The light Rule

[waltzing Meninga]

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?

No. The umpires only have disgretion to go off if the rain is unsuitable to play cricket in. When it comes to light, the only time they can offer this to the batsmen is if it is unsafe. Just because they are paid to do their job doesn't mean they are good at it. How much money did Rodney Adler get paid to Run HIH insurance?

 

[lockyno1]

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.

Yeah but that is the point. Sometimes it is worse facing spinners because you actually have to see the revolutions on the ball especially with Warne. I don't really have a problem with it. It was a harsh call, but Australia has themselves to blame for playing hacks like Martyn, Gillespie, kasprowitz, when you have better players in the dressing room. How macgill and hussey did not play is a joke!

 

[waltzing Meninga]

Yeah but that is the point. Sometimes it is worse facing spinners because you actually have to see the revolutions on the ball especially with Warne. I don't really have a problem with it. It was a harsh call, but Australia has themselves to blame for playing hacks like Martyn, Gillespie, kasprowitz, when you have better players in the dressing room. How macgill and hussey did not play is a joke!

I agree. Especially Macgill. There is far too much politics involved in this australian team. How Hayden was allowed to score at 2 an over is beyond me.
Well the egg is definatley on the faces of the selectors now. maybe they will learn.

As for the light issue, again seeing the revolutions on the ball is not a safety issue, it is a batting issue. The rules state that this is not an excuse to go off the feild. simple.

 

[lockyno1]

I agree. Especially Macgill. There is far too much politics involved in this australian team. How Hayden was allowed to score at 2 an over is beyond me.
Well the egg is definatley on the faces of the selectors now. maybe they will learn.

As for the light issue, again seeing the revolutions on the ball is not a safety issue, it is a batting issue. The rules state that this is not an excuse to go off the feild. simple.

EXACTLY! The selectors lost this series by putting out of form hacks in the side!

 

[lockyno1]

As for the light issue, again seeing the revolutions on the ball is not a safety issue, it is a batting issue. The rules state that this is not an excuse to go off the feild. simple.

Possibly, but then from a batsmens point of view it is a safety issue becuase if you can't see the revolutions then you are more likely to get out cheaply!

 

[waltzing Meninga]

Possibly, but then from a batsmens point of view it is a safety issue becuase if you can't see the revolutions then you are more likely to get out cheaply!

Danger has nothing to do with losing your wicket. you are always in danger of losing your wicket no matter what the conditions. The rule refers to danger of the batsmen getting injured. There was no possiblity of this.

 

[lockyno1]

Danger has nothing to do with losing your wicket. you are always in danger of losing your wicket no matter what the conditions. The rule refers to danger of the batsmen getting injured. There was no possiblity of this.

Actually no. They took out the word physical and just has danger. I can see your point and it is valid, but if you are in more danger of losing your wicket to me that is danger. I don't know that is just how I interpreted it.

 

[waltzing Meninga]

Actually no. They took out the word physical and just has danger. I can see your point and it is valid, but if you are in more danger of losing your wicket to me that is danger. I don't know that is just how I interpreted it.

I guess it is open to interpretation and the ICC definately need to come out and clarify it.

But lets assume that we have perfectly good light and it is overcast. Then it is dangerous to the batsmen because the ball swings more and they have more chance of losing their wicket. But no one goes off for that.

The fact is that conditions are rarely going to be perfect, and the umpires should have shown some common sense and continued playing with the spinners.

 

[tex]

The key word in the rules is 'unreasonable'. You can substitute this for 'unfair' as it can be interpreted in much the same way. It is unreasonable to continue playing if the light is impairing the batsman's ability to see the ball clearly. It is not a contest if the batsmen are partly playing a guessing game as it's difficult to pick up on the revolutions and the pace of the ball. Playing in other bowler friendly conditions is different because the batsmen are still being given maximum opportunity to play the ball as best they can. It's just more difficult if conditions mean it's swinging. But with the light the batsmen are being denied maximum opportunity to see the ball. Thus, it is undoubtedly unreasonable and the two umpires do indeed know the rules.

 

[lockyno1]

Thus, it is undoubtedly unreasonable and the two umpires do indeed know the rules.

Until this line you had me! Billy is a deadset clown and Rudi couldn't tell an edge even if Giles hit half the ball through to Gilchrist! The unpires DO NOT know the rules, but going off was probally correct!

 

[Kiwi]

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.

Actually the rule is not just for batters, it's for all players on the field and umpires. Not being able to see the ball put the fielders and umpires at risk if a batter got a hold of one and it stayed low. "Unfair" may have been the wrong reason to leave the field, Safety was a better reason.

 

[IanG]

One of the problems with cricket in England is the test gorund don't have lights. Even if they host day/nighters they need to truck in those portable things. But I dare say it's a different senareo in One Day Cricket cuz of the fact that a white ball is being used, thus the ball is easier to see