Friday, 20 June 2008
|
| A question for all Will_s 03:10:13 |
| | A right handed batsman who cant bat left handed at all takes his stance as a
left handed batsmen and when the bowler commences his run up he then
switches to his right hand stance. He does this every time.
Is this legal ?
|
| | Add comment |
|
| Right-hander with left-handed grip DavidW 02:51:36 |
| | There was a student at high school who batted with a right-handed stance but
with the left hand below the right on the grip. It sure looked awkward but it
worked for him. He was a basher, and usually a pretty effective one. He tried to
slog every ball and usually connected. He was hard to get out. Anyway, he would
be able to switch to orthodox left-handed without switching hands.
I just thought I'd throw that into the mix in case anyone was thinking of
defining "handedness" solely by the position of the hands.
|
| |  7 answers | Add comment |
|
| Re: Don't Bring in the Legs Dechucka 00:04:40 |
| |
"arahim" <arahim_arahim@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5b99f7fb-e07a-4929-80e2-f76f2a8a936f@v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Hands decide handedness. When a bowler bowls its the hand that he delivers with that decides his handedness not off which leg he delivered. He may be wrong footed for his delivering hand but that does not change his handedness. Similarly for a batsman the lower hand in the grip decides handedness not which leg was forward. The reverse sweeper plays off the wrong foot but does not change his handedness.
That is a weird post even for you
|
| | 3 answer | Add comment |
Thursday, 19 June 2008
|
| Ivy League School Princeton University discriminated against Asian Americans NewsToBeRead 14:56:25 |
| |
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121322839054066219.html?apl=y&r=612255
U.S. Widens Princeton Bias Probe
Inquiry Is Focusing On the Admissions Of Asian-Americans
By JOHN HECHINGER
June 12, 2008; Page A3
Princeton University said the Education Department broadened its
investigation of possible discrimination against Asian-American
applicants.
In 2006, federal officials began investigating a claim from a student
that Princeton rejected him because of his race and national origin.
The student, 19-year-old Jian Li, initially enrolled at Yale
University and is now at Harvard. Princeton says it didn't
discriminate against Mr. Li.
Jim Bradshaw, an Education Department spokesman, said the agency
closed its investigation of Mr. Li's complaint in January "after
reviewing preliminary data and statistics from the university" and
instead initiated a broader "compliance review" to determine whether
Princeton discriminates against Asian-Americans. Mr. Bradshaw said the
review "covers the original complaint" and "in no way implies" that
the agency "has made a determination on the merits of the complaint."
Princeton said the inquiry would focus on the class of 2010, to which
Mr. Li had applied. The university disclosed information about the new
inquiry late Tuesday and said it welcomed the chance to explain its
admissions process to officials.
The inquiry comes as many Asian-Americans families complain that the
nation's elite universities set a higher bar for their children than
for other students, effectively setting caps on the number of
admissions granted to a high-achieving minority group.
The treatment of Asian-American applicants by top universities has a
long and bitter history. In 1992, the law school at the University of
California at Berkeley agreed under federal pressure to drop a policy
that limited Asian enrollment by comparing Asian applicants against
each other rather than the entire applicant pool. Two years earlier, a
federal government investigation found inequities at Harvard but
didn't bring charges.
Mr. Li called the expanded inquiry "great news for those opposed to
the use of racial preferences in college admissions" and said he "had
hoped from the start that the scope of the complaint would be much
wider than my individual case."
Mr. Li, who immigrated to the U.S. from China as a 4-year-old, scored
the maximum 2,400 on the SAT college admissions test, and registered a
combined 2,390 -- 10 points below the maximum -- on three SAT2 subject
tests, in physics, chemistry and calculus. He was spurned by three Ivy
League universities, as well as Stanford University and the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The Education Department's civil-rights office initially rejected Mr.
Li's complaint, saying the evidence was insufficient. Mr. Li
successfully appealed, citing a white classmate from his public high
school in Livingston, N.J., who was admitted to Princeton despite
lower test scores and grades. Mr. Li's complaint was covered in a 2006
page-one Wall Street Journal article.
Princeton said 17,564 students applied to the class of 2010 and 1,231
enrolled. The university said 14% of its freshmen were Asian-American
that year and in the most recent one. The school said it admitted only
half of applicants with maximum SAT scores. About 5% of the U.S.
population is Asian-American.
"We treat each applicant individually," said Princeton spokeswoman
Cass Cliatt. "We don't discriminate on the basis of race and to the
contrary, we seek to enroll classes that are diverse by a wide variety
of measures."
Write to John Hechinger at john.hechinger@wsj.com
|
| | 5 answers | Add comment |
Wednesday, 18 June 2008
|
| Re: What handedness? Mike Holmans 18:47:10 |
| | On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:11:14 -0700 (PDT), Mohan <dpusenet@gmail.com>
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
On Jun 17, 9:07 pm, "R. Bharat Rao" <rao2_nor...@yahoo.com> wrote: <snip> As long as he stays a RHB for wide and lbw purposes, I don't see what Exactly my thoughts too. Batsman should remain an RHB for wide/lbw/ field restriction purposes and if the bowler sees him switch, all they need to do is fire it down original offside. I don't understand all the fuss.
But what if the bowler sees him switch and feels like pushing it out
on what is now his off side? According to the Law, that's a leg side
wide, at least in a one-dayer. This raises the possibility that a
batsman can engineer wide calls by changing his stance, thus getting a
run for running away. When England need seven off the last ball at
Kolkata and Pietersen wins it by switching round to get a wide off one
delivery and then hitting the next one for six, quite a few people
could think there was something a bit fishy about it.
ICC were concerned about that aspect of reverse sweeping well before
Pietersen's exhibition on Sunday, which is why they had already asked
MCC to look at the Laws.
The Laws were not written with ambidextrous batsmen in mind, and
batsmen switching sides mid-delivery is a new phenomenon. MCC clearly
believes that reverse shots are good for the game; what they now have
to do is make the Laws cope so that batsmen can't get an unfair
advantage by switching sides.
Cheers,
Mike
--
|
| | 16 answers | Add comment |
|
| Newsflash: even contest at Edgbaston Andrew Dunford 17:01:26 |
| | One hour into this match and New Zealand is coping admirably. England
struggling to make an impact.
Andrew
|
| | 4 answer | Add comment |
|
| AQB Test Ratings (18 June 2008) Myk Cameron 13:28:43 |
| | The AQB International Cricket (Test) ratings have been updated to 18 June
2008.
Australia completed a 2-0 away Test series victory over West Indies with an
87-run win in Bridgetown, but that had little effect on the Test ratings,
where Australia remain clearly on top and West indies remain eighth
The main ratings list at 18 June 2008 is below. Rankings changes
shown are year-to-date.
1 Australia 1274.70
2 India 1127.73
3 (+1) England 1106.68
4 (+1) South Africa 1094.54
5 (-2) Sri Lanka 1060.53
6 Pakistan 1029.85
7 New Zealand 946.56
8 West Indies 897.39
9 Zimbabwe 738.55
10 Bangladesh 723.47
For more information on the ratings system, or to view my other
sports ratings, visit my website http://www.image.co.nz/aqb/
Best regards,
Myk Cameron
AQB Sports Ratings
|
| | Add comment |
|
| AQB ODI Ratings (18 June 2008) Myk Cameron 12:41:57 |
| | The AQB International Cricket (ODI) ratings have been updated to 18 June
2008.
Pakistan won the Kitply Cup final against India in Bangladesh, and moved up
one place to fourth in the latest ODI ratings, ahead of New Zealand. Losing
finalists India fell one place to third, behind Australia while Bangladesh,
who failed to make the final, remain ninth. England have taken a 1-0 ODI
series lead over New Zealand, but remain sixth while New Zealand fell one
place to fifth. South Africa are still on top of the ratings.
The main ratings list at 18 June 2008 is below. Rankings changes shown are
year-to-date.
1 (+1) South Africa 1290.10
2 (-1) Australia 1263.90
3 (+3) India 1262.87
4 (+3) Pakistan 1208.50
5 (-2) New Zealand 1202.37
6 (-2) England 1201.54
7 (-2) Sri Lanka 1139.24
8 West Indies 1134.79
9 Bangladesh 967.29
10 Kenya 961.35
11 (+1) Netherlands 925.32
12 (-1) Ireland 906.98
13 Scotland 897.17
14 Zimbabwe 859.13
15 Canada 771.05
16 Bermuda 699.36
For more information on the ratings system, or to view my other
sports ratings, visit my website http://www.image.co.nz/aqb/
Best regards,
Myk Cameron
AQB Sports Ratings
|
| | 1 answer | Add comment |
|
| Re: My opinion on the reverse sweep Andrew Dunford 10:04:57 |
| |
"jzfredricks" <jzfredricks@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c0fe2e5f-2068-4e13-bae0-238f22decff8@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
However there is a case for decision making by umpires i.e. does the umpire treat the batsman as left or right handed. I think the simplest thing to do here is to null and void all rules lbw and wide rules. I say this not to penalise the batsman but to prevent over complicating but you ARE over complicating them, lol If you want simple rules, just tell the umps to 'ignore' the switch as far as LBW, fielding restrictions etc go On and Off side remain the same
The umpires don't need to be told anything because what you propose already
exists as per Law 36.
Andrew
|
| | 2 answer | Add comment |
|
| Re: Your Ananlogies Are Showing Max.It 03:29:57 |
| | On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:43:39 -0700 (PDT), arahim
<arahim_arahim@hotmail.com> wrote:
And wanting MCC. Some commentators, notably the former West Indies fast bowler Michael Holding, had questioned the double standards at play, seeing as bowlers are not allowed to switch their style mid-over without informing the umpire. The MCC acknowledged this, but added: "They do not provide a warning of the type of delivery that they will bowl (for example, an off-cutter or a slower ball). It therefore concludes that the batsman should have the opportunity - should they wish - of executing the 'switch-hit' stroke." Really. The correct analogy would have been that yes bowlers can bowl "any" type of delivery as long as they don't change hands and batsman can play "any" shot as long as they don't change handedness. The equivalent of batsmen can play any shots (without restriction to handedness) would be that bowlers can bowl any ball without restriction to handedness. Whetehr that is desired is another matter but the analogy is bad.
How many batsmen switch hands and hit sixes?
There has been some chat about lbw and the leg stump line.
If the batsman takes a right handed guard then he is a right handed
batsman. If a ball pitches outside the right handers leg stump and
hits his pads going onto the wicket he should not be out. However, if
he switches hand to the same delivery he is liable to be bowled.
As far as wides go, refer to the guard and a normal cricket stroke
Maybe an umpire somplace might think the shot is unfair or an attempt
to distract the field and award penalty runs.
max.it
|
| | 1 answer | Add comment |
Tuesday, 17 June 2008
|
| Re: Pietersen Unveils New Shot StraightDrive 22:25:01 |
| |
"hamishd" <Hamish.Dean@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a128c62e-7f85-463f-8f6a-0818aa9d6586@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On 16 Jun, 17:38, arahim <arahim_ara...@hotmail.com> wrote: Pietersen said his new stance and shot will be neither right handed nor left. He will hold the bat with both hands' fingers interspersed and will play all shots between his legs. "Thus both sides will be legsides for me and anything a little bit wide of the wickets on either side should be a wide. Also I cannot be given out lbw if the ball pitches on either side of the stumps." "For fairness the bowler will then not be allowed to bowl either right handed or left, neither over or around. He must deliver the ball from the top of the wicket (where the umpire usually stands) and must release it from both hands simultaneously." Craig McMillan used to do the same thing. Saw him hit Vettori for a few 6s. Though.. also saw him get out many times to ridiculous shot- attempts.
Craig McMillan and Vettori are both black caps and the runs are
scored in domestic games.
If a subcontinental player scored those runs like Kevin Pietersen did,
the western world and rsc westerners would have been up in arms
calling him a cheat.
|
| | 2 answer | Add comment |
|
| Re: Tough times John Hall 13:45:15 |
| | In article
<cdf7aa81-9fb9-4c0c-ab6d-3ee7e99768bf@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Aslam Siddiqui <asiddiqu@iupui.edu> writes:
Live cricket, live Woods-Mediate play-off, live European Bridge Championship and have to work to live! Decisions, decisions, decisions! At least the Cubs aren't playing (a meaningful game).
Yesterday I was simultaneously listening to the England v NZ ODI on the
radio and watching the England v Italy bridge match on the Net.
--
John Hall "George the Third
Ought never to have occurred.
One can only wonder
At so grotesque a blunder." E.C.Bentley (1875-1956)
|
| | 1 answer | Add comment |
|
| My attempt at coming up with something sane. King Of Pain 04:48:18 |
| | I think the following is fair:
A) The fielding team is only subject to regulations for field settings as
required by the batsman's handedness according to the team sheet (providing
the batsmen incentive to list their favoured hand in the scoresheet)
B) If a batsman switches hands (as defined in C), then only deliveries
deemed 'unreachable' on either side will be deemed wide. For LBWs, if the
batsman plays a shot, the only criteria is that the batsman is struck in
line with the stumps. If the batsman switches and leaves,the line of impact
is irrelevant for LBW.
C) The side of the batsman that any attempted stroke is played from is his
off side. If this definition is not clearly identifiable, define off side as
that side that the batsman's rear leg is on if the batsman were facing you.
Define leg side as the other side. e.g the batsman's right is his off side
if his right leg is his back leg. A batsman is said to have 'switched' if
the location of his off side is different from that defined conventionally
by what is listed on the team sheet.
Thoughts/Comments? Feel free to modify and refine.
Cheers!
--
Vig
|
| | Add comment |
|
| HHTC WIvA result Mike Holmans 04:14:05 |
| | Player scores:
Jaques (159) 150 Gayle (9)
Katich (203) 98 51 Marshall (128)
Ponting (67) 13 Sarwan (54)
Chanderpaul (139) 54 49 Hussey (50)
Clarke (129) 26 13 Bravo (152)
Ramdin (34) -34 52 Symonds (89)
Haddin (137) 143 +37 Taylor (91)
Casson (59) -72 87 Chattergoon (29)
Lee (120) 59 Benn (61)
Johnson (143) 129 Powell (14)
Clark (146) 13 Edwards (133)
Game score:
MoM Pervez Masud
Vezper 109
Steven 59
Uday 51
Dodo 47
Luke -29
kipps -49
Mark -75
Mike -140
Geoff -198
Overall:
MoS Pervez Masud
Vezper 400
Steven 392
Mike 347
kipps 203
Dodo 147
Mark 89
Geoff -8
Uday -9
Luke -47
Congrats to Vezper, Luke and Geoff.
Cheers,
Mike
--
|
| | Add comment |
|
| Changes to Law 6 The Bat Dechucka 02:24:55 |
| | Just received a letter from the local Umpires Association describing changes
that MCC members made to Law 6 in May. This change basically strictly
defines what a bat can be made of and coverings, repairs and bindings it may
have. This confirms to me that the ICC/MCC was on very shaky ground in
banning the Kookaburra (? ) bats used by Ponting and others which had the
graphite backing. These bats seemed to have conform to the Law at the time
and the ICC/MCC never published AFAIK the reasons for banning the bats.
The changes can be found here
http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/
|
| | 10 answers | Add comment |
|
| Re: Pietersen's six against Styris Andrew Dunford 00:35:26 |
| |
"jzfredricks" <jzfredricks@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:20147aeb-89af-4ee6-bb94-655d465c19c9@v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
This bloke is a once-in-a-lifetime. He's changed his grip and played a standard left-handed slog. By the time I'm dead we might have blokes who can play equally technically proficient shots with either their right or left hand. How good would that be? I read he played 2 of these shots
The second one was much better:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AU354DdX6Eg
Although it is utterly mis-named on youtube because a slog-sweep it was not.
More an on-drive.
Andrew
|
| | 9 answers | Add comment |
Monday, 16 June 2008
|
| All the luck to Symonds - Tony Cozier StraightDrive 23:57:25 |
| |
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/wivaus/content/current/story/354618.html
West Indies v Australia, 3rd Test, Barbados, 1st day
All the luck to Symonds
Tony Cozier
June 13, 2008
Rod Stewart would have had something entirely different in mind when writing
the lyrics to one of his several hits but they are equally applicable to
cricket, especially in the present series. The chorus line went:
"Some guys have all the luck
Some guys have all the pain
Some guys get all the breaks
Some guys do nothing but complain".
From the second day of the first Test at Sabina Park to the first day of the
third at Kensington Oval yesterday, Andrew Symonds has been the guy with all
the luck, the West Indies bowlers those with all the pain. The dreadlocked
Australian has got all the breaks and, although they haven't, West Indies
have every right to complain. Three times, the umpires have been involved.
Occasionally, fielders have given him the chance. And so it was again
yesterday. Symonds has always been good enough to take advantage and to
change the course of an innings that was in danger of imploding.
In the first innings at Sabina, Australia had slid from the first-day
security of 301 for 4 to 372 for 7 at lunch. First ball on resumption, Fidel
Edwards bent a late inswinger into Symonds' pads and only umpire Russell
Tiffin could not detect that the ball was zeroing in on middle and leg
stumps. Symonds was on 18 at the time. He proceeded to carry Australia to
431, unbeaten on 70 when the last wicket fell.
In the second innings in Antigua, unconvinced umpire Mark Benson ruled him
not out on his leg-side catch off the glove to Denesh Ramdin off Dwayne
Bravo when still in single figures. He finished unbeaten on 43.
On Thursday, Chris Gayle's catch off Simon Katich's swirling top-edged hook
off Edwards left Australia lurching at 111 for 5 in the fifth over after
lunch. As Symonds entered the arena, arms swinging in preparation for
battle, West Indies might have had troubling memories of recent escapes.
Their fears were quickly realised.
He was on seven when he cut fiercely at Bravo. The bounce from a sprightlier
surface than Sabina and the graveyard in Antigua sent the ball flying off
the top edge and through the right hand of the flying Xavier Marshall at
second slip.
From the start, West Indies had identified Symonds' weakness as an
uncontrolled glide off his hip. To exploit it, Chris Gayle posted a fielder
at leg-slip. Bravo soon sprung the trap, inducing a deflection from the
glove, just as he had done in Antigua. The outcome was the same, Benson
again failing to be convinced of the claim for Denesh Ramdin's catch.
Symonds was on 14, Australia 133 for 5.
One reprieve was as crucial as the other. On previous evidence, West Indies
would have known what would follow. Symonds, undeterred by the booing of the
few West Indians scattered among the hundreds of touring Australian
supporters, took control in a partnership of 87 with Brad Haddin that
shifted the direction of the innings.
Eventually, Symonds drove loosely at the persevering Bravo and Sewnarine
Chattergoon pouched the catch at extra cover. The damage was not as major as
it might have been but it made the difference between the end of play total
and an all-out 170 or so. Yes, some guys have all the luck and others have
all the pain.
|
| | 8 answers | Add comment |
|
| Captaining and commentating Mike Holmans 19:06:21 |
| | The Sky coverage of T20 has always involved miking up a couple of
players so that the comms can talk to them during play. Ian Ward on
commentary made a fairly silly remark to Rob Key, the miked-up Kent
captain, and got a sarcastic reply. Ward then retaliated by announcing
that since commentary is supposedly so easy, Key would commentate on
the next over.
Which he did, in a highly professional way, although he had to
interrupt briefly to set his field when the left/right batsmen ran a
single and changed ends. It's quite enlightening to have the
commentator say what Kent are trying to do and know that it's not an
interpretation or a guess.
Cheers,
Mike
--
|
| | 13 answers | Add comment |
|
| Re: I am OUTRAGED Fish Womper 13:35:16 |
| |
Yesterday I had a run in with a doctor who said words like BIPOLAR and CLOWN LET me GUESS. He WAS a WESTERN doctor. PART of THE conspiracy.
fish
|
| | 1 answer | Add comment |
|
