Kent CCC 2015
Comments
-
soapboxsam said:
Kent draw but lose.
They should of had a one over Play off.
Each side have just the two batmen, so sudden death.
Both sides know the rules--Loser of least wickets wins.
Kent LOST.0 -
Exciting stuff but shame we batted so poorly. Last ball was ridiculous as we should have tried to keep them to one run but,,,! Good crowd and day.0
-
I was there and just back.
Commendable effort at defending a total that was at least 20 runs light.
Darren Stevens let one through his legs in the 19th over (or 18th) that went for 4 just as we were applying a bit of pressure. Can't blame him though as he bowled his 4 overs for 20. I'd like to see a TV replay of his dismissal too.
Fine margins.1 -
I thought the amazing Lancashire catch where one of their players flipped the ball in the air to his colleague before going over the boundary was significant and the moment that won the game.LenGlover said:I was there and just back.
Commendable effort at defending a total that was at least 20 runs light.
Darren Stevens let one through his legs in the 19th over (or 18th) that went for 4 just as we were applying a bit of pressure. Can't blame him though as he bowled his 4 overs for 20. I'd like to see a TV replay of his dismissal too.
Fine margins.0 -
Indeed that was Darren Stevens' dismissal. People thought the ball had crossed the boundary when the fielder flipped it back. I was in the Woolley so couldn't tell.Richard J said:
I thought the amazing Lancashire catch where one of their players flipped the ball in the air to his colleague before going over the boundary was significant and the moment that won the game.LenGlover said:I was there and just back.
Commendable effort at defending a total that was at least 20 runs light.
Darren Stevens let one through his legs in the 19th over (or 18th) that went for 4 just as we were applying a bit of pressure. Can't blame him though as he bowled his 4 overs for 20. I'd like to see a TV replay of his dismissal too.
Fine margins.0 -
Doesn't matter if fielder didn't put foot over rope whilst ball was in hand. The ball Could be two foot over the rope when fielder catches IT and food it back0
-
That is not how the commentator or third Umpire interpreted it. He managed to flip it over before he stepped over the boundary rope. They said this made it a valid catch.MrOneLung said:Doesn't matter if fielder didn't put foot over rope whilst ball was in hand. The ball Could be two foot over the rope when fielder catches IT and food it back
0 -
Just got back, anyone able to tell me why prince wasn't given out when thomas tipped it onto the stumps? Looked from the highlights in the ground that it got deflected!!0
-
Before he stepped over the rope. If ball was in hand when foot touched down, then no catch. But even if ball is over rope and is thrown back before fielders foot touches ground then still a catch.Richard J said:
That is not how the commentator or third Umpire interpreted it. He managed to flip it over before he stepped over the boundary rope. They said this made it a valid catch.MrOneLung said:Doesn't matter if fielder didn't put foot over rope whilst ball was in hand. The ball Could be two foot over the rope when fielder catches IT and food it back
1 -
The video evidence wasn't conclusive. My hunch like you is that he got a finger on it.000__Jaaaaay__000 said:Just got back, anyone able to tell me why prince wasn't given out when thomas tipped it onto the stumps? Looked from the highlights in the ground that it got deflected!!
0 - Sponsored links:
-
I think you are agreeing with each other here.MrOneLung said:
Before he stepped over the rope. If ball was in hand when foot touched down, then no catch. But even if ball is over rope and is thrown back before fielders foot touches ground then still a catch.Richard J said:
That is not how the commentator or third Umpire interpreted it. He managed to flip it over before he stepped over the boundary rope. They said this made it a valid catch.MrOneLung said:Doesn't matter if fielder didn't put foot over rope whilst ball was in hand. The ball Could be two foot over the rope when fielder catches IT and food it back
There are countless examples of this kind of catch over the last few years. Fielders are real athletes these days.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Wq5MHIRWqQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ1CYzLYSQs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ll1V4WcTo2k 0 -
Fantastic match v Lancs - a couple of things....
1) Why dont they have a Power Over ?- more excitement- yet,again, this country seems to want to dampen excitement.
2) Thomas finger-tip runout looked out to me, as a neutral - on one of the clips you can see a slight deviation.
3) One thing that no-one has mentioned, is , on the last ball which hit the stumps and dislodged the bails, Coles already had a stump in his hand, ready for the ball to come back to him from the fielder (which it didnt) - whats the law with that? , coz effectivley, Coles could have run half way down the pitch with the stump in his hand and caught the ball, would that have been given out if he had got it?0 -
It would have been not out. The stump must be removed with ball in hand, not the other way around.0
-
The Thomas finger tip onto the stumps definitely deviated quite a lot. The screen at the ground didn't make it clear he touched it. It seemed as though he must have for it to deviate that much but the thing that makes me doubt whether he did was his reaction. The appeals were from other fielders rather than him0
-
So disappointing to see this:
manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/lancashire-county-cricket-club-player-98670240 -
Agreed.Addick Addict said:So disappointing to see this:
manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/lancashire-county-cricket-club-player-98670240 -
Fail to see the relevance or point of posting the story.LenGlover said:
Agreed.Addick Addict said:So disappointing to see this:
manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/lancashire-county-cricket-club-player-98670240 -
Alzheimer's ?Riviera said:
Fail to see the relevance or point of posting the story.LenGlover said:
Agreed.Addick Addict said:So disappointing to see this:
manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/lancashire-county-cricket-club-player-98670240 -
The point is that it is disappointing, even shameful, that a member of the opposition was assaulted after what was an exciting contest even though Kent were on the wrong end of the result.0
-
Moving on from the Lancashire match Nottinghamshire are 122-1 after 20 overs in today's 50 over match at Trent Bridge.
looks like a long, disappointing day for Kent :-(
0 - Sponsored links:
-
There's nothing in the story to suggest the fight was in any way cricket related. The player in question wasn't attacked because he was an opposition player, but because he knocked somebody's pint over. It's shocking anybody should be attacked over such a minor incident, but it doesn't sound like it was anything to do with the result of the cricket.LenGlover said:The point is that it is disappointing, even shameful, that a member of the opposition was assaulted after what was an exciting contest even though Kent were on the wrong end of the result.
0 -
212-30
-
I accept there is probably no direct correlation to the cricket as such but that doesn't alter the fact that it is a disgusting incident and must have marred Lancastrian celebrations which, even as a Kent fan, I consider a shame after such a close, exciting contest.randy andy said:
There's nothing in the story to suggest the fight was in any way cricket related. The player in question wasn't attacked because he was an opposition player, but because he knocked somebody's pint over. It's shocking anybody should be attacked over such a minor incident, but it doesn't sound like it was anything to do with the result of the cricket.LenGlover said:The point is that it is disappointing, even shameful, that a member of the opposition was assaulted after what was an exciting contest even though Kent were on the wrong end of the result.
0 -
225-40
-
Great to see two Kent boys playing for England U19 on Sky. Hugh Bernard took 3-47 off 10 and Ryan Davies kept well, taking a stumping standing up to quick bowler Bernard off the last ball of the innings.
England need 227 off their 50 to win.0 -
Notts 335 all out off 49.2.0
-
Criminal not using full allocation....2
-
I will go for
167 all out - 35.4 overs0 -
13-1
Denly gone for 4
You could be right MOL!0 -
209-5, 37 overs
Kent require 127 runs from 78 balls
Billings 50*
Blake 1*0
