1. Cricket is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy (Stephen Fry)
2. FOOTBALL offers the world clichés; RUGBY produces facial deformity; HOCKEY provides an acceptable outlet for psychotic violence; CRICKET alone breeds myths... More quotes here.


 

VC Padders puts us into Orbit Arianne style: Demijohns 24 June 2007 (Season: 2007)
Report by: Mr FiftyRunout

Match Report: Click here to add your own comment  |  See all comments


MyRing and VC Padders
It's official, global warming is here. I know this as it's been honking it down all week, but a bit warm. In an amazing microclimate type thing we actually got a 30 over game in and it only drizzled a bit here and there.

As an aficionado of Albert Camus, a man who was known to take a robust view of the order of the things, and bung the facts in somewhat at random, I feel it is my duty to write the match report in the order in which they penetrated what passes as my consciousness. As MyRing of the DJs lumbered in to deliver the penultimate ball of the game, he must have been thinking, "We've got a got a good chance here, 4 to tie and 5 to win and only 2 balls to go and I'm on a hat trick".

And as VC Padders charged mightily up the pitch and launched said ball for 6 (I suspect it's still going and posing a danger to aircraft) the crowd of Salixtes became delirious with joy. But how the tide had turned by Padders almighty swat: the previous ball - a head high bumper - had caused Les to suffer a golden. And the ball before had flattened Puffs stumps. And the overs before had seen our middle order wilt like Bernard Manning's fanbase in the early 1970s. But then ex Captain Ben surely had built on the openers solid wood with a fighting 50, and in a neat bookending had not the Chopper whacked Myring's first few for some sumptuous cross bat fours?

And so to tea. And between this and arrival at the ground, some smart bowling from the Salix boys saw the DJs kept a bit in check, but not so much: pick of the men with golden arms, CK1 with a top spell and of course our ringer aged 9 who held two catches no less, one being his dad, for which he was rewarded two quid blood money from the Salix coffers.

And so our first game v the DJs and an idle boast from the Bison from a few weeks ago that they'd "stick it to us", us being him of course in the weird and incestuous world that is Sunday cricket for a man with two teams. But of course no sticking would have been done without several great contributions and I have to say, and I am very old, that this was one of the closest matches I have ever seen. The sight of our VC launching MyRings death and hat trick ball into the trees for six will remain in my mind for a long time – even as long as the 2.5 hours it took to drive down a sodden M40 to the smoke. And so to the Swedenland.

Salix CC versus Demijohns at Wadham College Oxford on 24-06-2007(30 Over Game)
Salix CC (batting second)160for 9off29overs Match Won
Demijohns156for 7off30overs
NoPlayerScoreHow Out
1.Dominic Spillane33LBW
2.Mark Rickman18LBW
3.Ben Shaw51Bowled
4.Christy Kulasingam1Caught
5.Tony Fletcher1Run Out
6.Stuart Lumsden5Caught
7.Arthur Haynes1Bowled
8.David Padmore18Not Out
9.Andrew Harvey7Caught
10.Kunal Dutta0Caught
11.Ben Lane (aged 9)0Not Out
Extras25
Total160
No.PlayerOversMaidensRunsWicketsAveSREcon
1.David Padmore6023123.0036.003.83
2.Stuart Lumsden60320--5.33
3.Tony Fletcher3024124.0018.008.00
4.Andrew Harvey40270--6.75
5.Christy Kulasingam611836.0012.003.00
6.Kunal Dutta5033216.5015.006.60
Ben Lane (aged 9)2catches
Tony Fletcher1catch
Mark Rickman1catch
Arthur Haynes1drop


Comments, if any, are shown below: Click here to add your own comment

The Nurdler left the following remarks on 25th June 2007

I think the confusion arises from the fact that the regs quoted are first-class playing conditions NOT limited overs. In limited overs, I think, you can actually bowl one, short-pitched ball at head height per over. Thereafter any similar ball is automatically no-balled. So Rog was legal unless he had slipped one in earlier that over. However if he had, then even though Les was facing his first ball it would still have been a no-ball. There y'go. I must admit I thought all balls over shoulder height were illegal in limited overs but not so.


Bison left the following remarks on 25th June 2007

Thank you for the extract, Herr Funfzig, and I acknowledge your eminent knowledge of the darker reaches of the Laws. In the same spirit of pedantry, I would point out, however, that clause (i) only protects a particular batsman from "repetitive" short bowling, and as such cannot apply to a single instance of a throat ball (and in fact does not apply until the umpire has stated that it does - and then only applies to subsequent deliveries). And the supplemental clause (ii) only serves to bring balls which would otherwise be called wide into consideration for those purposes - i.e. the requirement that deliveries need be "dangerous" when considering the above is removed where the ball would have missed the noggin by reason of length. For no-ball to be called, the requirement still remains for an umpire to conclude that too many bumpers have been aimed at one batsman for his skill level to cope with, and to have previously protected him by the issuance of a warning. I consider that these conditions precedent are unlikely to be present in the event of a golden duck. I know you can't see this, but I thought you should know that I've got my legal thumb somewhere in the jurisdiction of my nose and I'm waggling my fingers at you.


Mr runout left the following remarks on 25th June 2007

Firstly Bise, , I bow to your recollection of words: you are ever the gent and I am sure you have never stuck it anyone ever, or even offered same.

Second it's great to be able to waste time when i should be working by googling obscure laws and having the opportunity to show of all those night classes at Ealing CC and my bare pass as umpire second grade (2003): Bise, I refer you to rule 42.6 section ii: Dangerous and unfair bowling

I do agree however that it could be called a Wide (Law 25 i) (a) Bowling of fast short pitched balls

(i) The bowling of fast short pitched balls is dangerous and unfair if the umpire at the bowler's end considers that by their repetition and taking into account their length, height and direction they are likely to inflict physical injury on the striker, irrespective of the protective equipment he may be wearing. The relative skill of the striker shall be taken into consideration.

(ii) Any delivery which, after pitching, passes or would have passed over head height of the striker standing upright at the crease, although not threatening physical injury, shall be included with bowling under (i) both when the umpire is considering whether the bowling of fast short pitched balls has become dangerous and unfair and after he has so decided. The umpire shall call and signal No ball for each such delivery.


Bison left the following remarks on 25th June 2007

Er...in my defence I think my words were more like "if we can get a full strength team out we'll bend you over. Otherwise we may struggle a bit." But a cracking game anyway. Revenge will be ours next year. Following all the speculation yesterday, someone wiser pointed out that bouncers passing over head height are not no-balls. They're wides. And it's not a wide if it hits the bat. Or the batsman. So that's settled then.