Remove this Banner Ad

The Cricket Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter eldorado
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

If we really steel ourselves for the battle I think we can get 250. If they recognise what a great chance it will be to go 1-0.

However, I'd certainly be more comfortable with 200-220 (and even then not that comfortable :() .
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Looks like normal programming has been restored. Needed to bowl them out for under 300, not have them 6 down aiming at 400. History at the ground not on our side. Add that to our top order form... Could get ugly
 
Our chances effectively ended when umpire Dar made one of the worst non calls ever when he didn't give Broad caught at slip off Agar (and Clarke had wasted our last appeal on a Pattinson LBW appeal that wouldn't have hit a 3rd leg stump).... which was then immediately followed up by Brad "I'm a better keeper" Haddin grassing a chance off Bell the next over.
 
MinerBoy said:
Our chances effectively ended when umpire Dar made one of the worst non calls ever when he didn't give Broad caught at slip off Agar (and Clarke had wasted our last appeal on a Pattinson LBW appeal that wouldn't have hit a 3rd leg stump).... which was then immediately followed up by Brad "I'm a better keeper" Haddin grassing a chance off Bell the next over.
Click to expand...

Shocking non decision. A clanger. Yet we have limited third umpire crap.... My personal bugbear of the DRS system is how its implemented. It was introduced, with great clamour, that it would take the howlers out of the game yet we have something like that let pass because of the implementation guidelines. It baffles me. A decision like that should be at the discretion of the third umpire to immediately overturn.
 
Can't believe Broad didn't walk !! Absolute howler, pushing the proverbial you know what up the incline now, run chase 300 - 350
 
I don't walk when I'm bowled. No issue with broad at all.
 
I don;t have an issue with Broad not walking.

I have an issue with a half-arsed referall system.

LBWs that are ruled not out because of an arbitrary 'benefit of the doubt' system built in, even when it's shown to hit the stumps.

Then, supposedly the very reason why the system was brought in 'to reduce howlers', it can't be used because of the implementation rules.

It's insane.

I would be more than happy for the umpires to umpire the game without technology at all. You'd put it down to a bad decision and life moves on. But when you have a system in place that can't be used to right those injustices then it's getting silly.
 
How did Aleem Dar not think he hit it?

Howler!

Agree with Grizz that the system was designed to get rid of situations like this, but unfortunately since the third umpire doesnt have the power to overule obvious decisions like this, it becomes very much strategic to when you use your reviews.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Can someone tell me this: the third umpire checks every catch to make sure it isn't a no ball. Totally independent of referralls. So the batsman doesn't have the ignominy of being given out on a no ball. Just to be sure there isn't an error. Referral or not.

Why can't the third umpire just check and intervene on such palpably wrong decisions like the edge behind last night? Only want to get the right decision sometimes?

Don't get that one.
 
finally! bloody Bell. always does well against us.
need to clean up this tail quick smart. anything over 320 is going to really stretch us
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Discuss 'game day' events and everything else here.

Happy to get it started. I believe we're a real chance to take the first test here. A target of 311 is very achievable and I think we could have if we were to get to say 6/200. A ton from Watson or Agar would give me the most joy from any of the batsmen.
 
Anyone else see Michael Holding's comments re Chris Broad?

Michael Holding, the former West Indian fast bowler, contended that Broad's behaviour was comparable to that of the West Indies wicketkeeper Denesh Ramdin, who falsely claimed a catch against Pakistan in a Champions Trophy match at The Oval in London last month. Ramdin was banned for two one-day games by the ICC match referee, who happened to be Broad's father, Chris.
"What Stuart Broad did amounts to the same thing as Ramdin," Holding told Sky TV. "He knew he had hit the ball. The ICC fined Ramdin and suspended him for 'actions that were contrary to the spirit of the game'. What Stuart Broad did is contrary to the spirit of the game. He played the ball and stayed there."

http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013/content/story/650817.html
 
Didn't need that wicket. Lets hope Cowan stands up
 
So, the stupid DRS shows the ball was just taking the edge of the leg stump. But the benefit in this situation goes with the bowler because it's the 'umpires call'.

A decision was given not out in the England innings that was showing to be hitting more of the stumps and upheld.

It's so bloody stupid the way the system is implemented.

Bloody Watson playing across the line.
 
There is another failure of the process. The umpire should not have given watson out but he did. The review shows the ball clipping the stumps. Given the margin for error on hawk eye is half a ball, there has to be some doubt that it would hit the stumps. How can that then be given out? If the umpire hadn't given that out and England appealed he would have been not out due to doubt about the ball hitting the stumps but because the umpire made an error and gave it out in the first instance the review produces a different result. How can a single incident have two possible outcomes based on weather or not an umpire has made a mistake or not?

Edit: read my mind grizz.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom