Now, everybody had imagined the importance of 1 run, a century and plying for self records. If Sehwag is not plying for records, then why we are worry about that? Why every time we are blaming SRT that he is playing for self records?
Re: If it is Ponting
by BRUNO MONTEIRO on Aug 18, 2010 01:33 PM | Hide message
These Indian will say very good what Harbajan has done.. Rite... you all..
Re: Re: If it is Ponting
by sachin on Aug 19, 2010 01:11 PM
If Bajji took wkt of Pting on 99 on best ball, then what is wrong Bajji had done ?
Re: Sehwag
by Raveendra on Aug 18, 2010 02:27 PM
Mr.Robbie, first of all u r idiot. Why no what Randiv done is wrong. Y R U blaming Sehwag. Don't u have better job
Sewag in humor let me add is a guy who throws his wicket at 99 must have felt bad at such a ruse which denied him this 100. Srilankans earlier deprived Sachin a hundred similarly. They are a bunch of Rog cricketers like the Pakis. Let India march on with the gentlemans game with honesty.
Re: Randiv's unsportly display makes him Srilankan hero
by krishna on Aug 19, 2010 10:47 PM
why was sacchin denied. The 4 wides were bowled to Kartik. SRT ws at the non strikers end.
I feel sorry for Sehwag, as he is one of my favorite players, but I guess the rule was put in place for a reason. Folks, consider this scenario....One run to win and the bowler bowls a no-ball. batsmen scamper for a quick single, not realizing that the delivery is a no ball. And in the process, the batsman gets run-out. Now, because of the no-ball the batting team has won, but by how many wickets? they won by 0 wkts. Sounds absurd right? Maybe thats why they do not count what happened after the no-ball, in case victory has been secured. But, in cases where they have not yet been secured, (like 2 runs to win and it is a no-ball), then they look and see what happened....was it a four, how many runs were scored off that delivery etc.
Having said that, in this case, the belligerent Sehwag could have and should have scored the runs with a boundary even before this delivery. Remember - he played 3 deliveries, one went for 4 byes, then there were 2 others. Maybe he did not want to take a risk and get out.
Re: Unfortunate but necessary
by MeetFireWithFire on Aug 18, 2010 08:51 AM
That would not be the case. You got it wrong. If there is only 1 run required and if the winning run happens to be of no ball, the rule says that the delivery and the action of play becomes dead. Hence run out will not be accounted for as is Sehwag's SIX in that case.
Re: Re: Unfortunate but necessary
by Anwar Ali on Aug 19, 2010 09:36 PM
Do you even read posts before posting? You are only rephrasing what I said. But, you are repeating the same thing. I was giving a possible explanation for this law since some people have questioned the logic behind the law, saying why should the runs not be included.I was giving an example of a scenario where it could have some other implications if we took into account what happened during the delivery (how many runs were scored, whether the batsmen were run out etc.) I was saying probably this is why the law was put in place this way - once victory has been secured, the next action becomes dead and inconsequential. Got it?
Re: Re: Re: Unfortunate but necessary
by MeetFireWithFire on Sep 02, 2010 12:37 PM
You got it wrong. I stick to my statement. No team can win by 0 wickets. Try to understand the rule and then comment. In your suggested case, the action of play becomes dead when then winning run is obtained and hence batsmen cannot be ruled RUN OUT as well.
Re: Unfortunate but necessary
by Mysore Rajesh on Aug 18, 2010 06:11 AM
When the wicket is considered for the result, why not the runs considered.
This rule has come in recent times, before, if a no-ball is bowled and if batsman doesnt score runs, the batting team gets one extra run, this is even now existing. On the other hand, if the batsman scores runs on the noball, only the scored runs accounted, thats 6 runs in case of Shewag, but not 7 runs as the rule now.
For example before, if a wide ball goes for byes boundary, only 4runs extra were accounted. But now its 5runs extra, i.e., 1run wide 4runs byes
