25 Apr 2006 21:50:28
max.it
sixes


smashing stuff
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/4942374.stm

max.it


26 Apr 2006 14:39:24
Alan OBrien
Re: sixes

"max.it" <max@teatime.co.uk > wrote in message
news:444e995a.54534949@news.btopenworld.com...
>
> smashing stuff
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/4942374.stm
>
> max.it

Yaaars! 42 off an over - a genuine over. Do you remember that 1st class
match in NZ where there were about 72 runs scored off an over, which
contained a huge number of no-balls and wides?
I suppose the umpire was powerless; it was all legal... Would YOU have said
anything?




26 Apr 2006 15:25:18
max.it
Re: sixes

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:39:24 GMT, "Alan OBrien"
<alaneobrienSPAM@blueyonder.co.uk > wrote:

>"max.it" <max@teatime.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:444e995a.54534949@news.btopenworld.com...
>>
>> smashing stuff
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/4942374.stm
>>
>> max.it
>
>Yaaars! 42 off an over - a genuine over. Do you remember that 1st class
>match in NZ where there were about 72 runs scored off an over, which
>contained a huge number of no-balls and wides?
>I suppose the umpire was powerless; it was all legal... Would YOU have said
>anything?
>
>
You could mention quietly that running up the protected area 3 times
might be a cheaper option :)

After a couple of swats, the poor bowler starts to bowl for the
keeper, which results in wide balls

max.it


26 Apr 2006 17:36:15
Alan OBrien
Re: sixes

"max.it" <max@teatime.co.uk > wrote in message
news:444f8e64.30574221@news.btopenworld.com...
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:39:24 GMT, "Alan OBrien"
> <alaneobrienSPAM@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>"max.it" <max@teatime.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:444e995a.54534949@news.btopenworld.com...
>>>
>>> smashing stuff
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/4942374.stm
>>>
>>> max.it
>>
>>Yaaars! 42 off an over - a genuine over. Do you remember that 1st class
>>match in NZ where there were about 72 runs scored off an over, which
>>contained a huge number of no-balls and wides?
>>I suppose the umpire was powerless; it was all legal... Would YOU have
>>said
>>anything?
>>
>>
> You could mention quietly that running up the protected area 3 times
> might be a cheaper option :)
>
> After a couple of swats, the poor bowler starts to bowl for the
> keeper, which results in wide balls

That was the one where they were doing it on purpose:
"In yet another incident, in a first-class match at Christchurch in New
Zealand in 1989-90, Wellington's Robert Vance, acting on the instructions of
his captain, deliberately conceded 77 runs in an over of full tosses, to
Canterbury's Lee Germon and Richard Petrie, which contained 17 no-balls and
owing to the umpire's miscalculation, only five legitimate deliveries.
However, this has not been considered a record, since it was achieved under
contrived circumstances."
So in that case there is little the ump can do.




26 Apr 2006 18:20:47
max.it
Re: sixes

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:36:15 GMT, "Alan OBrien"
<alaneobrienSPAM@blueyonder.co.uk > wrote:

>"max.it" <max@teatime.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:444f8e64.30574221@news.btopenworld.com...
>> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:39:24 GMT, "Alan OBrien"
>> <alaneobrienSPAM@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>"max.it" <max@teatime.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:444e995a.54534949@news.btopenworld.com...
>>>>
>>>> smashing stuff
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/4942374.stm
>>>>
>>>> max.it
>>>
>>>Yaaars! 42 off an over - a genuine over. Do you remember that 1st class
>>>match in NZ where there were about 72 runs scored off an over, which
>>>contained a huge number of no-balls and wides?
>>>I suppose the umpire was powerless; it was all legal... Would YOU have
>>>said
>>>anything?
>>>
>>>
>> You could mention quietly that running up the protected area 3 times
>> might be a cheaper option :)
>>
>> After a couple of swats, the poor bowler starts to bowl for the
>> keeper, which results in wide balls
>
>That was the one where they were doing it on purpose:
>"In yet another incident, in a first-class match at Christchurch in New
>Zealand in 1989-90, Wellington's Robert Vance, acting on the instructions of
>his captain, deliberately conceded 77 runs in an over of full tosses, to
>Canterbury's Lee Germon and Richard Petrie, which contained 17 no-balls and
>owing to the umpire's miscalculation, only five legitimate deliveries.
>However, this has not been considered a record, since it was achieved under
>contrived circumstances."
>So in that case there is little the ump can do.
>

These days the umpires would get official about unfair play of some
kind or other.

max.it