County Cricket 2017 season

[Arthur Crabtree]

My impression is Yorkshire have started losing wickets now during rain breaks and between sessions.

[Durhamfootman]

That said, I have never agreed with the principle. I have always felt that if an overthrow goes for four (having missed the stumps completely), then that should immediately override any runs scored - rather than being added to them. So your assumption.

[Durhamfootman]

My impression is Yorkshire have started losing wickets now during rain breaks and between sessions.

thunder and lightning and torrential downpours for Scarborough on Thursday, if you can hang on that long

[alfie]

according to crapinfo, Gloucs hit one Hogan delivery for 5. Unless this is an error, and it was 5 wides or something, an all run 5 can't happen very often

how does overthrows work? can you run 1 and pick up an additional 4 overthrows? I don't think so, but then I am very dim

Yes. In theory it could equally have been 2 and then 3 run overthrows, or 3 and then 2 run overthrows. But yes, a single and 4 overthrows is most likely.

We picked up three 5s in one innings earlier this year, but that was due to the ball hitting the helmet by the keeper all three times.

okay.. thanks

so batsmen could run 2, with a fielder having a shy... ball goes to the boundary.... 6 runs? I just assumed that it would be 4

I can't recall ever seeing it, but yes I don't see why not. It applies when they run a single, so presumably will also if they run two etc.

It is a bit rare ; but I can recall collecting six that way once a few years back - looked good in the scorebook

Have even seen a seven or two. In fact I think one such case happened in an Ashes Test , In Adelaide.
Though most England fans have excised all memory of that particular match ...

[budgetmeansbudget]

Out for 318.

At cheltenham 25 wickets had fell before that many runs were scored in the match there.

30 wickets down in basically 4 sessions of play

And then Glos cruise to 137/0 to win the game.

Seemingly a lot easier to bat on day two.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Another desperately poor game for Yorks. Title gone for 2017. Might need to look the other way.

[southwood]

Quote(I have purposely added the bit in brackets, because I have equally always felt that the moment the stumps get knocked down, the ball should be dead. The fielding team has clearly done their job by knocking the stumps down. Just because the batsman is in, I don't see why they should then be able to run in the event of the ball deflecting away.)"

If he ball was called dead after it hit the stumps from a throw from the field ,the fielding side would be deprived of a chance of a run out. Not all such throws go to the boundary. The destruction of the wicket can be overcome by the fielder with ball in hand removing a stump ( or remaking the wicket by replacing a bail). I have seen this happen by a quick thinking bowler when the batsmen risked a second after an unsuccessful direct hit.
Similarly ,when a batsman does not offer a shot to a ball that hits his pads etc but nevertheless completes a run , the ball is only called dead on completion of the run . Even though the run does not count the batsman has left his crease and the fielding side should have the opportunity to run one of them out,

[st_brendy]

Quote(I have purposely added the bit in brackets, because I have equally always felt that the moment the stumps get knocked down, the ball should be dead. The fielding team has clearly done their job by knocking the stumps down. Just because the batsman is in, I don't see why they should then be able to run in the event of the ball deflecting away.)"

If he ball was called dead after it hit the stumps from a throw from the field ,the fielding side would be deprived of a chance of a run out. Not all such throws go to the boundary. The destruction of the wicket can be overcome by the fielder with ball in hand removing a stump ( or remaking the wicket by replacing a bail). I have seen this happen by a quick thinking bowler when the batsmen risked a second after an unsuccessful direct hit.
Similarly ,when a batsman does not offer a shot to a ball that hits his pads etc but nevertheless completes a run , the ball is only called dead on completion of the run . Even though the run does not count the batsman has left his crease and the fielding side should have the opportunity to run one of them out,

I understand what you are saying, but it is an exceptionally weak argument in my view. Continue to let the batsmen have the opportunity to score more runs (whether by running, or by the ball going away for four), just on the off chance that the fielding side might be able to execute a run out (in addition to the one they have just tried execute)?

I would argue that keeping this harms the fielding side more (by virtue of them conceding runs) than changing the rules (such to deny them an exceptionally rare opportunity of a run out) would.

I've got no problem with overthrows when the fielding side misses the stumps. Tough luck, throw better (or hold onto the ball). But don't punish them when they do hit. No more runs should be scored.

[st_brendy]

Come on the tie!

Potentially two balls away from it happening.

[southwood]

Quote(I have purposely added the bit in brackets, because I have equally always felt that the moment the stumps get knocked down, the ball should be dead. The fielding team has clearly done their job by knocking the stumps down. Just because the batsman is in, I don't see why they should then be able to run in the event of the ball deflecting away.)"

If he ball was called dead after it hit the stumps from a throw from the field ,the fielding side would be deprived of a chance of a run out. Not all such throws go to the boundary. The destruction of the wicket can be overcome by the fielder with ball in hand removing a stump ( or remaking the wicket by replacing a bail). I have seen this happen by a quick thinking bowler when the batsmen risked a second after an unsuccessful direct hit.
Similarly ,when a batsman does not offer a shot to a ball that hits his pads etc but nevertheless completes a run , the ball is only called dead on completion of the run . Even though the run does not count the batsman has left his crease and the fielding side should have the opportunity to run one of them out,

I understand what you are saying, but it is an exceptionally weak argument in my view. Continue to let the batsmen have the opportunity to score more runs (whether by running, or by the ball going away for four), just on the off chance that the fielding side might be able to execute a run out (in addition to the one they have just tried execute)?

I would argue that keeping this harms the fielding side more (by virtue of them conceding runs) than changing the rules (such to deny them an exceptionally rare opportunity of a run out) would.

I've got no problem with overthrows when the fielding side misses the stumps. Tough luck, throw better (or hold onto the ball). But don't punish them when they do hit. No more runs should be scored.

Argue with the MCC - that's the reasoning used for the way the law is laid out. To hold onto the ball or go for a direct hit is a cricketing decision and well organised team will have back up drills etc .

[Arthur Crabtree]

Thumping win for Yorks against perennial favourites Notts. Huge batting score thanks to runs from Lyth and Shaun Marsh and a couple of heavy hitting cameos from Willey and Handsco.

[westoelad]

Quote(I have purposely added the bit in brackets, because I have equally always felt that the moment the stumps get knocked down, the ball should be dead. The fielding team has clearly done their job by knocking the stumps down. Just because the batsman is in, I don't see why they should then be able to run in the event of the ball deflecting away.)"

If he ball was called dead after it hit the stumps from a throw from the field ,the fielding side would be deprived of a chance of a run out. Not all such throws go to the boundary. The destruction of the wicket can be overcome by the fielder with ball in hand removing a stump ( or remaking the wicket by replacing a bail). I have seen this happen by a quick thinking bowler when the batsmen risked a second after an unsuccessful direct hit.
Similarly ,when a batsman does not offer a shot to a ball that hits his pads etc but nevertheless completes a run , the ball is only called dead on completion of the run . Even though the run does not count the batsman has left his crease and the fielding side should have the opportunity to run one of them out,

I understand what you are saying, but it is an exceptionally weak argument in my view. Continue to let the batsmen have the opportunity to score more runs (whether by running, or by the ball going away for four), just on the off chance that the fielding side might be able to execute a run out (in addition to the one they have just tried execute)?

I would argue that keeping this harms the fielding side more (by virtue of them conceding runs) than changing the rules (such to deny them an exceptionally rare opportunity of a run out) would.

I've got no problem with overthrows when the fielding side misses the stumps. Tough luck, throw better (or hold onto the ball). But don't punish them when they do hit. No more runs should be scored.

Argue with the MCC - that's the reasoning used for the way the law is laid out. To hold onto the ball or go for a direct hit is a cricketing decision and well organised team will have back up drills etc .

That's like saying talk to a brick wall and hardly a justification for the rule. How do you back up to a ball that could deflect into any unpredictable direction?

[alfie]

Re the above : no one is forcing the fielding team to throw at the stumps. You take a risk in pursuit of a reward ...just as a batsman does in trying to clear the ropes - or a bowler in throwing it up to tempt...
Yes it's a bit unlucky when it glances off for four but that's the luck of the game and I don't see a problem with it - though I am not too happy when it happens off my bowling

[Arthur Crabtree]

Da! Tim gets out needing four off the last ball v Derbys.

This was in Chesterfield. Would have gone if I was more switched on.

[westoelad]

Re the above : no one is forcing the fielding team to throw at the stumps. You take a risk in pursuit of a reward ...just as a batsman does in trying to clear the ropes - or a bowler in throwing it up to tempt...
Yes it's a bit unlucky when it glances off for four but that's the luck of the game and I don't see a problem with it - though I am not too happy when it happens off my bowling

Fair enough. But good fielding by hitting the stumps is being penalized whereas with normal overthrows it's bad fielding which is rightly penalized.