ECB’s “The Hundred”

Fortune 82nd Minute said:

Lincsaddick said:

London Spirit men are mincing the Nonsuperchargers

And half the country is watching the Premier League, traditional cricket fans are watching the RL50s that are going on at the moment and a handful of people are interested in the fact the London Spirt Men are winning. 

you find the Hundred distasteful ? .. then w t f are you reading these posts for ?

Lincsaddick said:

Fortune 82nd Minute said:

Lincsaddick said:

London Spirit men are mincing the Nonsuperchargers

And half the country is watching the Premier League, traditional cricket fans are watching the RL50s that are going on at the moment and a handful of people are interested in the fact the London Spirt Men are winning. 

you find the Hundred distasteful ? .. then w t f are you reading these posts for ?

Waiting to hear all the latest on the Oval Space-cowboys and Southern Sidemen-Youtubers.

Fortune 82nd Minute said:

And whilst I'm waiting for tonight's extravaganza, I'm watching a stream of the Somerset V Middx game. Really good crowd at taunton and a good finish in prospect. Middx want about 45 off 7 overs.

And I care who wins.

good to hear that the various tournaments are being well attended .. could be that people who dislike the 100 will attend other games as a (perhaps) a form of protest ?

Lots of happy children in the crowd.

And Roy out for 0 

swordfish said:

Can someone tell me why you can't be out lbw if the ball pitches outside the line. I've never understood the rationale for the rule, unless it's because you're asking too much of the umpire to predict it's onward trajectory. In which case, if using the technology available now to review, and it  shows the ball is going on to hit the stumps, I don't see why it shouldn't be given out.

Obviously the batsmen would need to be made aware of any such a change so they wouldn't assume they can kick it away. 

It strikes me as bizarre that Warne's 'ball of the century' wouldn't have dismissed Getting had it hit his pads or he'd simply kicked it away. I'm assuming that it pitched well outside the line of course 🤔

It's designed to stop negative bowling and it would give too big an advantage to a bowler particularly as it would be constantly pitching outside his eye line. You would have a situation where the fielding captain could pack the legside with fielders (albeit with only two behind square - a Law that came about because of the famous negative Bodyline series) and instruct the bowler to come around the wicket knowing that a batsman isn't going to (certainly not against fast bowlers) step to leg, especially in Test cricket, in order to open up the offside to score because, in doing so, they would actually leave their stumps unguarded. The game could then become a bit of a stalemate and also a lot of deliveries that might have been given as leg byes previously would result in LBW decisions. The likes of Warne bowling into the rough would also have been virtually unplayable bowling that line because he would only have to sneak one through and the batsman would be gone. 

You also mention the aspect of an Umpire having to make a decision should the Law be changed and it would be harder because, under the current Law, they can make an informed decision based on firstly whether it pitched in line and then whether it was coming back enough to hit the stumps. With no "outside the line" Law, it becomes a more subjective decision as to whether the ball might have clipped the stumps or not. Yes you could use DRS in the professional game but there is no such technology available at any other level of the game and I think the fear is that too many LBWs would be given especially in matches where the players end up having to do the job themselves. Most cricketers understand that under the current circumstances anyone bowling right arm around would have to bring the ball back quite a long way if it pitched in line for it to be given out whereas, if the Law were changed, you would see many given that just clip the straps of the batsman's pads even if he were taking a leg stump guard. And pitches at club level tend to be bad enough without yet more help for bowlers!

Will Jacks .. excuse the vagueness of this post .. a few weeks ago I was listening to a BBC SportsX commentary on a Surrey C C match against whom I can't recall  .. anyway Jacks was at the crease on about 30 and was joined by a tail ender who the commentators said could bat a bit
 Surrey were in deep trouble  .. the tail ender hung around for about  2 hours whilst scoring a few and in that time Jacks went to well over a hundred, Surrey won the match ..
 this young man is a star NOW and not just in the making .. he can do the biz in any form of cricket .. he also bowls a bit of off spin but that is very much the second string to his bow .. Take him to Aussie England

EDIT ..  He scored 150 v Essex in July

Modern technology is amazing isn’t it?
I managed to watch all the football & the hundred whilst following a feed about my St Helens trouncing Hull.
Wonderful.
Only interruption I had? A certain Charlton legend turning up at our holiday cottage.
Ah well, thems the breaks 🤷‍♀️

kinveachyaddick said:

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

Chizz said:

Lincsaddick said:

kinveachyaddick said:

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

Over the years, cricket has changed a lot.  From coloured clothing, to white balls and from vastly-improved athleticism to big crowds under floodlights on live television.  So it comes as quite a surprise to hear someone saying, basically, it's not quite baseball-like enough...

read what I typed, the commentary  criticism refers to baseball   .. anyway, the continuous references to 'that is a baseball shot' is rubbish .. no-one ever saw Viv Richards, Botham, Sobers, Gilchrist et al ? .. they played a lot of 'unconventional' i.e. not MCC coaching manual strokes/shots/hits .. and as you know, baseball and cricket are similar, all about putting a bat as hard as possible to a moving ball to score runs, home or otherwise

killerandflash said:

swordfish said:

Can someone tell me why you can't be out lbw if the ball pitches outside the line. I've never understood the rationale for the rule, unless it's because you're asking too much of the umpire to predict it's onward trajectory. In which case, if using the technology available now to review, and it  shows the ball is going on to hit the stumps, I don't see why it shouldn't be given out.

Obviously the batsmen would need to be made aware of any such a change so they wouldn't assume they can kick it away. 

It strikes me as bizarre that Warne's 'ball of the century' wouldn't have dismissed Getting had it hit his pads or he'd simply kicked it away. I'm assuming that it pitched well outside the line of course 🤔

It's only not out if it pitches outside the leg stump.

Thanks @killerandflash I did know that but I can see that wasn't obvious from my question. You'll have seen that I now have the answer I was after as to the purpose of the rule thanks to another poster 👍

Chizz said:

swordfish said:

@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!

*law 

(Also, the fielding team can only dismiss one player per delivery.  As soon as one run out is completed, the ball is 'dead') 

I'd assumed the ball was dead once the wicket was broken and a player run out, but was told by someone else, not the same guy by the way, that I was wrong and that you could run out both. Thanks for reaffirming what I thought I already knew. It explains why the batter who was still in didn't bother hurrying back.

Question for anyone. When was the last time a batsman was out 'timed out'. I've never seen an instance of it!

Chizz said:

swordfish said:

@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!

*law 

(Also, the fielding team can only dismiss one player per delivery.  As soon as one run out is completed, the ball is 'dead') 

unlike baseball lol .. 

swordfish said:

Addick Addict said:

swordfish said:

@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!

He wouldn't have been out, as he would be "protecting his wicket" using his bat, which is allowed.  As he would be allowed to do with anything, other than his hand or arm, off the bat.  

Interestingly, if he'd kicked the ball away, that would be fine; but if he'd kicked (or hit) the ball to an opponent (which seems a jolly decent thing to do) without the opponents' permission, he could be given out.  

Addick Addict said:

swordfish said:

Addick Addict said:

swordfish said:

@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 😎