https://www.codesports.com.au/cricket/ashes/cricket-news-2023-dukes-launch-investigation-into-ashes-ballswap-fiasco/news-story/de338620a979677cf42638edd95f3529

"Investigation launched" BAHAHAHA

Get over it champs. Once again they'll dish out the "whingeing Poms" line left right and centre but they're the masters of it themselves: but I guess it's in the distant DNA so will always surface.

On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 6:55:48 PM UTC+10, Richard Dixon wrote:
> https://www.codesports.com.au/cricket/ashes/cricket-news-2023-dukes-launch-investigation-into-ashes-ballswap-fiasco/news-story/de338620a979677cf42638edd95f3529
>
> "Investigation launched" BAHAHAHA
>
> Get over it champs. Once again they'll dish out the "whingeing Poms" line left right and centre but they're the masters of it themselves: but I guess it's in the distant DNA so will always surface.

Well farnarkler, have a look at the replacement ball and the original ball.
Do you think the condition was comparable?
If not do you think there should be action so it doesn't happen again?

On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 11:27:25 AM UTC+1, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 6:55:48 PM UTC+10, Richard Dixon wrote:
> > https://www.codesports.com.au/cricket/ashes/cricket-news-2023-dukes-launch-investigation-into-ashes-ballswap-fiasco/news-story/de338620a979677cf42638edd95f3529
> >
> > "Investigation launched" BAHAHAHA
> >
> > Get over it champs. Once again they'll dish out the "whingeing Poms" line left right and centre but they're the masters of it themselves: but I guess it's in the distant DNA so will always surface.
> Well farnarkler, have a look at the replacement ball and the original ball.
> Do you think the condition was comparable?
> If not do you think there should be action so it doesn't happen again?

The only point at issue is whether there was another ball closer to that of the ball being replaced. There is nothing in the laws which insists on the replacement ball being close in condition to the ball being replaced. All that is required is that is for the replacement to be the nearest in condition to the discarded ball . Suppose for example a ball splits and half of the leather around the ball is shed after, say, twenty overs. All that is required is for the umpire to adjudicate on the other balls on offer..

RH

On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 11:27:25 UTC+1, Hamish Laws wrote:

> Well farnarkler, have a look at the replacement ball and the original ball.

Are you talking about the ball that after it was changed Aus moved from 135-0 to a strong 264-3 and just 120 or so runs from victory? That one that was so unplayable?

On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:52:50 PM UTC+10, Richard Dixon wrote:
> On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 11:27:25 UTC+1, Hamish Laws wrote:
>
> > Well farnarkler, have a look at the replacement ball and the original ball.
> Are you talking about the ball that after it was changed Aus moved from 135-0 to a strong 264-3 and just 120 or so runs from victory? That one that was so unplayable?

Have a look at the balls, ask yourself whether they've in similar conditions

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

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.

Richard

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.

On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 06:47:41 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
<hamish.laws@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?
Is this entire shit based on a few pictures and some video clips?

max.it

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

> 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

Would you be happy if the other umpire wanted to make that substitution?

On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 10:18:49 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
<hamish.laws@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.

max.it

On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 6:55:48 PM UTC+10, Richard Dixon wrote:
> https://www.codesports.com.au/cricket/ashes/cricket-news-2023-dukes-launch-investigation-into-ashes-ballswap-fiasco/news-story/de338620a979677cf42638edd95f3529
>
> "Investigation launched" BAHAHAHA
>
> Get over it champs. Once again they'll dish out the "whingeing Poms" line left right and centre but they're the masters of it themselves: but I guess it's in the distant DNA so will always surface.

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

In message <f5ae3cde-ca47-4546-be7c-ee92d2bdc3edn@googlegroups.com>,
"wlsut...@gmail.com" <wlsutton54@gmail.com> writes
>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

I think both sides are pretty much equal in that regard, though it
mostly tends to be the fault of the media seizing on and blowing out of
proportion any opportunity for controversy, rather than the players.
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"

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?

On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 00:40:05 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
<hamish.laws@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 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.
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. So
what you have is an unsuitable ball that can't be used and some
replacements that are not worn enough to be suitable.

See the remarks made by the ball maker guy. It makes me think that the
balls aren't match worn at all but just given a net or a knock about.
Only Surrey can answer that.

max.it

In message <q9kuci9acta99bttgooi19lnq4jsgetq8h@4ax.com>, max. it
<max@tea.time> writes
>On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 00:40:05 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
><hamish.laws@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
>>> >> >> >one's condition or there should be more balls available so
>>> >> >> >there are ones available in a similar condition
>>> >> >> > and if the suggestion that the ball was of an earlier type
>>> >> >> >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
>>> >> >>30+ more overs of wear on the ball before it did more. And I'd
>>> >> >>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
>>> >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 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.
>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. So
>what you have is an unsuitable ball that can't be used and some
>replacements that are not worn enough to be suitable.
>
>See the remarks made by the ball maker guy. It makes me think that the
>balls aren't match worn at all but just given a net or a knock about.
>Only Surrey can answer that.
>
>max.it

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. It's clear that in most cases when
the fielding side asks for the ball to be replaced it's for no other
reason than that they hope that the replacement might be harder or swing
or seam more. It's different in the rare cases of the seam or the
leather having suffered notable damage, of course; then replacing the
ball is fair enough.

If nothing else, constant requests to have the ball changed slow down
the over rate. I'd limit it to one request per side per season, after
that leaving it in the hands of the umpires to notice any damage to the
ball.
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"

In message <y3aUqTBTu1zkFwnT@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> writes
>f nothing else, constant requests to have the ball changed slow down
>the over rate. I'd limit it to one request per side per season, after
>that leaving it in the hands of the umpires to notice any damage to the
>ball.

Oops That was meant to be "per session", of course.
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"

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.

alvey

In message <uap90l$2gt1d$1@dont-email.me>, alvey
<Paddy.O.Furniture@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.
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"

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.

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

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.

> 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.

> 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

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.
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.

>So
> what you have is an unsuitable ball that can't be used and some
> replacements that are not worn enough to be suitable.

Possibly, however that's again something that should be investigated and action taken so that it doesn't happen again in an international match
>
> See the remarks made by the ball maker guy. It makes me think that the
> balls aren't match worn at all but just given a net or a knock about.
> Only Surrey can answer that.

On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 08:13:40 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
<hamish.laws@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.
>
>> 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.
>
>> 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.

>
>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.
>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.

Frequent and irregular checks is what your trained to do.
>
>>So
>> what you have is an unsuitable ball that can't be used and some
>> replacements that are not worn enough to be suitable.
>
>Possibly, however that's again something that should be investigated and action taken so that it doesn't happen again in an international match
>>
>> See the remarks made by the ball maker guy. It makes me think that the
>> balls aren't match worn at all but just given a net or a knock about.
>> Only Surrey can answer that.

max.it

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?

On Mon, 07 Aug 2023 09:56:20 +0100, John Hall wrote:

> In message <uap90l$2gt1d$1@dont-email.me>, alvey
> <Paddy.O.Furniture@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.

alvey
Grumbling... "Back in mah day mah fingers would be raw 'n bleedin' at end
of day from bowlin' cutters..."

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?)

> >
> >> 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".
> >
> >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.
> >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.
> 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.