Talk:Dismissal (cricket): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
John Leach (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
::What you say about played on could apply to other things too. The earliest surviving scorecard, I think, credits bowlers only for bowled (presumably including palyed on). [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter Jackson|talk]]) 04:57, 21 June 2023 (CDT) | ::What you say about played on could apply to other things too. The earliest surviving scorecard, I think, credits bowlers only for bowled (presumably including palyed on). [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter Jackson|talk]]) 04:57, 21 June 2023 (CDT) | ||
:::That's right. If the batsman was caught, only the fielder received credit. [[User:John Leach|John]] ([[User talk:John Leach|talk]]) 06:11, 21 June 2023 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 05:11, 21 June 2023
What happened to handled the ball? Peter Jackson (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2023 (CDT)
- From memory, the ICC decided that it amounts to the same thing as obstructing the field and so MCC merged the two in 2017. As far as I know, there would be no difference in reality if someone does deliberately use a hand, except the scorer would record it as obstructing. I don't really see a necessity for the change when there have been so few instances of either. I've always thought "played on" should be an official dismissal because the bowler has been lucky to get a deflection, whereas "clean bowled" is achieved by skill.
- Looks like the Test at Edgbaston is slipping away from England. We need a big partnership between Stokes and Bairstow, I think. John (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2023 (CDT)
- What you say about played on could apply to other things too. The earliest surviving scorecard, I think, credits bowlers only for bowled (presumably including palyed on). Peter Jackson (talk) 04:57, 21 June 2023 (CDT)