I know less than you but I did watch yesterday.Can someone give me a basic explanation of what the controversy is please?
Keep in mind that I know nothing about cricket.
Can someone give me a basic explanation of what the controversy is please?
Keep in mind that I know nothing about cricket.
Fuckinell It’s easier to switch off talksort than try to understand. I only tuned in to hear about us signing the most expensive defender in the galaxy. ; )I know less than you but I did watch yesterday.
The fella with the stick missed the ball and the other geezer sitting behind the 3 sticky up bits of wood caught it. Then the hitter walks out of his crease (no, me neither) and the backstop fella chucks the ball at the sticks. Apparently you can be out if you're not in your crease!
Then the ref said, '' Fuck that, '' and let the batter carry on.
Thanks mate. I think I understand now.Bairstow believed the over was completed and the ball was dead. Which it was as the ball was in the keepers hands. No way either batsmen were going to take a run. Marked his crease with his foot and then walked towards the middle of the pitch presumably to have a chinwag with Stokes before the next over commenced and the Aussies knocked the bails off his wicket. Umpire even looked confused as hadn't given it. Then the Aussies appealed and it was given out.
Someone was given out. It is in the rules or laws or whatever. The English are up in arms and say 'It isn't cricket' when in actual fact it is cricket otherwise the fella wouldn't be out!! The English have said they want their ball back....Can someone give me a basic explanation of what the controversy is please?
Keep in mind that I know nothing about cricket.
Fuckinell It’s easier to switch off talksort than try to understand. I only tuned in to hear about us signing the most expensive defender in the galaxy. ; )
Didn't realise he got sent off..Bairstow believed the over was completed and the ball was dead. Which it was as the ball was in the keepers hands. No way either batsmen were going to take a run. Marked his crease with his foot and then walked towards the middle of the pitch presumably to have a chinwag with Stokes before the next over commenced and the Aussies knocked the bails off his wicket. Umpire even looked confused as hadn't given it. Then the Aussies appealed and it was given out.
Thanks mate. I think I understand now.
Although I think you underestimated my, “I know nothing about cricket“ line ; )
It’s all good mate. I just had to google what a barstow was.If the Toronto you are from is Canada you might be more familiar with baseball. Almost like throwing 3 strikes without a batsmen present and rendering one of the batsman out.
In the last minute of the half, Ederson and Rashford went for a 50-50 on the ground in our box, but Ederson got there first and took the ball, yet in doing so he slid through with his body and wiped out Rashford, who landed awkwardly and lay motionless. Ederson threw the ball to the touchline so that play could be stopped and treatment could be delivered, yet before the referee could blow his whistle, Fernandes (who else ?) intercepted the ball and chipped it into the untended net. The referee looked at Fernandes in the vain hope that he would not ask for the goal to be given, but he shrugged his shoulders, smiled sardonically, and asked that VAR decide. The VAR adjudicator applied the letter of the law and said that because the whistle hadn't been blown, the goal had to stand. Cue uproar. As the teams trudged off, Mike Summerbee squared up to Fernandes in the tunnel and called him rude names, for which City later apologised. City went on to lose the game, everyone is more upset about the ungentlemanly conduct than the chances we missed, and for some reason we're playing them at Elland Road on Thursday...Can someone give me a basic explanation of what the controversy is please?
Keep in mind that I know nothing about cricket.
I call bullshit.In the last minute of the half, Ederson and Rashford went for a 50-50 on the ground in our box, but Ederson got their first and took the ball, yet in doing so he slid through with his body and wiped out Rashford, who landed awkwardly and lay motionless. Ederson threw the ball to the touchline so that play could be stopped and treatment could be delivered, yet before the referee could blow his whistle Fernandes (who else ?) intercepted the ball and chipped it into the untended net. The referee looked at Fernandes in the vain hope that he would not ask for the goal to be given, but he shrugged his shoulders, smiled sardonically, and asked that VAR decide. The VAR adjudicator applied the letter of the law and said that because the whistle hadn't been blown, the goal had to stand. Cue uproar. As the teams trudged off, Mike Summerbee squared up to Fernandes in the tunnel and called him rude names, for which City later apologised. City went on to lose the game, everyone is more upset about the ungentlemanly conduct than the chances we missed, and for some reason we're playing them at Elland Road on Thursday...