New south wales v queensland

byased

Active member
Can't remember last time I looked at a Sheffield Shield scorecard, I think it was when Bill Lawry and Ian Redpath used to open for Victoria. I liked them.
Looked at the scorecard on BBC website, NSW scored 246 and 256. Queensland scored 477, so wanted 26 to win with five overs to get them in. They finished 10-0 after 2 overs when umpires called the game off for bad light. I understand the rules that umpires have to follow, but it makes a nonsense of a four day game. I would imagine floodlights were available.
With all the protection available for players to wear, I can't really see why bad light still exists as a reason to stop a game. A restriction on pace bowlers or short pitched bowling could come in, if necessary, but a bit like the offside law in football, it is an old rule that was relevant many years ago but could easily be abolished. Offside was stopped in hockey and has improved the game for players and spectators apparently.
 

DaveMorton

Well-known member
The same thing happened when we played Kent at Headingley last summer. We were held up by a partnership, as Kent recovered from 216 for six to 393 all out, but we still needed only 114 to win, off 21 overs, when the umpires brought the players off before we even began our simple chase.

Kent 291 (Bell-Drummond 109, Rauf 5 for 65)
Yorks 571 (Malan 152, Brook 194, Bess 89)
Kent 393 (Compton 93, Robinson 85*, Stewart 90, Patterson 5 for 54)
 

Newby

Well-known member
Difficult to find an answer that is fair to everyone and of course it is exacerbated when a natural result is so close, as in the Sheffield shield game.

It's completely up to the umpires these days and if the light threshold has been reached it's difficult to see how they can ignore it. Of course it's H&S gone mad but that's the world we live in these days and any injury to a player of either side caused by the ball would be laid squarely at the umpire's door.

Forcing the bowling team, who are hanging on for a draw, to bowl only slow bowlers would be unacceptable too. Messing about with changing to a pink ball in certain circumstances when floodlights are available would also be a bit of a minefield I think.

It's a draw, but a very unequal draw, and a more equitable method of distributing the points would be a better option, in my view.
 

Hawke

Administrator
Staff member
Gosh yes the Kent home match. So near.
'Messing about with changing to a pink ball in certain circumstances when floodlights are available would also be a bit of a minefield I think.' as Newby says was on my mind.
But yes going off for bad light at venues with lights does appear very very odd. Try explaining that to a foreigner.
 

tbsteve

Active member
I still think we'd have won that Kent game if Patto had shown a bit more fight - we batted too long and then Rauf got injured and we really struggled to bowl them out again.

Pink ball has to be a non-starter. Think of those who are color blind and can't pick it up as well, it'd make the conditions too different.
 

Donnylad

Well-known member
It is about parity. If you stay on at a ground with lights then fine for the sides playing. However on the same or similar day where there is a match at an out ground .. say we are at Scarbados rather than Headingley .. what then if our rivals for the title (well hypothetically) say Lanky are at OT?

So the same rule in the the light standard has to apply. It isn't perfect but it is better than a free for all.
 

tbsteve

Active member
good point on parity between games, I was thinking more within the game - but then with the fixture list having some teams skipping weeks, you could just as well argue what if it rains one week and not another! In terms of parity, if we're having only 8 teams, I dont see why all cant play every week if there's no Lions/visiting/uni games (early season)
 

DaveMorton

Well-known member
'Fairness of conditions' has become an obsession. It used to be accepted that some grounds are big, some small, some have slopes, some pitches are green and some take spin. Some days are dry, others wet. They batted when the sun was shining, we under cloud. It was the beginning of pitch-covering which led to a change of attitude.

Bob Willis wanted to standardise all boundaries at 60 metres (he wasn't a spinner!). Hours of play in Tests have been standardised. In days gone by, they played 6 five-hour days in Australia (because of the heat), while we played 5 six-hour ones. They're now trying to get the ball standardised. Some ECB idiots want us to use the dead Australian bird thing.

Vive la difference, as someone said, possibly in a different context. Let's celebrate diversity!
 

tbsteve

Active member
Cant be worse than what we were using in the CC this year!

You have to draw a line somewhere - I've no issue with different conditions for tests in Oz and UK, because neither impacts the outcome of the other. I'd like a level playing field for games in the same competition. Sure weather conditions may be different in the north and the south, but more likely to be more similar if all teams play in a round of games. And whilst the pink ball would enable flood lights, it'd introduce too much difference in playing conditions for my liking if teams were allowed to change mid game.
 

Newby

Well-known member
Cant be worse than what we were using in the CC this year!

You have to draw a line somewhere - I've no issue with different conditions for tests in Oz and UK, because neither impacts the outcome of the other. I'd like a level playing field for games in the same competition. Sure weather conditions may be different in the north and the south, but more likely to be more similar if all teams play in a round of games. And whilst the pink ball would enable flood lights, it'd introduce too much difference in playing conditions for my liking if teams were allowed to change mid game.
I can't quite remember the exact circumstances but something controversial happened in a televised T20 game very recently and a replay of the incident showed that if the third umpire had been looking out for it, he could have brought it to the on-field umpire's attention and it would have saved a run or something. I can't get my brain to isolate the exact nature of the incident, which is maddening.

Anyway, the commentator was suggesting it could be made part of the third umpire's duties to watch out for this event. The ex Aussie player acting as summariser, I thought very wisely, said it was important not to make a televised game of cricket too different from any other game of cricket. Just because you can, doesn't necessarily mean you should.

I think it's the same with floodlit and none floodlit matches. Hopefully the pink ball has had its day.
 
Top