BBL 2017/2018

[locky801]

5/76 after 13, reckon an early night for the crowd to hit the city for a big night is in vogue

[locky801]

20 overs

Strikers 7/147 reckon 30 runs to short

[jackpot jim]

The wide interpretation is an UTTER FARCE
The rule should be quite simply that any ball that doesn't pass inside the blue line on the off side is called a wide REGARDLESS of the movements of the batsman. This crap about the batsmen moving across to bring the ball within reach thus it not being called a wide is RUBBISH

[heater31]

Woeful start by the Strikers, watch the bloody ball onto the bat

Absolutely pathetic.

We consistently have to many dot balls which creates pressure to play a big shit that isn’t there.

We’ll make 125 Heat will get it 1 down in the 12th happy f**king new year!

Stinkers currently doing their best to make a game of it.....

[mighty_tiger_79]

Strikers gonna win easily

[mighty_tiger_79]

57 run win.

[carey]

Never in doubt as soon as I post!

[Tony Clifton]

The wide interpretation is an UTTER FARCE
The rule should be quite simply that any ball that doesn't pass inside the blue line on the off side is called a wide REGARDLESS of the movements of the batsman. This crap about the batsmen moving across to bring the ball within reach thus it not being called a wide is RUBBISH

Surely it's common sense?

Under your interpretation a batter could stand outside leg stump and swing and miss - and collect a leg side wide even though the ball passed between them and the stumps. Just because it was outside the blue line.

[Tony Clifton]

57 run win.

We can bowl! Has certainly taken me by surprise. I thought we'd be ordinary.

I didn't think Siddle would be any good in this format but he's been effevtive every game.

Rashid looks an inspired selection. O'Connor last year was such a meh spinner.

Laughlin at 35yo is still bamboozling them with his change ups.

Bit worried about our batting though.

[jackpot jim]

The wide interpretation is an UTTER FARCE
The rule should be quite simply that any ball that doesn't pass inside the blue line on the off side is called a wide REGARDLESS of the movements of the batsman. This crap about the batsmen moving across to bring the ball within reach thus it not being called a wide is RUBBISH

Surely it's common sense?

Under your interpretation a batter could stand outside leg stump and swing and miss - and collect a leg side wide even though the ball passed between them and the stumps. Just because it was outside the blue line.

I'm pretty sure i havent mentioned anything about Leg Side Wides, they're not the issue.
Anything outside the blue line on the OFF side should be wide regardless of where the striker is otherwise its simply pointless having the line there to start with!
And YES, if the striker moved 3 metres across to the OFF side and the ball passsed between them and the stumps and outside the blue line then it should be a wide.
The striker has the expectation of the ball passing between leg stump and the blue line outside off stump and where he/she stands to receive it shouldn't matter tho its commonly agreed on that if the striker backs away to the leg side then as long as the ball passes between the striker and the off side blue line then thats ok.

[Spargo]

The wide interpretation is an UTTER FARCE
The rule should be quite simply that any ball that doesn't pass inside the blue line on the off side is called a wide REGARDLESS of the movements of the batsman. This crap about the batsmen moving across to bring the ball within reach thus it not being called a wide is RUBBISH

Surely it's common sense?

Under your interpretation a batter could stand outside leg stump and swing and miss - and collect a leg side wide even though the ball passed between them and the stumps. Just because it was outside the blue line.

I don’t think that’s what he meant.

[LaughingKookaburra]

Is Andrew Symonds blind? He can barely put a sentence together!

[Tony Clifton]

I'm pretty sure i havent mentioned anything about Leg Side Wides, they're not the issue.
Anything outside the blue line on the OFF side should be wide regardless of where the striker is otherwise its simply pointless having the line there to start with!
And YES, if the striker moved 3 metres across to the OFF side and the ball passsed between them and the stumps and outside the blue line then it should be a wide.

What's the difference? And surely you've answered your own question there. A bowler getting called for an offside wide for a ball that passes legside of the batter... that's illogical

[Tony Clifton]

The wide interpretation is an UTTER FARCE
The rule should be quite simply that any ball that doesn't pass inside the blue line on the off side is called a wide REGARDLESS of the movements of the batsman. This crap about the batsmen moving across to bring the ball within reach thus it not being called a wide is RUBBISH

Surely it's common sense?

Under your interpretation a batter could stand outside leg stump and swing and miss - and collect a leg side wide even though the ball passed between them and the stumps. Just because it was outside the blue line.

I don’t think that’s what he meant.

It is

He's arguing that the wide zone shouldn't change just because the batter alters their stance.

[carey]

Is Andrew Symonds blind? He can barely put a sentence together!

No, He is just a moron

[RustyCage]

Suspected broken leg for SOK

[daysofourlives]

Is Sean Abbott the most over rated bowler in Australian cricket, every time he bowls he goes the journey, just bowls very hittable lengths at the same pace, choked again tonight as usual, scorchers needed 9 off the last over, bowls a full toss legside wide first ball that beat the keeper game over

[DOC]

Who rates him?

[Corona Man]

Is Sean Abbott the most over rated bowler in Australian cricket, every time he bowls he goes the journey, just bowls very hittable lengths at the same pace, choked again tonight as usual, scorchers needed 9 off the last over, bowls a full toss legside wide first ball that beat the keeper game over

That Sandeep bloke gives him a run for his money.

[The Dark Knight]

Who rates him?

Mark Waugh, he is one of juniors love children.