waiheke1 Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 While I agree with your points in the speedway/cricket comparison, this bit is incorrect Yep, I got that one wrong.Now let's see if ha will admit that batsman pretty much never get run out in the bowlers run up (a quite distinct action from the delivery stride) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humphrey Appleby Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 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. And the Laws of Football clearly define when the ball is dead (i.e. not in play). Unlike some sports though, the clock usually continues to run when the ball is out of play. Now let's see if ha will admit that batsman pretty much never get run out in the bowlers run up (a quite distinct action from the delivery stride) AFAIK, a non-striking batsman can't be run out once the bowler has entered their delivery stride, so the run out can only be effected during the run-up. Of course, it normally only happens at the end of the run-up for obvious reasons, but in theory a batsman could be thrown out. That's it's an extremely rare occurrence is irrelevant as it _can_ happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 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. Surely you have to? The very act of running up is action by definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 Surely you have to? The very act of running up is action by definition. If that is the approach u take though then you surely have to include a rider riding to the tapes? Surely that is "action" also by that definition Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humphrey Appleby Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 If that is the approach u take though then you surely have to include a rider riding to the tapes? Surely that is "action" also by that definition That's more like the bowler walking back to their mark whilst the ball is dead, or a batsman coming out to bat from the pavilion. There is a time constraint on both (2 minutes), but it's officially not action because the ball is not in play at that point, and neither has a race started whilst the riders come to the tapes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 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. Let's not get away from why this debate started. This comment above, which Humphrey, instead of being adult enough to admit he was completely and utterly wrong, has continued to writhe/struggle and deflect away from it. He was called out for suggesting that a 5 overs a side game of 20/20 cricket represents 40 or so minutes of action. It was pointed out that was totally incorrect... he has continued to push his point ever since. Firstly he claimed it was an average of 20 seconds per ball... in a later post changed that to 10 seconds per ball, which is still a push. However based upon Humphrey's very own figure of 10 seconds per ball, that gives us 10 mins of action in a 5 over a side game. Thus the conclusion is he was utterly wrong with his claims of 40 mins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 I don't want to cause any trouble - but - does any of this really matter? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humphrey Appleby Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 This comment above, which Humphrey, instead of being adult enough to admit he was completely and utterly wrong, has continued to writhe/struggle and deflect away from it Haven't the McCanns found any new evidence to discuss...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) Haven't the McCanns found any new evidence to discuss...? You are the one prolonging the discussion by continuing to try and defend something you were wrong about. Be an adult, accept you were wrong and move on. Now, unable to do that, you resort to cheap jibes.. sad. Edited June 12, 2015 by BWitcher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.