[Bluto11]

bad light?

bogus. I saw some pics, how do the officals determint bad light?

[ScouseCat]

Originally Posted by Bluto11

bad light?

bogus. I saw some pics, how do the officals determint bad light?

The umpires usually have a light metre device which gives them a number reading to measure the light with. Once the number gets below what is determinned to be the minimum by the ICC, they can offer the light to the batsman.

[ScouseCat]

Darkness wins in Durban

A classic Test match was denied a positive finish by the darkness which enfolded Durban on the final afternoon. England, armed with the new ball, had just taken their eighth wicket when the umpires took the players off. Michael Vaughan sat, frustrated, on the outfield – but he could console himself with the thought that his side narrowly missed out on an astonishing victory after being outplayed for the first two days.

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/C...30DEC2004.html



----------

'South Africa got out of jail,' says Vaughan

"An epic!" declared Michael Vaughan, as he strode in to face the media after the second Test at Durban had ended in a nailbiting draw. In the end, it was bad light that saved South Africa from probable defeat and so prevented England from extending their winning streak to a record nine matches, but Vaughan had few complaints about the outcome.

http://aus.cricinfo.com/link_to_data...30DEC2004.html



----------

'I think we were a bit lucky at the end there'

Graeme Smith admitted that fortune had smiled on South Africa in the closing stages of the second Test at Durban, but praised the tenacity of his team, since lesser sides might have crumbled in the face of such a turnaround. "I think we were a bit lucky at the end there," he said, "but we deserve a lot of credit for the way we fought, after being on top for two days."

http://aus.cricinfo.com/link_to_data...30DEC2004.html

[Andy TAUS]

Michael Vaughan (England captain): "To be honest it was pretty dark out there," he admitted, "and when we were batting on the third day we were offered similar light at a similar time, and accepted it."

It cuts both ways, unless some posters on this forum have forgotten that fact of cricketing life.

No-one was "cheated". They just didn't "win" quickly enough.

[almango]

Originally Posted by Bluto11

bad light?

bogus. I saw some pics, how do the officals determint bad light?

They are required to determine if conditions are unsafe for play by eye, then they take a light metre reading. That reading is then used as a benchmark for play to continue. I saw Taufel interviewed and he said that both teams, the umpires and the match referee had agreed before the series that bad light would be offered when the artificial lighting was the dominant form of lighting. I guess they measure that by how many shadows the players cast.

[comme]

Certainly no-one was cheated, although I was disappointed that the umpires didn't give England the chance to bowl spin, given that the light was bad.

We must also wonder quite how bad it was given that Ntini had managed to hit Harmisson for 4 fours the in the final over.

Still, given that England were bowled out so cheaply on the first day a draw was not a bad result.

[Andy TAUS]

Originally Posted by comme

Certainly no-one was cheated, although I was disappointed that the umpires didn't give England the chance to bowl spin, given that the light was bad.

We must also wonder quite how bad it was given that Ntini had managed to hit Harmisson for 4 fours the in the final over.

Still, given that England were bowled out so cheaply on the first day a draw was not a bad result.

In cricket, the rules are quite clear. The "bad light" option is always offered by the umpires to the batting team. There's never any discussion by the umpires with the bowling/fielding team as to what the bowling/fielding side want, unless the batting side has made a decision to bat-on.

If Vaughan had wanted to use his spinners in order to extend the playing time (and England's potential winning time) he should have started using them earlier. Instead he continued to use the fast bowlers in the condition. He should have known the consequences under the cricket & match rules.

It was VAUGHAN'S misjudgement & mistiming, not the UMPIRES'.

[sinner78]

Originally Posted by Andy TAUS

In cricket, the rules are quite clear. The "bad light" option is always offered by the umpires to the batting team. There's never any discussion by the umpires with the bowling/fielding team as to what the bowling/fielding side want, unless the batting side has made a decision to bat-on.

Its normal for the umpires to offer the light to the batsmen .Things is....in the first test Graeme smith persuaded the umpires to take the players off even though englands batsmen wanted to stay on .
I guess they should show some consistency in future.

If Vaughan had wanted to use his spinners in order to extend the playing time (and England's potential winning time) he should have started using them earlier. Instead he continued to use the fast bowlers in the condition. He should have known the consequences under the cricket & match rules.

Giles bowled a long spell even though he was injured .Vaughan is only a part time spinner so that is basically all our spin options in this match.

When you're trying to win the match you've gotta use your best bowlers and not use vaughans part time off-spin.

It was VAUGHAN'S misjudgement & mistiming, not the UMPIRES'.

Bollocks..
Vaughan wasnt to know the light would go bad 15 overs early .He aint psychic is he??

There was 15 overs left ,the fast bowlers had a new ball in their hands and two tailend wickets left to take .
South africa got lucky that the weather saved them another humiliation .

[sendorange]

Unfortunate that it ended a draw, but it was a brilliant comeback by England in this game, well up against it after the first innings, but they did wonderfully well in the second.

[Bluto11]

can't they use lights to play until the same time every day?