Jump to content
Login with your Gmail HERE and start posting in seconds! ×
Don't just read! Be part of the Community! Join the conversation ×

Ashes 2015

7by7

By 7by7
in Sports, Hobbies & Activities

 Share

Recommended Posts

stoneyboy Platinum Member

stoneyboy

Posted
Posted (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.post-118612-14405532388942_thumb.jpg

Edited by stoneyboy
  • Replies 509
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

7by7 Star Member

7by7

Posted
  • Author
Posted

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.

farmerjo Platinum Member

farmerjo

Posted
Posted

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.

emilymat Silver Member

emilymat

Posted
Posted

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.

rijit Gold Member

rijit

Posted
Posted

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

Will27 Diamond Member

Will27

Posted
Posted

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 inningswink.png

7by7 Star Member

7by7

Posted
  • Author
Posted

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!

emilymat Silver Member

emilymat

Posted
Posted

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!.

rijit Gold Member

rijit

Posted
Posted

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

rijit Gold Member

rijit

Posted
Posted (edited)

At 242 /8 with 42 balls left Still cant see england winning but at least were going out fighting

rijit

Edited by rijit
7by7 Star Member

7by7

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

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)

Edited by 7by7
farmerjo Platinum Member

farmerjo

Posted
Posted

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.

Will27 Diamond Member

Will27

Posted
Posted

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 teststongue.png

BookMan Diamond Member

BookMan

Posted
Posted

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 teststongue.png

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?

Will27 Diamond Member

Will27

Posted
Posted

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.

Will27 Diamond Member

Will27

Posted
Posted

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!!

BookMan Diamond Member

BookMan

Posted
Posted

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

7by7 Star Member

7by7

Posted
  • Author
Posted

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.

7by7 Star Member

7by7

Posted
  • Author
Posted

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?

Will27 Diamond Member

Will27

Posted
Posted

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.

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.






ASEANNOW

ASEANNOW (formerly Thai Visa) Thailand's oldest and most popular forum for expats and foreigners.

Sign up today and have your say

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US

219/59 Asoke Towers, 15th Floor, Soi Sukhumvit 21, Watthana, Bangkok 10110
(+66) 99 196 1100
[email protected]

×
×
  • Create New...