atching a batsman convince himself that, yet again, he has been t

Bangladesh Women 106 (Sanjida 33, Kenealy 4-32) beat Ireland Women 96 (C Joyce 35, Rumana 3-20) by 10 runsScorecard Legspinner Rumana Ahmeds hat-trick - the first in international cricket by a Bangladesh Womens cricketer - helped her side defend a small total of 106 and beat Ireland Women by 10 runs in the third ODI to claim the series 1-0.Ireland had begun their chase of 107 well, with the openers Meg Kendal and Cecelia Joyce adding 52. Offspinner Khadija Tul Kubra dismissed Kendal and No. 3 Shauna Kavanagh quickly but the big setback to Irelands innings came when Cecelia was run out for 35. Having lost Isobel Joyce for 2, Irelands chase was starting to look shaky at 84 for 4 when Rumana struck. She dismissed Kim Garth, Clare Shillington and Mary Waldron off successive balls to leave Irelands chase in tatters. Laura Delany, Irelands captain, pushed the score along to 96 before she too was dismissed and Bangladesh wrapped up the win in the 38th over.Bangladeshs spinners split up all eight bowler dismissals in Irelands innings. Apart from Rumanas 3 for 20, Tul Kubra and legspinner Fahima Khatun took two wickets each, while left-arm spinner Nahida Akter had returns of 1 for 18. Khatuns 2 for 13 was her best in ODIs.Earlier, medium-pacer Amy Kenealy wrecked Bangladeshs top order, leaving them tottering at 25 for 5 after they had opted to bat first. Her career-best 4 for 32 accounted for four of Bangladeshs top six. Opener Sanjida Islam top-scored with 33 and led a brief fightback, adding 44 for the sixth wicket with Ritu Moni. Jahanara Alam and Akter shared another useful partnership of 32 runs for the eighth wicket, lifting the score past 100. The failure of the middle order, however, meant that Bangladesh could only muster a total of 106. Twenty-six extras, including 23 wides, were the second-biggest contribution in Bangladeshs total.The third ODI was not originally scheduled in the series but was added after the first ODI was abandoned without a ball bowled. The second match, which was curtailed to 47-overs-a-side, then saw only 18 overs of play before being abandoned. Bangladesh had earlier lost the T20I series 0-1.Nike Air Max Tavas Nz . Its 1987 and a Brazilian playmaker, known as Mirandinha, is being paraded around St James Park to the passionate Newcastle fans. Nike Air Max 180 Nz .C. -- Glenn Howard needed an extra end to move into the Masters Grand Slam of Curling final. http://www.airmaxnzwholeale.com/cheap-air-max-97-nz/max-97-mens.html . Coach Mike Munchak says Fokou stretched ligaments in his left knee Oct. 13 against Seattle, which could keep out up to five weeks even though the linebacker didnt need surgery. Nike Air Max Plus Nz . The players spoke Jan. 13 during a Major League Baseball Players Association conference call after Rodriguez sued the union and Major League Baseball to overturn an arbitrators decision suspending him for the 2014 season and post-season. Womens Air Max 97 Nz . Mats Zuccarello and Derek Stepan scored shootout goals, and backup goalie Cam Talbot earned his second win in two nights as the Rangers shook off a late tying tally and beat the Maple Leafs 2-1 Monday night.Review it! Review it! screamed the Australians, goading Sri Lankas Dimuth Karunaratne as they hurtled past him to backslap, high-five and bum-pat each other. Fifth over, day one, first Test: Mitchell Starc had struck the pad and elicited the raised finger to provisionally dismiss the opener, who now stood prone, mulling whether or not, as a professional batsman, he agreed. He had 15 seconds to decide, computing angles and circumstance amidst a cacophony of side-mouthed badgering from the opposition. Thats out mate! Go on, review it!It must be the most unnatural calculation known to anyone who has ever held a cricket bat: Ive been hit on the pad. The umpire thinks Im out. Do I agree?Cats eat mice; lizards lie on rocks; batsmen are not out. Compelling them to think rationally about whether they are lbw or not is surely the most perverse aspect of on-field cricket in the modern age. To watch a batsmans agony as he attempts to transcend his survival reflex is either excruciating or darkly entertaining, depending on how you like your schadenfreude served.But is it fair?Crickets connection to law, particularly Westminster law, is as old as the game itself. Each is meant to contain social meaning and life lessons. The relationship between the game and legal theory is well chronicled in books like David Frasers Cricket and the Law: The Man in White is Always Right, and the parallels are pretty clear.In the case of lbws, a batsmans protection of the stumps via pad is the crime. The bowler is the victim, or plaintiff, and the batsman is the defendant. The umpire, or judge, hands down the ruling. And in crickets modern society, the batsman now has the right of appeal. All sounds pretty fair so far.But if crickets laws are meant to reflect societal values, should we be allowing the batsman - undoubtedly irrational at the key moment - an opportunity to adjudicate? Seriously, who has ever been struck on the pad and comprehensively agreed that they are out?Batsmen, in this moment, are in a state of madness. They should be considered, for legal purposes, criminally insane.Enter Shane Watson: the human embodiment of bad reviews and the resulting face of the most tired gag in cricket. A precociously talented cricketer who will be rememmbered for the grievous crime of thinking he was not out when he often was.dddddddddddd He deserves sympathy because hes just like us. If asked to adjudicate your own dismissal, how would you fare? Its a scenario not uncommon in maidans, nets, backyards and back alleys across the world. These arenas are like nation states: each claiming sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, and establishing its own culture, custom and protocol in doing so. But lbws, worldwide, remain a unilateral source of contention.My own backyard was no different. I still remember the day - I was ten - when my dad introduced a new rule into our own nation state. I was deemed to have a grasp on the laws of lbw, so now the batsman would be the sole decision maker on all appeals. Looking back, I presume there was a moral dimension to this new legislation. I was being encouraged to trade infantile tantrums for a more sober, objective appraisal of the game. I was being taught fairness.A batsman-review at amateur level would be disastrous. Not just for their inevitably poor application, but because it would compromise a key cultural pillar of cricket: the joy of casting doubt on the umpires decision. Robbing players of the opportunity to wage a dressing-room whisper campaign about the veracity of their dismissal would bring to an end to one of the great sources of comedy for cricketers: watching a batsman convince himself that, yet again, he has been the victim of a bad decision.Because batsmen, when hit on the pad, are not out. Its their natural plight. Technology may reduce the howler and help us arrive at the truth, but an elegant law may reflect some understanding of this phenomenon.When my dad struck me on the toe, or back leg, fully covering the stumps, I knew what the answer was. I am not out, because Im normal and I want to keep batting. I may be wrong, but I am in no state to decide.Karunaratne didnt think he was out either, but he took too long to decide. He was out. Suck s***! bellowed one Australian as the opener plodded off.When it comes to getting out, we are all children, and so it should remain. ' ' '