from the BBC website:


"20th over - 127-2 The umpires are having a chat - is this fit for
international cricket? And the players are going off! Remarkable! New
Zealand would have only needed seven from that over to win it! NO
RESULT! ALL THAT FANNYING ABOUT FOR NOTHING! A HALF HOUR BREAK BETWEEN
INNINGS! WHAT A JOKE SPORT! McCullum looks like a man who has just got
home from a party with the most beautiful girl in the world only to
discover his mate has got his mum staying and she's sleeping in his
bed."


It is annoying in that we did not get a result - the BBC and cricinfo
state that it was in the bag for NZ with only 7 needed in the next
over for a D/L win, but there was only 4 overs left and still 34 runs
required, by no means a cut and dried result, presuamably Anderson and
Broad would have bowled in distinctly dodgy light, not easy at all...
-

Got unwanted CDs, DVDs & Games?
www.swapshop.co.uk/default.aspx?referrerid=b788c9b0-70e7-4192-91cc-d549e513f0bf

--
ButIstillneedtoknowwhat'sinthere! Thekeytoanysecurity
systemishowit'sdesigned! Thatdependsonwhyitwasdesigned! 
Ihavetoknowwhatwhoeverdesigneditwastryingtoprotect!
(Blakes 7, City on the Edge of the World  - Vila in typical panic mode)

On 18 Jun 2008, Luke Curtis wrote

> from the BBC website:
> 
> 
> "20th over - 127-2 The umpires are having a chat - is this fit
> for international cricket? And the players are going off!
> Remarkable! New Zealand would have only needed seven from that
> over to win it! NO RESULT! ALL THAT FANNYING ABOUT FOR NOTHING!
> A HALF HOUR BREAK BETWEEN INNINGS! WHAT A JOKE SPORT!

Botham said precisely the same thing on the Sky coverage.

It was a farce -- especially given the rigid adherence to the half-
hour break between innings.

"HVS"  wrote in message 
news:Xns9AC1D83198F59whhvans@news.albasani.net...
> On 18 Jun 2008, Luke Curtis wrote
>
>> from the BBC website:
>>
>>
>> "20th over - 127-2 The umpires are having a chat - is this fit
>> for international cricket? And the players are going off!
>> Remarkable! New Zealand would have only needed seven from that
>> over to win it! NO RESULT! ALL THAT FANNYING ABOUT FOR NOTHING!
>> A HALF HOUR BREAK BETWEEN INNINGS! WHAT A JOKE SPORT!
>
> Botham said precisely the same thing on the Sky coverage.
>
> It was a farce -- especially given the rigid adherence to the half-
> hour break between innings.
>

NZ should have been given the opportunity at least. I think they got it 
wrong.

"Luke Curtis"  wrote in message 
news:p6oi549ekk4k9eir3gtlqp9rrcjrl9mapl@4ax.com...
> from the BBC website:
>
>
> "20th over - 127-2 The umpires are having a chat - is this fit for
> international cricket? And the players are going off! Remarkable! New
> Zealand would have only needed seven from that over to win it! NO
> RESULT! ALL THAT FANNYING ABOUT FOR NOTHING! A HALF HOUR BREAK BETWEEN
> INNINGS! WHAT A JOKE SPORT! McCullum looks like a man who has just got
> home from a party with the most beautiful girl in the world only to
> discover his mate has got his mum staying and she's sleeping in his
> bed."
>
>
> It is annoying in that we did not get a result - the BBC and cricinfo
> state that it was in the bag for NZ with only 7 needed in the next
> over for a D/L win, but there was only 4 overs left and still 34 runs
> required, by no means a cut and dried result, presuamably Anderson and
> Broad would have bowled in distinctly dodgy light, not easy at all...

Yes, spot on.  The CI headline ("New Zealand robbed in rain farce") is 
emotive and not accurate in my opinion.  The game was robbed of a result but 
it was by no means a foregone conclusion that NZ would have won.  They were 
favourites, but if a wicket had fallen in the 20th over and then the rain 
come down at the end of that over, they probably would have lost.

It might have been nice if England could have bowled their overs a bit more 
quickly, but they should have been playing during that dinner break.

Andrew
Andrew

In message , Andrew Dunford 
 writes
>It might have been nice if England could have bowled their overs a bit 
>more quickly, but they should have been playing during that dinner 
>break.

Can anyone see any reason why the usual 10 mins between innings can't 
apply? There's always a chance to catch a snack and you shouldn't be 
eating more than that if you are playing surely.

Don
-- 
Don Miles
For Women's Cricket on the Web : www.webbsoc.demon.co.uk
Last Updated 2008 June 17

Don Miles wrote:
> In message , Andrew Dunford 
>  writes
>> It might have been nice if England could have bowled their overs a bit 
>> more quickly, but they should have been playing during that dinner break.
> 
> Can anyone see any reason why the usual 10 mins between innings can't 
> apply? There's always a chance to catch a snack and you shouldn't be 
> eating more than that if you are playing surely.
> 
> Don

Can only presume it was a compulsory length break for a ODI.

In article , 
toby.briggs@gmail.com says...
> > Can anyone see any reason why the usual 10 mins between innings can't 
> apply? There's always a chance to catch a snack and you shouldn't be 
> eating more than that if you are playing surely.
> 
> Don

> Can only presume it was a compulsory length break for a ODI.

Correct!

In article ,
 Don Miles  writes:
>In message , Andrew Dunford
> writes
>>It might have been nice if England could have bowled their overs a bit
>>more quickly, but they should have been playing during that dinner
>>break.
>
>Can anyone see any reason why the usual 10 mins between innings can't
>apply? There's always a chance to catch a snack and you shouldn't be
>eating more than that if you are playing surely.

The length of the interval may be more for the convenience of the
spectators - and to swell the profits of the caterers - than for the
benefit of the players.
-- 
John Hall      "George the Third
                Ought never to have occurred.
                One can only wonder
                At so grotesque a blunder."     E.C.Bentley (1875-1956)

On 19 Jun 2008, Drodbar wrote

> In article , 
> toby.briggs@gmail.com says...
>>> Can anyone see any reason why the usual 10 mins between
>>> innings can't 
>> apply? There's always a chance to catch a snack and you
>> shouldn't be eating more than that if you are playing surely.
>> 
>> Don
> 
>> Can only presume it was a compulsory length break for a ODI.
> 
> Correct!

And if it was required by the rules and no exception was possible, 
the Dickens Principle comes into play:  "then the law is a ass -- a 
idiot".

-- 
Cheers,
Harvey

In message , Luke Curtis 
 writes
>from the BBC website:
>
>
>"20th over - 127-2 The umpires are having a chat - is this fit for 
>international cricket? And the players are going off! Remarkable! New 
>Zealand would have only needed seven from that over to win it! NO 
>RESULT! ALL THAT FANNYING ABOUT FOR NOTHING! A HALF HOUR BREAK BETWEEN 
>INNINGS! WHAT A JOKE SPORT! McCullum looks like a man who has just got 
>home from a party with the most beautiful girl in the world only to 
>discover his mate has got his mum staying and she's sleeping in his bed."


The game should have been called off well before it was because of the 
heavy rain.. RH
-- 
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk