1 edit
Originally posted by CrowleyYou're continually missing the points.
I want this 'courtesy' crap taken out and the umpires need to be basically taken out of the equation too. Hell, if we need impartial medical experts at the game, then so be it.
It needs to be a straight question of:
Is the player in pain and cannot properly continue without a runner?
Yes, means a runner. No, means not. I don't want a senile idiot lik e have a 'game doctor' at the ground in future, so we don't have a repeat of this farce.
i) Strauss was consulted, it was not his decision, nor should it have been.
ii) Cramp is a grey area since it is debatable whether or not it is even an injury, this means it is in the hands of the umpires.
iii) Plenty of other decisions are in the hands of the umpires; senile idiots like Buchnor decide whether a batsman is lbw, ct behind, one short etc. Would you remove the umpires from those decisions?
iv) In your world displays of good sportsmanship like that of Strauss or Vettori could not exist. That doesn't benefit cricket as a whole in any way.
v) 'Courtesy crap' is exactly the sort of thing that separates a decent game like cricket from the farce of football, we need more of it, not less.
Just get over it, it's not the first time a match affecting decision has been made which causes controversy and it won't be the last, that's part and parcel of cricket. You get some good decisions, some bad (lbw calls in particular) and it all evens out. Get over it, everyone agrees that guidelines need to be instated, there's nothing else to say.
Originally posted by StarrmanI'm already over it. I told everyone before the tournament that we would somehow choke it. We seem to continually get ourselves caught in some sort of technical issue in cricket tournaments.
Just get over it, it's not the first time a match affecting decision has been made which causes controversy and it won't be the last, that's part and parcel of cricket. You get some good decisions, some bad (lbw calls in particular) and it all evens out. Get over it, everyone agrees that guidelines need to be instated, there's nothing else to say.
Can't a guy just argue on the Internet without you getting all logical about it?
Originally posted by CrowleyAnd so are you my dear Crowley, it always seems the whole sporting world is against the poor little South Africans according to you.In the laws of cricket as they currently stand, Cramping is not an injury, so build the bridge and get over it.
The last time someone was this late, we found out our second daughter was on her way... 😕
You sure are tedious and predictable, boreman.
Oh and as for being late , well i was fighting some bad bushfires here in Australia, and the season is only going to get worse, we have had the driest 3 months we ever have had here where i live.
Originally posted by boarmanNot the 'whole sporting world', but we do get caught up in more bad decisions and controversy than any other nation.
And so are you my dear Crowley, it always seems the whole sporting world is against the poor little South Africans according to you.In the laws of cricket as they currently stand, Cramping is not an injury, so build the bridge and get over it.
Oh and as for being late , well i was fighting some bad bushfires here in Australia, and the season is only going to get worse, we have had the driest 3 months we ever have had here where i live.
Why is that?
I think hamstring cramps should be classed as an injury. Why an idiot who gets nailed against his noggin etc. can get a runner, but someone who has sprinted 2km across the pitch can't is beyond me.
People are saying it's a preparation problem, but so is getting hit by the ball, as the batsmen is supposed to use his bat.
Good luck with the fires, hope they are not as bad as the last time.
Originally posted by CrowleyYes the bat is for hitting the ball , but you still get LBW's LOL.
Not the 'whole sporting world', but we do get caught up in more bad decisions and controversy than any other nation.
Why is that?
I think hamstring cramps should be classed as an injury. Why an idiot who gets nailed against his noggin etc. can get a runner, but someone who has sprinted 2km across the pitch can't is beyond me.
People are saying it's a ...[text shortened]... ed to use his bat.
Good luck with the fires, hope they are not as bad as the last time.
Getting hit in the nuts is definitely an injury i have even had happen, its a far lot worse than cramping.
Cramping up has more to do with lack of salt in the system, plus a preparation thing.
If you analyse all decisions you will see it happens to all teams, you just point it out more.
the fire season this year is shaping up a lot worse than last year , if thats possible.
1 edit
Originally posted by boarmanAye, players get hit by the ball.
Yes the bat is for hitting the ball , but you still get LBW's LOL.
Getting hit in the nuts is definitely an injury i have even had happen, its a far lot worse than cramping.
Cramping up has more to do with lack of salt in the system, plus a preparation thing.
If you analyse all decisions you will see it happens to all teams, you just point it out more.
the fire season this year is shaping up a lot worse than last year , if thats possible.
Let me sketch some scenarios.
Greame Smith has sprinted 2km over the pitch, but isn't allowed a runner for his upper leg cramps.
First scenario:
Andrew Strauss gets hit on the upper leg, trying to pull a short delivery.
The injury means he'll be allowed a runner, even if the injury is just causing cramps.
Both are cramp and both are by definition due to a lack of preparation, but one will result in a runner, purely because he was struck by the ball.
Here's another one:
Andrew Strauss tries to pull a short one, pulling his front leg into the air. He gets a hamstring cramp because he didn't thoroughly stretch before running on.
Both are cramp and both are by definition due to a lack of preparation, but one will result in a runner, purely because he was playing a shot at the time.
Same injury, different standards.