Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
"The Bloods" Cricket Chat Forum -> DDCA News -> Rules
Post Info TOPIC: Rules
Woofa


Status: Offline
Posts: 1845
Date:
RE: Rules
Permalink Closed

did you play hutchy?

__________________
prince mark


Status: Offline
Posts: 3187
Date:
Permalink Closed

hutchy wrote:

over trees?, over road? over house?



 Over Dandenong Plaza!



__________________

Woofa


Status: Offline
Posts: 1845
Date:
Permalink Closed

hutchy wrote:

over trees?, over road? over house?



 same ground



__________________
hutchy


Status: Offline
Posts: 127
Date:
Permalink Closed

nice. did the ball come back with take away?? the ball i am talking never came back. but the new new one sailed next pill also...

No woof did the family thing today went to a fete and then played golf, now doing a pile off quotes.. Any one need a job??

__________________
Woofa


Status: Offline
Posts: 1845
Date:
Permalink Closed

hand job?

__________________
hutchy


Status: Offline
Posts: 127
Date:
Permalink Closed

job job. on fire all 3 children in bed, taylen took to the green today with my 6 iron.

__________________
Elpresadente


Status: Offline
Posts: 420
Date:
Permalink Closed

Sobers wrote:

We were bowled out in the 78th over yesterday and were under the assumption that Lyndale would have to face 2 overs but the umps decided to pull stumps? I thought there were 80 overs in a days play? With a small total at Harold rd (199) we would have loved 2 overs at their openers who had fielded all day and would not have wanted to face the 2 overs.

Anyone know the rules on this?


Definate FCUK UP  by the umpire (ALTHOUGH THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN IN THE DDCA DOES IT)

Anyone from the DDCA exec/tribunal please feel free to reply...................

 



__________________

Not as drunk as Beav....................
BErnst


Status: Offline
Posts: 1519
Date:
Permalink Closed

Just have a question regarding a rule and what would have happened.

We had to bowl 1 over to Coomoora yesterday and after having no one infront of the bat apart from bad pad and silly point.........5 balls down and with one ball to go.
The batsman decided to bat i would of said 2 and half meters out side the crease to Trav and i am not exaggerating either, 2nd slip moved forward that put him roughly 3 meters  away from the stumps but before the ball was bowled i stopped play and questioned the umpire as the batsman was clearly at least 4 feet into the safety zone, on inspection by the umpire he was told to move back behind the marked area where he can not pass.
Word was if i did not stop the batsman Trav would have bowled the ball to close 2nd slip off the wicket making it a wide but having the batsman so far down the wicket if the fielder caught it cleanly would have run the bat out easily. Very bizarre situation and my understanding is batsman would have been out and ball to be re-bowled and one to the score?

__________________
Not as fat as Train!
donthassellthehoff


Status: Offline
Posts: 471
Date:
Permalink Closed

well i'll be fuked if anyone can make sense of half of that highpants.

__________________

The Hoff is looking for a change of club. Anyone interested please contact my misses as she runs my life and will bargain for the right price.
fathertime


Status: Offline
Posts: 2333
Date:
Permalink Closed

Instead of conferring with the umpire.....why didn't you just run him out / stump him?

__________________

G Train enjoys puffing his chest out and strutting around in his chookpen like Foghorn Leghorn..
slocs


Status: Offline
Posts: 3756
Date:
Permalink Closed

stupidity beaver. sheer stupidity. come on please. you are c/c of a turf 1 club.

__________________
2 OLD 2 SLOW


Status: Offline
Posts: 1266
Date:
Permalink Closed

BErnst wrote:

Just have a question regarding a rule and what would have happened.

We had to bowl 1 over to Coomoora yesterday and after having no one infront of the bat apart from bad pad and silly point.........5 balls down and with one ball to go.
The batsman decided to bat i would of said 2 and half meters out side the crease to Trav and i am not exaggerating either, 2nd slip moved forward that put him roughly 3 meters  away from the stumps but before the ball was bowled i stopped play and questioned the umpire as the batsman was clearly at least 4 feet into the safety zone, on inspection by the umpire he was told to move back behind the marked area where he can not pass.
Word was if i did not stop the batsman Trav would have bowled the ball to close 2nd slip off the wicket making it a wide but having the batsman so far down the wicket if the fielder caught it cleanly would have run the bat out easily. Very bizarre situation and my understanding is batsman would have been out and ball to be re-bowled and one to the score?


master stroke for thinking outside the square

 



__________________

Im cooler than cool, Im SCRAT
Stocky Stumper


Status: Offline
Posts: 275
Date:
Permalink Closed

I know I'll get criticised but I'm with Beaver on this one. It happened to us last season when a batsman was walking at Fergie, maybe upto 5 metres down the track. He continued to flick Fergs over square and ofcourse took the LBW out of the equation. We combated this by some quick thinking by the bowler Fergie and Paynie, the point fieldsman. Fergie saw the batsman coming again and bowled the ball to the Paynie (at point) who was running in towards the stumps. The umpire called wide but Paynie (at point) ran in and whipped the bails off in his follow through and the batsman was giving out run out. A bit of a furore took place but the decision stood. Probably not our preferred mode of dismissal and outside the good spirit in which we normally play but good thinking by Fergie and Paynie at point. IMO it was the batsman who was cheating and we had no regrets.

The reason for the controversy was that the batsman thought that Paynie actually took the ball in front of the wickets and should have been a no ball. Paynie clearly took it behind the stumps (backward point) and dislodged the bails fairly and hence the correct decision by Terry.

Beaver probably the only mistake you made was not executing and being too honest and respecting the spirit of the game. However some times you have to stoop.

__________________
donthassellthehoff


Status: Offline
Posts: 471
Date:
Permalink Closed

If Campbell could get a turf one wicket this would not be an issue

__________________

The Hoff is looking for a change of club. Anyone interested please contact my misses as she runs my life and will bargain for the right price.
Mr_NoBody


Status: Offline
Posts: 165
Date:
Permalink Closed

donthassellthehoff wrote:

well i'll be fuked if anyone can make sense of half of that highpants.


hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha......cant stop laughing.all i can say beaver,ur one weird unit....hahahahaha

 



__________________
Darrel Hair


Status: Offline
Posts: 103
Date:
Permalink Closed

Batsmen are not allowed to take their stance in the protected area but can move into that area while making a shot. After the shot is made the batsman must stay out of the protected area while running between wickets.

So SS your scenario is within the law but Beaver's isn't on the protected area that is.
The batting side gets one warning then when a second occurrence happens by any batsman from the batting side runs are disallowed and offending player reported for misdemeanour if deliberate.

__________________

I thunk I hadd a misspelt youth
G Train


Status: Offline
Posts: 4528
Date:
Permalink Closed



well i'll be fuked if anyone can make sense of half of that highpants.



haha i'm with you hoffman...


-- Edited by G Train on Monday 8th of February 2010 09:12:02 AM

__________________

LRQ - Laughing Really Quietly. Get on it!
«First  <  1 2 | Page of 2  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
"The Bloods" Cricket Chat Forum -> DDCA News -> Rules
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard