Ashes

[jargan83]

That England collapse last night was so retarded that if it were Pakistan there would he allegations of match fixing.

[shasta]

Maybe; but nowhere near as enjoyable.

[jargan83]

That has been some of the most negative Cricket I've ever seen.

#Bazcowardice

[AndyS]

But it got the wickets, so I'd be inclined to disagree. For all the good it looks like doing them, at the moment anyway.

[Burgs]

If they lose the Ashes, I think the establishment will have Bazz/Stokes under a lot of pressure.
They will tolerate it while winning, but not losing to Australia.

[James]

I'm not much of a cricket follower, but Bazball sounds an awful lot like the kind of thing Michael Cheika would come up with where the tactics don't always match the conditions.

[jargan83]

But it got the wickets, so I'd be inclined to disagree. For all the good it looks like doing them, at the moment anyway.

The umpires should have been calling wides given bowlers are allowed 2 over the shoulder per over.

[Sheikh]

The umpires should have been calling wides given bowlers are allowed 2 over the shoulder per over.

That's not actually the law, though. The law (21.10 & 41.6) is that a no-ball is called if the ball is above the batsmen's head, when standing upright in the popping crease. There was guidance given to umpires to call a two-run penalty if there are more than 2 bouncers per over, but that guidance also allowed the umpires leeway as to what a bouncer is, especially given the skill of the batsman in question.

Given that even the likes of Starc and Cummins can score quickly in limited overs games, the umpires seemed to be inclined to allow shoulder-height deliveries which allow cuts and pulls to continue.

Hazelwood and Lyon probably should have been given more protection (given Hazelwood's ability and Lyon's injury), but then if Broad had any sense he'd have not bowled bouncers to Lyon, but yorkers at the stumps as Lyon couldn't defend them. Certainly England cost themselves 15 runs for the last wicket by being monumentally stupid.

[shasta]

I'd go along with Sheikh on both counts there.

OK I'll state the obvious that all the pundits are talking about; that Starc no-catch would have to be the silliest technical decision in a long time, given how long he held it before skidding it. Punter explained it best in that just about every diving, ground level catch that any fielder takes and then chucks up is more technically illegal than that one. Starting with Smith's the other night.

Probably will count for nothing, except maybe making tonight a little more intriguing.

[Burgs]

That's not actually the law, though. The law (21.10 & 41.6) is that a no-ball is called if the ball is above the batsmen's head, when standing upright in the popping crease. There was guidance given to umpires to call a two-run penalty if there are more than 2 bouncers per over, but that guidance also allowed the umpires leeway as to what a bouncer is, especially given the skill of the batsman in question.

Given that even the likes of Starc and Cummins can score quickly in limited overs games, the umpires seemed to be inclined to allow shoulder-height deliveries which allow cuts and pulls to continue.

Hazelwood and Lyon probably should have been given more protection (given Hazelwood's ability and Lyon's injury), but then if Broad had any sense he'd have not bowled bouncers to Lyon, but yorkers at the stumps as Lyon couldn't defend them. Certainly England cost themselves 15 runs for the last wicket by being monumentally stupid.

A Law that in itself allows Umpire interpretation as to a given Batsmen's skill level sounds pretty rubbery.
A Law is/should be a Law, full stop.
Love the spectacle of bouncers etc, but that degree of judgement call leaves massive potential variation.

One head shaker for me is seeing bowlers whistling bouncers down consecutively, then running down the pitch feigning concern when a batsman gets hit. At least Stokes had the self awareness to look from the other end until cleared of serious injury, then turn away.

[shasta]

A Law is/should be a Law, full stop.
Love the spectacle of bouncers etc, but that degree of judgement call leaves massive potential variation.

The irony of that one coming from a known Rugby trajic needs no interpretation.

[Burgs]

The irony of that one coming from a known Rugby trajic needs no interpretation.

Maybe , but you don't hear a Ref saying on the coms, "Nah, no high tackle there, he's got a hard head that one, he can take it..."

[Sheikh]

A Law that in itself allows Umpire interpretation as to a given Batsmen's skill level sounds pretty rubbery.
A Law is/should be a Law, full stop.
Love the spectacle of bouncers etc, but that degree of judgement call leaves massive potential variation.

The Law has no interpretation (other than what is the batter's height when standing upright, as any batting stance is slightly crouched). If the ball is above head height, it's a no-ball.

The Umpire's judgement and interpretation is for bouncers, which aren't covered by the Laws at all.

[jargan83]

That's not actually the law, though. The law (21.10 & 41.6) is that a no-ball is called if the ball is above the batsmen's head, when standing upright in the popping crease. There was guidance given to umpires to call a two-run penalty if there are more than 2 bouncers per over, but that guidance also allowed the umpires leeway as to what a bouncer is, especially given the skill of the batsman in question.

Given that even the likes of Starc and Cummins can score quickly in limited overs games, the umpires seemed to be inclined to allow shoulder-height deliveries which allow cuts and pulls to continue.

Hazelwood and Lyon probably should have been given more protection (given Hazelwood's ability and Lyon's injury), but then if Broad had any sense he'd have not bowled bouncers to Lyon, but yorkers at the stumps as Lyon couldn't defend them. Certainly England cost themselves 15 runs for the last wicket by being monumentally stupid.

Above head high is a no ball but I'm pretty sure that once you've bowled your two bouncers (above the shoulder) they get called a wide or no ball (cbf looking it up). This very thing cost England a Test Match in NZ earlier in the year.

[blueandblack]

I'm wondering if Australia are trying to lose this match.