Cricket question. In the last match of a season the batting side require one run to win the match but four runs of the next ball to overtake their opponents on average run rate throughout the season and secure the championship. Would it be in the interests of the bowling side then to bowl a deliberate no ball?

Friar Tuck

Yes it would be similar to Michael Schumacher nudging his closest rival off the track of the last Grand Prix of the season a few years back. Legitimate possibly, but hardly fair play. Jul 30 02, 8:50 AM

Oddy

It just wouldn't be cricket , old boy . I recall something similar happened about 15/20 years ago . Somerset was the team involved and Brian Rose was the captain . I think what happened was that Somerset went into a one day league game with a better run rate than the second placed team but would have lost that advantage if bowled out cheaply . What they did was to declare their innings at 0-0 and troop off . There was an almighty row and they got kicked out of the competition ! Jul 30 02, 10:44 AM

tented

I recollect an Australia/NZ game in which (if memory serves) NZ required a 6 off the last ball for victory. The Aussies bowled it underarm along the ground and a major diplomatic incident occurred between the 2 countries. Jul 30 02, 11:12 AM

Michael Poultney

Although not generally recognised as cricket the examples above show that captains have, at times,attempted to get the better of the Laws as written. The example Oddy mentions refers to the Benson and Hedges Cup zonal match between Worcestershire and Somerset where Brian Rose declared at 1-0 after one over to protect his county's rate of taking wickets. He may well have got away with it had he just declared but he did so after having contacted Lords who advised him not to to so.Declarations are now not generally permitted in one-day games. Worcestershire were involved in another controversial situation in a County Championship match against Derbyshire where they were deprived of victory which could have cost them runners-up position. After 40 minutes of the last hour when 16 overs had been bowled Derbyshire were dismissed leaving Worcestershire 25 runs to win. Gifford was told by umpires Spencer and Halfyard that since 10 minutes were left after the interval between the innings 4 overs were available to get the target. Subsequently a call to Lords confirmed that under the then amended 1947 Code since 16 overs had been bowled and 3 were covered by the interval only 1 over plus any remaining time was available. Consequently Derbyshire bowled at least two deliberate no-balls to ensure that only two overs were bowled leaving Worcester 8 runs short. Subsequently, under the 1980 and 2000 code, the method giving the batting side the greater number of overs is employed. Jul 30 02, 6:26 PM

Michael Poultney

Both of the controversial games mentioned above were in the 1979 season. Jul 30 02, 6:28 PM

oleg_mcnoleg

It would indeed be in the interests of the side to 'deliberately' throw the game. However most Cricket boards take a fairly dim view of events as listed above - as Oddy says 'it just isn't cricket' Somerset were ejected from the B and H cup that season following Brian Rose's manilpulation of the rules. Australia were not so penalised when Trevor Chappell bowled the last ball underarm to Brian McKechnie. Both events as you correctly note however triggered significant changes to the laws of the game to avoid repeats. Perhaps the most contentious part of the modern game is the deliberate feeding of runs to a team in order to promote the chances of a result. Examples of this are notorious - Vance bowling an over full of deliberate no-balls and wides that ended up being worth 77 to the batting side (and unsurprisingly one ball short) - In the minor counties a few years back Andrew Wingfield Digby (i think) captain of Dorset (?) instructed one of his bowlers to bowl deliberate wides and his fielders not to chase the ball (thus getting 4 wides). Both instances took place to 'encourage' a batting side that had previously given up a run chase to take a few more chances - if my memory serves i think both those instances ended in draws ..... Apologies for rambling on but there are endless instances of manipulating results - within the laws - but increasingly you need a degree in maths .... particularly in getting round the Duckworth/Lewis system! Jul 30 02, 9:58 PM

Fosse4

If you had played any local cricket at all, you would know that it would be a waste of time bowling a no-ball as the Umpire would most likely be one of the opposing team players and would have no idea of the rules and therefore wouldn't call the no-ball anyway! It would be to the benefit of the bowling side to bend the rules but it most certainly would not be CRICKET.(Old Fogey, but wasn't that last Test a Great Game regardless of the result) Jul 30 02, 10:37 PM

oleg_mcnoleg

Fosse4 - you're completely correct the 'rules' for club cricket state that the bowler must be over stepping by at least four feet if a no-ball is to be called by a 'batting team' umpire. Fortunately i played in a reasonable league where 'neutral' umpires were provided (and paid for). All were over 70. Therefore the rule was adjusted to overstepping by three feet! ... and yes it was a great test! Aug 01 02, 9:19 AM

Create a Free FunTrivia ID to add to, request more/new answers, or edit this entry

Cricket question. The batting side require two runs to win - the ball is played into the outfield and, although not reaching the boundary there is time for the batsmen to run three. On completion of the second run the umpire at the bowler's end calls 'time' and removes the bails believing the match to be over. The square leg umpire then calls the first run short. The scorers have made no errors. For the purposes of Law 21(9) would this count as a mistake in the scoring that would allow the match to resume unless the last available ball had been bowled? Cricket question. Nine wickets are down in the final innings,the scores are level and a batsman is hit wicket off a wide ball. Am I correct in assuming that this is a tie regardless of whether the ball had past the striker's wicket at the instant it was struck,but that, had the potential wicket been stumped, the wide would count and the batting side would win by one wicket ? How is the Net Run Rate calculated in this current World Cup of Cricket? A goal keeper throws the ball from side line,whether it is possible ?

1 Match the TV Plots - One Season Shows This is a follow-up to my first TV Plots quiz, except that none of these lasted more than a season. By Plots Average 25 Q TonyTheDad Oct 17 00 4881 plays 2 Bowling Ball Technology In ten-pin bowling, the bowling ball has evolved throughout the years. Let's see how much you know about the ball in today's world. Bowling Difficult 10 Q themonarch Mar 08 08 468 plays 3 Match the Hero to the Ability- Season 1 I will give you the name of a hero, and you must tell me what that person's power is. Be careful, these aren't the common heroes, but some of the more obscure ones. 'Heroes'- Characters Average 10 Q tdakoo May 07 07 6366 plays