We have lost, I give up!

[TheMase]

5/101

Going to be fairly impossible from here.

Bichel out to an apparent suspect LBW (how many times have we heard this?)

Steve Waugh out for 6.

Going to need something SPECIAL from here to win from Martyn, Love and Gilchrist.

 

[TheMase]

This was the commentary on Baggy Green..


21.4 Caddick to Bichel, OUT: struck on the pad by a ball going a mile
down leg and also rather high

What a joke

 

[TheMase]

6-109

Its all over

 

[Becker]

No. We have won .... 4-1

 

[dr nick]

im not being biased here, but i honestly believe the game was ruined by the 4 lbw decisions that all were not out in the 4th innings.

remerkably, the plumbest of them all was given not out against martin love.

 

[RogerC]

LBWs. Ponting's was never disputed. Bichel's was out - that channel 9 ball vision thing had it hitting middle and leg, fairly high up but definitely hitting.

Hayden marginal, Langer not out. Par for the course this series - even this test. I fail to see how it ruined the game, given what we were chasing and what the ball was doing today.

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by RogerC
LBWs. Ponting's was never disputed. Bichel's was out - that channel 9 ball vision thing had it hitting middle and leg, fairly high up but definitely hitting.

Hayden marginal, Langer not out. Par for the course this series - even this test. I fail to see how it ruined the game, given what we were chasing and what the ball was doing today.

ponting's was disputed, it was hitting him outside the line and the channel 9 commentators and radio commentators noted that. haydens was going over the top, and he was 2.5 metres down the track hitting the kneeroll. Bichels was going a mile down legside and possibly over the top. if you trust that hawkeye thing youre a fool, firstly you say that haydens was marginal, but the faith you placed in the hawkeye of bichel, hawkeye even showed haydens missing. there was one stuart macgill appeal where hussain padded up. the ball was clearly missing off, yet hawkeye had it going down leg!!!! hawkeye has had a few teething problems accuracy wise, especially when you consider every ball starts off from the same position at the bowlers end. that in itself is a flaw.

 

[Esperito]

****!!!!
Stop your whingeing.
Its driving me mad and sadly typifies the sheer arrogance of the Aussie cricket fan.
We lost fair and square.
Deal with it.

N.B. Clearly Australia NEVER had a decision go their way in the series.

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by Esperito
****!!!!
Stop your whingeing.
Its driving me mad and sadly typifies the sheer arrogance of the Aussie cricket fan.
We lost fair and square.
Deal with it.

N.B. Clearly Australia NEVER had a decision go their way in the series.

not surprisingly someone has chimed in totally missing the point. im not saying the umpiring was biased, we all know it went both ways. fact is it ruined an otherwise brilliant test match

 

[Joe Mama]

Although I agree with some of the things that Esperito said, (about how whinging about this match won't cange the fact that England won, because they made fewer mistakes), but as I said in a previous post, this could have been a great test match, if it wasn't for those two trigger fingers from Southern Africa (who made terrible decisions FOR BOTH SIDES).

 

[Kenny_01]

I agree with Nicko. Whatever happened to benefit of the doubt? It went both ways though.

 

[RogerC]

Nicko, I'm not necessarily saying I place a lot of faith in the Hawkeye thing, but in that case it confirmed what I saw - that ball was headed for leg stump. I guess you and I can differ on what we think we saw, but I hardly think it was a shocking decision.

The problem with Hawkeye is that it creates a false sense of what we in our lounge rooms and pubs think is out or not out. It it's as inaccurate as you claim, then we have to put our faith back in what the umpires saw.

However, as you say, these ones weren't much chop.

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by RogerC
Nicko, I'm not necessarily saying I place a lot of faith in the Hawkeye thing, but in that case it confirmed what I saw - that ball was headed for leg stump. I guess you and I can differ on what we think we saw, but I hardly think it was a shocking decision.

The problem with Hawkeye is that it creates a false sense of what we in our lounge rooms and pubs think is out or not out. It it's as inaccurate as you claim, then we have to put our faith back in what the umpires saw.

However, as you say, these ones weren't much chop.

If it wasnt for Hawkeye, most of these decisions wouldnt be so controversial.

We should do away with Hawkeye, or if it really is accurate, let the 3rd umpire adudicate LBW's

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by grayham
If it wasnt for Hawkeye, most of these decisions wouldnt be so controversial.

We should do away with Hawkeye, or if it really is accurate, let the 3rd umpire adudicate LBW's

i agree with that, i personally think hawkeye is inaccurate. it leaves the armchair followers with a sour taste in their mouths if it contradicts an umpires decision. but then you have the likes of mark taylor who think it's the best thing to grace the game since bradman.

you know the umpiring is shocking if you are watching it and say to yourself "thats not out, but the umpire will give it out" its happened repeatedly this series. i thought that with langers due to a similar decision in the 1st innings, and i thought that with pontings, and i thought that with haydens. i didnt actually see vaughans one live

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by nicko18
i agree with that, i personally think hawkeye is inaccurate. it leaves the armchair followers with a sour taste in their mouths if it contradicts an umpires decision. but then you have the likes of mark taylor who think it's the best thing to grace the game since bradman.

you know the umpiring is shocking if you are watching it and say to yourself "thats not out, but the umpire will give it out" its happened repeatedly this series. i thought that with langers due to a similar decision in the 1st innings, and i thought that with pontings, and i thought that with haydens. i didnt actually see vaughans one live

Actually, if Hawkeye is accurate, there is no reason why the process couldnt be fully automated, so that at each delivery a little red light flashes on the umpires watch to say if the ball would have hit the stumps, and pitched inside leg.
Then its just up to the ump if there was an inside edge or not.

That would save waiting around for the 3rd umpire.

 

[Dipper]

A few of those LBs looked a bit dodgy & whilst I think England would have won with the runs in the bank on a pitch that was giving up & down bounce on the last day I would rather have seen it go a bit closer without the help of at least one batsman being' sawn off'.Umpires definitely seem more keen to give people out LBW than give the benefit & I think this is because of Hawkeye, whereas before everyone would say that was close but he was right to give the benefit now people(the commentators) are saying that would have hit & so the umps are feeling undermined.

As regards hawkeye we've had it a couple of years over here now & they tell us it's the latest laser guieded technology & accurate to a few mm but I'm still very wary & want them to prove it.

What I'd like is for them to have some situations where somebody is clean bowled so we can see exactly where the ball hit the stumps & then have Hawkeye show where it thinks the ball would hit & then compare the two, have this done a few times with some independant people observing & if they score direct hits every time then I'll buy into it & would actually say use it for all LBW decisons.

At the moment it just seems like we're being told it's totally accurate with no real proof.

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by DIPPER

As regards hawkeye we've had it a couple of years over here now & they tell us it's the latest laser guieded technology & accurate to a few mm but I'm still very wary & want them to prove it.

What I'd like is for them to have some situations where somebody is clean bowled so we can see exactly where the ball hit the stumps & then have Hawkeye show where it thinks the ball would hit & then compare the two, have this done a few times with some independant people observing & if they score direct hits every time then I'll buy into it & would actually say use it for all LBW decisons.

At the moment it just seems like we're being told it's totally accurate with no real proof.

Dont you think they would have done that when testing Hawkeye?

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by grayham
Dont you think they would have done that when testing Hawkeye?

well ive seen two blatant errors from hawkeye so far, and ive only really seen it used a few dozen times, and other times im questioning if the ball would have bounced that much.

did anyone else notice that the ball has exactly the same starting position in hawkeye for every delivery?? that cant be right, bowlers always vary the angle.

and i remember how snicko (snickometer) was the newest thing a few years ago. the sound wave co-incides with the ball passing the bat. later i realised that the audio is manually matched to the picture afterwards. they "put" the sound there as the ball passes the bat. not too scientific there either.

 

[Dipper]

Originally posted by grayham
Dont you think they would have done that when testing Hawkeye?

Well you'd hope so but call me cynical I don't believe that it's so accurate just because they say it is.I want proof, it's not for them that I say to do this this but for us the viewers.

Somebody said (Think it was nicko) that the ball always starts from the same place on Hawkeye, I'd never noticed this but I have noticed that on the graphic the ball regularly seems to clip the top of the stumps in the same places.

I just want evidence that the thing can show where the ball would hit very accurately.

I know in England that some journalists saw Hawkeye in action getting some stuff totally wrong, & the people who run it blamed it on the fact that they hadn't set all their cameras up in the right place, now were they making excuses & even if it's true have they ever set the cameras up wrongly since,I mean this has to be doen precisely &there's obviously room for error.

 

[wagstaff]

Originally posted by DIPPER


I know in England that some journalists saw Hawkeye in action getting some stuff totally wrong, & the people who run it blamed it on the fact that they hadn't set all their cameras up in the right place, now were they making excuses & even if it's true have they ever set the cameras up wrongly since,I mean this has to be doen precisely &there's obviously room for error.

Surely there would be some obvious problems with the cameras; like if one of them are obstructed by several fielders, or a bird flies past one of them as the ball is being bowled.

Still, it's been a good addition to the cricket coverage this summer.

 

[Nige_Bix]

LB's

I thought the batsman had the benefit of the doubt - it doesn't seem that way any more.

There were too many lb's in this match - they need to be plumb - most, if not all the lb's in this match could have been given not out!

To me - it looks better for the umpire if its a marginal thing whether the ball strikes the pad on the off stump or not and they give it not out - which begs the question how much of the ball must be in line with the stump before it is fact in line with the stump [off or leg] - if you know what i mean?! - the whole of the ball, half of the ball or just a teensy bit of it!!

dzm

 

[Dipper]

Originally posted by wagstaff
Surely there would be some obvious problems with the cameras; like if one of them are obstructed by several fielders, or a bird flies past one of them as the ball is being bowled.

Still, it's been a good addition to the cricket coverage this summer.

Yeah I agree it's a pretty good addition as long as it's accurate, what I was referring to with the cameras is where they set them up determines how the whole thing works, if they set the cameras up slightly in the wrong place then what the graphic shows will be wrong, it's happened before so they have to be on top of it.

 

[Dipper]

Re: LB's

Originally posted by dezzmo
I thought the batsman had the benefit of the doubt - it doesn't seem that way any more.

There were too many lb's in this match - they need to be plumb - most, if not all the lb's in this match could have been given not out!

To me - it looks better for the umpire if its a marginal thing whether the ball strikes the pad on the off stump or not and they give it not out - which begs the question how much of the ball must be in line with the stump before it is fact in line with the stump [off or leg] - if you know what i mean?! - the whole of the ball, half of the ball or just a teensy bit of it!!

dzm

I totally agree with you & I alluded to it before but I think a lot of the blame has to go onto the umpires feeling pressured by Hawkeye.

I mean in reality an umpire is hardly ever really 'wrong' if he gives an LBW shout not out even if the ball was to hit the stumps because there may be enough doubt in his mind but he's always wrong if the gives someone not out to a ball that was missing.

Over here before Hawkeye no one really got into the umpires for giving good LB shouts not out but since Hawkeye with all the commentators saying 'oh that one was a good shout & it was going to hit' it seems as if the umpires are virtually ignoring the benefit of the doubt & are as likely to give batsmen out as not out, now some people may think this is a good thing but until they get rid of the benefit of the doubt from the laws of the game then it's plain wrong.

 

[Katthawk]

I just think that it is plain stupid to give the 'benefit of the doubt' to the batsmen. Sure I didn't see the game today because I thought the whole result was a bit suspect.

But how many times have they been out and yet just because the third umpire didn't catch it when the ground umpires were looking the other way for a split second, and the ranting and raving by the players gets them a reprieve.

Hmph . just sick of the attitude of arrogant batsmen.