand, for a different batsman warning will not be triggered until the umpire decides that such bowling has become dangerous and unfair for that batsman. If, however, the bowler concerned has already been warned, the warning now to be issued will be the second and final one, even though the previous warning related to a different batsman. Similarly, after two previous warnings, a new decision about a batsman will mean suspension for the bowler.
It should be clear in 42.7 (a) that a first warning will result from either the umpire coming to such a decision, or the bowling of a single dangerous and unfair high full pitch. Once this first warning has been issued, further instance, or further repetition of dangerous and unfair bowling is therefore either the delivery of a dangerous and unfair high full pitch to any batsman or just one single delivery of the type that the umpire has already decided is dangerous and unfair for the batsman facing it or the umpire reaching for the first time a decision that the bowling of fast short pitched balls is dangerous and unfair for the batsman now facing.
[Law reference: 42.6, 42.7]
FAST SHORT-PITCHED BALLS BOUNCING OVER HEAD HEIGHT
Question:
There seems to be a contradiction in Law 42.6. The first paragraph explains that the umpire must consider whether fast short pitched balls are likely to cause injury. He is not to take action until he decides that there has been too much repetition of such balls. The second paragraph, however, says he is to take action at once for any ball which bounces over head height, so obviously can’t cause injury. Can you please explain?
I quote from the Laws
or fast short pitched bowling, there are a number of considerations. It does not become dangerous and unfair until the umpire so decides, according to both sections of 42.6(a). That decision will be based on the ability of a particular batsman to handle such bowling, remembering that this ability will be eroded by repetition. This decision cannot apply to other batsmen. Once it is made, however, not only will a warning be issued, but any single repetition of the same type of bowling to that batsman will require further warning. On the other hand, for a different batsman warning will not be triggered until the umpire decides that such bowling has become dangerous and unfair for that batsman. If, however, the bowler concerned has already been warned, the warning now to be issued will be the second and final one, even though the previous warning related to a different batsman. Similarly, after two previous warnings, a new decision about a batsman will mean suspension for the bowler.
It should be clear in 42.7 (a) that a first warning will result from either the umpire coming to such a decision, or the bowling of a single dangerous and unfair high full pitch. Once this first warning has been issued, further instance, or further repetition of dangerous and unfair bowling is therefore either the delivery of a dangerous and unfair high full pitch to any batsman or just one single delivery of the type that the umpire has already decided is dangerous and unfair for the batsman facing it or the umpire reaching for the first time a decision that the bowling of fast short pitched balls is dangerous and unfair for the batsman now facing.
[Law reference: 42.6, 42.7]
FAST SHORT-PITCHED BALLS BOUNCING OVER HEAD HEIGHT
Question:
There seems to be a contradiction in Law 42.6. The first paragraph explains that the umpire must consider whether fast short pitched balls are likely to cause injury. He is not to take action until he decides that there has been too much repetition of such balls. The second paragraph, however, says he is to take action at once for any ball which bounces over head height, so obviously can’t cause injury. Can you please explain?
It should first be noted that although the heading of Law 42.6 is ‘Bowling of fast short pitched balls’, section (a) (ii) begins with the words (without the emboldening) Any delivery which after pitching. . . . . There is no reference to the pace of the ball, nor to its being short pitched. This section therefore applies to all deliveries which pitch and then bounce over head height of the striker standing upright at the crease, whether fast or not.
The calling (and signalling) of No ball for deliveries bouncing over head height is entirely separate from considering them as contributing to the sequence leading to a decision that the bowling has become dangerous and unfair. Under Law 25.1(b) there is a case for considering these deliveries to be Wides. Wielding the bat above the head, almost as though it were a tennis racquet, is certainly not a ‘normal cricket stroke’. Law 42.6 (a) (ii) instructs that they shall instead be No balls for two reasons. On the one hand No balls give the striker more protection from dismissal; on the other hand, if the striker does hit a No ball, it is still a No ball and the 1 run penalty is still awarded. This is not true of Wides.
The umpire will be monitoring the bowling of all fast short pitched balls. A batsman needs to have very quick reactions and be very alert in order to deal successfully with them. Although a competent batsman might achieve this at first, his alertness and speed of reaction will wane with frustration and tiredness. Both of these aspects apply to a ‘fast short pitched ball bouncing over head height’. In addition, the continual awareness that he is in danger if he gets it wrong, perhaps stimulating at first, will also take its toll. Since he very possibly may not know when the ball pitches that it will rise so high as to be harmless, this applies to the ‘harmless bouncer’ too. This is why the umpire is instructed to include all deliveries bouncing over head height as part of the repetition. It should be noted, however, that when the umpire calls No ball for such a delivery, it is a stand alone penalty.
It is not the start of the action of warning, final warning and suspension. That process is triggered only by the umpire’s decision that the bowling has become dangerous and unfair for a particular batsman.
The calling (and signalling) of No ball for deliveries bouncing over head height is entirely separate from considering them as contributing to the sequence leading to a decision that the bowling has become dangerous and unfair. Under Law 25.1(b) there is a case for considering these deliveries to be Wides. Wielding the bat above the head, almost as though it were a tennis racquet, is certainly not a ‘normal cricket stroke’. Law 42.6 (a) (ii) instructs that they shall instead be No balls for two reasons. On the one hand No balls give the striker more protection from dismissal; on the other hand, if the striker does hit a No ball, it is still a No ball and the 1 run penalty is still awarded. This is not true of Wides.
The umpire will be monitoring the bowling of all fast short pitched balls. A batsman needs to have very quick reactions and be very alert in order to deal successfully with them. Although a competent batsman might achieve this at first, his alertness and speed of reaction will wane with frustration and tiredness. Both of these aspects apply to a ‘fast short pitched ball bouncing over head height’. In addition, the continual awareness that he is in danger if he gets it wrong, perhaps stimulating at first, will also take its toll. Since he very possibly may not know when the ball pitches that it will rise so high as to be harmless, this applies to the ‘harmless bouncer’ too. This is why the umpire is instructed to include all deliveries bouncing over head height as part of the repetition. It should be noted, however, that when the umpire calls No ball for such a delivery, it is a stand alone penalty.
It is not the start of the action of warning, final warning and suspension. That process is triggered only by the umpire’s decision that the bowling has become dangerous and unfair for a particular batsman.
Latest Posts
Starmer In Jobs Push.....right Oh!
News2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Time For A Limit On Angry Posts
ChatterBank5 mins ago
News6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles18 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.