BBL 2012/13

[Johno6]

The cricket app had Hastings tweet up. Now all of a sudden it's gone lol

[Pup]

The cricket app had Hastings tweet up. Now all of a sudden it's gone lol

What a farce that was.

Anyone going tomorrow night?

[RustyCage]

The cricket app had Hastings tweet up. Now all of a sudden it's gone lol

It says a lot when everyone whose tweet I posted is either a current player or has a current coaching role, and none had any idea what's going on.

[Media Park]

Boof tom cooper and dean jones all tweeted about it to.

[Jim05]

And they wonder why people think this comp is a farce, what a disgrace.
Perth should of refused to take the field

[Media Park]

So the official reply is that the duckworth lewis total was 5, so at 0/29 they bowled one ball more and it was over.

[CoverKing]

makes sense to me IMO.

5 overs to constitue a game. the game got reduced to 5 overs.

Stars had a revised total of 6. Therefore they needed to face one more ball so the game restarted, as they were 0/29 they were ahead of the revised target. Game finished

[saintal]

makes sense to me IMO.

5 overs to constitue a game. the game got reduced to 5 overs.

Stars had a revised total of 6. Therefore they needed to face one more ball so the game restarted, as they were 0/29 they were ahead of the revised target. Game finished

But the stars only faced 13 balls, did they not? Or is the rule a min of 5 overs across two innings, rather than min of 5 overs per innings?

I'm with Jim and co. Farcical sport/comp.

[CoverKing]

So if you bowl a side out for 30, and you chase the runs down in less than 5 overs, you keep going until you bat for 5 overs so it constitutes a game?

I don't see what the problems are with this result. each to their own though

[saintal]

So if you bowl a side out for 30, and you chase the runs down in less than 5 overs, you keep going until you bat for 5 overs so it constitutes a game?

I don't see what the problems are with this result. each to their own though

That is clearly a different scenario.

[Ecky]

So if you bowl a side out for 30, and you chase the runs down in less than 5 overs, you keep going until you bat for 5 overs so it constitutes a game?

I don't see what the problems are with this result. each to their own though

Agree with you Coverking, if you follow it through logically, it all makes sense.

[heater31]

Yet another reason why this BBL is a crock of shite....

[RustyCage]

So if you bowl a side out for 30, and you chase the runs down in less than 5 overs, you keep going until you bat for 5 overs so it constitutes a game?

I don't see what the problems are with this result. each to their own though

No, it constitutes a game for having one team pass the other teams score. The 5 over thing only comes into play with innings that can't be completed.

[CoverKing]

Yes but then a team passed the score even though its within 5 overs. No confusion here

[RustyCage]

Yes but then a team passed the score even though its within 5 overs. No confusion here

no, because there is no score, just a moving Duckworth/Lewis target that comes in to play at the 5 over mark. They weren't chasing 20 off a maximum 2.1 overs or whatever the score they needed to get then was.

[Trader]

So if you bowl a side out for 30, and you chase the runs down in less than 5 overs, you keep going until you bat for 5 overs so it constitutes a game?

I don't see what the problems are with this result. each to their own though

No, it constitutes a game for having one team pass the other teams score. The 5 over thing only comes into play with innings that can't be completed.

While I tend to agree with this, it doesn't make sense that they then had to face a ball, if they were past the revised total, they had won already, so why bowl a ball?

[RustyCage]

So if you bowl a side out for 30, and you chase the runs down in less than 5 overs, you keep going until you bat for 5 overs so it constitutes a game?

I don't see what the problems are with this result. each to their own though

No, it constitutes a game for having one team pass the other teams score. The 5 over thing only comes into play with innings that can't be completed.

While I tend to agree with this, it doesn't make sense that they then had to face a ball, if they were past the revised total, they had won already, so why bowl a ball?

that part was very strange

[CoverKing]

Because the target wasn't 6 at the 2 over mark when they went off with rain. The target was revised during the rain break. So once they came out and faced one ball, the game was back on, the target was reached and the game was finished with 2.1 overs bowled

[Coach Bombay]

makes perfect sense.

pretty stupid if you cant work it out

[MAY-Z]

Because the target wasn't 6 at the 2 over mark when they went off with rain. The target was revised during the rain break. So once they came out and faced one ball, the game was back on, the target was reached and the game was finished with 2.1 overs bowled

that isnt correct at all though - duckworth lewis is always calculating, they dont wait for a rain delay and then get thier calculators out.

if the stars had faced 6 overs, and not yet got to the full target they wouldnt have come back on to make the game 6.1 overs.

what makes this idea of them reaching the target absolute nonsense is that the duckowrth lewis changes on each wicket, so if the stars where infront by only 1 or 2 runs at the end of the 2 over mark, then had to play this extra ball and lost a wicket they may have been behind duckworth lewis

farcical situation where you need to play the whole game (or what constitutes a game) to get the right(ish) result.

the only reason it was played out like it was, was becuase the stars had been so dominant, if the scorchers had made 150 you can guarantee that the game wouldve been called off after 2 overs and the points wouldve been shared