Comments on SERIOUSLY, NINE?TypePad2013-01-05T05:51:10ZTony Teahttps://aftergrogblog.blogs.com/cricket/tag:typepad.com,2003:https://aftergrogblog.blogs.com/cricket/2013/01/seriously-nine/comments/atom.xml/Carrot commented on 'SERIOUSLY, NINE?'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341cb34453ef017ee703f4f4970d2013-01-06T22:35:23Z2013-01-06T23:06:58ZCarrothttp://www.scottwellstead.comPS, who came up with Nine's list? Slatts? It often bewilders me how little guys that have made their living...<p>PS, who came up with Nine's list? Slatts? It often bewilders me how little guys that have made their living out of the game for decades actually know about it, particularly when it's such a statistics/rules based sport. It's not as though the ten modes of dismissal are that obscure anyway, in fact it's not so long ago that they quizzed the players at the AB Medal: <a href="http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d8ZVHxDRrG8" rel="nofollow">http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d8ZVHxDRrG8</a><br />
<br />
</p>Carrot commented on 'SERIOUSLY, NINE?'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341cb34453ef017ee703e5bd970d2013-01-06T22:24:55Z2013-01-06T23:06:58ZCarrothttp://www.scottwellstead.comI've always wondered about hitting the ball twice. Has there been a recorded instance of it in living memory? And...<p>I've always wondered about hitting the ball twice. Has there been a recorded instance of it in living memory? And what do you have to do for it to count? Edge it in the air and then hit it again? Obviously edging the ball on to your pads and then hitting it away from the stumps doesn't count, because I've seen that on countless occasions. </p>Big Ramifications commented on 'SERIOUSLY, NINE?'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341cb34453ef017d3f89c769970c2013-01-06T04:40:16Z2013-01-06T05:18:32ZBig RamificationsMust Watch!!!! Top 11 Weirdest Dismissals in Cricket! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jczeBJnzOQU We are all familiar with the once-yearly discussion you have with...<p><b>Must Watch!!!! Top 11 Weirdest Dismissals in Cricket!</b></p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jczeBJnzOQU" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jczeBJnzOQU</a></p>
<p>We are all familiar with the once-yearly discussion you have with kids, foreigners et al, where "it doesn't have to hit your legs to be dismissed LBW."</p>
<p>I must admit I've never seen an example, it's always just been in theory. #6 has Slashin' Shachin getting dismissed LBW while trying to duck a Pidge bouncer. I reckon Hawkeye would have had it clipping the top of middle. *does the "bunny ears" send off*</p>
<p>The last one is worth a look, too. Trying to duck a bean ball. Getting clean bowled by a corker yorker instead. Ha! *does the "bunny ears" send off*</p>Big Ramifications commented on 'SERIOUSLY, NINE?'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341cb34453ef017c355ad83b970b2013-01-06T04:38:25Z2013-01-06T05:18:32ZBig RamificationsGroan.<p>Groan.</p>m0nty commented on 'SERIOUSLY, NINE?'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341cb34453ef017d3f89ac80970c2013-01-06T04:23:22Z2013-01-06T05:18:32Zm0ntyI never got how Nine was Still The One. Surely ABC1 has always and will always be the One. Nine...<p>I never got how Nine was Still The One. Surely ABC1 has always and will always be the One. Nine is the Nine.</p>Big Ramifications commented on 'SERIOUSLY, NINE?'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341cb34453ef017c355ab4ed970b2013-01-06T04:16:16Z2013-01-06T05:18:32ZBig RamificationsI would have gone with haddock.<p>I would have gone with haddock.</p>The Don has risen commented on 'SERIOUSLY, NINE?'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341cb34453ef017c355a73cf970b2013-01-06T03:32:31Z2013-01-06T03:32:31ZThe Don has risenI might add retired out is theoretical until the end of the innings. A captain (not the Umpire) can allow...<p>I might add retired out is theoretical until the end of the innings. </p>
<p>A captain (not the Umpire) can allow a retired batsman to bat again</p>Tony Tea commented on 'SERIOUSLY, NINE?'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341cb34453ef017c35583ba4970b2013-01-05T21:02:19Z2013-01-05T21:02:19ZTony TeaCaught and Bowled (Law 32-30) falls into the same category of dismissal as Handled the Ball Twice (Law 33-34).<p>Caught and Bowled (Law 32-30) falls into the same category of dismissal as Handled the Ball Twice (Law 33-34).</p>Lindsay Horne commented on 'SERIOUSLY, NINE?'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341cb34453ef017d3f84e0b3970c2013-01-05T14:52:47Z2013-01-05T14:52:47ZLindsay HorneIs caught and bowled,not a method of dismissal, therefore there are 11 methods of dismissal ??<p>Is caught and bowled,not a method of dismissal, therefore there are 11 <br />
methods of dismissal ??</p>The Don has risen commented on 'SERIOUSLY, NINE?'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341cb34453ef017d3f827efb970c2013-01-05T06:55:10Z2013-01-05T08:28:13ZThe Don has risenyou can no longer Mankad! you must throw it before you start your action. Therefore it is no-ball (for throwing)...<p>you can no longer Mankad! you must throw it before you start your action.</p>
<p>Therefore it is no-ball (for throwing) and out run out!</p>Tony Tea commented on 'SERIOUSLY, NINE?'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341cb34453ef017c35533e13970b2013-01-05T06:03:14Z2013-01-05T08:28:13ZTony Teahttp://aftergrogblog.blogs.com/cricket/I'm actually quite surprised I have not heard more about Nine's stuff up.<p>I'm actually quite surprised I have not heard more about Nine's stuff up.</p>@tkyc commented on 'SERIOUSLY, NINE?'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341cb34453ef017ee6f69ac3970d2013-01-05T06:02:08Z2013-01-05T08:28:13Z@tkychttp://footymaths.blogspot.comDuffers! Hoping the coverage contract sees Nein suffer Law 31<p>Duffers!</p>
<p>Hoping the coverage contract sees Nein suffer Law 31</p>