Dvca - C Grade And Below - Season 2011/12

I don't have an issue with it to be honest, and would do it myself. By the same token I'd applaud a side that didn't run the batsmen out. The expectation there is.. if no umpire has signaled a four, or someone on the field hasn't insinuated that it's gone for four ie. telling the batsmen to 'save 'em', then the batsmen really needs to have more match awareness than he's showed.

Yes it leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the aggrieved team, but I've seen guys ran out doing calves and hammy's halfway down the pitch. I think this is the same sort of situation... it's unfortunate. When it's a grand final, then within the rules of the game, you better believe that its win at all costs.
 
Not sure where the insult is?

So calling what someone writes "tripe" and refering to it as a "silly argument" isn't an insult (the degree matters not)? If you could have countered what I said with rational argument of your own, you would have. However, when you say things like "Within the rules, but you're an ordinary bloke if you do it", infers that all players who play cricket within the rules of the game are "ordinary blokes".

Where does thought like that stop? It's within the rules to stand your ground as a batsman and make the umpire give you out. Are you an ordinary bloke if you do it? What about running overthrows, or byes or appealing for LBW and it given not out. Is the bowler an ordinary bloke because the umpire disagreed with him by giving it not out?

I've seen some truely ordinary behaviour on the cricket field in my 15 years of playing in the DVCA. One of the worst was a player verbally abusing and threatening an umpire both on the ground and from the boundary.

Playing by the rules is playing within the 'spirit of cricket' and certainly not being an "ordinary boke" as you have suggested.
 
So calling what someone writes "tripe" and refering to it as a "silly argument" isn't an insult (the degree matters not)? If you could have countered what I said with rational argument of your own, you would have. However, when you say things like "Within the rules, but you're an ordinary bloke if you do it", infers that all players who play cricket within the rules of the game are "ordinary blokes".

Where does thought like that stop? It's within the rules to stand your ground as a batsman and make the umpire give you out. Are you an ordinary bloke if you do it? What about running overthrows, or byes or appealing for LBW and it given not out. Is the bowler an ordinary bloke because the umpire disagreed with him by giving it not out?

I've seen some truely ordinary behaviour on the cricket field in my 15 years of playing in the DVCA. One of the worst was a player verbally abusing and threatening an umpire both on the ground and from the boundary.

Playing by the rules is playing within the 'spirit of cricket' and certainly not being an "ordinary boke" as you have suggested.

Firstly, what you wrote was silly and tripe. If you find it insulting. Toughen up princess.

Secondly, I have a question for you. You're running for a quick single and the ball gets thrown in, you're easily home and you go to ground your bat and the ball hits your bat. The ball then goes most of the way to the boundary where there are no fielders, and you can run another easy run, possibly two....

Do you run?
 
Firstly, what you wrote was silly and tripe. If you find it insulting. Toughen up princess.

Secondly, I have a question for you. You're running for a quick single and the ball gets thrown in, you're easily home and you go to ground your bat and the ball hits your bat. The ball then goes most of the way to the boundary where there are no fielders, and you can run another easy run, possibly two....

Do you run?[/quote]

Only against Riverside:D
 
If the scores were tied, 9 wickets down I reckon 95% of players would.
Firstly, what you wrote was silly and tripe. If you find it insulting. Toughen up princess.

Secondly, I have a question for you. You're running for a quick single and the ball gets thrown in, you're easily home and you go to ground your bat and the ball hits your bat. The ball then goes most of the way to the boundary where there are no fielders, and you can run another easy run, possibly two....

Do you run?
 
I'd run if we were 9 down with 1 run to get in a granny.

The fielder chasing after a ball would not no whether or not the batsmen were having a mid pitch discussion. If it didn't reach the fence the fielder has every right to throw the ball to either keeper or bowlers end to affect a run out. Batsmen should be aware of the situation. Every heard the term 'run them out' whilst you've played a nice shot that has not quite made it. Batsmens fault that is all.
 
Firstly, what you wrote was silly and tripe. If you find it insulting. Toughen up princess.

Secondly, I have a question for you. You're running for a quick single and the ball gets thrown in, you're easily home and you go to ground your bat and the ball hits your bat. The ball then goes most of the way to the boundary where there are no fielders, and you can run another easy run, possibly two....

Do you run?

Still throwing insults instead of answering the questions I posed? I'm the hardest person to offend, I said you were throwing insults, not that I was insulted.

I note that you haven't answered me yet, but I have no problems answering you. I know you think you are being tricky, but I know the rules of the game. You are entitled to run only if you have attempted to avoid being hit by the ball. If I had not attempted to avoid the ball, I would not run as I am not entitled to under the rules.
 
Lets start the question again, due to someone changing the scenario.

You're 5/105 in the first innings of the game on day 1 (As Banyule were). You're running for a quick single and the ball gets thrown in, you're easily home and you go to ground your bat and the ball hits your bat. The ball then goes most of the way to the boundary where there are no fielders, and you can run another easy run, possibly two....

Do you run?
 
Still throwing insults instead of answering the questions I posed? I'm the hardest person to offend, I said you were throwing insults, not that I was insulted.

I note that you haven't answered me yet, but I have no problems answering you. I know you think you are being tricky, but I know the rules of the game. You are entitled to run only if you have attempted to avoid being hit by the ball. If I had not attempted to avoid the ball, I would not run as I am not entitled to under the rules.

Can you please show me in the rules where it stats you must try to avoid the ball? But the question is, would you run, even if you did try to avoid the ball and it hit the bat? No, you wouldn't. Why? Because it is not within the spirit of the game.

Just out of curiousity, what club are you from Blackhawk?
 
Lets start the question again, due to someone changing the scenario.

You're 5/105 in the first innings of the game on day 1 (As Banyule were). You're running for a quick single and the ball gets thrown in, you're easily home and you go to ground your bat and the ball hits your bat. The ball then goes most of the way to the boundary where there are no fielders, and you can run another easy run, possibly two....

Do you run?
If the throw was not being backed up, yes run as if the throw hadn't his the batsmen/bat, then the run would have been taken.

This situation actually occured, when a batsman blocked the ball back to the bowler. The bowled is his frustration threw the ball at the stumps/batsmen and ricocheted passed the keeper. They didn't run, however I would have, as the throw was unnecessary.

Run Forrest Run
 
I thought you had to, you can't just plonk your bat or yourself in the way of the incomming ball. Thought it would come under the double hit rule. It seems the obstruction rule is more relevent, that the umpire can determine if the obstruction is accidental or wilfull. Now I look, I can't find any rule about this even under overthrows, so I guess it must technically, not be against the rules. So yeh, I would take the run now regardless. I have to say, I've never actually had this happen to me.

Surely you know what team I play for, I've never hidden it; Bundoora United.
 
Firstly, what you wrote was silly and tripe. If you find it insulting. Toughen up princess.

Secondly, I have a question for you. You're running for a quick single and the ball gets thrown in, you're easily home and you go to ground your bat and the ball hits your bat. The ball then goes most of the way to the boundary where there are no fielders, and you can run another easy run, possibly two....

Do you run?
In a GF, bloody oath, there is NO tomorrow, if that ball comes off the bat and runs to the boundary do you tell the fielding side you dont want the 4 runs? wouldn't have thought so.........
 
Geezuz! Some of you take your low grade cricket reaaallly seriously! Batsmen should have a greater awareness (causes less trouble), but it's beyond desperate when a fielding team does that.

E grade - Heidelberg with one hand on the trophy. Looks like last week's batting was an aberration. Riverside need a big partnership to take the grade (Captain Obvious, I am).

Sometimes, the first week of the final is held on the same weekend as the Grand Prix. I remember playing in a final the same weekend of the GP one year and Kimi Raikkonen won the race. He went on to win the World Championship. The planets are aligning, get on him while they're as short as they're gonna be.
 
Mill park in B Grade still require 144 runs off 34 overs with 6 wickets in hand.
Could they possibly lose the unloseable ?
Could be the B grade curse.........no 1st XI side has won the B grade flag after being relegated, Whittlesea lost GF, Hurstbridge lost GF, Mill Park????
Been told Wanderer's are happy to go up to Money if they win, where would that leave Mill Park considering they have been so dominant this year?
 
Could be the B grade curse.........no 1st XI side has won the B grade flag after being relegated, Whittlesea lost GF, Hurstbridge lost GF, Mill Park????
Been told Wanderer's are happy to go up to Money if they win, where would that leave Mill Park considering they have been so dominant this year?


In B Grade I would have thought?
 
Mill park in B Grade still require 144 runs off 34 overs with 6 wickets in hand.
Could they possibly lose the unloseable ?

3 of the 4 wickets are in their top 5 run scorers for the season. Although McLaughlin (in now) has been one of their most consistant this year, along with Culpin (In next). Both can hit a ball too, so if they can be around for the majority of the overs, I have them still winning.
 
Back
Top