Forums
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 56 comments are related to the topic:
was the match paid out on the draw or the super over result

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
Page 2 of 2  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 56
By:
Charlie
When: 15 Jul 19 15:36
I'm not a 100% convinced that six runs shouldn't have been awarded. It depends on what the 'act' was. If the act was throwing the ball to the stumps and it hit the bat then maybe the act is hitting the bat (when they had crossed). If it hadn't hit the bat and went for four then they should have awarded five runs. It's not quite so clear to me.
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 15 Jul 19 15:41
hitting the bat is not the act.

act is used as sometimes fielders kick the ball, or put out a hand to catch the ball , deflecting it on to the stumps,
at which point it may ricochet to boundary..but its act of fielder not batsman
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 15 Jul 19 15:43
if stokes does it as an act hes likely out, obstructing field !
By:
peckerdunne
When: 15 Jul 19 15:53
It's difficult to determine Fact from Act, or is it................Grin
By:
Charlie
When: 15 Jul 19 15:54
I didn't say Stokes hit it with the bat. The ball hit the bat and was questioning if that was the 'act'. The bowler deflecting the ball onto the stumps is not an overthrow and the batsmen wouldn't have crossed in that case if that's what you meant.
By:
peckerdunne
When: 15 Jul 19 16:00
I wouldn't be getting cross if we cant establish the act from the fact, i mean surely the act is a fact, or is it not...Grin
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 15 Jul 19 16:20
no, its just a term, act, i was giving examples why its in rules ....and that not just a throw can cause overthrows
By:
Charlie
When: 15 Jul 19 18:18
And I was questioning whether hitting the bat was the act.
By:
TheBetterBettor
When: 15 Jul 19 20:02
Moral of this story...


Only bet on the tournament winners market
By:
Angoose
When: 15 Jul 19 20:12
Or at least understand the rules of the market you are betting in and act accordingly.
By:
detraveller
When: 15 Jul 19 21:55

Jul 15, 2019 -- 3:36PM, Charlie wrote:


I'm not a 100% convinced that six runs shouldn't have been awarded. It depends on what the 'act' was. If the act was throwing the ball to the stumps and it hit the bat then maybe the act is hitting the bat (when they had crossed). If it hadn't hit the bat and went for four then they should have awarded five runs. It's not quite so clear to me.


Since the law is headlined 'Overthrow or willful act of the fielder', I think it is safe to discount Stokes intervention.

The overthrow starts at the point of the release of the ball from the fielder's hands. There is no ambiguity there.

By:
Mealiff
When: 16 Jul 19 11:50
Cashed out early in the match .

So now looking at my account  feel totally ripped off by Betfair , draw wasn't a given option .

what's the point in cashing out when the playing field is changed after you cash out .
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 16 Jul 19 12:42
the tie was offered, draw is not same as tie in cricket.

main market operates as void when scores are tied, other market
gives option of backing or laying all three outcomes.

draw, or incomplete match, also has its own market
By:
Whisperingdeath
When: 18 Jul 19 12:01
Cashed out early in the match .

So now looking at my account  feel totally ripped off by Betfair , draw wasn't a given option .

what's the point in cashing out when the playing field is changed after you cash out .

I cashed out early too at a loss and got all my money back when it was voided! Happy days!

There were options for a Thai, I got 41's! and also someone said the outright winner market instead of the match market. This is cricket although not proper cricketAngry hopefully you have learned something from the experience
By:
Whisperingdeath
When: 18 Jul 19 12:03
in the super over, archers first ball seemed to go over the wide marker, but
not outside of it, but was called a wide....i thought the rule was that the wide marker
was not a wide.

Not sure but I thought the line was a guide not a given. The faster the bowler the more chance of being wided. If it was a spinner probably not a wide.
By:
detraveller
When: 18 Jul 19 14:23
the wide marker is only an approxximate guide for the umpire. He can call a wide even when its inside the line, as long as he thinks the batter didn't have a fair chance of hitting the ball.
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 18 Jul 19 16:13
Not sure but I thought the line was a guide not a given

yep

batsman took normal stance, so lucky, imo, to get a wide


just one of them things in cricket...
Page 2 of 2  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com