The Sisters of Mercy Forum
It’s not a matter of caring, it’s a matter of either having a licence or shutting the f*ck up.RicheyJames wrote:but i still don't care.Chairman Bux wrote:Well now you know.RicheyJames wrote: oooh, get her! i didn't know i needed an obnoxious bastard licence
alright, you can get back in the box now.Chairman Bux wrote:It’s not a matter of caring, it’s a matter of either having a licence or shutting the f*ck up.RicheyJames wrote:but i still don't care.Chairman Bux wrote: Well now you know.
Are you going to behave?RicheyJames wrote:alright, you can get back in the box now.Chairman Bux wrote:It’s not a matter of caring, it’s a matter of either having a licence or shutting the f*ck up.RicheyJames wrote: but i still don't care.
Back in the day (well before either the 2000 or 2003 rule changes {or refinements}) it just used to be the back foot (within the return crease obviously) but behind the bowling crease. Gus Fraser always used to bemoan the change IIRC, saying that just watching the back foot increased the time between the umpire signalling a no-ball and the delivery reaching the batsman, so giving the batsman more of a chance to score from the no-ball. Why a bowler should like that aspect is beyond me, but I do remember Fraser used to be particularly bad at no-balling with his front foot.RicheyJames wrote:it's always been back foot in front of the return crease and front foot behind the popping crease hasn't it?
have i ever not?Chairman Bux wrote:Are you going to behave?RicheyJames wrote:alright, you can get back in the box now.Chairman Bux wrote: It’s not a matter of caring, it’s a matter of either having a licence or shutting the f*ck up.
That all depends upon how one defines "behaving".RicheyJames wrote:have i ever not?Chairman Bux wrote:Are you going to behave?RicheyJames wrote: alright, you can get back in the box now.
Meanwhile, back in the crease....markfiend wrote:Ahem. Back at the cricket please gentlemen?
I was discussing the no-ball law?
Indeed. And in the past 10 minutes or so, I managed to find this clicky to prove I'm not imagining things.Chairman Bux wrote:Meanwhile, back in the crease....markfiend wrote:Ahem. Back at the cricket please gentlemen?
I was discussing the no-ball law?
if sam donut was here, he'd show you a thing or two about cricket-geekinessmarkfiend wrote:Indeed. And in the past 10 minutes or so, I managed to find this clicky to prove I'm not imagining things.Chairman Bux wrote:Meanwhile, back in the crease....markfiend wrote:Ahem. Back at the cricket please gentlemen?
I was discussing the no-ball law?
I out-cricket-geeked Richey!
sorry, i just don't do "nice" (which, just for the record, is one of the laziest words in the english language). on the other hand, i do try to avoid personal insults. most of the time.Chairman Bux wrote:That all depends upon how one defines "behaving".RicheyJames wrote:have i ever not?Chairman Bux wrote: Are you going to behave?
Personally, I classify behaving as being nice to people. But then I have the required licence so I do not need to behave. And I rarely get personal.
Don’t make me come over there and bitch-slap you.
I just like to show that I'm never wrong.Johnny Boy wrote:Mark, you are beginning to seriously worry me.
Point taken, but you really do need to relax a little. You're way too uptight.RicheyJames wrote:sorry, i just don't do "nice" (which, just for the record, is one of the laziest words in the english language). on the other hand, i do try to avoid personal insults. most of the time.Chairman Bux wrote:That all depends upon how one defines "behaving".RicheyJames wrote: have i ever not?
Personally, I classify behaving as being nice to people. But then I have the required licence so I do not need to behave. And I rarely get personal.
Don’t make me come over there and bitch-slap you.
and if you want to give me slap you'll have to get in the queue
I kinda like it, wait until it gets to the event horizon and the posts in the middle start to get sucked into the vortex!markfiend wrote:Do we really need the whole discussion in nested quotes? It's sending my eyes funny.
it is kinda nice when you scroll down the page really quickly thoughmarkfiend wrote:Do we really need the whole discussion in nested quotes? It's sending my eyes funny.
thats when everythimg starts going backwards isn't it?hallucienate wrote:I kinda like it, wait until it gets to the event horizon and the posts in the middle start to get sucked into the vortex!markfiend wrote:Do we really need the whole discussion in nested quotes? It's sending my eyes funny.
.si ti ,seyQuiff Boy wrote:thats when everythimg starts going backwards isn't it?hallucienate wrote:I kinda like it, wait until it gets to the event horizon and the posts in the middle start to get sucked into the vortex!markfiend wrote:Do we really need the whole discussion in nested quotes? It's sending my eyes funny.
that was actually quite hard to readhallucienate wrote:.si ti ,seyQuiff Boy wrote:thats when everythimg starts going backwards isn't it?hallucienate wrote: I kinda like it, wait until it gets to the event horizon and the posts in the middle start to get sucked into the vortex!
au contraire, mr chairman. if anything i'm a little too relaxed these days. much to my boss' chagrin.Chairman Bux wrote:Point taken, but you really do need to relax a little. You're way too uptight.
did that yesterday. well, apart from the garden bit but then i'm happier surrounded by concrete and tarmac than trees and grass anyway.Chairman Bux also wrote:Take a day off, get the TV out into the garden and watch the cricket with a cold beer. Relaxxxxxxxxxx.
i think you'll find that she's always at the head of the queue anyway. why d'you think i'm so relaxed these days?Chairman Bux finally wrote:And I probably wouldn't bitch-slap you myself anyway - I'd get one if my minions to do my bidding. SG?
!t'ndid gnikcuf ti teb IQuiff Boy wrote:that was actually quite hard to readhallucienate wrote:.si ti ,seyQuiff Boy wrote: thats when everythimg starts going backwards isn't it?
bet it took a while to type didnt it?
epon.Quiff Boy wrote:that was actually quite hard to readhallucienate wrote:.si ti ,seyQuiff Boy wrote: thats when everythimg starts going backwards isn't it?
bet it took a while to type didnt it?
sorry, i appear to have become a little side-tracked...markfiend wrote:Ahem. Back at the cricket please gentlemen?
I was discussing the no-ball law?
I noticedRicheyJames wrote:sorry, i appear to have become a little side-tracked...
Well, to be fair, I don't remember the 1950s either. I just remember Gus Fraser always going on about it, and looked it up.RicheyJames wrote:anyway, fair point well made. to be honest i don't recall the time before that rule change but then i have trouble remembering last week.
Well, the bit about the old no-ball rule isn't about the one-day game:RicheyJames wrote:and as for the link you posted - that appears to refer to one day cricket which is nearly as bad as that twenty20 rubbish
The rest (about having a free hit on the ball after a no-ballThe classic case is the no-ball rule. For readers under the age of sixty, it should be pointed out that the no ball rule used to apply to the back foot of the bowler in his delivery stride. Your front foot could be as far down as you'd like, but the back foot had to be behind the line which is in line with the stumps at the bowlers end.
That is actually why the line is there.
In the late 1950's some fast bowlers, of whom Gordon Rorke was the most obvious, started to drag their back foot way over the line so that the back foot ended up on the popping crease. Instead of doing the logical thing and saying that the back foot had to STAY behind the line, they introduced the front foot no-ball rule.
) is to do with one dayers though.
