Cricket
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
scheduled to commence 9.00am wednesday UK time , looks like there a lot of rain about the WACA for this one , maybe this game is washed out
really enjoyed trading the last couple of big bash games , been a lot of fun ...
BJT or West Coast Eagles got any 'local' information as to weather we can expect a game or not ??
really enjoyed trading the last couple of big bash games , been a lot of fun ...
BJT or West Coast Eagles got any 'local' information as to weather we can expect a game or not ??
Show More
yeah BJT , i don't get this market they need to be out there in 7 minutes
Play has to resume by 07:43 local time to get a match. Keep your fingers crossed!!!
Market gone stupid. Only chance is if it isn't as stupid as the commentators. If they are right, this is crazy. Only chance if they don't know the rules?
its raining heavier than 15 minutes ago, yes NO is up to 1.53!!!!! fcuk me.........someone has got the wrong information
no is a cert here and people are laying this price ? MADNESS I SAY
coin it in gents , coin it in
coin it in gents , coin it in
7:41 pm this is going to be close, but they going to make them play in the rain?
play to resume at 11:52 it says on sky sports coverage
disgusting scenes Melbourne should be called the winners of this match
Local Time: 19:40 PM: Play will resume at 19:52 PM local to constitute a 5-over match.
its starting to pick up in terms of rain now.............my gut feeling is this game wont be completed
I hope this doesn't make me to unpopular with any regulars but suck balls for betting on the weather.
West Coast Eagles, Mate, come back to #betfair - it's where you belong. Come back to your roots. We are chatting about the game. We aren't gonna ask u for bets, everyone is friends. Just come chill for a bit.
got in a right mess on the CMM, but got out with small green
how was ur book bjt ? u were lumping on
equal red here :-(
robbed
equal red here :-(
robbed
never seen a game like that, i thought u had to bowl 5 overs?
I can only assume that 5 overs are needed and therefore if you come back on and are already ahead of the 5 over target you need a ball to be bowled to prevent matches where they don't come back on being a result.
they had already reached the 5 over target, that was the issue
need 5 overs for completed match, whats going on, unfit to play
the right team won , but I'm sure many done their nuts on the CMM there
As much as I'm glad to win my bet on the Stars as a cricket lover I hate to see that called a match after a 2 over innings.
the game was revised to a 5 over contest , but the stars had already reached that revised target , thats what happened
right result but that cannot be right, scorchers cannot possibly of won the match lets say they had them 22/6 before they first went off, match would have ended no result
Some people have done well out of this strange end . Waiting for official resume of it . Weird .
Im baffled here i dont kno what the hell is going on this is a joke
yes traded it, but this is a 1st, not 5 ovs?
Pleanty of teams get revised 5 over totals. The quirk here was that they already had the required runs before they came off. That scenario isn't likely to happen very often.
Pleanty of teams get revised 5 over totals. The quirk here was that they already had the required runs before they came off. That scenario isn't likely to happen very often.
Doesn't D/L include wickets? What if they where bowled out?
no , the stars had already reached the revised 5 over target , so that just had to face one ball
no response from bjt . hope he didn't lose too much . he was lumping on .
they even stated rules on the live coverage, 5 overs each side required for a match
because , when the rain came the match had been revised to a 5 over chase
Makes zero sense regardless of their interpretation. Still reached the 5 over target before that ball was bowled, so no need for it.
nicky27 if the stars were 22/7 when they first went off would they have come out and played 1 ball or called no result???
"Farcical ending to the game. The target for the Stars was 6 runs after 2.1 overs. Hence only one ball had to be bowled for Stars to win. Don't blame us if you are left confused. The rain affected match rules continues to confound us....."from Cricbuzz
therefore a 5 over target had been set , when they went back out , one ball was bowled and then they had reached that revised target
What significance did that 1 ball play?
I assume it is to distinguishe between games where less than 5 overs are played and they don't come back on (NR) and ones where they do like today which end up in a positive result.
I assume it is to distinguishe between games where less than 5 overs are played and they don't come back on (NR) and ones where they do like today which end up in a positive result.
Dec 12, 2012 -- 12:03PM, West Coast Eagles wrote:
"Farcical ending to the game. The target for the Stars was 6 runs after 2.1 overs. Hence only one ball had to be bowled for Stars to win. Don't blame us if you are left confused. The rain affected match rules continues to confound us....."from Cricbuzz
but they weren't 22 for 7
had a horrible mess on the CMM there , lucky to get away with that
But they don't need to face 1 ball for zero runs to reach the revised target, they had already reached it.
I doubt we have heard the end of this one.
I doubt we have heard the end of this one.
had a loss on CMM, i got the rules wrong there.............thought u still had to bowl the min 5 overs, but target was reduce in a weird way. Cop the loss and move on
yeah , I know its strange , but i think i get it ....did u get out of ur CMM book BJT ??
13 deliveries 2.1 ovs, approximately no where near 5 overs, if it had continued raining to cut off time....then no result?
what im trying to say is scorchers had no possible chance to win the game if they had them 22/7 wasnt enough time to bowl another 18 balls
yeah mcfc , i hear what ur saying , cos 5 overs would have gone past the cut off time , however 1 ball didn't , I think thats the point
so if they hit a 4 off the first ball in the chase then still its a game ? this is a joke how can the rules just change .
so , effectively they reached the revised 5 over target before the cut off time
if they are 0/4 off 0.1 then the logic of what they just did says that would be a game too .. ??????
what im trying to say is scorchers had no possible chance to win the game if they had them 22/7 wasnt enough time to bowl another 18 balls
If that is true then I think it is quite a major issue. The idea of bowling the 1 extra ball was to distinguish it from a match where they can't come back on. If there wasn't enough time to complete the 5 overs then I think they should have declared a NR regardless of the fact that they already had enough runs.
If that is true then I think it is quite a major issue. The idea of bowling the 1 extra ball was to distinguish it from a match where they can't come back on. If there wasn't enough time to complete the 5 overs then I think they should have declared a NR regardless of the fact that they already had enough runs.
Dec 12, 2012 -- 12:09PM, mark99 wrote:
if they are 0/4 off 0.1 then the logic of what they just did says that would be a game too .. ??????
but 4 runs would never be enough to complete a revised 5 over target
Dec 12, 2012 -- 12:05PM, Millionaire_Morse wrote:
bjt son how was ur book in the end ?
Which one? Lost 1200 on CMM, won 800 on Stars. Still up 30k for the week on an absolute rort of a result, so whatever.
I still don't believe we have seen the end of it. No way in hell that ground was fit to play on. No way anybody can argue that wasn't a rushed entry onto the ground.
Ridiculous end to the game.
Rushed decision that could prove costly to those that made it.
How did you go? You lumped on to that and nothing else.
Dec 12, 2012 -- 12:11PM, nicky27 wrote:
Dec 12, 2012 -- 12:09PM, mark99 wrote:if they are 0/4 off 0.1 then the logic of what they just did says that would be a game too .. ??????but 4 runs would never be enough to complete a revised 5 over target
Revised total was 6 runs wasn't it? What if 3 balls were bowled and 0/6? Seriously?
yeah BJT , I think i get it , but it took a lot of nerve to go in again on the YES , once the umps went back out
i reckon umps may have had a bet on the game..............
footie , if u follow twitter and have good rain radars and know the rules and have local info , it can be good in the end
u learn something new cricket everytime, seen some weird finishes.........this is one of them, but Melbourne Stars deserved to win
if scorchers complain could see them getting no result, they wont as they were outplayed.
i also get they were ahead of the target needed after 5 overs but they could also have been bowled out (10 wickets in 17 balls) chances are a 1000000000000000000000000000000/1 but dont see how u can call a result if the rules havnt been met and scorchers could still win.
i also get they were ahead of the target needed after 5 overs but they could also have been bowled out (10 wickets in 17 balls) chances are a 1000000000000000000000000000000/1 but dont see how u can call a result if the rules havnt been met and scorchers could still win.
if the bowler slipped and twisted his ankle he could have claimed big time
its simple really , the rain came , a revised 5 over target was set ( less than what the Stars were on when they came off ) , they go back out there for one ball , they have made the revised 5 over target in 2.1 overs , not saying its good for the game , but i get the logic
may have been ahead of the target after 2.1 overs nothing to say they would have been ahead after 5 overs, they could have been bowled out. 
must be a rule that says if the batting team has already reached the 5 over target before the the 5 overs are bowled they win, im sure the umpires checked this before they went back out and not just took warnes word for it
must be a rule that says if the batting team has already reached the 5 over target before the the 5 overs are bowled they win, im sure the umpires checked this before they went back out and not just took warnes word for it
ground was perfectly safe as the bats were never gonna play any shots so how could anyone get injured? 
Dec 12, 2012 -- 12:33PM, Lix wrote:
ground was perfectly safe as the bats were never gonna play any shots so how could anyone get injured?
Based on what? So why send anybody out? I have slipped over before when there was no batsmen around, let alone playing a shot.
The result was a farce. Simple as. And we will hear more about it.
Onwards and upwards. Next game please.
Weird one - more crazy than that T20 ENG vs SA at Old Trafford in the summer - glad I wasn't betting on it - just shows you when you think you've seen it all.....
The Melbourne Stars are the hyped team in this competition.
Warne's "face " is everywhere doing some sort of BIGBASH promotion....The Stars do well and the BIGBASH does well.
I think it was a marketing decision to circumvent the 5 Over Rule.
Warne's "face " is everywhere doing some sort of BIGBASH promotion....The Stars do well and the BIGBASH does well.
I think it was a marketing decision to circumvent the 5 Over Rule.
Watching it on Sky Sports 1 now as missed the end earlier.
mcfc1981's blog
may have been ahead of the target after 2.1 overs nothing to say they would have been ahead after 5 overs, they could have been bowled out. Grin
Exactly mcfc19..- 5 wickets in the next 5 balls and the D/L target becomes 36.
[/i]mcfc1981 - must be a rule that says if the batting team has already reached the 5 over target before the the 5 overs are bowled they win,[/i]
and this can't be right (unless it is... no "rules" listed on the bbash website) because as mark99 points out, if you're 0/12 off the first two ball you're ahead and no one expects the game to end there and then..Nicky you might be interested if you weren't aware already that the 5 over target was 11 in that game if they were still nil down...
so where the bowling team has no opportunity to take wickets the game should be a NR.
the only reasonable exception would be where there are not enough balls left to get the wickets needed to lift the D/L target above the chasing teams current score.
But in the case of scorchers vs the Stars, there were still more than enough balls left to get 5 wickets and lift the target to 36 (above the 29 they were on).
i haven't started with T20 betting so am not talking my book at all. The decision to award the game prematurely just makes no sense unless it's plainly stated in the bbash rules that all you need to do is get ahead of the 5-over, current wickets D/L target at any time and you win - but in that case they should have walked off when they went past 11.
It's so fundamentally contrary to the basic premise of 2 cricket sides being able to win the game throw the balance of runs AND wickets that i'd be flabbergasted if it's in the rules... If it is, it's a huge advantage to the team batting second and it's a complete re-write of how D/L targets have been treated in ODIs.
may have been ahead of the target after 2.1 overs nothing to say they would have been ahead after 5 overs, they could have been bowled out. Grin
Exactly mcfc19..- 5 wickets in the next 5 balls and the D/L target becomes 36.
[/i]mcfc1981 - must be a rule that says if the batting team has already reached the 5 over target before the the 5 overs are bowled they win,[/i]
and this can't be right (unless it is... no "rules" listed on the bbash website) because as mark99 points out, if you're 0/12 off the first two ball you're ahead and no one expects the game to end there and then..Nicky you might be interested if you weren't aware already that the 5 over target was 11 in that game if they were still nil down...
so where the bowling team has no opportunity to take wickets the game should be a NR.
the only reasonable exception would be where there are not enough balls left to get the wickets needed to lift the D/L target above the chasing teams current score.
But in the case of scorchers vs the Stars, there were still more than enough balls left to get 5 wickets and lift the target to 36 (above the 29 they were on).
i haven't started with T20 betting so am not talking my book at all. The decision to award the game prematurely just makes no sense unless it's plainly stated in the bbash rules that all you need to do is get ahead of the 5-over, current wickets D/L target at any time and you win - but in that case they should have walked off when they went past 11.
It's so fundamentally contrary to the basic premise of 2 cricket sides being able to win the game throw the balance of runs AND wickets that i'd be flabbergasted if it's in the rules... If it is, it's a huge advantage to the team batting second and it's a complete re-write of how D/L targets have been treated in ODIs.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539