westoelad wrote:I assumed the rule had been correctly applied and if there's evidence that the risk of injury remains regardless of pace fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.
westoelad wrote:I assumed the rule had been correctly applied and if there's evidence that the risk of injury remains regardless of pace fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.
captaincolly wrote:100 up at tea but for the loss of 3 wickets. Smith 46 not out.
westoelad wrote:captaincolly wrote:100 up at tea but for the loss of 3 wickets. Smith 46 not out.
2 batsmen get in on a road then get out in their twenties.
westoelad wrote:Absolute shocker by umpire Burns apparently.I have the same regard for umpires in 1st class cricket( as opposed to 1st class umpires) as McEnroe had for tennis umpires
Durhamfootman wrote:he does seem to be a dodgy lbw magnet.
what happened in the bowling? we appear to have either had Steel finishing an over for Rimmer, or vice versa
Durhamfootman wrote:thank goodness!
I was worried we might have more bowling injury woes
Presumably the ball slipped out of his fingers. I always associate beamers with fast bowlers.... for a spinner, I'd be more likely to think of it as a couple of high full tosses.... and perhaps rather gentle ones at that. the sort of thing that gets pumped into the stands for six, rather than something that threatens the batsman's safety...... but I may be wrong
Durhamfootman wrote:oh for crying out loud
Harte will have his work cut out saving us from this crock of sh1t
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests