19 June 2008

Law 43

Well, how stupid was the one day game yesterday?

The match was regulated, like all others, by regulations and what do they say "rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools". There was an awful lot of bad weather but surely it is better to get a result if at all possible.

Rightly or wrongly I am a great supporter of Law 43 and you will not find it in the law book! It is the one that should state that common sense should prevail if both captains and the umpires agree. I have used it this season when we have shortened the tea interval because we were worried about the weather and surely this is the right thing to do?

The intention must always be to play cricket because this is what cricket is all about.


Ed said...

Yes, agree that this is another example of lack of common sense. I wonder if covered grounds - like the Millenium Stadium will end up being used for ODIs and Tests?

I didn't watch the game but what confuses me is the "NZ robbed" headlines....they needed 9 an over if the match went full distance and had got 8 an over in the previous 4 so weren't up with the rate required. They may well have won if the game went full distance, but it was hardly a done deal.

GROV said...

I think that I am correct in saying that one more over would have constituted a game and they needed 7 from that over so the headline was probably correct.

Ed said...

yep, I've now read that. Obviously they were favourites, but they could easily have lost a wicket in trying to get that 7, or simply not got the runs.

Still doesn't take away from the fact that the "lunch" interval should have been shorter.....