Cricket - Page 13

homealone · 13-08-2005, 16:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

Quote:

It isn't a major issue

You're just still narked about that quiz question...!

- well, not 'narked', as it wouldn't have made any difference to the result, it just seemed ironic that having guessed an answer, it then occurred

gazzae · 13-08-2005, 16:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

Nope, IIRC it's either one or the other, not both.

Quote:

13. Runs resulting from a No ball Ã¢â‚¬â€œ how scored
The one run penalty for a No ball shall be scored as a No ball extra. If other penalty runs have been awarded to either side, these shall be scored as in Law 42.17 (Penalty runs). Any runs completed by the batsmen or a boundary allowance shall be credited to the striker if the ball has been struck by the bat; otherwise they also shall be scored as No ball extras.
Apart from any award of a 5 run penalty, all runs resulting from a No ball, whether as No ball extras or credited to the striker, shall be debited against the bowler.
http://www.sheetudeep.com/cricket/rule_noball.html

iadom · 13-08-2005, 17:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by homealone

(p.s. did you see Flintoff's no ball, there, which carried to the boundary and gave away 5 runs

)

Seeing as we are all being pedantic, it was Jones, not Flintoff.

iadom · 13-08-2005, 19:22

Well, he may have taken the winning catch in the last match, but time will tell just how costly the two dreadful mistakes by Jones the Keeper are going to be. I know the old adage of "don't change a winning team" but Hoggard and Jones the Keeper need to pull their fingers out to justify remaining in the side.

Most local club keepers would have snaffled those two.

BBKing · 14-08-2005, 11:05

Most grandmothers would have had a chance too. Still, the King of Spin just held onto one to get Warne out for 90, so hopefully the last two won't hang about and we can get England batting again.

iadom · 14-08-2005, 12:40

Well done, Jones the Bowler, excellent performance. Strauss has just worn one from Lee again.

Graham · 15-08-2005, 02:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by gazzae

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

Nope, IIRC it's either one or the other, not both.

Quote:

13. Runs resulting from a No ball Ã¢â‚¬â€œ how scored

Ah, I see what you're getting at, but it's not quite the same thing.

With the no ball going to the boundary, there are two *separate* events, ie firstly the one run for a no ball is "instantly" awarded, then, subsequently, if it goes to the boundary *another* four runs are added.

Whilst this totals five, of course, it's actually one extra plus four extras, not an automatic award of five immediately.

Here's the Lord's cricket site with the full laws of the game: http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/
__________________

Anyway, back to the game:

Full credit to the Aussies for surviving this (well, yesterday!) evening, although they were a) a little lucky and b) pushing their luck with a risk of an (optional!) five penalty runs for delay of play!

399 to win, not impossible, but can England get 10 wickets???

homealone · 15-08-2005, 03:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

Quote:

Originally Posted by gazzae

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

Nope, IIRC it's either one or the other, not both.

Quote:

13. Runs resulting from a No ball Ã¢â‚¬â€œ how scored

Ah, I see what you're getting at, but it's not quite the same thing.

With the no ball going to the boundary, there are two *separate* events, ie firstly the one run for a no ball is "instantly" awarded, then, subsequently, if it goes to the boundary *another* four runs are added.

Whilst this totals five, of course, it's actually one extra plus four extras, not an automatic award of five immediately.

Here's the Lord's cricket site with the full laws of the game: http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/
__________________

Anyway, back to the game:

Full credit to the Aussies for surviving this (well, yesterday!) evening, although they were a) a little lucky and b) pushing their luck with a risk of an (optional!) five penalty runs for delay of play!

399 to win, not impossible, but can England get 10 wickets???

was Bell 'guilty' of scoring too slowly, - should freddie have been put in to tickle the scoreboard ....

Roy MM · 15-08-2005, 04:55

Was impressed by Vaughans bowling last evening, he should step up more often, and on the question can we bowl them out today, i seriously think we can.

gazzae · 15-08-2005, 09:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

With the no ball going to the boundary, there are two *separate* events, ie firstly the one run for a no ball is "instantly" awarded, then, subsequently, if it goes to the boundary *another* four runs are added.

Whilst this totals five, of course, it's actually one extra plus four extras, not an automatic award of five immediately.

Thats exactly what I said earlier in the thread..

4 extras for the boundary + 1 for the no-ball AFAIK

Graham · 15-08-2005, 13:27

Well it's currently 129 for 2.

Unless England do something special PDQ it looks like the Aussies are going to be able to grind out a draw

Graham · 15-08-2005, 14:03

165 for 4, there's still hope...

... trouble I've got to get on with some work, so I won't be watching, but I'll be listening to TMS.

**Chris T** · 15-08-2005, 14:06

Can someone please explain, for the benefit of someone who finds cricket completely uninteresting (except when England look like they might beat Australia!) why England declared yesterday when they could have piled on a load more runs and left the Aussies an impossible target?

Nugget · 15-08-2005, 14:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

Can someone please explain, for the benefit of someone who finds cricket completely uninteresting (except when England look like they might beat Australia!) why England declared yesterday when they could have piled on a load more runs and left the Aussies an impossible target?

TBH, Mrs Nug asked me exactly the same question yesterday, and I couldn't think of a good answer.

The only reason I could think of is that, sledging and bodyline aside, cricket is still a 'gentlemans game' and, as such, it was a sporting decision to give the Australians a chance.

Other than that, it makes absolutely no sense

Flubflow · 15-08-2005, 14:10

Play your own game of cricket on your office desktop on or the bus...
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Owzthat-Vintag...QQcmdZViewItem
These two special dice, a scorecard and pencil is all you need to play "Owzthat".

We used to play this when we were kids during those rainy summer holidays on in the back of the car on long journeys. Ok, it's tad low-tech but we were obviously very easily pleased in the 60's/70's. You could always spice it up by making up your own dream team scorecards and introduce a betting element.

They still sell them new it seems.... http://www.edirectory.co.uk/pf/pages...FFDCCG&cid=880
http://www.edirectory.co.uk/pf/pages...deluxe&cid=880

I've still got mine in a draw somewhere but I can't bothamingwell find them.

There's always the more hi-tech but less portable javascript version...
http://www.christhomas123.co.uk/owzthat/