Question for the cricket tragics

[Clint]

We all know that custom has it, that if you are hit with the ball thrown by a fielder, whilst attempting a run, it is deemed against the spirit of the game to seek over throws. Well I call "Poppycock". I firmly believe that if you or your bat is struck by the ball, whilst attempting a run, then its a free for all and you run as many as you can. I think it was Finch that got hit last night in the Saffers game and did not call for the extra runs because "its not the thing to do". Now I'm not blaming Finch, 'cause imagine the backlash if he did. But I think that it is part of the "risk" that the fielder takes in having a ping at the stumps. If it ricochets and goes to the boundary then those additional runs count (just ask the Kiwis) (sorry @Kiwi Eagle You were robbed). I think that it should be either a dead ball or play on and run like mad!! Personally I think the latter.

 

[Ranga]

I watched the first innings last night and thought we had enough runs on the board. All of Ngidi's wickets were from the ball holding up on the surface, so I am surprised they got the total with relative ease.

You are 100% right on the answer to your question, though. The fielder takes the risk and must accept it. An over throw is an over throw, no matter how it comes and the batter should not apologise for it - as much as it sucked for NZ in the WC Final, that's just the way sport goes. Sometimes, cricket takes the 'spirit of the game' concept to places that it doesn't need to go... (Mankading is apparently against 'the spirit' but as a former fast bowler I was not concerned about that, it was just that I could never lower myself to do it as I didn't want the batter to think I could not get him out with skill.)

Speaking of apologising, why do tennis players say 'sorry' when the ball hits the net chord and trickles over the net for their point? They didn't mean to do it and they have no intention of giving the point to the other player, so why bother with the sham of apologising for it?

 

[Clint]

Speaking of apologising, why do tennis players say 'sorry' when the ball hits the net chord and trickles over the net for their point? They didn't mean to do it and they have no intention of giving the point to the other player, so why bother with the sham of apologising for it?

Agree with this also.

 

[Chip and Chase]

I think this theory came from the old days when you could change the line of your run to put yourself between the stumps and the fielder - so the school of thought was that if you got between ball and stumps then it was a bit rich to rub it in by taking the overthrow if the ball hit you.

They changed the rule a few years back that you can't change the course of your run between the wickets - now deemed interfering with the field. So these days you could make a case that it's fair game to take the overthrows. Most players don't of course, Stokes was on the record as saying he wouldn't have run had the ball not made the boundary but because it went for 4 he didn't get an option.

 

[Once Was Brissie Kid]

Stand firm Sydney cricket. I see the AFL cheerleaders are back out in force trying yet again to convince the SCG Trust and everyone else that drop-in pitches are fantastic. Well maybe for AFL, but not for cricket. Long live the Sydney CRICKET Ground.