@Addick Addict thank you for your comprehensive explanation of the rule, which I think I've understood. We'd have very low scoring games or require batters to improvise with reverse sweeps, slogs and KP style switch hits to score any runs on the offside, or step across too far back on the leg side to play other strokes, without it. Either way, too much of an advantage to the bowler/ fielding side.
Apologies for spelling Gatting the way the South Africans might pronounce it, but I'd been at a Pub quiz earlier, where I asked the question master, something of a self professed cricket buff, the same question only to be told "dunno mate. It's just the rule, but I can tell you there's ten ways to get out, including timed out Not a lot of people know that!"
I may take the opportunity to pepper you with other questions that have long baffled me in time, such are the vagaries of cricket, like why a team in the hundred didn't run out both batsmen the other day when they were both stranded in the middle and there was ample time to run both out!
The first dismissal is the one and only dismissal. It can become a bit more complicated in establishing which batsman has to go with both standing in the middle or, even more so, when both end up at one end (even more so if a runner for an injured batsman is involved):
30.2 Which is a batter’s ground
30.2.1 If only one batter is within a ground, it is his/her ground and will remain so even if he/she is later joined there by the other batter.
30.2.2 If both batters are in the same ground and one of them subsequently leaves it, the ground belongs to the batter who remains in it.
30.2.3 If there is no batter in either ground, then each ground belongs to whichever batter is nearer to it, or, if the batters are level, to whichever batter was nearer to it immediately prior to their drawing level.
30.2.4 If a ground belongs to one batter then, unless there is a striker who has a runner, the other ground belongs to the other batter, irrespective of his/her position.
30.2.5 When a batter who has a runner is striker, his/her ground is always at the wicket-keeper’s end. However, 30.2.1, 30.2.2, 30.2.3 and 30.2.4 will still apply, but only to the runner and the non-striker, so that that ground will also belong to either the non-striker or the runner, as the case may be.
The case for two possible dismissals (and which takes precedent) so different to when, on occasions, a keeper will take a catch standing up, but also whip the bails off in case that isn't given as out so the option of stumped is a possible "insurance". It is the first of the two actions to be given out that applies. This doesn't happen very often because most Umpires are good but do, as human beings and don't in club cricket have the availability of replays, but my son had one such instance where the batsman smashed the balls into his gloves but as keeper he still took the bails off with the batsman's foot in the air. Neither decision was given in his favour!
Thanks again. Cricket's grown on me over the last two decades, just as I've become more disillusioned with football in general.
So many fascinating aspects of the game I'll push my luck with one more question for now. Saw a batter play the ball straight down onto the ground the other day. He lost track of where it was going. He turned round just as it cleared the top of the stumps, but, surprisingly to me, lazily wafted his bat at it and missed.
Had he hit it, he'd have been out wouldn't he, hit the ball twice, even though the ball had already cleared the bails. Just struck me as an idiotic thing to do if intentional.
Batters can kick it away if they've hit it and it appears to be stumpward bound, that I do know!
Batsmen can actually stop the ball from hitting the stumps with their bat and it would not be deemed as hitting the ball twice. They can also, as you say, kick the ball away but what they can't do is try to stop the ball from hitting the stumps with their hand - that used to be given out as "handled ball" but the Law changed a few years ago to being included in the mode of dismissal of "obstructing the field".
@Addick Addict thank you for your comprehensive explanation of the rule, which I think I've understood. We'd have very low scoring games or require batters to improvise with reverse sweeps, slogs and KP style switch hits to score any runs on the offside, or step across too far back on the leg side to play other strokes, without it. Either way, too much of an advantage to the bowler/ fielding side.
Apologies for spelling Gatting the way the South Africans might pronounce it, but I'd been at a Pub quiz earlier, where I asked the question master, something of a self professed cricket buff, the same question only to be told "dunno mate. It's just the rule, but I can tell you there's ten ways to get out, including timed out Not a lot of people know that!"
I may take the opportunity to pepper you with other questions that have long baffled me in time, such are the vagaries of cricket, like why a team in the hundred didn't run out both batsmen the other day when they were both stranded in the middle and there was ample time to run both out!
The first dismissal is the one and only dismissal. It can become a bit more complicated in establishing which batsman has to go with both standing in the middle or, even more so, when both end up at one end (even more so if a runner for an injured batsman is involved):
30.2 Which is a batter’s ground
30.2.1 If only one batter is within a ground, it is his/her ground and will remain so even if he/she is later joined there by the other batter.
30.2.2 If both batters are in the same ground and one of them subsequently leaves it, the ground belongs to the batter who remains in it.
30.2.3 If there is no batter in either ground, then each ground belongs to whichever batter is nearer to it, or, if the batters are level, to whichever batter was nearer to it immediately prior to their drawing level.
30.2.4 If a ground belongs to one batter then, unless there is a striker who has a runner, the other ground belongs to the other batter, irrespective of his/her position.
30.2.5 When a batter who has a runner is striker, his/her ground is always at the wicket-keeper’s end. However, 30.2.1, 30.2.2, 30.2.3 and 30.2.4 will still apply, but only to the runner and the non-striker, so that that ground will also belong to either the non-striker or the runner, as the case may be.
The case for two possible dismissals (and which takes precedent) so different to when, on occasions, a keeper will take a catch standing up, but also whip the bails off in case that isn't given as out so the option of stumped is a possible "insurance". It is the first of the two actions to be given out that applies. This doesn't happen very often because most Umpires are good but do, as human beings and don't in club cricket have the availability of replays, but my son had one such instance where the batsman smashed the balls into his gloves but as keeper he still took the bails off with the batsman's foot in the air. Neither decision was given in his favour!
Thanks again. Cricket's grown on me over the last two decades, just as I've become more disillusioned with football in general.
So many fascinating aspects of the game I'll push my luck with one more question for now. Saw a batter play the ball straight down onto the ground the other day. He lost track of where it was going. He turned round just as it cleared the top of the stumps, but, surprisingly to me, lazily wafted his bat at it and missed.
Had he hit it, he'd have been out wouldn't he, hit the ball twice, even though the ball had already cleared the bails. Just struck me as an idiotic thing to do if intentional.
Batters can kick it away if they've hit it and it appears to be stumpward bound, that I do know!
Batsmen can actually stop the ball from hitting the stumps with their bat and it would not be deemed as hitting the ball twice. They can also, as you say, kick the ball away but what they can't do is try to stop the ball from hitting the stumps with their hand - that used to be given out as "handled ball" but the Law changed a few years ago to being included in the mode of dismissal of "obstructing the field".
👍 In that case, I guess he might have thought he was still in danger when he swung his bat at it, although it looked to have already passed by the stumps on TV to me. I'll leave you peace, for now 😎
Keep asking as many questions as you like @swordfish - posters on here are very willing to share their knowledge. And, in any case, you only have a few more weeks to learn all the laws off by heart, because there are ten laws that are going to change on 1 October!
Keep asking as many questions as you like @swordfish - posters on here are very willing to share their knowledge. And, in any case, you only have a few more weeks to learn all the laws off by heart, because there are ten laws that are going to change on 1 October!
Oh No, as if I wasn't confused enough already getting used to the fact that incoming batters have to face the strike in the Hundred even when the batters have crossed.
Oh No, as if I wasn't confused enough already getting used to the fact that incoming batters have to face the strike in the Hundred even when the batters have crossed.
Keep asking as many questions as you like @swordfish - posters on here are very willing to share their knowledge. And, in any case, you only have a few more weeks to learn all the laws off by heart, because there are ten laws that are going to change on 1 October!
Oh No, as if I wasn't confused enough already getting used to the fact that incoming batters have to face the strike in the Hundred even when the batters have crossed.
From October the incoming batsman will face the next ball in all forms of cricket unless, of course, the dismissal occurred off the final ball of the over.
An interesting article on how much the Test cricket means to the welfare of cricket in this country when compared to the Hundred:
It is difficult to over exaggerate how much English cricket relies on Test cricket financially. Perhaps as much as two-thirds of the ECB’s total domestic income comes from the six or seven red ball internationals played every summer. The ticket sales alone for a home Ashes series draws in almost as much income as the entire Hundred (Including TV rights, sponsors, and 34/35 ‘full’ grounds) in a year.
Which is what makes it so surprising that the ECB seems intent on prioritising a competition which is losing money, and seems certain to continue losing money for the next six years without significant changes, to the detriment of their proverbial golden goose.
It has been said repeatedly by supporters of The Hundred that it is vital for the competition is played in August, since more children will be able to attend games or watch them on TV than at any other time of the year. This may be fair enough as an argument if your sole priority is the long term health of this one competition, but it is baffling in the context of English cricket as a whole.
Given that the ECB (and therefore the counties also) are so financially reliant on Test cricket, it would seem like a sensible measure to ensure that as many children as possible were able to watch it on TV, to become the next generation of fans (and, more cynically, customers). Instead, the ECB has chosen to do the opposite.
There is also the matter of attendance. The T20 Blast was shifted from primarily being in August in 2019 to June in 2022, and this appeared to cause a 23% decline in ticket sales. Given the high demand and high price for Test tickets in England, a similar fall in sales might cost the ECB several million pounds every year.
It should be said, in fairness to Tom Harrison and others at the ECB, that they acknowledge the reliance that English cricket has on a handful of Test matches every season. It was a key goal of The Hundred to become a second source of income for the game, to act as a safety net in the event that the commercial viability of the red ball game declined. That is not an unlikely scenario, not least because clowns like Harrison have been in charge of English Test cricket for a long time.
The initial indications from The Hundred this year don’t seem to indicate that the competition deserves this extraordinary level of support from the ECB. Viewing figures on the BBC appear to be almost half what they were in 2021, suggesting very little interest from the wider public. And, to be clear, this is before the men’s Test series against South Africa has begun. Moving next year’s Ashes to a less favourable slot in the calendar wouldn’t obviously have any positive effect on The Hundred, but could have a severe negative impact on the number of people watching the Tests.
Cricket Australia hosts both a T20 competition and their Test series at the same time, with no obvious harm to either. The idea that it is necessary to sacrifice England internationals in order to ensure the growth and popularity of The Hundred is blatantly false. The whole exercise stinks of some worried executives throwing every possible resource behind a project they are publicly considered responsible for, or perhaps have bonuses linked to the success of, not caring about the wider damage it will cause the organisation and people they are supposed to represent.
The ECB is insulated somewhat from the consequences of their actions, at least for a while. A new Sky TV deal has already been agreed which offers them a similar guaranteed income over the next six years, albeit one that will likely be worth a lot less over time due to high inflation in the UK. The problem will come when they look to negotiate the next contract, from 2029 onwards. If interest in the longest format is diminished, and by extension its commercial worth, then it would lead to a significant devaluation in what Sky and their competitors thought the rights are worth paying for. That would be catastrophic for the ECB, and particularly the counties.
One thing which is really annoying about the Hundred is the TV graphics showing the score. The least bad part is garish colours - it's the layout which is appalling. Makes it very difficult to work out what the score is with the wickets so far from runs scored and a lack of clarity between runs scored and balls gone
most 'annoying' for me is the number of antipodean/saffi commentators .. their screaming adulation does get too much after a while .. concentrate more on where the ball is hit and who fielded, ;less concern with the 'batters' power/prowess', we take that as writ .. take a leaf from the superb US baseball callers, a more rounded commentary please and more English pundits
KP is the worst - terrible pundit. Have to turn the volume off when he’s on
Close finish in the women's Trockets / Invincibles match, but shows how misleading stats can be as the latter coasted to victory.
Alana King bowled 10 dot balls in a row, a hundred record & well played her, but Marizanne Kapp was under no scoreboard pressure and decided not to attack her, only because she wasn't bowling pies and didn't need to.
What struck me about last night's matches was the engagement of the crowd and how (surprisingly) knowledgeable they were. Successive dot balls being greeted by increasingly louder cheers was one thing I wasn't expecting.
The Hundred doesn't seem only to be bringing in new fans, but it's helping to enlighten them too.
One thing which is really annoying about the Hundred is the TV graphics showing the score. The least bad part is garish colours - it's the layout which is appalling. Makes it very difficult to work out what the score is with the wickets so far from runs scored and a lack of clarity between runs scored and balls gone
most 'annoying' for me is the number of antipodean/saffi commentators .. their screaming adulation does get too much after a while .. concentrate more on where the ball is hit and who fielded, ;less concern with the 'batters' power/prowess', we take that as writ .. take a leaf from the superb US baseball callers, a more rounded commentary please and more English pundits
KP is the worst - terrible pundit. Have to turn the volume off when he’s on
"that's the thing about taaaking the volume awf, what you've got to do is pick up the remote - point it at the screen THEN you push the mute button, THEN you switch the volume awf- not before. You don't want to get into a situation where you're muting it without even picking up the remote." - KP commenting every day things like he does the cricket.
One thing which is really annoying about the Hundred is the TV graphics showing the score. The least bad part is garish colours - it's the layout which is appalling. Makes it very difficult to work out what the score is with the wickets so far from runs scored and a lack of clarity between runs scored and balls gone
most 'annoying' for me is the number of antipodean/saffi commentators .. their screaming adulation does get too much after a while .. concentrate more on where the ball is hit and who fielded, ;less concern with the 'batters' power/prowess', we take that as writ .. take a leaf from the superb US baseball callers, a more rounded commentary please and more English pundits
KP is the worst - terrible pundit. Have to turn the volume off when he’s on
"that's the thing about taaaking the volume awf, what you've got to do is pick up the remote - point it at the screen THEN you push the mute button, THEN you switch the volume awf- not before. You don't want to get into a situation where you're muting it without even picking up the remote." - KP commenting every day things like he does the cricket.
He's also been on holiday for almost a week and not commentating so you can listen again and you won't have to tolerate him
Tough top of the table (except for London) game last night, Trent were right up for it, we even had a beamer, accidental of course, the Oval batsmen were waved off with little grace, the four Trent left arm bowlers gave their opponents a very hard time and Hales and co set about the Ovaltinies with grim determination .. just goes to show that these games are not all about a day out for the family fun and laughs, it is a very competitive and lucrative tournament with some nice prize money at stake, equal dibs for both men and women
I wouldn't mind trying some of whatever the fella spinning the tunes at Trent Bridge was on yesterday. He certainly had all the moves, just needed to synchronize them with the rhythm 😎
Good win for the Trockets breaking the London Spirit. Perhaps I feel an affiliation with them because I was born and lived in Nottingham, until I was all of nine months old, when we moved south, so I remember nothing of those days.👶 Trent Bridge my nearest test ground now though.
Trent blew London away .. London's bowling is weak and Trent, even given failures by Malan and Hales won with no problem at all .. Trent are the best all round side i m o, excellent fast and spin bowling, powerful batting and a noisy, lively fan base
Trent blew London away .. London's bowling is weak and Trent, even given failures by Malan and Hales won with no problem at all .. Trent are the best all round side i m o, excellent fast and spin bowling, powerful batting and a noisy, lively fan base
Still wheel out Sammit Patel though. Didn't get a bat yesterday but seldom does in this format. Poor lad should be putting his feet up by now, but I guess he enjoys himself too much, so fair play to him for carrying on with it, although I suppose the money might have something to to with it. Didn't see him bowl yesterday as I only saw the chase. How did he do?
Trent blew London away .. London's bowling is weak and Trent, even given failures by Malan and Hales won with no problem at all .. Trent are the best all round side i m o, excellent fast and spin bowling, powerful batting and a noisy, lively fan base
Still wheel out Sammit Patel though. Didn't get a bat yesterday but seldom does in this format. Poor lad should be putting his feet up by now, but I guess he enjoys himself too much, so fair play to him for carrying on with it, although I suppose the money might have something to to with it. Didn't see him bowl yesterday as I only saw the chase. How did he do?
Double header this week between London Spirit and Oval Invincibles at Lords this Saturday, women starting at 3.30 and the men's match after. I have two adult and two children's tickets silver family area, Bought for £70, selling for £50 for all four. DM me if interested
Taking my kids tomorrow along with three other families - first experience of the Hundred so will report back afterwards. However, the fact I'll be making a point of being an annoying bloke referring to the two sides as Middlesex and Surrey will give you an idea of my thoughts will entail
Taking my kids tomorrow along with three other families - first experience of the Hundred so will report back afterwards. However, the fact I'll be making a point of being an annoying bloke referring to the two sides as Middlesex and Surrey will give you an idea of my thoughts will entail
You'll want to kill the stadium announcer people that pop up on the big screen seemingly between every set of 5 balls. Absolute weapons that have barely got a clue what cricket is. The musical offerings are dross too. But the cricket is good which is the main thing.
Comments
Oh No, as if I wasn't confused enough already getting used to the fact that incoming batters have to face the strike in the Hundred even when the batters have crossed.
An interesting article on how much the Test cricket means to the welfare of cricket in this country when compared to the Hundred:
It is difficult to over exaggerate how much English cricket relies on Test cricket financially. Perhaps as much as two-thirds of the ECB’s total domestic income comes from the six or seven red ball internationals played every summer. The ticket sales alone for a home Ashes series draws in almost as much income as the entire Hundred (Including TV rights, sponsors, and 34/35 ‘full’ grounds) in a year.
Which is what makes it so surprising that the ECB seems intent on prioritising a competition which is losing money, and seems certain to continue losing money for the next six years without significant changes, to the detriment of their proverbial golden goose.
For a simple indication of the two formats’ relative worth: In 2019, the idea was mooted by MCC members that one Test every season, played at Lord’s, should be shown on Freeview. Sky responded by saying that such a move would cost the ECB £50m per year. For a single Test match. The total revenue for The Hundred in 2021 was £52m.
It has been said repeatedly by supporters of The Hundred that it is vital for the competition is played in August, since more children will be able to attend games or watch them on TV than at any other time of the year. This may be fair enough as an argument if your sole priority is the long term health of this one competition, but it is baffling in the context of English cricket as a whole.
Given that the ECB (and therefore the counties also) are so financially reliant on Test cricket, it would seem like a sensible measure to ensure that as many children as possible were able to watch it on TV, to become the next generation of fans (and, more cynically, customers). Instead, the ECB has chosen to do the opposite.
There is also the matter of attendance. The T20 Blast was shifted from primarily being in August in 2019 to June in 2022, and this appeared to cause a 23% decline in ticket sales. Given the high demand and high price for Test tickets in England, a similar fall in sales might cost the ECB several million pounds every year.
It should be said, in fairness to Tom Harrison and others at the ECB, that they acknowledge the reliance that English cricket has on a handful of Test matches every season. It was a key goal of The Hundred to become a second source of income for the game, to act as a safety net in the event that the commercial viability of the red ball game declined. That is not an unlikely scenario, not least because clowns like Harrison have been in charge of English Test cricket for a long time.
The initial indications from The Hundred this year don’t seem to indicate that the competition deserves this extraordinary level of support from the ECB. Viewing figures on the BBC appear to be almost half what they were in 2021, suggesting very little interest from the wider public. And, to be clear, this is before the men’s Test series against South Africa has begun. Moving next year’s Ashes to a less favourable slot in the calendar wouldn’t obviously have any positive effect on The Hundred, but could have a severe negative impact on the number of people watching the Tests.
Cricket Australia hosts both a T20 competition and their Test series at the same time, with no obvious harm to either. The idea that it is necessary to sacrifice England internationals in order to ensure the growth and popularity of The Hundred is blatantly false. The whole exercise stinks of some worried executives throwing every possible resource behind a project they are publicly considered responsible for, or perhaps have bonuses linked to the success of, not caring about the wider damage it will cause the organisation and people they are supposed to represent.
The ECB is insulated somewhat from the consequences of their actions, at least for a while. A new Sky TV deal has already been agreed which offers them a similar guaranteed income over the next six years, albeit one that will likely be worth a lot less over time due to high inflation in the UK. The problem will come when they look to negotiate the next contract, from 2029 onwards. If interest in the longest format is diminished, and by extension its commercial worth, then it would lead to a significant devaluation in what Sky and their competitors thought the rights are worth paying for. That would be catastrophic for the ECB, and particularly the counties.
Alana King bowled 10 dot balls in a row, a hundred record & well played her, but Marizanne Kapp was under no scoreboard pressure and decided not to attack her, only because she wasn't bowling pies and didn't need to.
Edit. No further questions today 😎
The Hundred doesn't seem only to be bringing in new fans, but it's helping to enlighten them too.
Good win for the Trockets breaking the London Spirit. Perhaps I feel an affiliation with them because I was born and lived in Nottingham, until I was all of nine months old, when we moved south, so I remember nothing of those days.👶 Trent Bridge my nearest test ground now though.