IPL Cricket back on ITV4

[Paul Hyett]

Not for the cricket purists of course, but it's about the only cricket
you can now watch on UK TV, without being ripped off by premium rates.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

[xd18911]

Paul Hyett <p...@invalid.invalid> wrote in news:F1jEpUgZrpfPFwM9
@blueyonder.co.uk:

> Not for the cricket purists of course, but it's about the only cricket
> you can now watch on UK TV, without being ripped off by premium rates.

I shall stick with listening on the radio to the proper game

[AC]

Paul Hyett wrote:
> Not for the cricket purists of course, but it's about the only cricket
> you can now watch on UK TV, without being ripped off by premium rates.

Cricket not worth it? Hm.

--
AC

[Steve Hague]

You may have a radio. I have a wireless.
Steve Hague

[andrew fox]

this cute gesture of defiance isn't going to stop pay for view ....

andrew

[Colin Reed]

Steam driven?

[Paul Hyett]

On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 at 08:27:21, Paul Hyett <p...@invalid.invalid> wrote
in uk.sport.cricket :

>Not for the cricket purists of course, but it's about the only cricket
>you can now watch on UK TV, without being ripped off by premium rates.

Spectacular hitting from Chris Gayle yesterday - 5 consecutive sixes!!
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

[Michael Gooding]

On Apr 18, 7:56 am, Paul Hyett <p...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Spectacular hitting from Chris Gayle yesterday - 5 consecutive sixes!!
>

Great game, that, Gayle on form and PdV playng some outrageous shots.
I have to admit, slightly shamefacedly, that T20 is about the only
version I've got the patience to watch these days, even if I've
completely forgotten who played whom 2 days later.

Mike Gooding
--------------------

[Paul Hyett]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 at 03:29:06, Michael Gooding
<michael...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in uk.media.tv.misc :

I just wonder how long before the commentators, in talking live to a
fielder, cause him to drop a catch...
--
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

[David North]

"Paul Hyett" <p...@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dtuC$DecWu...@blueyonder.co.uk...

Talking to the square-leg umpire while the ball is being bowled doesn't seem
particularly sensible either. Next thing they'll be chatting to the batsman
as he's receiving a delivery, or have I missed that one already?
--
David North

[Paul Hyett]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 at 20:22:49, David North
<dno...@abbeymanor.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in uk.media.tv.misc :

>>
>> I just wonder how long before the commentators, in talking live to a
>>fielder, cause him to drop a catch...
>
>Talking to the square-leg umpire while the ball is being bowled doesn't
>seem particularly sensible either. Next thing they'll be chatting to
>the batsman as he's receiving a delivery, or have I missed that one
>already?

I wonder if players are contractually obliged to be miked-up
occasionally, or whether they have the option to refuse?

[David North]

"Paul Hyett" <p...@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote in message

news:SmVxN1lx...@blueyonder.co.uk...

I suppose if they didn't want to do it, they could always be utterly boring,
"accidentally" slip in the odd four-letter word at a moment of excitement,
sing badly, etc, to avoid being asked again.
--
David North

[Graham P Davis]

The previous game that day was pretty good too. Shame yesterday's was
spoilt by this daft change to playing conditions in not allowing a
runner for an injured batsman. If the sole aim in life of the ICC was the ruination of cricket, they couldn't have done a better job.


--
Graham Davis, Bracknell, Berks. E-mail: change boy to man
LibreOffice: http://www.documentfoundation.org/
openSUSE Linux: http://www.opensuse.org/en/

[Mike Holmans]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:57:25 +0100, Graham P Davis
<new...@scarlet-jade.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 07:56:02 +0100
>Paul Hyett <p...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 at 08:27:21, Paul Hyett <p...@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote in uk.sport.cricket :
>>
>> >Not for the cricket purists of course, but it's about the only
>> >cricket you can now watch on UK TV, without being ripped off by
>> >premium rates.
>>
>> Spectacular hitting from Chris Gayle yesterday - 5 consecutive sixes!!
>
>The previous game that day was pretty good too. Shame yesterday's was
>spoilt by this daft change to playing conditions in not allowing a
>runner for an injured batsman. If the sole aim in life of the ICC was the ruination of cricket, they couldn't have done a better job.

The ICC has nothing to do with the IPL's playing conditions, so the
point of your comment is a bit lost on me.

Cheers,

Mike
--

[Paul Hyett]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 at 03:29:06, Michael Gooding
<michael...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in uk.media.tv.misc :

Kevin Pietersen was amazing today - 103* including 9 sixes, with the
last one winning the match & taking him to his hundred at the same time!

[mike]

On Apr 19, 5:19 pm, Paul Hyett <p...@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 at 03:29:06, Michael Gooding

> <michaelgood...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in uk.media.tv.misc :

i wish i could have seen it, but the matches seem to be only on live,
and over by the time i got home. do itv have a highlights show hidden
away in their schedules perhaps in the middle of the night?

is petersen coming back to the sort of form and domination with
the ball that he had before his injury a few years back?

mike

[Paul Hyett]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 at 08:08:09, mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
uk.media.tv.misc :

>>
>> Kevin Pietersen was amazing today - 103* including 9 sixes, with the
>> last one winning the match & taking him to his hundred at the same time!
>

>i wish i could have seen it, but the matches seem to be only on live,
>and over by the time i got home. do itv have a highlights show hidden
>away in their schedules perhaps in the middle of the night?

I use one of these new-fangled devices than can record TV programs to
watch later... :p

>
>is petersen coming back to the sort of form and domination with
>the ball that he had before his injury a few years back?

I assume you meant 'the bat', though he did actually bowl a couple of
overs yesterday.

[Graham P Davis]

The ICC change relates to all international cricket so we can expect to
see more matches spoilt by their idiotic decision.

[Mike Holmans]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 10:35:47 +0100, Graham P Davis

<new...@scarlet-jade.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:17:05 +0100
>Mike Holmans <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:57:25 +0100, Graham P Davis
>> <new...@scarlet-jade.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>> >The previous game that day was pretty good too. Shame yesterday's was
>> >spoilt by this daft change to playing conditions in not allowing a
>> >runner for an injured batsman. If the sole aim in life of the ICC
>> >was the ruination of cricket, they couldn't have done a better job.
>>
>> The ICC has nothing to do with the IPL's playing conditions, so the
>> point of your comment is a bit lost on me.
>>
>
>The ICC change relates to all international cricket so we can expect to
>see more matches spoilt by their idiotic decision.

Yes, the ICC's change relates to international cricket.

So why are you blaming them for the playing conditions in the IPL,
which is a domestic competition run by the BCCI?

Cheers,

Mike
--

[Graham P Davis]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 14:16:50 +0100

Mike Holmans <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 10:35:47 +0100, Graham P Davis
> <new...@scarlet-jade.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
> >On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:17:05 +0100
> >Mike Holmans <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:57:25 +0100, Graham P Davis
> >> <new...@scarlet-jade.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
> >> >The previous game that day was pretty good too. Shame yesterday's
> >> >was spoilt by this daft change to playing conditions in not
> >> >allowing a runner for an injured batsman. If the sole aim in life
> >> >of the ICC was the ruination of cricket, they couldn't have done
> >> >a better job.
> >>
> >> The ICC has nothing to do with the IPL's playing conditions, so the
> >> point of your comment is a bit lost on me.
> >>
> >
> >The ICC change relates to all international cricket so we can expect
> >to see more matches spoilt by their idiotic decision.
>
> Yes, the ICC's change relates to international cricket.
>
> So why are you blaming them for the playing conditions in the IPL,
> which is a domestic competition run by the BCCI?
>

I accept that ICC are not responsible for the playing conditions in the
IPL. However, BCCI are applying the same playing conditions regarding
runners as ICC have laid down for international cricket. If the rule
is detrimental to the game of cricket, as I believe has been amply
demonstrated, I fail to see how ICC can escape the blame. I just hope
that the ICC come to their senses - if they have any - and ditch this
idea ASAP.

[tim....]

"Graham P Davis" <new...@scarlet-jade.com> wrote in message
news:20120421213021.341bd786@home-1...

Nas it been amply demonstrated.

How often does it actually happen?

A couple of tests per year, worldwide, perhaps?

and how many times have the new rules applied?

tim

[Graham P Davis]

I don't know how many times the rule has been applied since it came
into force last year on Oct 1st. Even if it is only applied in a couple
of tests per year, does that make it any less stupid?

In this IPL match, Gilchrist was going well and a pulled muscle meant he
had to retire hurt instead of being allowed a runner. The Kings XI
innings lost all momentum at that point. It spoilt the game for me.

I simply don't understand the need for the change. Perhaps if the ICC
ruled soccer, they'd go back to having no substitutes.

[Unknown]

We don't know how many times it has happened, no real way of telling.
Nobody can ask for a runner now so there isn't much info to make a
comparison..
Is the runner rule for all ICC games? If so it happens a lot more than
a couple of times a year.

max.it

[Mike Holmans]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 21:30:21 +0100, Graham P Davis

<new...@scarlet-jade.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

I don't believe it's been amply demonstrated.

I don't agree with it applying in Test cricket, but I've no problem
with it at all in limited-over stuff. Far too often, batsmen who
aren't very quick on their feet "pull muscles" and get a runner who is
much faster than they are. It's too late now to deal with Arjuna
Runnertunga, but his heirs and successors at least have had their guns
spiked.

The reason for not agreeing with it in Test cricket is that it
prevents an injured batsman from holding an end while someone at the
other end attempts to save the match. What I would therefore do is
allow a runner for an injured batsman once nine wickets are down. That
way someone who gets injured can retire hurt and come back at the end
if necessary. (OK, we might have to tweak it if there were multiple
retired-hurts, but you get the idea.)

Cheers,

Mike

--

[Unknown]

Or if it's Gayle he wouldn't need a runner if he gets hurt.

I have no problem with a runner, it's bat and ball fair. A fielder can
go off the ground and get a substitute if he has a blister on his
foot. The blister won't prevent him from catching the ball. It might
prevent him from getting his carcass into the best position to make a
catch. If a fielder is injured the team gets a whole new body, poor
oul injured batsman get's to bat and attempt to operate someone else's
legs as well.

max.it

[Paul Hyett]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 at 21:30:21, Graham P Davis
<new...@scarlet-jade.com> wrote in uk.media.tv.misc :

>
>I accept that ICC are not responsible for the playing conditions in the
>IPL. However, BCCI are applying the same playing conditions regarding
>runners as ICC have laid down for international cricket. If the rule
>is detrimental to the game of cricket, as I believe has been amply
>demonstrated, I fail to see how ICC can escape the blame. I just hope
>that the ICC come to their senses - if they have any - and ditch this
>idea ASAP.
>

I see no reason *not* to allow runners for someone injured during the
match, or at very least, during their current innings.

[awa...@yahoo.com]

but Ive rarely seen a runner last more than a few overs, because they always
screw it up, its got to be the one thing teams dont practice that often and
you get the "yes, no, wait, oh sorry" run-out comedy with usually 3 people
running between the wicket as the injured player always forgets not to run,
and then it confuses the umpires and fielding team about whose doing what.

it makes it alot simpler to remove them. and dont forget if you retire hurt,
your not out, you can return in the innings, which to the batting side might
actually be more useful.

[David North]

<awa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:wYOdneBY7fYXfQ7S...@giganews.com...

Just because runners often cause mix-ups by the batting side, and the
batsman might be better off retiring and returning later, it doesn't seem to
me to be a good reason for banning them. After all, no-one is forcing the
batting side to use one rather than retiring the injured batsman, and if
they choose the wrong option, that's up to them.
--
David North

[Light of Aria]

"Paul Hyett" wrote in message news:F1jEpUgZ...@blueyonder.co.uk...

Not for the cricket purists of course, but it's about the only cricket
you can now watch on UK TV, without being ripped off by premium rates.

--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham




----

Thanks to the so-called "ECB", I've not watched cricket since the day
England won the Ashes in 2005 (on Channel 4).

Obviously it is better for English cricket to be owned and viewed by 100,000
Sky subscribers rather than 5 million free to air viewers so I bow to their
greater wisdom. ;-/