Message Board Archives

Link Text

If one looks at the video

Polly is looking for the ball and the fielder

He is not looking for where to ground his bat .

I view it as an error in judgement in the heat of the battle
and not cheating.

In reply to Devin

Is there a rule against it?
If that he and any other player is well within their rights to do it.

In reply to Devin

Devin- SKUNT

In reply to sgtdjones

He knew what he was doing, he's done it in the past

In reply to DIEHARD

DIEHARD - must be a Trini blowhard skunt

In reply to Andy99

I've scarcely seen anything that egregious on a cricket field. There are many unwritten rules in cricket that you aren't supposed to break.

In reply to Devin

it happens

In reply to Devin

I'm a West Indian first

Yardman..put some respec on mi name

Interesting tactics, if that is the case (deliberately running short).

In reply to Andy99

Done what? Serial cheating?

In reply to Devin

why is it cheating? giving up a run to regain the strike.

In reply to Devin

Was watching the game yesterday and "cheating" was the first thing that came to mind!

That is one rule they need to CHANGE in cricket!
I don't see how ANY run can be scored in that instance when the batsman NEVER made to the other end!

In reply to methodic

bowlers used to deliberately overstep just to intimidate batsmen. they are now penalized with the free hit rule.

batsmen has been allowed for years to do crap similar to what pollard did. Running before the ball is released from the bowler's hand is a perfect example! And now even with a rule in place, people still belly ache that its against the spirit of the game to run the batsman (who tries to cheat) out.

What Pollard did is exploiting an area where there is no rule and against the spirit of the game. A rule shall soon come!

In reply to StumpCam

Bigger than the Aamir match-fixing no-ball.

The rule needs to change. They penalized fielders and keepers for deliberately cheating.Rashid Latif and Ramdin. They banned Amir for deliberately over-stepping.

This was not a case of Pollard missing the crease. He wanted to retain the strike and cheated his way to the other end. If anything, The strike should have been given to harbhajan and MI should have got zero runs or should have been docked 5 runs.

This is like flopping in football....

Look at that photo, the man didn't even make it look a little realistic.

He's 18-24 inches short of the line.

In reply to gvenkat

Dude relax, what about players running half way down the pitch then turning back to protect the none striker when they realise it naw mek sense run? What pollard did was smart.

I don't consider it cheating.

Presence of mind cricket, IMO.

In reply to Devin

I thought this was about Pollard banging some Indian chick unbeknownst to his wife..

In reply to jen

There is nothing wrong with that!

What I take issue with is, if a RUN is awarded in that instance! I think NO RUN can be completed in that scenario if the batsman never grounded his bat behind the line!

With all his cheating he was not sensible enough to pull it off for Mumbai.

In reply to StumpCam

I totally agree with you here...at no time did he completed either the first or second run....btw I don't think its cheating too...its gamesmanship and to stop this, don't award any run for twos and one run for threes unless he down his bat short two times!

In reply to StumpCam

The non striker can say that he ran two runs

In reply to StumpCam

Isn't that why you have an umpire?

It's the umpire's job to pay attention and call one short in that scenario.

I believe what pollard did was deliberate. His main objective being to get to the other end to retain the strike

I believe the rule as it stands is of the umpire signals "one short" the team is penalized that run (so instead of 2 runs, it becomes 1 run)

In the particular situation, pollard was more interested in retaining the strike, than in getting 2 runs. If he got penalized the one run for "one short", he would have still achieved his objective

I believe the rule was put in place prior to the advent of "
LO cricket. If the rule is amended to penalize not only the "run", but also make the striker become the non striker, it MAY deter players from implementing that tactic.

But until the rule as stands is amended, it's simply clever thinking on the player's part.

BTW...different scenario.

It's the last ball of the over in the penultimate over of a T20 match. The batsman in strike wants to retain strike so either needs a single or 3 runs.

He hits the ball where there would be a comfortable 2 runs and runs the 2 runs but grounds his bat well short of the crease.

Umpire signals "one short" and under the amended rule, the team is awarded one run and the batsman becomes the non striker. But it's the end of the over so the batsman now faces the first ball of the last over, even though he "ran" 2 at the end of the previous over hoping to get 2 runs AND retain strike.

The amended rule would work in the batsman's favor as well in that scenario

In reply to StumpCam

Ahhh, i see your point, good one, seeing the first run was never completed, same as if batsman 3/4 down in the other half, his partner naw run and he turn back.

Pollard is not a cheat. He was just being smart.