GerryShedd
Super Moderator
One international umpire (who maybe should remain anonymous) said of the hit wicket: " 9 down and a chance to go home early, out.
TV match, not out."
Tayls79 wrote:
I saw and took part in a twitter discussion on it and that passage you quote, Gerry, was the crucial one. As interpret it TRJ was still wafting his bat around, overelaborately, when regaining normal position after his shot. So it is still his follow through and therefore he hadn't "completed any action in receiving the delivery". One thing we will probably never know now is if the ball was dead or not at this moment, ie hit the ground beyond the boundary. This is the subject of the next para in the rules, and neither camera has both in shot, understandably. Both umpires were watching the ball in flight. Personally I think moral out from the unnecessary, ostentatious even, bat waving after the shot ;-). But of course I am a Warks supporter.
GerryShedd wrote:
Back to the match - there has apparently been quite a bit of discussion on at least one umpiring forum about the hit wicket decision against Toby Roland Jones. The consensus seems to be that he was wrongly given out because it is not out if the contact with the stumps occurs, as the Laws says, "after the striker has completed any action in receiving the delivery" . As I understand it, the only exceptions to this are if it happens when the striker is setting off for a run or is seeking to defend his wicket, neither of which seems to have been the case.
The suggestion is that both umpires were (understandably) following the flight of the ball and didn't see what happened and that, had there been DRS available, the decision would have been not out.
What do others (and especially our resident umpire Highveld) think?
Back to the match - there has apparently been quite a bit of discussion on at least one umpiring forum about the hit wicket decision against Toby Roland Jones. The consensus seems to be that he was wrongly given out because it is not out if the contact with the stumps occurs, as the Laws says, "after the striker has completed any action in receiving the delivery" . As I understand it, the only exceptions to this are if it happens when the striker is setting off for a run or is seeking to defend his wicket, neither of which seems to have been the case.
The suggestion is that both umpires were (understandably) following the flight of the ball and didn't see what happened and that, had there been DRS available, the decision would have been not out.
What do others (and especially our resident umpire Highveld) think?
Details of Middlesex squad:
https://www.middlesexccc.com/news/2023/07/squad-preview-warwickshire-v-middlesex-county-championship
Updates on injuries based on interview with Mark Robinson:
Chris Rushworth’s return is yet to be confirmed and he’ll join Craig Miles and Liam Norwell on the sidelines. Both will be looking to feature in the One Day Cup, although Miles is slightly ahead in terms of overs in the bank. The 29-year-old featured for the Second XI this week, but he’s still on the comeback trail after just 14 overs.
“We’ll have a completely different attack on Tuesday,” Robinson added. “We’ve had Hassan, Rushy and a bit of Woakesy but none of those will be playing.
“We haven’t been able to get him [Chris Rushworth] in for a scan, but the sooner we do, we’ll know what the damage is. We’re hoping it’ll be two to three weeks. Olly Hannon-Dalby will carry us like he’s done the last few years alongside Henry [Brookes] and Mir Hamza who got better as the game went on.”
This is (relatively) good news:
The Cricketer says:
"The Cricketer has been told that players not selected for their previous two Hundred games will be able to slide into their county sides for One-Day Cup fixtures, so long as they do not clash with their team's Hundred matchday. All parties would then have to agree to the player playing for their county."
I know that I have defended our groundsman and his pitches on here, probably to the annoyance of others. But the fact that this match is being played on the same pitch that was used for Finals Day is very worrying - it's not surprising that it has deteriorated massively.
I get the fact that the Edgbaston square has to accommodate an enormous number of matches. But my suspicion, maybe unfounded, is that we will have a pristine new pitch for the first match in The Hundred.
Andy wrote:
Assume he's just helping out. Loads of lads played for the 2's this week. Shaikh, Maddy, Amir Khan and a few others etc all played for the ECB Midlands rep side this week, Garrett away on loan etc. Guess we were short.
Ackerman has been playing for Knowle and Dorridge this summer in the Birmingham League.
Thanks.
Anyone know why the substitute fielder today was South African Marques Ackerman?
Rushworth hamstring is bad news. Norwell was having a bowl at lunchtime so maybe he is close to coming back.
Anyone know what’s wrong with Rushworth - left the field part way through an over?
Wading through the River Rea and climbing the wall works for me.
Interesting article - but I didn't see any mention of Warwickshire.
paulbear wrote:
Are you with the Met Office or do you have all this detail to hand, very impressive, hope you are right, I am there for all 4 days.
Let's hope that mad doesn't become known as the Michael Fish of bearsfans.
Pat Brown now signed by Derbyshire.
I think that Clubs do sometimes struggle to handle these matters as sensitively as they should. The arrival of agents on the scene has probably made a difference.
Matters have certainly advanced since the sixties - I read recently that letters for all the players would be pinned to a notice board and players wouldn't know until they opened their letter whether it was a new contract or a termination letter.
Lintott definitely isn't in any of The Hundred squads so should be available unless he is drafted in as a late replacement.
It's good news that the competition now has a sponsor and it's not fast food or something else unhealthy:
https://www.sportbusiness.com/news/two-down-one-to-go-as-ecb-lands-metro-bank-as-one-day-sponsor/
paulbear wrote:
GerryShedd, I seem to recall Dennis Amiss in his first book 'In Search of Runs', saying that the pitch was damp but they could have played on a perfectly dry one next to it that was covered better. The BBC refused to move their cameras so the damp one was used and on a drying pitch, scoring was difficult.
That's interesting and if Dennis says so, it's probably true.
Looking at Leslie Duckworth's Club history, he confirms that the start of the match was delayed by 2 hours and 50 minutes because of overnight rain, some of which got under the covers. He says that the damp pitch was easy to bat on for Kent but, on the next day, the sun got onto it and the Warwickshire batsmen were all at sea.
Duckworth says that trip by air to Canterbury cost £10 each. And there is a picture of the passengers waiting to board the aircraft at what he calls Elmdon airport. About half my face is visible in the photo so I can say that I appear in the Club history, a slightly dubious claim to fame.