Banter The No Dazzlering Big Cricket Thread - 2025/26 Ashes Edition

[Goroyals22]

Decent bowling change that one …

 

[Bender_]

Missed all 3 wickets FFS.

 

[Monocle]

Then bang... bang....... bang, three quick Pommy wickets and them now being 3/42.

Good start from the Aussies will the ball.


Nathan Lyon making a statement with his actions this morning a message most probably for Mr George Bailey ...

 

[kane249]

Tough call, that could have gone either way

 

[Ochre]

Fingers under the ball... Sooner ICC invests in specialist third umpires the better

 

[Ilkka Sinisalo]

Tough call, that could have gone either way

Definitely don't think that should result in a lost review - if it's a review for caught behind and whether the ball touched a blade of grass then that should purely be a third umpire decision.

 

[The Feathered Fool]

Clearly out. Do we get our review back like the whingeing poms did?

 

[Eastern Rangers]

I think the side view clearly showed the gloves under it and the ball going pretty deep into the gloves. Had it been called out originally the decision would have held.

 

[Doashuey]

Fingers under the ball... Sooner ICC invests in specialist third umpires the better

YEah I don't know about that. From the vision I saw I don't think anyone can be certain that ball didn't take some grass. It needs to be conclusive proof to overturn a decision and that wasn't conclusive.
What would skills would a specialist 3rd umpire have that professional umpires sitting in the review room not have?

 

[squashface]

That ball clearly hit the ground first

 

[RookiePick]

YEah I don't know about that. From the vision I saw I don't think anyone can be certain that ball didn't take some grass. It needs to be conclusive proof to overturn a decision and that wasn't conclusive.
What would skills would a specialist 3rd umpire have that professional umpires sitting in the review room not have?

Tricky one because the umpire's decision was not out as we had to review.

I think there was enough doubt on the catch being clean. A bit of a shame because the umpire would have 100% given it I reckon if they saw the inside edge onto the though. Quirks!

 

[Doashuey]

Tricky one because the umpire's decision was not out as we had to review.

I think there was enough doubt on the catch being clean. A bit of a shame because the umpire would have 100% given it I reckon if they saw the inside edge onto the though. Quirks!

Yeah the laws probably need a tweak for such instances. Maybe getting clarification from the umpire of his decision before the review. The review found the umpire was incorrect in his decision that he didn't hit the ball so should probably retain it.
I guess the other edge to that sword is that the bowling team get 2 bites at the cherry (IE review for both LBW & caught) so should they need to clarify what they are appealing if the umpire has to?

 

[Astro7]

Good start for Aussies, pressures on.

 

[Ochre]

YEah I don't know about that. From the vision I saw I don't think anyone can be certain that ball didn't take some grass. It needs to be conclusive proof to overturn a decision and that wasn't conclusive.
What would skills would a specialist 3rd umpire have that professional umpires sitting in the review room not have?

Whether it flicks a blade of grass or not doesn't matter, it's about whether the ground helped the fielder control it. So many umpires lose their nerve seeing that front on angle where it looks like it bounces, but that's not meant to matter, it's about whether fingers are under it because if it bounces off the fingers into the palm that looks not out when its out. Specialist third umpires would at least theoretically be better trained to understand what you can and can't tell with 2D camera angles, and would be more consistent you'd like to assume.

 

[Doashuey]

Whether it flicks a blade of grass or not doesn't matter, it's about whether the ground helped the fielder control it. So many umpires lose their nerve seeing that front on angle where it looks like it bounces, but that's not meant to matter, it's about whether fingers are under it because if it bounces off the fingers into the palm that looks not out when its out. Specialist third umpires would at least theoretically be better trained to understand what you can and can't tell with 2D camera angles, and would be more consistent you'd like to assume.

Can you conclusively tell if that ball contacted the ground during the action of catching or not? I don't think you can and that's the point and the reason it wasn't given out.
I can't imagine that the umpires aren't already provided the best training available regarding camera angles etc. I don't imagine that there would be anyone else better prepared to adjudicate these decisions.

 

[Farang83150]

12 times

 

[Astro7]

Lets see how long Stokes lasts...poor ol' Poms!

 

[squashface]

Likely England win here, can see them getting this test and making the series much more interesting.

Can pretty much align the turning point of this innings with this post almost to the minute

 

[Bender_]

Can pretty much align the turning point of this innings with this post almost to the minute

Was desperate so tried the ep2006 method.

 

[squashface]

Was desperate so tried the ep2006 method.

Root getting out will mean we change our whole draft strategy

 

[Monocle]

Joe Roots short Cummins as a batsman have been caught out once again.













Apologies I will show myself out

 

[Ilkka Sinisalo]

Starting to look like the Poms might have overprepared again for this test.

 

[Ochre]

Starting to look like the Poms might have overprepared again for this test.

Hopefully Noosa has some vacancies between now and Boxing day

 

[Farang83150]

Oooo....nasty delivery.
Stokes seems ok.
Into the back of his head at 145kph

 

[RookiePick]

Oooo....nasty delivery.
Stokes seems ok.
Into the back of his head at 145kph

The extra flap bit on the helmet did some serious work just then. Would have been very nasty with the old style and got a decent chunk of his noggin flush.