| Subject: | Re: England's poor showing |
| From: | Mad Hamish |
| Posting date: | 05-07-2008 |
| Content: | |
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:06:43 +0100, Jonathan Grogan
wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:19:26 +1200, "Caught"
>wrote:
>
>>It was not a good show because
>>
>>1. Sidebottom raising his arm, after getting to his feet, indicatng he is
>>appealing
>>
>>2. Collingwood, wry smile to the umpire, when in discuission over the
>>appeal.
>>
>>Both of these men displayed shabby behaviour.
>>
>>Perhaps they are the new Trevor Chapell
>
>The fielder has an absolute right to an unhindered attempt to field a
>ball. It's the batsman's duty to avoid the fielder, not vice versa.
Can you find anything in the laws to back that up?
>However accidental the collision, the batsman has to some extent
>brought it upon himself and the fielder by not calculating his path to
>avoid the collision, however difficult and unforeseen that may have
>been. Elliott had the option of not running because the way the ball
>fell he might have not seen himself getting to the other end without
>impeding the fielder.
>It's a bit harsh but why should the batsman not be run out when the
>onus is on him not to be the architect of that situation?
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au |
