Remember the name - Tazeem Chaudry Ali

[Richard Dixon]

Admittedly the opposition isn't of the highest, I'd guess, but still quite the spell for him against Zim U19s:

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/icc-under-19-world-cup-2023-24-1399722/england-under-19s-vs-zimbabwe-under-19s-38th-match-super-sixes-group-2-1399761/full-scorecard

I also noticed Rehan Ahmed's 15 year old (!) off-spinning brother was playing in an earlier game. With so many (30-35% apparently) cricketers of Indian/Pakistani heritage making up the leagues around the UK I hope that we're heading towards a time where English / UK teams should be proportionally represented by these players.

I wonder actually what the % is for England's side over time?

Richard

[Richard Dixon]

On Saturday 3 February 2024 at 14:22:05 UTC, Richard Dixon wrote:
> Admittedly the opposition isn't of the highest, I'd guess, but still quite the spell for him against Zim U19s:
>
> https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/icc-under-19-world-cup-2023-24-1399722/england-under-19s-vs-zimbabwe-under-19s-38th-match-super-sixes-group-2-1399761/full-scorecard

You'll also notice an Obstructing The Field dismissal on this card !!

R

[Mad Hamish]

Yeah, although it would have previously been handled the ball
The batsman picked it up to pass it to the keeper and the keeper
appealed

[jack fredricks]

On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 3:12:05 AM UTC+10, Mad Hamish wrote:
> The batsman picked it up to pass it to the keeper and the keeper
> appealed

AND the captain didn't withdraw the appeal.

I know the Laws of cricket should be black and white, but some common sense (and decency) is needed.

[Mad Hamish]

On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 16:08:11 -0800 (PST), jack fredricks
<jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 3:12:05?AM UTC+10, Mad Hamish wrote:
>> The batsman picked it up to pass it to the keeper and the keeper
>> appealed
>
>AND the captain didn't withdraw the appeal.
>
>I know the Laws of cricket should be black and white, but some common sense (and decency) is needed.

Funny how you never seem in favor of common sense from the batsman
"If you do this you risk gettting out => don't do that if you don't
want to get out"

[jack fredricks]

Funny how you can't read.

I've said dozens of times that the best defence to mankad is not leaving the crease until you see the ball mid-flight, and that is what I'd teach my players if I were a coach.

[jack fredricks]

On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 3:51:03 PM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
> I've said dozens of times that the best defence to mankad is not leaving the crease until you see the ball mid-flight, and that is what I'd teach my players if I were a coach.

and doing so mitigates the risk of getting out. It doesn't do anything about the bad blood these mankads create. Even a not out mankad attempt causes an overload of bad feelings between teams.

[jack fredricks]

As for this Law, I wonder if a "batsman may pick up a stationary ball, without permission" is all that's needed here to avoid dramas like this.

[Mad Hamish]

On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 21:55:35 -0800 (PST), jack fredricks
<jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>As for this Law, I wonder if a "batsman may pick up a stationary ball, without permission" is all that's needed here to avoid dramas like this.

Cool, what if they're out of their crease?
Ot their batting partner is out of their crease?

Why do batsmen need to be able to pick up a ball?

[jack fredricks]

On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 10:50:38 PM UTC+10, Mad Hamish wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 21:55:35 -0800 (PST), jack fredricks
> <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >As for this Law, I wonder if a "batsman may pick up a stationary ball, without permission" is all that's needed here to avoid dramas like this.
> Cool, what if they're out of their crease?

In that case Out. But if in, Not Out.

> Ot their batting partner is out of their crease?

Ditto.

> Why do batsmen need to be able to pick up a ball?

Why do they need to be Out (if both batters in crease, and ball stationary)?
There's no inherent fairness/correctness either way.
But one set of Laws results in a nicer game of cricket.

The ball might seem dead at the stage, but unfortunately a fielder can say "I thought it wasn't dead" which means it isn't. A silly bit about the Dead Ball laws.

[Mad Hamish]

On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 05:06:21 -0800 (PST), jack fredricks
<jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:

So we have 2 possible scenarios
1) we allow the batsmen to safely pick up the ball wihtout permission
from the fielding team depending on multiple conditions
2) we don't allow the batsman to pick up the ball without permission
As tjere are no possible reasons why a batsman needs to pick up the
ball it seems like 2) is pretty damned simple (and also prevents them
scruffing the shiny side)

[max.it]

Plus two of the three peoples needed to determine if the ball is dead
clearly don't agree with the batsman.

max.it

[jack fredricks]

On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 12:15:59 AM UTC+10, Mad Hamish wrote:
> So we have 2 possible scenarios
> 1) we allow the batsmen to safely pick up the ball wihtout permission
> from the fielding team depending on multiple conditions
> 2) we don't allow the batsman to pick up the ball without permission
> As tjere are no possible reasons why a batsman needs to pick up the
> ball it seems like 2) is pretty damned simple (and also prevents them
> scruffing the shiny side)

What do we lose by allowing the batsman to pick the ball up in these conditions? Not much. A bit of simplicity. That's it. Whilst I like simple Laws, I'm not so sure this is the Law that is crying out for simplicity.
I think I read this type of dismissal has happened 9 times now at international level.
Would it be so bad if the fielding team lost this chance of a wicket? Keeping in mind that not all 9 would've had a stationary ball.
Did you see the vitriol levelled at the Zimbabwe team and captain after this?
I'd happy change the Law to avoid such drama.

As for the "prevents them scruffing the shiny side". That seems to be an enormous stretch.
Firstly, at a guess, 90% of the time a batsman asks the fielder for permission to pick the ball up, the fielder says yes. Allowing the batsman to do it as I've suggested isn't going to increase the amount of "ball scuffing opportunity" by any notable amount.
Secondly, this doesn't happen. As is it today, a batsman damaging the ball like this is already outlawed.
Thirdly, under today's Laws a batsman may use their boot to kick the ball away from the zone without permission from any body. This would cause more scuffing than picking it up with a gloved hand. In some circumstances I even think a batsman would be allowed to use the sole of their spiked shoe to move the ball.

[jack fredricks]

On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 12:48:21 AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> Plus two of the three peoples needed to determine if the ball is dead
> clearly don't agree with the batsman.

Three people? Who are these 3?

If one umpire thinks the ball is dead and calls it dead... it's dead.

Otherwise... ALL batsmen and fielders must think it's dead. That's normally 13 players.

[Mad Hamish]

On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 12:51:41 -0800 (PST), jack fredricks
<jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:

Why should the batsman be able to grab the ball if the fielding side
doesn't give him permission?

Can they take his bat?

[jack fredricks]

On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 3:47:22 PM UTC+10, Mad Hamish wrote:
> Why should the batsman be able to grab the ball if the fielding side
> doesn't give him permission?

Because it's nicer for cricket than dismissals like this, and there's no foul play involved by the batsman. The ball is not moving.

What does a fielding team lose if the batsman gains this right?

[max.it]

On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 12:57:59 -0800 (PST), jack fredricks
<jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 12:48:21?AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>> Plus two of the three peoples needed to determine if the ball is dead
>> clearly don't agree with the batsman.
>
>Three people? Who are these 3

>If one umpire thinks the ball is dead and calls it dead... it's dead.
>
>Otherwise... ALL batsmen and fielders must think it's dead. That's normally 13 players.
>
>
>

It would be patronising if I had to explain it to you.
Go ahead, have a fuckn referendum of the fielders, that should figure
out if the ball is dead.
FYA, the laws don't mention "all batsmen and fielders", you just
altered that wee law to suit didn't you? Otherwise...You didn't read
the law o0r can't understand it.

So depending on who appealed there may even be 4 players involved in
deterniming if the ball is dead.

It isn't my fault if you are stupid.

max.it

[jack fredricks]

On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 6:21:27 PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> FYA, the laws don't mention "all batsmen and fielders", you just
> altered that wee law to suit didn't you? Otherwise...You didn't read
> the law o0r can't understand it.

I see you hormones are going on a trip again. That, or Mr Hyde is taking over.

20.1.2 The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batters at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play

[max.it]

On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 00:54:49 -0800 (PST), jack fredricks
<jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:

Don't understand I see.
It's entirely my mistake, you are in fact entirely and totally stupid.
Or just perhaps you are intellecually disabled through means that over
which you have no control. If that is the case then your carers have
my pity.

BTW, you did alter the law.
I knew that you were 'touched' all along.

max.it

[jack fredricks]

On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 7:27:28 PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> BTW, you did alter the law.

I'm a bit worried about you.

https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/dead-ball

The only bit missing is the period at the end.

[David North]

On 04/02/2024 14:48, max.it wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 01:15:51 +1100, Mad Hamish
> <newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 05:06:21 -0800 (PST), jack fredricks
>> <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 10:50:38?PM UTC+10, Mad Hamish wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 21:55:35 -0800 (PST), jack fredricks
>>>> <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As for this Law, I wonder if a "batsman may pick up a stationary ball, without permission" is all that's needed here to avoid dramas like this.
>>>> Cool, what if they're out of their crease?
>>>
>>> In that case Out. But if in, Not Out.
>>>
>>>> Ot their batting partner is out of their crease?
>>>
>>> Ditto.
>>>
>>>> Why do batsmen need to be able to pick up a ball?
>>>
>>> Why do they need to be Out (if both batters in crease, and ball stationary)?
>>> There's no inherent fairness/correctness either way.
>>> But one set of Laws results in a nicer game of cricket.
>>>
>>> The ball might seem dead at the stage, but unfortunately a fielder can say "I thought it wasn't dead" which means it isn't.

The fielder can say that, but the umpire is not obliged to take his word
for it.

> A silly bit about the Dead Ball laws.
>>>
>>
>> So we have 2 possible scenarios
>> 1) we allow the batsmen to safely pick up the ball wihtout permission
>>from the fielding team depending on multiple conditions
>> 2) we don't allow the batsman to pick up the ball without permission
>> As tjere are no possible reasons why a batsman needs to pick up the
>> ball it seems like 2) is pretty damned simple (and also prevents them
>> scruffing the shiny side)
>>
>>
> Plus two of the three peoples needed to determine if the ball is dead
> clearly don't agree with the batsman.

I don't think it's at all clear that the keeper hadn't ceased to regard
the ball as in play - until the batsman picked it up, when he clearly
decided to claim that he hadn't. Up to that point, he was ambling round
the wicket to pick it up himself with no urgency whatsoever.

OTOH, I wouldn't blame the umpire for not thinking that it was clear
that the keeper _had_ ceased to regard it as in play.

--
David North

[jack fredricks]

On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 8:34:49 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> The fielder can say that, but the umpire is not obliged to take his word
> for it.

Obliged? Sure. They're not obliged to do anything, and can make bad calls as much as they want.

My example of a fielder saying "I didn't think the ball was dead" is just an example of actions that might make an umpire decide that ONE, and only one is needed, fielder thought the ball was still alive.

Another example might be this;

A batsman, let's say Ian Bell, is facing. Last ball before lunch. He hits it to the boundary, Ishant the fielder fumbles it. Ian Bell, the other batsman, and 10 other fielders think it's 4 and start walking off.
Ishant picks the balls up, throws it in, it's a direct hit, Bell is out of his ground, Ishant appeals.
The umpire SHOULD, and probably would, give this out.
If 2 batsman and 10 fielders think the ball is dead, all it takes is for the umpire to decide that a *single* fielder thought it was still alive for the ball still be alive (assuming it's not dead for another reason, eg actually touching the boundary).

[David North]

On 04/02/2024 20:51, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 12:15:59 AM UTC+10, Mad Hamish wrote:
>> So we have 2 possible scenarios
>> 1) we allow the batsmen to safely pick up the ball wihtout permission
>> from the fielding team depending on multiple conditions
>> 2) we don't allow the batsman to pick up the ball without permission
>> As tjere are no possible reasons why a batsman needs to pick up the
>> ball it seems like 2) is pretty damned simple (and also prevents them
>> scruffing the shiny side)
>
> What do we lose by allowing the batsman to pick the ball up in these conditions? Not much. A bit of simplicity. That's it. Whilst I like simple Laws, I'm not so sure this is the Law that is crying out for simplicity.
> I think I read this type of dismissal has happened 9 times now at international level.
> Would it be so bad if the fielding team lost this chance of a wicket? Keeping in mind that not all 9 would've had a stationary ball.
> Did you see the vitriol levelled at the Zimbabwe team and captain after this?
> I'd happy change the Law to avoid such drama.
>
> As for the "prevents them scruffing the shiny side". That seems to be an enormous stretch.
> Firstly, at a guess, 90% of the time a batsman asks the fielder for permission to pick the ball up, the fielder says yes. Allowing the batsman to do it as I've suggested isn't going to increase the amount of "ball scuffing opportunity" by any notable amount.
> Secondly, this doesn't happen. As is it today, a batsman damaging the ball like this is already outlawed.
> Thirdly, under today's Laws a batsman may use their boot to kick the ball away from the zone without permission from any body.

If he's guarding his wicket, yes. In this case, with the ball
stationary, he would have been opening himself up to an appeal for Hit
the ball twice.

--
David North

[jack fredricks]

On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 8:52:55 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> If he's guarding his wicket, yes. In this case, with the ball
> stationary, he would have been opening himself up to an appeal for Hit
> the ball twice.

Again, umpires can make bad decisions.

It would be a bold umpire to rule a batsman loses their right to guard their wicket once the ball is stationary and at the same time rule the ball isn't dead.

If the ball was stationary but near-ish to the stumps, and I moved it away with my foot (in a normal manner), and I was given Out (either hitting the ball twice or obstruction of field) I'd put in a formal complaint against the umpire.

[David North]

On 05/02/2024 10:51, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 8:34:49 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
>> The fielder can say that, but the umpire is not obliged to take his word
>> for it.
>
> Obliged? Sure. They're not obliged to do anything, and can make bad calls as much as they want.
>
> My example of a fielder saying "I didn't think the ball was dead" is just an example of actions that might make an umpire decide that ONE, and only one is needed, fielder thought the ball was still alive.

Yes, _might_. That's a bit different from 'a fielder can say "I thought
it wasn't dead" which means it isn't.'

--
David North

[jack fredricks]

Talking in "mights" is silly. The range of mights is very broad.
I say if an umpire gets an indication one player, in that kind of scenario, acts as if they think the ball is alive then an umpire SHOULD consider the ball to still be alive. (obviously excluding events that make the ball automatically dead eg a boundary).

I'm not disputing that an umpire can call the ball dead any time they want. They have that ultimate power.

[David North]

What if the player in question (and all of the others) was acting as if
they thought the ball was dead until something happened, such as the
batter picking up the ball, that meant that it was suddenly to their
advantage to act as if they thought it was in play?

In any case, would a fielder who genuinely thought the ball was still in
play be likely to say "I didn't think the ball was dead" before the
umpire had made a decision, rather than just appealing? ISTM that that
would be more characteristic of someone who was lying through their
teeth to try to con the umpire.

--
David North

[jack fredricks]

On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 5:43:34 AM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> What if the player in question (and all of the others) was acting as if
> they thought the ball was dead until something happened, such as the
> batter picking up the ball, that meant that it was suddenly to their
> advantage to act as if they thought it was in play?

If the umpire decides that at a given point in time ALL fielders and both batsmen consider the ball dead, then the ball is dead.
A fielder can't then "resurrect" play by changing their mind.

> In any case, would a fielder who genuinely thought the ball was still in
> play be likely to say "I didn't think the ball was dead" before the
> umpire had made a decision, rather than just appealing? ISTM that that
> would be more characteristic of someone who was lying through their
> teeth to try to con the umpire.

You're focusing on the actual wording I used. Instead of those strange words, treat like another action to indicate the player thinks the ball is still live, eg a throw from the boundary in the Ian Bell run out.
But in this made up example that thrower in the *only* fielder who thought the ball was still live. The batsmen and other 10 fielders were walking off for lunch.
And, of course, the umpire hadn't called Over (or Lunch, in this case).
This action by the single player should/would keep the ball alive.