Skip to content

Play of the day: what a snag in center left field!

Feb 6, 2013, 2:02 PM EDT

OK, it’s cricket, not baseball. And I don’t know anything about cricket. But I do know that this was fun to watch. And that if Michael Bourn doesn’t work out, maybe this guy can play center for the Mets:

We’re almost to baseball season.

(thanks to Dan Lee for the heads up)

  1. pjmitch - Feb 6, 2013 at 2:11 PM

    Can we get the Mets to sign the “hitter” also? He nailed that.

    Also what is with those hats?

    • cur68 - Feb 6, 2013 at 2:21 PM

      Australia has the highest skin cancer rates in the world. Trust me: you wear a big hat down there unless you want your medical records listing the term “melanoma” a lot.

    • blacksables - Feb 6, 2013 at 6:55 PM

      What most people don’t realize is the incredible scouting that went into that. 11 players on a field that goes 360 from the stump.

      Great play.

      Great scouting to have him there. They knew where the batsman hit to.

  2. chomsky66 - Feb 6, 2013 at 2:13 PM

    What’s with the gold Darth Vader at 0:15?

    • alexo0 - Feb 6, 2013 at 2:19 PM

      It’s his love child with C3PO.

    • wonkypenguin - Feb 6, 2013 at 2:19 PM

      I thought it was C3PO. /also I have never seen Star Wars so I am attempting this and if I am wrong, I understand being barred from the internetz forever but I tried…

      • indaburg - Feb 6, 2013 at 2:38 PM

        Forget the great catch. You have never seen Star Wars?! How is this so?

      • Chris Fiorentino - Feb 6, 2013 at 2:44 PM

        Never seen Star Wars? None of the 6 movies? Wow…I’m actually kinda envious because I wish I could watch them for the first time again.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 6, 2013 at 3:18 PM

        6? Where do you get 6? There’s Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi…
        ;)

    • paint771 - Feb 6, 2013 at 2:36 PM

      According to the Marylebone Cricket Club’s 2000 Code 4th Edition – the MCC have served internationally as the custodians of the “Laws of Cricket” since 1787 and serve as the definitive advisers to the global Governing Body (in the form of the International Cricket Council) – the Golden Vader has been an integral part of wicket play since first introduced by colonial clubs in roughly the 1823-1836 period (with later revivals in the latter part of that century)

      Consulting Law 29 (Batsman out of his ground), Section 3 subsections i and ii, one can clearly read:

      . Position of non-striker

      (i)The non-striker, when standing at the bowler’s end, should be positioned on the opposite side of the wicket to that from which the ball is being delivered, unless a request to do otherwise is granted by the umpire.

      (ii)The umpire, in test, exhibition, or imperial play, may grant, off wicket-end of the batsman, a Golden Vader allowance. The Golden Vader may not directly (through bodily disruption such as saber-play or through deployment of IT-O Interrogators onto the pitch (ref. Law 10 (Preparation and maintenance of the playing area)) impact the field, but may, if the captain has not yet declared the inning close, instigate indirect disruption (ref. Law 42 (Fair and unfair play), section 8 (Deliberate bowling of high full pitched balls) subsection iv (Vadering the field of play)) via Force or intimidation of any hit or sticky wicket (ref. Law 9 (The bowling, popping and return creases) and Law 26 (Bye and Leg bye)).

      This tactic was later perfected, also in New World cricket, by C.L. Bixby of the Longwood Cricket Club of Massachusetts and saw particular use in their sterling play during the famous match versus the West Indies cricket team at the Bourda ground in Georgetown, Guyana in 1888, during which the key batsman was dismissed, but dismissed Handled the ball (the batting side scoring the runs completed before the offence) after becoming convinced that these were not the wickets he was looking for.

      Why do you Americans have such a hard time understanding cricket?

      • indaburg - Feb 6, 2013 at 2:41 PM

        I’m sorry, paint, I didn’t understand any of that. I only speak American.

      • rvnc - Feb 6, 2013 at 2:50 PM

        Love this on a level nobody else on this site will ever ever understand. Massive respect brother….

      • steelpenbucs87 - Feb 6, 2013 at 2:55 PM

        I want you to know that in my mind I’m standing at my desk clapping for this right now. I am not in reality because I work in corporate America and such “disruptive action” would be frowned upon and because I’m not strictly “wearing pants” at the moment.

      • Roger Moore - Feb 6, 2013 at 3:02 PM

        You don’t expect us to buy that, do you? Everyone knows that Philadelphia was the only place in the USA where cricket was played seriously enough to be involved in international play.

      • cur68 - Feb 6, 2013 at 3:07 PM

        paint FTW

        golf clap

      • paint771 - Feb 6, 2013 at 3:20 PM

        @Roger Moore: You, sir, do not know your cricket!

      • hep3 - Feb 6, 2013 at 4:07 PM

        My favorite cricket reference was an underground sound bite of an angry Tommy Lasorda at a postgame clubhouse interview in the early 80’s when Steve Garvey did not have a good day in a clutch situation. It went something like,

        “Garvey! Garvey! He’d a made a great bleepin’ cricket player; trying to hit the ball on one bleepin’ bounce!”

        Nobody was safe from fatso’s wrath.

      • stlouis1baseball - Feb 6, 2013 at 5:00 PM

        Paint:
        With all due respect…I have no idea what you just stated.

        Kiwi: Please decipher Paints post.

      • kiwicricket - Feb 6, 2013 at 5:29 PM

        When the dude is bowling, the batter not hitting should prob stand on the other side of the wicket from which he is bowling. Just to avoid confusion…

        I am not explaining the ‘Handled Ball’ rule on here, sorry. Just pump ‘handled ball’ into google, it will come up instantly with the cricket def. Promise!!

      • rvnc - Feb 6, 2013 at 5:36 PM

        @stlouis.
        It’s essentially nonsense, but as a cricket fan the fact he’s managed to combine Star Wars with the rules of cricket to a predominantly american audience who have absolutely no idea what he’s talking about is hysterical.

      • deadeyedesign23 - Feb 7, 2013 at 8:49 AM

        “Cricket?! You gotta know what a crumpet is to understand cricket!”

    • rvnc - Feb 6, 2013 at 3:42 PM

      I tried to come up with a reggae star wars once. It was to be known as ‘Jar Wars’. We had the names for four of the six (allegedly) movies
      The Revenge of the Spliff
      A New Dope
      The Empire Smokes Black
      Return of the Dreadi

      Alas suitable names for the first two movies eluded us. Perhaps the HBT community could take up the baton.

  3. cur68 - Feb 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM

    Dang I miss cricket. 5 days in the sun drinking beer.

    • rvnc - Feb 6, 2013 at 2:23 PM

      watching cricket is amazing. You start off about 11am, are nicely sozzled by lunch, and then spend the afternoon basking in the sunshine doing drunk mexican waves and singing increasing rude songs with your mates. Wonderful.

      • cur68 - Feb 6, 2013 at 2:30 PM

        By the way, that catch was at deep mid on wasn’t it?

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 6, 2013 at 3:20 PM

        You start off about 11am, are nicely sozzled by lunch,

        Bullet Tooth Tony: A bookie’s got blagged last night.
        Avi: Blagged? Speak English to me, Tony. I thought this country spawned the fucking language, and so far nobody seems to speak it.

      • rvnc - Feb 6, 2013 at 3:35 PM

        ‘Sozzled': A colloquilism used by Englishmen to describe a state of happy inebriation-other terms include ‘merry’ ‘bit pissed’ ‘tipsy’ or ‘relaxed’.

        Not to be confused with the more severe states of drunkeness such as ‘well away’ ‘three sheets in the wind’ ‘smashed’ ‘circling the airport’ or ‘tired and emotional’.

        If drinking continues it eventually leads to an utterly inebriated individual incapable of anything except vomiting, which is known as ‘wasted’

      • paperlions - Feb 6, 2013 at 3:41 PM

        I think you misspelled “Toof”.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 6, 2013 at 3:56 PM

        circling the airport

        I’m definitely going to have to work this into my repertoire.

      • rvnc - Feb 6, 2013 at 4:09 PM

        ‘Circling the airport’ comes from a wonderful story involving the late Boris Yeltsin. Scheduled to arrive a Shannon airport in Ireland his plane didn’t land and continued to circle the airport for several minutes before landing. It later emerged that Yeltsin had been drunk when the plane intitally made its approach to land, and had to be given time to sober up before meeting the Irish Premier on the tarmac.

    • sportsdrenched - Feb 6, 2013 at 4:14 PM

      This is what happens at NASCAR races, except you start 8am.

  4. rvnc - Feb 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM

    As a cricket fan (from the UK) this is why it never fails to amuse me when broadcasters go crazy whenever a dude does anything bare-handed. In cricket all catches are made bare-handed (except the wicket keeper) and yes the ball is just as hard as a baseball. Not saying anything bad against baseball, a sport I love dearly, but next time someone goes bezerk describing a barehander think about this guy and the fact that we have to make these kind of plays all the time…

    • cur68 - Feb 6, 2013 at 2:25 PM

      In my experience a cricket ball’s harder than a baseball. I’d appreciate anyone knowing better or same chiming in with an opinion/fact on this. Regardless, given how much easier it is to square up a hard shot with a cricket bat than a baseball bat, you can ratchet up your appreciation for that catch a bit more.

      • dlf9 - Feb 6, 2013 at 2:34 PM

        The cricket ball is solid wood while a baseball is leather covered yarn and cork. The ball is definitely harder in the former. But I’d suggest because of the size and weight, it is easier to throw / hit a baseball at a greater velocity so the slight amount of ‘give’ from the baseball is negated by the greater force.

      • rvnc - Feb 6, 2013 at 2:42 PM

        A baseball stings the bare hand a lot more. In terms of absolute hardness the cricket ball is probably superior, but the laqour (can’t spell sorry) on the surface of the baseball means it slaps into the hand whereas the outside of the cricket ball lends itself better to being caught so with good technique you can absorb the impact better. As regards being hit by either ball i’d definitely prefer the baseball because the cricket ball seam is much thicker and can really leave some horrible marks on the skin.

      • cur68 - Feb 6, 2013 at 3:03 PM

        It turns out that quite a bit has been written on this topic. A casual peruse of the intertubes turns up that cricket balls do not enjoy the elastic impact that baseball’s do, hence they are slower, but they are heavier.

        Cricket ball weight 155.9 to 163.0 g per wikipedia (trust with caution).
        Baseball’s weigh 141.745 to 148.83225 grams.

        So dusts chalk of cardigan, attempts to light pipe the formula is:
        F = ma
        Use the average speed of struck homerun (depends on a ridiculous number of things)
        And the average speed of struck for 6 (ditto)

        Then; a = (vf–vi)/Δt or F = (mvf–mvi)/Δt

        If we had all the numbers for average bat weights, pitch/bowl speed, ball/bat contact time, swing speed, relative humidity, and park size and could adjust for new baseball vs continuous use of the same cricket ball then we could do this comparatively. However absent all those ridiculous numbers what we have is the makings of a fine pub discussion in which sides will be taken, turf contested, and no actual result beyond getting piss drunk will result.

      • rvnc - Feb 6, 2013 at 3:46 PM

        Yeah lets just get pissed instead cur…

      • kiwicricket - Feb 6, 2013 at 5:36 PM

        Depends on how old the cricket ball is.
        I am with you with regards to catching a baseball bare handed. It makes a strange slapping sensation no matter how experienced you are at catching it. Different outer cover makes the difference I think.

        It is real popular now days to warm up using a mitt. Get your practice catches in obviously, but the mitt comes out for menial stuff. The pain of the ball slapping directly on the palm of the glove is not desirable! Dear Dog I hate that feeling.

      • blacksables - Feb 7, 2013 at 3:04 AM

        Kevin Mitchell says he’s not impressed.

      • blacksables - Feb 7, 2013 at 3:06 AM

      • blacksables - Feb 7, 2013 at 3:08 AM

  5. quintjs - Feb 6, 2013 at 2:21 PM

    Slightly surprised Craig missed a key takeaway from that video – umpire in the stand reply system.

  6. nolanwiffle - Feb 6, 2013 at 2:26 PM

    Good Lord! Did you see how high he reached above the top of the “wall”?

    • rvnc - Feb 6, 2013 at 3:46 PM

      Actually the ‘wall’ is not the edge of the playing surface. The little purple markers behind designate the boundary. So what makes the catch really impressive is that he didn’t overbalance and step over those markers, as that would have voided the catch and made it an equilvalent of a home run.

    • andrewproughcfe - Feb 6, 2013 at 3:49 PM

      He almost had to skip over that 4-inch bump to catch that ball. And you’ve got to love the way he rolled the ball back in the general direction of the pitcher. What an arm.

  7. bisonaudit - Feb 6, 2013 at 2:29 PM

    Not a cricket aficionado by any means but I think that would be deep mid-wicket rather than left field.

    Cricket is miles ahead on replay. They’ve been using Hawkeye for LBW for a long time now. There’s no reason why baseball couldn’t get there for balls and strikes as well.

    rvnc, I agree on the barehanded thing but for baseball to palatable to a mass audience they’ve got to make 51 or 54 outs in three hours not 40 or less in 5 days.

    • rvnc - Feb 6, 2013 at 2:47 PM

      I think you’ll find this is a 20/20 match in which regulations state each side has to bowl its overs in less than 90 minutes. ;)
      Absolutely agree about hawkeye. In many respects it would even better for baseball because in cricket the trajectory isn’t 100% certain (because the ball hits the pad obviously). But for balls and strikes you could make those calculations perfectly.

  8. dlf9 - Feb 6, 2013 at 2:30 PM

    That is on-side rather than left field. And the long-on man snagged it before it became a six. Very nice play, even if it looked like a slow arm side spin bowler.

    I’ve been visiting India on and off for five years, have even been to a couple of professional matches (go Sachin Tendulkar!) and played in a game after work akin to a company slo-pitch softball contest, and still don’t understand 99% of the cricket rules. But it is a very good excuse for a Kingfisher or two.

  9. rvnc - Feb 6, 2013 at 2:44 PM

    For the record the catch is definitely deep mid wicket. Absolute screamer. Kieron Pollard is about 6″5 and is an absolute beast. Hits the ball a loooong way…..

  10. kiwicricket - Feb 6, 2013 at 3:29 PM

    That settles it. I am going to start bombarding ‘HBT Feedback’ with cricket highlights until the Baseball season starts.

    • cur68 - Feb 6, 2013 at 4:21 PM

      Bring. It. On.

      • kiwicricket - Feb 6, 2013 at 5:00 PM

        New Zealand getting owned by our former Colonial masters…

      • rvnc - Feb 6, 2013 at 5:22 PM

        Jimmy Anderson aka ‘The Burnley Express’!

      • kiwicricket - Feb 6, 2013 at 5:38 PM

        Yes!

      • cur68 - Feb 6, 2013 at 5:54 PM

        Dear Dog in Heaven. Full toss, right to the kisser. Tough kid.

      • cur68 - Feb 6, 2013 at 5:56 PM

        Hmm. On the graphic it bounced. Not used to such good replay, what with watching all this baseball. I was unprepared for the Hawkeye angle and I declared an erroneous full toss. My bad.

        Dear Bud Selig: See how this is done?

  11. umrguy42 - Feb 6, 2013 at 5:00 PM

    I found this a damn useful guide to cricket from one of my favorite webcomic makers, with attempts to relate things to baseball.

    http://www.dangermouse.net/cricket/

  12. kiwicricket - Feb 6, 2013 at 5:08 PM

    Can I mention that the ‘Left field’ and ‘Right field’ ‘SS’ and ‘2B’ definition swap sides accordingly depending on the batsman being left or right handed.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Angels' 2011 overhaul finally paying off?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. R. Castillo (3265)
  2. G. Stanton (2554)
  3. A. Rizzo (2329)
  4. H. Ryu (2089)
  5. J. Hamilton (2042)
  1. N. Arenado (2012)
  2. M. Trout (2004)
  3. E. Gattis (1917)
  4. D. Ortiz (1828)
  5. A. Pujols (1787)