Crackin' good idea Ben, make them even harder to see.

max.it

In message <5m96lhlhv0jt9p660ff1bsc07kuqv5t0g4@4ax.com>, max. it
<max@tea.time> writes
>
>Crackin' good idea Ben, make them even harder to see.
>
>max.it

I don't see that as a major problem, since when the umpires have the
slightest doubt they always call for a TV replay anyway. And the game
seemed to manage fine in days of yore when the boundary marker was just
a white line, not even a rope. The only reason why boundary markers in
the WC are so large is so they can display adverts.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On Saturday, October 22, 2022 at 10:29:35 AM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
> In message <5m96lhlhv0jt9p660...@4ax.com>, max. it
> <m...@tea.time> writes
> >
> >Crackin' good idea Ben, make them even harder to see.
> >
> >max.it
> I don't see that as a major problem, since when the umpires have the
> slightest doubt they always call for a TV replay anyway. And the game
> seemed to manage fine in days of yore when the boundary marker was just
> a white line, not even a rope. The only reason why boundary markers in
> the WC are so large is so they can display adverts.
> --
> John Hall
> "Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
> But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
> Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

Spot on. Everything is about money ... RH

On Sat, 22 Oct 2022 10:20:47 +0100, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <5m96lhlhv0jt9p660ff1bsc07kuqv5t0g4@4ax.com>, max. it
><max@tea.time> writes
>>
>>Crackin' good idea Ben, make them even harder to see.
>>
>>max.it
>
>I don't see that as a major problem, since when the umpires have the
>slightest doubt they always call for a TV replay anyway. And the game
>seemed to manage fine in days of yore when the boundary marker was just
>a white line, not even a rope. The only reason why boundary markers in
>the WC are so large is so they can display adverts.

I'm not sure about updated law but cricket law stated that the
boundary should be marked by a rope or flags if no rope is available.
It's more likely the rope beneath the foam advertising 'toblerone'
that causes the ankle rolling.

max.it

On Sat, 22 Oct 2022 14:30:01 +0100, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:

>I'm not sure about updated law but cricket law stated that the
>boundary should be marked by a rope or flags if no rope is available.
>It's more likely the rope beneath the foam advertising 'toblerone'
>that causes the ankle rolling.

I think you're right. If you landed wrong, you could conceivably put
enough pressure on the foam to make it solid enough to turn an ankle,
but you'd be incredibly unlucky. Treading sideways on a solid rope, on
the other hand, is definitely dangerous. If anything, the boundary
sponges shoulld be bigger to make it less likely that you land on the
rope.

Cheers,

Mike

On Saturday, 22 October 2022 at 16:36:38 UTC+1, Mike Holmans wrote:

> I think you're right. If you landed wrong, you could conceivably put
> enough pressure on the foam to make it solid enough to turn an ankle,
> but you'd be incredibly unlucky. Treading sideways on a solid rope, on
> the other hand, is definitely dangerous. If anything, the boundary
> sponges shoulld be bigger to make it less likely that you land on the
> rope.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

Yet more nanny state gone mad.

Didn't Simon Jones slip on a few blades of wet grass at Sydney a few years ago and messed his leg up big time?

What next, ban grass?

> Didn't Simon Jones slip on a few blades of wet grass at Sydney a few years ago and messed his leg up big time?
> What next, ban grass?

He did a bit more than slip on a few blades of grass.

Still, the crowd got a good laugh out of it.

On 22/10/2022 16:36, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2022 14:30:01 +0100, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure about updated law but cricket law stated that the
>> boundary should be marked by a rope or flags if no rope is available.
>> It's more likely the rope beneath the foam advertising 'toblerone'
>> that causes the ankle rolling.
>
> I think you're right. If you landed wrong, you could conceivably put
> enough pressure on the foam to make it solid enough to turn an ankle,
> but you'd be incredibly unlucky. Treading sideways on a solid rope, on
> the other hand, is definitely dangerous. If anything, the boundary
> sponges shoulld be bigger to make it less likely that you land on the
> rope.

That might make it safer to tread on, but would probably also make it
more of a trip hazard.

--
David North

On 22/10/2022 19:31, Michael Gooding wrote:
>
>> Didn't Simon Jones slip on a few blades of wet grass at Sydney a few years ago and messed his leg up big time?
>> What next, ban grass?
>
> He did a bit more than slip on a few blades of grass.

Yes, his knee stuck in the turf as he was attempting a sliding stop (and
it was at Brisbane). That's a case of knowing on which grounds it's
(relatively) safe to slide.

Btw, if England hadn't been a bowler short from early on, Hussain's
notorious decision to put Australia in might not have turned out quite
so badly.

--
David North

On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 08:21:53 +0100, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On 22/10/2022 16:36, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Oct 2022 14:30:01 +0100, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure about updated law but cricket law stated that the
>>> boundary should be marked by a rope or flags if no rope is available.
>>> It's more likely the rope beneath the foam advertising 'toblerone'
>>> that causes the ankle rolling.
>>
>> I think you're right. If you landed wrong, you could conceivably put
>> enough pressure on the foam to make it solid enough to turn an ankle,
>> but you'd be incredibly unlucky. Treading sideways on a solid rope, on
>> the other hand, is definitely dangerous. If anything, the boundary
>> sponges shoulld be bigger to make it less likely that you land on the
>> rope.
>
>That might make it safer to tread on, but would probably also make it
>more of a trip hazard.

You win some, you lose some.

Alternatively, there's no perfect answer.

Also alternatively, it was different in the 1950s.

Also, I only said "if anything". Unlike Stokes and, presumably,
Topley, I'm not dissatisfied with the current arrangements.

Cheers,

Mike