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.

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.

Yes, isn't the system designed to correct bad decisions? And if there is an error margin in Hawk Eye which is built into decisions, shouldn't that be the same across the board? Why is the margin for error less in some cases? It's bloody stupid.

And just hearing Gower and the other goose going on about 'about the grey areas in DRS' it just makes it seem even more absurd.
 
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.

It's to avoid over-turning multiple umpire decisions and making them look bad.

92% naturally, 96% with DRS.

Australia are just unlucky we represent 95% of the remaining 4%.
 
It's to avoid over-turning multiple umpire decisions and making them look bad.

92% naturally, 96% with DRS.

Australia are just unlucky we represent 95% of the remaining 4%.

So we just want to get it mostly right? Therefore we build in Byzantine and completely arbitrary conditions and rules.

The selective nature is the most disturbing part of it - they'll check every catch for a no-ball, just to be sure, but won't check on Howlers like the Broad one.

No, I think they've marinated themselves in bi-laws, rules and interpretations, bit like what Adrian Anderson did with the MRP, they've lost all sight of common sense.

I'd prefer we play without it, than with it the way it's currently implemented. I'm with the Indians.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

.....and then there's Hughes' DRS.

Ferk me. Half a stitch of the ball is inside the line of leg. Got to be kidding me.

I despise the DRS. Once again we see a classic situation where sports administrators introduce something to "benefit the game", and their inability to manage the concept turns it into a farce.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Scoring at a snails pace. Poms bowling well so I will say no
agreed, very doubtful. though amount of ebb and flows this game, who knows
Haddin's the last guy you want to bat under pressure, so now's his chance to prove his worth. Can't believe how assured Agar looks
 
agreed, very doubtful. though amount of ebb and flows this game, who knows
Haddin's the last guy you want to bat under pressure, so now's his chance to prove his worth. Can't believe how assured Agar looks

Wouldn't want to play poker against the kid.
 
am gutted. desperately wanted us to win this.
but if we're going to lose, it might as well be now. much better than losing in a tense finish.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom