Scrap The Controversial Heat 10 Rule!

[AFCB Wildcat]

So do you propose going back to the old 6 heats rule that we had in the good old days? We had the same problems then but it wasn't down to Sky.

 

In the good old days 6 heats were regularly forced through and then everyone sent home with no refund.

 

I don't think the rule itself is the problem, it's the way it's applied. Last night should have been called off around heat 8.

I remember many meetings being forced to run to heat 6 in the old days so we didn't get our money back but did the result stand after 6 heats? I can't remember!

I certainly don't remember any controversies between teams as to whether to carry on or not but then we didn't have Sky or social media then.

[BWitcher]

In Twenty20 you can have a result with 5 overs per side, so 25% of the match completed. However, that still represents 40 or so minutes of action, which is four times as much as calling a speedway match after 10 heats.

 

Where on earth do you get this from?

 

Clearly you're only counting the time of the actual race for the speedway... but on the cricket you're counting the whole thing. Hardly a fair comparison.

 

The actual 'time in play' for cricket for a 5 over a side game would be far far less than 10 heats of speedway.

[SteveLyric2]

Didn't it used to be heat 6 for no fan refunds and heat 12 to call the meeting if necessary.

 

Now if a meeting is called off before heat 10 is complete then a reduced admission price is applicable at a future meeting - details on display at the turnstiles!! (At least that is what it states in the Poole programme, so I assume its the same at other EL clubs?)

[Grand Central]

This is one of those areas where those that wax lyrical about the halcyon days come unstuck.

 

The old small print of admission terms and conditions said

 

'should it be necessary through any cause to abandon the meeting prior to the start of the sixth race, readmission tickets issued will be valid for for any one of the next three meetings'

 

So you got nowt back even if you only saw FIVE horrendous rain affected processions completed.

 

Truth is.

On this score, if nothing else

We've never had it so good !

Edited June 8, 2015 by Grand Central

[The White Knight]

This is one of those areas where those that wax lyrical about the halcyon days come unstuck.

 

The old small print of admission terms and conditions said

 

'should it be necessary through any cause to abandon the meeting prior to the start of the sixth race, readmission tickets issued will be valid for for any one of the next three meetings'

 

So you got nowt back even if you only saw FIVE horrendous rain affected processions completed.

 

Truth is.

On this score, if nothing else

We've never had it so good !

Believe it or not - I would not argue with that. :approve:

[waiheke1]

 

Where on earth do you get this from?

 

Clearly you're only counting the time of the actual race for the speedway... but on the cricket you're counting the whole thing. Hardly a fair comparison.

 

The actual 'time in play' for cricket for a 5 over a side game would be far far less than 10 heats of speedway.

Agreed. Batsman plays and misses the ball is in play for under a second. Ball hit to boundary - maybe 5 seconds? Average over the ball would be live for maybe 30 seconds? So in 10 overseas around 5 minutes Max.

If you include bowlers run up then u need to include riders waiting at the tapes.

[BWitcher]

Agreed. Batsman plays and misses the ball is in play for under a second. Ball hit to boundary - maybe 5 seconds? Average over the ball would be live for maybe 30 seconds? So in 10 overseas around 5 minutes Max.

If you include bowlers run up then u need to include riders waiting at the tapes.

 

Yep, or making practice starts on back straight etc.

 

Horse racing is another classic example..

 

Can be a 3 hour meeting with 6 races of around a minute each if its a flat meeting.

[Humphrey Appleby]

 

Where on earth do you get this from?

 

Clearly you're only counting the time of the actual race for the speedway... but on the cricket you're counting the whole thing. Hardly a fair comparison.

 

The actual 'time in play' for cricket for a 5 over a side game would be far far less than 10 heats of speedway.

In cricket, the players are at least out on the pitch doing something - whether shining the ball or throwing it back to the bowler. In speedway, nothing happens between races, except perhaps a tractor going round and around.

 

I'd say though, an average of 20 seconds of action per ball in cricket x 60 deliveries, and it's more than a full length speedway match.

[BWitcher]

In cricket, the players are at least out on the pitch doing something - whether shining the ball or throwing it back to the bowler. In speedway, nothing happens between races, except perhaps a tractor going round and around.

I'd say though, an average of 20 seconds of action per ball in cricket x 60 deliveries, and it's more than a full length speedway match.

You do try and talk your way out of things at times.

 

Don't be silly ha. The players are standing around, doing nothing for the most part. Classing 'shining a ball' as action is ridiculous.

 

As for an average of 20 seconds action per ball, you clearly must watch a different game to the cricket everyone else watches. It's less than 5 seconds per ball. In many cases it's less than a second.

 

I'd go as far as saying that you could watch an entire test match without seeing a ball that gives 20 seconds of action. Even when they score 3 runs its not 20 seconds.

Edited June 9, 2015 by BWitcher

[Humphrey Appleby]

You do try and talk your way out of things at times.

As for an average of 20 seconds action per ball, you clearly must watch a different game to the cricket everyone else watches. It's less than 5 seconds per ball. In many cases it's less than a second.

 

Depends how you define action. I'd say the bowler's run-up to the crease should be considered action as the ball is live at that point, and a batsman can be run out.

 

Regardless though, a 5-over T20 match would be the absolute minimum number of overs bowled. Most rained off matches would have substantially more overs bowled.

[waiheke1]

In that case you would have to say a speedway race is "live"as soon as the two minutes warning goes on

[BWitcher]

 

Depends how you define action. I'd say the bowler's run-up to the crease should be considered action as the ball is live at that point, and a batsman can be run out.

 

Regardless though, a 5-over T20 match would be the absolute minimum number of overs bowled. Most rained off matches would have substantially more overs bowled.

 

And still less time than a speedway meeting.

 

As waiheke says, if you're going to include a run up, then you have to include the moment a rider comes on track in a speedway meeting.

 

Even with a run up you wouldn't get anywhere near an average of 20 seconds per ball. a bowlers run up is 3-4 seconds tops, far less for a slow bowler. The point remains, action per minute attended is less in a cricket match than in speedway.

[Humphrey Appleby]

As waiheke says, if you're going to include a run up, then you have to include the moment a rider comes on track in a speedway meeting.

Not really. The ball is live in cricket the moment a bowler starts his run-up, whereas a speedway race is not live the moment a rider comes out on track. A race is only live from the moment the green light comes on - the two-minute warning is more equivalent to a new batsman having to come out from the pavilion and take guard at the crease within a certain time (I think 3 minutes).

[waiheke1]

A rider can be excluded for touching the tapes before the green lights come on. When was the last time you saw a batsman run out as the bowler was on his run up?

[Humphrey Appleby]

A rider can be excluded for touching the tapes before the green lights come on. When was the last time you saw a batsman run out as the bowler was on his run up?

That's primarily because there's supposed to be some stupid code of conduct about not Mankading a batsman at the bowler's end. I've never understood it myself, as if you're out of your ground then you're out of ground. No-one suggests that a batsman who's stumped shouldn't be given out, so why is it any different for running out a batsman at the other end?

 

Regardless though, it's still in the laws of the game and it certainly happened last year when Joss Buttler was run out during an ODI.

[oldace]

A rider can be excluded for touching the tapes before the green lights come on. When was the last time you saw a batsman run out as the bowler was on his run up?

 

While I agree with your points in the speedway/cricket comparison, this bit is incorrect

[BWitcher]

That's primarily because there's supposed to be some stupid code of conduct about not Mankading a batsman at the bowler's end. I've never understood it myself, as if you're out of your ground then you're out of ground. No-one suggests that a batsman who's stumped shouldn't be given out, so why is it any different for running out a batsman at the other end?

 

Regardless though, it's still in the laws of the game and it certainly happened last year when Joss Buttler was run out during an ODI.

 

You didn't answer waihekes question.

 

When was the last time it happened during a bowlers run up?

 

Not at the end of the run-up when he would effectively be making his delivery, or 'stumping the batsmen'.. both actions putting the ball in play.

 

The plain and simple facts are Humphrey, you've made a claim that is not remotely close to being correct.

 

Yet, unable to admit this you continue to argue the toss bringing up totally irrelevant rules.

 

Even including a bowlers run up, which you deem to be 'action', it does not come remotely close to an average of 20 seconds per ball.

[Fromafar]

Slow day today chaps.

[Humphrey Appleby]

The plain and simple facts are Humphrey, you've made a claim that is not remotely close to being correct.

I'm not getting into a pointless discussion over this. The simple fact of the matter is under the laws of cricket, is ball is in play when the bowler starts their run up. Similarly, a speedway race 'starts' when the green light comes on - the act of getting to the tapes is not part of the race.

 

We can argue the toss over how many seconds on average ball is in play, but including a bowler's run up until it goes dead again, I don't think 10 seconds is unreasonable in T20 cricket where it gets hit around more than in other formats. And even taking the are minimum of 5 overs per side (and it would usually be more in rained off match), that still equates to 10 heats of speedway.

[BWitcher]

I'm not getting into a pointless discussion over this. The simple fact of the matter is under the laws of cricket, is ball is in play when the bowler starts their run up. Similarly, a speedway race 'starts' when the green light comes on - the act of getting to the tapes is not part of the race.

 

We can argue the toss over how many seconds on average ball is in play, but including a bowler's run up until it goes dead again, I don't think 10 seconds is unreasonable in T20 cricket where it gets hit around more than in other formats. And even taking the are minimum of 5 overs per side (and it would usually be more in rained off match), that still equates to 10 heats of speedway.

 

So you're still talking nonsense.

 

Your claim was 20 seconds per ball. Glad to see you now realise that was wrong and have now reduced it to 10 seconds as an average.

 

As has been said, if you want to include a bowler 'running up' to the wicket, then you include a rider approaching the tapes, making a practice start etc.

 

The 'rules' and 'laws' are utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is the action.

 

Take football for example, going by your 'rules', there is 90 mins plus of action... any sensible person would realise the ball in play is a lot less than that.