Why Is Archer allowed to Cheat ?

maybe because you don't know what a bouncer is?

I don't think he bowled too many in his own half. Have a look at the replays on Channel 5. Much of the damage was done with balls just short of a length, which, is the really frightening part of it!

41.6 Bowling of dangerous and unfair short pitched deliveries

41.6.2 A bowler shall be limited to two fast short-pitched deliveries per over.   

41.6.3    A fast short-pitched delivery is defined as a ball, which passes or would have passed above the shoulder height of the striker standing upright at the popping crease.

Excellent!

Discussion ended!

cummins bowled about 10 short pitched deliveries in 2 overs against the england tail enders. no one was bothered then

One more …..

41.6.6 In the event of a bowler bowling more than two fast short pitched deliveries in an over as defined in clause 41.6.3 above, the umpire at the bowler’s end shall call and signal No ball on each occasion. A differential signal shall be used to signify a fast short pitched delivery.The umpire    shall call and signal ‘No ball’ and then tap the head with the other hand.

salmon spray is another one of these remoaners who is so anti British it's painful
As Mafe points out Cummins hardly bowls a ball in his half

The Aussies they don't like it up em', much like the EU, the Krauts and all the other sympathisers

And finally .....

41.6.10 The umpires shall have full discretion as to when to apply the regulations, being permitted to take various factors in to account including the state of the series, the past disciplinary records of the players dishing out and receiving the short pitched deliveries, and any personal bias.

A lot of the sort of moronic,personal responses I was expecting,but if anybody is trying to tell me that Archer didn't bowl 3 head high bouncers in an over several times they need their eyes testing. If Cummings was as guilty then the same should apply to him.
But I fear Archer's greater pace,his tendency to bowl a fair proportion at the batsman means he is more likely to kill somebody.

if anybody is trying to tell me that Archer didn't bowl 3 head high bouncers in an over

which over for instance?

Gooch and Gatting batted slowly and survived the first spell of Garner and Patterson.
But Walsh and Marshall came as first and second change respectively and there was no respite for the English batsmen.

This was when a ‘perfume ball’, a quick bouncer very close to batsman’s face, from Marshall hit Gatting on the nose.
For a few seconds, Gatting felt like he had gone through a brick wall as the pain started to grow.

To make the matter worse the ball fell on the wicket after hitting his nose and he was bowled.
He was taken off the ground and given basic treatment.

When the ball was returned to Marshall, he found a piece of bone stuck in the leather.

For Gatting, he had to travel back to England with a broken nose and swollen face.

At Heathrow airport, once he faced the journalists with black-eyes and a large piece of plasters on his nose, one confused journalist asked him, “Where exactly did he hit you?”

To his credit, Gatting became fit in the next few weeks and went back to the Caribbean before the third test match.
But he had to suffer from a broken thumb on the day prior to the test match.

He only played the fifth test match with not much success and England went down to complete a 0-5 thumping.

Aug 20, 2019 -- 2:37PM, detraveller wrote:

if anybody is trying to tell me that Archer didn't bowl 3 head high bouncers in an overwhich over for instance?

But surely establishing that the regulations were not breached would only serve to shut down the thread ?

they don't make 'em like they used to

Aug 20, 2019 -- 2:34PM, salmon spray wrote:

A lot of the sort of moronic,personal responses I was expecting,but if anybody is trying to tell me that Archer didn't bowl 3 head high bouncers in an over several times they need their eyes testing. If Cummings was as guilty then the same should apply to him.But I fear Archer's greater pace,his tendency to bowl a fair proportion at the batsman means he is more likely to kill somebody.

You have a problem with personalized responses but you had no problem labeling Archer a cheat for something that only the umpire can decide.

Two bouncers per over law has been around for many years now, so teams have figured out how to be accurate enough that the ump can't make a definite judgement. Its up to the umpire on the field to decide whether the ball was above shoulder height or not. Umpires thought neither cummins nor archer were bowling too many head height deliveries.

A better title of your thread would have been 'Why umpires cheated' instead of calling Archer a cheat.

You don't want to be treated like a moron, don't act like a moron.

You don't want to be treated like a moron, don't act like a moron.

You don't want to be treated like a moron, don't act like a moron.

You don't want to be treated like a moron, don't act like a moron.

I don't read this forum much but I had gathered a lot of people didn't think much of detraveller and now I see why.
I am quite old enough to remember the West Indian attack and I thought that was OTT as well.
I do actually take the point that the umpires should be doing something but if Archer IS breaking the rules he is cheating imo,just like a footballer diving,knowing he is likely to get away with it.

Thank you for the compliment.

If you think umpiring decisions determine who cheats then surely all the England players who didn't walk when the reviews clearly showed they were out on day 4 were also cheats?

Archer bowls a head high delivery and doesn't get called one for the over. So he bowls again. Until the umpire warns him, he has the right to bowl as many as he wants.

if you think that's cheating then you must be surprised at why a particular trio playing the last test wasn't hanged?

The thread title is incorrect, Archer isn't cheating but there is some merit to the contents of your post.

If you watch Wagner bowl for NZ he consistently bowls 5-6 bouncers per over and never gets pulled up for it!
Cummins peppered the tail with bouncers and again the umpires did nothing

I think if you are intentionally breaking the rules whether you are Archer or anybody else then you are cheating. I personally think batsmen ought to walk if they know they have touched it but that is maybe more of a grey area as batsmen can argue that they are sometimes given out when they haven't touched it.
I DO think the umpires should enforce the laws properly,and incidentally I don't think you define a bouncer by it pitching in your half of the wicket. It depends on the pace of the bowler where he needs to pitch it to expect it to get head-high.

You haven't given any proof that Archer was cheating.
You mention "grey areas" above. How does Archer know whether one of his bouncers went above shoulder height as it passed the batsman? Surely that's up to the umpire decide.

Is Archer blind then ?

Archer bowled 44 overs in the match.
Give us 3 of the overs you think he was cheating in.

44 might be a lot but you must remember who he was bowling to? And with the help of cricbuzz commentary shouldn't be hard to figure out as the match is just 2 days old.

Which overs were these then where he should consistently have been noballed?

Shouldn't 78.5 in the first innings have been called a no ball ?

78.5
Archer to Siddle, no run, bouncer, he ducks
78.3
Archer to Siddle, no run, goes under another bouncer
78.1
Archer to Siddle, no run, a short ball ball banged in at 92mph, he ducks

Aug 20, 2019 -- 4:24PM, Jimbob1 wrote:

Shouldn't 78.5 in the first innings have been called a no ball ?78.5Archer to Siddle, no run, bouncer, he ducks78.3Archer to Siddle, no run, goes under another bouncer78.1Archer to Siddle, no run, a short ball ball banged in at 92mph, he ducks

66.3
Cummins to Archer, no run, three in a row, Archer springs underneath it...a few boos go around from the crowd
66.2
Cummins to Archer, no run, short again, this one is a bit further away as it travels over Archer's back
66.1
Cummins to Archer, no run, and welcome to Test cricket! It's an 86mph bouncer which zips off the surface, Archer has to be alert to duck underneath

Here too - 66.3 looks like it should have been no balled. So it looks like the umpires perhaps to blame for not enforcing the rule on either side.

Thanks Jimbo.

We don't know if these three deliveries were clearly above shoulder height(see ICC's definition of a bouncer).

Assuming these were indeed above shoulder height, it comes down to umpire judging them as such. On two of these, Siddle ducked. To call it one for the over, the ump needs to be sure it was above shoulder height, which he probably wasn't.

Alternatively it could be one of those things that the umpires just don't check, like the noballs.

Here too - 66.3 looks like it should have been no balled. So it looks like the umpires perhaps to blame for not enforcing the rule on either side.

Exactly, at best its the umpire being too lenient or just letting it go. That doesn't make Archer a cheat.

Salmon,

I think the title of your thread is a little offensive and has invited some ruse replies to you, which, I consider unnecessary.

I would call taking sand paper on to the pitch and using it cheating, reprehensible and almost unforgiveable.

IMHO Archer wasn't even close to pushing the line let alone head butting it!

I am not sure I saw him bowl three over the shoulder balls in any over. If he did it still doesn't make him a cheat. It could be a mistake or miscalculation. Regardless it is only an issue if the Umpire deems it.

You also fail to mention what excitement and joy it provided all of us. Is was a thing of beauty to be treasured and remembered. It will be remembered by Aussie!

What goes around comes around. I don't like cricket, I love it!

btw

The ball that hit Smith in the neck was not above shoulder height, he ducked into it!

“[But] Jofra certainly brings a different dimension and we saw he bowled quick. But also his economy was incredible. So it’s skilful bowling with fast bouncers in between.

“That’s Test cricket. That’s what we love about it. You know you’re alive when you’re facing fast bowling. It’s bloody brilliant.

Justin Langer!

I don't enjoy the sight of some guy trying to kill the batsmen on the other side at all enjoyable. But each to their own.

Sorry
* find enjoyable.

He isn't trying to kill him salmon!



What do they know of cricket who cricket only know!

Is it fair to say salmon has never heard of Sir Brian Close....???!

A prize to anyone who can tell me who the batsman was at the other end of that 45 minutes in the crucible without taking a single! ( no referring to crocinfo either this is a sporting question! )

i know a lot more about cricket pre-1970 than most of you on here (nap) so of course I have heard of Brian Close and am aware he was dragged back in 1976 at the age of 45 to face the West Indian attack. I have said before that I think they were out of order as well,but of course it was the Scot,the highly unpleasant Jardine,who first really upped it a notch nearly 90 years ago.

Have you witnessed other such instances of cheating during all the time you've been watching cricket?

Would you say Steve Waugh was a cheater because he not only didn't walk but also preached the same. Surely that's worse than what Archer did?

Aug 20, 2019 -- 6:33PM, Whisperingdeath wrote:

A prize to anyone who can tell me who the batsman was at the other end of that 45 minutes in the crucible without taking a single! ( no referring to crocinfo either this is a sporting question! )

In that team was John Edrich who was also elderly at the time.....I did not cheat and look it up but have viewed the scorecard before, Peter Willey may have been in that team too.

Yes yes!

I have been informed that they did not take a single in 45 minutes. I am not sure if that is true but I would like to think so!  I am going to look at the card!

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/17174/scorecard/63165/england-vs-west-in...

"I think you must remember that the West Indians, these guys, if they get on top, they are magnificent cricketers, but if they're down, they grovel. And I intend, with the help of Closey and a few others, to make them grovel."

http://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/953181/when-death-whispered

Running almost as fast as he could, he jumped and let the ball go, often at 90mph or more.
The arm releasing the ball came down like a guillotine.
Some fast bowlers were ugly to watch.
Holding was beautiful

"He hit me about an inch from where Phillip Hughes was hit, the last bit of bone on the skull before you come to the arteries," remembers Amiss. "I was very lucky. Was I frightened to bat against him that night? Well, if you're playing well, thoughts of fear aren't in your head. But when you aren't, there is instead, a sense of - let's call it apprehension. I don't call it fear."

When men were men and didn't whinge.

The scariest Test England ever played: terror at the hands of West Indies
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/aug/13/scariest-test-england-ever-played-terror-west-indies-cricket-1986-patrick-patterson

Phillip Hughes death was disturbing more than scary

He got hit but took a while to go down, but when he did it was face first and the hands didn't go in front of him to protect himself, that's instinct, so the fact he went face first like that you knew something was seriously up

Went down and never regained consciousness it was a sad day for Cricket and it hit it hard in my opinion

I don't read this forum much but I had gathered a lot of people didn't think much of detraveller and now I see why.

I read it every day and I definitely don't get that impression. Perhaps you're misinterpreting a bit of harmless banter
between regulars that have been chit-chatting amongst themselves for many years.

The point DET and several other people have made is that you probably ought to be questioning the integrity of the umpires rather than the players who obviously are employed to test the boundaries of their ability, staying just within the limits set by the rules, knowing that they will be told to rein it in by an authority figure if they overdo it, beit an umpire r a coach or a team captain.

Sport is inherently dangerous but you can't really have too many rules for safety or you take away the part of what makes it sport.
Otherwise, what do you do? Impose speed limits on bowlers, runners and racing drivers? Someone has to be entrusted to make a reasonable judgement of what is safe enough and call it out if it's not. That's not the job of the player. Their job is to entertain.

I have said I take the point about the umpires though I don't think that totally absolves Archer (or Cummins,or their captains ). My apologies to detraveller if he is in fact popular on here but his treatment of me was childish ( My font is bigger than yours )
Fair play to Archer yesterday,showing that he is a top-class bowler who is even more effective when he doesn't bowl an inordinate number of short-pitched deliveries.

Detraveller's a good lad. Always loses money and doesn't know anything about the game but at least he admits it

Yes we like DT here on the cricket forum. He makes good contributions and has a good sense of humour. We don't normally attack each other but have generally good light hearted banter with a smile.

We also try and avoid politics and racism here and personal insults. We even stopped calling the tie The Thai for a short while because someone got offended but normal service has been resumed on that front that God

Oh and for God's sake we don't talk about God

Salmon I think you are missing the point a little. It is called Test Cricket. The test is not just about your skill but mental and physical courage. The emphasis on physical courage has been long forgotten for some time but the last few days has brought it sharply back into focus.

In actual fact the courage has not been fully appreciated as we have been talking about injuries. The courage required to play extremely fast bowling needs to commended. I thought Labuschagne at Lords was immense. Mind you I expect that from a Saffer!

I prefer cricket as a game of chess rather than a gladatorial contest,but each to their own.
Yes tbf the tone on here does seem quite pleasant. Most of my posts in the past have been on racing but I have more or less quit there because of the toxic atmosphere.

Further tho that Salmon about courage and mental toughness

Best player injured
An opposition player bowling like the wind
Lost a good Toss
Batted under leaden skies
From 136-2 to 179 all out
The sun comes out in the morning when cloud was expected

England 54-6 at Lunch!

That's the pernicious influence of one day cricket.

No!

It is weakness!

Joined: 03 Aug 12 | Topic/replies: 48,763 | Blogger: jucel69's blog
salmon spray is another one of these remoaners who is so anti British it's painful

Wottack Hunt you are like most Brextards.   #peoplesvotenow

I argued with the 'I am right because my font is bigger than you' argument because I thought it was as ridiculous as your claim that archer was cheating.

I asked you a question about Steve Waugh which you clearly ignored. Do you think he was a bigger cheat than archer? And what do you call the thing that the aussie trio did last year? Treason?

You still haven't told us how archer was supposed to know his balls were above shoulder height when the guy supposed to look at exactly that couldn't figure it out.

You sounded like someone wrecked by archers bowling in that test but I didn't mention it because  I don't take pleasure in mentioning anyone's losses.

I didn't like Waugh much so if you want to call him a cheat that's fine by me.
I admit the title of my thread was knowingly contentious to get some discussion going ( I do think on occasions there is too much short-pitched bowling allowed in Test matches ).Seems to have worked. I don't bet that much on cricket tbh. I lay long on run chases so my one  small bet on this match is still in play but I am reasonably confident.

salmon wouldn't know be from Adam and I don't think I've ever replied to one of his posts. From what I understand salmon is (was) a horsey betting man and good at it. He's no fool.

dt is a cricket man and good at it (sh!te at tennis though). He's no fool.

I don't like to see bickering on a cricket forum as it's, well, just not cricket.

Thought you were old enough to remember the Bodyline series Salmon Spray?

You make an extremely pertinent point Salmon. Idiocy is not confined to the horse racing forum it seems.