Scotland narrowly failed to qualify for next year's cricket world cup today, when a combination of bad weather and a poor umpiring decision saw them lose to the once mighty West Indies by only 5 runs when heavy rain stopped play.   I know the VAR system in football is getting a bad press right now, but its equivalent in cricket, the DRS system, has been used at the top level for years reasonably successfully.  Unfortunately it was not being used in the world cup qualification tournament just coming to an end, and one of Scotland's best batsmen was on the rough end of a very poor lbw decision , which, had DRS been in use, would certainly have been overturned in Scotland's favour.  On top of that, Scotland lost out when rain stopped play with about 14 overs left, when they needed 74 runs to win at little more than 5 an over, when the infamous Duckworth/Lewis method of deciding rain delayed matches came into force, indicating that Scotland were 5 runs below the 'par' score when rain washed out the match.

Everyone knows that in almost all one day matches there is a huge increase in the batting side's scoring rate towards the end of an innings, so how D/W can deduce that with 14 overs left Scotland would not have been able to marginally increase their scoring rate to achieve the required runs is just incomprehensible.

So a historic victory over an established international team, and qualification for  cricket's world cup, which looked on the cards, for most of the day was denied them.

Bad luck Scotland.  You really were 'robbed' today.

I was following the game with interest.  It is a real shame, not only because of the unlucky circumstances, but also because this was on the back of a ridiculous decision by the ICC to reduce the numbers in the finals from 14 to 10. With the top 8 nations in the rankings being exempt from qualifying it left only 2 slots for everyone else which included the test status teams of the West Indies and Zimbabwe.  Zimbabwe are now favourites to join the West Indies in the finals.  Whilst other sports are widening out their World competitions and allowing smaller nations the chance to compete at the highest level, Cricket is going the other way.  With the World Cup next year being held in England and Wales it would have been brilliant if Scotland could have been a participant.  Sadly, it is not to be   The ICC should hang their heads in shame.

As a Qualified umpire I can only say that LBW decision  was a total disgrace.  If  Iwould have given that in the Lancashire League I would have been sacked from umpiring  any more. Also I am quite surprised that a very good Irish team is not in the mix.

Having said all that I feel that football has gone too far in widening the finals  . I got shot down in flames on another forum  for suggesting the same.

Scottish cricketers and Irish cricketers can qualify to play for England as Owen Morgan and others have proved. Arguably although born in India Douglas Jardine   ( a Scot ) ranks amongst the best captain ever to lead England . I would be happy to see Dorrington and possibly Sharif   qualify for England.

14 hours ago, Laurence said:

.......I would be happy to see Dorrington and possibly Sharif   qualify for England.

Maybe after today's abject performance against New Zealand in the first test,  England will be finding English 'grannies' for the whole of the Scottish team to get them to change allegiance.

Edited March 22, 20188 yr by Caley Mad In Berks

I don't think they need grannies  I think the only proviso is that if a player plays for England he must wait  5 years before returning to his home country

Why didn't they do the sensible thing and restart the game after the rain stopped? One of the fundamental weaknesses of cricket is that, if they HAVE to stop because it rains, they don't rearrange the lost time. I mean, this is RAIN we're talking about. It tends to be fairly common on our planet so allowances should surely be made for it.

The frequency with which cricket matches are decided by the randomness of simple precipitation is quite astonishing and the Vera Duckworth Method (which sounds more like a means of contraception!) appears not to be all that reliable. In test cricket they don't even have that and I believe, for instance, that England won The Ashes in ??2005??, simply because rain stopped play.

I agree with much of what has been said but, even so, the poor umpiring decision and the vagaries of the D/L system should not detract from the magnificent achievement in bowling out a still formidable West Indies side for under two hundred. Our lads can return home with their heads held high.

The Australian Test team in Cape Town however, should be hanging their heads in shame and Smith and Bancroft should be banned from all forms of the game for a minimum of six months.

I agree, but for all that, I doubt that ball tampering has as much influence on the outcome of a match as diving in football. 

Of couse, it can be difficult to be certain whether a player has dived or not, but where there is no doubt lengthy bans should follow. 

Well, so much for lengthy bans.  Smith only 1 match plus a fine, and Bancroft only a fine. Joke.  Mind you ball tampering has gone on for years and usually unpunished, including, if I remember, a certain England captain, Mike Atherton.

Quote

 

I think we have not heard the last of the fines  or the bans. The Prime Minister of Australia is on the case and he is furious. 

Australia  is a country I feel will not tolerate this kind of publicity

Michael Clarke the former captain said, "" It is a nightmare, I can't wake up from ""

Australia will be merciless on these guys

Scotland did well , but  what has happened to the West Indies, once the mighty power , that used to blast all before it ,  ??????

 

It seems that quite a few of them have been at it over the years so why not apply a radical remedy in the form of a thin Kevlar coating on cricket balls? Kevlar is an extremely robust polymer which can stop bullets, so a thin layer on a cricket ball should surely prevent differential wear.

On the other hand, if cricket is so inflexible that they won't even add on time at the end to allow for anything lost to rain, I couldn't see them coming to terms with this simple but radical solution. to cheating.

I just wish there was as straightforward a solution to cheating in other sports by way of drug taking.

Edited March 26, 20188 yr by Charles Bannerman

But Charles, a Kevlar coating would interfere with the normal and perfectly legitimate tampering with the ball.  Ensuring that one side of the ball is shinier than the other to promote swing is a key aspect of the game.  This is achieved by the vigorous rubbing of one side of the ball on the thigh resulting in one side of the ball maintaining its shine and trousers requiring to be washed more frequently than would otherwise be necessary.  If the hand that is holding the non polished side  has previously come into contact with a bit of bare soil (such as when getting a feel for the moisture content of the ground) then any roughening of that side of ball due to contact with the dry earth when shining the ball will, of course, be entirely accidental. 

This notion of "legitimate tampering" is beginning to sound a bit like the question of which substances should be allowed and which should be banned as performance enhancing. Where does, or should the dividing line lie? I have no real knowledge of cricket at all, but if differential polishing and roughening of the ball is all that important, may there not be a case for abandoning all restraints on doing this, which could have two benefits?

Firstly, it will eliminate ball tampering as the issue which is seriously clouding the game. And secondly, if a differential ball surface is more difficult for batsmen to deal with, then scrapping limits on achieving this would have two major benefits:- shortening games (qv George Bernard Shaw's reference to "eternity") and hence making them less likely to be affected by rain which currently seems to be a major determinant of the outcome of cricket matches.

I think being whacked for six would knock off the most fierce coating - The white ball not used in test match has a coating which does not shine up so easily , hence it doesn't swing at high speed

You also have to accommodate the spinner who needs to grip the ball .  The structure of the red ball has been  the same for decades, I can't see it being altered.

Tony locke a fantastic English spinner of years gone by used to rub the ball in the sawdust provided  for filling the bowlers foot holes , until he was stopped .  by a combination of aggrieved fast bowlers and the authorities.

The ball has an active life being slammed into the stands over and over , hitting boundary boards , being soaked in rain water  .  Down under they use a different ball to the British one, which I am told behaves  less likely to swing.

It is the battle between bat and ball which makes cricket the most difficult of sports to play and to master.

 

The twelve month bans imposed by Cricket Australia on Smith and Warnner seem appropriate and proportionate. A personal blow for the best batsman in the world currently who's reputation will forever be tarnished. I feel a little sorry for young Bankcroft who was clearly selected as the fall guy.

That said, I find it difficult to believe that these were the only individuals involved. Smith originally stated that it was the idea of the 'leadership group' of players. Bankcroft is too young and inexperienced to be included in that description so it now seems that that was a group of two. Very implausible.

On ‎27‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 3:22 PM, Laurence said:

I think being whacked for six would knock off the most fierce coating.

 

Fierce doesn't begin to describe Kevlar, Laurence. It's used in bullet proof vests, in place of steel in tyres and in brake linings and it's especially impervious to impact so I believe could especially well deal with being knocked for six.

Also, apart from eliminating ball tampering, there could be cost savings due to balls not wearing out nearly as quickly. However I'm not as sure now about Kevlar balls shortening games as I originally suggested. This was based on batsmen being able to reach targets quicker with a straighter running ball, but on the other hand it might also be more difficult for them to be got out. But then again, if Kevlar balls made it easier to score runs this would surely make the game more entertaining by reducing the frequency of batspersons stopping the ball dead before earning a round of that slow, pedantic hand clapping in response to nothing having happened.

7 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

Fierce doesn't begin to describe Kevlar, Laurence. It's used in bullet proof vests, in place of steel in tyres and in brake linings and it's especially impervious to impact so I believe could especially well deal with being knocked for six.

Also, apart from eliminating ball tampering, there could be cost savings due to balls not wearing out nearly as quickly. However I'm not as sure now about Kevlar balls shortening games as I originally suggested. This was based on batsmen being able to reach targets quicker with a straighter running ball, but on the other hand it might also be more difficult for them to be got out. But then again, if Kevlar balls made it easier to score runs this would surely make the game more entertaining by reducing the frequency of batspersons stopping the ball dead before earning a round of that slow, pedantic hand clapping in response to nothing having happened.

A post from someone who knows much about the properties of Kevlar and very little about the subtleties of cricket.

14 hours ago, Kingsmills said:

A post from someone who knows much about the properties of Kevlar and very little about the subtleties of cricket.

 I really don't see too much that's subtle about a game that goes on for the best part of a week and, despite one team gubbing the other out of sight, ends in a draw because it happened to rain!

As for the ball tampering business, this is no different from drug taking, diving to "win" a penalty or Russians with dodgy devices on their sword tips. It's deliberate cheating.

Not many of England's games go on for the best part of a week these days. 

Ball tampering is cheating, but you don't get round the problem by stopping the legitimate shining of the ball. It would be about as silly as stopping diving in football by making tripping opponents legitimate.

10 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

 the legitimate shining of the ball. 

What's so special about shining the ball that can't be dispensed with? I know it makes the thing swing a bit but why differentiate between surfaces? It almost seems as if there must be some list of things that cricketers are allowed to rub their balls on and things that they are not - banned surfaces rather than banned substances. I suppose it's a case of what's more important to the game - players getting to rub their balls or the elimination of cheating by a simple coat of a substance which, however much rubbing you do and on what, won't budge.

This would also save the laundry lady (sexism alert!) a lot of work currently invested in removing red stains from white trousers.

Well, today's tremendous victory at the Grange against the number one ODI side in the world goes a long way to making up for missing out on the World Cup and also shows how short sighted and narrow the ICC are being in excluding so many promising associate nations from their premier one day tournament.

Edited June 10, 20187 yr by Kingsmills

Yes, an absolutely outstanding performance from Scotland, and richly deserved.  One to tell the grandchildren about.

As an Englishman I have to applaud a magnificent performance by Scotland, particularly so as England fielded a very strong team.  All of Scotland's top order batsmen contributed and then the bowlers stuck at it when it looked at one point as though England might knock off the runs with several overs to spare.  As Kingsmills says, this really shows up the idiocy of the ICC.  Cricket really needs more teams playing at the top level for the game to survive, but I guess in the short term, the ICC are (like other sports) being dictated to by the TV companies.  Hopefully they will both reflect on the impact a game like this would have on viewing figures had it happened in the world cup.

Agreed. The ICC should really be promoting the expansion of a game only taken seriously in a dozen or so countries instead of which they seem obsessed with maximising TV and other commercial income in the short term.