The English Cricket team have today moved to clarify a confusing facet of the game.

Speaking to media after the conclusion of the fourth day’s play in the final Ashes Test, Captain Ben Stokes explained that whining to the umpire after every single over is completely valid.

“If you look up the Spirit Of Cricket rulebook, you’ll see berating the umpire about the ball after every over is completely within the rules,” explained Stokes.

 

https://www.betootaadvocate.com/breaking-news/england-confirm-law-10-2-of-spirit-of-cricket-allows-for-10-requests-a-session-to-change-ball/

 

 

5 minutes ago, Goat said:

The English Cricket team have today moved to clarify a confusing facet of the game.

Speaking to media after the conclusion of the fourth day’s play in the final Ashes Test, Captain Ben Stokes explained that whining to the umpire after every single over is completely valid.

“If you look up the Spirit Of Cricket rulebook, you’ll see berating the umpire about the ball after every over is completely within the rules,” explained Stokes.

 

https://www.betootaadvocate.com/breaking-news/england-confirm-law-10-2-of-spirit-of-cricket-allows-for-10-requests-a-session-to-change-ball/

 

 

The present system is wrong, the ball that was substituted was so different from the ball it replaced it was almost farcical.

The rules also state the substitute ball should be at the same level of wear. Clearly, it wasn't. The Australian batsmen had a batting pitch turn into a bowler's paradise, with swing and a yard or two of extra pace off the pitch.

Assessment of ball wear should not be left to the subjective assessment of umpires. As with the machinery of reviewing a dismissal with a third umpire, there needs to be instruments that grade balls for wear and hardness accurately.

Stokes is deflecting, he probably knows better than anyone that ball change did not pass the pub test.

Just now, Lacessit said:

The present system is wrong, the ball that was substituted was so different from the ball it replaced it was almost farcical.

The rules also state the substitute ball should be at the same level of wear. Clearly, it wasn't. The Australian batsmen had a batting pitch turn into a bowler's paradise, with swing and a yard or two of extra pace off the pitch.

Assessment of ball wear should not be left to the subjective assessment of umpires. As with the machinery of reviewing a dismissal with a third umpire, there needs to be instruments that grade balls for wear and hardness accurately.

Stokes is deflecting, he probably knows better than anyone that ball change did not pass the pub test.

The English commentators were laughing about it. It definately changed the outcome of the game and whole series. 

The fact is we would have won 3-1 if they had not changed the ball, the match was too close to claim otherwise.

This is up there with Bodyline. 

 

After the match they locked out the Aussies and refused to have a beer with them. They are a disgrace.

 

https://www.betootaadvocate.com/breaking-news/whinging-pommy-<deleted>-probably-wouldnt-have-taken-this-too-well/

Closed the door to avoid a confrontation about the bowler would have immediately noticed, from shining an older ball, to one with shine on both sides. If fair play, draw the difference to the umpires. Stokes and English commentators, lamented the Aussies didn't warn Bairstow by speaking up, then took the opportunity to say nothing with the ball difference. Strange when the shoe is on the other foot.

3 hours ago, Haveasay said:

Closed the door to avoid a confrontation about the bowler would have immediately noticed, from shining an older ball, to one with shine on both sides. If fair play, draw the difference to the umpires. Stokes and English commentators, lamented the Aussies didn't warn Bairstow by speaking up, then took the opportunity to say nothing with the ball difference. Strange when the shoe is on the other foot.

Bairstow stumping fair. Within rules.

 

Ball change was outside the rules. Umpires broke the rules.

 

So you must be a cheat then if you support this.

23 hours ago, Lacessit said:

The present system is wrong, the ball that was substituted was so different from the ball it replaced it was almost farcical.

The rules also state the substitute ball should be at the same level of wear. Clearly, it wasn't. The Australian batsmen had a batting pitch turn into a bowler's paradise, with swing and a yard or two of extra pace off the pitch.

Assessment of ball wear should not be left to the subjective assessment of umpires. As with the machinery of reviewing a dismissal with a third umpire, there needs to be instruments that grade balls for wear and hardness accurately.

Stokes is deflecting, he probably knows better than anyone that ball change did not pass the pub test.

Agree. Grade 1, 2, 3,4 balls. Good idea.

 

That old ball looked grade 3 at least. They replaced it with a grade 1 ball.

5 hours ago, Haveasay said:

Strange when the shoe is on the other foot.

English double standards.

 

We were robbed. 

Cricket? Marginally less exciting than baseball.

On 8/2/2023 at 10:22 AM, Goat said:

whining to the umpire

Interesting that you use the word "whining" in your whine.

On 8/2/2023 at 10:49 AM, Goat said:

The fact is we would have won 3-1

Nothing worse than a whining Aussie

33 minutes ago, Stocky said:

Nothing worse than a whining Aussie

Yes there are a few. Lets start with murder.

Edited August 3, 20232 yr by bignok

43 minutes ago, Stocky said:

Nothing worse than a whining Aussie

Whinging Poms comes to mind

Bad luck Australia .

No, what am I saying? Ha ha ha...

1 hour ago, Woof999 said:

Interesting that you use the word "whining" in your whine.

i didnt say that.

It was just from the news article I kindly shared.