Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Sporting Events Discussion centered around sporting events.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-14-2018, 02:31 AM   #9326
DonkDonkDonkDonk
a man of culture
 
DonkDonkDonkDonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 35,957
Re: Cricket: Random Discussion Thread

Jos was discarded because he dropped a few chances and wasnt scoring runs. If Bairstow is to play as a batsman the gloves will go to Ben Foakes.

I think Buttler played a test vs India as a batsman while Bairstow kept. Now in ODIs Bairstow plays as a batsman as Jos keeps. Who knows whats going on.
DonkDonkDonkDonk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2018, 04:24 AM   #9327
DonkDonkDonkDonk
a man of culture
 
DonkDonkDonkDonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 35,957
Re: Cricket: Random Discussion Thread

Never boring when Roy is batting
DonkDonkDonkDonk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2018, 05:28 AM   #9328
bundy5
Pooh-Bah
 
bundy5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,199
Re: Cricket: Random Discussion Thread

England shouldn't be going this good
bundy5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2018, 03:55 PM   #9329
AllBlackDan
Pooh-Bah
 
AllBlackDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Moon
Posts: 4,943
Re: Cricket: Random Discussion Thread

What a win by England!

Good on them for their ultraaggresive opening

My series bet in danger ****
AllBlackDan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2018, 08:11 AM   #9330
DTD
veteran
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,116
Re: Cricket: Random Discussion Thread

So, Stokes will be charged and he can play for England before the trial. I guess he wasn't picked before just in case the police decided that there would be no charges. Great.

Also, SA lose a wicket in the U19 WC as one of their batters picks up the ball and chucks it to a fielder without asking first.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/42717093
DTD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2018, 03:13 PM   #9331
tchaz
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
tchaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 12,613
Re: Cricket: Random Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by DTD View Post
So, Stokes will be charged and he can play for England before the trial. I guess he wasn't picked before just in case the police decided that there would be no charges. Great.
Kewell/Woodgate precedent

Quote:
Also, SA lose a wicket in the U19 WC as one of their batters picks up the ball and chucks it to a fielder without asking first.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/42717093
that was really ****ing stupid of the batsman.

The ball span back towards the stumps - from an underedge chopped down. He looks like he is going to (legally) block it with his bat if it actually gets an inch or so closer. And then instantaneously picks the ball up literally as soon as it stops (I think it stops from the video I saw - tho' it's not 100% clear). I don't see how the WI can really tell he hasn't picked the ball up whilst it is still in motion - which is obviously out. And once they ask the question he has to go.

Moreover, the keeper is only about three steps away as well and on the move to collect the ball/make sure what is happening, so there's really no sportingly saving the oppo time/energy there - everything is wrapped up in his anxiety about playing on.
tchaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2018, 03:52 PM   #9332
DTD
veteran
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,116
Re: Cricket: Random Discussion Thread

From one angle you can see that the ball stopped and it was well away from the stumps. There were no fielders anywhere near, so no obstruction. I played at a decent level, but not this high, but even I knew that you just don't do what he did - so it is surprising to say the least, but just something he did in the moment.

But, in all honestly, it is complete horse**** imo. Mitchel Johnson is saying "rules are rules" - I'd love to see his reaction if he was given timed out by about 10 seconds in a Test Match.
DTD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2018, 05:14 PM   #9333
tchaz
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
tchaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 12,613
Re: Cricket: Random Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by DTD View Post
From one angle you can see that the ball stopped and it was well away from the stumps. There were no fielders anywhere near, so no obstruction. I played at a decent level, but not this high, but even I knew that you just don't do what he did - so it is surprising to say the least, but just something he did in the moment.
Yeah - I think we agree. If he waits 4 seconds and does it nothing happens.

It's because he does it in the moment. And I don't think it would be clear, perhaps even to the WK, that the ball has stopped. You say "from one angle" .. I'd maybe give that a shout if I'm somewhere in the infield.

Maybe I'm just projecting here, but what it seems like to me is that the WI appeal for him picking up the ball to prevent it possibly rolling onto the stumps (probably wrong, but not an absurd appeal), but - since appeals aren't specific as to mode of dismissal - the umpires give him out for returning the ball to the fielding side without prior permission.

But ... I see now I may be wrong and that the WI simply appealed for the latter. That really would be weak as **** - and I hope that isn't what happened.

Quote:
But, in all honestly, it is complete horse**** imo. Mitchel Johnson is saying "rules are rules" - I'd love to see his reaction if he was given timed out by about 10 seconds in a Test Match.
Yeah - I take your point that Mitch Johnson is a ****. [t-word not c-word]

But perhaps part of (the reason for) that rule is to prevent (particularly in pre-replay era or non-replay games) having to second guess, eg, whether the ball has actually stopped. You, yourself say "one angle shows" ... The rule simply takes that judgement out of the equation.

I really don't think I want that to be controversial in club cricket.* The rule seems to serve its purpose. So, maybe once more, we are at how separate the international game should be from the roots .. probably up to and including first class and list-1.

Here I really don't think the batsman is on the high moral ground. Again .. if he waits 4 seconds then .. yes, sure.

* and when I prop forward to some not-great offspinner and boringly drop the ball by my feet, I (and everyone else I've ever played with) ask the keeper if I can pick the ball up and toss it 4ft to him

Last edited by tchaz; 01-17-2018 at 05:27 PM.
tchaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2018, 05:42 PM   #9334
DTD
veteran
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,116
Re: Cricket: Random Discussion Thread

I could be wrong, but I think it's just that he didn't ask for permission before picking the ball up. It's something even I know not to do, and I guess he won't do it again.

It's still pretty bad for the WI to let this stand though imo, but in the T20 world cup they Mankaded someone by about in inch and celebrated like someone had taken a brilliant diving catch. Maybe this is the new era!
DTD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2018, 07:20 PM   #9335
PeteBlow
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Guildford, UK
Posts: 7,431
Re: Cricket: Random Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by tchaz View Post
Kewell/Woodgate precedent
Huh? I think you mean Bowyer.

Either way, neither Woodgate or Bowyer were banned.
Woodgate didn't play because his head wasn't in the right place.
Bowyer played on and ended up 2nd top scorer in the Champions League.
PeteBlow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2018, 07:24 PM   #9336
tchaz
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
tchaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 12,613
Re: Cricket: Random Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteBlow View Post
Huh? I think you mean Bowyer.

Either way, neither Woodgate or Bowyer were banned.
Woodgate didn't play because his head wasn't in the right place.
Bowyer played on and ended up 2nd top scorer in the Champions League.
doh - dumb - yeah -sorry Bowyer not Kewell.

and you're totally right about the outcome

Spoiler:
tchaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2018, 07:33 PM   #9337
tchaz
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
tchaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 12,613
Re: Cricket: Random Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by DTD View Post
I could be wrong, but I think it's just that he didn't ask for permission before picking the ball up. It's something even I know not to do, and I guess he won't do it again.
you may well be right - I can't see on any of the videos I watched what triggers the umpires consulting.

I think, as I said, it is weak af if the WI know that the ball has stopped, but it's stupid of the batsman to pick it up sooooo quickly under those circumstances.

(Again, if he props forward and kills the ball dead at his feet I don't think there's an argument.)

Quote:
It's still pretty bad for the WI to let this stand though imo, but in the T20 world cup they Mankaded someone by about in inch and celebrated like someone had taken a brilliant diving catch. Maybe this is the new era!
On the other hand .. yes you have a point and they have form. This is god awful - Zim need 3 runs off 6 balls with 9 down and the non-striker isn't even backing up aggressively. It isn't "you're trying it on" .. Unbelievable. I'm sure non players could argue these are the same, but they are chalk and cheese to me. WI u19 should be named and shamed for this:

tchaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2018, 07:55 PM   #9338
PeteBlow
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Guildford, UK
Posts: 7,431
Re: Cricket: Random Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by tchaz View Post
doh - dumb - yeah -sorry Bowyer not Kewell.

and you're totally right about the outcome

Spoiler:
I think it's safe to say losing a playoff final to Watford was somewhat near.
PeteBlow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2018, 08:31 PM   #9339
tchaz
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
tchaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 12,613
Re: Cricket: Random Discussion Thread

ok - so you were in the Champion's League semi-finals and then Bowyer and Woodie double-handedly destroyed your club, but not their own careers, and you fell down the leagues and ... many years later finally hacked your way back up to the second tier and .. after many not interesting adventures you had a slim chance against a much stronger team in the play off finals which completely unsurprisingly didn't work out for you.

..

if you really think it is worthwhile, maybe we should move the lolLeeds to the English Football thread? :shrug:

----

Nevertheless in the "Stjokes" example I have a decent amount of sympathy for the "Bowyer position" - let Stokes play and if he has legal issues in the hereafter let that have an impact on his playing time then.

The end results will matter far less - and, even I can't believe England would be dumped down to qualifying with tier 3 countries for the t20 world cup
tchaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2018, 04:24 AM   #9340
PeteBlow
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Guildford, UK
Posts: 7,431
Re: Cricket: Random Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by tchaz View Post
ok - so you were in the Champion's League semi-finals and then Bowyer and Woodie double-handedly destroyed your club, but not their own careers, and you fell down the leagues and ... many years later finally hacked your way back up to the second tier and .. after many not interesting adventures you had a slim chance against a much stronger team in the play off finals which completely unsurprisingly didn't work out for you.

..

if you really think it is worthwhile, maybe we should move the lolLeeds to the English Football thread? :shrug:

----

Nevertheless in the "Stjokes" example I have a decent amount of sympathy for the "Bowyer position" - let Stokes play and if he has legal issues in the hereafter let that have an impact on his playing time then.

The end results will matter far less - and, even I can't believe England would be dumped down to qualifying with tier 3 countries for the t20 world cup
You’re the one who brought it up (incorrectly).
Even your timeline above is completely wrong.

Back to Stokes though.
He should’ve played the Ashes and then been banned once he was charged.
PeteBlow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2018, 05:20 AM   #9341
bundy5
Pooh-Bah
 
bundy5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,199
Re: Cricket: Random Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by tchaz View Post

that was really ****ing stupid of the batsman.

The ball span back towards the stumps - from an underedge chopped down. He looks like he is going to (legally) block it with his bat if it actually gets an inch or so closer. And then instantaneously picks the ball up literally as soon as it stops (I think it stops from the video I saw - tho' it's not 100% clear). I don't see how the WI can really tell he hasn't picked the ball up whilst it is still in motion - which is obviously out. And once they ask the question he has to go.

Moreover, the keeper is only about three steps away as well and on the move to collect the ball/make sure what is happening, so there's really no sportingly saving the oppo time/energy there - everything is wrapped up in his anxiety about playing on.
No - that was ridiculous of the SA keeper to appeal for that dismissal. Way outside of the spirit of the game.
bundy5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2018, 09:20 PM   #9342
tchaz
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
tchaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 12,613
Re: Cricket: Random Discussion Thread

@Pete - moved to the footy thread.
tchaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2018, 12:45 AM   #9343
PartyGirlUK
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
PartyGirlUK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Self banned
Posts: 21,717
Re: Cricket: Random Discussion Thread

LOL Smith
PartyGirlUK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2018, 09:38 AM   #9344
bundy5
Pooh-Bah
 
bundy5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,199
Re: Cricket: Random Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by PartyGirlUK View Post
LOL Smith
Nah it was an ok review
bundy5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2018, 05:59 AM   #9345
bundy5
Pooh-Bah
 
bundy5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,199
Re: Cricket: Random Discussion Thread

The game needs to get rid of these "soft decisions" that are given by the on-field umpires whenever they have to refer a catch to the 3rd umpire to adjudicate.

I think it carries far too much weight when, at best, it is their gut feel on whether it was a fair catch or not when the tv replay is really the only thing that can determine it on any reasonable basis.
bundy5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2018, 06:45 AM   #9346
bundy5
Pooh-Bah
 
bundy5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,199
Re: Cricket: Random Discussion Thread

If Australia lose this game, the governor will need to answer some questions over the selection of Paine.
bundy5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2018, 06:55 AM   #9347
Willd
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Willd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,139
Re: Cricket: Random Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by bundy5 View Post
The game needs to get rid of these "soft decisions" that are given by the on-field umpires whenever they have to refer a catch to the 3rd umpire to adjudicate.

I think it carries far too much weight when, at best, it is their gut feel on whether it was a fair catch or not when the tv replay is really the only thing that can determine it on any reasonable basis.
The only way it makes sense to get rid of the soft decision is if TV decisions don't give the benefit of the doubt to batsmen and instead use something like "preponderance of the evidence". Without something like that you end up back where we were before, with almost 100% of close catches being given not out, even though in reality probably at least half were actually caught.
Willd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2018, 06:58 AM   #9348
bundy5
Pooh-Bah
 
bundy5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,199
Re: Cricket: Random Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willd View Post
The only way it makes sense to get rid of the soft decision is if TV decisions don't give the benefit of the doubt to batsmen and instead use something like "preponderance of the evidence". Without something like that you end up back where we were before, with almost 100% of close catches being given not out, even though in reality probably at least half were actually caught.
Yes I support that.
bundy5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2018, 07:02 AM   #9349
bundy5
Pooh-Bah
 
bundy5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,199
Re: Cricket: Random Discussion Thread

Tim Paine is a disgrace. Mark Waugh here is some friendly advice for you since you have a penchant to bring back the old boys (Cameron White), that just because Paine is serviceable in tests doesn't mean he is an automatic selection for one dayers and t20. **** off Paine.
bundy5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2018, 09:20 AM   #9350
BOIDS
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
BOIDS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 6,250
Re: Cricket: Random Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by AllBlackDan View Post
Im looking forward to destroying England when they come over here

In the meantime Ive put my net worth on Aus to win the one day series
how'd it go
BOIDS is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online