SA Footy

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2015 8:36 am**

The Dark Knight wrote:
RB wrote:They've declared too early IMO. Make them stand out there in the sun. The key with the Poms is to demoralize them - it doesn't take much for them to capitulate. Make them fetch boundaries for half an hour after lunch at least.

Didn't look like a bad declaration after all.

Could of declared on day 3 based on that effort from the poms.

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2015 10:25 am**

Anagram

Want no ashes = Shane Watson

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2015 10:58 am**

mal wrote:Anagram

Want no ashes = Shane Watson

Chris Rogers: Cross her rig

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2015 11:29 am**

Lab Line = Ian Bell

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2015 11:31 am**

sh*t = England

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2015 11:36 am**

woodublieve12 wrote:sh*t = England

Time for you to change your user name ?
First 4 letters = Wood !

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2015 1:41 pm**

Glad I was wrong in assuming there might be problems in the camp, very glad. You don't destroy a side like England on their soil with a performance like that if there were. What a gutless capitulation by the poms that was.

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2015 2:03 pm**

jackpot jim wrote:Too gutless to make a decision?
So saying "Not Out" isn't a decision ?
So the umps get blasted for being too gutless to give LBW appeals out but when they give them out they get blasted for not giving the batsman the benefit of the doubt such as Wattos in the 1st test when they were both umpires call.
Warne carried on like a dick last night.
Basically saying the umpires should be giving the bowler the benefit of the doubt and its up to the batsman to appeal and conclusively prove them wrong.
So Warne wants to do a 100% about face to a guideline that has served the game well for its entire history?
He was obviously a bowler?
Maybe stick to your Poker Warney.
I believe the review system in regards to the LBW is one of the few things the ICC have got right.
The howler will always be overturned which is what we all want.
The exception being if either team have no referrals left when a howler occurs.
Thats maybe something they could look at. Even agree with Warney on that one in that a team doesnt lose a referral if they are on the wrong end of a "umpires call" decision.

^
This

DRS is there to get rid of the howlers. So what if the umpire makes a decision and a system with inherent errors (filmed with analogue technology then converted to a digital signal and equations appied to "track" where a 5& 1/2 Oz projectile might travel too) shows a ball is just clipping: a stump/bail/line of leg stump so he might be wrong.

Keep the human element of the game in it, that's the beauty of cricket.

All we want to see is the howlers got rid of ball clearly missing or hitting the stumps, ball clearly smashed on to the pads.

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2015 2:17 pm**

am Bays wrote:(filmed with analogue technology then converted to a digital signal

not sure what you are getting at with that comment, doesnt make a lot of sense to me.

the ball tracking is pretty damn precise, it is the prediction that is the problem. because you are extrapolating over a potentially long distance, based on a small distance that the ball has travelled.

random example pulled out of my arse.

say you know the accuracy of the ball to within 5mm. (this is what i have heard quoted for the tennis hawkeye so i assume it is the same)

how we say the ball bounced say half a metre in front of the pad.

that would give us a 1% margin of error at that point in time.

Now the crease is 1.2m so we could say the crease plus a stride would be 2m.

That now means there is a 20mm margin for error which is a fair difference. which is why the half a ball thing is in place

nothing to do with the digitising of the signal.

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2015 2:28 pm**

am Bays wrote:
jackpot jim wrote:Too gutless to make a decision?
So saying "Not Out" isn't a decision ?
So the umps get blasted for being too gutless to give LBW appeals out but when they give them out they get blasted for not giving the batsman the benefit of the doubt such as Wattos in the 1st test when they were both umpires call.
Warne carried on like a dick last night.
Basically saying the umpires should be giving the bowler the benefit of the doubt and its up to the batsman to appeal and conclusively prove them wrong.
So Warne wants to do a 100% about face to a guideline that has served the game well for its entire history?
He was obviously a bowler?
Maybe stick to your Poker Warney.
I believe the review system in regards to the LBW is one of the few things the ICC have got right.
The howler will always be overturned which is what we all want.
The exception being if either team have no referrals left when a howler occurs.
Thats maybe something they could look at. Even agree with Warney on that one in that a team doesnt lose a referral if they are on the wrong end of a "umpires call" decision.

^
This

DRS is there to get rid of the howlers. So what if the umpire makes a decision and a system with inherent errors (filmed with analogue technology then converted to a digital signal and equations appied to "track" where a 5& 1/2 Oz projectile might travel too) shows a ball is just clipping: a stump/bail/line of leg stump so he might be wrong.

Keep the human element of the game in it, that's the beauty of cricket.

All we want to see is the howlers got rid of ball clearly missing or hitting the stumps, ball clearly smashed on to the pads.

That's why I would think reducing DRS to only the one review per side is the best option

The clipping or not clipping the stumps either way are just a pain in the arse imho

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2015 2:39 pm**

bennymacca wrote:
am Bays wrote:(filmed with analogue technology then converted to a digital signal

not sure what you are getting at with that comment, doesnt make a lot of sense to me.

Whenever you convert film from Analogue technology to Digital technology you create an error that becomes inherent in every calculation you make subsequent to that conversion. So the example you gave above could actually be a 21 or a 22 mm error but given the differences in set ups, cameras used and digital converters that can't be fully determined for the sake of the DRS.

The biggest error is time (hence the longer delays you get now between radio coverage and TV coverage if you try to lsiten to both) This time delay is not perfectly linear across all the vision over a period of time. This varaiation is not critical for us watching but it is critical when trying to make calculations based on the velocity and acceleration of projectiles.

This is why for Biomechanical research of sport they used proper Digital cameras (not those that make the conversion internally) for precise measurements of projectiles or bodies.

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2015 2:44 pm**

They would use digital cameras though

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2015 4:26 pm**

I would like the poms to put up a bit better fight than what they dished up last night.... to be bundled out for a little over 100 runs in 37 overs, on a pitch that Australia had managed to only loose 10 wickets in compiling over 700 runs really is a disgrace. Complete lack of back bone, ticker, call it what you will. I want the Aussies to win, but have some pride in your country & who you represent ENGLAND.

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2015 4:30 pm**

I wonder what headlines the Poms are waking upto today?

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2015 4:32 pm**

Did Jimmy go and have a beer with the Aussies?
Wanker

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2015 4:34 pm**

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:I wonder what headlines the Poms are waking upto today?

The crows beat Port in the showdown is my guess!

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2015 5:59 pm**

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:I wonder what headlines the Poms are waking upto today?

: ImageUploadedByTapatalk1437377346.411008.jpg (172.41 KiB) Viewed 2675 times

: ImageUploadedByTapatalk1437377332.445885.jpg (195.41 KiB) Viewed 2675 times

: ImageUploadedByTapatalk1437377313.263073.jpg (212.86 KiB) Viewed 2675 times

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2015 6:00 pm**

: ImageUploadedByTapatalk1437377368.729079.jpg (261.99 KiB) Viewed 2673 times

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2015 6:54 pm**

Im guessing they Dunne no good!

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2015 8:16 pm**

Hahahahahahahahahaha yes Rusty love it!!!

SA Footy

2015 Ashes

Re: 2015 Ashes

Re: 2015 Ashes

Re: 2015 Ashes

Re: 2015 Ashes

Re: 2015 Ashes

Re: 2015 Ashes

Re: 2015 Ashes

Re: 2015 Ashes

Re: 2015 Ashes

Re: 2015 Ashes

Re: 2015 Ashes

Re: 2015 Ashes

Re: 2015 Ashes

Re: 2015 Ashes

Re: 2015 Ashes

Re: 2015 Ashes

Re: 2015 Ashes

Re: 2015 Ashes

Re: 2015 Ashes

Re: 2015 Ashes