No ball by a mile

No ball by a mile

Post by Vick » Fri, 21 Aug 2009 22:24:20


But, Strauss was given out?
 
 
 

No ball by a mile

Post by SultanOfSwin » Fri, 21 Aug 2009 22:30:33


Quote:
> But, Strauss was given out?

   Just read it on Cricinfo. It's a shame. Who was the umpire?

 
 
 

No ball by a mile

Post by Cicer » Fri, 21 Aug 2009 22:30:27


Quote:
> But, Strauss was given out?

As Sir Ian Botham would say  "England are still in front by a long way".

 
 
 

No ball by a mile

Post by higg » Fri, 21 Aug 2009 22:39:00


Quote:

> > But, Strauss was given out?

> ? ?Just read it on Cricinfo. It's a shame. Who was the umpire?

Not sure, but Bowden does tend to act as Australia's 12th man when he
officiates

Higgs

 
 
 

No ball by a mile

Post by Dave -Turne » Sat, 22 Aug 2009 00:47:13

snicko suggested a snick that was appealled for but not given so it's 1-1
then
 
 
 

No ball by a mile

Post by Nirvana » Sat, 22 Aug 2009 02:05:18


Quote:
> snicko suggested a snick that was appealled for but not given so it's 1-1
> then

Its amazing what the game has come up to from the fan's point of
view...keeping score of umpires' errors...lol...it is saying something
about the Elite Panel, innit?
 
 
 

No ball by a mile

Post by Mike Holman » Sat, 22 Aug 2009 02:14:31

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:05:18 -0700 (PDT), Nirvanam

Quote:

>> snicko suggested a snick that was appealled for but not given so it's 1-1
>> then

>Its amazing what the game has come up to from the fan's point of
>view...keeping score of umpires' errors...lol...it is saying something
>about the Elite Panel, innit?

It says a lot more about the ***s who spend their time scrutinising
umpires rather than players because it's the only bit of the game thye
think they understand.

Cheers,

Mike
--

 
 
 

No ball by a mile

Post by alve » Sat, 22 Aug 2009 05:37:52

Quote:

> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:05:18 -0700 (PDT), Nirvanam


>>> snicko suggested a snick that was appealled for but not given so it's 1-1
>>> then

>>Its amazing what the game has come up to from the fan's point of
>>view...keeping score of umpires' errors...lol...it is saying something
>>about the Elite Panel, innit?

> It says a lot more about the ***s who spend their time scrutinising
> umpires rather than players because it's the only bit of the game thye
> think they understand.

Right. So understanding the game means that you simply accept errors rather
than trying to reduce them? Novel.

And if that's the case then I'm with the "***s" rather than the pompous
jackasses.

Take yer hand off it Mikey.

cheers
alvey

 
 
 

No ball by a mile

Post by Pollwa » Sat, 22 Aug 2009 06:49:45



Quote:

> > But, Strauss was given out?

> Just read it on Cricinfo. It's a shame. Who was the umpire?
>>Not sure, but Bowden does tend to act as Australia's 12th man when he
>>officiates
>>Higgs

Are you serious?  Just like the plumb LBW first ball in the last test that
he didn't give out.  Do you watch the same game?

Good enough for Strauss the ***ing cheat.  I hope the series turns on that
no ball.

 
 
 

No ball by a mile

Post by (max.it » Sat, 22 Aug 2009 07:28:02

Quote:


>> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:05:18 -0700 (PDT), Nirvanam


>>>> snicko suggested a snick that was appealled for but not given so it's 1-1
>>>> then

>>>Its amazing what the game has come up to from the fan's point of
>>>view...keeping score of umpires' errors...lol...it is saying something
>>>about the Elite Panel, innit?

>> It says a lot more about the ***s who spend their time scrutinising
>> umpires rather than players because it's the only bit of the game thye
>> think they understand.

>Right. So understanding the game means that you simply accept errors rather
>than trying to reduce them? Novel.

You have to accept the errors in order to reduce them.
Remember they did try out a mo ball third umpire call . I don't think
they gave that one enough time to try out properly, and if I am not
wrong it was Rudi and partner who tried it out and confessed to being
scundered somewhat by the remote call in the lug piece

max.it

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

>And if that's the case then I'm with the "***s" rather than the pompous
>jackasses.

>Take yer hand off it Mikey.

>cheers
>alvey

 
 
 

No ball by a mile

Post by alve » Sat, 22 Aug 2009 07:40:09

Quote:



>>> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:05:18 -0700 (PDT), Nirvanam


>>>>> snicko suggested a snick that was appealled for but not given so it's 1-1
>>>>> then

>>>>Its amazing what the game has come up to from the fan's point of
>>>>view...keeping score of umpires' errors...lol...it is saying something
>>>>about the Elite Panel, innit?

>>> It says a lot more about the ***s who spend their time scrutinising
>>> umpires rather than players because it's the only bit of the game thye
>>> think they understand.

>>Right. So understanding the game means that you simply accept errors rather
>>than trying to reduce them? Novel.

> You have to accept the errors in order to reduce them.
> Remember they did try out a mo ball third umpire call . I don't think
> they gave that one enough time to try out properly, and if I am not
> wrong it was Rudi and partner who tried it out and confessed to being
> scundered somewhat by the remote call in the lug piece

Wot's "scundered"?

as

 
 
 

No ball by a mile

Post by (max.it » Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:25:15

Quote:




>>>> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:05:18 -0700 (PDT), Nirvanam


>>>>>> snicko suggested a snick that was appealled for but not given so it's 1-1
>>>>>> then

>>>>>Its amazing what the game has come up to from the fan's point of
>>>>>view...keeping score of umpires' errors...lol...it is saying something
>>>>>about the Elite Panel, innit?

>>>> It says a lot more about the ***s who spend their time scrutinising
>>>> umpires rather than players because it's the only bit of the game thye
>>>> think they understand.

>>>Right. So understanding the game means that you simply accept errors rather
>>>than trying to reduce them? Novel.

>> You have to accept the errors in order to reduce them.
>> Remember they did try out a mo ball third umpire call . I don't think
>> they gave that one enough time to try out properly, and if I am not
>> wrong it was Rudi and partner who tried it out and confessed to being
>> scundered somewhat by the remote call in the lug piece

>Wot's "scundered"?

>as

Bolloxed, shit upon fron a great height, sorta thing, alarmed, ***ed
up, I don't know. Had difficulty dealing with the system would prbably
be the correct term.

Christ jaysus that's me scundered.
I'm gonna scunder that cunt.

max.it

 
 
 

No ball by a mile

Post by Cicer » Sat, 22 Aug 2009 09:03:45


Quote:
> snicko suggested a snick that was appealled for but not given so it's 1-1
> then

There was a ball from Cook (IIRC) that came off his wrist band which Mark
Waugh said was out (I guess being an extension of the glove or such).  He
more or less said Australia should have appealed louder.
 
 
 

No ball by a mile

Post by Mike Holman » Sat, 22 Aug 2009 09:16:02


keyboard and brought forth:

Quote:

>> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:05:18 -0700 (PDT), Nirvanam


>>>> snicko suggested a snick that was appealled for but not given so it's 1-1
>>>> then

>>>Its amazing what the game has come up to from the fan's point of
>>>view...keeping score of umpires' errors...lol...it is saying something
>>>about the Elite Panel, innit?

>> It says a lot more about the ***s who spend their time scrutinising
>> umpires rather than players because it's the only bit of the game thye
>> think they understand.

>Right. So understanding the game means that you simply accept errors rather
>than trying to reduce them? Novel.

So counting them on rsc is going to reduce them? Novel indeed.

It wouldn't be so bad if there were discussion of the cricket, but
reading rsc would give one the impression that very marginal umpiring
decisions are the only things of significance which ever happen.

Cheers,

Mike
--

 
 
 

No ball by a mile

Post by Gerri » Sat, 22 Aug 2009 11:18:59


Quote:



>> snicko suggested a snick that was appealled for but not given so it's 1-1
>> then

> There was a ball from Cook (IIRC) that came off his wrist band which Mark
> Waugh said was out (I guess being an extension of the glove or such).  He
> more or less said Australia should have appealed louder.

IIRC then Hilfenhaus looked dejected that the batsman had missed it. Then
when Haddin appealed he turned around to the umpire and halfheartedly joined
in.