Sport Today

by **alve** » Sat, 31 Dec 2005 12:21:39

Quote:

>> This is what pressure does.

>> BTW, it would have been so clear to the keeper where the ball came
>> from.

>> Look at Gilchrist's appeal. This is the guy who claims to be a walker.

> I was listening to radio comms, and the Aussie comms suggested that
> Rauf could not possibly have seen what the ball hit. Based on their
> comms, I wondered whether the fielders behind the stumps could have
> seen that the ball came off arm. Vicky has made her view clear - it
> might be nice to hear some others.

From the BEU's pov it looked very much like he'd gloved it.
Tragically I wasn't recording so can't be definitive.

Quote:

> Let the fur fly...

Yair, batten down the tea cups.

alvey

by **alve** » Sat, 31 Dec 2005 12:26:04

Quote:

>> says...

>>> More interestingly, the comms also said that Rauf and Prince both
>>> looked up at the replays on the screen at the ground. This raises two
>>> questions for me: (1) will Prince get a fine (comms said he lingered at
>>> the crease and was slow trudging off after the umps decision), and (2)
>>> Ponting and the Aussies must have seen the replay too, and since Prince
>>> was on the field still, why didnt Ponting call Prince back?

>> 1. I don't think so, he didn't linger all that long.

>> 2. Why ask that question now? A replay would have shown that Hodge
>> hit his pad with his bat and didn't get a tickle on the ball. Why
>> didn't Smith ask him back? Why haven't countless captains recall
>> batsmen on the evidence of the replay screen since their use has
>> become very prevalent?

> I ask the question now because the radio comms explicitly said that the
> replay was being shown on the screen and that both Rauf and Prince were
> on the ground watching it.

I'd suggest that they were watching *a* replay, but there was also the
possibility that by the time that the *best* (worst?) replay came along
Prince had long gone. It may have even been after the mandatory 2 minute
Nein ad break.

If it's important to you, find someone who's recorded it (Maiet?) and ask
them.

alvey

by **jlicht..** » Sat, 31 Dec 2005 12:33:21

Quote:

> >> says...

> >>> More interestingly, the comms also said that Rauf and Prince both
> >>> looked up at the replays on the screen at the ground. This raises two
> >>> questions for me: (1) will Prince get a fine (comms said he lingered at
> >>> the crease and was slow trudging off after the umps decision), and (2)
> >>> Ponting and the Aussies must have seen the replay too, and since Prince
> >>> was on the field still, why didnt Ponting call Prince back?

> >> 1. I don't think so, he didn't linger all that long.

> >> 2. Why ask that question now? A replay would have shown that Hodge
> >> hit his pad with his bat and didn't get a tickle on the ball. Why
> >> didn't Smith ask him back? Why haven't countless captains recall
> >> batsmen on the evidence of the replay screen since their use has
> >> become very prevalent?

> > I ask the question now because the radio comms explicitly said that the
> > replay was being shown on the screen and that both Rauf and Prince were
> > on the ground watching it.

> I'd suggest that they were watching *a* replay, but there was also the
> possibility that by the time that the *best* (worst?) replay came along
> Prince had long gone. It may have even been after the mandatory 2 minute
> Nein ad break.

> If it's important to you, find someone who's recorded it (Maiet?) and ask
> them.

Not really that important to me. The umpire made his decision, and
right or wrong, its in the book. Maybe I'd care more if RSA had been 3
runs away from victory . . . :)

by **dechuck** » Sat, 31 Dec 2005 13:00:46

Quote:

>> >> says...

>> >>> More interestingly, the comms also said that Rauf and Prince both
>> >>> looked up at the replays on the screen at the ground. This raises
>> >>> two
>> >>> questions for me: (1) will Prince get a fine (comms said he lingered
>> >>> at
>> >>> the crease and was slow trudging off after the umps decision), and
>> >>> (2)
>> >>> Ponting and the Aussies must have seen the replay too, and since
>> >>> Prince
>> >>> was on the field still, why didnt Ponting call Prince back?

>> >> 1. I don't think so, he didn't linger all that long.

>> >> 2. Why ask that question now? A replay would have shown that Hodge
>> >> hit his pad with his bat and didn't get a tickle on the ball. Why
>> >> didn't Smith ask him back? Why haven't countless captains recall
>> >> batsmen on the evidence of the replay screen since their use has
>> >> become very prevalent?

>> > I ask the question now because the radio comms explicitly said that the
>> > replay was being shown on the screen and that both Rauf and Prince were
>> > on the ground watching it.

>> I'd suggest that they were watching *a* replay, but there was also the
>> possibility that by the time that the *best* (worst?) replay came along
>> Prince had long gone. It may have even been after the mandatory 2 minute
>> Nein ad break.

>> If it's important to you, find someone who's recorded it (Maiet?) and ask
>> them.

> Not really that important to me. The umpire made his decision, and
> right or wrong, its in the book. Maybe I'd care more if RSA had been 3
> runs away from victory . . . :)

not very likely considering their form so far :-( . Maybe I will be shown
up after the Sydney test, heres to a great game

- Show quoted text -

by **RodP** » Sat, 31 Dec 2005 13:28:07

says...

Quote:

> Third, it would only apply to "out" decisions, not "not out" decisions.
> The only problem with that is the batsman stopping and waiting, which
> feels dissent-like. However, if only "out" decisions are reviewed it
> might be ok to change the rule to allow for a replay review. The more
> I think about this, the more I like it, since it addresses the biggest
> problem players have with incorrect decisions - careers being ended.

Obviously you're not a bowler. :P

So a batsmen can be recalled due to a dodgy decision but won't be
asked to leave the field when the replay that follows showed a clear
edge that was missed by the umpire? A large double standard.

Recalling a batsmen due to a replay on the big screen opens too many
cans of worms, it can also ruin the spirit of the competition if one
captain recalls a batsmen in this situation but the other captain
doesn't on a similar situation.

I don't think the game of cricket will benefit from clinically 100%
correct decisions, it'll slow the game down and it'll give us nothing
to *** about when our team loses!

--
Cheers,
Rod.

by **Ian Galbrait** » Sat, 31 Dec 2005 20:37:35

Quote:

>> This is what pressure does.

>> BTW, it would have been so clear to the keeper where the ball came
>> from.

>> Look at Gilchrist's appeal. This is the guy who claims to be a walker.

>> Vicky:
>> [Disappointed....]

> Do you ever watch the cricket, or just sit there waiting for any tiny window
> you can accuse the Australians of cheating.

The answer to that is obvious by looking at his posts.

[snip]

--
You Can't Stop The Signal

by **Jamm** » Sat, 31 Dec 2005 20:59:25

Quote:

>>> This is what pressure does.

>>> BTW, it would have been so clear to the keeper where the ball came
>>> from.

>>> Look at Gilchrist's appeal. This is the guy who claims to be a walker.

>>> Vicky:
>>> [Disappointed....]

>> Do you ever watch the cricket, or just sit there waiting for any tiny
>> window
>> you can accuse the Australians of cheating.

> The answer to that is obvious by looking at his posts.

Its so tiring searching through the jealous anti Australian posts that
appear everywhere. There is nothing wrong with opinion and counter opinion,
but that stuff is just pure drivel

by **alve** » Sat, 31 Dec 2005 21:14:32

snip

Quote:

> Its so tiring searching through the jealous anti Australian posts that
> appear everywhere. There is nothing wrong with opinion and counter opinion,
> but that stuff is just pure drivel

I see that you use OE. Does it have a k/f or any sort of scoring?

alvey

by **Jamm** » Sat, 31 Dec 2005 21:46:53

Quote:

> snip

>> Its so tiring searching through the jealous anti Australian posts that
>> appear everywhere. There is nothing wrong with opinion and counter
>> opinion,
>> but that stuff is just pure drivel

> I see that you use OE. Does it have a k/f or any sort of scoring?

Yes but i think when it gets to the point i have to block messages i just
wont bother anymore. Maybe to the delight of some.

by **R. Bharat Ra** » Sat, 31 Dec 2005 21:55:37

Quote:

> But your question is a good one. Maybe captains calling players back
> if a TV replay is broadcast on the big screen while the batsman is
> still on the ground and CONCLUSIVELY and IMMEDIATELY shows that the
> decision was incorrect and is not an LBW (which is, after all, a
> judgment call), such that its plainly obvious to everyone. Those cases
> are probably fewer than one would think, and its bad for the game for a
> batsman to be walking off the field as dismissed while the whole
> stadium - including the players who have appealed for the dismissal and
> the umpire who made the decision - is watching a screen showing
> irrefutable that he isnt actually out. Alternatively, I wouldnt mind
> having the ump vested with the authority to call a batsman back.

Far simpler. Let the on-field umpire make the call on the field. Then...
Every out is reviewed by the 3rd umpire, who can reverse an out decision if
it
is clearly incontrovertibly incorrect. Fielding side gets <n> appeals per
innings
to refer to the 3rd umpire to appeal "not out" decisions.

Take away the ability of the umpires to refer to an external umpire -- with
the
exception possibly of runouts.

Bharat

Sport Today

Rauf errs

Rauf errs

Rauf errs

Rauf errs

Rauf errs

Rauf errs

Rauf errs

Rauf errs

Rauf errs

Rauf errs

Rauf errs