• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Durham v Sussex (h) C.C.

Any batting line up has got to be weaker without bedingham. These have done good but not great, bearing in mind the 3 main bowlers for Sussex are v good.

Potts hasn't had much of an impact yet, either with bat nor ball. I can't think his stints with England as a dnp drinks carrier have helped.

All to play for with all three results almost equally likely.
 

Getting bowled out inside the session is very weak I’m afraid, especially the amount of batsmen who gave their wicket away to mediocre short balls. Up against it now.
mackembhoy said:
You all don't know the rules it seems?

The umpire can rule it a dead ball if no attempt is made to play a ball and you run a leg bye or a bye.

I didn't see the bit of play so I dunno whether this was relevant or not.

You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...

Incorrect, if it’s ’evasive action’ (which that was) it is considered live. If you’re going to quote a law, atleast read it first ;)

3.2 Leg byes

23.2.1 If a ball delivered by the bowler first strikes the person of the striker, runs shall be scored only if the umpire is satisfied that the striker has

either attempted to play the ball with the bat

or tried to avoid being hit by the ball.
 
Last edited:
Will be interesting to see if Sussex try and push for a win or will give us half a chance with a sporting declaration
 
Poor score considering the top 7 all got in but nobody went on lost 6 for 78. But the crucial moment still could be Robbo’s drop yesterday.

Can we put them under pressure with the ball this afternoon?
 
Raymondo said:
Getting bowled out inside the session is very weak I’m afraid, especially the amount of batsmen who gave their wicket away to mediocre short balls. Up against it now.


Incorrect, if it’s ’evasive action’ (which that was) it is considered live. If you’re going to quote a law, atleast read it first ;)

3.2 Leg byes

23.2.1 If a ball delivered by the bowler first strikes the person of the striker, runs shall be scored only if the umpire is satisfied that the striker has

either attempted to play the ball with the bat

or tried to avoid being hit by the ball.
Click to expand...
Agree,bad batting with only Potts dismissed by a good delivery.

However,perhaps you should read and interpret the law.
"...only if the umpire is satisfied... "
It's a subjective decision by the umpire, not you, as to whether the striker tried to avoid being hit by the ball.
 
Parkside said:
Agree,bad batting with only Potts dismissed by a good delivery.

However,perhaps you should read and interpret the law.
"...only if the umpire is satisfied... "
It's a subjective decision by the umpire, not you, as to whether the striker tried to avoid being hit by the ball.
Click to expand...

Mate, he ducked a bouncer, it was obvious he was trying to not get sconed.
 
Someone might want to fix the rope/boundary in front of where I'm sat (bottom of the steps)
Edit and we are off again
3.08pm off for "rain". Tea to be taken at 3.10pm with 53.4 overs left. That's gonna be a long session that
 
Last edited:
Parkside said:
That may be so but that doesn't alter the actual law i.e it's the Umpire's interpretation of what constitutes evasive action.
Click to expand...

I’m not even arguing the law, I’m talking about what happened within the law 🤷‍♂️

He ducked a bouncer, it hit him, the ball went to the boundary and as a result Durham were rightly awarded 4 leg byes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top