SA Footy

I cant believe anyone thinks the right decision was made.
The umpires gave it not out, The kiwis didnt review the decision in the allotted time available to them to call for a review. They did not believe it was out.

That is the extent of the rules, no more, no less.

The 3 umpires should be sacked and never umpire international cricket again.

As for McCollum, spirit of the game, my ass!!

When was the last time an umpire gave a batsman out LBW, and as he's walking off the replay shows he hit it and the umpire calls him back??? Exact same thing

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:The players made an appeal, umpire Ian Gould claims he never heard an appeal.....

Gould needs to be sacked for failing to be aware of what went on around him

If they fielding team doesnt appeal you cant be given out, simple!! Even if its a skied ball technically you must still appeal

bennymacca wrote:This article sums it up nicely. The process was terrible and it shouldn't have occurred in the way it did, but I would rather the right decision be made than not

http://www.cricket.com.au/news/steve-sm ... ign=nzvaus

In that article, it says technically the ball isn't dead until the bowler starts his next run up.
So when a keeper takes a ball behind the stumps or gets a throw from a fielder, and the ball is being tossed around the field back to the bowler, technically any of the fielders can still run out either batsman?

Haven't seen any footage showing other NZ players but to me that's not an appeal from the bowler. If you haven't turned and looked at the umpire, it can't really be considered to be asking him a question IMHO. We see that exact same reaction from bowlers when they think a ball might beat the bat and then gets belted for 4.

FlyingHigh wrote:

bennymacca wrote:This article sums it up nicely. The process was terrible and it shouldn't have occurred in the way it did, but I would rather the right decision be made than not

http://www.cricket.com.au/news/steve-sm ... ign=nzvaus

In that article, it says technically the ball isn't dead until the bowler starts his next run up.
So when a keeper takes a ball behind the stumps or gets a throw from a fielder, and the ball is being tossed around the field back to the bowler, technically any of the fielders can still run out either batsman?

Then the article is wrong. When the ball is thrown to the bowler and keeper and there is at that point no consideration of a run or a dismissal, the ball is dead. It's also dead when it's clear to the umpires that all fielders and both batsmen consider it to be dead. Given the ball becomes live when a bowler starts his runup, perhaps the article has accidentally grabbed the continuous cricket rulebook. Actually, reading the article it's Chris Broad who thinks that's the rule. I'm guessing he doesn't mean dead, but that the umpires can adjudicate on the ball until the next becomes live.

daysofourlives wrote:I cant believe anyone thinks the right decision was made.
The umpires gave it not out, The kiwis didnt review the decision in the allotted time available to them to call for a review. They did not believe it was out.

That is the extent of the rules, no more, no less.

The 3 umpires should be sacked and never umpire international cricket again.

As for McCollum, spirit of the game, my ass!!

When was the last time an umpire gave a batsman out LBW, and as he's walking off the replay shows he hit it and the umpire calls him back??? Exact same thing

that is not the extent of the rules though, the umpire is allowed to change his mind.

maybe new Zealand think they are due some spirit of the game karma after Nathan Lyon cheated them out of a test match victory

MAY-Z wrote:

daysofourlives wrote:I cant believe anyone thinks the right decision was made.
The umpires gave it not out, The kiwis didnt review the decision in the allotted time available to them to call for a review. They did not believe it was out.

That is the extent of the rules, no more, no less.

The 3 umpires should be sacked and never umpire international cricket again.

As for McCollum, spirit of the game, my ass!!

When was the last time an umpire gave a batsman out LBW, and as he's walking off the replay shows he hit it and the umpire calls him back??? Exact same thing

that is not the extent of the rules though, the umpire is allowed to change his mind.

maybe new Zealand think they are due some spirit of the game karma after Nathan Lyon cheated them out of a test match victory

Or the recent Trevor Chappell underarm incident.

I can see both sides of this.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/aus ... 1bfd2c00fb

MAY-Z wrote:

daysofourlives wrote:I cant believe anyone thinks the right decision was made.
The umpires gave it not out, The kiwis didnt review the decision in the allotted time available to them to call for a review. They did not believe it was out.

That is the extent of the rules, no more, no less.

The 3 umpires should be sacked and never umpire international cricket again.

As for McCollum, spirit of the game, my ass!!

When was the last time an umpire gave a batsman out LBW, and as he's walking off the replay shows he hit it and the umpire calls him back??? Exact same thing

that is not the extent of the rules though, the umpire is allowed to change his mind.

maybe new Zealand think they are due some spirit of the game karma after Nathan Lyon cheated them out of a test match victory

When has an umpire ever changed his mind?

daysofourlives wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:The players made an appeal, umpire Ian Gould claims he never heard an appeal.....

Gould needs to be sacked for failing to be aware of what went on around him

If they fielding team doesnt appeal you cant be given out, simple!! Even if its a skied ball technically you must still appeal

I agree, but I think the players did ask the question and the umpire stood there......

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:

daysofourlives wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:The players made an appeal, umpire Ian Gould claims he never heard an appeal.....

Gould needs to be sacked for failing to be aware of what went on around him

If they fielding team doesnt appeal you cant be given out, simple!! Even if its a skied ball technically you must still appeal

I agree, but I think the players did ask the question and the umpire stood there......

NZ only put in a proper appeal once they had seen a replay on the big screen. The bowler was at the top of his mark ready to bowl the next ball. Big screen replays aren't used for all balls or 50/50 decisions so the appeal should not have been accepted by the umpire. Players might now hold the game up waiting to see a replay so they can appeal.

hawks21 wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:

daysofourlives wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:The players made an appeal, umpire Ian Gould claims he never heard an appeal.....

Gould needs to be sacked for failing to be aware of what went on around him

If they fielding team doesnt appeal you cant be given out, simple!! Even if its a skied ball technically you must still appeal

I agree, but I think the players did ask the question and the umpire stood there......

NZ only put in a proper appeal once they had seen a replay on the big screen. The bowler was at the top of his mark ready to bowl the next ball. Big screen replays aren't used for all balls or 50/50 decisions so the appeal should not have been accepted by the umpire. Players might now hold the game up waiting to see a replay so they can appeal.

Yep or at least delay the ball getting back to the bowler until the replay has been shown.

How long before teams have their own cameras and crews to get a replay ready in seconds and give the players in the middle a signal?

Umpires will soon be just hat-racks.
May aswell go the whole hog and use technology for every call and get every decision correct, there will always be the element of human error when you have to look down at the crease line for a no ball then up in a split second hoping to not get a distorted view by a bowler or non striking batsman.

Lightning McQueen wrote:Umpires will soon be just hat-racks.
May aswell go the whole hog and use technology for every call and get every decision correct, there will always be the element of human error when you have to look down at the crease line for a no ball then up in a split second hoping to not get a distorted view by a bowler or non striking batsman.

Soon? They pretty much are my good man.

Booney wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:Umpires will soon be just hat-racks.
May aswell go the whole hog and use technology for every call and get every decision correct, there will always be the element of human error when you have to look down at the crease line for a no ball then up in a split second hoping to not get a distorted view by a bowler or non striking batsman.

Soon? They pretty much are my good man.

I think they're making a mess of the game quite well at the moment, it's a tough gig though, the armchair expert gets on their high horse when the ball brushes the glove slightly and carries to the keeper and given not out.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Booney wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:Umpires will soon be just hat-racks.
May aswell go the whole hog and use technology for every call and get every decision correct, there will always be the element of human error when you have to look down at the crease line for a no ball then up in a split second hoping to not get a distorted view by a bowler or non striking batsman.

Soon? They pretty much are my good man.

I think they're making a mess of the game quite well at the moment, it's a tough gig though, the armchair expert gets on their high horse when the ball brushes the glove slightly and carries to the keeper and given not out.

Agreed, and I almost back India's stance. It's either 100% right 100% of the time or we don't use it.

Not like blokes can carry on about getting a shit decision and it ruining their average or cutting short a run of form, it's usually only a day or three later and they're out in the middle again with the amount of cricket they play.

From the right decision has gone from 85% to 95% or something like that

why is that a bad thing if you cant get to 100%?

I like the approach they have used in tennis. Hawkeye has a 5mm margin of error, about the amount of fluff on the ball, but they have gone the whole hog and just taken hawkeye as gospel. None of this umpires call benefit of the doubt rubbish

And it works. The replays are fast, and it actually adds to the game to have the reviews there, not massively detracting from it like it does in cricket and afl.

bennymacca wrote:From the right decision has gone from 85% to 95% or something like that

why is that a bad thing if you cant get to 100%?

I like the approach they have used in tennis. Hawkeye has a 5mm margin of error, about the amount of fluff on the ball, but they have gone the whole hog and just taken hawkeye as gospel. None of this umpires call benefit of the doubt rubbish

And it works. The replays are fast, and it actually adds to the game to have the reviews there, not massively detracting from it like it does in cricket and afl.

Because you'd be jacked off if you were in the 5%

Thats 1/3 as many people being jacked off.

Sounds like a shit orgy