The No T$ No B$ Thread

[Little Goffy 14,982]

43 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

It used to be three minutes. It’s now two.

A minute’s a long time if you only have two of them!

Two friends?

[Cranky Franky 2,270]

I actually have nothing to say.

[daisycutter 30,027]

32 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

I agree it’s a very harsh penalty. It was avoidable, too. I reckon it wouldn’t have happened had Mathews not been so cavalier. He should’ve talked to Shakib explaining the issue with his helmet, the strap on it was loose or whatever the reason, and in all likelihood Shakib wouldn’t have appealed to the umpire. That said, it is an unsavoury incident. 

according to matthews he did talk to shakib and the umpire about helmet. he claims the helmet strap broke at 1'55" whilst he was at the crease, and time  shown on video. after the talk, umpire asked shakib if he wanted to withdraw and he refused.

umpires and review umpire had opportunity to rule it a safety issue and not a time wasting issue ... but obviously didn't

[Guest]

Just now, daisycutter said:

according to matthews he did talk to shakib and the umpire about helmet. he claims the helmet strap broke at 1'55" whilst he was at the crease, and time  shown on video. after the talk, umpire asked shakib if he wanted to withdraw and he refused.

umpires and review umpire had opportunity to rule it a safety issue and not a time wasting issue ... but obviously didn't

That really is harsh! And not in the spirit of the game at all. I’m not a huge fan of Angelo Mathews and I was going for Bangladesh. But yeah, no wonder Mathews was extremely upset, he had every right to be.

[leave it to deever 17,628]

1 hour ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

That said, it is an unsavoury incident. 

For a game that's supposedly played between gentlemen, there are a surprising number of unsavory incidents.

[leave it to deever 17,628]

16 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Anyone else watching the cricket? Angelo Mathews was just given for “timed out.”  I’ve never seen that before. He was more surprised than anyone.

Yeah the commentators just said it’s the first time this has happened in International Cricket.

It’s just not cricket! 🧐

Looks weird on the scorecard…

* Couldn't be stuffed.

[leave it to deever 17,628]

1 hour ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

That really is harsh! And not in the spirit of the game at all. I’m not a huge fan of Angelo Mathews and I was going for Bangladesh. But yeah, no wonder Mathews was extremely upset, he had every right to be.

It's a strange rule. I wonder if it applies to all formats. I mean limited over games are a tad different to a game played over 5 days.

In The NZ / Pakistan game with the rain coming into the result it makes some sense but seems pretty stiff in a test match. And bowlers often slow games down with over rates.

It reflects poorly on the team appealing for it for me.

Edited November 7, 2023 by leave it to deever

[Guest]

1 hour ago, leave it to deever said:

It's a strange rule. I wonder if it applies to all formats. I mean limited over games are a tad different to a game played over 5 days.

In The NZ / Pakistan game with the rain coming into the result it makes some sense but seems pretty stiff in a test match. And bowlers often slow games down with over rates.

It reflects poorly on the team appealing for it for me.

It is applicable to all forms of cricket, even T20, if you wanna call that cricket. 😁 Same with the D/L method (for rain interrupted matches). 

[leave it to deever 17,628]

On 06/11/2023 at 13:05, Redleg said:

Put simply, if you put a dollar to win on every horse, you need a winner at 24 to 1 or better, to make a profit. 

I know someone who says she has backed the winner every year. She backs every horse in it.

Funny!

The odds shortened a bit today but at the time of posting backing the field each for a place would have given a modest return due to third place Sheraz. Two days ago it was @ $ 27 for a place. Throw in the other winners and it wasn't too shabby. 

[leave it to deever 17,628]

1 hour ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

It is applicable to all forms of cricket, even T20, if you wanna call that cricket. 😁 Same with the D/L method (for rain interrupted matches). 

Tx Wcw.

I agree Test matches are where it's at but T 20 is not too bad for simple entertainment. And the Indian Premier League has done a lot for making cricket popular again.

[leave it to deever 17,628]

6 hours ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

It was 2 minutes when I played club cricket back in the 70's and 80's and everyone was aware of the rule.

In those days, the club kit might only have allowed to have 2 batsmen padded up, so if a couple fell quickly it was a rush to get padded up.

Too bad if you forget the box. It's a tough rule. 

[Redleg 42,194]

7 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

It used to be three minutes. It’s now two.

A minute’s a long time if you only have two of them!

I think the rule says 3.

That’s what the quoted rule in the Sun said.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

I think the rule says 3.

That’s what the quoted rule in the Sun said.

The rule is three minutes. Except for during the World Cup matches where it used to be three minutes but has been changed to two minutes. 

[Redleg 42,194]

8 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

The rule is three minutes. Except for during the World Cup matches where it used to be three minutes but has been changed to two minutes. 

I bow to your superior cricket knowledge.

A humbling experience for Redleg admitting he was wrong.

I feel a headache coming on.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, leave it to deever said:

Too bad if you forget the box. It's a tough rule. 

It’s especially tough when you consider there’s a safety concern if a batsman’s helmet isn’t secured properly. One would think the timed out wouldn’t happen. I don’t know if the box is as much a safety issue. 

[Bitter but optimistic 22,289]

1 hour ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

It’s especially tough when you consider there’s a safety concern if a batsman’s helmet isn’t secured properly. One would think the timed out wouldn’t happen. I don’t know if the box is as much a safety issue. 

[censored] !!! This confirms my view of your insanity WCW !!!!!

I mean we could be talking serious cognitive impairment here !!!!!!!

Edited November 7, 2023 by Bitter but optimistic

[leave it to deever 17,628]

1 hour ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

It’s especially tough when you consider there’s a safety concern if a batsman’s helmet isn’t secured properly. One would think the timed out wouldn’t happen. I don’t know if the box is as much a safety issue. 

I didn't know it was an issue of one's religious affiliation.

[leave it to deever 17,628]

This game is now a real danger one. Afghanistan have some quality spinners. We look very flat. 

[Bitter but optimistic 22,289]

4 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

This game is now a real danger one. Afghanistan have some quality spinners. We look very flat. 

I'm not too worried deever. There is nothing in that pitch.

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

[censored] !!! This confirms my view of your insanity WCW !!!!!

I mean we could be talking serious cognitive impairment here !!!!!!!

I was talking about a box, not a helmet. Although some blokes don’t think with their heads, so you might be right. 😁

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

This game is now a real danger one. Afghanistan have some quality spinners. We look very flat. 

It won’t be a big run-chase. We should be right. 

[leave it to deever 17,628]

Top delivery from Starc.

[leave it to deever 17,628]

Starc ended up bowling a fair amount of old slop.

Edited November 7, 2023 by leave it to deever

[Neil Crompton 5,864]

Glen [censored] Maxwell. How absolutely un- [censored] - believable!!!
It might be nearly 4am but I wouldn’t have missed this innings for the world.

[leave it to deever 17,628]

2 hours ago, Neil Crompton said:

Glen [censored] Maxwell. How absolutely un- [censored] - believable!!!
It might be nearly 4am but I wouldn’t have missed this innings for the world.

Unbelievable