yuppie wrote:I would think after the ball tampering incident Australia should play the game fairly. As should any team. That is fair cricket. What were the batsman thinking?
The rules are simple, and the Paksitan batsman did not watch the ball till the boundary. Yesterday the outfield was slow, so why would they think the ball would make it to the boundary when the outfield was so slow? What if the Australian fielders thought the ball would go to the boundary but it didn't but the Pakistan batsman keeping running? Would that be fair? Of course it would. If the ball hit something to impede its progress then fair enough. But the simple fact of the matter is the ball just slowed down and the Batsman were not watching the ball.
I am not sure the rules are that simple here. The laws of the game state, once the ball is returned to the wicket keeper from the outfield, the umpire can consider the ball to be settled. I am sure on the MCC website guidance (from the previous Bell incident), it was explained that the umpire should consider the ball dead if its clear the batsman are not, or have at any stage in the play, declined the obvious opportunity of a single.
The laws are changed this year, and they have yet to revamp the advisory documents/interpretations which go with the new rules, but the dead ball rule also holds that "when the fielding team and batting team consider the ball dead, the umpire rules dead ball".... Here, the batters are considering it dead. Do the fielding team? What is taken as the fielding team? The unit taken on average as a whole? One person looking uninterested?
The angle on the tv is too close to see is Starc is chasing after it, all we really see is him picking it up and throwing it to the keeper, which he can do in either situation. We see first slip, hands folded, non reactive until Paine runs off. The bowler is returning to his mark with his back to play. The man in the gully is, like slip, arms folded and looks quite bemused as Paine takes the wicket apart. There doesnt seem to be any shout to Starc the run out is on. No one is backing up the throw at the strikers end..... Are the fielding team acting like the game is on? Only Paine, but does this make it right?
This came to the ICC fairly recently actually after a ladies BB game. The fielding team defended a single of the last ball, winning by 1 run, and as the batsman had dabbed it to the close fielder, it was impossible to get another, and the fielding team celebrated, the ball being thrown into the air by the keeper as she run off. The striking batsman noticed it, and went for the run, her partner slightly bemused to see her charging down to her end, then followed suit.
The run stood. The umpire deemed the ball live, and the ICC reviewed the decision, and concluded that it was indeed live. But then, their conclusion was contradictory. They judged that the rule concerned was satisfied that the fielding team had not given up, because the captain of the fielding team went to retrieve the thrown ball, showing she saw it as active. But then, they said that the batting team could only be proved to see that the ball was live once the second batter, not really knowing what was going on, completed the run after her partner had screamed down to the other end. She'd got in, tapped her bad, sworn at herself for losing the match, then decided to run. So, what is the rule is anyones guess. In this situation, had Azhar not left his crease, but his partner strode up to him for a chat, would Paine running him out at the non-strikers end be counted? It appears not.
That was think that made no sense about the ICC interpretation. The rule states "both teams". Well, if the fielding team in the above example thought the ball was live, then surely it was live, the second batsman going to complete the run would make no difference to it, whatsoever.
Above all, the rule is actually very dumb, and not very clear at all.