SA Footy

Will we ever see this occur in an international match? If anyone has got a video recording of the time it took Ishant Sharma to get to his crease, he must have been that close to have a warranted appeal for that dismissal.

Remembering that the three minutes is timed from the fall of the wicket, to when he is ready to face the next ball. But with the inevitable uproar if the umpires enforce a law like this on the game (re Darrel Hair), will this ever be enforced?

I was waiting for Bucknor to put his finger up today.

rod rooster mentioned in the match thread that if a player gets onto the ground he can't get timed out.. disgusting tactics by Sharma today though.

spell_check wrote:Will we ever see this occur in an international match? If anyone has got a video recording of the time it took Ishant Sharma to get to his crease, he must have been that close to have a warranted appeal for that dismissal.

Remembering that the three minutes is timed from the fall of the wicket, to when he is ready to face the next ball. But with the inevitable uproar if the umpires enforce a law like this on the game (re Darrel Hair), will this ever be enforced?

Is that the law? I was always under the impression you only have to get onto the ground. Has the law been changed or am i even more stupid than i thought?

RoosterMarty wrote:I was waiting for Bucknor to put his finger up today.

rod rooster mentioned in the match thread that if a player gets onto the ground he can't get timed out.. disgusting tactics by Sharma today though.

I wouldn't be blaming Sharma. I'm sure he would have been instructed to do that by others.

really now who cares but the way the umps went this match I was suprised the fingure didnt go up, but then again someone does still have to appeal and no Rod you are not more stupid than anyone thinks, can I drink your beer

locky801 wrote:really now who cares but the way the umps went this match I was suprised the fingure didnt go up, but then again someone does still have to appeal and no Rod you are not more stupid than anyone thinks, can I drink your beer

Go for it locky. And thanks for confirming how stupid people think i am

locky801 wrote:really now who cares but the way the umps went this match I was suprised the fingure didnt go up, but then again someone does still have to appeal and no Rod you are not more stupid than anyone thinks, can I drink your beer

the look on punters face when it was unfolding, i was waiting for an appeal

rod_rooster wrote:

spell_check wrote:Will we ever see this occur in an international match? If anyone has got a video recording of the time it took Ishant Sharma to get to his crease, he must have been that close to have a warranted appeal for that dismissal.

Remembering that the three minutes is timed from the fall of the wicket, to when he is ready to face the next ball. But with the inevitable uproar if the umpires enforce a law like this on the game (re Darrel Hair), will this ever be enforced?

Is that the law? I was always under the impression you only have to get onto the ground. Has the law been changed or am i even more stupid than i thought?

Nah, it's getting to the crease. Law 31 states:

1. Out Timed Out:
(a) Unless "Time" has been called, the incoming batsman must be in position to take guard or for his partner to be ready to receive the next ball within three minutes of the fall of the previous wicket. If this requirement is not met, the incoming batsman will be out, Timed Out.

(b) In the event of protracted delay in which no batsman comes to the wicket, the umpires shall adopt the procedure of Law 21.3 (Umpires awarding a match). For the purposes of that Law, the start of the action shall be taken as the expiry of the three minutes referred as above.

rod_rooster wrote:

locky801 wrote:really now who cares but the way the umps went this match I was suprised the fingure didnt go up, but then again someone does still have to appeal and no Rod you are not more stupid than anyone thinks, can I drink your beer

Go for it locky. And thanks for confirming how stupid people think i am

we all luv ya mate but next time you say you are coming for a swim turn up, yuouy wrecked my plans of trying to become australias best spin bowler

and thanks for the rules spelly, you are certainly on the ball, alot better than Hoggy

locky801 wrote:really now who cares but the way the umps went this match I was suprised the fingure didnt go up, but then again someone does still have to appeal and no Rod you are not more stupid than anyone thinks, can I drink your beer

My question is that will this Law ever be enforced in International Cricket, (it has occured four times in first class cricket) or because of what happened to Darrell Hair, it will/has be relegated to the status of the no ball for throwing law - never used?

locky801 wrote:

rod_rooster wrote:

locky801 wrote:really now who cares but the way the umps went this match I was suprised the fingure didnt go up, but then again someone does still have to appeal and no Rod you are not more stupid than anyone thinks, can I drink your beer

Go for it locky. And thanks for confirming how stupid people think i am

we all luv ya mate but next time you say you are coming for a swim turn up, yuouy wrecked my plans of trying to become australias best spin bowler

and thanks for the rules spelly, you are certainly on the ball, alot better than Hoggy

No problem , but I wish that they didn't stop producing those Wisden Australia books though.

locky801 wrote:
we all luv ya mate but next time you say you are coming for a swim turn up, yuouy wrecked my plans of trying to become australias best spin bowler

Sorry locky. Doubt you get in front of Symonds or Clarke though. Hogg you'd have covered

once again it was ok when brett lee wasnt even padded up when hogg got out & took bout 4 mins to get out on the ground

x-sharky wrote:once again it was ok when brett lee wasnt even padded up when hogg got out & took bout 4 mins to get out on the ground

2 mins 38 seconds thanks

rod_rooster wrote:

spell_check wrote:Will we ever see this occur in an international match? If anyone has got a video recording of the time it took Ishant Sharma to get to his crease, he must have been that close to have a warranted appeal for that dismissal.

Remembering that the three minutes is timed from the fall of the wicket, to when he is ready to face the next ball. But with the inevitable uproar if the umpires enforce a law like this on the game (re Darrel Hair), will this ever be enforced?

Is that the law? I was always under the impression you only have to get onto the ground. Has the law been changed or am i even more stupid than i thought?

Doing a bit of research, it was once "two minutes to get on the ground", but in 2000 it was changed to "three minutes to get to take guard, or so that the partner would be ready to receive the next ball"

rod_rooster wrote:

RoosterMarty wrote:I was waiting for Bucknor to put his finger up today.

rod rooster mentioned in the match thread that if a player gets onto the ground he can't get timed out.. disgusting tactics by Sharma today though.

I wouldn't be blaming Sharma. I'm sure he would have been instructed to do that by others.

Actually judging from his reaction after he was dissmissed (the one that indicated he had no idea what was going on) chances are he probably is dumb enough to actually walk out there with 2 right hand gloves. So I guess it was the perfect cover for india.

RoosterMarty wrote:I was waiting for Bucknor to put his finger up today.

rod rooster mentioned in the match thread that if a player gets onto the ground he can't get timed out.. disgusting tactics by Sharma today though.

i had no problems with sharma taking his time for one reason- the over rates all around the world now are disgusting and the icc seem totally uninterested in doing anything about it. it seems very hypocritiocal that there is a rule that can dismiss a batsman for taking his time (regardless of whether it is enforced or not) yet nothing to stop some fielding teams bowling at 12 overs an hour.

spell_check wrote:

rod_rooster wrote:

spell_check wrote:Will we ever see this occur in an international match? If anyone has got a video recording of the time it took Ishant Sharma to get to his crease, he must have been that close to have a warranted appeal for that dismissal.

Remembering that the three minutes is timed from the fall of the wicket, to when he is ready to face the next ball. But with the inevitable uproar if the umpires enforce a law like this on the game (re Darrel Hair), will this ever be enforced?

Is that the law? I was always under the impression you only have to get onto the ground. Has the law been changed or am i even more stupid than i thought?

Doing a bit of research, it was once "two minutes to get on the ground", but in 2000 it was changed to "three minutes to get to take guard, or so that the partner would be ready to receive the next ball"

Hooray, i'm not as stupid as locky thought i was