stoneyboy Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) Are the one dayers day/night games,if so the candle will be burning late.Yes some start at 8 and 9pm Thai time and the others 4.30pm.You will notice the first fixture is a T20 game. The picture below shows all times on the far left UK time so add 6 hours. Edited August 26, 2015 by stoneyboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emilymat Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 Thanks Stoneyboy. My previous post omitted the 20/20 game at 9pm Thai time. Not a great fan of that format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted August 26, 2015 Author Share Posted August 26, 2015 For those that may be interested, Australia play Ireland in an ODI tomorrow, Thurs 27th, starting at 10:45 UK time. Don't know if it will be on TV in Thailand, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoneyboy Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 England dominating in the batting here today. Some lovely sixes from Morgan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoneyboy Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Very exciting and thrilling display from both teams,thoroughly enjoyed that. Well done again England. Just the 50 over games to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmerjo Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Very exciting and thrilling display from both teams,thoroughly enjoyed that. Well done again England. Just the 50 over games to come. Exciting game down to the wire. We've got to work out how to get the bearded fella out before we go home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emilymat Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Very exciting and thrilling display from both teams,thoroughly enjoyed that. Well done again England. Just the 50 over games to come. So did I. The key wicket was that of Maxwell, had he stayed Aussies may well have won. The Australian batting looks a bit fragile in the middle/lower order. But what about that guy Cummins!. 93 mph on a couple of occasions. Wareny wanted him playing in the test series - I can see why. Whether he could have lasted 4/5 days I don't know, but what a shock bowler to bring on for 2/3over bursts on a swinging pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rijit Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Thanks Stoneyboy. My previous post omitted the 20/20 game at 9pm Thai time. Not a great fan of that format. Neither was I, Just a slog fest' that so lacked finesse, but have to admit its growing on me. rijit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmerjo Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 Aussies win first one dayer. I could only keep my eyes open for two overs into the english inninings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will27 Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 Aussies win first one dayer. I could only keep my eyes open for two overs into the english inninings. Yep Good to finally win something. The commentators were saying 305 was barely par, but with the new field restrictions in the last 10 overs, I thought it was a winning score. It's always hard when you have to chase a run a ball. Australia's middle order is still a problem but we do bat quite long in the order. This Saturdays game isn't a day/nighter so we might be able to watch both innings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted September 5, 2015 Author Share Posted September 5, 2015 Listening to the game on TMS while working, and had to switch off around the 30th over of England's innings. At that point, having got off to a good start but then lost some silly wickets, England were still slightly in front, but the game could have gone either way and I expected a close finish. Couldn't believe it when I checked the result, only to find we'd been bowled out and lost by 59 runs in the 46th over! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emilymat Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Listening to the game on TMS while working, and had to switch off around the 30th over of England's innings. At that point, having got off to a good start but then lost some silly wickets, England were still slightly in front, but the game could have gone either way and I expected a close finish. Couldn't believe it when I checked the result, only to find we'd been bowled out and lost by 59 runs in the 46th over! Are you in Thailand?. I can watch the cricket on 2/3 platforms on line (varying quality) and although I listen to a great deal of BBC radio via the I player, I cannot get TMS-which I really miss. At least I'll beable tostay awake for today's game!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted September 5, 2015 Author Share Posted September 5, 2015 (edited) I'm in the UK. Even outside the UK you should be able to get TMS from the Radio 5 Live Sports Extra page or via the link on the live text commentary page. On air from 10:15 UK time today. BTW, start of play at Lords delayed because of rain! Edited September 5, 2015 by 7by7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emilymat Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 I'm in the UK. Even outside the UK you should be able to get TMS from the Radio 5 Live Sports Extra page or via the link on the live text commentary page. On air from 10:15 UK time today. BTW, start of play at Lords delayed because of rain! Thanks, I've tried that andsimply get the message "Due to rights restrictions we are unable to broadcast this". I'll try via VPN but not hopeful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rijit Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Not sure which is draining my enthusiasm quicker watching england outclass san marino or the aussies slowly but surely picking us off in todays one dayer. rijit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rijit Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 If ever there was a time for a capts innings its now ,,get on morgan rijit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rijit Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 (edited) At 242 /8 with 42 balls left Still cant see england winning but at least were going out fighting rijit Edited September 5, 2015 by rijit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted September 6, 2015 Author Share Posted September 6, 2015 (edited) A deserved win by Australia, marred by an unwelcome bit of bad sportsmanship by Smith.Law 37 states 1. Out Obstructing the fieldEither batsman is out Obstructing the field if he wilfully attempts to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action. In particular, but not solely, it shall be regarded as obstruction and either batsman will be out Obstructing the field if while the ball is in play and after the striker has completed the act of playing the ball, as defined in Law 33.1, he wilfully strikes the ball with(i) a hand not holding the bat, unless this is in order to avoid injury. See also Law 33.2 (Not out Handled the ball).(ii) any other part of his person or with his bat. See also Law 34 (Hit the ball twice).2. Accidental obstructionIt is for either umpire to decide whether any obstruction or distraction is wilful or not. He shall consult the other umpire if he has any doubt. So the question is whether or not Stokes' action was 'wilful' or not. The on field umpires thought not, but for some reason consulted the third umpire anyway.From News.com.au On the field Kumar Dharmasena and Tim Robinson indicated their gut feeling was not out when they sent the decision upstairs to third umpire Joel Wilson.New Zealander Wilson was criticised for only basing his decision on slow motion replays which failed to accurately portray the rapid speed at which the flashpoint took place.Social media went into overdrive with ex-Test greats Shane Warne, Ashley Giles and Alec Stewart of the belief that Smith should have withdrawn his appeal and commentators almost unanimous that the incident felt “uncomfortable”.Warne tweeted: “The correct decision was made by the umps re Stokes even though I didn’t like it. Cricket would have been the winner if Smith called him back.”Interestingly the spin king later deleted that message. Watching it live and at full speed, it appears that Stokes' reaction was instinctive; it seems he wasn't even looking at the ball.It was only after watching repeated, slow motion replays that Wilson gave him out.That decision may have been within the letter of the law; but was it within the spirit of the game?I don't think so.From the BBC Former England skipper Michael Vaughan said on BBC Test Match Special: "Anyone who has played the game knows that when the ball is thrown at you from close range like that you put your hand up to protect yourself."When you see it in real time he fears the ball is going to hit him. It was obvious. It was a poor decision."Ex-England wicketkeeper Alec Stewart added: "He was taking evasive action; he's looking the other way. Show me someone who can catch the ball looking the other way?"You would have thought between the three umpires that common sense would have prevailed."Former Australia leg-spinner Shane Warne tweeted: "We didn't like to see what happened at Lord's. Feel for Stokes..." It is a shame that the spirit with which the Tests were played has not carried over into this game.Before being accused of being a 'whingeing Pom' I should add that I don't think England would have won had Stokes been given not out or called back by Smith.I understand that Morgan said similar after the game.* *Edit; found it now: “I don’t think it was the winning and losing of the game,” Morgan said. “I think we probably let ourselves down early on with the ball, we weren’t disciplined enough........" (Source) Edited September 6, 2015 by 7by7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmerjo Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 I presume that the 3rd umpire would have used ball tracker to make sure it was hitting the stumps rather than just using the letter of law. Stokes decision that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will27 Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 I presume that the 3rd umpire would have used ball tracker to make sure it was hitting the stumps rather than just using the letter of law. Stokes decision that is. It makes no difference if the ball was going to hit the stumps or not. The 3rd umpire basically must decide whether or not Stokes was protecting himself or not. If not, out. The 3rd umpire basically agreed with the Aussies. Stokes finds some interesting ways to get out at Lords. I can still remember his run out in the tests Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BookMan Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 I presume that the 3rd umpire would have used ball tracker to make sure it was hitting the stumps rather than just using the letter of law. Stokes decision that is. It makes no difference if the ball was going to hit the stumps or not. The 3rd umpire basically must decide whether or not Stokes was protecting himself or not. If not, out. The 3rd umpire basically agreed with the Aussies. Stokes finds some interesting ways to get out at Lords. I can still remember his run out in the tests Stokes was out, he shouldn't have attempted to grab the ball with his hand. Simple really. Nothing to do with 'the spirit of the game' Stokes and the English team should read the rule book and cop it on the chin. Or do the rules not apply to the 'ol English boys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will27 Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 A deserved win by Australia, marred by an unwelcome bit of bad sportsmanship by Smith. Law 37 states 1. Out Obstructing the field Either batsman is out Obstructing the field if he wilfully attempts to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action. In particular, but not solely, it shall be regarded as obstruction and either batsman will be out Obstructing the field if while the ball is in play and after the striker has completed the act of playing the ball, as defined in Law 33.1, he wilfully strikes the ball with (i) a hand not holding the bat, unless this is in order to avoid injury. See also Law 33.2 (Not out Handled the ball). (ii) any other part of his person or with his bat. See also Law 34 (Hit the ball twice). 2. Accidental obstruction It is for either umpire to decide whether any obstruction or distraction is wilful or not. He shall consult the other umpire if he has any doubt. So the question is whether or not Stokes' action was 'wilful' or not. The on field umpires thought not, but for some reason consulted the third umpire anyway. From News.com.au On the field Kumar Dharmasena and Tim Robinson indicated their gut feeling was not out when they sent the decision upstairs to third umpire Joel Wilson. New Zealander Wilson was criticised for only basing his decision on slow motion replays which failed to accurately portray the rapid speed at which the flashpoint took place. Social media went into overdrive with ex-Test greats Shane Warne, Ashley Giles and Alec Stewart of the belief that Smith should have withdrawn his appeal and commentators almost unanimous that the incident felt “uncomfortable”. Warne tweeted: “The correct decision was made by the umps re Stokes even though I didn’t like it. Cricket would have been the winner if Smith called him back.” Interestingly the spin king later deleted that message. Watching it live and at full speed, it appears that Stokes' reaction was instinctive; it seems he wasn't even looking at the ball. It was only after watching repeated, slow motion replays that Wilson gave him out. That decision may have been within the letter of the law; but was it within the spirit of the game? I don't think so. From the BBC Former England skipper Michael Vaughan said on BBC Test Match Special: "Anyone who has played the game knows that when the ball is thrown at you from close range like that you put your hand up to protect yourself. "When you see it in real time he fears the ball is going to hit him. It was obvious. It was a poor decision." Ex-England wicketkeeper Alec Stewart added: "He was taking evasive action; he's looking the other way. Show me someone who can catch the ball looking the other way? "You would have thought between the three umpires that common sense would have prevailed." Former Australia leg-spinner Shane Warne tweeted: "We didn't like to see what happened at Lord's. Feel for Stokes..." It is a shame that the spirit with which the Tests were played has not carried over into this game. Before being accused of being a 'whingeing Pom' I should add that I don't think England would have won had Stokes been given not out or called back by Smith. I understand that Morgan said similar after the game.* *Edit; found it now: “I don’t think it was the winning and losing of the game,” Morgan said. “I think we probably let ourselves down early on with the ball, we weren’t disciplined enough........" (Source) I was watching it as well and this is my take. Live I thought, that would've bee run out if it hit the stumps. In slow motion, it looked a lot worse for Stokes. The umpires had the best seat in the house and if they thought Stokes was protecting himself , they did not have to refer it. The Aussies, Wade and Starc in particular, as they had the best view thought Stokes was trying to avoid being run out, appealed. The standing umpires obviously had some doubt but the 3rd umpire didn't. Not all of the commontaters disagreed with the decision. Ian Botham, who seemed to be seething asked Michael Atherton, who always seems pretty fair if he would've withdrew his appeal. Atherton replied "I don't think so, I would've left it up to the umpires". Either way, I reckon it was a tough one for the umpires. if it was given not out, I don't think there would've been a outcry. As for bad sportmanship, Smith and the boys obviously thought Stokes was trying to avoid getting run out so put it in the hands of the umpires. I've no problem with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will27 Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 The usual Aussie haters will be along shortly (this isn't directed at you 7by7), saying how despised the Aussie team is, cheaters etc etc. Some of those people have short memories. Funny, I can't remember an outcry in the Pommy press over this one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tKrktTf0-Y Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will27 Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 More bad news for the Aussies with Warner, Watson and Coulter-Nile all out of the series injured. http://www.watoday.com.au/sport/cricket/peter-handscomb-john-hastings-join-australias-oneday-squad-as-nathan-coulternile-injured-too-20150906-gjggku.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BookMan Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 The usual Aussie haters will be along shortly (this isn't directed at you 7by7), saying how despised the Aussie team is, cheaters etc etc. Some of those people have short memories. Funny, I can't remember an outcry in the Pommy press over this one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tKrktTf0-Y That should have been called dead ball or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will27 Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 The usual Aussie haters will be along shortly (this isn't directed at you 7by7), saying how despised the Aussie team is, cheaters etc etc. Some of those people have short memories. Funny, I can't remember an outcry in the Pommy press over this one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tKrktTf0-Y That should have been called dead ball or something. Under the rules, I'm pretty sure it can't be called a dead ball. The umps just rely on a captain not appealing or withdrawing an appeal. Imagine the uproar if the Aussies did that!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BookMan Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 The usual Aussie haters will be along shortly (this isn't directed at you 7by7), saying how despised the Aussie team is, cheaters etc etc. Some of those people have short memories. Funny, I can't remember an outcry in the Pommy press over this one. [ That should have been called dead ball or something. Under the rules, I'm pretty sure it can't be called a dead ball. The umps just rely on a captain not appealing or withdrawing an appeal. Imagine the uproar if the Aussies did that!! It was fairly poor. No fault on the collision IMO. Of course there was the chewing the Mints to influence the swing of the ball situation. Entire English team was in on that...and then you have them covering the edge of their bats with tape to avoid hotspot. Entire team again.... So there has been a certain culture around in the English team for quite some time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted September 7, 2015 Author Share Posted September 7, 2015 I presume that the 3rd umpire would have used ball tracker to make sure it was hitting the stumps rather than just using the letter of law. Stokes decision that is. It makes no difference if the ball was going to hit the stumps or not. The 3rd umpire basically must decide whether or not Stokes was protecting himself or not. If not, out. You are correct that whether or not the ball would have hit the stumps is not a factor; but read the rule again. Firstly the umpires have to decide if the action was wilful or not. Only if they decide that it was wilful do they then have to consider whether or not the batsman was seeking to protect himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted September 7, 2015 Author Share Posted September 7, 2015 The usual Aussie haters will be along shortly (this isn't directed at you 7by7), saying how despised the Aussie team is, cheaters etc etc. Some of those people have short memories. Funny, I can't remember an outcry in the Pommy press over this one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tKrktTf0-Y Your memory has let you down. The boos from The Oval crowd were as loud as those at Lords on Saturday. Collingwood was roundly criticised in the English press. The one big difference, though, is the reaction of the two captains afterward. Collingwood says sorry for run-out furore "I have never been in that situation before as a captain. It is a difficult decision to make. In hindsight I wish I had called him back. You come off the pitch and wonder if you should have done things differently. I hold my hands up and say I probably made the wrong decision, and that is something that I will have to live with. I apologise to the New Zealand lads. This is what should have happened in both the above incidents: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QpXAs7VOSs Of course, no team would ever bowl the last ball of a match underarm to ensure the opposing team couldn't score the 6 they needed to win, would they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will27 Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 I presume that the 3rd umpire would have used ball tracker to make sure it was hitting the stumps rather than just using the letter of law. Stokes decision that is. It makes no difference if the ball was going to hit the stumps or not. The 3rd umpire basically must decide whether or not Stokes was protecting himself or not. If not, out. You are correct that whether or not the ball would have hit the stumps is not a factor; but read the rule again. Firstly the umpires have to decide if the action was wilful or not. Only if they decide that it was wilful do they then have to consider whether or not the batsman was seeking to protect himself. I reckon he wilfully knocked the ball away and the 3rd umpire must've thought so as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.jpg.6cd08c3a0e0882e7a3217ed228bf0927.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now