Cricket things that annoy you

[The hands of stone]

Isha referring to the 3rd man position as third.

Not sure if whether it’s introducing “cool” short form lexicon to t20 cause t20 is the format that targets youth.

Its a pom thing to call third man 3rd , has been for ages . They also call fielding positions on the '1 or 2' depending what runs they want cut off .
Very old school

 

[PhatBoy]

Its a pom thing to call third man 3rd , has been for ages . They also call fielding positions on the '1 or 2' depending what runs they want cut off .
Very old school

Long leg instead of fine leg

 

[k31th]

DRS for LBW is just ridiculous, in fact I reckon the umpires were getting the same percentage right that we are getting now. It is also very strange that every umpires call review seems to be hitting only half the stumps, never ever see them hitting all of the stumps. It's as if they are following the commentary team that its close and they just have set data to show us it was close. The ball tracking is miles off in my opinion.

The umpires are consistently getting way more decisions right than they used to, with the advent of DRS.

When the stumps impact is tracked to be "hitting" then the ball is hitting "all of the stumps", basically, as more than 50% of the ball is within the outer edges of the off and leg stumps and the bottom of the bails, which would be fairly considered "smashing into the stumps" if the ball had actually gone on to hit the stumps.

The ball tracking is actually way more accurate than the 50% of the ball (and more for the top of the stumps) width allowance via the "umpire's call" protocol; so I don't agree with your "miles off" assessment.

 

[Gough]

Geoff Boycott generally but the man who took Apartheid South Africa's tainted Krugerrand to play over there in the 80s has no place criticising modern players for taking the riches on offer at the IPL.

 

[The Passenger]

We have a lot less controversy surrounding decisions now. The biggest in recent times has been Joel Wilson's non LBW call late in the Headingly match. But all these are offset by poor use of the review system by one of the teams. So even the team that was wronged still had - at a point in time - control over that situation but threw away that control.

In my younger days I used to buy into the romanticism of officials making mistakes part of the folk lore of sport, but as sports have moved more and more towards video umpiring, the end result has been better for everyone. I'm not sure Australia getting jipped in 93 at Adelaide, or the ongoing debate about whether Kasprowicz's hand was on the bat in 2005, or - from other sports now - the 33 year old battle about Mark McGaw's try in the 1987 State of Origin, or Tom Hawkins

26

Tom Hawkins

Age

35

Ht

197cm

Wt

105kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.2

3star

K

7.9

3star

HB

4.4

3star

M

5.5

5star

T

1.9

4star

G

2.1

5star

D

12.7

3star

K

8.6

3star

HB

4.1

3star

M

5.1

5star

T

2.1

3star

G

1.6

5star

D

7.8

2star

K

5.6

3star

HB

2.2

2star

M

4.2

4star

T

1.0

3star

G

2.2

5star

hitting the post in 2009 actually do add anything to the "folk lore" of sport. I think now we are getting a lot more clarity about sporting decisions, things are better for it.

 

[big_e]

I hate it when fielders don't put in as much effort as this guy:

 

[peternorth]

I hate it when fielders don't put in as much effort as this guy:

Speaking of. Do you feel that fielders don’t put as much effort in in test cricket compared to t20?

 

[Leeda]

tons of method and equally.. every one is included..those in hospital are lucky to be alive...

 

[kickazz]

Blokes getting a free pass for throwing away a chance to bat the opposition out of a test match just because they ticked over into three figures.

Example: Guy gets out for 85 - "He'll be disappointed not to have put the opposition to the sword". Guy gets out for 103 - "A fine century".

Don't think I've ever seen a commentator make the former criticism of someone that's got out just after a century, but heard it plenty of times for someone out just short of a ton, even though both batsmen have probably left 50+ runs out on the field.

Obviously this is very match specific. Plenty of low scoring test matches where an 80 is more valuable than a 140 from a high scoring test.

Mark Waugh

 

[Gethelred]

We have a lot less controversy surrounding decisions now. The biggest in recent times has been Joel Wilson's non LBW call late in the Headingly match. But all these are offset by poor use of the review system by one of the teams. So even the team that was wronged still had - at a point in time - control over that situation but threw away that control.

In my younger days I used to buy into the romanticism of officials making mistakes part of the folk lore of sport, but as sports have moved more and more towards video umpiring, the end result has been better for everyone. I'm not sure Australia getting jipped in 93 at Adelaide, or the ongoing debate about whether Kasprowicz's hand was on the bat in 2005, or - from other sports now - the 33 year old battle about Mark McGaw's try in the 1987 State of Origin, or Tom Hawkins hitting the post in 2009 actually do add anything to the "folk lore" of sport. I think now we are getting a lot more clarity about sporting decisions, things are better for it.

I do not like that the ability to review a decision is in the hands of the players at all. Players and captains are selected to play, not to be a better umpire than the umpire. The current setup suits the networks more than it does the game, because it adds both an element of gamesmanship and tension to what would otherwise just be a boring going over of the available evidence, to the detriment of getting things right overall.

Joel Wilson was partially excused by the public because Tim Paine used his last review the over before, and was excoriated for it. This, in my opinion, is deeply unjust; if Joel Wilson was equal to the task of umpiring, Paine's mistake is not necessary.

 

[The Passenger]

I do not like that the ability to review a decision is in the hands of the players at all. Players and captains are selected to play, not to be a better umpire than the umpire. The current setup suits the networks more than it does the game, because it adds both an element of gamesmanship and tension to what would otherwise just be a boring going over of the available evidence, to the detriment of getting things right overall.

Can see where you're coming from but I would fear if the review were put in the hands of the umpires we'd be going upstairs all the time. Look at how rarely they give a run out decision now. There's also been an increase in how often the umpires are going upstairs for catches.

Rightly or wrongly the de facto standard of sport is that the challenge system has been in the hands of the players. In sports - that I can think of - were the officials have a right of review it's only for scoring situations such as tries/touchdowns (League/Union/NFL). Given the insanely tight margins in LBW calls I'd fear if umpires could go upstairs it could just get completely out of control.

Joel Wilson was partially excused by the public because Tim Paine used his last review the over before, and was excoriated for it. This, in my opinion, is deeply unjust; if Joel Wilson was equal to the task of umpiring, Paine's mistake is not necessary.

I'm trying to think if there was a similar situation but the review's were blown significantly earlier in the innings. I have a feeling Wilson was largely let off because the Paine review came the over before. If it was say 40 overs prior, Wilson is likely to have copped more heat for that. Recency is an interesting kink in human psychology.

 

[Gethelred]

Can see where you're coming from but I would fear if the review were put in the hands of the umpires we'd be going upstairs all the time. Look at how rarely they give a run out decision now. There's also been an increase in how often the umpires are going upstairs for catches.

Don't care.

Either we want it right, or we want the tradition upheld. An inbetween ground serves neither position.

Rightly or wrongly the de facto standard of sport is that the challenge system has been in the hands of the players. In sports - that I can think of - were the officials have a right of review it's only for scoring situations such as tries/touchdowns (League/Union/NFL). Given the insanely tight margins in LBW calls I'd fear if umpires could go upstairs it could just get completely out of control.

I've long been an advocate of the idea that you cannot review LBW decisions for line, solely for the elements that can be factually demonstrated: where it hit you, where it's pitching. By doing this, you enshrine the centre umpire's position in the game, and you remove hawkeye's uncertainty.

Does this solve the problem of s**t umpiring? No, but that's the side of the above argument on which I sit; the tradition of the sport should be upheld, and LBW is nothing more than an opinion anyway once those factual elements are met.

I'm trying to think if there was a similar situation but the review's were blown significantly earlier in the innings. I have a feeling Wilson was largely let off because the Paine review came the over before. If it was say 40 overs prior, Wilson is likely to have copped more heat for that. Recency is an interesting kink in human psychology.

Yep.

I will never forget his name, nor his place in history as one of cricket's incompetents.

 

[cats_09]

This sort of dismissal - doesn't look a deliberate effort to obstruct the field

 

[big_e]

I do not like that the ability to review a decision is in the hands of the players at all. Players and captains are selected to play, not to be a better umpire than the umpire.

There are very few dismissals that are not triggered by the fielding team appealing. The players asking for a decision from the umpire is part of the game, and always has been.

 

[Gethelred]

There are very few dismissals that are not triggered by the fielding team appealing. The players asking for a decision from the umpire is part of the game, and always has been.

I'm not sure where or how that interacts with what I'm saying.

The players appeal to the umpire, and the umpire makes their decision. It should not be for the players to determine whether an umpire's decision is correct or not in the heat of the moment.

The review system actively contravenes the above, in the interests of getting decisions correct; either you want all decisions to be correct and increased use of referrals is a good outcome, or you think that the tradition of the sport and the role of the umpire needs to be respected. The current status quo serves neither purpose, as an incorrect decision when no reviews are left is allowed to stand and the existence of reviews serves as a nigh constant undermining of an umpire's judgement.

 

[Gethelred]

This sort of dismissal - doesn't look a deliberate effort to obstruct the field

You reckon? Front on looked pretty dodgy; got the ball and the fielder right in front of him, made sure to position himself between them and the stumps.

It is Joel Wilson, though. Any decision he'd give in either direction I'd be reviewing, up to bowled and a skied catch.

 

[PhatBoy]

I do not like that the ability to review a decision is in the hands of the players at all. Players and captains are selected to play, not to be a better umpire than the umpire. The current setup suits the networks more than it does the game, because it adds both an element of gamesmanship and tension to what would otherwise just be a boring going over of the available evidence, to the detriment of getting things right overall.

Joel Wilson was partially excused by the public because Tim Paine used his last review the over before, and was excoriated for it. This, in my opinion, is deeply unjust; if Joel Wilson was equal to the task of umpiring, Paine's mistake is not necessary.

THIS

 

[PhatBoy]

Gethelred RIGHT at the advent of the limited review system my literal words were ‘while cricket has evolved, for 150 years cricket players have required 3 skills. Batting bowling and fielding. All those facets have changed and improved but they’re still the same facets. A limited review system where you have to decide if something is out, introduces umpiring as a fourth skill and changes the game completely.’

 

[The Passenger]

As above, I've generally been pretty happy with how the review system has evolved.

But I do admit, once it was going to move into the territory of predicted ball tracking it was always going to raise some eyebrows. As far as I can think, there is no other sport where the review system uses a predicted path?

I'm surprised not more has come from the Bairstow lbw in the fourth test vs India. Ball had the slightest clip of his pad and went over the stumps. The ball tracking showed it clipping the top of the stumps. Not sure how that works?

 

[big_e]

Cricketers have always asked the umpire "how was that?" Now they can also ask "are you sure?" Ultimately it is still an umpire who makes the decision, but instead of relying on the person who made a split second decision, and may be affected by emotions, pressure, etc, it's made by a faceless person in the grandstand who can use technology that has existed for decades and who can do it dispassionately, and take their time to get it right.

We get much better decisions, which is far more important than preserving the message that umpires were always right, even when they're not. Or the bizarre suggestion that it's okay for some decisions to be wrong because the opposition will have incorrect decisions go against them as well.

 

[iluvparis]

The new trend of calling sixes ‘maximums.’

The use of the term batters does sound wrong.

Also the term ODIs, what’s happened to calling them one dayers.

It's wrong anyway as the batsmen can run an infinite amount of runs between the wickets if they want cant they?

 

[NSWCROW]

Turning on the tv and seeing my s**t team be 4-40.....

 

[iluvparis]

Gethelred RIGHT at the advent of the limited review system my literal words were ‘while cricket has evolved, for 150 years cricket players have required 3 skills. Batting bowling and fielding. All those facets have changed and improved but they’re still the same facets. A limited review system where you have to decide if something is out, introduces umpiring as a fourth skill and changes the game completely.’

No it doesn't as you should only be using it for howlers which you KNOW are either out or not out from your vast experience in getting to the international stage.

 

[NSWCROW]

When you hit 434 in 50 overs......and lose

Happy anniversary

 

[iluvparis]

When you hit 434 in 50 overs......and lose

Happy anniversary

View attachment 1075672

Why Michael Lewis bowled his full allotment of overs in that game is still truly baffling.