Stumping by substitute wicketkeeper
Aslam Siddiqui
Here is a list of all stumpings in Test matches made by a team-mate
substituting for the appointed wicketkeeper:
Subs WK App WK Victim/s
RJ Christiani CL Walcott Ghulam Ahmed WI v Ind Calcutta 1948-49
SA Banerjee
VL Manjrekar ES Maka CL Walcott Ind v WI Port-of-Spain 1952-53
JR Reid EC Petrie PE Richardson NZ v Eng Manchester 1958
CW Smith JL Hendriks RF Surti WI v Ind Port-of-Spain 1961-62
Javed Miandad Taslim Arif AR Border Pak v Aus Lahore 1979-80
Aamer Malik Salim Yousuf RB Richardson Pak v WI Bridgetown 1987-88
SV Manjrekar N Mongia CL Hooper Ind v WI Chandigarh 1994-95
Salim Elahi Moin Khan A Ranatunga Pak v SL Colombo 1996-97
Mohd Wasim Moin Khan PL Symcox Pak v RSA Rawalpindi 1997-98
Mohd Wasim Mushtaq Ahmed CEL Ambrose Pak v WI Peshawar 1997-98
Stumped by a substitute not originally in the side:
NC Tufnell H Strudwick SJ Snooke Eng v RSA Durban 1909-10
BE Congdon AE Dick Pervez Sajjad NZ v Pak Lahore 1964-65
aslam
GO COLTS!!!
Manas Mandal
Umm, I know Mushtaq Ahmed was the Appointed Destroyer in the above test,
but I somehow feel he was not the App WK for the test.
:-)
bak
--
:Manas Mandal PSP Performance:
: International Business Machines Corporation:
:man...@austin.ibm.com 11400 Burnet Road, Austin, TX 78758 USA:
HansA...@hotmail.com
I was wondering about the last bit about substitutes doing the
stumpings. Maybe I just didn't understand you, but I was under the
impression that the 12th man or substitute was not allowed to bat, bowl
or wicket-keep. He's only allowed to field if I remember correctly.
Not that I'd question you; but just hoping for some clarification.
Mike Holmans
In general, this is true. However, though the 12th man doesn't keep
wicket, it is usual for one of the fielders in the XI to don the pads
and drop caught-behind chances. On occasion, with the consent of the
batting captain, a substitute may keep wicket. Bob Taylor kept wicket
for an hour or so in a Lord's Test Match which he happened to be
attending when the England keeper was suddenly indisposed.
Cheers,
Mike
Bob Dubery
On Tue, 25 Nov 1997 05:02:31 -0600, HansA...@hotmail.com wrote:
>I was wondering about the last bit about substitutes doing the
>stumpings. Maybe I just didn't understand you, but I was under the
>impression that the 12th man or substitute was not allowed to bat, bowl
>or wicket-keep. He's only allowed to field if I remember correctly.
That's correct - but the 12th man can take the field and one of the
appointed 11 can take over the gloves.
Now the laws just say that no substitute may act as a wicket keeper,
but I recall that some years back Bob Taylor - by then retired - was
at a test during which the England keeper (French?) was injured. With
the approval of the visiting captain and the umpires Taylor was
allowed to keep wicket.
Bob Dubery
***************************************************
The adresses shown in the header are bogus.
Unknot this:
mega...@knotglobal.co.za
for my e-mail address
*****************************************************
Donald Rose
HansA...@hotmail.com wrote in article <347AB0...@hotmail.com>...
> I was wondering about the last bit about substitutes doing the
> stumpings. Maybe I just didn't understand you, but I was under the
> impression that the 12th man or substitute was not allowed to bat, bowl
> or wicket-keep. He's only allowed to field if I remember correctly.
The Laws specifically deny anyone not in the declared starting team to act
as a substitute 'keeper.
What I would love to know is that with the new playing conditions for
Sheffield Shield cricket which allows a Shield team to bowl or bat the 12th
man does this allow for a specialist 'keeper as well?
In case anyone does not understand this new condition. A Sheffield
Shield team can now insert the 12th man into the batting line-up in
replacement of one of the bowlers.
One of the motivations for this was that we were seeing fine first class
cricketers sitting out several matches in a row and acting as drinks
waiters. Then, when brought into the top XI they lacked match practice.
Now you can have a specialist batsman who will only take the field as a
sub. and a specialist bowler who will not bat. Think about it, it makes
sense.
I would love to see this in Test cricket. Who really wants to see McGrath,
C.Walsh or Devon Malcolm bat? the only concern in Test cricket is that by
inserting another specialist bat into Test lineups could alter the balance
and create more drawn matches (Yuk!).
Any more opinions?
--
Rosebud
"People should think things out fresh and
not just accept conventional terms and the
conventional way of doing things"
- R. Buckminster Fuller (Bucky)
Internet: dr...@novation.com.au
Phone: 61 (0)411 554 514
Fax: 61 2 9891 1771
Bob Dubery
On 26 Nov 1997 02:44:56 GMT, "Donald Rose"
<dr...@removethisnovation.com.au> wrote:
>I would love to see this in Test cricket. Who really wants to see McGrath,
>C.Walsh or Devon Malcolm bat? the only concern in Test cricket is that by
>inserting another specialist bat into Test lineups could alter the balance
>and create more drawn matches (Yuk!).
>
>Any more opinions?
That's a rhetorical question, right?
I like Cricket the way it is - 11 players who must do it all between
them.
Yes, that can mean having a few bunnies in the side, but some times
the tail can really wag - and this can be most entertaining.
Running through the tail was always one of the skills required of a
strike bowler. And it is a skill. In some ways specialist batsmen are
easier to bowl at because they have worked out a particular method and
play in accordance. Tailenders play unpredictably, they might swing
mightily at the straight, good length balls and leave the bad ones
alone. A tailender with chutzpah can produce some entertaining cricket
and induce despair, even panic, in the fielding side.
If bowlers had not batted, SA would still have won the test against
Pakistan at the Wanderers, but we would not have had the pleasure -
and it was a pleasure - of seeing Fanie de Villiers hit Waqar for 6
and playing perfect reverse sweeps.
What about May and Warne. Didn't they bat out time to save a match for
Australia? That was a heroic deed performed by 2 tail enders - and as
worthy in it's way as Atherton's famous knock at the Wanderers.
Or what about Symcox in Pakistan? If he'd played as a designated
bowler then we'd have missed a truly heroic innings and the course of
the match would have been radically changed. With the possible
exception of Gary Kirsten, Symcox out did all the specialist batsmen
amongst his team mates.
A cricket match of specialist bowlers bowling to specialist batsman
would be an impoverished game.
Donald bowling to Walsh, for example, has a certain edge to it because
if Donald bowls a bouncer he must now expect retaliation. It's one of
those little games within games that makes Test cricket the most
fascinating game of all.
Besides, if bowlers weren't allowed to bat then South Africa would
hardly win a game ;-)
For all those reasons - and many more I'm sure - things should stay
the way they are.
David Whaley
In article <347ad096...@news.axion.bt.co.uk>,
mhol...@dircon.co.uk (Mike Holmans) wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Nov 1997 05:02:31 -0600, HansA...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>I was wondering about the last bit about substitutes doing the
>>stumpings. Maybe I just didn't understand you, but I was under the
>>impression that the 12th man or substitute was not allowed to bat, bowl
>>or wicket-keep. He's only allowed to field if I remember correctly.
>>Not that I'd question you; but just hoping for some clarification.
>
>In general, this is true. However, though the 12th man doesn't keep
>wicket, it is usual for one of the fielders in the XI to don the pads
>and drop caught-behind chances. On occasion, with the consent of the
>batting captain, a substitute may keep wicket. Bob Taylor kept wicket
>for an hour or so in a Lord's Test Match which he happened to be
>attending when the England keeper was suddenly indisposed.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mike
Mike
The Law was changed after the Bob Taylor incident. A substitute cannot bat,
bowl, keep wicket or captain the side. The later may seem strange but it
has been done in the past.
Cheers
David Whaley
Mike Holmans
Bob Dubery <elvis@the_king.org> felt like saying:
>On 26 Nov 1997 02:44:56 GMT, "Donald Rose"
><dr...@removethisnovation.com.au> wrote:
>
>>I would love to see this in Test cricket. Who really wants to see McGrath,
>>C.Walsh or Devon Malcolm bat? the only concern in Test cricket is that by
>>inserting another specialist bat into Test lineups could alter the balance
>>and create more drawn matches (Yuk!).
>>
>>Any more opinions?
>That's a rhetorical question, right?
>
>I like Cricket the way it is - 11 players who must do it all between
>them.
>
good thing and should be encouraged>
I'm not going to disagree with Bob at all, but I'd like to add in a few
more points.
First, I understand the reasoning behind what they're doing in the
Shield, at least as Donald explains it. I don't want to spark a
county/Shield war, here, but I would observe that one of the pros of the
English system is that, in general, all the players in a county's top 15
or 16 will get a run out in the middle on about a weekly basis. As I
say, I'm not into wargames here: there's plenty else wrong with the
English system, just let's not overlook the odd little point in its
favour.
But this is not an argument which could possibly apply for Test cricket.
As a Test selector, you are hardly unreasonably restricted in your pool
of players from which to select an XI from match to match. At home, your
reserves will be playing in their domestic first-class programme,
abroad, you've got the 'tween-Test matches to give people match
practice, and if you don't -- that's your lookout.
And here the operative word is 'select'. At the top level, a match
starts before the toss: it starts in team selection. The number of
players in a team, 11, is very finely balanced. You've got to be
supremely confident about your bowling to go into a Test with only four
bowlers on the team. Every captain would want a fifth option.
And it makes a difference about your wicketkeeper too. Do you go for the
best wicketkeeper, or do runs come in handy? They certainly did when Jim
Parks played for England: there was hardly a worse keeper on the county
circuit (maybe that's a bit of an exaggeration, but); Bob Taylor was
probably worth a wicket a series more than Alan Knott, but Knotty's
250-300 extra runs got him the berth; and if anyone is going to tell me
that Rod Marsh was the best keeper in Australia in his first two or
three years as a Test player, I will either question their sanity or
marvel at how appallingly low Australian standards must have been at the
time.
Returning to your bowlers, there's also the factor of what sort of pitch
it is, and who you think is going to bat for the opposition. Have you
got any capable spinners? If so, and sometimes you haven't, how many and
what sort do you want? And then how many quickies can you have? Now it
becomes important whether or not you've got an all-rounder available.
You can only win a Test Match by taking 20 wickets (quiet, you pedants
at the back there -- you *know* what I mean). Test Match selection is
about providing the captain with the means to take them whilst shoe-
horning in enough runs to defend. Knowing that you have five bowlers
guaranteed, with probably a sixth part-timer, dulls the keen edge of
risk in trying to select the right side for a particular match.
It is now true in most countries that the point of the domestic first-
class and f-c-associated (such as one-day comps) game is to provide the
selection pool for the national side. That was not always the case, of
course. Many people used to feel that the County Championship was the
important competition, and that the Test Matches were an entertaining
sideshow, especially as they didn't get Test Matches every summer. And
didn't some chap play in the Varsity Match rather than a Test on one
occasion? Even before this XII innovation in Australia, the game was
organised far more with the composition of the Test team in mind than it
had been 20 years ago.
I understand the reasoning Donald adumbrated, although I don't entirely
approve: more because of the slippery slope angle than on major
principle in a Test Match-centric environment.
But I would hate to diminish the difficulty of selecting the right
number of the right players to do battle.
Cheers,
Mike
(I may well not see the continuation of this thread, unfortunately, as I
am getting married on Saturday, which seems more than adequate
compensation)
The exciting AFU FAQ, and many other things, may be found at
http://www.urbanlegends.com
Simon Thompson
On Wed, 26 Nov 1997 17:58:21, elvis@the_king.org (Bob Dubery) wrote:
> On 26 Nov 1997 02:44:56 GMT, "Donald Rose"
> <dr...@removethisnovation.com.au> wrote:
>
> >I would love to see this in Test cricket. Who really wants to see McGrath,
> >C.Walsh or Devon Malcolm bat? the only concern in Test cricket is that by
> >inserting another specialist bat into Test lineups could alter the balance
> >and create more drawn matches (Yuk!).
> >
> >Any more opinions?
> That's a rhetorical question, right?
>
> I like Cricket the way it is - 11 players who must do it all between
> them.
[snip]
> For all those reasons - and many more I'm sure - things should stay
> the way they are.
Basically I am with you. The only exception might be in allowing a
replacement, or even replacements, for injuries sustained during a
match. Why should a team only bat 10 players because one is injured?
Or be a bowler short because one is injured?
There would need to be careful rules to make sure this is not abused,
but could be worth consideration.
If you allowed only one replacement, then the selection of the twelth
man becomes more interesting.
-----------------------------------------
Simon Thompson
Christchurch
New Zealand
Mike Holmans
Simon Thompson <nwt...@ibm.net> felt like saying:
I can understand the point of a batting substitute. It does seem
desperately hard that a fielding accident, or, worse, a batting
accident, can effectively take a wicket.
But bowling substitutes cannot be on. How many fast bowlers are going to
turn their ankles on a wearing pitch when there's a spinner cooling his
heels in the dressing room? It's just impossible to police. And losing
one bowler when there's five in the side ought to be bearable. If you've
only selected four, then you've got a problem, but I think that's part
of the selectors' job, as I said in my previous post.
Cheers,
Mike
Kip
Donald Rose <dr...@removethisnovation.com.au> wrote in article
<01bcfa15$465d2d20$08188bca@drose>...[reference to keeper as sub snipped]
> Sheffield Shield cricket which allows a Shield team to bowl or bat the
12th
> man does this allow for a specialist 'keeper as well?
>
> In case anyone does not understand this new condition. A Sheffield
> Shield team can now insert the 12th man into the batting line-up in
> replacement of one of the bowlers.
>
> One of the motivations for this was that we were seeing fine first class
> cricketers sitting out several matches in a row and acting as drinks
> waiters. Then, when brought into the top XI they lacked match practice.
> Now you can have a specialist batsman who will only take the field as a
> sub. and a specialist bowler who will not bat. Think about it, it makes
> sense.
>
McGrath,
> C.Walsh or Devon Malcolm bat? the only concern in Test cricket is that
by
> inserting another specialist bat into Test lineups could alter the
balance
> and create more drawn matches (Yuk!).
>
> Any more opinions?
Donald, personally I don't agree with this. In a sporting context you must
choose the team out of what is available to you. If one decides to play a
particular group of bowlers because of thier wicket taking ability but they
cannot bat, well therein lies the beauty of choosing a side that is well
balanced. Occasionally one may risk playing an extra batsmen or bowler,
according to situation, and if these tactics don't come to fruition then
perhaps you just have to go back to the drawing board. I may be inclined
to agree with this thought process if in replacing the player (batsman for
example) then he is considered replaced and cannot take any further part in
the match. If as you mention a player is not getting enough match practise
then the selectors must rather let him play for the 2nd side (or whatever
side is appropriate). IMO if Mr Malcolm or Walsh (or whoever for that
matter) are forced to come to the wicket with an hour of play left and
manage to bat out the day to save the Test match, well that's the idea.
The player has shown dedication and concentration (and no doubt a bit of
luck) and defied the odds. In fact I find these situations can be quite a
tense and entertaining affair. I say choose your best team if this means
that you only play your top 9 players in the country and 2 others that have
worked on their game in order that they give the team better options then
so be it. I like the fact that players must show the neccessary desire to
be in the team and if this means that a bowler who should spend some time
in the nets and doesn't is left out for the bowler who spends time
improving his batting then the player who worked the hardest deserves his
place. If the bowler is in fact a "walking wicket" then one must choose
your side so that it has the appropriate players to score the runs to
ensure that his contribition is not needed. It is this selection process
whereby you have only 11 places to fill that (to me) is part of the
intrigue of the game and adds to the enjoyment.
Regards Kip
Bob Dubery
>The Law was changed after the Bob Taylor incident. A substitute cannot bat,
>bowl, keep wicket or captain the side. The later may seem strange but it
>has been done in the past.
I can't find any objection in the rules to a substitute captaining the
side - though I agree that it would be a strange decision to make.
It's interesting because - theoretically - if Woolmer thought that
Cronje was really making a hash of things he could send himself on to
the field - if the opposing captain did not object - and take control.
Unlikely, very unlikely, but possible.
Besides, even if this *did* occur how can one prove that Woolmer is,
in fact, the captain of the side and Cronje has been deposed?
Gerald Brodribb notes that records suggest that until 1845 the
deployment of the substitute was even more limited - he could not
field at point, cover-point or long-stop. Thereafter the laws stated
only that the substitute may not bat, bowl or keep wicket.
My copy of Next Man In is the 1995 revision - and it makes no mention
of the Taylor incident. It does, however, cite earlier examples of
substitutes - sometimes skilled substitutes - keeping wicket. The
first of these noted is was the Oval Test of 1905 when the Australian
captain, Jones, allowed the 12th man to act as 'keeper.
This is, of course, not according to the rules. But it's hard to see
what can be done if the captains and the officiating umpires allow
such a situation to arise.
Bob Dubery
On 27 Nov 97 04:54:19 GMT, nwt...@ibm.net (Simon Thompson) wrote:
>Basically I am with you. The only exception might be in allowing a
>replacement, or even replacements, for injuries sustained during a
>match. Why should a team only bat 10 players because one is injured?
>Or be a bowler short because one is injured?
I have two answers to that question - one glib and one more
philosophical.
The glib answer: because those are the rules. The game has rules - as
do all games - and all rules become restrictive at some point.
Philosophical (take cover!): because life's like that - and Test
cricket is the game that most closely mirrors the vagaries of life.
Life has a beginning and an end - and everything else in between -
that do not necessarily have much to do with each other. A birth into
a rich family with a leisurely lifestyle does not guarantee a life of
ease. A lowly birth - though a considerable setback - does not condemn
one to eternal poverty and obscurity.
Mismatched starts and finishes? Think no further than Headingley 1981.
How did Australia contrive to lose that match? They had a marvellous
start, they enforced the follow on, they needed 130 runs to win when
they batted again.
They lost...
Or Pakistan in the 3rd test of the recent SA/Pakistan series. That was
defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.
Life, and cricket, can both be unpredictable. They can both be beset
by bad luck, by poor judgement. They can both be unspeakably dull for
long periods of time. Both seldom go according to plan.
Cricket is perhaps the most illogical of games. Nobody moving to a new
country now and devising games to play would come up with something
like cricket - something that doesn't even guarantee a result. They'd
"invent" Baseball, or Soccer (complete with penalty shootouts) or Grid
Iron Football or .... well you name it.
These are not bad games, but they are less complex, more logical, less
sophisticated than Cricket. They are virtually guaranteed to produce a
winner and a loser. But are they richer games? They are not.
Proper Cricket (by which I mean, in the late 20th century, *Test*
Cricket) can be the most absorbing game of all, the most
unpredictable, the most treacherous - and ultimately the most
satisfying.
Cricket without it's eccentricities, it's lapses into the illogical
would be a good game. With them it's a *marvellous* game.
It requires the compromises in selection already noted by Mike.
The number of players - 11 - is just right. You can *almost* cover the
field, but you must leave a gap or two for the batsman to exploit - or
to be tempted into trying to exploit.
It can provide a situation where a team can do everything - score a
pile of runs, take a lot of wickets quickly and yet still be denied
because some stubborn tail ender with more luck (on the day) than
skill slogs the straight balls and blocks the wide ones.
Champion batsmen can see of the finest bowlers that the opposition has
and then perish when facing a part-time off-spinner.
Matches that have no clear winner can still be exciting (I think of
the last day of the 3rd India/South Africa test at the Wanderers).
Games that are clearly fated to produce no decisive result can still
be fascinating. Individual duels between batsman and bowler form games
within the greater game.
Isn't it lovely?
That's why there are so many theories about cricket, so many books, so
many people who can study the game for years and still be surprised,
even flummoxed by it.
That's why the odds on a Test Match should never be 500:1.
And that's why we should resist efforts to tamper with it.
Ahem! I did wax rather lyrical, didn't I?
Jim Garner
"Kip" (pre...@icon.co.za) writes:
> Donald Rose <dr...@removethisnovation.com.au> wrote in article
> <01bcfa15$465d2d20$08188bca@drose>...
>> HansA...@hotmail.com wrote in article <347AB0...@hotmail.com>...
> [reference to keeper as sub snipped]
>
Yep, I agree with Kip. Just think of all the dramatic ends to cricket
matches we have seen, where two bowlers have been desperately trying to
get a half-dozen runs to win or whatever. Or where there is a good
batsman left and he is trying to farm the bowling to keep his team's
chances alive.
I remember (vaguely) a Test in which this latter situation obtained, and
the good bat hit the ball and took an easy single. The fielder stood
there and almost blew the ball over the boundary line; he gave away a
four so the attack could get after the weak last batsman (and they won!).
And then when things are less critical, there's usually a fair bit of
hilarity when the bowlers come out to wave their bats in the air,
sometimes not too effectively. But occasionally a bowler goes in as a
nightwatchman and does amazing things the next morn. Going into ancient
history, the Aussies gave Harold Larwood a standing ovation in the middle
of the bodyline crisis because he was sent in as a nightwatchman and made
98 the next day. Then there was S.C. Griffith, a wicketkeeper renowned
as an unbatsman, who was sent in as an emergency opener for England and made
140 -- the only century of his career.
Sure, it's great to see the Brian Laras carving up the attack. But take
away the tail-end batting and you take away much of the drama of cricket.
--
Jim Garner, sage and dogsbody.
an...@freenet.carleton.ca http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~an410
(613) 526-4786; 759B Springland, Ottawa, ON K1V 6L9 Canada
"The best-laid femmes go oft astray"
Simon Thompson
On Thu, 27 Nov 1997 16:48:20, elvis@the_king.org (Bob Dubery) wrote:
> On 27 Nov 97 04:54:19 GMT, nwt...@ibm.net (Simon Thompson) wrote:
>
> >Basically I am with you. The only exception might be in allowing a
> >replacement, or even replacements, for injuries sustained during a
> >match. Why should a team only bat 10 players because one is injured?
> >Or be a bowler short because one is injured?
>
> I have two answers to that question - one glib and one more
> philosophical.
>
> The glib answer: because those are the rules. The game has rules - as
> do all games - and all rules become restrictive at some point.
Rules can be changed. ;-)
> Philosophical (take cover!): because life's like that - and Test
> cricket is the game that most closely mirrors the vagaries of life.
Wow, lots of interesting arguements deleted.
There has to be a balance between change, and leaving the game static.
The game has changed. For one, there are a lot more games played. The
question is whether this would improve, or detract, from the current
game.
Many other games have changed their substituition rules without
effecting the essence of the game.
> Ahem! I did wax rather lyrical, didn't I?
Yes!
(I am not sure if I want this change; I did want the interesting
discussion that has ensued.)
Bob Dubery
On 27 Nov 1997 22:16:36 GMT, "Kip" <pre...@icon.co.za> wrote:
<snip!>
>It is this selection process
>whereby you have only 11 places to fill that (to me) is part of the
>intrigue of the game and adds to the enjoyment.
You know, it occurs to me that here on RSC - and in real life too - we
derive a lot of pleasure from talking about the game. And there is a
lot to talk about. Selection of teams, even of touring parties,
decisions, umpires, "what if...", "if only..." etc. etc.
It occurs to me too that if we start "modernising" the game we may
inadvertently deprive ourselves of one of the most pleasurable
aspects.
Think about it... a day at the cricket is a *day*. One of the
pleasures - for me - is talking about the peripheral issues of the
game: "What if they'd played Adams instead of Rhodes?" "What if they'd
taken a man out of the slips and had a long leg instead? Or perhaps
kept the slips and taken somebody out of the covers?" "Was that LBW -
it looked like it was going to miss". (OK - spectators normally don't
have a clue about the latter).
This is part of the enjoyment of the game - as are the discussions
that take part on this newsgroup, and the exchanges of opinion over a
drink at the end of play (for players and spectators).
So... if we introduce all these innovations. If we devise a method for
judging LBWs *perfectly*. If we do away with umpires altogether. If we
allow designated batsmen and bowlers.
If we do all these things we erode our own enjoyment of the game.
I like the fact that there is so much to talk about.
I agree that the game is archaic, perhaps under commercial threat from
other sports that are more "TV friendly".
But we - or the people we entrust with running the game - need to be
careful that in ensuring the game's survival and growth we don't lose
sight of it's essential charm.
I've been searching for a quote of Brearley's - without success. I can
remember the gist of it - but I don't have it word for word. I'll
carry on looking, but in the meantime consider this: "We need to erect
gleaming, modern structures within the game; but at the same time we
need to be sure that we don't destroy the charm lent by the old,
ricketty outhouses."
David J Richardson
In article <01bcfa15$465d2d20$08188bca@drose>, "Donald Rose"
<dr...@removethisnovation.com.au> wrote:
>I would love to see this in Test cricket. Who really wants to see McGrath,
>C.Walsh or Devon Malcolm bat
I dunno about you, but I always find McGrath batting very entertaining!
--
David J Richardson
bo...@crafti.com.au & http://www.crafti.com.au/~borad/
SOPHIE ALDRED (ACE IN DR WHO) MELBOURNE NOV 21-23 - ASK ME ABOUT IT!
Mad Hamish
On Tue, 25 Nov 1997 05:02:31 -0600, HansA...@hotmail.com wrote:
>I was wondering about the last bit about substitutes doing the
>stumpings. Maybe I just didn't understand you, but I was under the
>impression that the 12th man or substitute was not allowed to bat, bowl
>or wicket-keep. He's only allowed to field if I remember correctly.
>Not that I'd question you; but just hoping for some clarification.
The batting captain can give permission for a substitute to keep wickets. It has
even happened in tests, bob Taylor keeping in the mid 80s after he'd retired
when the English wicket keeper was unfit to play on.
****************************************************************************
The Politician's Slogan
'You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all
of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Fortunately only a simple majority is required.'
****************************************************************************
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
h_l...@postoffice.utas.edu.au
h_l...@tassie.net.au
Ian Talbot
Mad Hamish wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Nov 1997 05:02:31 -0600, HansA...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >I was wondering about the last bit about substitutes doing the
> >stumpings. Maybe I just didn't understand you, but I was under the
> >impression that the 12th man or substitute was not allowed to bat, bowl
> >or wicket-keep. He's only allowed to field if I remember correctly.
> >Not that I'd question you; but just hoping for some clarification.
>
> The batting captain can give permission for a substitute to keep wickets. It has
> even happened in tests, bob Taylor keeping in the mid 80s after he'd retired
> when the English wicket keeper was unfit to play on.
Not under the Laws of today. The Captains have no say whatsoever And a substitute
definitely cannot keep.
In fact there is a specific sub-section of Law 2 which states the opposing Captain
has no say whatever. Also, the Law says that only the Umpires can give permission
for a substitute to field.
--
73 de Ian.
ia...@ihug.co.nz
ICQ 685771