After he got hit for three fours. The fool should be banned from bowling for the innings. He didn't even apologize.
126.1 Shoaib Akhtar to Dhoni, no run, low full toss on the off stumps as Shoaib searches for the yorker, punched to mid off 126.2 Shoaib Akhtar to Dhoni, FOUR, overpitched and on the off, that's the problem striving for the yorker and not getting it right, that's in the slot and Dhoni plays a superb straight drive past mid-off! 126.3 Shoaib Akhtar to Dhoni, no run, short of a good length and outside the off stump, left alone to the keeper 126.4 Shoaib Akhtar to Dhoni, FOUR, another short one, plenty of pace on it, Dhoni waits on this one and uppercuts over the slips cordon for another four! 126.5 Shoaib Akhtar to Dhoni, FOUR, short one banged in from round the stumps, Dhoni lines it up and cracks the pull through midwicket. Third boundary of the over! 126.6 Shoaib Akhtar to Dhoni, (noball) bye: FOUR, fast and furious. This one is a beamer and luckily for Dhoni is well down the leg side. That is a deadly, dangerous delivery and Shoaib gets a warning from Simon Taufel! That is an exceptionally dangerous beamer. It could easily have knocked Dhoni's head off. Shoaib needs to be more careful than that. 126.6 Shoaib Akhtar to Dhoni, one runEnd of over 127 (18 runs) India 474/5 (trail by 114 runs) Shoaib Akhtar 25-7-100-1 (1w 4nb) - Pavilion End MS Dhoni 136* (140b 17x4 4x6) IK Pathan 55* (117b 5x4 1x6)
In article <AfadnRdkbJdaJUjeRVn-iA@comcast.com>, Don Giovanni says...
126.6 Shoaib Akhtar to Dhoni, (noball) bye: FOUR, fast and furious. This> one is a beamer and luckily for Dhoni is well down the leg side.> That is a deadly, dangerous delivery and Shoaib gets a warning> from Simon Taufel!> That is an exceptionally dangerous beamer. It could easily have> knocked Dhoni's head off. Shoaib needs to be more careful than> that.
The penalty for bowling a beamer is way too soft. IMO, it should be instant removal from the bowling attack for the rest of the match.
Don Giovanni 24 January 2006 08:35:19 [ permanent link ]
I just heard that he also snatched something from the umpire after the completion of the over. The lack of apology makes one think the beamer was intentional.
--
<shariq_tariq@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1138080543.029498.118530@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> That was SO scary....could have killed the batsman....that warrants a> ban....there is no need for the repeat...and he did not> apologize....shame on you Shoaib>
Don Giovanni 24 January 2006 08:36:20 [ permanent link ]
"RodP" <rodp@hotmail.com.nothere> wrote in message news:MPG.1e40656bc1f24fe9989d64@freenews.iinet.net.au...> The penalty for bowling a beamer is way too soft. IMO, it should be> instant removal from the bowling attack for the rest of the match.
Absolutely! While mistakes can happen this appears to have been pre-meditated.
In article <16nm8787ijw5s$.1jouk3xay6kbs$.dlg@40tude.net>, Ian Galbraith says...
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:25:50 +1100, RodP wrote:>
[snip]>
The penalty for bowling a beamer is way too soft. IMO, it should be > > instant removal from the bowling attack for the rest of the match.>
What if it was an accident?
Don't care, it's a ball that can cause serious injury. If the ball is slippery then reduce your pace. Intent is almost impossible to judge and beamers are by far the most dangerous ball you can deliver to a batsmen.
Don Giovanni 24 January 2006 09:48:04 [ permanent link ]
Running on the pitch is also often accidental. Also, the umpires can be given some discretion.
--
"Ian Galbraith" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:16nm8787ijw5s$.1jouk3xay6kbs$.dlg@40tude.net...> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:25:50 +1100, RodP wrote:>
[snip]>
The penalty for bowling a beamer is way too soft. IMO, it should be>> instant removal from the bowling attack for the rest of the match.>
Ian Galbraith 24 January 2006 10:02:13 [ permanent link ]
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:45:22 +1100, RodP wrote:
In article <16nm8787ijw5s$.1jouk3xay6kbs$.dlg@40tude.net>, > Ian Galbraith says...
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:25:50 +1100, RodP wrote:
The penalty for bowling a beamer is way too soft. IMO, it should be >>> instant removal from the bowling attack for the rest of the match.
What if it was an accident?
Don't care, it's a ball that can cause serious injury. If the ball is> slippery then reduce your pace. Intent is almost impossible to judge> and beamers are by far the most dangerous ball you can deliver to a> batsmen.
Yeah but accidents can occur, banning a bowler after just 1 is over the top and influences the game too much.
In article <5k4ny812535z.1qhaqs3x5pd7t.dlg@40tude.net>, Ian Galbraith says...
Don't care, it's a ball that can cause serious injury. If the ball is> > slippery then reduce your pace. Intent is almost impossible to judge> > and beamers are by far the most dangerous ball you can deliver to a> > batsmen.>
Yeah but accidents can occur, banning a bowler after just 1 is over the top> and influences the game too much.
Then the bowler should be attempting to bowl within their means and legally.
Colin Kynoch 24 January 2006 10:05:34 [ permanent link ]
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:25:50 +1100, RodP <rodp@hotmail.com.nothere>after much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
In article <AfadnRdkbJdaJUjeRVn-iA@comcast.com>, >Don Giovanni says...>
126.6 Shoaib Akhtar to Dhoni, (noball) bye: FOUR, fast and furious. This>> one is a beamer and luckily for Dhoni is well down the leg side.>> That is a deadly, dangerous delivery and Shoaib gets a warning>> from Simon Taufel!>> That is an exceptionally dangerous beamer. It could easily have>> knocked Dhoni's head off. Shoaib needs to be more careful than>> that.>
The penalty for bowling a beamer is way too soft. IMO, it should be >instant removal from the bowling attack for the rest of the match.
Which is a harsh penalty for a genuine mistake.
For a deliberate beamer I agree, and so does the ICC.
Colin Kynoch 24 January 2006 10:06:52 [ permanent link ]
On 23 Jan 2006 21:52:19 -0800, "Syndicate King" <vasant.kumar@gmail.com>after much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
Akhtar should be banned for the rest of the series, plain and simple.>This crosses all limits of tolerance.>Will Madugalle do anything about this ?
Depends on whether the umpires report him or not doesn't it!!
Past record says no, but this>offense is way over the line.
According to cricinfo the appropriate penalty was implemented.
Colin Kynoch 24 January 2006 10:11:06 [ permanent link ]
On 23 Jan 2006 22:07:13 -0800, "Halekala" <mondal@gmail.com>after much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
His arm action on 3rd day was horrible. I mean, it was downright>pitching. Check this slow mo action:>
Colin Kynoch 24 January 2006 10:12:03 [ permanent link ]
On 23 Jan 2006 22:37:25 -0800, "dodo" <dodo.2k@gmail.com>after much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
Ian Galbraith wrote:>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:25:50 +1100, RodP wrote:>>
[snip]>>
The penalty for bowling a beamer is way too soft. IMO, it should be>> > instant removal from the bowling attack for the rest of the match.>>
What if it was an accident?>>
-->> You Can't Stop The Signal>
then that would prevent such accidents in the future>
once that bowler (indeed any bowler) knows the penalty the accidents>will go down
Colin Kynoch 24 January 2006 10:13:57 [ permanent link ]
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:45:22 +1100, RodP <rodp@hotmail.com.nothere>after much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
In article <16nm8787ijw5s$.1jouk3xay6kbs$.dlg@40tude.net>, >Ian Galbraith says...>
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:25:50 +1100, RodP wrote:>>
[snip]>>
The penalty for bowling a beamer is way too soft. IMO, it should be >> > instant removal from the bowling attack for the rest of the match.>>
What if it was an accident?>
Don't care, it's a ball that can cause serious injury. If the ball is>slippery then reduce your pace.
Fine on that basis lets ban any delivery that passes above waist high.
Intent is almost impossible to judge>and beamers are by far the most dangerous ball you can deliver to a>batsmen.
Why then are far more batsmen injured from bouncers (or yorkers for that matter) than from beamers.
Colin Kynoch 24 January 2006 10:14:49 [ permanent link ]
On 23 Jan 2006 23:01:01 -0800, shariqt@hotmail.comafter much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
Ian Galbraith wrote:>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:25:50 +1100, RodP wrote:>>
[snip]>>
The penalty for bowling a beamer is way too soft. IMO, it should be>> > instant removal from the bowling attack for the rest of the match.>>
What if it was an accident?>>
An accident warrannts an apology....there was none
That is does.
But it doesn't mean it was not an accident if there was no apology.
Colin Kynoch 24 January 2006 10:17:10 [ permanent link ]
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:03:53 +1100, RodP <rodp@hotmail.com.nothere>after much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
In article <5k4ny812535z.1qhaqs3x5pd7t.dlg@40tude.net>, >Ian Galbraith says...>
Don't care, it's a ball that can cause serious injury. If the ball is>> > slippery then reduce your pace. Intent is almost impossible to judge>> > and beamers are by far the most dangerous ball you can deliver to a>> > batsmen.>>
Yeah but accidents can occur, banning a bowler after just 1 is over the top>> and influences the game too much.>
Then the bowler should be attempting to bowl within their means and >legally.
Colin Kynoch 24 January 2006 10:18:24 [ permanent link ]
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:05:36 +1100, RodP <rodp@hotmail.com.nothere>after much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
In article <4akbt15kul6taogp95cl60f7bed8k82b9i@4ax.com>, >Colin Kynoch says...>
The penalty for bowling a beamer is way too soft. IMO, it should be >> >instant removal from the bowling attack for the rest of the match.>>
Which is a harsh penalty for a genuine mistake.>
It matches the danger of the delivery.
Then you would also be requesting that a bowler be removed from the attack for bowling a bouncer.
Want the balls to be changed to tennis balls and one hand one bounce to be introduced as well?
For a deliberate beamer I agree, and so does the ICC.>
Madhusudan Singh 24 January 2006 10:21:34 [ permanent link ]
Colin Kynoch wrote:
On 23 Jan 2006 23:01:01 -0800, shariqt@hotmail.comafter much thought> and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives> of those that read it:>
Ian Galbraith wrote:>>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:25:50 +1100, RodP wrote:>>>
[snip]>>>
The penalty for bowling a beamer is way too soft. IMO, it should be>>> > instant removal from the bowling attack for the rest of the match.>>>
What if it was an accident?>>>
An accident warrannts an apology....there was none>
That is does.>
But it doesn't mean it was not an accident if there was no apology.
If there is an accident but no apology, the only way it can be an accident is that if the perpetrator is unaware of his / her actions. Are you asserting that Akhtar was unaware that he had just "bowled" a beamer ?
(You don't have to defend Akhtar's actions if you feel obliged to defend Lee's antics somehow. Lee apologizes whenever he does it, the sincerity of that apology being questionable in some eyes, but that is a side issue.).
In article <q1lbt1h36i3dgmkiiood218ft3jenq78ok@4ax.com>, Colin Kynoch says...
It matches the danger of the delivery.>
Then you would also be requesting that a bowler be removed from the> attack for bowling a bouncer.>
Want the balls to be changed to tennis balls and one hand one bounce> to be introduced as well?
No, because a batsmen has more than enough time to avoid or play a bouncer. You give the impression that you've never faced a quick bowler who'd delivered both a bouncer and a beamer.
Don Giovanni 24 January 2006 10:52:15 [ permanent link ]
"RodP" <rodp@hotmail.com.nothere> wrote in message news:MPG.1e408381f211bc8a989d6f@freenews.iinet.net.au...> Probably due to the frequency to bouncers vs beamers. I've been> beamed and I have a crack in my skull from it yet I've not been> hit by a bouncer.
Sorry to hear about that (injury), mate. Best wishes to you.
In article <H_SdnbJE9bUvQUjenZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com>, Don Giovanni says...
Probably due to the frequency to bouncers vs beamers. I've been> > beamed and I have a crack in my skull from it yet I've not been> > hit by a bouncer.>
Sorry to hear about that (injury), mate. Best wishes to you.
It was 15 years <twich> ago <twich>. I'm ok banana.
"Syndicate King" <vasant.kumar@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1138081939.894082.139340@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...> Akhtar should be banned for the rest of the series, plain and simple.> This crosses all limits of tolerance. Why? India needs a bowler like this. 41.2 overs 146 runs for 1 wkt with a a best 1-100 with an avg. of 146.00, ER- .53 and SR of 248.0
Colin Kynoch 25 January 2006 03:40:11 [ permanent link ]
On 24 Jan 2006 12:05:39 -0800, "Ramani Duraiswami" <Ramani.D@gmail.com>after much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
Colin Kynoch wrote:>> On 23 Jan 2006 22:37:25 -0800, "dodo" <dodo.2k@gmail.com>after much>> thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the>> lives of those that read it:>>
Ian Galbraith wrote:>> >> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:25:50 +1100, RodP wrote:>> >>
once that bowler (indeed any bowler) knows the penalty the accidents>> >will go down>>
Which would imply that they are not accidents.>>
Colin Kynoch>
If you tread on your wicket hit-wicket it is an accident (you obviously>do not want to get out). However, once you do it, you go back and>figure out how to change your shot to not step on the wicket.>Similarly, there is no *cost* to beaning
Not if you do it once and the umpire deems it to be an accident (other than the delivery being called a no-ball
If you do it twice then you are removed from the attack for the rest of the match.
Not only that the captain and the bowler are to be reported to the MR
(except some notoriety, which>probably works to the advantage of a fast bowler). An immediate ban>would ensure that the bowler would (if these rather than purpose were>the reasons), dry their hands, grip the ball properly, think about the>ball better etc. before bowling.
Let's not stop there why not ban bowlers from bowling bouncers (more batsmen are injured from bouncers than from beamers)
We could then stop bowlers from bowling above 100kmh as surely faster deliveries carry a greater chance of injuring a batsman than slower deliveries.
Colin Kynoch 25 January 2006 04:01:29 [ permanent link ]
On 23 Jan 2006 23:31:37 -0800, "Salil" <salilbenegal@gmail.com>after much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
Colin Kynoch wrote:>> >> What if it was an accident?>> >
Don't care, it's a ball that can cause serious injury. If the ball is>> >slippery then reduce your pace.>>
Fine on that basis lets ban any delivery that passes above waist high.>
No, the reason a beamer's so dangerous isn't because it's at head>height only. Look at the mechanics of it. Any time a bouncer hits the>surface, it loses a lot of pace and the batsman has a little more time>to react, given that it's going across a longer motion path to reach>the batsman and that a good portion of its speed/kinetic energy is>dissipated.
Minimally so, as evidenced by the sorts of injuries that a batsman can receive when hit by a bouncer.
More batsmen are injured by bouncers than by beamers.
A beamer takes much less time to reach the batsman, giving him even>less time to react - and the fact that it doesn't bounce means that it>loses very little of its original pace to friction/air resistance. As a>result, if it hits the batsman, it strikes with significantly far more>momentum than a bouncer would
Marginally more. And that assumes that an attempted yorker is bowled as quickly as a bouncer
- hence why if both connect with a>batsman's head, a beamer will cause far more damage.
Yet the trajectory of a beamer is far easier to calculate for a batsman than a bouncer that has the variation in bounce from the pitch to make the trajectory more difficult to work out.
It is a far greater threat than the bouncer, and I'm also of the>opinion that a zero tolerance rule of sorts should be put on these head>high full tosses.
Yet the ICC only defines a beamer as one that passes the batsmen above waist high on the full
I would suggest that a bouncer that is head high is a far more dangerous delivery than a full toss that is just above waist high, and far more likely to cause an injury.
One is more than enough, and should suffice for a>bowler to be taken off immediately.
Any bowler can have an accident an bowl one. Twice is careless. So it makes far more sense to remove a bowler after the second one than the first one.
Plus, give less margin for error>there, and there's less likely to be so many of these errors from>various bowlers.
Only if you are of the view that the bowlers bowl them deliberately.
Colin Kynoch 25 January 2006 04:03:18 [ permanent link ]
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:34:10 +1100, RodP <rodp@hotmail.com.nothere>after much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
In article <3okbt15nl64ics409n6ssee96pu1pd3jrr@4ax.com>, >Colin Kynoch says...>
Intent is almost impossible to judge>> >and beamers are by far the most dangerous ball you can deliver to a>> >batsmen.>>
Why then are far more batsmen injured from bouncers (or yorkers for>> that matter) than from beamers.>
Probably due to the frequency to bouncers vs beamers. I've been>beamed and I have a crack in my skull from it yet I've not been>hit by a bouncer.
I have been beamed on several occasions and found the ball far easier to avoid than a bouncer.
I have been hit on the helmet three times by bouncers with no ill effects other than a mild ringing in the ears for a few moments.
The only injury I received was from a spinner that came out of the rough and broke my nose. (My fault as I should have been wearing a helmet).
Colin Kynoch 25 January 2006 04:06:36 [ permanent link ]
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 02:21:34 -0500, Madhusudan Singh <spammers-go-here@spam.invalid>after much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
Colin Kynoch wrote:>
On 23 Jan 2006 23:01:01 -0800, shariqt@hotmail.comafter much thought>> and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives>> of those that read it:>>
Ian Galbraith wrote:>>>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:25:50 +1100, RodP wrote:>>>>
[snip]>>>>
The penalty for bowling a beamer is way too soft. IMO, it should be>>>> > instant removal from the bowling attack for the rest of the match.>>>>
What if it was an accident?>>>>
An accident warrannts an apology....there was none>>
That is does.>>
But it doesn't mean it was not an accident if there was no apology.>
If there is an accident but no apology, the only way it can be an accident>is that if the perpetrator is unaware of his / her actions.
Why?
It may have been an accident, but he may not have been sorry it happened.
Are you>asserting that Akhtar was unaware that he had just "bowled" a beamer ?
Not at all.
Are you asserting it was deliberate?
(You don't have to defend Akhtar's actions if you feel obliged to defend>Lee's antics somehow.
I don't consider that an apology is required for it to be considered accidental. It has nothing to do with Lee.
Lee apologizes whenever he does it, the sincerity of>that apology being questionable in some eyes, but that is a side issue.).
On your basis as long as an apology is made it is accidental and if no apology is made it must be deliberate.
So using your theory a bowler could deliberately bowl a beamer and as long as an apology is made it should be deemed accidental??
Colin Kynoch 25 January 2006 04:07:04 [ permanent link ]
On 23 Jan 2006 23:30:36 -0800, "prakmel" <prakmel2005@gmail.com>after much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
Madhusudan Singh wrote:>> Colin Kynoch wrote:>>
On 23 Jan 2006 23:01:01 -0800, shariqt@hotmail.comafter much thought>> > and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives>> > of those that read it:>> >
Ian Galbraith wrote:>> >>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:25:50 +1100, RodP wrote:>> >>>
[snip]>> >>>
The penalty for bowling a beamer is way too soft. IMO, it should be>> >>> > instant removal from the bowling attack for the rest of the match.>> >>>
What if it was an accident?>> >>>
An accident warrannts an apology....there was none>> >
That is does.>> >
But it doesn't mean it was not an accident if there was no apology.>>
If there is an accident but no apology, the only way it can be an accident>> is that if the perpetrator is unaware of his / her actions. Are you>> asserting that Akhtar was unaware that he had just "bowled" a beamer ?]>
LOL.>>
(You don't have to defend Akhtar's actions if you feel obliged to defend>> Lee's antics somehow. Lee apologizes whenever he does it, the sincerity of>> that apology being questionable in some eyes, but that is a side issue.).>
Colin Kynoch 25 January 2006 04:11:25 [ permanent link ]
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:37:31 +1100, RodP <rodp@hotmail.com.nothere>after much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
In article <q1lbt1h36i3dgmkiiood218ft3jenq78ok@4ax.com>, >Colin Kynoch says...>
It matches the danger of the delivery.>>
Then you would also be requesting that a bowler be removed from the>> attack for bowling a bouncer.>>
Want the balls to be changed to tennis balls and one hand one bounce>> to be introduced as well?>
No, because a batsmen has more than enough time to avoid or play >a bouncer.
Only a couple of hundredths of a second at best.
You give the impression that you've never faced a quick>bowler who'd delivered both a bouncer and a beamer.
I have and I found beamers easier to avoid than bouncers. The trajectory is far easier to work out as there is no variation due to bounce.
Further more I do not consider a ball that passes just over waist high to be anywhere near as dangerous as a bouncer that is head high.
When will the ICC sanction a deliberatemeter?>
They are called umpires.>
They can read minds?
They don't need to. They only have to deem it to be deliberate.
Given Umpires make many subjective decisions in a game why would this one be any more difficult?
In article <onjdt1lc11glr2lp98inmg2s8e971f5tot@4ax.com>, Colin Kynoch says...
No, because a batsmen has more than enough time to avoid or play > >a bouncer.>
Only a couple of hundredths of a second at best.
A ball's impact with the pitch slows it down by around 30kph. You're also focusing on where the ball is going to pitch which requires adjustment when you realise the ball isn't going to pitch and is still above your eyeline halfway down the pitch. It would be more significant than hundredths of a second.
You give the impression that you've never faced a quick> >bowler who'd delivered both a bouncer and a beamer.
I have and I found beamers easier to avoid than bouncers.
You've faced a Lee bouncer and a Lee beamer? Why do international batsmen react so negatively at a beamer when it's directed at them yet accept a bouncer so readily?
Perhaps you should start a coaching clinic on how to avoid beamers for international players.
When will the ICC sanction a deliberatemeter?
They are called umpires.
They can read minds?
They don't need to. They only have to deem it to be deliberate.
Given Umpires make many subjective decisions in a game why would this> one be any more difficult?
Because it's a judgement of intent by the bowler. How often have you seen a beamer ruled as a deliberate beamer?
In article <38ldt11l0hsrel25bknpoaftbiaroh6vlk@4ax.com>, Colin Kynoch says...
It allows for an accident
It makes bowlers take more care when they're delivering a ball at high speed.
If the umpire deems it to be deliberate they are out of the attack.
...and this has happened... when?
Your implication is that the bowlers do it deliberately.
I believe at times they have been bowled deliberately. I'm 100% convinced that Lee's beamer to Razzaq was in retaliation to Razzaq's beamer to Lee.
It would appear that the concensus is that Akhtar's beamer to Dhoni was deliberate and this is where you predictably come back with, the umpire didn't remove Aktar from the attack so obviously it wasn't deliberate.
Colin Kynoch 25 January 2006 04:56:32 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:40:52 +1100, RodP <rodp@hotmail.com.nothere>after much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
In article <38ldt11l0hsrel25bknpoaftbiaroh6vlk@4ax.com>, >Colin Kynoch says...>
It allows for an accident>
It makes bowlers take more care when they're delivering a ball at>high speed.
You are aware that slow bowlers can bowl beamers too?
If the umpire deems it to be deliberate they are out of the attack.>
...and this has happened... when?
Not yet to my knowledge.
Your implication is that the bowlers do it deliberately.>
I believe at times they have been bowled deliberately. I'm 100%>convinced that Lee's beamer to Razzaq was in retaliation to Razzaq's>beamer to Lee.
Well the umpire wasn't and he was a little closer to the action.
It would appear that the concensus is that Akhtar's beamer to Dhoni>was deliberate
It is?
and this is where you predictably come back with,>the umpire didn't remove Aktar from the attack so obviously it wasn't>deliberate.
I don't believe the umpire considered it deliberate. I haven't seen it.
Colin Kynoch 25 January 2006 04:57:13 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:41:22 +1100, RodP <rodp@hotmail.com.nothere>after much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
In article <s9ldt198usng6cjd9ubbrc141qd4ikakvc@4ax.com>, >Colin Kynoch says...>
Missed my quoted text, they're taken off for that innings, not the>> >match.>>
They are also reported to the MR if they do it twice in an innings as>> is the Captain.>
Colin Kynoch 25 January 2006 05:03:52 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:38:11 +1100, RodP <rodp@hotmail.com.nothere>after much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
In article <onjdt1lc11glr2lp98inmg2s8e971f5tot@4ax.com>, >Colin Kynoch says...>
No, because a batsmen has more than enough time to avoid or play >> >a bouncer.>>
Only a couple of hundredths of a second at best.>
A ball's impact with the pitch slows it down by around 30kph.
Assuming they deliveries are bowled at the same initial pace.
Given the extra effort bowlers put into their bouncers I think that it would be a false assumption to conclude that a beamer and a bouncer have the same initial speed.
You're also focusing on where the ball is going to pitch which requires >adjustment when you realise the ball isn't going to pitch and is >still above your eyeline halfway down the pitch.
It isn't necessarily above your eyeline halfway down the pitch. In fact it could be below the eyeline for the vast majority of the delivery (eg Lee bowling the waist high delivery) .
It would be more>significant than hundredths of a second.
Your assumptions are flawed.
You give the impression that you've never faced a quick>> >bowler who'd delivered both a bouncer and a beamer.>
I have and I found beamers easier to avoid than bouncers. >
You've faced a Lee bouncer and a Lee beamer?
No I haven't and nor have you.
Why do international>batsmen react so negatively at a beamer when it's directed at them>yet accept a bouncer so readily?
Conditioning.
Perhaps you should start a coaching clinic on how to avoid beamers>for international players.
I haven't seen any beamers bowled in international cricket hit a batsman above the shoulder.
So clearly they have no problem with avoiding being hit on the head.
I have seen numerous batsmen hit on the head by bouncers though.
When will the ICC sanction a deliberatemeter?>
They are called umpires.>
They can read minds?>
They don't need to. They only have to deem it to be deliberate.>
Given Umpires make many subjective decisions in a game why would this>> one be any more difficult?>
Because it's a judgement of intent by the bowler. How often have you >seen a beamer ruled as a deliberate beamer?
I have done so as an umpire (admittedly not in international cricket) and I have also seen it several times (again not in international of for that matter first class cricket
In article <4gmdt1lle10r05lu5ckkd7u6ghsv9o4c68@4ax.com>, Colin Kynoch says...
It makes bowlers take more care when they're delivering a ball at> >high speed.>
You are aware that slow bowlers can bowl beamers too?
Aktar is a slow bowler?
I believe at times they have been bowled deliberately. I'm 100%> >convinced that Lee's beamer to Razzaq was in retaliation to Razzaq's> >beamer to Lee.
Well the umpire wasn't and he was a little closer to the action.
Who was watching where Lee's foot landed and didn't have the benefit of replay.
It would appear that the concensus is that Akhtar's beamer to Dhoni> >was deliberate
It is?
Apparently so.
I don't believe the umpire considered it deliberate. I haven't seen> it.
Aktar continued to bowl so obviously he didn't. It would seem that no umpire would deem a beamer deliberate regardless of the intent of the bowler, it would be nearly impossible for an umpire to make that judgement.
Ian Galbraith 25 January 2006 06:06:13 [ permanent link ]
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 02:21:34 -0500, Madhusudan Singh wrote:
Colin Kynoch wrote:>
On 23 Jan 2006 23:01:01 -0800, shariqt@hotmail.comafter much thought>> and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives>> of those that read it:
[snip]
An accident warrannts an apology....there was none
That is does.
But it doesn't mean it was not an accident if there was no apology.
If there is an accident but no apology, the only way it can be an accident> is that if the perpetrator is unaware of his / her actions.
Why? You go down that track then you say its OK to bowl beamers so long as the bowler apologises.
Are you> asserting that Akhtar was unaware that he had just "bowled" a beamer ?
I'm quite willing to bet that Akhtar deliberately bowled the beamer based on the feedback here, however on an overall basis that doesn't mean all bowlers who bowl 1 beamer should be removed from the attack.
(You don't have to defend Akhtar's actions if you feel obliged to defend> Lee's antics somehow. Lee apologizes whenever he does it, the sincerity of> that apology being questionable in some eyes, but that is a side issue.).
Which is exactly why the apology shouldn't be taken into account. -- You Can't Stop The Signal
In article <olmdt1h30khtjvbv2vognveeqru83ae2g9@4ax.com>, Colin Kynoch says...
Only a couple of hundredths of a second at best.> >
A ball's impact with the pitch slows it down by around 30kph. >
Assuming they deliveries are bowled at the same initial pace.>
Given the extra effort bowlers put into their bouncers I think that it> would be a false assumption to conclude that a beamer and a bouncer> have the same initial speed.
What a farcical argument. A bouncer is an effort ball therefore the difference in speed between it and a beamer negates the speed lost by impact with the pitch? What if the beamer was an effort ball as well? Lets just say for arguments sake that they're delivered with the same initial speed..?
I'm sure I could deliver a bouncer and a beamer at the same initial speed.
You're also focusing on where the ball is going to pitch which requires > >adjustment when you realise the ball isn't going to pitch and is > >still above your eyeline halfway down the pitch.>
It isn't necessarily above your eyeline halfway down the pitch. In> fact it could be below the eyeline for the vast majority of the> delivery (eg Lee bowling the waist high delivery) .
What about a headhigh delivery?
I have and I found beamers easier to avoid than bouncers. >
You've faced a Lee bouncer and a Lee beamer?
No I haven't and nor have you.
I'm not the one claiming that beamers are easier to avoid than bouncers.
Why do international> >batsmen react so negatively at a beamer when it's directed at them> >yet accept a bouncer so readily?
Conditioning.
So the fact you can bowl more bouncers in an over compared to how many beamers in an innings doesn't reflect the relative danger between the two deliveries?
Perhaps you should start a coaching clinic on how to avoid beamers> >for international players.
I haven't seen any beamers bowled in international cricket hit a> batsman above the shoulder.
Trescothick's came close, in fact he took evasive action after the ball had passed his face guard. Had it becoming coming straight for his head he would have worn it and would have had no opportunity to evade it.
Colin Kynoch 25 January 2006 07:28:42 [ permanent link ]
On 24 Jan 2006 18:51:46 -0800, stex2727@yahoo.comafter much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
Colin Kynoch wrote:>> On 23 Jan 2006 22:37:25 -0800, "dodo" <dodo.2k@gmail.com>after much>> thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the>> lives of those that read it:>>
Ian Galbraith wrote:>> >> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:25:50 +1100, RodP wrote:>> >>
[snip]>> >>
The penalty for bowling a beamer is way too soft. IMO, it should be>> >> > instant removal from the bowling attack for the rest of the match.>> >>
What if it was an accident?>> >>
-->> >> You Can't Stop The Signal>> >
then that would prevent such accidents in the future>> >
once that bowler (indeed any bowler) knows the penalty the accidents>> >will go down>>
Which would imply that they are not accidents.>>
Colin Kynoch>
There is no such thing as an unintentional beamer.
What bollocks.
As I said about>Brett Lees intentional beamers.
I hadn't heard he had bowled any.
I guess you will have examples of when he has been immediately removed from the attack by the umpires.
If you are prone to bowl a beamer with>an effort ball, then you are intentionally risking bowling a beamer by>bowling an effort ball.
Lee usually bowls his beamers not on effort balls, but when he is attempting a yorker.
Colin Kynoch 25 January 2006 07:34:11 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:48:30 +1100, RodP <rodp@hotmail.com.nothere>after much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
In article <4gmdt1lle10r05lu5ckkd7u6ghsv9o4c68@4ax.com>, >Colin Kynoch says...>
It makes bowlers take more care when they're delivering a ball at>> >high speed.>>
You are aware that slow bowlers can bowl beamers too?>
Aktar is a slow bowler?
I didn't say he was. you implied that only fast bowlers can bowl a beamer.
I believe at times they have been bowled deliberately. I'm 100%>> >convinced that Lee's beamer to Razzaq was in retaliation to Razzaq's>> >beamer to Lee.>
Well the umpire wasn't and he was a little closer to the action.>
Who was watching where Lee's foot landed and didn't have the benefit>of replay.
There is nothing stopping the SLU from intimating to the BEu that the beamer was deliberate. Much like they can indicate that the ball was in fact a beamer.
It would appear that the concensus is that Akhtar's beamer to Dhoni>> >was deliberate >
It is?>
Apparently so.
I have heard some say it was deliberate but certainly not a consensus
The umpires certainly didn't consider it to be deliberate.
So it would appear that where it matters the consensus is that it was not deliberate.
I don't believe the umpire considered it deliberate. I haven't seen>> it.>
Aktar continued to bowl so obviously he didn't.
So apparently the consensus was that it was accidental.
It would seem that no umpire would deem a beamer deliberate regardless of the intent of the>bowler, it would be nearly impossible for an umpire to make that >judgement.
No more impossible than to make a LBW decision or to report a bowler for a suspect action.
In article <qhvdt1devqiohal8lghnm0hmpknfbatjuj@4ax.com>, Colin Kynoch says...
It makes bowlers take more care when they're delivering a ball at> >> >high speed.> >>
You are aware that slow bowlers can bowl beamers too?> >
Aktar is a slow bowler?>
I didn't say he was. you implied that only fast bowlers can bowl a> beamer.
It's not what I was implying, but I'd sooner be hit by a beamer coming from a spinner at 90kph than Aktar or Lee.
It would seem that no umpire would deem a beamer deliberate regardless of the intent of the> >bowler, it would be nearly impossible for an umpire to make that > >judgement.>
No more impossible than to make a LBW decision or to report a bowler> for a suspect action.
LBW or reporting a bowler on a suspect action is based on physical evidence. Judging intent is based on you believing the bowler deliberately beamed the batsmen. So you believe that knowing what a bowler is thinking is the same as judging several attributes in deciding whether a batsmen should be given out LBW?
In article <2svdt1pge6nfi6fpn1q6dfsmrku9ul33il@4ax.com>, Colin Kynoch says...
Most bowlers don't bowl beamers with effort balls. they bowl them> whilst attempting yorkers.
Aktar's beamer was at 157kph, I'd expect a yorker to be no less of an effort ball than a bouncer if you're trying to get the ball to travel under the bat before the batsmen can dig it out.
Ian Galbraith 25 January 2006 09:07:58 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:56:35 +1100, RodP wrote:
In article <uuvdt193fbhi7g03n7qiab66e752m8j0f3@4ax.com>, > Colin Kynoch says...>
The punishment is dictated by the actions of that player. It should be >>>up to the player to conduct himself in the best interests of the team.
[snip]
In your opinion, why should a team therefore be penalised by an >>>individual making two accidents?
Once is an accident twice is careless.
Why isn't once careless? What's so special about the second beamer > that negates it being an accident?
Whats so special about running on the pitch a second time that a bowler can be banned?
Because you obviously can't allow beamers willy nilly, you have to draw the line somewhere. I guess they figure twice is a reasonable point where its more likely than not that the bowler is being negligent rather than an accident occurring.
Colin Kynoch 25 January 2006 09:33:10 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 14:07:00 +1100, RodP <rodp@hotmail.com.nothere>after much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
In article <olmdt1h30khtjvbv2vognveeqru83ae2g9@4ax.com>, >Colin Kynoch says...>
Only a couple of hundredths of a second at best.>> >
A ball's impact with the pitch slows it down by around 30kph. >>
Assuming they deliveries are bowled at the same initial pace.>>
Given the extra effort bowlers put into their bouncers I think that it>> would be a false assumption to conclude that a beamer and a bouncer>> have the same initial speed.>
What a farcical argument. A bouncer is an effort ball therefore>the difference in speed between it and a beamer negates the>speed lost by impact with the pitch?
Yep. Particularly given I think your 30kph figure is grossly over exaggerated.
What if the beamer was an>effort ball as well?
Well I can't say that I have ever seen one delivered that way. The ones I have seen are all failed yorkers.
Lets just say for arguments sake that they're>delivered with the same initial speed..?
Which would be a false assumption. But hey that hasn't stopped you in the past so why let it stop you now?
I'm sure I could deliver a bouncer and a beamer at the same initial>speed.
If you were doing it deliberately quite possibly.
Unlikely though in reality.
You're also focusing on where the ball is going to pitch which requires >> >adjustment when you realise the ball isn't going to pitch and is >> >still above your eyeline halfway down the pitch.>>
It isn't necessarily above your eyeline halfway down the pitch. In>> fact it could be below the eyeline for the vast majority of the>> delivery (eg Lee bowling the waist high delivery) .>
What about a headhigh delivery?
An extreme rarity in international cricket.
I cannot recall one prior to the one Akhtar delivered yesterday.
I have and I found beamers easier to avoid than bouncers. >>
You've faced a Lee bouncer and a Lee beamer?>
No I haven't and nor have you.>
I'm not the one claiming that beamers are easier to avoid than>bouncers.
In my experience they are.
Why do international>> >batsmen react so negatively at a beamer when it's directed at them>> >yet accept a bouncer so readily?>
Conditioning.>
So the fact you can bowl more bouncers in an over compared to how many>beamers in an innings doesn't reflect the relative danger between the>two deliveries?
No I don't believe it does. Not with beamers being classed as any full toss over waist high.
If a beamer was a full toss that was over shoulder high that did not pass over the batsman's head then maybe, but not the current definition.
Perhaps you should start a coaching clinic on how to avoid beamers>> >for international players.>
I haven't seen any beamers bowled in international cricket hit a>> batsman above the shoulder.>
Trescothick's came close,
Close isn't hit is it?
in fact he took evasive action after the ball>had passed his face guard. Had it becoming coming straight for his head>he would have worn it and would have had no opportunity to evade it.
Possibly.
Had it been coming straight for his head he may have seen it better.
Colin Kynoch 25 January 2006 09:43:19 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:53:34 +1100, RodP <rodp@hotmail.com.nothere>after much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
In article <qhvdt1devqiohal8lghnm0hmpknfbatjuj@4ax.com>, >Colin Kynoch says...>
It makes bowlers take more care when they're delivering a ball at>> >> >high speed.>> >>
You are aware that slow bowlers can bowl beamers too?>> >
Aktar is a slow bowler?>>
I didn't say he was. you implied that only fast bowlers can bowl a>> beamer.>
It's not what I was implying, but I'd sooner be hit by a beamer>coming from a spinner at 90kph than Aktar or Lee.
Depends on where I was hit and whether I was wearing a helmet or not.
If I was facing Lee or Akhtar I would most probably be wearing chest pad, thigh pad, arm guard, pads, box, thigh pad, gloves and helmet. So being hit whilst probably quite painful is unlikely to cause major damage.
OTOH facing a spinner I would probably only wear a box, pads, thigh pad and gloves. So being hit by a beamer from a spinner means I would be hit in the head and at 90 kph that can cause serious damage to an unprotected head.
So to answer your question I would probably prefer to be hit by Lee or Akhtar. And of those two, Lee as they would almost certainly be below shoulder high.
It would seem that no umpire would deem a beamer deliberate regardless of the intent of the>> >bowler, it would be nearly impossible for an umpire to make that >> >judgement.>>
No more impossible than to make a LBW decision or to report a bowler>> for a suspect action.>
LBW or reporting a bowler on a suspect action is based on physical>evidence.
They are both making subjective judgments, much like deciding intent.
Whether it is deliberate or not is actually irrelevant. What is relevant is the umpires opinion as to whether it is deliberate or not.
Judging intent is based on you believing the bowler>deliberately beamed the batsmen.
Which as an umpire I have done.
So you believe that knowing what>a bowler is thinking
It is not about 'knowing' what the bowler is thinking, but what you think the bowler is thinking.
is the same as judging several attributes in>deciding whether a batsmen should be given out LBW?
It is along the same lines as both are subjective judgments and therefore only the opinion of the umpire.
In article <md1et150hph6v7cf3s5rebc7dv90c3vnna@4ax.com>, Colin Kynoch says...
You win, we obviously live in parallel co-existing realities where I see a bowler bowl a 157kph (not his effort ball mind you) head high delivery at a batsmen, you see a gentle lob at the batsmen who, at his first available opportunity, contacts you to tell you that it was a failed yorker.
Colin Kynoch 25 January 2006 10:07:59 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:56:35 +1100, RodP <rodp@hotmail.com.nothere>after much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
In article <uuvdt193fbhi7g03n7qiab66e752m8j0f3@4ax.com>, >Colin Kynoch says...>
The punishment is dictated by the actions of that player. It should be >> >up to the player to conduct himself in the best interests of the team.>>
So one accident means that he is removed from the game. Extremely>> harsh penalty.>
So control your delivery and don't bowl a beamer. No penalty if you>don't bowl one.
No bowler has complete control over every delivery they bowl.
If they did batsmen would never get long hops, or any other hit me balls.
You are expecting perfection from bowlers, which is unreasonable.
In your opinion, why should a team therefore be penalised by an >> >individual making two accidents? >
Once is an accident twice is careless.>
Why isn't once careless?
Bowler may not be consciously thinking about the ball being slippery, etc on the first beamer, but once they have bowled one you would expect the bowler to be far more conscious of issues like that.
Much the same as a driver who has just been booked for speeding will be far more conscious of their speed for a period of time after being booked.
What's so special about the second beamer >that negates it being an accident?
It is like the old saying once is an accident, twice is careless, and three times is a habit.
Colin Kynoch 25 January 2006 10:10:27 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:59:06 +1100, RodP <rodp@hotmail.com.nothere>after much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
In article <i00et194krodvrjfa7ohj9jc38kcl7nvso@4ax.com>, >Colin Kynoch says...>
If you bowl full tosses above waist height once or twice a year>> >it's either reckless or careless and may indicate a problem with>> >technique.>>
Having looked up Lee's over the last 12-15 months they all happened in>> the second innings of D/N matches.>
You haven't been looking very hard then.
I'll give you the same challenge I gave a previous poster (the one who claimed 10 beamers since the beginning of the NZ series last season, and there were only THREE)
Show me examples!!
And it isn't that hard. I went through all the ODO's and read all the cricinfo commentary re Lee and his no-balls, and there were only THREE beamers in the since the beginning of the NZ series last season.
Colin Kynoch 25 January 2006 10:22:30 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:54:45 +1100, RodP <rodp@hotmail.com.nothere>after much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
In article <2svdt1pge6nfi6fpn1q6dfsmrku9ul33il@4ax.com>, >Colin Kynoch says...>
Most bowlers don't bowl beamers with effort balls. they bowl them>> whilst attempting yorkers.>
Aktar's beamer was at 157kph,
Having now seen the Akhtar delivery I think a good case could be made for it being deliberate.
He clearly pitched it and it was close to hitting the batsman
Also he clearly put a great deal of effort into it as it was very close to as fast as he bowls
I'd expect a yorker to be no less>of an effort ball than a bouncer if you're trying to get the ball>to travel under the bat before the batsmen can dig it out.
Or it could of course be a slower than normal ball so that the batsman is through the stroke before the ball gets there.
Slow bouncers on the other hand tend to bounce back from the fence rather quickly
"Aditya Basrur" <sandaas_rocks@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1138132904.839603.43780@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>
Sears Tower wrote:> > "Syndicate King" <vasant.kumar@gmail.com> wrote in message> > news:1138081939.894082.139340@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...> > > Akhtar should be banned for the rest of the series, plain and simple.> > > This crosses all limits of tolerance.> > Why? India needs a bowler like this.> > 41.2 overs 146 runs for 1 wkt with a a best 1-100> > with an avg. of 146.00, ER- .53 and SR of 248.0>
Larry de Silva 28 January 2006 02:05:50 [ permanent link ]
"Colin Kynoch" <colinkynoch@gmail.com> wrote in message news:dlkbt1t8n9aak5km80qsilke353h2m8ekq@4ax.com...> On 23 Jan 2006 22:07:13 -0800, "Halekala" <mondal@gmail.com>after much> thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the> lives of those that read it:>
His arm action on 3rd day was horrible. I mean, it was downright> >pitching. Check this slow mo action:> >
Colin Kynoch 28 January 2006 04:02:03 [ permanent link ]
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 10:05:50 +1100, "Larry de Silva" <larrydesilva@ozemail.com.au>after much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
"Colin Kynoch" <colinkynoch@gmail.com> wrote in message>news:dlkbt1t8n9aak5km80qsilke353h2m8ekq@4ax.com...>> On 23 Jan 2006 22:07:13 -0800, "Halekala" <mondal@gmail.com>after much>> thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the>> lives of those that read it:>>
His arm action on 3rd day was horrible. I mean, it was downright>> >pitching. Check this slow mo action:>> >
And clearly you agree that the video alvey supplied shows Perera chucking otherwise you would not have come up with your bizarre conspiracy theory in a futile attempt to explain it away.
Test cricket is played with emotion in a cauldron.
Which has what to do with chucking?
Getting heat is part of>the show. Deal with it or go follow marbles.>
Geez!! All this fucking whinging about ONE delivery!! Unbelievable tripe!!
Well it is probably one of the more dangerous beamers delivered, and it was a blatant chuck
Colin Kynoch 28 January 2006 11:49:11 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 18:05:54 +1100, RodP <rodp@hotmail.com.nothere>after much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
In article <md1et150hph6v7cf3s5rebc7dv90c3vnna@4ax.com>, >Colin Kynoch says...>
You win, we obviously live in parallel co-existing realities>where I see a bowler bowl a 157kph (not his effort ball mind you)>head high delivery at a batsmen, you see a gentle lob at the batsmen >who, at his first available opportunity, contacts you to tell you that >it was a failed yorker.>
Sadly, I prefer your reality.
Your response is as realistic as your idea that deliberately running through an umpire is more sporting than bowling a legal delivery.
Larry de Silva 28 January 2006 11:53:39 [ permanent link ]
"Colin Kynoch" <colinkynoch@gmail.com> wrote in message news:tevdt195lqsbk80vchj243io724undf8av@4ax.com...> On 24 Jan 2006 18:51:46 -0800, stex2727@yahoo.comafter much thought> and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives> of those that read it:>
Colin Kynoch wrote:> >> On 23 Jan 2006 22:37:25 -0800, "dodo" <dodo.2k@gmail.com>after much> >> thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the> >> lives of those that read it:> >>
Ian Galbraith wrote:> >> >> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:25:50 +1100, RodP wrote:> >> >>
[snip]> >> >>
The penalty for bowling a beamer is way too soft. IMO, it should
instant removal from the bowling attack for the rest of the match.> >> >>
What if it was an accident?> >> >>
--> >> >> You Can't Stop The Signal> >> >
then that would prevent such accidents in the future> >> >
once that bowler (indeed any bowler) knows the penalty the accidents> >> >will go down> >>
Which would imply that they are not accidents.> >>
Colin Kynoch> >
There is no such thing as an unintentional beamer.>
What bollocks.>
As I said about> >Brett Lees intentional beamers.>
I hadn't heard he had bowled any.
LOL!! Of course not Colin!! Lee is an Aussie!! A fucking saint dude. He would possibly bowl intentional beamers.............but non Aussies like Shoaib does!! Yeah right dude.I get it now. Aussie? Never intentional. Non Aussie? Always intentional.
Laz
I guess you will have examples of when he has been immediately removed> from the attack by the umpires.>
If you are prone to bowl a beamer with> >an effort ball, then you are intentionally risking bowling a beamer by> >bowling an effort ball.>
Lee usually bowls his beamers not on effort balls, but when he is> attempting a yorker.>
Larry de Silva 28 January 2006 11:55:18 [ permanent link ]
"RodP" <rodp@hotmail.com.nothere> wrote in message news:MPG.1e40780c87b6e41a989d69@freenews.iinet.net.au...> In article <16nm8787ijw5s$.1jouk3xay6kbs$.dlg@40tude.net>,> Ian Galbraith says...>
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:25:50 +1100, RodP wrote:> >
[snip]> >
The penalty for bowling a beamer is way too soft. IMO, it should be> > > instant removal from the bowling attack for the rest of the match.> >
What if it was an accident?>
Don't care, it's a ball that can cause serious injury. If the ball is> slippery then reduce your pace. Intent is almost impossible to judge> and beamers are by far the most dangerous ball you can deliver to a> batsmen.
You forgot to add the Colin K addendum dude.
As long as it is NOT bowled by an Aussie. Then it is a great yorker that got a bit high unfortunately..............
Don Giovanni 28 January 2006 12:51:19 [ permanent link ]
"Larry de Silva" <larrydesilva@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:43db34fa$0$18599$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...>
"Don Giovanni" <dongiovanni@notmozart.com> wrote in message> news:xeadnQL9BqogNEfeRVn-rA@comcast.com...>> "Larry de Silva" <larrydesilva@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message>> news:43daa67a$0$18604$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...>> > Fabulous stuff by Shoaib.>>
I am sure you'll be thrilled and ecstatic when Lee hits Murali with a> beamer>> and (almost) kills him.>
If it wasn't deliberate and was accidental, so be it.
And what if it's deliberate? And how would you know whether it is or not? Anyway, Waqar thought this was not accidental and he said so several times.
By the way, Larry, aren't you generally considered to be the biggest whinger on RSC? Also, are the frequent mood changes reflected in your posts (and unnecessary attacks on others) a result of just good old imbibing of spirits or is there something else going on? Wish you good health, dude.
Colin Kynoch 28 January 2006 12:55:15 [ permanent link ]
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 19:53:39 +1100, "Larry de Silva" <larrydesilva@ozemail.com.au>after much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
"Colin Kynoch" <colinkynoch@gmail.com> wrote in message>news:tevdt195lqsbk80vchj243io724undf8av@4ax.com...>> On 24 Jan 2006 18:51:46 -0800, stex2727@yahoo.comafter much thought>> and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives>> of those that read it:>>
Colin Kynoch wrote:>> >> On 23 Jan 2006 22:37:25 -0800, "dodo" <dodo.2k@gmail.com>after much>> >> thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the>> >> lives of those that read it:>> >>
Ian Galbraith wrote:>> >> >> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:25:50 +1100, RodP wrote:>> >> >>
[snip]>> >> >>
The penalty for bowling a beamer is way too soft. IMO, it should>be>> >> >> > instant removal from the bowling attack for the rest of the match.>> >> >>
What if it was an accident?>> >> >>
-->> >> >> You Can't Stop The Signal>> >> >
then that would prevent such accidents in the future>> >> >
once that bowler (indeed any bowler) knows the penalty the accidents>> >> >will go down>> >>
Which would imply that they are not accidents.>> >>
Colin Kynoch>> >
There is no such thing as an unintentional beamer.>>
What bollocks.>>
As I said about>> >Brett Lees intentional beamers.>>
I hadn't heard he had bowled any.>
LOL!! Of course not Colin!! Lee is an Aussie!! A fucking saint dude.
Larry last I read you said he didn't bowl intentional beamers. Changing your mind AGAIN?
He would possibly bowl intentional beamers.............but non Aussies like>Shoaib does!!
I don't recall saying that Shoaib bowled an intentional beamer. maybe you can point out where I said that.
I said Shoaib chucked a beamer.
Yeah right dude.I get it now. Aussie? Never intentional. Non>Aussie? Always intentional.
Actually Larry if you removed your racist glasses maybe you could actually read what was written.
Colin Kynoch 28 January 2006 12:56:32 [ permanent link ]
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 19:55:18 +1100, "Larry de Silva" <larrydesilva@ozemail.com.au>after much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
"RodP" <rodp@hotmail.com.nothere> wrote in message>news:MPG.1e40780c87b6e41a989d69@freenews.iinet.net.au...>> In article <16nm8787ijw5s$.1jouk3xay6kbs$.dlg@40tude.net>,>> Ian Galbraith says...>>
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:25:50 +1100, RodP wrote:>> >
[snip]>> >
The penalty for bowling a beamer is way too soft. IMO, it should be>> > > instant removal from the bowling attack for the rest of the match.>> >
What if it was an accident?>>
Don't care, it's a ball that can cause serious injury. If the ball is>> slippery then reduce your pace. Intent is almost impossible to judge>> and beamers are by far the most dangerous ball you can deliver to a>> batsmen.>
You forgot to add the Colin K addendum dude.>
As long as it is NOT bowled by an Aussie. Then it is a great yorker that got>a bit high unfortunately..............
Larry your rants based purely on nationality are wearing very thin, particularly given you so called hatred of all things racist.
Maybe that just applies to everyone else and not yourself.
"Colin Kynoch" <colinkynoch@gmail.com> wrote in message news:krfmt153ggkplnn777gkfs8g1sc42r6gbl@4ax.com...> On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 19:55:18 +1100, "Larry de Silva"> <larrydesilva@ozemail.com.au>after much thought and consideration> decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read> it:>
"RodP" <rodp@hotmail.com.nothere> wrote in message>>news:MPG.1e40780c87b6e41a989d69@freenews.iinet.net.au...>>> In article <16nm8787ijw5s$.1jouk3xay6kbs$.dlg@40tude.net>,>>> Ian Galbraith says...>>>
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:25:50 +1100, RodP wrote:>>> >
[snip]>>> >
The penalty for bowling a beamer is way too soft. IMO, it should be>>> > > instant removal from the bowling attack for the rest of the match.>>> >
What if it was an accident?>>>
Don't care, it's a ball that can cause serious injury. If the ball is>>> slippery then reduce your pace. Intent is almost impossible to judge>>> and beamers are by far the most dangerous ball you can deliver to a>>> batsmen.>>
You forgot to add the Colin K addendum dude.>>
As long as it is NOT bowled by an Aussie. Then it is a great yorker that >>got>>a bit high unfortunately..............>
Larry your rants based purely on nationality are wearing very thin,> particularly given you so called hatred of all things racist.>
Maybe that just applies to everyone else and not yourself.>
I think that is becoming very obvious, nearly every post he makes has nothing to do with cricket, but the race of those that support it.
"Larry de Silva" <larrydesilva@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:43daa7a9$0$18637$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...>
"Colin Kynoch" <colinkynoch@gmail.com> wrote in message> news:dlkbt1t8n9aak5km80qsilke353h2m8ekq@4ax.com...>> On 23 Jan 2006 22:07:13 -0800, "Halekala" <mondal@gmail.com>after much>> thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the>> lives of those that read it:>>
His arm action on 3rd day was horrible. I mean, it was downright>> >pitching. Check this slow mo action:>> >
<kenhiggs8@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1138504528.332393.44960@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>
Salil wrote:>> Also worth seeing the reactions. Look at the clip of Shoaib in the ICC>> Champions Trophy where he bounced Lara and hit him hard enough to cause>> him to retire hurt. Shoaib's reaction there immediately showed that it>> wasn't intended to cause such damage. Watch this clip, note how Shoaib>> *immediately* runs to Lara and responds once he's down.>> http://s40.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=0R9H1R2HQDEFL099L1LFL13H2Y>>
Then take a look at the beamer to Dhoni video that was posted elsewhere>> on here, and compare the two reactions. Had he behaved in even a>> remotely similar fashion, I'd have given him the BOD. Instead, Akhtar>> shows almost complete indifference.>>
As far as Lee's beamers - well, either he's *very* accident prone, or>> else he's an excellent actor particularly when it comes to feigning>> shock and sympathy.>
I think very few players set out to hurt an opponent, and I'm prepared> to give Lee the BoD. I think he has a problem with his attempted yorker> at the end of the game. But the fact remains, he keeps doing it.> Perhaps he ought to bin that ball from his repertoire, or else someone> else bowl at the death.> It does appear that the latest Akhtar beamer was deliberate, even> though the umpire didn't rule as such.>
But the interesting point is the notion of deliberate intent. As has> been pointed out earlier, it's very difficult to prove intent, unless> the offender freely admits to it (which never happens).>
Somehow a number of Australian posters here seem to be able to discern> intent and, surprise surprise, they conclude that Australians never do> these things deliberately, but other teams always do.>
FWIW, I think Jones rushed in and threw the ball back, a bit wildly,> was off balance, hence the ball hitting the deck first. No-one would do> it that way if it was deliberate.>
I'm prepared to give him the BoD too.
I think he has, unless I have missed one recently, I have not seen him bowl a beamer in quite a while. I could be wrong, but I haven't seen one, so I think it is something he is clearly working on.
<kenhiggs8@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1138531177.269331.125040@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...>
Jammo wrote:>
<kenhiggs8@hotmail.com> wrote in message>> news:1138504528.332393.44960@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>> >
Salil wrote:>> >> Also worth seeing the reactions. Look at the clip of Shoaib in the ICC>> >> Champions Trophy where he bounced Lara and hit him hard enough to >> >> cause>> >> him to retire hurt. Shoaib's reaction there immediately showed that it>> >> wasn't intended to cause such damage. Watch this clip, note how Shoaib>> >> *immediately* runs to Lara and responds once he's down.>> >> http://s40.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=0R9H1R2HQDEFL099L1LFL13H2Y>> >>
Then take a look at the beamer to Dhoni video that was posted >> >> elsewhere>> >> on here, and compare the two reactions. Had he behaved in even a>> >> remotely similar fashion, I'd have given him the BOD. Instead, Akhtar>> >> shows almost complete indifference.>> >>
As far as Lee's beamers - well, either he's *very* accident prone, or>> >> else he's an excellent actor particularly when it comes to feigning>> >> shock and sympathy.>> >
I think very few players set out to hurt an opponent, and I'm prepared>> > to give Lee the BoD. I think he has a problem with his attempted yorker>> > at the end of the game. But the fact remains, he keeps doing it.>> > Perhaps he ought to bin that ball from his repertoire, or else someone>> > else bowl at the death.>> > It does appear that the latest Akhtar beamer was deliberate, even>> > though the umpire didn't rule as such.>> >
But the interesting point is the notion of deliberate intent. As has>> > been pointed out earlier, it's very difficult to prove intent, unless>> > the offender freely admits to it (which never happens).>> >
Somehow a number of Australian posters here seem to be able to discern>> > intent and, surprise surprise, they conclude that Australians never do>> > these things deliberately, but other teams always do.>> >
FWIW, I think Jones rushed in and threw the ball back, a bit wildly,>> > was off balance, hence the ball hitting the deck first. No-one would do>> > it that way if it was deliberate.>> >
I'm prepared to give him the BoD too.>>
I think he has, unless I have missed one recently, I have not seen him >> bowl>> a beamer in quite a while. I could be wrong, but I haven't seen one, so I>> think it is something he is clearly working on.>
I don't think I've seen him bowl one this year.>
However, this is the first month of the year.>
Incidentally, Jammo, when did you accept that Lee has actually bowled> the occasional beamer?>
I thought this beamer talk was all anti-Australian trolling by rsc> racists according to you
Ken there is a big difference to bowling the occasional beamer and your normal claims that make it sound like every innings.
When was the last one by the way Ken, hasn't been one in at least 6 months that I can think of, and considering the amount of cricket they have played in that time, that's a long time.
In article <1138602408.342500.165090@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, says...
SO if someone has three car accidents then they are deliberately> > smashing their car.>
Absolutely, If they get behind the wheel knowing full well they cannot> control the car. Thats why these people have their licences removed> and are taken off the road.
I think there's a difference there. I think the beamer is an abomination of a delivery and on all but 1 occassion I'll accept that in Lee's case it was likely accidental.
If someone gets behind the wheel of a car and is driving at the legal limit and it's testing the limits of their ability then absolutely they should have their licence revoked. But that's rarely the case and people still have accidents even though they're driving within their limits.
When Lee bowls a beamer that may well be a mis-directed yorker, he's obviously travelled beyond his limit. If the ball is greasy or his footing unsure, he should compensate just as drivers compensate when driving in less than ideal conditions.
In article <1138604870.103000.138750@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, says...
But the point I make is that Lee has has many of these accidents. He> continues to (intentionally) bowl the delivery that leads to the> beamers he knows well full what the consequences are before the ball> has been bowled. How can this be anything but intentional.>
I dont want to castigate Lee here either as there are others as well.> My point is only that a bowler that continues to bowl a suspect> delivery does so intentionally.
Dang, I seem to be arguing against myself.
For all but his beamer to Razzaq I'm willing to accept that the ball got away from Lee. The point where that ball got away from him was thousands of a second, which I'm sure he's not able to control at that point in the delivery.
Now, the reason he's not able to control that difference between a yorker and a beamer could be the fact that he's overestimated the limit that he can bowl given the conditions. So I wouldn't think that Lee bowling a yorker is the problem, it's more the pace he's attempting to bowl at in the conditions he's bowling at.
If that's the case, I'd put the fault at his ability to judge bowling conditions over it being intentionally bowling a delivery that will end up being a beamer. Lee is in the team to bowl at the limit, he just needs to either understand where the limit is in given conditions or bowl safely within his limit. That's my gripe.
Colin Kynoch 30 January 2006 10:41:26 [ permanent link ]
On 29 Jan 2006 23:07:50 -0800, stex2727@yahoo.comafter much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
RodP wrote:>> In article <1138602408.342500.165090@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,>> says...>>
SO if someone has three car accidents then they are deliberately>> > > smashing their car.>> >
Absolutely, If they get behind the wheel knowing full well they cannot>> > control the car. Thats why these people have their licences removed>> > and are taken off the road.>>
I think there's a difference there. I think the beamer is an abomination>> of a delivery and on all but 1 occassion I'll accept that in Lee's case>> it was likely accidental.>>
If someone gets behind the wheel of a car and is driving at the legal>> limit and it's testing the limits of their ability then absolutely>> they should have their licence revoked. But that's rarely the case and>> people still have accidents even though they're driving within their>> limits.>>
But the point I make is that Lee has has many of these accidents. He>continues to (intentionally) bowl the delivery that leads to the>beamers he knows well full what the consequences are before the ball>has been bowled. How can this be anything but intentional.
Unless he is deliberately setting out to bowl a beamer, how is it intentional?
If he is aiming to bowl a yorker and it doesn't come out correctly then the beamer is unintentional.
Or are you suggesting that spinners deliberately bowl long hops?
I dont want to castigate Lee here either as there are others as well.>My point is only that a bowler that continues to bowl a suspect>delivery does so intentionally.
Based on what?
If he is trying to bowl a yorker and it comes out a beamer how is the beamer intentional?
Colin Kynoch 30 January 2006 10:43:08 [ permanent link ]
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:32:00 +1100, RodP <rodp@hotmail.com.nothere>after much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
In article <1138604870.103000.138750@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > says...>
But the point I make is that Lee has has many of these accidents. He>> continues to (intentionally) bowl the delivery that leads to the>> beamers he knows well full what the consequences are before the ball>> has been bowled. How can this be anything but intentional.>>
I dont want to castigate Lee here either as there are others as well.>> My point is only that a bowler that continues to bowl a suspect>> delivery does so intentionally.>
Dang, I seem to be arguing against myself.>
For all but his beamer to Razzaq I'm willing to accept that the ball got >away from Lee. The point where that ball got away from him was thousands >of a second, which I'm sure he's not able to control at that point in>the delivery.>
Now, the reason he's not able to control that difference between a >yorker and a beamer could be the fact that he's overestimated the limit>that he can bowl given the conditions. So I wouldn't think that Lee >bowling a yorker is the problem, it's more the pace he's attempting to>bowl at in the conditions he's bowling at.>
If that's the case, I'd put the fault at his ability to judge bowling>conditions over it being intentionally bowling a delivery that will >end up being a beamer. Lee is in the team to bowl at the limit, he>just needs to either understand where the limit is in given conditions>or bowl safely within his limit. That's my gripe.
If the difference is thousandths of a second (I assume that is what you meant above), then his misjudgment is a very, very minor misjudgment.
They don't even note thousandths of a second in the 100m WR. Colin Kynoch
Colin Kynoch 30 January 2006 11:08:17 [ permanent link ]
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:49:39 +1100, RodP <rodp@hotmail.com.nothere>after much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
In article <nogrt19osgsdn6e766lb2jdoqo8mg2jlem@4ax.com>, >Colin Kynoch says...>
If the difference is thousandths of a second (I assume that is what>> you meant above), then his misjudgment is a very, very minor>> misjudgment.>
It is a minor misjudgement, but somehow fast bowlers are able to>overcome that misjudgement a lot more often than Lee.
Whoop else in World cricket has an action similar to Lee's?
They don't even note thousandths of a second in the 100m WR.>
They would if they were travelling in excess of 130kph.
Colin Kynoch 31 January 2006 05:17:31 [ permanent link ]
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:14:41 +1100, RodP <rodp@hotmail.com.nothere>after much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
In article <29irt1l9vpkmouqvdim2dc7daiocsoigoc@4ax.com>, >Colin Kynoch says...>
It is a minor misjudgement, but somehow fast bowlers are able to>> >overcome that misjudgement a lot more often than Lee.>>
Whoop else in World cricket has an action similar to Lee's?>
Anyone else bowling a legal delivery, I hope... unless you're>going to suggest that Lee's action is conducive to bowling>illegal deliveries.
I suggest that Lee's action increases the chance of a beamer should he misjudge slightly.
For example compare his action to McGrath's;
McGrath is 11 cm taller and has a high action.
Lee's action is an odd one in that he lets the ball go a good 30-50 cm lower than McGrath despite there only being a difference in height of 11cm
When you are letting the ball go that much lower, the angles that Lee hits the deck with eave a considerably smaller margin for error.
Now can you think of another bowler that has a similar action to Lee's in that he lets the ball go so low?
Colin Kynoch 31 January 2006 07:44:18 [ permanent link ]
On 30 Jan 2006 18:24:29 -0800, stex2727@yahoo.comafter much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
Colin Kynoch wrote:>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:14:41 +1100, RodP>> <rodp@hotmail.com.nothere>after much thought and consideration decided>> that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:>>
In article <29irt1l9vpkmouqvdim2dc7daiocsoigoc@4ax.com>,>> >Colin Kynoch says...>> >
It is a minor misjudgement, but somehow fast bowlers are able to>> >> >overcome that misjudgement a lot more often than Lee.>> >>
Whoop else in World cricket has an action similar to Lee's?>> >
Anyone else bowling a legal delivery, I hope... unless you're>> >going to suggest that Lee's action is conducive to bowling>> >illegal deliveries.>>
I suggest that Lee's action increases the chance of a beamer should he>> misjudge slightly.>>
For example compare his action to McGrath's;>>
McGrath is 11 cm taller and has a high action.>>
Lee's action is an odd one in that he lets the ball go a good 30-50 cm>> lower than McGrath despite there only being a difference in height of>> 11cm>>
When you are letting the ball go that much lower, the angles that Lee>> hits the deck with eave a considerably smaller margin for error.>>
Now can you think of another bowler that has a similar action to Lee's>> in that he lets the ball go so low?>>
Colin Kynoch 31 January 2006 07:45:09 [ permanent link ]
On 30 Jan 2006 18:31:17 -0800, stex2727@yahoo.comafter much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
Colin Kynoch wrote:>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:14:41 +1100, RodP>> <rodp@hotmail.com.nothere>after much thought and consideration decided>> that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:>>
In article <29irt1l9vpkmouqvdim2dc7daiocsoigoc@4ax.com>,>> >Colin Kynoch says...>> >
It is a minor misjudgement, but somehow fast bowlers are able to>> >> >overcome that misjudgement a lot more often than Lee.>> >>
Whoop else in World cricket has an action similar to Lee's?>> >
Anyone else bowling a legal delivery, I hope... unless you're>> >going to suggest that Lee's action is conducive to bowling>> >illegal deliveries.>>
I suggest that Lee's action increases the chance of a beamer should he>> misjudge slightly.>>
For example compare his action to McGrath's;>>
McGrath is 11 cm taller and has a high action.>>
Lee's action is an odd one in that he lets the ball go a good 30-50 cm>> lower than McGrath despite there only being a difference in height of>> 11cm>>
When you are letting the ball go that much lower, the angles that Lee>> hits the deck with eave a considerably smaller margin for error.>>
Now can you think of another bowler that has a similar action to Lee's>> in that he lets the ball go so low?>>
Yes agree with your argument about smaller margin for error. But I>still dont buy it as an excuse. He can still bowl within himself,>given he knows the consequences of this small margin of error.
What he gets no balled.
Lots of bowlers get no balled striving that little bit extra.
Colin Kynoch 31 January 2006 07:45:46 [ permanent link ]
On 30 Jan 2006 18:27:39 -0800, stex2727@yahoo.comafter much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
RodP wrote:>> In article <1138604870.103000.138750@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,>> says...>>
But the point I make is that Lee has has many of these accidents. He>> > continues to (intentionally) bowl the delivery that leads to the>> > beamers he knows well full what the consequences are before the ball>> > has been bowled. How can this be anything but intentional.>> >
I dont want to castigate Lee here either as there are others as well.>> > My point is only that a bowler that continues to bowl a suspect>> > delivery does so intentionally.>>
Dang, I seem to be arguing against myself.>>
For all but his beamer to Razzaq I'm willing to accept that the ball got>> away from Lee. The point where that ball got away from him was thousands>> of a second, which I'm sure he's not able to control at that point in>> the delivery.>>
Now, the reason he's not able to control that difference between a>> yorker and a beamer could be the fact that he's overestimated the limit>> that he can bowl given the conditions. So I wouldn't think that Lee>> bowling a yorker is the problem, it's more the pace he's attempting to>> bowl at in the conditions he's bowling at.>>
If that's the case, I'd put the fault at his ability to judge bowling>> conditions over it being intentionally bowling a delivery that will>> end up being a beamer. Lee is in the team to bowl at the limit, he>> just needs to either understand where the limit is in given conditions>> or bowl safely within his limit. That's my gripe.>>
My gripe as well. It may be semantics but his unwillingness to adjust>to the conditions or bowl safely is (given the evidence) either>extremely pig headed or intentional (that is, it doesn't concern him>that he bowls beamers)
It is no different to bowlers who overstep the line and get no-balled.
Colin Kynoch 31 January 2006 10:19:36 [ permanent link ]
On 30 Jan 2006 23:02:18 -0800, stex2727@yahoo.comafter much thought and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:
Colin Kynoch wrote:>> On 30 Jan 2006 18:27:39 -0800, stex2727@yahoo.comafter much thought>> and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives>> of those that read it:>>
RodP wrote:>> >> In article <1138604870.103000.138750@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,>> >> says...>> >>
But the point I make is that Lee has has many of these accidents. He>> >> > continues to (intentionally) bowl the delivery that leads to the>> >> > beamers he knows well full what the consequences are before the ball>> >> > has been bowled. How can this be anything but intentional.>> >> >
I dont want to castigate Lee here either as there are others as well.>> >> > My point is only that a bowler that continues to bowl a suspect>> >> > delivery does so intentionally.>> >>
Dang, I seem to be arguing against myself.>> >>
For all but his beamer to Razzaq I'm willing to accept that the ball got>> >> away from Lee. The point where that ball got away from him was thousands>> >> of a second, which I'm sure he's not able to control at that point in>> >> the delivery.>> >>
Now, the reason he's not able to control that difference between a>> >> yorker and a beamer could be the fact that he's overestimated the limit>> >> that he can bowl given the conditions. So I wouldn't think that Lee>> >> bowling a yorker is the problem, it's more the pace he's attempting to>> >> bowl at in the conditions he's bowling at.>> >>
If that's the case, I'd put the fault at his ability to judge bowling>> >> conditions over it being intentionally bowling a delivery that will>> >> end up being a beamer. Lee is in the team to bowl at the limit, he>> >> just needs to either understand where the limit is in given conditions>> >> or bowl safely within his limit. That's my gripe.>> >>
My gripe as well. It may be semantics but his unwillingness to adjust>> >to the conditions or bowl safely is (given the evidence) either>> >extremely pig headed or intentional (that is, it doesn't concern him>> >that he bowls beamers)>>
It is no different to bowlers who overstep the line and get no-balled.>
Different in that it doesn't present a danger to the batsman (provided>he doesn't bowl a beamer at the same time).
Why he is closer to the batsman, the ball reaches the batsman quicker, leaving less time for reaction.
If anything the>consequences are felt by the fielding team and not the batting team.
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please . Если Вы хотите пожаловаться на содержимое этой страницы, пожалуйста .
