Let us say a team need 268 to win and is on 267 and the batsmen hits a 4. Is the score 271 or should the team exactly score two more runs to win the match? That last ball of Randiv fetched India 7 runs. So, all 7 runs should count and hence Sewag's score should be 105 and not 99. Not sure what the guy was thinking when he typed the rule
Re: Ridiculous rule
by Mohommed Ghouse on Aug 18, 2010 05:48 AM
I think you hit the nail on its head. Instead of ridiculing the srilankan bowler (who is equally rediculous) we should ridicule the rule per say.
Re: Ridiculous rule
by Giridhar Gopal on Aug 18, 2010 12:40 AM
Narayan - u raised a good point. In the example u gave, the score wud be 271. That is because it is a boundary hit off a legitimate delivery. In your example, if the batsman takes 2 runs, only the 1st run will be counted and the score would be 268 and NOT 269.
Re: Re: Ridiculous rule
by Giridhar Gopal on Aug 18, 2010 12:46 AM
So if a team needs 268 to win and is on 267 and if the batsman is on 98, he cannot run 2 runs and claim a century. When the target(in our example it is 268) is reached, the match ends. The batsman will remain unbeaten on 99. If he scores a boundary or a six, that is a different. In that case, 4 runs(or 6 runs) are credited to the batsman in one shot. So he reaches his century. Hope that clarifies.
Re: Re: Ridiculous rule
by Anwar Ali on Aug 18, 2010 12:49 AM
Yes, but have you thought about 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.
Re: Re: Re: Ridiculous rule
by Giridhar Gopal on Aug 18, 2010 12:57 AM
Anwar - a good point. In the example u gave, once the target is reached due to a no-ball, the match is officially over. So the batsman remains not out.
INDIA supported MURALI to gain 800th wicket in his last International test match. But SANGAKKARA and SURAJ RANDIV played dirty politics against INDIA's hero SEHWAG..This shows how jellous and selfish SANGAKKARA is ! He is spoiling SRILANKA's name which was lifted by great cricketers like SANATH JAYASURIYA and ARJUNA RANATUNGA
Relax, we dont like what Randiv did but some people should stop reacting like they are part of mad mob ready to burn down everything! All Sri Lankan cricketers cant be blamed - let's be reasonable.
Re: take a deep breath
by Another Critic on Aug 18, 2010 03:05 AM
All Sri Lankan cricketers, current, former and would be cricketers need to be burned for this...no exceptions...this is unpardonable sin.
The decision of the umpires is puzzling to me. A no-ball is bowled and the match is declared as over. Hypothetically speaking if Sehwag plays a shot and a run-out occurs while running for his 1run for century, then what happens? Umpire will Straight away raise his hands is there any sense with ICC new rules
Re: Wonder , ICC should be named as International Cricket Corrupt
by Giridhar Gopal on Aug 18, 2010 12:52 AM
Santosh - a very good point. In that case, the batsman remain not out and the team wins. The logic here is, once the target score is reached(in your example, the team reaches the target when the no-ball is declared), the match is officially over. So there is no question of batsman being declared run out or the batsman getting any run.
Re: Behave of Lankans
by Another Critic on Aug 18, 2010 03:07 AM
What's the use when the record bolls are not considered as bolls bolled in the earlier match?
Re: RUN OUT
by Harish Joshi on Aug 17, 2010 02:46 PM
this is not the matter that Sehwag completed his hundred or not... it only shows the playing sprit of Lankas Devils in a gentleman game...
Re: Re: RUN OUT
by Harish Joshi on Aug 17, 2010 02:49 PM
the ans of this ques is Sehwag would not out and india won the match...as said by Mr. Hariharan..the formar umpire from india last night..
Re: Re: RUN OUT
by Harish Joshi on Aug 17, 2010 02:49 PM
the ans of this ques is Sehwag would not out and india won the match...as said by Mr. Hariharan..the formar umpire from india last night..
Re: Re: RUN OUT
by Insaaniyat KaDushman on Aug 17, 2010 02:46 PM
can you repeat the question in some simple wording its very tough to understand the English for me , I am from Urdu Medium student.
Re: Re: Re: Re: RUN OUT
by arahan chi on Aug 18, 2010 12:50 AM
If last ball is no ball then no 1 will go for the run .The only way would be that the abtsman didnot hear that its a no ball . And even if he in run out he is out and india wins .its simple
Re: Randeevs
by Mohandas Satyam on Aug 17, 2010 02:41 PM
U r a lowly insect like paki or a lankan rakshasa. Howmuchever u try, you can never produce a Sachin or a Sehwag. You can live in permanent enmity and treachery against all Indians and Indian successes. It will only make you like a worm suffering in its agony!
Re: Guys
by Mohandas Satyam on Aug 17, 2010 02:40 PM
U r a lowly insect like paki or a lankan rakshasa. Howmuchever u try, you can never produce a Sachin or a Sehwag. You can live in permanent enmity and treachery against all Indians and Indian successes. It will only make you like a worm suffering in its agony!
Re: Guys
by smita R on Aug 17, 2010 02:45 PM
IT SHOW HOW U JEALOUS OF SACHIN AND SEHWAG, DEFINETLY U ARE DUSHMAN OF INDIAN CRICKET, U R EITHER PAKI OR SRILANKAN.
