The light Rule

borat · Sep 12, 2005

Kiwi said:
So next time Australia is batting, and they can't see the ball, even with spinners on, they should be made to play on and not get offered the light? And they wouldn't ask for the light if it suited them?

Australians only care about sportmanship, rules ect when it suits them, otherwise "thats just cricket" when it all goes their way.

Kiwi if the rule was the batsman could go off when ever they didn't like the light there would be no such thing as a county competition becuase that is English weather. Do you seriously think there was a dark gloomy patch that the ball disappeared into leaving the batsman blinded. Its all about safety of the batsman and with the spinners bowling that is not a factor.

See if you can name one other test match or domestic macth where play was stopped because it wasn't "fair" for the batsman.

IMO I couldn't see Australia winning even if they had stayed on the pitch but to start making up new rules on day 4 of the 5th and deciding Ashes test is an absolute joke.

Kiwi · Sep 12, 2005

then why have the light rule and stop play well short of 90 overs on other days if bad light means just bowl spinners? If play starts an hour late, why not play an hour late if light was such a little issue with spinners bowling?

Australia got given the light on day 2 I think it was and took it. England were not offered the chance to play 2 spinners to keep them on the field.

waltzing Meninga · Sep 12, 2005

Kiwi said:
England were not offered the chance to play 2 spinners to keep them on the field.

That is BS. England would have refused to play 2 spinners as they would want to go off the feild. If Michael Vaughan had of elected to bowl 2 spinners I have no doubt Australia would have stayed on the feild.

Kiwi · Sep 12, 2005

borat said:
Kiwi if the rule was the batsman could go off when ever they didn't like the light there would be no such thing as a county competition becuase that is English weather. Do you seriously think there was a dark gloomy patch that the ball disappeared into leaving the batsman blinded. Its all about safety of the batsman and with the spinners bowling that is not a factor.

See if you can name one other test match or domestic macth where play was stopped because it wasn't "fair" for the batsman.

IMO I couldn't see Australia winning even if they had stayed on the pitch but to start making up new rules on day 4 of the 5th and deciding Ashes test is an absolute joke.

The safety issue is for ALL players and umpires on the field, not just the batters.

borat · Sep 12, 2005

Kiwi said:
then why have the light rule and stop play well short of 90 overs on other days if bad light means just bowl spinners? If play starts an hour late, why not play an hour late if light was such a little issue with spinners bowling?

Australia got given the light on day 2 I think it was and took it. England were not offered the chance to play 2 spinners to keep them on the field.

Its about the batsmans safety Kiwi that all. The light was attrocious all day and its fair enough that you can't have Brett Lee bowling bouncers in that light. As it was McGrath almost took Vaughan's head off with one ball. So do you abandon a whole days play even if it doesn't rain just because its overcast? If you start doing that you may as well give up on playing cricket in England because thats the weather every second day.

Australia got given the light when they had Flintoff, Harmison & Hoggard bowling at them which is the big difference. You don't know that Vaughan wasn't offered the chance to bowl his spinners and why would he have done that anyway?
While its 2:30-3pm and Australia are bowling spinners the game should have continued. Those are the rules but Bowden and Koetzen decided they know whats best for world cricket.:roll:

aussies1st · Sep 12, 2005

waltzing Meninga said:
That is BS. England would have refused to play 2 spinners as they would want to go off the feild. If Michael Vaughan had of elected to bowl 2 spinners I have no doubt Australia would have stayed on the feild.

Spot on. Do you honnestly believe England would have played 2 spinners. If the umpires told them to they would be :lol: at the umpire and bring on their two quickest bowlers if they weren't on already.

Kiwi · Sep 12, 2005

waltzing Meninga said:
That is BS. England would have refused to play 2 spinners as they would want to go off the feild. If Michael Vaughan had of elected to bowl 2 spinners I have no doubt Australia would have stayed on the feild.

How is it BS? Were England offered the chance? It was clear for all to see that Australia were told to bowl 2 spinners, England weren't. Sure England probably would have still gone for the pace bowlers, but they weren't offered the chance like Australia was, well from what I saw they weren't anyway.

borat · Sep 12, 2005

Kiwi said:
The safety issue is for ALL players and umpires on the field, not just the batters.

You have got to be kidding. So the umpires feared for their own safety. Kiwi you are making this up as you go. Koezten answered this question straight after they came off and his words were "it wasn't fair for the batsman" . That is what he said end of story.

Kiwi · Sep 12, 2005

sorry double post

aussies1st · Sep 12, 2005

borat said:
Its about the batsmans safety Kiwi that all. The light was attrocious all day and its fair enough that you can't have Brett Lee bowling bouncers in that light. As it was McGrath almost took Vaughan's head off with one ball. So do you abandon a whole days play even if it doesn't rain just because its overcast? If you start doing that you may as well give up on playing cricket in England because thats the weather every second day.

Australia got given the light when they had Flintoff, Harmison & Hoggard bowling at them which is the big difference. You don't know that Vaughan wasn't offered the chance to bowl his spinners and why would he have done that anyway?
While its 2:30-3pm and Australia are bowling spinners the game should have continued. Those are the rules but Bowden and Koetzen decided they know whats best for world cricket.:roll:

I agree if England were bowling 2 spinners on day 2 and 3 then there is no way Aus should have been allowed to go off.

Good point you make about the time too. It was the middle of the day. I know it was dark but its not like we were playing at 8pm at night. Test cricket was made to be played in the afternoon. Also why not turn of the lights if it is that hard to see? They do it for the ODIs when it is pitch black.

aussies1st · Sep 12, 2005

Kiwi said:
How is it BS? Were England offered the chance? It was clear for all to see that Australia were told to bowl 2 spinners, England weren't. Sure England probably would have still gone for the pace bowlers, but they weren't offered the chance like Australia was, well from what I saw they weren't anyway.

That is cause they weren't asking the umpires about the situation. The one thing Ponting has done right this series was ask if he should be using 2 spinners. Vaughan could have done the same but he chose not too.

Kiwi · Sep 12, 2005

borat said:
You have got to be kidding. So the umpires feared for their own safety. Kiwi you are making this up as you go. Koezten answered this question straight after they came off and his words were "it wasn't fair for the batsman" . That is what he said end of story.

I have already said they used the "wrong" reason to come off the field, it should have been about safety. Either way it doesn't matter the right call was made and they left the field.

borat · Sep 12, 2005

Kiwi said:
I have already said they used the "wrong" reason to come off the field, it should have been about safety. Either way it doesn't matter the right call was made and they left the field.

So whose life was in danger out there Kiwi?

Kiwi · Sep 12, 2005

Look at it this way, if a batter can't see the ball in the air when a fast bowler is on due to bad light, and the bowler sends it down from the other end of the wicket, how the hell is a close in fielder going to see it if the batter lets rip on one whilst he is standing a few metres away?

I don't like the aussie team, but gezz I wouldn't want to see any of them hit with the ball injuring them. Imagine the out cry if an English batter sent the ball back at pace at Warne ( whilst Bowling ) and he didn't see it copping it right in the head. Or Katich copping it in the chest. Not worth it as far as i'm concerned.

If something like that happened, the same people whinging about the light issue would be then whinging about why the light wasn't given.

Borat Those are a few thing I said a few pages back with regards to safety.

I don't recall it needing to be "life threatening" either.

lockyno1 · Sep 12, 2005

Honestly froma neutral point of view, Australia only had themselves to blame for all the recless shots they got out to. They knew that they would struggle to get many overs in with the light. They should have batted better. End of story. Austrlia would have done exactly thje same thing if the roles reversed!

Balmain_Boy · Sep 12, 2005

For the record, unfairness can be slotted into part a of the rules.

If it was midnight would you advocate the match to continue if spinners were bowling?

waltzing Meninga · Sep 12, 2005

lockyno1 said:
Honestly froma neutral point of view, Australia only had themselves to blame for all the recless shots they got out to. They knew that they would struggle to get many overs in with the light. They should have batted better. End of story. Austrlia would have done exactly thje same thing if the roles reversed!

No one is questioning whether Australia would have gone off, because of cause they would, any team would. The fact of the matter is they should never have been offered the option.

waltzing Meninga · Sep 12, 2005

Balmain_Boy said:
For the record, unfairness can be slotted into part a of the rules.

If it was midnight would you advocate the match to continue if spinners were bowling?

It was about 3pm in the afternoon, there was a county game that played seamers all day 4 miles up the road and Mcgrath got despatched to the boundry of 2 consecutive balls off Vaughan the over before. How can the light be that bad, especially for blokes bowling under 50mph.

Unfairness cannot be added to part A. Cricket is full of unfairness. So can Australia go off the feild because there was some cloud cover when they were batting and england got to bat in perfect sunlight with no cloud cover? That was unfair. If we left the feild every time something was unfair we would never get a game.

The rule is simple. If the batsmen are in danger play stops. In this case they weren't and the umpires have robbed cricket fans of a great finish to a great series.

Balmain_Boy · Sep 12, 2005

Like I said, if the cloud cover was so bad it was like 7pm at night, should they keep playing because there is no danger?

The umpires have discretion to offer the light if they feel conditions are unsuitable to play cricket in. They exercised this right. To be honest, I trust their interpretation of the rules far more than I trust yours. 1) They were there and 2) They are paid to do their job. You are just some nuffie on a cricket forum.

How do you know the county side batting weren't offered the light?

Big_Bad_Shark_Fan · Sep 12, 2005

mmmm BB i think hes just stating the light was good enough to play. They were scoring at about 5 an over, were hitting our pacemen for boundaries and then complained and were then facing balls at 50km\ph. The only thing troubling them wsa the pitch

The light Rule

Bench

First Grade

Bench

First Grade

Bench

Moderator

First Grade

Bench

First Grade

Moderator

Moderator

First Grade

Bench

First Grade

Post Whore

Guest

Bench

Bench

Guest

First Grade