If Sehwag could not score of the two bals he played then he dosent deserve the hundred. he didnt complain about the fisrt ball of that over going fo 4 Byes.then why complain about the no Ball?? and secondly they always say team victory if first so why crib about the missed hundred???
Re: This is Bullshit.
by Don Kernash on Aug 17, 2010 11:02 AM
a55hole, even the bye was a delibrate delivery. He didnt miss any ball and didnt want to repeat the test match innings where he was out on 99
Re: This is Bullshit.
by shakti kapooor on Aug 17, 2010 10:59 AM
HEHEHE. thanx for entertaiment. we were expecting jokers..& you came in..what a co-incidence
Here is a very strange irony in cricketing rules. Hope ICC takes note of this. 1. If on 170, Sehwag would have hit a six off a legal ball, the score becomes 176, and not just 171. The other 5 runs are counted even though at the very first run the match is deemed won. 2. In the middle of a match, a six off a no ball is still a six for the batsman. 3. If the batsman is run-out of a no-ball, he is still given out inspite of an extra run on the scoreboard. 4. One famous example I would like to quote during 1987 India-Pak series. Last ball Pak needed 2 runs for a win, they had 1 wkt in hand. According to the rules of those days, even if they had scored 1 run without losing a wicket, the scores would have tied and Pak would have still won the match. But Quadir went for a 2nd run(maybe not knowing), and got run out by Azhar. So bcos of this inspite of a tie, India won the match. Now here why should the attempt for the 2nd run not be considered redundant, since after the 1st run, Pak has won the match ? Now if someone says its bcos 'the ball is in play', then the same thing applies to the Randiv no-ball bcos the ball is still in play. We have seen players getting stumped(i.e run out ) off a no-ball too. So I feel the rule is inconsistent here. 4. One more situation - what if a batsman goes for a pull/hook shot, hits a winning last ball six, but in the process loses balance and falls of the wicket ? So he is hit wkt after the match ended(won), so is he out ?
how Lanka would have felt if India had denied Murali his 800th wicket in first test which was his farewell as well. it was last wicket and imagine Ishant deliberately getting run out
Re: sportsman spirit
by Rajesh Shetty on Aug 17, 2010 10:59 AM
boss..saving the match is more imp. than denying Murali. If he did that, he would be guilty of throwing/fixing the match. Suppose India were in a winning position and Murli needed say 5 out of last 5 wkts for his 800, and someone got run out deliberately, then maybe that would have been like throwing a spanner in Murali's world record attempt.
Re: Re: Now where are the Anti Indians
by Senthil on Aug 17, 2010 10:59 AM
There where hiding in the rat hole and few Indians also who were against India hiding in the next hole. Shame on them.
Re: poor lanks
by Bipin Menon on Aug 17, 2010 10:59 AM
Agree with your points. Lankans are the most unsporstman like team in the world, their bowlers dont bowl straight, their pitches are horrible and their floodlights hardly illuminate. And they chase useless records.....and loose badly.
