SA Footy

whufc wrote:

no_remorse28 wrote:I don't think Frogbox is allowed as evidence in ATCA

i hope thats not the case.....

I know that some games have frogbox others dont etc but at the end of the day if the evidence exists it should be used regardless of the source.

Watch the league cry around September next year that they dont have enough umpires to cover all grades.

Horrible decision.

Maybe they would get the message if all umps refused to umpire this week in 40 degrees - would love to see Arron standing out there all day

Aaron’s behaviour is a disgrace in the video and agree Eagles if the umpires are tough they should refuse to umpire this week. The decision being downgraded is a show that the umpires do not matter in ATCA. What happens when Chadd does the same thing to an umpire in this weeks game, they argue that because there is no frogbox there’s no evidence of it happening???

Port Pirie Power wrote:Aaron’s behaviour is a disgrace in the video and agree Eagles if the umpires are tough they should refuse to umpire this week. The decision being downgraded is a show that the umpires do not matter in ATCA. What happens when Chadd does the same thing to an umpire in this weeks game, they argue that because there is no frogbox there’s no evidence of it happening???

Chadd should be ashamed of how he reacted too, for crying out loud he has played for Australia and carrying on like a pork chop in a ATCA game, heaven forbid

This Comp and the decisions that get made never fail to disappoint.
Hopefully the start of an overhaul of those who call the shots.

A lot of people shooting off on the association right now.
Do we actually know what the outcome is? Or was No Remorse just guessing and everyone's taken it as fact?

What if the result comes back later that it got upgraded? Will everyone then say how amazing Heyzer is?
I doubt it.

I was only stating what I'd been told by some people today, quite a few actually, maybe I should of elaborated on that and maybe it was wrong info.

In the end I'm sure it all comes out soon and will be discussed vigorously then.

You've been closest to the mark all the way through Trader, maybe you have heard what the go is.

whufc wrote:

no_remorse28 wrote:I don't think Frogbox is allowed as evidence in ATCA

i hope thats not the case.....

I know that some games have frogbox others dont etc but at the end of the day if the evidence exists it should be used regardless of the source.

Watch the league cry around September next year that they dont have enough umpires to cover all grades.

Horrible decision.

Agreed. Frogbox is a witness just like a person or persons but better.
You can't lie about the vision or verbal like a person can.

2 games is woefully inadequate.
But hey it's the dollarfins and they have some clout.

knowing that it is going to be 40 degrees on Saturday, when do ATCA make the call to cancel the games from B2 downwards?

Bluedemon wrote:knowing that it is going to be 40 degrees on Saturday, when do ATCA make the call to cancel the games from B2 downwards?

From memory as late as 9am on the day.

Wonder if they still have the hotline you could call for an update !

no_remorse28 wrote:I was only stating what I'd been told by some people today, quite a few actually, maybe I should of elaborated on that and maybe it was wrong info.

In the end I'm sure it all comes out soon and will be discussed vigorously then.

You've been closest to the mark all the way through Trader, maybe you have heard what the go is.

Yup, your comment was clear it wasn't certainly 2, but others have run with it.

Nah, I've been miles off, I said he should get 7-11

no_remorse28 wrote:

Bluedemon wrote:knowing that it is going to be 40 degrees on Saturday, when do ATCA make the call to cancel the games from B2 downwards?

From memory as late as 9am on the day.

Wonder if they still have the hotline you could call for an update !

And yes, 9am on the day is the official cut off time, but I wouldn't be shocked if it comes out a little earlier.
Will most certainly still be Saturday morning though, way too many teams currently sitting 5th that will have a fit if they call it friday night and then saturday morning's forecast is revised back to 39.

Trader wrote:A lot of people shooting off on the association right now.
Do we actually know what the outcome is? Or was No Remorse just guessing and everyone's taken it as fact?

What if the result comes back later that it got upgraded? Will everyone then say how amazing Heyzer is?
I doubt it.

I certainly would praise him if he gets over 4 games.

If he can still play the Grand Final IF they make it, then he deserves to cop the biggest spray of all time.

Channel 7 will love to run the story if he only gets two, like they sink the boots into Northern suburb clubs in the ADFL whenever they do something wrong

So much hate on Aaron / Grange over this incident - and rightly so they should be penalised, and that behavior isn't what anyone wants to see.. but **** me, what about the umpire? Where's the accountability for their involvement?

Have we become so conscious of not upsetting officials for fear of losing them that they become invisible and unnoticed?

This umpire made a decision - obviously incorrect - discussed with another umpire (god knows what they discussed), copped abuse, discussed again and changed their mind and gave it out. Sayers shouldn't have abused and essentially pressured the umpire into changing his mind, but how about the umpire stand by his conviction whether right or wrong.

I wasn't there, so obviously speculating, but I believe the umpire said something which is half the reason Grange blew up - if he had said not out and left it at that, would there have been as much carry on? I know as a bowler, I'd rather the umpire not give me a reason for the not out, than give me one that's absolute bullshit.

Now hearing Sayers got four games, appealed and the Commissioner increased it to 6 games, and Grange lost six points also.

Hopefully this rumour is correct as much better result.

The Bedge wrote:So much hate on Aaron / Grange over this incident - and rightly so they should be penalised, and that behavior isn't what anyone wants to see.. but **** me, what about the umpire? Where's the accountability for their involvement?

Have we become so conscious of not upsetting officials for fear of losing them that they become invisible and unnoticed?

This umpire made a decision - obviously incorrect - discussed with another umpire (god knows what they discussed), copped abuse, discussed again and changed their mind and gave it out. Sayers shouldn't have abused and essentially pressured the umpire into changing his mind, but how about the umpire stand by his conviction whether right or wrong.

I wasn't there, so obviously speculating, but I believe the umpire said something which is half the reason Grange blew up - if he had said not out and left it at that, would there have been as much carry on? I know as a bowler, I'd rather the umpire not give me a reason for the not out, than give me one that's absolute bullshit.

Was it that bad....

The main mistake being the umpire didnt look where the ball went after it hit the pads.

It seemed the umpire was purely focused on the LBW which he gave not out because it hit the bat but he failed to follow where the ball went to see the catch. Yep a mistake but not the worst thing weve ever seen on a cricket field.

He obviously needed to speak to the other umpire as he couldnt just take the fielders word for it.......

Not sure what was being said between the umpires.

whufc wrote:

The Bedge wrote:So much hate on Aaron / Grange over this incident - and rightly so they should be penalised, and that behavior isn't what anyone wants to see.. but **** me, what about the umpire? Where's the accountability for their involvement?

Have we become so conscious of not upsetting officials for fear of losing them that they become invisible and unnoticed?

This umpire made a decision - obviously incorrect - discussed with another umpire (god knows what they discussed), copped abuse, discussed again and changed their mind and gave it out. Sayers shouldn't have abused and essentially pressured the umpire into changing his mind, but how about the umpire stand by his conviction whether right or wrong.

I wasn't there, so obviously speculating, but I believe the umpire said something which is half the reason Grange blew up - if he had said not out and left it at that, would there have been as much carry on? I know as a bowler, I'd rather the umpire not give me a reason for the not out, than give me one that's absolute bullshit.

Was it that bad....

The main mistake being the umpire didnt look where the ball went after it hit the pads.

It seemed the umpire was purely focused on the LBW which he gave not out because it hit the bat but he failed to follow where the ball went to see the catch. Yep a mistake but not the worst thing weve ever seen on a cricket field.

He obviously needed to speak to the other umpire as he couldnt just take the fielders word for it.......

Not sure what was being said between the umpires.

You wouldn't think that he would need to go to square leg to see if it hit the pad. So i assume that he went there to see if it went to a fielder if he wasn't watching.

I can't see what information would have changed from the first to the second time he went to square leg ump though regarding a catch. The way that Captain reacted to not out, yelling he f*** caught it, would suggest that it was given not out on another form of dismissal.

Would love to know what happened.

Also Trader... I will give props to Heyzer/committee if they stepped in to do anything. In my experience though, he has had a history of doing as he pleases regardless of what by-laws are in place.

6 weeks would be about right though.

Didnt he go off to square leg to see if the catch had been taken because he was focused on giving the LBW not out he didnt watch where the ball went.

I just figured the conversation would have went something like 'hey square leg umpire, i've given the lbw not because he hit it but fielding team are claiming they have taken a catch, did you see where the ball went after hitting the pads because i didnt see it'

Agree going back there the second time was a bit odd but the dummy spit was already on by then.

6 weeks is fair.
Like others I'm confused as to why when he went to square leg, turned down the appeal, commotion, changes mind, your out???

I believe when the umpire consulted with square leg the first time, he asked if the batsman had hit it. The square leg umpire said he couldn't tell from where he was, hence why the not out decision stood. Then Sayers obviously disagreed and had an aggressive encounter with the umpire which then prompted the umpire to consult with the umpire a second time which was asking if the player had caught it. The square leg umpire confirmed that it had carried and was caught.
The decision was then changed to out,

That is my understanding of the situation, however without being out in the middle at the time this may not be 100% accurate.

Harry49 wrote:I believe when the umpire consulted with square leg the first time, he asked if the batsman had hit it. The square leg umpire said he couldn't tell from where he was, hence why the not out decision stood. Then Sayers obviously disagreed and had an aggressive encounter with the umpire which then prompted the umpire to consult with the umpire a second time which was asking if the player had caught it. The square leg umpire confirmed that it had carried and was caught.
The decision was then changed to out,

That is my understanding of the situation, however without being out in the middle at the time this may not be 100% accurate.

That makes no sense - why would you first ask if he hit it.. not get any clarity.. then ask if it carried.. then give it out?

When / if he first asked if he hit it, and the square leg gave an answer of uncertainty, that should’ve been the end of it.

Appeal for LBW - not out.
They claim catch - umpire doesn’t know if he hit it (not great)
Asks square leg - he doesn’t know. Not out.

Move on

whufc wrote:Was it that bad....

The main mistake being the umpire didnt look where the ball went after it hit the pads.

It seemed the umpire was purely focused on the LBW which he gave not out because it hit the bat but he failed to follow where the ball went to see the catch. Yep a mistake but not the worst thing weve ever seen on a cricket field.

He obviously needed to speak to the other umpire as he couldnt just take the fielders word for it.......

Not sure what was being said between the umpires.

No, the mistake being the umpire doubting himself not once but twice, allowing the oppo captain to get in his face and abuse him, and allow him to argue the decision.

He shouldn’t have entertained them beyond the LBW appeal he turned down.