2019 2nd Ashes Test - Lords 14-18 August 2019

Remove this Banner Ad

Then chewing gum should be banned as well, if it has anything in it that is, or resembles sugar
It's not just the sugar, it's the specific oils in mints that create the required effect.

Reverse happens when you have one side that is very rough and the other side is less rough—or effectively 'coated', or preserved. Mint infused saliva is used on the side that the is less rough. It's using a specific substance or object to effect the ball in a specific way, i.e, ball tampering.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Dodgy from Root.

Can understand he might have 'thought' he caught it - but you don't definitely say to the umpire that it is a catch, when there is clearly some doubt.
Root could have thought he caught it, no problems. But seriously that ball hit the ground. Wilson is a shocking umpire and needs to be removed from the panel immediately
 
Seen through the lens of normal life and normal business international sport is pretty silly, but if anybody could just play for anybody whenever they felt like it why even have national rep teams?

Sports have these strange rules that don't work in other areas to help fuel the tribalism an nationalism to give us a feeling of ownership of that side, look at america, they love their unfettered capitalism when it suits but they then love artificial salary caps on their top sports stars which help create at least some parity and keeps that tribal fire burning for their sports sides who cant compete financially with others.
A LOT of Americans see their country as being more socialist than Capitalist these days. Ayn Rand saw the future for USA in the 50's and she was spot on. With the 320 odd million people the $$$ in sports are huge. NY Yankees spend 180 mill on their team whilst a smaller franchise may only spend 80 million. Like you say "some" parity but the wealthy teams are still favoured to finish in contention.
 
The shot where his fingers are on the ground and the ball lands in them...

Every single one of those catches the front on shot looks like it falls short, every single time.

Plenty of Australians have claimed catches like that, some overturned, most not, no one calls them a cheat for it, except maybe Haddin...
I’ve booked you an appointment at Specsavers for 9.00AM tomorrow Eddie. You’ve totally blown whatever credibility you may have had. Ball clearly bounced before Root grabbed it. You are obtusely denying the obvious out of pure partisanship. Makes you look silly. I would use far stronger language, except you are a fellow Collingwood supporter.
 
A LOT of Americans see their country as being more socialist than Capitalist these days.

Well yeah because the are ******* idiots.

I mean yeah the wealthy and maybe the farmers (the groups who dsook about government intervention and spending the most) have a nice suck on the public tit, everybody else is told to go * themselves or just be born rich next time.
 
Last edited:
I’ve booked you an appointment at Specsavers for 9.00AM tomorrow Eddie. You’ve totally blown whatever credibility you may have had. Ball clearly bounced before Root grabbed it. You are obtusely denying the obvious out of pure partisanship. Makes you look silly. I would use far stronger language, except you are a fellow Collingwood supporter.

I may be deaf, but got 20/20 vision, side on shot shows fingers under ball and they are given out by 3rd umpire every time
 
Not really. My "false equivalence" (not true) was merely suggesting Warner's average and centuries are not enough of a reason for him to be an aut
... which was based on a false equivalence, Hayden for Warner. That was solely my issue. You can make the issue that Warner's superior record to Harris doesn't apply (due to his terrible record in england, for example), but that is a different argument to saying what you said before.
 
I wouldn't blame Root. A lot of players in that position would have claimed the catch anyway and very few would have admitted they aren't sure. The third umpire was lazy but the bigger problem is the soft signal. The entire idea behind the soft signal was that if even after the examination of numerous close up footages, the third umpire is not sure, you go with the word of the on field umpire because he was supposedly closest to the "action".

But the thing is, if even the third umpire is not sure after using all the modern technology at his disposal, how would the umpire on field who saw the action in real time speed (and not in slow motion like the tv umpire) at a distance would have a better idea of things. Let's be real, a lot of times, even the bloke who catches it has very little idea whether he caught it clean or not, nevermind the on field umpire at a distance who might not even had a clear view of things. But the on field umpires are required to give a "soft signal" by current laws and the result is that more often, they go by guesswork or by the reactions of the fielder and his teammates. It doesn't make sense and the final responsibility should be thrust upon the third umpire to find out whether the batsman is out or not out, instead of being asked to prove and disprove the soft signal of the on field umpire.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Plenty of Australians have claimed catches like that, some overturned, most not, no one calls them a cheat for it, except maybe Haddin...
:drunk: You must be having a laugh. Plenty of people have called Australian players cheats for claiming catches like that over the years. The main difference is they don't get the benefit of the doubt like some others get.
 
Well yeah because the are ******* idiots.

I mean yeah the wealthy and maybe the farmers (the groups who dsook about government intervention and spending the most) have a nice suck on the public tit, everybody else is told to go fu** themselves or just be born rich next time.
Not worth a response. I nearly did but I knew you would not get it!
 
In any other era we simply hide that smith is concussed he bats anyway and risks permanent injury if struck again, this mythical past era where we aren't allowed a sub but smith refuses to bat again doesn't exist.

How anybody could think that was the better time in cricket is beyond me it was idiotic bravado over common sense and sound medical advice.
Your a bit sharp you are. He would not have batted in a past era we would have been down to 10 batters.
 
All commentary is that England now have the momentum. Ellen not calling the game with 3 overs of spin left appears pretty desperate to me.
Just like all the commentary after the getaway in Cardiff - when Hauritz couldn't bowl them out - was that England will come out of the game the moral victors, with momentum for the rest of the series. England's press write do what all media does, pander to their audience.

The only thing England should be excited about is the emergence of Archer, and the transition of Leach from FC to an Ashes series, both of which I had severe doubts over. Both sides enter into the third test with their form similarly ordinary - with the ball dominating the bat - but it's a weird series in that England have had the rub of the green to this point yet are 1 down. Should be a cracker of series from here. Hopefully Smith gets up.

If we drop an opener, I'd be inclined to drop Bancroft, move Usman to open, and to play Labu at 3 and Smith at 4. Warner is not going to stay down all series, and at some point he's going to get bowling to his liking and a skerrick of luck to go his way. Give him the luck of young Burns, and his series would be drastically different. What he needs to do though is he needs to stop playing as though trying to imitate Langer. He's an aggressive player, and he should try to knock Broad and Archer off their lines early.

He could hardly do worse.
 
You don't think that the rest of the order minus Labuschagne could bat for 48 overs? You don't think they'd have played rather differently with only 10 players?

I rather think you're putting 2 and 2 together and getting 73. Hypotheticals are all very well and good, but getting bungled for 100's a bit out there.
No.
 
You did respond just with a passive aggressive I'm too smart to even debate it response which is usually what people do when they don't want an actual conversation.
You blurted out a whole lot of bile that was false and you want a conversation. Really???
 
We made 164 with both our openers, khawaja wade and Paine all failing. 220 would of been very gettable if our openers and khawaja made some runs, it's a crazy risk.

They could play attacking fields given the target was out of reach, so more boundaries allowed.

And i guess the point is that England is the home team and need to win to regain the ashes, so actually need to take a bit of risk!
 
It's not only the sugar that creates the effect. It's to do with the oils in these particular sweets.

What's that got to do with it? In both cases there's an artificial substance in the saliva which by the exact wording of the law isn't allowed. The fact the ICC haven't taken action against people for either despite a wide range of footage and public confessions being available for both shows they consider it an allowable grey area.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top