Pathetic Pundit
Originally published on Friday, October 28, 2005
Many times people with zero knowledge get into event reporting or journalism. Here is one classic example from rediff.com that I came across. Even "dainik puDhArI" might not make such a preliminary mistake I guess.
Context - India vs Srilanka, 2nd ODI at Mohali.
The writer says - "India could have well opted to use Agarkar for his spell of ten overs and then had him replaced by Super sub Sreesanth, who could have exploited the helpful conditions, but they chose not to." http://us.rediff.com/cricket/2005/oct/28india.htm?q=np&file=.htm
The guy who has written this (seems to be an official rediff correspondent, not just someone from readers' comments), seems to have never read what the substitution rule says - "Once you replace a player, the substitute is allowed to bowl only the overs that were not bowled by the player he substituted out of his quota of 10 (i.e. if the player has already bowled 5, then the supersub can only bowl 5) and bat only if the player he substituted had his wicket in tact." You don't need to know rocket science to figure out why it is so. If he replaces a player who has already lost his wicket and is allowed to bat, then the opposition will have to get 11 wickets and not 10 (or else leave 2 batsmen not out at the end). (This 1 is for the pundit himself).
I don't know why I still read those pathetic rediff.com and indiatimes.com cricket articles, may be because they feed me for my blogs.
Many times people with zero knowledge get into event reporting or journalism. Here is one classic example from rediff.com that I came across. Even "dainik puDhArI" might not make such a preliminary mistake I guess.
Context - India vs Srilanka, 2nd ODI at Mohali.
The writer says - "India could have well opted to use Agarkar for his spell of ten overs and then had him replaced by Super sub Sreesanth, who could have exploited the helpful conditions, but they chose not to." http://us.rediff.com/cricket/2005/oct/28india.htm?q=np&file=.htm
The guy who has written this (seems to be an official rediff correspondent, not just someone from readers' comments), seems to have never read what the substitution rule says - "Once you replace a player, the substitute is allowed to bowl only the overs that were not bowled by the player he substituted out of his quota of 10 (i.e. if the player has already bowled 5, then the supersub can only bowl 5) and bat only if the player he substituted had his wicket in tact." You don't need to know rocket science to figure out why it is so. If he replaces a player who has already lost his wicket and is allowed to bat, then the opposition will have to get 11 wickets and not 10 (or else leave 2 batsmen not out at the end). (This 1 is for the pundit himself).
I don't know why I still read those pathetic rediff.com and indiatimes.com cricket articles, may be because they feed me for my blogs.
posted by w_o @ 3:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home