Wasn't helped by looking at the lad throwing rather than than trying to make his ground, as you say the slow motion makes it look worse but Roy knows where the throw is coming from so probably doesn't need to look at him at all.
Cricket
- Thread starter EdWeatherall
- Start date
Wasn't helped by looking at the lad throwing rather than than trying to make his ground, as you say the slow motion makes it look worse but Roy knows where the throw is coming from so probably doesn't need to look at him at all.
It's very hard to say. Obviously he's going to look at where the ball is initially, but after he turns he's looking at the line and doesn't deviate his course again.
I don't think you can definitely say he's purposely obstructed the field and the benefit should surely be to the batsman in that case?
Bumble haha.
Either way, there definitely was not a single on and it was his call too.
Genuinely not sure they'll get a super over in here if it comes to that given the light.
Bumble singing Sweet Caroline! Lovely to see.
Tense. Hit that boundary!
Edit: Oh dear
Edit: Oh dear
Well that's one of the worst debuts I've ever seen.
Livingstone runs himself out on debut in a bizarre manner.
It was pretty worrying that he seemed incapable of realising he shouldn't try to smash every ball out the park and didn't even attempt to work 1s and 2s. He had a really good Lions tour in Sri Lanka over the Winter, so maybe there's more to come.
Didn't quite replicate that strike rate today.
Should have won that comfortably and probably would have had they not wished to try Livingstone out.
16 off 18, a dropped catch, and a moronic run out. Not one to remember that.
Oh and he nicked one ands stood around like a cnut.
16 off 18, a dropped catch, and a moronic run out. Not one to remember that.
Oh and he nicked one ands stood around like a cnut.
Hopefully just the nerves got to Livingstone. Probably didn't want to come out to a chase over 10 an over.
It was 8 at the end of the over he came in to bat.
Sorry I was out and only started following after Roy got out and seemed like they needed 42 runs off 26 balls.
No worries, if England had sent Morgan and Buttler in first I think they'd have iced it. The light was deteriorating and Livingstone was a bit frazzled by Morris being in his face I think.
Just seen Roy's dismissal.
Think it's the right call.
Think it's the right call.
Not looking at the ball, poor call
Honestly, I'm fed up with batsmen who do it intentionally. I'm happy to take a few instances of 'harsh decisions' to get it stamped out.
I thought the Roy dismissal was fair. He went across & was looking at the ball as it was thrown.
England should've won that game though.
England should've won that game though.
Very fair decision, I thought.
It's really not possible to separate intent. It's simpler to enforce it and ensure discipline in running between the wickets.
Plus, I thought it looked blatantly intentional.
Was the ball going to definitely hit the stumps? The replays that I saw didn't make it clear. I'm not convinced by intent at all from Roy but it clearly happens and the best way to target it would be to blanket give out if the ball would have gone to directly hit the stumps.
Roy was hundred percent out. Changed the direction completely. You don't take a circle to go back to your crease.
Totally irrelevant.
Looked to me as though he did a 90 turn rather than 180. It was a bit strange running nonetheless.
For me it would be relevant only to ensure that was a definite impediment regardless of whether or not Roy meant it. Otherwise it's completely up to the discretion of the third umpire.
Honestly you do. That path is the quickest way to turn around. It's much quicker than doing a full 180. Add that to years of being conditioned to not run down the wicket and it's really not a strange way to get back in.
Nah they changed the rules a few years ago I think. It used to be that you had to impede the ball and it to go in to hit the stumps but now it's just about intent.
I'm absolutely convinced that if you only watch that at full speed the argument that it's deliberate is completely destroyed and we all know (or at least the umpires all should) that things look more deliberate in slow motion.
Yeah, that's out. No need for him to cross to the other side.
Not sure if any of the resident Indians are following the tour of WI. Was all set up for India to steamroll us yesterday before the rain started. First time I get to watch cricket live in months and that happens 
Anyway, anyone watching the Women's World Cup? I think @DiseaseOfTheAge has in the past?
India off to a bit of a flier in the first game.
India off to a bit of a flier in the first game.
They're gonna get too many, here, I think.
Not liking the look of England's batting line up, given the BBC has Katherine Brunt listed to come in at seven...
Dunno. I find women's cricket hard to judge these days. The game is improving quickly and scores are getting bigger. Don't think England bowled particularly well either.
Not sure if any of the resident Indians are following the tour of WI. Was all set up for India to steamroll us yesterday before the rain started. First time I get to watch cricket live in months and that happens
Will follow it, yea. Due to the timezones, it ends pretty late for us at like 2-3AM, which I used to love in the past. Cricket and West Indian accents on commentary, lovely combination. Trying to sleep at reasonable hours these days(sound like an old geezer), so will catch the first half.
Thought India were in a pretty 'par' position yesterday when the rain came in.
Not a fan, find the quality to be quite poor. Saw bits of today's game.. do not know who the big names are. Smriti Mandhana was playing quite well.
Who are the favourites? Are there any GOAT players?
I've read a bit about Gunn in the Guardian and found her bowling very underwhelming when I saw it.
Raj for India is a gun. Aussies have some good players in Meg Lanning and Elysse Perry. England's Sarah Taylor and Tammy Beaumont are good to watch. The New Zealand captain Suzie Bates is a good player and the West Indies have some exciting players in Dottin and Taylor. Don't know enough about any of the other sides: Pakistan were all woeful last time they played over here.
There's no hiding away from the fact the quality is not as good as the men's game but it's improving rapidly and tends to produce some quite absorbing games which is a little different to the men's (for example the spinners tend to turn the ball more because there's less pace on the ball)
England are generally a better side than the showed today; a bit of nerves I think.
I think we'll go down heavily unless Sarah Taylor does something special.
Over, I think. This is too much for Knight and Sciver and there's sod all after them.
Roy was given out yesterday because he crossed over to the other side after looking at the ball. Correct decision.
Think Australia are the favourites for the Women's World Cup. Meg Lanning is the best batter in the women's game. Ellyse Perry is a very good bowler as well. The Southern Stars are defending champions as well.
For England, Sarah Taylor, Anya Shrubsole, Knight, Sciver are the main players. First ICC cup with Knight as captain since Charlotte Edwards retired.
How good is Smriti Mandhana, eh? Great strokes. She and Mithali Raj are India's best players.
Think Australia are the favourites for the Women's World Cup. Meg Lanning is the best batter in the women's game. Ellyse Perry is a very good bowler as well. The Southern Stars are defending champions as well.
For England, Sarah Taylor, Anya Shrubsole, Knight, Sciver are the main players. First ICC cup with Knight as captain since Charlotte Edwards retired.
How good is Smriti Mandhana, eh? Great strokes. She and Mithali Raj are India's best players.
That's what you get for using words like 'deliberate', 'willful' and 'intentional' in the laws. Unless the batsman uses his bat to smack the incoming throw to the boundary (or something equally wicked) it really isn't easy proving if an act is deliberate or not. Same applies for handballs in football, proving that a handball is deliberate or not isn't easy. You can easily make a case for a particular handball being both unintentional and foul play at the same time.
I can understand Roy's point of view. He was ball watching and may have unintentionally been drawn into running across the wicket. But at the end of the day the third umpire didn't have a choice. You can't have such a drastic change of path and expect to get the benefit of the doubt.
This is an ordinary England side.
That went a mile up in the air but keeper should've taken that!