Good bye?

[drainpipe32]

It's the final ball of the KFC Twenty20 Big Bash; Ben Rohrer of New South Wales is on strike. Victoria's strike bowler Shane Harwood charges in to bowl and as the ball flashes past the blade of Rohrer I jump up with my hands on my head, thinking that we're going to a bowl-out. Then I see Rohrer taking off and Adam Chrostwaite firing at the stumps, only to miss and the colossal Daniel Smith gets home.

At the other end Harwood whips the bails off but Rohrer is home and the Blues have won the title.

As a cricket supporter, not just a Bushrangers fan this result left me feeling really empty. The batsman missed the ball and the keeper took the ball cleanly, but the Victorians still lose. Where's the justice?

No doubt Rohrer deserved the bye; 44 off 20 deliveries under pressure in a crunch game. But did the Blues deserve this victory, would a tie have not been more justifiable?

Last night this was repeated, Brett Lee and Nathan Hauritz scampering through for a bye, The former being more than two metres away from the stumps when the throw came in. This time I was on the right side of the equation but again, I felt like the victory had been only half deserved.

Cricket is a battle between bat and ball, is it not. The keeper did his job by collecting the ball without letting it bounce, if the batsman had got an edge on the ball the game would have been a tie. Doesn't this strike you as wrong?

An alternative; allow byes only if the wicket keeper stuffs up his take ie. allowing the ball to bounce twice before taking it, or not taking it at all. Or even if the ball is illegitimate ie a wide or a no ball. This way there has been a genuine mistake by the fielding team and the game was lost on behalf of bad play not bad luck.

What do you think?

 

[irottev]

If the keeper comes up to the stumps they can't get a bye. Even if they had a fielder in close for the keeper to throw the ball to. It's just bad tactics.

 

[Insomniac]

Kamran should have thrown the ball at the bowler's end - he would have got Hauritz run out, and the game would have been a tie.

Or he could have come up to the stumps, and Gul could have bowled a slower ball (or another yorker at the stumps).

I'm not unhappy about the result, we should have lost worst than we did due to our batting, but I am happy to see the fight.

It's not much of a problem as far as I'm concerned unless we have batsmen charging down the pitch every 3 balls to run when the ball is cleanly collected.

 

[Covvy]

Basically, the bowler should

A) Get Keeper to go up close to the stumps
B) Bowler bowl full and on stumps
C) Keeper take his glove off before he gets the ball and the hit the stumps

 

[irottev]

That's a good point actually. They can't run a bye if the ball is hitting the stumps. It can't get past them. Although on one occasion I remember the ball going THROUGH the stumps.

 

[Fatal Shot]

Match really should have been a tie, as nothing separated both teams. It would have given justice to both teams, but I don't blame Australia. They want to play England especially after that 6-1 rape. I don't really give a ████ what anyone says. England are flukes. If Jimmy has an off day, the possibilities are endless.

 

[Biggy]

It's a tough subject, I totally understand where you are coming from and was actually thinking about it myself last night. The only thing I could suggest is if the Keeper takes it on the full a bye run should not be allowed. Then of course though you have the argument that the Keeper should come up to the stumps or the bowler should be good enough to bowl a yorker, or have a man in at Close in..

 

[drainpipe32]

Exactly, nothing separated the teams.... except a bye. The result left me feeling quite empty.

 

[Fatal Shot]

The batsman who isn't facing is already about halfway down as the ball reaches the keeper. Maybe fix that. The player who isn't facing should not be able to step out of their crease, until the ball is past the bat, or has made contact with the bat. They really need to fix the backing up rule. Byes come way too easy, and there are hardly any run outs, because the keeper almost has no time and just has a wild throw.

 

[drainpipe32]

It's a tough subject, I totally understand where you are coming from and was actually thinking about it myself last night. The only thing I could suggest is if the Keeper takes it on the full a bye run should not be allowed. Then of course though you have the argument that the Keeper should come up to the stumps or the bowler should be good enough to bowl a yorker, or have a man in at Close in..

I've been wanting to write this article since January, it's really been ticking me off!

 

[SciD]

Its poor keeping if you allow bye in that situation.

 

[Biggy]

I've been wanting to write this article since January, it's really been ticking me off!

Something that came to me just now. What if they revised the rule of when the non-striker is allowed to run? Perhaps if he could only run once ball hits bat, or passes the batsmen? That would surely even it up. I'm almost sure that had Akmal hit Lee would have just about been safe anyway! Which is somewhat ridiculous..

 

[Fatal Shot]

Its poor keeping if you allow bye in that situation.

Maybe you can teach all International keepers, because almost all miss in a situation like that.

Even if he had hit, Lee was already in with the full length dive.

 

[SciD]

Maybe you can teach all International keepers, because almost all miss in a situation like that.

Even if he had hit, Lee was already in with the full length dive.

Well if the keepers and even players have half brain they will know that non striker is running no matter what. If they cannot react to that then its obviously their fault.

 

[drainpipe32]

Maybe you can teach all International keepers, because almost all miss in a situation like that.

Even if he had hit, Lee was already in with the full length dive.

Nah he wasn't mate, he was out by a few good metres. Just because you don't want to play us in the semi!