International Cricket, Autumn/Winter 2022-2023

[diggedy derek]

Pakistan take it. Madness.

[Satchmo Distel]

I have the sense that they feel that they have

But the Norcross quote from Law 41 - "the moment the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball" - suggests that whomever wrote that clause was clearly saying that you don't have to wait until it's actually been released if the bowler artificially delays the release. However, the problem then becomes that "normally have been expected" is clearly subjective and shouldn't really be in the laws; and perhaps today's MCC statement is an acknowledgment of that (it effectively rewrites the law in the process of "clarifying" it). What that means in practice is that the game will now change and run rates perhaps slightly dip because the margins for taking a quick single have now changed in the fielding side's favour.

[ursus arctos]

That is what I meant.

Today's statement can be read as effectively rewriting the law.

Though I rather doubt the effect on scoring will be material.

[Etienne]

Sharma has said that Dean was given repeated warnings, in which case I think it was entirely legitimate, though why Kaur didn't say so at the time (instead of praising Sharma's awareness) eludes me.

[ad hoc]

Though this statement about warnings having been given appears to have poured petrol on the embers

https://twitter.com/Heatherknight55/status/1574340603097321472

https://twitter.com/Heatherknight55/status/1574340716775542784

[Etienne]

Meg Lanning is continuing her break from cricket, and will miss the WBBL. With Sciver taking a break to protect her mental health too, I think it's clear something needs to change if two of the best players in the world are both unable to play at the moment.

[ursus arctos]

South Africa 9 for 5 in the first T20 against India

[Etienne]

They did pretty well to take the game as deep as they did from there.


Talking about South Africa, I have a dilemma for the OTF hivemind.

On Twitter, I have an alt account @from1877onwards which is doing the unofficial Cricket World Champions going back to the first test - ie Australia won the first test, so where World Champions until they lost a test, and then that team was champions until someone beat them. I'll be doing it for ODIs, and T20s and the women equivalents too, though I'm only in 1911 so far so still a while until I get to them.

Anyway, looking ahead, when South Africa hammered Australia in their last tests before international isolation that would mean that they were the World Champions and would remain so until the 1990s when they were readmitted. While that would save me a fair bit of effort, I dislike that for multiple reasons, so I'm pondering various options:

A) SA vacate their title in 1972 and are suspended from the competition when they are unable to defend their title because no-one will play them due to apartheid
B) SA vacate their title and are suspended from the competition in 1968 when they refuse to defend their title against England because England were going to field d'Oliveira.
or C) SA are suspended from the competition at some earlier point (maybe after WW2? Maybe after West Indies and India gained test status?) because they were not competing against any of the non-white cricketing nations.

I'm torn between B and C. While I don't like the idea of an apartheid SA being world champions in the 50s and 60s and would like a rule that excludes them, I wonder if it would be a misleading rewriting of history.

[ursus arctos]

https://twitter.com/peterdellapenna/status/1575774856733691904?s=21&t=4rsdc7fQ_nlhIjp9kCYVgg

[San Bernardhinault]

I suppose I can see that as an alternative - basically you forfeit your ball if you overstep the running crease as a non-striking batsman, say. The batting equivalent of a no-ball. Probably only in limited overs cricket, because in test cricket you could game that to see out the balls of the more threatening bowler.

But I prefer the idea of risk and reward, that you can start off haring down the pitch if you want to but knowing there's potential harm from doing so. I don't like the current situation of assumed immunity no matter how much you take advantage.

[Satchmo Distel]

I think it's a good idea to consider that the third umpire can run out someone who is out of their crease when or before the ball is released (after a warning), just as an umpire can remove a bowler from the attack for running on the pitch (after 2 warnings).

EDIT: Or, as a variant on SB's post, delete the run, as you would with "one short", but also return the batters to their original positions if it's being done so the senior batter can be on strike.

[Etienne]

I think the idea that a batter who leaves the crease before the ball is released (if that is now to be the law rather than when the ball would normally be released) should be considered "one short" by the third umpire is the fairest/best situation but obviously a) gives the third umpire a lot more work and b) doesn't help for the majority of cricket where there isn't a third umpire.

[Satchmo Distel]

But the regular umpire is no longer checking for no-balls so it could be added to their role.

[Ray de Galles]

England are destroying Pakistan here, 112 for 1 off 7.3 overs.

[Levin]

3-3 with one game to come. I know not every T20 series is going to be as good or as balanced as this one but it's given me a real appreciation of the baseball way of doing things.

A 'match' that lasts multiple days but has a clear daily winner. But then, that's not how T20 is played is it? They are more modelled on football, on being games played every few days.

I'm not sure this makes any sense. Sorry.

[ursus arctos]

I think that attitudes would be different if, as In NA, the series result determines advancement or the destination of a meaningful trophy.

Even attributing extra points in ICC tables for a series win would help, but the very existence of such things is imperiled..

Very 8moressive batting display by SA in Indore today, setting India 228 to win.

[ursus arctos]

And Rohit is gone for a duck

[San Bernardhinault]

The news about Johnny Bairstow's leg break (in the conventional, non-cricket usage) is, um, weird. I don't think I've ever heard of a pro golfer breaking their leg in three places and dislocating their ankle because they tried to steady themselves after a shot.

It's weird enough that you have to suspect that the real culprit is something much more embarrassing.

[diggedy derek]

All I could think of with that injury is that he slipped on wet grass trotting up a hill or something. It seems just about credible, although, even then, rather unlikely.

[Gangster Octopus]

My theory was a foot in a rabbit hole.

[Satchmo Distel]

Richard Boxall broke his leg while hitting off the tee in 1991 so it is technically possible to break a leg in the act of swinging a club. However, that's the only instance I can find of that happening.

[Etienne]

Thailand W beat Pakistan in the Asia Cup

[ursus arctos]

https://twitter.com/NikUttam/status/1577991343388983297?s=20&t=1Se_Qk2u9cTMNPDT6RS0sQ

This is from the "Atlanta Open" which features a handful of internationals

[San Bernardhinault]

That looks like a proper cricket ground!

[ursus arctos]

It looks a bit different than the website rendering