On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 8:58:34 AM UTC+10, alvey wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Aug 2023 09:56:20 +0100, John Hall wrote:
>
> > In message <uap90l$2gt1d$1...@dont-email.me>, alvey
> > <Paddy.O....@Coast.org> writes
> >>On Sun, 06 Aug 2023 09:36:35 +0100, John Hall wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> It might help if balls weren't changed just because they have gone out
> >>> of shape. If anything, being out of shape should help the fielding
> >>> side,
> >>> as it could lead to uneven bounce.
> >>
> >>Ashley JH, I'd opine that bowlers fairly intensely dislike out of shape
> >>balls. They like to have an idea of what the pill is going to do.
> >>
> >>Note: This does not apply to those modern day Flat Finger 'Spinners'.
> >>The dreaded Wobble Seamers.
> >>
> >>
> > But the use of wobble seam for at least the occasional delivery has
> > become increasingly popular recently. AIUI, the bowler has no idea what
> > such deliveries are going to do, but feels that is more than compensated
> > for by the batter having no idea either.
> Yep. But it's not very skillful is it? You may as well just spread some
> gravel on the pitch.
>
Is it that dissimilar to seam up bowling?
I always thought that was "run up, bowl the ball, hope it nibbles a little either way"
Cutters are a different story

On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 6:53:27 PM UTC-4, alvey wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Aug 2023 06:00:52 -0700, David North wrote:
>
> > On Monday, 7 August 2023 at 00:06:01 UTC+1, alvey wrote:
> >> On Sun, 06 Aug 2023 09:36:35 +0100, John Hall wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > It might help if balls weren't changed just because they have gone
> >> > out of shape. If anything, being out of shape should help the
> >> > fielding side,
> >> > as it could lead to uneven bounce.
> >> Ashley JH, I'd opine that bowlers fairly intensely dislike out of shape
> >> balls. They like to have an idea of what the pill is going to do.
> >
> > I may be wrong, but I doubt that the amount of misshapenness that is
> > typical when a ball gets changed is enough to make the ball do anything
> > signficant. Therefore I tend to agree with John, that the ball going out
> > of shape is usually an excuse for getting it changed, rather than the
> > reason for it. It it's swinging around all over the place, the bowlers
> > aren't worried about its shape.
> Hmmmm. Where's a fluid dynamics engineer when you need one? The question
> is, "Will an out of shape ball 'swing all over the place'"?
>
>
>
> alvey
> Idly wondering which of the Duke or Kooka is most likely to fail the ring
> test?

A perfectly spherical ball with spin turns up or down, (top spin or chop) at high forward speeds.
If the ball is distorted, almost impossible to predict which way it deviates, Newton would be stumped!

On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 18:20:27 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
<hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 3:18:58?AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 08:13:40 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
>> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 6:24:44?PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 00:40:05 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
>> >> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 4:05:05?AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 10:18:49 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
>> >> >> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 3:00:18?AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 06:47:41 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
>> >> >> >> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 11:27:57?PM UTC+10, Richard Dixon wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 13:25:03 UTC+1, Hamish Laws wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > Either the umpires needed to select one closer to the original one's condition or there should be more balls available so that there are ones available in a similar condition
>> >> >> >> >> > and if the suggestion that the ball was of an earlier type with a more pronounced seam than the current models is correct then it should never have been in the box
>> >> >> >> >> Fine, but how - if the seam was proud - did England not reduce Aus from 135-0 to only 264/3? They got to 264/3 with the new ball - 30+ more overs of wear on the ball before it did more. And I'd have said exactly the same if the shoe was on the other foot: shit happens.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >They went from 135/0 to 169/3, then there was a partnership
>> >> >> >> >It's not like every new ball results in a loss of 3/34 so your argument is really at RH levels of stupidity here.
>> >> >> >> I haven't been paying attention to this not story.
>> >> >> >> What do the people who had direct access to the ball have to say about
>> >> >> >> it?
>> >> >> >> Did any of the players or officials have any concerns at the time?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Here's Khawaja being interviewed and commenting on how different the replacement ball was, and that he raised it with both umpires
>> >> >> >https://www.cricket.com.au/video/usman-khawaja-exclusive-ball-change-umpires-warner-fifth-test-oval-england-australia-ashes/2023-08-01
>> >> >> I'd hate to hear him if he was the victim of a ropey stumping.
>> >> >> Did Joel tell anyone else that it was the only ball they had?
>> >> >> He might have a concern after getting out but he's ripping the ass out
>> >> >> of it. Nice young lad, vivid imagination, likes being listened to. It
>> >> >> was very refreshing and honest and was similar to a million other
>> >> >> young lads after a cricket match on a weekend.
>> >> >> >> Is this entire shit based on a few pictures and some video clips?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Here's a video that shows the original and replacement balls in the first 30 seconds
>> >> >> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvZOtMmYv3s
>> >> >> Different shade and the stitching is a bit cleaner. Did the out of
>> >> >> shape ball get wet during the match before that point? I can't see a
>> >> >> number written at all on the replacement, they used to have the overs
>> >> >> played written on them.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Would you be happy if the other umpire wanted to make that substitution?
>> >> >> In this instance there is no 'other umpire' only the umpires acting
>> >> >> together, you know - shall do this or that. So there had to be
>> >> >> agreement by the umpires about which ball to use.
>> >> >>
>> >> >And I'm asking you, if you were standing in a match looking to change the ball and the other umpire suggesting this substitution would you be happy with making that change or would you want a ball that was closer to the original?
>> >> It hasn't anything to do with how happy I or another umpire would be.
>> >> The conversation could go along like "this ball isn't ideal, but
>> >> there's fuck all else,just get on with it". Then you (together) might
>> >> report that ball shortage to the association that appointed you. This
>> >> will have been in the umpire's report I'm sure.
>> >
>> >If it's true, the pictures of a box of balls show a couple that seemed to be closer to the original ball than the one they selection, although admittedly we only see one side of them.
>> I didn't even see that box.
>
>Yeah, I've only seen photos of it but an investigation should be able to see the footage which might show better whether there was a closer match
>
>I haven't seen the ball change, I have read some comments on it that I find hard to believe (somebody claiming that Stokes grabbed a ball and tossed it to the bowler)
>
>> >
>> >> If as it's been reported in this case there was no other ball
>> >> available choosing the most worn ball in the selection might be the
>> >> only option depending on the condition of the ball to be replaced.
>> >
>> >In that case then the investigation should be looking at why there weren't closer matches and what can e done to assure that there will be in the future.
>> Just make sure that the Oval staff wear their match balls the same way
>> as the other grounds do.
>
>do we know how all the different grounds do it?
>Is it consistent?
>Does the same approach work everywhere or would it need adjustments (different types of balls seem to go out of shape more often, and all manufacturers have the odd bad batch. How does wear compare in India and Perth with quite different pitch conditions?)
>

The first thing you do is to forget about how the different types of
ball will wear in different geographic locations, and concentrate on
the place where the matches are actually being played.

>> >
>> >> Don't forget that to get to this stage both umpires and at least on
>> >> captain have already agreed that the ball needs to be replaced.
>> >
>> >Not on my reading of the law
>> >"4.5 Ball lost or becoming unfit for play
>> I didn't mean that the umpires needed approval, just that they and at
>> least one captain have agreed that the ball is no longer suitable.
>
>I'm not seeing anywhere that a captain is required to have input, and considering most of the time the bowler seems to be the person who raises the issue with the umpire not the captain, I'm not convinced that he's always aware - although it's probably pretty common that he's said "look this ball isn't doing anything, see if we can get it changed".
>> >

Who said that the captain is required to have an input?
The umpires have decided that the ball needed to be replaced, at least
At least one captain has agreed that the ball needed to be replaced.
I can't make that any more simple.
Does anyone else here unable to understand what I am saying?

>> >If, during play, the ball cannot be found or recovered or the umpires agree that it has become unfit for play through normal use, the umpires shall replace it with a ball which has had wear comparable with that which the previous ball had received before the need for its replacement. When the ball is replaced, the umpire shall inform the batters and the fielding captain."
>> >
>> >So it only needs the umpires to agree that the ball's unfit, it doesn't need a captain to agree.

Nobody has said that it needs a captain to agree that the ball needs
changed or to which replacement will be used.
If a bowling captain has raised the issue of the ball and it is then
changed of course the umpires and at least one captain have already
agreed that the ball needs to be replaced.

>> >In practice the fielding side is normally complaining about it and tosses it to the umpires to check but it's possible they could get the ball at the end of the over or when a wicket falls and check it without anybody else's input.

Yup, and if the umpires change the ball then both umpires and at least
one captain have agreed that the ball needs to be replaced.
In this case the batting captain (batsman at the crease) disagreed
with the choice of replacement ball.
>>
>> Frequent and irregular checks is what your trained to do.
>
>I think the international umpires are required to look at the ball after every over to look for signs of tampering but I'm not swearing to it.
>
I don't think about what international umpires do.
I just know that were actually told not to do that but to carry out
frequent and irregular checks.

On Mon, 07 Aug 2023 18:23:22 -0700, Hamish Laws wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 8:58:34 AM UTC+10, alvey wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Aug 2023 09:56:20 +0100, John Hall wrote:
>>
>> > In message <uap90l$2gt1d$1...@dont-email.me>, alvey
>> > <Paddy.O....@Coast.org> writes
>> >>On Sun, 06 Aug 2023 09:36:35 +0100, John Hall wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> It might help if balls weren't changed just because they have gone
>> >>> out of shape. If anything, being out of shape should help the
>> >>> fielding side,
>> >>> as it could lead to uneven bounce.
>> >>
>> >>Ashley JH, I'd opine that bowlers fairly intensely dislike out of
>> >>shape balls. They like to have an idea of what the pill is going to
>> >>do.
>> >>
>> >>Note: This does not apply to those modern day Flat Finger 'Spinners'.
>> >>The dreaded Wobble Seamers.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > But the use of wobble seam for at least the occasional delivery has
>> > become increasingly popular recently. AIUI, the bowler has no idea
>> > what such deliveries are going to do, but feels that is more than
>> > compensated for by the batter having no idea either.
>> Yep. But it's not very skillful is it? You may as well just spread some
>> gravel on the pitch.
>>
> Is it that dissimilar to seam up bowling?

I'd vote 'Yes'. What the Super Slomo has shown is that there's not many
bowlers who can keep the seam in the same plane from hand to pitch.
Bowling Wobblies has a much lower tolerance of control.

> I always thought that was "run up, bowl the ball, hope it nibbles a
> little either way"
> Cutters are a different story.

Indeedy.

On 07/08/2023 16:03, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:00:54 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
>> On Monday, 7 August 2023 at 00:06:01 UTC+1, alvey wrote:
>>> On Sun, 06 Aug 2023 09:36:35 +0100, John Hall wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It might help if balls weren't changed just because they have gone out
>>>> of shape. If anything, being out of shape should help the fielding side,
>>>> as it could lead to uneven bounce.
>>> Ashley JH, I'd opine that bowlers fairly intensely dislike out of shape
>>> balls. They like to have an idea of what the pill is going to do.
>> I may be wrong, but I doubt that the amount of misshapenness that is typical when a ball gets changed is enough to make the ball do anything signficant. Therefore I tend to agree with John, that the ball going out of shape is usually an excuse for getting it changed, rather than the reason for it. It it's swinging around all over the place, the bowlers aren't worried about its shape.
>
> There's rules on the acceptable size of the ball. If the ball is outside those limits it's illegal.
> That's what the rings test

Actually, AFAICS, the Laws, and the WTC playing conditions, only specify
the weight and size of the ball when new. After that, they say that the
umpires shall replace the ball if "it has become unfit for play", but
they don't actually specify what constitutes 'unfit'. Therefore the use
of the rings seems to be a convention rather than a rule.

However, that's rather beside the point. How often would the umpires
check the ball with the rings if the bowling side didn't ask them to? Of
course, there is nothing to stop the batters from asking.

--
David North

On 08/08/2023 02:20, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 3:18:58 AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 08:13:40 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
>> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 6:24:44?PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 00:40:05 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
>>>> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 4:05:05?AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 10:18:49 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
>>>>>> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 3:00:18?AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 06:47:41 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
>>>>>>>> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 11:27:57?PM UTC+10, Richard Dixon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 13:25:03 UTC+1, Hamish Laws wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Either the umpires needed to select one closer to the original one's condition or there should be more balls available so that there are ones available in a similar condition
>>>>>>>>>>> and if the suggestion that the ball was of an earlier type with a more pronounced seam than the current models is correct then it should never have been in the box
>>>>>>>>>> Fine, but how - if the seam was proud - did England not reduce Aus from 135-0 to only 264/3? They got to 264/3 with the new ball - 30+ more overs of wear on the ball before it did more. And I'd have said exactly the same if the shoe was on the other foot: shit happens.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They went from 135/0 to 169/3, then there was a partnership
>>>>>>>>> It's not like every new ball results in a loss of 3/34 so your argument is really at RH levels of stupidity here.
>>>>>>>> I haven't been paying attention to this not story.
>>>>>>>> What do the people who had direct access to the ball have to say about
>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>>> Did any of the players or officials have any concerns at the time?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's Khawaja being interviewed and commenting on how different the replacement ball was, and that he raised it with both umpires
>>>>>>> https://www.cricket.com.au/video/usman-khawaja-exclusive-ball-change-umpires-warner-fifth-test-oval-england-australia-ashes/2023-08-01
>>>>>> I'd hate to hear him if he was the victim of a ropey stumping.
>>>>>> Did Joel tell anyone else that it was the only ball they had?
>>>>>> He might have a concern after getting out but he's ripping the ass out
>>>>>> of it. Nice young lad, vivid imagination, likes being listened to. It
>>>>>> was very refreshing and honest and was similar to a million other
>>>>>> young lads after a cricket match on a weekend.
>>>>>>>> Is this entire shit based on a few pictures and some video clips?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's a video that shows the original and replacement balls in the first 30 seconds
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvZOtMmYv3s
>>>>>> Different shade and the stitching is a bit cleaner. Did the out of
>>>>>> shape ball get wet during the match before that point? I can't see a
>>>>>> number written at all on the replacement, they used to have the overs
>>>>>> played written on them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would you be happy if the other umpire wanted to make that substitution?
>>>>>> In this instance there is no 'other umpire' only the umpires acting
>>>>>> together, you know - shall do this or that. So there had to be
>>>>>> agreement by the umpires about which ball to use.
>>>>>>
>>>>> And I'm asking you, if you were standing in a match looking to change the ball and the other umpire suggesting this substitution would you be happy with making that change or would you want a ball that was closer to the original?
>>>> It hasn't anything to do with how happy I or another umpire would be.
>>>> The conversation could go along like "this ball isn't ideal, but
>>>> there's fuck all else,just get on with it". Then you (together) might
>>>> report that ball shortage to the association that appointed you. This
>>>> will have been in the umpire's report I'm sure.
>>>
>>> If it's true, the pictures of a box of balls show a couple that seemed to be closer to the original ball than the one they selection, although admittedly we only see one side of them.
>> I didn't even see that box.
>
> Yeah, I've only seen photos of it but an investigation should be able to see the footage which might show better whether there was a closer match

Hopefully, an investigation should have access to the rest of the balls
in the box, and the one that was replaced. Obviously the one thing it
won't have access to is the replacement ball in the condition that it
was in at the time.

--
David North

On 08/08/2023 08:06, max.it wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 18:20:27 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
> <hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 3:18:58?AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>>> On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 08:13:40 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
>>> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 6:24:44?PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:

>>>>> Don't forget that to get to this stage both umpires and at least on
>>>>> captain have already agreed that the ball needs to be replaced.
>>>>
>>>> Not on my reading of the law
>>>> "4.5 Ball lost or becoming unfit for play
>>> I didn't mean that the umpires needed approval, just that they and at
>>> least one captain have agreed that the ball is no longer suitable.
>>
>> I'm not seeing anywhere that a captain is required to have input, and considering most of the time the bowler seems to be the person who raises the issue with the umpire not the captain, I'm not convinced that he's always aware - although it's probably pretty common that he's said "look this ball isn't doing anything, see if we can get it changed".
>>>>
>
> Who said that the captain is required to have an input?
> The umpires have decided that the ball needed to be replaced, at least
> At least one captain has agreed that the ball needed to be replaced.
> I can't make that any more simple.
> Does anyone else here unable to understand what I am saying?
>
>>>> If, during play, the ball cannot be found or recovered or the umpires agree that it has become unfit for play through normal use, the umpires shall replace it with a ball which has had wear comparable with that which the previous ball had received before the need for its replacement. When the ball is replaced, the umpire shall inform the batters and the fielding captain."
>>>>
>>>> So it only needs the umpires to agree that the ball's unfit, it doesn't need a captain to agree.
>
> Nobody has said that it needs a captain to agree that the ball needs
> changed or to which replacement will be used.
> If a bowling captain has raised the issue of the ball and it is then
> changed of course the umpires and at least one captain have already
> agreed that the ball needs to be replaced.
>
>>>> In practice the fielding side is normally complaining about it and tosses it to the umpires to check but it's possible they could get the ball at the end of the over or when a wicket falls and check it without anybody else's input.
>
> Yup, and if the umpires change the ball then both umpires and at least
> one captain have agreed that the ball needs to be replaced.
> In this case the batting captain (batsman at the crease) disagreed
> with the choice of replacement ball.
>>>
>>> Frequent and irregular checks is what your trained to do.
>>
>> I think the international umpires are required to look at the ball after every over to look for signs of tampering but I'm not swearing to it.
>>
> I don't think about what international umpires do.
> I just know that were actually told not to do that but to carry out
> frequent and irregular checks.
Either way, that's to look for tampering. It doesn't mean that they are
necessarily looking for the ball going out of shape through normal use,
or checking it with the rings.

--
David North

On Sunday, 6 August 2023 at 05:31:28 UTC+1, wlsut...@gmail.com wrote:

> We make wines that are so much better then the majority of the World
>
> But when it comes to whines we will throw in the occasional one but we are not in the same ballpark as the whinging Poms
>
> And I dont care about the ball , the main thing was not to lose the Ashes and that was accomplished

Still so rattled. Hilarious.