0
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/up_dis.png)
That England collapse last night was so retarded that if it were Pakistan there would he allegations of match fixing.
Maybe; but nowhere near as enjoyable.![]()
"The main difference between playing League and Union is that now I get my hangovers on Monday instead of Sunday - Tom David
That has been some of the most negative Cricket I've ever seen.
#Bazcowardice
But it got the wickets, so I'd be inclined to disagree. For all the good it looks like doing them, at the moment anyway.
If they lose the Ashes, I think the establishment will have Bazz/Stokes under a lot of pressure.
They will tolerate it while winning, but not losing to Australia.
"Bloody oath we did!"
Nathan Sharpe, Legend.
I'm not much of a cricket follower, but Bazball sounds an awful lot like the kind of thing Michael Cheika would come up with where the tactics don't always match the conditions.
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.
That's not actually the law, though. The law (21.10 & 41.6) is that a no-ball is called if the ball is above the batsmen's head, when standing upright in the popping crease. There was guidance given to umpires to call a two-run penalty if there are more than 2 bouncers per over, but that guidance also allowed the umpires leeway as to what a bouncer is, especially given the skill of the batsman in question.
Given that even the likes of Starc and Cummins can score quickly in limited overs games, the umpires seemed to be inclined to allow shoulder-height deliveries which allow cuts and pulls to continue.
Hazelwood and Lyon probably should have been given more protection (given Hazelwood's ability and Lyon's injury), but then if Broad had any sense he'd have not bowled bouncers to Lyon, but yorkers at the stumps as Lyon couldn't defend them. Certainly England cost themselves 15 runs for the last wicket by being monumentally stupid.
Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon
I'd go along with Sheikh on both counts there.
OK I'll state the obvious that all the pundits are talking about; that Starc no-catch would have to be the silliest technical decision in a long time, given how long he held it before skidding it. Punter explained it best in that just about every diving, ground level catch that any fielder takes and then chucks up is more technically illegal than that one. Starting with Smith's the other night.
Probably will count for nothing, except maybe making tonight a little more intriguing.
"The main difference between playing League and Union is that now I get my hangovers on Monday instead of Sunday - Tom David
A Law that in itself allows Umpire interpretation as to a given Batsmen's skill level sounds pretty rubbery.
A Law is/should be a Law, full stop.
Love the spectacle of bouncers etc, but that degree of judgement call leaves massive potential variation.
One head shaker for me is seeing bowlers whistling bouncers down consecutively, then running down the pitch feigning concern when a batsman gets hit. At least Stokes had the self awareness to look from the other end until cleared of serious injury, then turn away.
"Bloody oath we did!"
Nathan Sharpe, Legend.
The Law has no interpretation (other than what is the batter's height when standing upright, as any batting stance is slightly crouched). If the ball is above head height, it's a no-ball.
The Umpire's judgement and interpretation is for bouncers, which aren't covered by the Laws at all.
Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon
I'm wondering if Australia are trying to lose this match.
"12 Years aSupporter" starring the #SeaOfBlue