Received: by 10.68.227.67 with SMTP id ry3mr938698pbc.8.1344227693567; Sun, 05 Aug 2012 21:34:53 -0700 (PDT) Path: c10ni88540pbw.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: jzfredricks Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket Subject: Re: Finn and dead balls Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 21:34:53 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 29 Message-ID: References: <19b44878-2172-4bb0-9837-fc55c74d0f75@w8g2000vbx.googlegroups.com> <1d22d686-151f-4daf-a2e5-d46519d7162b@googlegroups.com> <28340f9e-6efb-464a-9b39-3480c2639978@l30g2000vbj.googlegroups.com> <9a5e1dc3-b78b-4999-a6f3-63ca23d99362@a4g2000vbt.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 119.161.75.112 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1344227693 14863 127.0.0.1 (6 Aug 2012 04:34:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 04:34:53 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=119.161.75.112; posting-account=4Arn9AoAAABp1jqIZ1FDiINYowPTi37Z User-Agent: G2/1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Monday, August 6, 2012 1:25:51 PM UTC+10, Gilly's Danda wrote: > > I hate what I call "intent based Laws", ie ones where we expect the umpire to read a player's mind. This is similar, as we're expecting the ump to decide if the event was distracting. > Why do you hate them? Because humans can't read minds, and therefore mistakes ARE made. How many? No idea.. we can't read minds. > As a general principle, it seems fair to most people that the bowler shouldn't knock the bails when bowling, for a number of reasons - the inability to bring about a run-out afterwards seems most persuasive to me; This particular dead-ball Laws is there for one reason - to protect the batsman. >if a good batsman isn't distracted by calls about biscuits when facing Shane Warne at the SCG or a crowed of 90,000 at Eden Gardens, the sound of the bails being clipped shouldn't do much either. You say shouldn't, as if there's one acceptable standard for all players. Whilst I personally believe the main reason Smith and Co complained was simply to get under Finn's skin, there's a good chance the complaint was genuine. And if THIS complaint wasn't, surely we can agree that at other times it will be. Davis obviously agrees on this. >Whether a bowler does so as a one-off or habitually seems to be a fair factor to take into account. Why? It seems entirely unfair to me. >Otherwise, why have umpires at all? The idea of having someone there at the coal-face seems to me to suggest that the guardians of the laws think some form of discretion is both useful and helpful to the conduct of the game To rule on black and white issues. Did it pitch in line etc. Not to read someone's mind and decide if he (or, worse, "A Standard Batsman") was distracted enough by "This Event" to call a dead-ball. We have Max saying they shouldn't have been dead-ball, and Davis calling them dead-ball. 2 umpires I respect. Who is right? If we agree it's a distraction, then add a punishment to stop recidivism.