It is. But it's also hard to reach any other conclusion. They may have gone to the other extreme now as India got it reversing ok.
Only they can know that, ultimately. All we can see is Mitchell Starc hooping it around when England couldn't last year and gunbarrel straight this year. It's still a bit of an unresolved issue, tbh, as most teams try it on. Not sure what the solution is - strict enforcement of the rules combined with a total change from Kookaburra to Duke's in tests, perhaps? The frankly rather rubbish Kookaburra is part of the problem here as it goes soft so quickly. But no doubt there is a commercial reason why they are so widely used.Although they got caught in such a clumsy cack-handed way it's hard to imagine they were getting away with it for too long. Maybe the TV people in Australia weren't quite as attentive as in SA.
I would add England beating Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka to that list. After all SL had beaten Aus and South Africa at home not long before that - there was talk after the series of SL being a poor team, but look at them now, and before the series, SL were clear favourites. And India getting their first ever series win in Aus after more than 50 years of trying. It's been a remarkable six months, and just when we were decrying the lack of away wins, four come along in no time at all.
No, that's the point. There is no changing of the decision later. That's effectively it. He's gone. Three years down the line, he'll either still be playing well and so extend his Yorkshire contract (and be a long way from SA selection having not played in SA cricket in that period) or he'll somehow have declined and so he won't have a contract anywhere.
I should have checked if he'd played in the latest series.. but he can play for SA again. Jacques Rudolph did after signing a Kolpak with Yorkshire. I imagine there are others. As he's played international cricket, he's already put himself in the market for IPL etc.
True he did. I'd forgotten that. He had been dropped by SA after an extended bad trot of form when he signed that contract, though. And he had to play a full season back in SA after ending his kolpak before he was considered again for selection. Even if he comes back directly after this contract, Olivier won't be playing for SA again until he's past 30. And he's a seam bowler, not a batsman, which matters for that - you're effectively pushing to be picked as a new player past the age of 30, which doesn't happen often for seam bowlers. He's also currently a first pick in the test team who's had a storming season, in stark contrast to Rudolph's status when he kolpakked off.
Is IPL international.. never mind. Yes/No to the Ashwon mankadding of Buttler? How can he do that to the delightfully mild Buttler?
The vid doesn't quite start early enough to show exactly where he is as Ashwin enters his delivery stride. Doesn't look good, though. But it went to the third umpire - that seems to be the confusion here. Law is pretty clear - and I'm also all for Mankading as a matter of course, no warning first.
Ah, should have scrolled down. So not out, even if you accept that mankading is fine, which I do. Odd decision. Oddly terrible decision - umpire ought to know the relevant law.
How on earth can that be given out? The bowler has already carried the ball past the stumps and the batsman is still in his crease. If the batsman has already left his crease before the bowler reaches the stumps it's fine to run him out in my book.
That's a still. The runout hasn't happened yet. A couple of frames later Buttler's about 8 inches out and Ravi pulls up and does him. My issue with that is that the bowler has played for it. Doesn't look like he had any intention of delivering the ball. Fair play taking the bails off if he's been backing up by a yard or two all afternoon, but that one was just grubby.
Yeah, but the rule is that the batsman must stay in his crease until the bowler enters his delivery stride. Bowler can't abort mid-action. Bowler's pulled out of his action, so dead ball.
That changed a couple of years ago. It used to be allowed 'before the delvery stride' but now it's something like 'up to the moment of delivery of the ball'. RA hasn't done anything against the rules here which is why the 3rd ump called it that way.
Ah, didn't know that. Explains it. You know why they changed it?
