• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

England v Sri Lanka 5th odi

Status
Not open for further replies.

The Sheepfolds End said:
Fully. But having played the game, I am also fully aware that this type of backing up goes on in every single game and 99% of the time it goes unnoticed.

If it is the type of backing up where a batsman is half way down the track then fair enough but that simply wasn't the case today.

Rules are rules and if applied then there can be no complaints and, apart from doubting whether or not he had entered his delivery stride, I have not said Buttler shouldn't be out. However, there are also protocols in the game and I think what Sri Lanka did was a bit petty and not a great advert for the game
Click to expand...
We've all played the game and I never found it hard to keep my bat grounded behind me as the bowler was letting the ball go which gives you nearly two yards start, then starting down the track to back up. The protocols are that you get warned the first time then the bowler is fully entitled to whip the bails off if it happens again. As I understand it this is exactly what happened so even you should be happy with that.

And who would be half way down the track when the bowler is bowling anyway? That is a nonsense to say he shouldn't do it because it wasn't very far down, the fact remains that he was trying to gain an advantage, or else why do it at all?
 
TwasOnTheFifthOfMay said:
We've all played the game and I never found it hard to keep my bat grounded behind me as the bowler was letting the ball go which gives you nearly two yards start, then starting down the track to back up. The protocols are that you get warned the first time then the bowler is fully entitled to whip the bails off if it happens again. As I understand it this is exactly what happened so even you should be happy with that.

And who would be half way down the track when the bowler is bowling anyway? That is a nonsense to say he shouldn't do it because it wasn't very far down, the fact remains that he was trying to gain an advantage, or else why do it at all?
Click to expand...
Correct
 
Just the media mouthpieces who are moaning about it

Alec Stewart was spot on, if the rule cannot be enforced, don't have it
 
Icarebecauseyoudo said:
Just the media mouthpieces who are moaning about it

Alec Stewart was spot on, if the rule cannot be enforced, don't have it
Click to expand...

I am sick of Jonathan Agnew, all he ever cares about is the spirit of the game, maybe that is why he never made it as a test player, too soft.

I am can see why England might be upset, but it is the rules so get on with it, no problem with Cook and Co giving the Sri Lankans something back, few words, good to see fire in their belly.
 
johnson said:
I am sick of Jonathan Agnew, all he ever cares about is the spirit of the game, maybe that is why he never made it as a test player, too soft.

I am can see why England might be upset, but it is the rules so get on with it, no problem with Cook and Co giving the Sri Lankans something back, few words, good to see fire in their belly.
Click to expand...
It would be better if were used all the time than once in five years. Then it would just be an accepted part of the game
 
tbf butler was warned prior to doing - on the other hand he wasnt THAT far down the wicket. Bit of a ***** trick tbh but the rules are the rules and Butler will take more care next time.
 
anyone inspired by moores after match thoughts?

he gave me runny shits
 
the incident, i will sling my 10 bobs worth. yes they warned buttler but watching the replay, buttlers bat had just crossed the crease, when sensnayake was in his bowling motion, but he did not release the ball, turned and took the bails off.

now spinners could dummy their bowling action all the time and do this. strange how this bowler was reported for a dodgy action and now he does this
 
The big problem I see with this rule is when the batsman is not trying to steal ground but his momentum takes him past the line. I felt that was the case here. Buttler appeared to be in his crease at the point you'd expect the ball to be bowled.

I feel that the batsman should be entitled to expect the bowler to bowl the ball, without having to worry about this. I think this could be "proven" by replay in the same way as the no-ball check.

However given what the actual rule says, I think the bowler was right to do this after a polite warning - otherwise what's the point of the rule (and the warning)?
 
Willincity said:
The big problem I see with this rule is when the batsman is not trying to steal ground but his momentum takes him past the line. I felt that was the case here. Buttler appeared to be in his crease at the point you'd expect the ball to be bowled.

I feel that the batsman should be entitled to expect the bowler to bowl the ball, without having to worry about this. I think this could be "proven" by replay in the same way as the no-ball check.

However given what the actual rule says, I think the bowler was right to do this after a polite warning - otherwise what's the point of the rule (and the warning)?
Click to expand...
I was always told to be walking out of the crease just as the bowler was bowling the ball but keeping your bat grounded, behind you. Thus I never had a problem, if the bowler stops you stop too.

He was warned twice, nobody should be whinging on at all.

Got to say I am amazed at the number of pundits who are saying it was in bad spirit and he'll regret doing it, when England batsmen constantly stand their ground knowing they've hit it, Mr Broad etc. and even another one yesterday too.
 
Last edited:
England complaining after a loss, and the media and players trying to create a controversy? Shocking.

He was out of his crease. You can be runout. This is more pathetic than the "ball fixing" claims when Pakistan started reverse swinging. This is a cut and dry application of the rules of the game. Stay in your crease, mate. It's not hard.
 
johnson said:
I am sick of Jonathan Agnew, all he ever cares about is the spirit of the game, maybe that is why he never made it as a test player, too soft.
Click to expand...

Can't stand Agnew. Always too far up his own arse to see the game properly. The spirit of the game doesn't really exist that much. There's always been gamesmanship going back as far as WG Grace. I wonder what Agnew made of Broad's blatant thick edge against the Aussies last summer where he didn't walk and was given not out.
 
Aidan11 said:
Can't stand Agnew. Always too far up his own arse to see the game properly. The spirit of the game doesn't really exist that much. There's always been gamesmanship going back as far as WG Grace. I wonder what Agnew made of Broad's blatant thick edge against the Aussies last summer where he didn't walk and was given not out.
Click to expand...

He absolutely hated it, I think Broad actually had a go at him for it in the end.

As I say, Agnew was particularly bad for England, and you get the impression that it might be due to this attitude. All the great Cricket teams have done anything to win, it really annoys me when he picks out stuff like this. Broad there for example was trying to win, and his 40 odd proved crucial in that win, I reckon Agnew would of preferred him to walk and for England to lose
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top