Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
"The Bloods" Cricket Chat Forum -> DDCA News -> St Marys v Berwick
Post Info TOPIC: St Marys v Berwick
PRINGLES


Status: Offline
Posts: 536
Date:
RE: St Marys v Berwick
Permalink Closed

ExElpres wrote:

I've been told the umpire said because they werent over 80 in front (they were exactly 80 in front) they couldn't make St Marys follow on. Funny that the rules say "Not less than 80". Unless im mistaken, the umpire may have royally f@#ked this one in the arse...........


          Spot on ExEl Thats exactly whats happened
          Dont suppose it matters after last years shambles in rnd 11
          most sides will still be alive again by that stage this year and then
          who the faark knows what will happen  

 



__________________
ExElpres


Status: Offline
Posts: 214
Date:
Permalink Closed

How did both umpires not realise 80 was "not less than 80"?!

Seriously, what was their reasoning?!

__________________
I don't play cricket anymore....
G Train


Status: Offline
Posts: 4528
Date:
Permalink Closed

One of the umpires said that he had read the rule 6 or more times during the week. they simply just did not understand it. Baffling isn't it?

__________________

LRQ - Laughing Really Quietly. Get on it!
ExElpres


Status: Offline
Posts: 214
Date:
Permalink Closed

I would have thought after the 5th time he read it, he may have considered seeking clarification...........

__________________
I don't play cricket anymore....
Bungalow Bill


Status: Offline
Posts: 4
Date:
Permalink Closed

I love John Lennon for penning a story about me in song.

__________________
Bungalow Bill


Status: Offline
Posts: 4
Date:
Permalink Closed

http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/The-Continuing-Story-of-Bungalow-Bill-lyrics-The-Beatles/06EF84EB3923334B48256BC200212B88

__________________
ExElpres


Status: Offline
Posts: 214
Date:
Permalink Closed

PRINGLES wrote:

ExElpres wrote:

I've been told the umpire said because they werent over 80 in front (they were exactly 80 in front) they couldn't make St Marys follow on. Funny that the rules say "Not less than 80". Unless im mistaken, the umpire may have royally f@#ked this one in the arse...........


          Spot on ExEl Thats exactly whats happened
          Dont suppose it matters after last years shambles in rnd 11
          most sides will still be alive again by that stage this year and then
          who the faark knows what will happen  

 



Anything from our friends at headquaters about this yet, or is it in "too hard basket" like most items of this nature ??? 



__________________
I don't play cricket anymore....
bushIE


Status: Offline
Posts: 56
Date:
Permalink Closed

paul evans given a 1 week suspended sentence after being reported in this game

__________________

potihjkc
Number_1_Scorer


Status: Offline
Posts: 133
Date:
Permalink Closed

What about Gav Wills? I heard he was reported to.

__________________
Get the Red Ink out.
bushIE


Status: Offline
Posts: 56
Date:
Permalink Closed

i heard the same but only paul evans 2 or 3 charges apparently

__________________

potihjkc
Jake the Mus


Status: Offline
Posts: 947
Date:
Permalink Closed

Abusive language to a player and misconduct to the umpires.
Reprimand on 1st charge and 1 match suspended for the 2nd

__________________

The Original Kiwi
theshadow


Status: Offline
Posts: 58
Date:
Permalink Closed

Tiger wrote:

Sheepy u r a complete tossa. Ur basically saying u would cheat if in st marys position.

There has been plenty of time keysy has had just 1 cover down when going to lose, as usual, but i find it funny that when in a posistion to win u had extra covers out there all this week. Basically saying not very honest down there.


Merry Christmas Tiger hope you recieve a brain as a present its your only hope

 



-- Edited by theshadow on Friday 24th of December 2010 11:43:31 PM

__________________
ExElpres


Status: Offline
Posts: 214
Date:
Permalink Closed

PRINGLES wrote:

 

ExElpres wrote:

I've been told the umpire said because they werent over 80 in front (they were exactly 80 in front) they couldn't make St Marys follow on. Funny that the rules say "Not less than 80". Unless im mistaken, the umpire may have royally f@#ked this one in the arse...........


          Spot on ExEl Thats exactly whats happened
          Dont suppose it matters after last years shambles in rnd 11
          most sides will still be alive again by that stage this year and then
          who the faark knows what will happen  

 




-- Edited by ExElpres on Tuesday 4th of January 2011 12:06:30 PM

__________________
I don't play cricket anymore....
«First  <  1 2 3 | Page of 3  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

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


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard