Username
Password
Glam Slam?

New Team Tonight?
By Grockle
June 17 2008
Justin promises a new side tonight with new responsibility in the middle order. Well let's hope so because if we miss out tonight it is over and done with. Suppiah and de Bruyn play. No James Hildreth. It's overcast and dark Glamorgan won the toss and they'll be fielding.

v Glamorgan Twenty20 @ Taunton Tuesday 17 June 2008

Scorecard

A darkish afternoon in Taunton and Somerset's future in the shortest form of the game rests on their performance for the next 3-ish hours.  Justin has said on the official internet voice that he's had a bit of a think over the weekend and instilled a new fire in the boys during a long practice session yesterday.  More middle order responsibility in the batting and tighter bowling;

here are the boys who are going to put the 'Langer Theory' into practice.

Trescothick, Kieswetter, Langer, de Bruyn (for Hildreth), Blackwell, Trego, Suppiah (for Jones), Phillips, Turner, Thomas and Willoughby

Loadsa bowlers (8 if Langer doesn't turn his arm) including Willoughby.  BUT (in the words of Richard Sharpe) "...can they stand...".  The batting is solid to 6 and very solid in the form of Zander.  If this lot fail this time the tail may start at halfway. At least Craig should be guaranteed a visit to the wicket before number 8 in this line-up.

The skipper and his VC open as usual.  No reason not to, this partnership has at least performed in the games up until now.

Harrison opens for the Dragons and Justin faces the first and takes the single. Marcus flashes at the second, nicks it and wanders back to the Colin Atkinson, passing Peter Trego on the way and we are 1 for 1.  Well he had to fail once but it was a real lazy shot. It's 5 after the first and Wharf bowls the first from the River, his first ball goes to the new stand boundary.

From the crowd point of view.  It's cold and the usual areas of the ground are sparse.  The scoreboard green seats are again not that popular with the punters but the Botham stand has black muslin over part of it as a sight screen so at least it looks full tonight.  Lots of fleeces and hands in pockets tonight though.  Real sharp breeze for mid June.

Back to the cricket. 14 after the second, nearly equal honours to the batsmen. 23 after 3 and Trigger seems to be settling nicely as he doubles his score while JL stays put.  Wharf finishes him off as well as the skipper mistimes a drive and gets it straight up and then straight down into Dalrymple's hands.  He goes for 8, we are 27 for 2 and Ian Blackwell is at the crease halfway through the 4th.

At 5 we would be 9 for 2 except that Trego  has scored 35 so we are 44 for 2.  Ian doesn't look too comfortable bt hopefully he can stay with his partner and pick up the pace later in the push towards the 20th.  Watkins has replaced Wharf at the River for the 6th and while Blackie  misses the full toss he serves up as his second, he sixes the third into the Atkinson second tier to bring up the team 50.  Still a bit 'adventurous' though...he doesn't look exactly 'in the slot' so to speak.

Cosker heralds the first spin of the game as the lights on the scoreboard start to look like floodlights and rain spits onto the pitch.  We go into 'run a ball' mode and it's 58 for 2 after 7.  Good first over from the Welshmen's slow man.  Croft starts his four from the River but the rain is getting heavier, the pitch is getting slippier and the light is getting poorer. 64 for 2 after 8.

Ian changes grip (aka 'Kevin') and tries to reverse sweep.  But when you miss it you look a bit of a prat and he is probably thinking about that as he walks back to the pavilion with 14 to his name and 'LBW Cosker' at the end of the the line. 64 for 3. Kieswetter gets an early call therefore in nasty driving rain...but it is getting lighter.  The halfway score is 76 - 150 plus?  Well with 3 wickets down and lots of bowlers to come anything more might be a tall order.

While we're thinking about that, Peter has gone to 50 off 32 balls with 7 fours.  Followed by a very impressive 6 to the scoreboard. Followed by another one to the "ice cream" stand.  Then we wait about for mnutes because they couldn't get the ball back from the crowd.  Finally it returns from its hiding place and on we go.

Peter is in really sparkling form.  The first of those sixes was just a case of foot down the track and stroke the ball to mid wicket with the minimum of effort and the maximum of timing. 

His footwork isn't as good when it comes to running however. With the first delivery of the twelfth, he hits the ball, steps as if he is running, gets Craig moving and then stops.  Kieswetter is absolutely stranded halfway down the track as Gibbs (almost standing at the wicket) flips the ball up to Croft who simply needs to remove a bail.  He misses it and our keeper sheepishly regains his ground while the spinner scrabbles for the ball.

96 at the start of the 13th and Dalrymple joins the fray, as does our first streaker for quite a while who pops on, waves things about and then escapes before our svelt-like security (including a lady) go after him!!  Meanwhile Trigger has smacked a quite magnificent six onto the indoor school roof to put his side past 100. Mr Streaker has been escorted out of the ground after the lady steward caught him by following him into the Gents!

The 50 stand comes up on 'Nelson' in a little over 5 overs and with CK contributing only 14.  It's 119 at the end of the 14th. While we wait for Trigger to change his bat, it;'s worth mentioning that the young man has just passed the best Somerset batting performance against Glamorgan in the 20/20  well played that man!  124 with 5 to go. Anyone willing to predict over 175?

Wharf is back on. Trego smacks the first one with his new bat....to the fielder at long on (Dalrymple) and he's gone for 79.  Magificent inings off 50 balls with 7 fours and 3 huge sixes.

124 for 4 and Zander is in and off the mark.

133 with 4 to go.  Craig needs to take control because the big South African seems hapy to nurdle it about and let his younger partner hit the big boys.  Halfway through the 17th he introduces Watkins to the double six move as he puts the medium pacer into the same spot twice in m consecutive balls.  The 150 arrives from his bat at the end of the 17th.

Unfortunately Craig is bowled for 42 next ball and Arul joins Zander with a job to do to get us near 200 because his partner will anchor the innings. 156 for 5 at the end of the 18th. de Bruyn cuts one to the new stand boundary but when he tries the same again he is caught by Croft and we are 161 for 6 halfway through the 19th.  Phillips is the new man and they belt 3 sets of two runs and take 11 off the over.  167 with 6 to go.

Ball 1 - single (Suppiah), Ball 2 - six to the CA (Philips), Ball 3 - 2, Ball 4 - 2, Ball 5 - single and Ball 6 - six to the CA (Suppiah)

Fighting last over 18 of the over well played Ben (17) and Arul (9) and 185 for 6.  Best batting performance so far in my humble but mostly down to the Mighty Trego.

7:00 PM. 

Croft and Hemp come out to face.  Crofty gets Charl who is around the wicket for the first and swinging wildly (wide).  The second is too full and the first four but he gets his radar sorted by ball three. But Mr Croft is a wise old one dayer and he milks Willough for 12 off the first. Turner takes the first at the River and has his captain marshalling fielders with lots of pointing and waving. Unfortunately the third ball from the quickie let's the batsman do a lot of waving...waving the ball over the boards.  It nearly happened again but Thomas and Suppiah combined well to stop a certain boundary.  20 after 2 does not bode well though.

However, you can't keep a good man down and Hemp returns to the changing room courtesy of the bowling of Charl and the hands of Alfonso Thomas before the score moves on.  But that brings Gibbs in and that can't be good for any side!  Phillips is given a one over burst at him from the River but goes for 10. Nevertheless Willoughby has the inswinging yorker going and nearly has Croft at the end of the 5th as they reach 39 for 1. Turner returns and is greeted by the Gibbs smash, twice to the CA and once to the ITB and up comes the 50 courtesy of that 12. It is followed by a fourth to the mid-on boundary.  He ends with 18 off his over.  Welcome to the big boys league Mark!

Now Willough has to retrieve the situation after only going for 2 in his last. Gibbs has ominously gone to 33 by the halfway stage of the 7th.  It's 66 by the end. Willough has gone (4 overs 28 for 1) and now we have Ian Blackwell trying to stem the tide. He does to as they move to 72 by the start of the 9th. 

Langer now turns to Arul at the OP and he does well, with the help of some very determined outfielding. The 'Welsh' have reached 91 after 10, are ahead on the rate required and looking very very comfortable. 9.6 per over is high but perfectly possible in this kind of game.  We are looking at another loss as Gibbs goes to 50 off 28 balls with a six and 9 fours. 100 at the end if the 11th and Gibbs and Croft have added 80 in 8 overs.

But it's not getting better as Craig  gives away the second four byes of the game and they move to 114 by the start of the 13th to be bowled by Alfonso.  We need something special to stay in this one as they are looking at a target of 72 off 8 which is dropping all the time. Crofty goes to 50 during the over off 36 with 5 fours and 1 six. Then he has a moment of madness and one hands a wide ball straight to Trescothick.  Joke ball and daft wicket but it is a chink that we need to open into a gaping chasm of we can!! Powell comes in and Alf finishes the over with a wicket and only 120 up. 

66 off 7 but while Gibbs is still in we are chasing this game.  They've moved Arul to the River end and a Powell single moves Gibbs onto strike.  His second ball finds Gibbs stranded and run out!!  The umpire (Jesty) gives it and then they realise that Kieswetter broke the stumps WITHOUT the ball and Herschell gets a reprieve.  Would the decision have been the same if it hadn't been for the fact that Gibbs just didn't walk?  We'll never know. It was pretty easy and he really should be watching the rest of the game from the balcony. 125 at the end of it but is that the minute that decides the game? 

Or is the next one where Thomas fields off his own bowling and destroys Powell's stumps at the non strikers end with him nowhere near his ground at 127?  Well Powell will take no more part and Dalrymple joins Gibbs.  Thomas gets another wicket and goes for three 128 for 3.  They need 58 off 5.  At the other end Arul is having a bit of a battle with Gibbs who is having a prblem getting him away.  He goes for 6and they still need 52 off 4.  Well done Arul!

The fielding goes up a level (except for probably Blackie's dive over a Dalrymple four) and the Glamorgan guys are only getting singles.  142 at the end of the 17th.  43 off 3.  Blackie delivers the 18th but the first goes for four and so does the second.  Long hop follows full toss.  The fourth goes for six.  It's 160 after it and a really poor over from the man!

It's 26 off 2 with Thomas bowling the important one.  The first is a swing and maybe a miss but Craig misses catching it so if he hit is it doesn't matter!!  Kieswetter has had a mare tonight! But Alfonso hasn't once again and bowls a wonderful over with only 5 off it!  They need 21 off one. Phillips should bowl the last but Langer has turned to Mark Turner with Dalrymple facing.

Ball 1 - dot, Ball 2 - Wicket from a real wide swipe caught Trigger 165 for 4  Ball 3 - Gibbs facing 21 needed. Excellent straight ball and a single, Ball 4 - four, Ball 5 - same wide ball, same swing and Wright goes to Trescothick.  Ball 6 - dot.  We win by 15 runs with Gibbs 76 not out and Wallace finishing on 0.

Great perfromance with the ball from Alfonso once again 21 runs and 1 wicket (plus the Powell run out).  Excellent support from Suppiah.  Peter T gets the Man of the Match but we also have to thank Glamorgan for at least 3 wide wickets and Turner in particular ought to thank the Welshmen for his last over figures.

But a win is a win is a win and the 'dream' is still alive.  Bring on the next victims!!  Nite!! 

 

View a Printer Friendly version of this Story.

Bookmark or share this story with:

Glam Slam?
Posted by: Grockles.com (IP Logged)
Date: 17/06/2008 16:13

Glam Slam?

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 17/06/2008 16:38

It's going to be a dark one tonight people. It's just on the edge of what we would normally play in and it is certainly not going to get better



(Sm72)

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 17/06/2008 17:17

Is no-one interested in this one? Shame you couldn't have seen the six that Trigger has just put on the indoor schol roof!!



(Sm72)

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 17/06/2008 17:27

I'm here Grockle. Can't get commentary though!

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Brother Of (IP Logged)
Date: 17/06/2008 17:47

Commentary on bbc sport

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 17/06/2008 17:55


Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Brother Of (IP Logged)
Date: 17/06/2008 18:01

Listening to "dizzy" gillespie on radio wales he said that pete was a lower order batsmen who after 6 overs of todays game seemed to not know how to play the spinners.
Cheers dizzy!!!!

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Bobstan (IP Logged)
Date: 17/06/2008 18:06

Well done to Bobo. A useful little innings from Big Ben.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 17/06/2008 18:23

Thanks, Grockle. That one works, but I've lost out to The Simpsons now!

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: tufnell parka (IP Logged)
Date: 17/06/2008 19:46

Thanks Grockle. Excellent service. Really pleased with this win. Big game on Thursday on SKY - we might just have a sniff if we pick up a win at New Road

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 17/06/2008 19:47

A win,do I see that we've won?
That's great news,well done boys.
And girls,for making sure the kits were nice and clean.
Let's hope the rot has stopped.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Exiled Tim (IP Logged)
Date: 17/06/2008 21:10

One of those Trigger sixess was nearly caught by me, but I saw sense and ducked, even though the ball landed on the EBC roof! I've learn't my lesson, I can't catch under pressure!

Parts of our game were really good and thommo is a real crowd favourite. He was tremendous and I thought Arul supported him well. Blackie was in one of his, 'I want to be somewhere else' moods. His bowling was loose and he got out to an unecessary reverse sweep, when he was looking good.

Trigger was simply sublime.

I can't understand the Gibbs dismissal. We appealed, he was given out, but refused to go so the umpire changed his mind. He can only give what he sees and with no replay, he shouldn't change his mind. He got the 'bird'!

The crowd were lively, again, and how they deserved a win!

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: doc hennessy (IP Logged)
Date: 17/06/2008 21:12

Anyone see the Gibbs 'stumping/ run out' incident? He started off down the wicket, only to be sent back. The throw came in to the keeper, the wicket was broken and the square leg umpire's finger went up. Gibbs stood his ground with much gesticulating, and after some discussion the decision was retracted. Apparently Keiswetter broke the wicket before he had the ball. Maybe justice was done , but I thought 'out' meant 'out'? Does this mean it's OK to dispute the umpire's decision now?

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: doc hennessy (IP Logged)
Date: 17/06/2008 21:17

I thought CK's keeping was extremely ordinary tonight. He made a lot of mistakes and his habit of standing up whenever possible meant that many balls went straight through for extras, including several boundaries.
Thought Pete thoroughly deserved his MOM, he looked a class act from the outset. Rather ironic that he's not allowed to bowl a few overs, as he seemed to spend the second innings saving runs by launching himself headlong around the boundary.

I hope that Arul has done enough to remind the selectors what a good all round player he is. Apart from his little cameo with the bat ( inc six off the last ball ), he bowled extremely tidily when Gibbs was looking to launch and was excellent in the field. I'm looking forward to seeing him in the longer stuff.
Alfonso Thomas? His figures (4-0-21-1) tell the story and his stock seems to rise with every game.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Mike BOS (IP Logged)
Date: 17/06/2008 21:20

We got the impression that the wicket keeper may not have had the ball in his hand when he demolished the stumps.

Did Langer tell the umpire that's what happened? your guess is as good as mine.



http://i662.photobucket.com/albums/uu349/john28_08_album/cricket.jpg



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:06:17:21:25:04 by Mike BOS.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: fRed (IP Logged)
Date: 17/06/2008 21:23

I think the bails were already off, so he needed to pull a stump out.

Anyway well played Trig and Thomas (Sm13) The smile's back.



Cricket's the winner.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Exiled Tim (IP Logged)
Date: 17/06/2008 21:34

Quote:
Mike BOS
We got the impression that the wicket keeper may not have had the ball in his hand when he demolished the stumps.
Did Langer tell the umpire that's what happened? your guess is as good as mine.

I feel there's a need for these things to be explained to the crowd. How can new watchers be educated if such farcical situations go unexplained?

It is said that decisions even themselves out over a season. No-one can be sure what happened as everyone was watching the ball. He was given out. End of debate, or as Tractor might have said, "or was it the start"!

BTW, Mike, were you perched next to Frosty's wife?

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 17/06/2008 21:37

Craig didn't have the ball when he broke the stumps. Well not quite that. He broke the stumps with the hand that didn't have the ball. That was the opinion of the people in the box and the scorers box.

Gibbs was facing him trying to get back and saw it so didn't go and Jesty checked with his partner and recinded the decision. There wasn't much said by us so one assumes that was the case.

It's difficult to explain something like that to the crowd when you're an announcer with no idea what is going on yourself but I didn't see Gibbs gesticulting with anyone but the Somerset players who sort of swamped him when he didn't walk immediately.

They weren't aggressive but it all got into a bit of a discussion but the umpires walked in, talked to a couple of people and waived the decision. I think Craig must have told them what happened as well because it all settled down quickly.

Craig didn't have the greatest game with the gloves but he was useful with the bat. There was about four incidents that could have been better for us had the keeper held the ball.



(Sm72)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:06:17:21:43:26 by Grockle.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Exiled Tim (IP Logged)
Date: 17/06/2008 21:44

I believe that consulting your colleague prior to giving a decision is fine and should be encouraged, but changing your mind after an appeal by the batsman, is not.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 17/06/2008 21:46

Gibbs didn't appeal Wurz. He stood his ground (which he has the right to do)and waited for the umpires to discuss it. The only person he talked to was his batting partner and a couple of Somerset players.



(Sm72)

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Mike BOS (IP Logged)
Date: 17/06/2008 21:51

Grockle being up in the clouds you would have a better view than most of us.smiling smiley

You must have a good view from there.



http://i662.photobucket.com/albums/uu349/john28_08_album/cricket.jpg

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 17/06/2008 21:55

Thanks for the account of the match Grockle. Looks like we have a lot to thank Trego and Thomas for.

Now BJ, how many times do I have to tell you? If you're going to take your clothes off, please do it in a dull old four-day match and not in one of those Twenty20 things where we are already guaranteed wall to wall entertainment. Is it those dancing girls that get you so excited?



LoL

Sixty-one Seasons a Somerset Supporter

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: VictheFish (IP Logged)
Date: 17/06/2008 21:58

Good win. Keeps the balls in the air - speaking of which ...

Must be a careful Wurzel that pads naked down from the EBC to run on the ground showing the value of a FTM!

Sorry, cheap gag. going to bed now, no coffee and biscuits.

Well done the boys!

VtF.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 17/06/2008 22:01

It's more to do with being in a room with a number of people who watch this stuff for a living Mike. They discuss the things to death to make sure they get the facts right before they put it in a story.

They also have the advantage of access to the scorers who check the facts with dressing rooms etc. Far too precise for me.

Trigger and Thomas did well LoL but Arul was no passenger and he and the other two were really active outfielders as well. Arul and Ben really put the icing on the batting as well with that last over.

Have to agree with you Wurz. Ian did have one of those "I hate this game" sort of days. The shot he got out to was daft as a brush (which is what he might as well have been holding)!



(Sm72)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:06:17:22:07:35 by Grockle.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Mike BOS (IP Logged)
Date: 17/06/2008 23:33

Pics from today

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/5545/gibbswasheinoroutnotoutwq9.jpg

Gibbs was he in or was he out

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/9807/rcroftjustkeepingthebaloa7.jpg

Willoughby nearly had Crofty with that one.


http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/9774/petertrego6runsmediumweqi6.jpg

Man of the match Trego one of his 6's

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/6117/petertrego6runsmediumwesf6.jpg

Peter Trego shows he can do it again with another 6


If the Photo's made it look light it wasn't it was dark most of the time.



http://i662.photobucket.com/albums/uu349/john28_08_album/cricket.jpg



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008:06:17:23:41:46 by Mike BOS.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Exiled Tim (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 04:47

Quote:
Grockle
Gibbs didn't appeal Wurz. He stood his ground (which he has the right to do)and waited for the umpires to discuss it. The only person he talked to was his batting partner and a couple of Somerset players.

Does he have the right to stand his ground, once given out? I don't know the rules / laws well enough to know, but Mike's pictures clearly show that we thought he was out. I'm not arguing about whether or not he was actually out, but the principle.

A NZ batsmen was given out caught behind, on Sunday, but the ball came off his thigh pad. He was clearly disappointed, but accepted the decision. Surely standing your ground is tantamount to dissent?

Mike, juding by your camera angle, I guess I was right about your 'position'!

Vic, yes I've lost some weight, but the guy showing the TM, was not considered by those around me to have a ftm.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 05:53

Yes the picture shows that WE thought he was out but he is looking away from the ump and by the time he'd turned around Jesty was walking in to discuss the siuation and made the signal to recind the decision.

A player can wait for a decision to be made. Personally I wouldn't take the word of the opposition that I was out. I'd wait for confirmation from the officials



(Sm72)

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Exiled Tim (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 06:44

Quote:
Grockle
Yes the picture shows that WE thought he was out but he is looking away from the ump and by the time he'd turned around Jesty was walking in to discuss the siuation and made the signal to recind the decision.
A player can wait for a decision to be made. Personally I wouldn't take the word of the opposition that I was out. I'd wait for confirmation from the officials

I believe you're missing the point. The umpire had clearly given him out, so why didn't he walk? He had no right of appeal.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 07:26

I have to say that Craig is looking a bit shifty isn't he,a bit like the little boy who's been caught with his hands in the sweet draw just before dinner.
If he corrected the Umpire and informed him he broke the stumps prior to receiving the ball,which is how it seems then I think the correct decision was made.
I see what you're saying Wurzel,a decision from the main man should be final.Unless of course a mistake has obviously been made and the word of another player can overturn the decision.
It sounds like the correct thing was done here.
I await the quotes from the rule books as I'm as intrigued as the next person.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 08:03

No you're missing the point. Gibbs was on his knees facing towards the ice cream stand in a crowd of players. Jesty was over by the new stand and although you clearly saw him give the player out, there was no way Gibbs did.

By the time he was standing and facing the right way the umpire was walking in discussing it with his partner umpire in which case you wait for the decision.

He certainly didn't see the umpire raise his finger. And if an umpire can't recind that decision then why is there a sign for it to let the scorer know?

If Gibbs had seen the initial gesture then he should have been making his way back to the pavilion but he didn't so he wasn't.

It certainly seemed that he thought there was an element of doubt in the umpires mind so he simply waited for the decision - which i suppose to him was the first (to the spectators and our players it was the second). It was and he stayed.

Whether Jesty was told the real situation by the keeper (didn't look likely) or he backed down because he thought Gibbs was going to be awkward wasn't clear.

So shall we also debate the gamesmanship of Craig if he didn't come clean? What would be your stance if Gibbs had walked and was given out unfairly because another professional did not tell the truth?

Personally I think the situation was ajudged fairly and the right decision was made and certainly the one without blame is Mr H Gibbs.



(Sm72)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2008:06:18:08:40:00 by Grockle.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 08:06

A stumping is kind of a "multi-part decision", wurzel.
When one plays at club level, these kind of things happen regularly, and it's pretty much an unwritten law that even after the Umpire has raised his finger to confirm that one part (in this case that Gibbs had failed to make his ground) is kosher, one can politely enquire whether the same or second Umpire is absolutely sure that all the other parts (such as gathering the ball) were ok, too.
Often a batsman will ask the S/L Umpire to confirm that a catch has carried after the standing Umpire has confirmed that it touched the bat.
A polite request for confirmation doesn't constitute dissent in my book.
I don't think matters like this are covered in the Laws, Jim: more likely in the "Spirit of Cricket" documents or codes of conduct.

Edit: and of course if Gibbs, as Grockle states, didn't see the finger then the discussion in this case is somewhat moot.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:06:18:08:10:43 by Frome Exile.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 08:25

Good to get a win, obviously.

I thought as I was watching on CEEFAX that we'd committed the stupidity of having Charl replace Alphonso when the latter did not bowl for ages. Thankfully not. And the ploy of holding Alphonso back worked a treat.

Still not totally convinced that the batting order is the right one, though.

What about this for the top six next time?

Banger
Trego
Langer
Kieswetter
Ian
Phillips

As I mentioned before, Ben played at least two significant (and violent) innings for Northants in what, I think, was his final year there. I didn't look further back to see what he did for them in previous years, but.. to judge from the scorecard, he did a good job of dispatching the Glam bowlers at the death yesterday?

I would even consider amending the above and giving Ian a well deserved rest. To judge from the scorecard, he certainly did not have his best game yestrday and could, perhaps, do with resting that knee?

If so, why not give Parsie a go?

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 08:36

Have to say that we all thought that we'd committed it again giving Mark the last over with Gibbs still in and only 21 needed.

But, with quite a bit of help from desperate Glamorgan batsmen, that came right and will have given Mr Turner loads of confidence to boot so good for that.

It really does look like Alf is getting the measure of the home pitch (at least in these short bursts) and it was very very good to see Arul doing the stuff.

I always thought we were a kolpak heavy and that Arul was the player we should be investing in. It may be that admin stuff got in the way but he has a lot to offer with a bit of ecouragement.

One thing I think we also ought to remember is that we did the job last night wthout the bowling of PT which would have figured significantly I think. So even better.



(Sm72)

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 08:36

My other question concerns Omari Banks.

I'm afraid to say that I am beginning to wonder whether (or not) we might have been taken for a ride here?

Omari delivered a brilliant performance last year for the second XI to win a contract. Since winning that contract, he appears to have barely done enough to be even considered for selection (i.e. included in first team squads). Was his performance last year an anomaly and not indicative of his true abilities? Is he carrying some kind of injury which means he cannot be effective? Is he coasting now that he's got his deal? It seems very odd to me that a sometime international cricketer who is only, I think, 25, cannot even manage to get himself into real contention for a place in our side - at least in the short stuff?

I know he played one 20:20 game - what was he like? Was he awful? I believe he's not even been picked in the squad again after his lone appearence?

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 08:40

And without Steff, who I think most of us expected to be a significant contributor in this format.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 08:44

I feel a bit sorry for Steff. He really did not bowl particularly badly at Beckenham, whatever the scorecard might have suggested.

He seems to have been usurped by Alphonso.

To be honest though, unless Ben is going to bat higher up the order, as I've suggested, then he's not necessarily worth his place in this format, ahead of Jonah, as far as I am concerned.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 08:47

I think we may be partly to blame in that on here AG by bigging him up.

He has a name because he has played international cricket (but for a country with a very weak line-up at the time). He was a second team player last year and he's a second team player this year.

Maybe that is what he is at the moment. He was given a contract and he isn't selling his services as a kolpak so the club being 'taken for a ride' is maybe a bit harsh. Mike Parsons didn't take us for a ride. The club assess and decides who to offer papers to. Sometimes it doesn't pan out exactly how either sidce expected it to.

Omari says he's learning all the time but maybe the curve is a bit steeper than he or the management realised.



(Sm72)

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 09:00

Yeah, but my point really was that he made some massive score for the second XI last year, in his trial game, I believe? Perhaps he just 'got lucky,' or happened to be in absolute plum form at the time of his trial?

As I recall there was debate about whether or not Omari would effectively be 'taking a place,' from Wes. It was pointed out that when they played in the same second XI side, Omari's performance was on a different planet to Wes's. I'm just wondering how that can have suddenly gone to ...

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 09:02

And speaking of Wes and threats to his place in the scheme of things, I'm really wondering whether, if the powers that be determined after the SA game that they aren't happy with James's form that we might see Pete in specialist batsmen mode as the first cab off the rank to replace James (with everyone else shuffling up one place,) and Pete playing at six?

That's assuming, of course, that Pete is still not fit to bowl. Is there any news on that front?

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 09:11

And yes, very good to see Arul doing so well.

Of course, we most of us can't understand why he wasn't in the side from the start in this competition and he's done nothing to make it any clearer!

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 10:18

It's Wes as a bowler I think that is the question. He usually contributes with the bat but if he can't conribute to the bowling it puts him down the pecking order and (in the absence of Omari) pushes Arul up it. I'd concentrate far more on Arul than Zander.

I like de Bruyn's no nonsense solid style but we don't require it if the front end fires. The problem is there is always the chance that it won't and then you have to gamble on Arul coping with the pressure.

But there are times when we don't need another medium pacer but we do need a second effective spinner to vary attack. Arul is the choice then surely. Of our "second string" bowling allrounders I personally think Suppiah is the best bet. But that doesn't seem to be Mr Langer's view - although the 20/20 may change that and that is what it is for to some extent.



(Sm72)

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Exiled Tim (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 11:26

Quote:
Grockle
No you're missing the point.

I knew I'd be wrong!

Mr Gibbs did see the decision. Don't try and tell me that a batsman in a potential run out doesn't look at the umpire!

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 11:27

I think Arul is certainly the best bet from a bowling stand-point in all short forms of the game.

In terms of the CC, Zander's century vs Yorks will obviously ensure his place in the team. But that doesn't mean we have to bowl him.

However, I do wonder whether Charl's miraculous performance as a spin bowler at Whitgift might obviate the need for a 'second' spinner other than on obviously helpful surfaces. On those obviously helpful surfaces then, so far as I'm aware, the plan is to still to deploy Michael Munday.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: 0117 (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 12:23

Re the Gibbs run out - when Craig saw the umpire raise his finger he immediately said to the other umpire that he had dropped the ball and that Gibbs was not out.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: tufnell parka (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 12:25

we won

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 12:50

I think you need to look back at the photo - Gibbs ISNT looking at the umpire - why should he be if he saw Keiswetter break the stumps without the ball?

Anyway the assumption that a batsman looks straight at the umpire is not that common either (if you're guilty then you want to look like you have no reason to question and if you're innocent then you have no reason to think the umpire will give you out)

What I put here was the general view of the crowd I was with.

I'm not disagreeing with you about the correct action should a batsman see the decision. The problem is that not everyone necessarily agrees with your submission that Gibbs saw the decision.

Can I suggest that you don't get into an argument if you're going to take comments from an opposite position personally.

If you were in the EBC then we were closer than you were but you're entitled to your opinion. All I'm doing is telling you what I saw and saying what should have happened in that case.

If I'm mistaken then the EWCB will take action and Gibbs will be fined I suppose. Don't think I was and don't particularly care if you agree. You saw it your way I saw it mine.

If it happened your way (which of course it must have and all I'm doing is picking on you again) then Gibbs should have walked.

If there is a possible other explanation (which of course there can't be because that would make me right and that can't happen if you think something different) then Gibbs was right to wait until a decision was made and everything was done properly.

If you are right though and Gibbs had walked would you be making this fuss about Keiswetter's actions had he allowed him to?



(Sm72)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:06:18:14:27:59 by Grockle.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 12:57

And you have ignored my post altogether, in which I suggest that it is quite reasonable to ask whether the raised finger from square leg indicated that all factors required for a decision of "OUT" were present to the satisfaction of that Umpire alone.

I might sulk! (Sm117) winking smiley

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 13:02

A batsman only needs to be given out by one of the umpires to be 'out'. If Jesty thought there was any doubt, he shouldn't have stuck his finger up.

I was 100 miles away, watching football on TV, but I think what happened was:
1 Gibbs appeared to be run out as wickets were broken before he reached his ground;
2 Jesty, at square leg, put finger up;
3 Gibbs queried CK as to legitimacy OR possibly Ck said it wasn't legitimate without waiting to be questioned;
4 Jesty went to consult other umpire in light of new evidence
5 Umpire(s) changed mind, quite legitimately, no hard feelings, let's get on with the game

Gibbs had no right of appeal once an umpire's finger was up (as with Flynn in the ODI when he was caught off his thigh pad), but he and CK may both have known that it wasn't out and would have had a better view than Jesty 20+ yards away. TJ should not have been so hasty in putting his finger up, but I guess he had no view of CK not holding the ball at the time. In any case, 'recalling' the batsman was the correct procedure.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 13:10

"I think you need to look back at the photo - Gibbs ISNT looking at the umpire - why should he be if he saw Keiswetter break the stumps without the ball? "

I've no idea what did happen because I wasn't there. However, if I was batting and I saw that happen then, assuming there was an audible appeal, I would definitely look at the umpire in order to verifty that he had seen the 'illegal,' mode by which the 'dismissal,' was effected.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 13:12

Or to make it more clear, I would look at the umpire and make some kind of indication as to what had happened.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 13:25

Sorry, SP, but I can't quite agree with your terminology - I don't think anyone's suggesting that batsman should ever have the right of appeal.
I didn't see the incident in question, so nothing I've posted is intended as direct comment on this incident: but what I am saying is that a sequence of events / conversation along the lines of:-

* "Howzat?" from a group of fielders which the Umpire assumes (possibly erroneously) includes the keeper
* Finger goes up on basis of batsman being stranded and the Umpire assuming that the take was clean
* Batsman asks "Excuse me Sir, but are you sure the keeper definitely had the ball?"
* Umpire thinks "I had assumed so but better consult / reconsider"

doesn't constitute dissent, or a right to question the decision as such, and isn't a problem.

If the batsman refuses to go when assured that the Umpire is satisfied with all aspects of the decision then that is a very different matter. And all of this, of course, should only ever apply to run outs and possibly grounded catches.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008:06:18:13:32:01 by Frome Exile.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 13:30

Incidentally, did anyone else see what happened to Yorks?

They lost two batsmen from one ball!

Gale set off for a run and did himself some kind of mischief. Vaughan had to scramble to regain his ground but was unable to do so and was run out. Gale then limped off with the England captain!

I wonder if Yorks, at that point, started checking the tyres on their cars for evidence of a black cat!

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 13:45

No argument (or dissent) from me, FE. However, the umpire shouldn't 'assume' anything - he should only give the batsman out if he's sure he is out - any benefit of the doubt must (but doesn't always, I know) go to the batsman.

In this instance, I suspect that TJ had no reason to think Gibbs wasn't out until HG/CK/others indicated such - then he, rightly, changed his mind.

From what I have gleaned from others on here, Gibbs didn't show any dissent (though there's a very fine line...) and all's well that ends well (as somebody once said).

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 13:51

I wonder if the debate would be slightly different, had Gibbs crashed Turner's last over for 22?

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Exiled Tim (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 13:52

Quote:
Frome Exile
And you have ignored my post altogether, in which I suggest that it is quite reasonable to ask whether the raised finger from square leg indicated that all factors required for a decision of "OUT" were present to the satisfaction of that Umpire alone.
I might sulk! (Sm117) winking smiley

You definitely wouldn't sulk!

I haven't had the time to reply, but here goes!

I'm unsure of the laws, but clearly what happens in club cricket is usually based upon sportsmanship and is often judged by unqualified personnel. I would expect different from the first class game.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Exiled Tim (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 13:55

Quote:
0117
Re the Gibbs run out - when Craig saw the umpire raise his finger he immediately said to the other umpire that he had dropped the ball and that Gibbs was not out.

Fair point, Craig or Craig's friend!

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Exiled Tim (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 14:04

Quote:
Grockle



Can I suggest that you don't get into an argument if you're going to take comments from an opposite position personally.

You can suggest anything, it's your site! I don't take it personally, I just accept that you usually disagree with me.


If it happened your way (which of course it must have and all I'm doing is picking on you again) then Gibbs should have walked.Of course it happened your way!


If you are right though and Gibbs had walked would you be making this fuss about Keiswetter's actions had he allowed him to? No, a decision was made. Bad decisions even themselves out

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 14:05

Jesty did immediately put up his finger. The other umpire (don't know who he was) started to walk over to him (presumably because CK ad indicated it wasn't out - thanks 0117). As Gibbs got to his feet a number of Somerset players gathered around to congratulate CK or ask HG why he was still here or tell him he wasn't out it seems.

Gibbs walked towads his team-mate (Powell?) and by that time Jesty was at the wicket. He then turned to the scorers and crossed his arms and put his hands on his shoulders to tell them the decision had been recinded and then we got on with it.

The good thing was there was no sledging afterwards, everyone accepted the decision and there seemed to be no animosity to anyone.

That suggests everyone did what they should have done and this is a huge mountain made out of an insignificant molehill.....and as Tuffers quite rightly says...Somerset victory..turn the page and well done to Craig for owning up.

There are those who would rather die than admit there was a possible error!!



(Sm72)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:06:18:14:32:08 by Grockle.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 14:17

Quote:
wurzel
I'm unsure of the laws, but clearly what happens in club cricket is usually based upon sportsmanship

You clearly haven't played against some of the club's I have!!!!!!!!! (Sm22)(Sm22)(Sm22)

But the point I was making was that whatever the level, common sense, sportsmanship and communication between players and officials should (and in this case clearly did) help to ensure that the right results are reached as often as possible, with as little animosity or chagrin as possible.


It all reminds me of a club game I played in about 12 years ago, in which our very large, retired (and since sadly deceased) wicket keeper appealed vehemently for a cath and was absolutely incensed that it wasn't given, waving his cupped hands at the Umpire and refusing to back down. I had to chuckle, and he turned positively puce, as I wandered across from 1st slip, tapped him on the shoulder, and pointed to the ball nestlingquietly on the ground five yards behind him! Bless you, Roger!

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Exiled Tim (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 14:29

I agree with you 100%, well almost, as I'm still not convinced he wasn't out, nor were 100's of others judging by the reception.

With all the increased revenue, perhaps 3rd umpires (tv) will eventually feature in every 20/20 bash?

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 14:33

If, as 0117 says, Craig told the umpire that he had not effected a legal dismissal then Gibbs was very definitely not out!

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 14:35

So was Craig lying then?

Did he really stump him but decided to tell the umpire that he hadn't on some whim?

How can he have been anything but not out if the person taking off the bails admits that he didn't have the ball?

What would it take to convince you that he wasn't out?

What a strange thing to say



(Sm72)

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 14:42

"Did he really stump him but decided to tell the umpire that he hadn't on some whim?"


Perhaps Gibbs was in Craig's fantasy team? [:wor kid:]

He was in mine! (apologies, once again, to all)

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Mike BOS (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 14:47

I'm glad I posted the Photo.



http://i662.photobucket.com/albums/uu349/john28_08_album/cricket.jpg

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 14:57

That's quite alright, AG. You're perfectly allowed to have people who perform well against us, provided it's just not quite well enough!

I'll happily take the points Wharf secured in defeat!

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Exiled Tim (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 14:59

I co-opted Rob White into my team. Didn't he do well!

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 15:02

After an uninspiring first week, my 20:20 lot really fired with the bat yesterday - to the tune of 493 points from one night's work (for the team as a whole, but we only took 3 or 4 wickets). This has allowed me to finally break into the hallowed ground of the top 1,000!!

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 15:41

Perhaps Craig had been told by the Taunton officials to make the game as exciting as possible,thus by keeping Gibbs at the wicket he made sure it would be squeaky backside time.
Or.
Has Craig been wearing a new leather jacket around town today?
Let's not to be twp shall we,I'd say well done Craig for the honesty as not many would do that.
Love the story FE.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 15:48

Thanks, Jim.
He was one of the nicest blokes I've ever played the game with! Huge in size and spirit, kind and generous.
He used to bring an invitation team to play against us each year, made up of friends, family and work contacts from the City, as a result of which I've bowled against a Great Britain Real Tennis Champion, and Nicky Oppenheimer, who recently assumed the mantle from his father of hosting the pipe-opening fixture for tourists to South Africa (cf. the Arundel game we have here, which always used to be against Lavinia, Duchess of Norfolk's XI). A spectacular tea and dustbins full of iced cans were all laid on, and we loved it!



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2008:06:18:15:56:00 by Frome Exile.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Bobstan (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 17:35

I do always try to give Wurzel a fair hearing, and to remain open-minded.

On this occasion I am bewildered. A source close to Craig tells us that our WK told the officials that it was not out.
How is it then possible to argue that it was out.

Well done to Craig. Gibbs also seems to come out of this incident with some credit.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 19:17

To be fair to wurzel (I know, I know (Sm13)), once the umpire's finger went up, Gibbs WAS out - regardless of what the keeper or anyone else might have said. Only the umpire(s) can change that decision - even if CK and/or Langer withdraw the appeal, he's STILL out until the umpire says otherwise.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 19:47

Of course you're absolutely right according to the Laws, SP.
But isn't this a classic illustration of the fact that laws are for "the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools"?

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 19:50

Oh, I'm a fool am I now, FE? (Sm14)

Others have been known to get uppity for less, you know!

As somebody said earlier, we won, that's all that really matters...

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Bobstan (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 19:51

Of course, SP, but the umpire in this case Trevor Jesty, did change his mind.

I understand Wurzel's concern that players should go when the umpire's finger is raised, but all the principals concerned seem to agree that Gibbs was not out. The umpire corrected his initial mistake. End of argument, surely.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 20:06

Fortunately, SP, Trevor Jesty proved himself a wise man.
And we won.
And as another wise man said recently (winking smiley), that's all that really matters.
(Sm152)

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 20:50

Can we call "Over" now?



LoL

Sixty-one Seasons a Somerset Supporter

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Bobstan (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 21:12

Yes, LoL.

As Umpire Alec Skelding used to say "That, gentlemen, concludes the entertainment for the day."

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 21:27

By all means, Gentlemen!
But I was enjoying a gentle game of verbal ping-pong with Shepton Paul.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Exiled Tim (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 21:34

Quote:
Bobstan
I do always try to give Wurzel a fair hearing, and to remain open-minded.
On this occasion I am bewildered. A source close to Craig tells us that our WK told the officials that it was not out.
How is it then possible to argue that it was out.

Well done to Craig. Gibbs also seems to come out of this incident with some credit.

Clearly, if CK says he broke the stumps, without the ball, then it would have been unfortunate for the man to be given out. No-one from officialdom has briefed us, so it's all hearsay. We'll never know what might have been said had we lost.

I am concerned about players interference in officials decisions, however well-intentioned their thoughts are.

As LoL intimates, this subject has been aired enough, so that's it from me unless someone asks me a direct question.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 21:45

The whole premise of the game is, and has always been, that players have a role in decisions. That's what appealing for a decision is, after all. And many of us yearn for the days of "walking" and a fielder's word going unquestioned; so what is that if not players interfering in the decision making process?
But enough. Good night all!

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/06/2008 22:47

Quote:
wurzel
Clearly, if CK says he broke the stumps, without the ball, then it would have been unfortunate for the man to be given out. No-one from officialdom has briefed us, so it's all hearsay.

I am concerned about players interference in officials decisions, however well-intentioned their thoughts are.

I'm sorry I'm like a dog with a bone about this but I find what I'm reading beyond daft!

Surely we have had a briefing from the only 'officialdom' important in this issue.

The umpire gave a decision.

There is no 'hearsay' it is official fact.

Kieswetter did not run out Gibbs

No "player interference" in the decision, no "player influence" imposed on the decision unless you are talking about Craig telling the truth.

An umpire asked a player whether he had taken the wicket.

The player said "no I didn't" and the official in charge gave the official and only decision that has any relevance at all

Isn't that the case Wurzel or is there some higher official above the umpire that makes that decision and should brief us all after the game of something? And is this official tasked with confirming whether what Craig said is true or something before you will accept the decision of the umpire?

Are you actually serious?



(Sm72)

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Exiled Tim (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 06:14

I don't count 0117 as an official. A club statement or a press release, or a personal statement to me from a club official. Anyone could claim, on here, that thet are a player, but we never know!

Normally when an official gives a decision, that is it. Rarely does a football referee give a penalty then change his mind on appeal. It is the same in cricket. He gave out and when queried I believe he put his digit up, again.

No-one apart from the players and umpires know what was said, we are only guessing.

When I played cricket, if an umpire gave out, it was out end of story. Nowadays, it seems that it's only out if the rest of the 'cast' agree.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 06:53

You seem to be making a lot more fuss about this, Wurzel, than any of the players on either side or the umpires. Doesn't this tell you anything?



LoL

Sixty-one Seasons a Somerset Supporter

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Exiled Tim (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 08:32

Quote:
Loyal of Lhasa.
You seem to be making a lot more fuss about this, Wurzel, than any of the players on either side or the umpires. Doesn't this tell you anything?

Yes, it does. It tells me that most of the posters on here are not in favour of 20/20, weren't there,and aren't really bothered. I am.

If Grockle doesn't ask me any further questions, I'll let it drop, but I doubt he will.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: MisterMurph (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 08:52

Without wishing to be facetious, I have read much more interesting threads than this one. Could we cast it in to the ether?

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 08:58

Yeah but if I didn't post how would you be able to tie yourself into knots over such petty little aspects of this one day persecution/obsession complex?

Shock Horror....an official report on the game is up (well it was written by Walshy I'm not sure that will be official enough for you but it is on the Somerset site)

Just to make sure this massive news hadn't changed anything at all I checked with Cricinfo (not the Somerset official word I know but the best I could do).

Kieswetter STILL didn't run him out and we STILL won. Phew!

The statement must be true of course even though I don't think any conversation took place between Jesty and Gibbs because Jesty was at the OP end with Craig and Gibbs was in the middle of the wicket with his partner and then Jesty did his little signal, called Gibbs back to the crease and went back to his mark.

He must have 'protested' with his manner I suppose because this official statement must be as close to the word of God as it is possible to be. (I think Walshy was in the Press Box at the time and I'm sure he checked it out with others).

Hope that soothes your troubled brow about the state of professional cricket.

Let's hope nothing as tumultuous as this affects the rest of the season because the scandal would be really hard to take after such drama.

Oh by the way...this discussion had nothing to do with the fact it was a 20/20 game at all.

And I was there, Mike was there, Tony was there (I saw him) and I'm sure a whole load of others were there.

You lot who live miles away...don't comment because you weren't there and you all hate 20/20 anyway!!

Shame on you all and especially me for continuing such a daft thread.

And we're all back in the room and it's Worcestershire tonight. If you're going to be there let us all know what happens and let's all pray the rain stays off.

I can't cast it into the ether Murph because it starts with a report on the game and I can't close those. Let's just not post any more and let it go merrily into history shall we?



(Sm72)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2008:06:19:13:25:05 by Grockle.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 09:04

This debate has got absolutely nothing to do with anyone's preference for Twenty20 or otherwise - the debate would have arisen whatever the nature of the match. I think it was perfectly reasonable for Wurzel to raise the matter for discussion here, but my point is that there is now no merit in pursuing it, given that no complaint was made by any of the players or officials subsequent to the one event.

There were fifteen professionals on the field at the time who know far more about the rules and nuances of the game than any of us do; players and officials are fallible and the latter are allowed to change their decisions. A change was made; no complaint ensued (by any of the professionals); matter closed.

(I started this posting some time ago and was interrupted by other matters and so someone may already have responded to Wurzel's posting of 9.32)



LoL

Sixty-one Seasons a Somerset Supporter

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 09:48

Been a bit slow recently,must catch up.
So,bring me up to speed please.
Who refused to walk when Craig brilliantly ran him out?
Was it Lance Gibbs?
If so I'm not surprised.
The Umpire's decision is final in my opinion.
If the ball is out then it's point to the other man.
15/love.
End of chat.
Let's move on.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 09:52

I doubt it would require that much 'brilliance,' for our guys to run out Lance Gibbs, these days.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 10:00

You miss the point AG,out is out.
Unless it was in.
And when you are in you are in.
And when you are out you are out.
And when you are only half way out.
You are neither out nor in.

Learn the rules.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 10:01

I nearly called him "Lance" but that's because I have trouble with Hersch...Hersh...Hercsh....daft name anyway!!



(Sm72)

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: MisterMurph (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 10:16

Bless you...

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Mike BOS (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 10:21

BJ keep things simple for me please.
(Sm95)



http://i662.photobucket.com/albums/uu349/john28_08_album/cricket.jpg

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 10:25

You know me Mike.
Simple is my middle name.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: doc hennessy (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 10:30

Yup out is out. I saw the incident and I have followed the debate with interest. In making the original posting I was seeking guidance on a point of principle, which applies whatever the form of cricket. The facts appear to be : wicket broken, Umpire gave out, Gibbs protested (confirmed by official site), CK owned up, Umpire retracted. As far as the match is concerned, I can move on,let it go, let it drop, get over it. But as far as the principle is concerned, I would still like to know how the rules allow for such an incident, should it occur in future.

Is it possible that the Hair fiasco has led to an undermining an umpire's confidence to stand by his decisions?

Perhaps we could continue the debate on a separate thread entitled "Hair Fallout"?

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Mike BOS (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 10:30

Isn't it funny Arul Suppiah didn't get a look in before the last match, he was in because of not winner the previous three games now it looks like he will be playing tonight.

Sometimes it pays to look closer to home.



http://i662.photobucket.com/albums/uu349/john28_08_album/cricket.jpg

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Bobstan (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 10:36

What a lot of middle names you have, BJ. Logically I am not sure this is possible.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 10:39

I like that suggestion Doc.
If there were say three Hair brothers then the authorities could take their pick and chose any one from three.
We'd then have "Hair Permed".

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 10:41

I have only ever been trying to address the point of principle, doc, and the point I have been trying to make all along is that in principle, and according to the Laws, etc out is out, and always shall be.
But fortunately sport is played (mostly) by human beings capable of rational thought, communication and application of common sense: and cricket, more than most is one in which the players and officials (mostly) still enjoy a pleasing amount of mutual respect and camaraderie. In light of these facts, it has always (IMHO) been perfectly permissible for someone in a position such as Herscelle's to make a polite enquiry along the lines of "You did spot that he might have dropped the ball before he broke the stumps, didn't you, Trevor?" I wouldn't even describe such a request as a "protest" personally.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 10:42

Since when did logic make any sense Bobs?
Logic and perceived norms are there to be challenged,as is our perception of reality.
It doesn't exist you see.
There just "is" and that is it.
Open your eyes and they'll do the job for you.
Words just make a pretty picture of it.
And also give it baggage.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 10:53

"Rhubarb Rhubarb" are your middle names, BJ.



LoL

Sixty-one Seasons a Somerset Supporter

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 10:58

I love rhubarb.
And gooseberries.
I also want to keep bees.
So can my middle names be rhubarb goosberry bee?

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 11:06

"Isn't it funny Arul Suppiah didn't get a look in before the last match, he was in because of not winner the previous three games now it looks like he will be playing tonight.

Sometimes it pays to look closer to home."

Sometimes it pays to actually look at previous scorecards and see which players have tended to be effective in particular forms of the game too!!

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 11:20

Gosh were you there as well Doc?

Well we do get about us 20/20 haters don't we.

Bet we'll be there on Sunday as well.

Will miss tomorrow myself coz I have to be in London but please keep telling everyone you meet how bad the short game is to watch if you are there to watch it (you gluttons for punishment you).

And don't forget to tell them that you log on AND POST on Grockles when you do it so they all know how much we ALL hate the hit and giggle stuff.

I am going to stop now and get myself some professional help

Anyone who posts after me should do the same in the very near future



(Sm72)

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 11:56

Have you got a number I can use please Grockle?

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 12:02

But isn't Yellow Pages your middle name, BJ? (or do you only keep bookies' phone numbers?)

SP
[keeping the thread going but changing topic in an oh-so-subtle manner]

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 12:03

You can use the number 7, Jim; but I might need to borrow it back if I have to get from 6 to 8 for any reason!

(Sm55)(Sm56)(Sm54)(Sm55)(Sm56)(Sm54)(Sm55)(Sm56)(Sm54)(Sm55)(Sm56)(Sm54)

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 13:05

I think 7 is BJ's middle number.



LoL

Sixty-one Seasons a Somerset Supporter

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 13:12

My wife says it's 6.

Grockle's story
Posted by: Exiled Tim (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 13:28

The facts from the club site are that the umpire reversed his decision after the batsman claimed that the bails had been dislodged by the keepers pad, rather than with his gloves. Whether that be the case, or not, he should have accepted the decision.

It cannot be allowed for players to dispute umpire's decisions.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 13:55

Yep I'm sure Jesty just took only Gibb's word for it and didn't bother to check with the keeper at all. The fact that his partner umpire also questioned the decision had nothing to do with it.

He's such a bully that Gibbs and Jesty is such an ineffectual umpire. Gibbs seems to have "protested" (bit of an overstatement of what occurred) and that of course was the only thing important. Of course the fact that Gibbs had cause means nothing. Gibbs should go irrespective of these doubts on the field.

At first it was all about him walking when he didn't see the original decision. Now all that is out the window and he should have gone irrespective of whether the official was correct of not.

Jesty checked and upheld Gibbs claim. No gesticulation, no influencing the decision. A polite request for confirmation and the correct decision. If Craig had said no he would have been on his way but you ar allowed to ask...you do know that I assume

You also know that had SKY been there it wouldn't have even gone to the video because Craig admitted the incident and the game got back to normal...and stayed that way.

Never mind though. How vindicated you must feel.

Well done Wurzel full marks! And back from the land of dreams.



(Sm72)

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 14:12

Did Gibbs score any runs through FTM at all?

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 14:48

Once again SCCC are favoured by Sporting Index tonight, as we have been for every 20:20 game so far.

They've also already released their prices for tomorrow's game and we've heavily favoured for that one, too.

All a bit strange...

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Grizzzly (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 14:49

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...........................!

Grizzzly

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Exiled Tim (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 15:35

Quote:
Grockle
Yep I'm sure Jesty just took only Gibb's word for it and didn't bother to check with the keeper at all. The fact that his partner umpire also questioned the decision had nothing to do with it.
He's such a bully that Gibbs and Jesty is such an ineffectual umpire. Gibbs seems to have "protested" (bit of an overstatement of what occurred) and that of course was the only thing important. Of course the fact that Gibbs had cause means nothing. Gibbs should go irrespective of these doubts on the field.

At first it was all about him walking when he didn't see the original decision. Now all that is out the window and he should have gone irrespective of whether the official was correct of not.

Jesty checked and upheld Gibbs claim. No gesticulation, no influencing the decision. A polite request for confirmation and the correct decision. If Craig had said no he would have been on his way but you ar allowed to ask...you do know that I assume

You also know that had SKY been there it wouldn't have even gone to the video because Craig admitted the incident and the game got back to normal...and stayed that way.

Never mind though. How vindicated you must feel.

Well done Wurzel full marks! And back from the land of dreams.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 16:26

We've actually elected to bat, upon winning the toss!!! Wonders will never cease!!

And Banks has been picked!! Though Ben misses out which is a shame from a batting point of view. Let's hope Banks delivers a strong performance tonight though.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 16:28

correction, team is incomplete with either Ben or Charl (presumably?) being the 12th man?

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 16:35

Willoughby plays.
According to Sky, Omari is in for a late injury to Ben.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 16:40

Surely, a new thread is needed...and I'd be delighted to kill off this one!

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 16:53

Well killed off Shep,it was a good job nothing controversial happened in the Glamorgan match wasn't it?

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 19:33

Too true Shep I thought "hit and giggle" referred to the play on the pitch.

Let's hope nothing happens at New Road...someone overstepping perhaps or wearing the wrong name on their shirt...how will cricket survive.

Have to agree with Wurzel though (well Grizzzzly really)

(Sm120) (Sm120) (Sm120) (Sm120) (Sm120) (Sm120) (Sm120) (Sm120)



(Sm72)

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 21:06

I hope Ben's okay. Let's hope they kept him away from the bowling machine this time...

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 21:36

Please don't mention the five ball over Grockle,the awful LBW decision off Blackie's bowling and the obvious no-ball they got away with when bowling to Trigger.
Just don't mention them.
Please.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 21:44

I don't start these things BJ.

We have enough people on here who can do that.

It'll be quiet for a while now.



(Sm72)

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 21:58

Don't be quiet Grockle,you've done a brilliant job keeping calm when many of us would have been banging our heads against the wall.
In sport as in life things happen which we sometimes don't agree with or don't understand.
Sometimes we're wrong.
Admitting it is another matter altogether.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 19/06/2008 23:01

Oh I won't be quiet BJ

Although I doubt that yours would be a universal assessment it's appreciated nonetheless.

I've got on at you for not biting but I can't leave the dopey post alone...must follow my own advice and suffer fools gladly.



(Sm72)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008:06:20:11:11:50 by Grockle.

Re: Glam Slam?
Posted by: MisterMurph (IP Logged)
Date: 20/06/2008 10:11

Admitting you're wrong can be very tough for some.

Sometimes the issue is realising you are wrong, before then admitting it (or not).

And then there are those who miss the point entirely and battle on and on regardless. There's a few of us around...

Goto Thread: PreviousNext
Goto: Forum ListMessage ListLog In

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net
 

Somerset Poll

Where do you expect us to finish in the 2010 Championship Race?