SA Footy

Q. wrote:That's ******

No its not

Many People (including many commentators (hi Warney)) forget that the e ball tracking is not 100% accurate - its a guide based on probability.

Hence why they have the umpires call provision for when it is just clipping the stumps.

That decision is not a howler, which is what the DRS is for, support the umpires in they haven't made a significant mistake not if it is out or not

am Bays wrote:

Q. wrote:That's ******

No its not

Many People (including many commentators (hi Warney)) forget that the e ball tracking is not 100% accurate - its a guide based on probability.

Hence why they have the umpires call provision for when it is just clipping the stumps.

That decision is not a howler, which is what the DRS is for, support the umpires in they haven't made a significant mistake not if it is out or not

If a batsmen offers no shot he shouldn't be getting both the benefit of doubt from the field umpire and then the benefit of umpire's call from the review.

Also, more than half that ball was hitting the stumps

Q. wrote:

am Bays wrote:

Q. wrote:That's ******

No its not

Many People (including many commentators (hi Warney)) forget that the e ball tracking is not 100% accurate - its a guide based on probability.

Hence why they have the umpires call provision for when it is just clipping the stumps.

That decision is not a howler, which is what the DRS is for, support the umpires in they haven't made a significant mistake not if it is out or not

If a batsmen offers no shot he shouldn't be getting both the benefit of doubt from the field umpire and then the benefit of umpire's call from the review.

I disagree. The batsman should always get the benefit of the doubt.

And more generally, there's no need for overly aggressive LBW decisions in cricket.

Q. wrote:Also, more than half that ball was hitting the stumps

I haven't seen the footage so can't confirm but I would assume half the ball was inside the outside edge of the leg stump, causing this discussion that more than half the ball was hitting the stumps, but I also suspect that the middle of the ball was above the top of the stumps (not bails).

In short, it was umpires call on height, not width.

(I assume; once again, I haven't seen the footage).

Trader wrote:

Q. wrote:Also, more than half that ball was hitting the stumps

I haven't seen the footage so can't confirm but I would assume half the ball was inside the outside edge of the leg stump, causing this discussion that more than half the ball was hitting the stumps, but I also suspect that the middle of the ball was above the top of the stumps (not bails).

In short, it was umpires call on height, not width.

(I assume; once again, I haven't seen the footage).

Yep!

I don't know how correct this is but on ABC radio they said it was given not out because of the height, not the leg stump.

Half the ball wasn't hitting the stumps, apparently the bails are NOT included which both Dirk Nannes and the other bloke couldn't understand. Based on the picture above I think the ABC got it right as far as their interpretation.

whufc wrote:I don't know how correct this is but on ABC radio they said it was given not out because of the height, not the leg stump.

Half the ball wasn't hitting the stumps, apparently the bails are NOT included which both Dirk Nannes and the other bloke couldn't understand. Based on the picture above I think the ABC got it right as far as their interpretation.

Correct, the black line near the top of the stumps is the guide - 51% of the ball must be below that black line to be out.

Is what it is, DRS isnt perfect - either we accept it for its flaws, or go back to umpires calls.

The Bedge wrote:

whufc wrote:I don't know how correct this is but on ABC radio they said it was given not out because of the height, not the leg stump.

Half the ball wasn't hitting the stumps, apparently the bails are NOT included which both Dirk Nannes and the other bloke couldn't understand. Based on the picture above I think the ABC got it right as far as their interpretation.

Correct, the black line near the top of the stumps is the guide - 51% of the ball must be below that black line to be out.

Is what it is, DRS isnt perfect - either we accept it for its flaws, or go back to umpires calls.

Good Call.

The game isn't perfect, so why do we expect the umpiring either live or with technology to be perfect.

Same with goal reviews in the footy....... we want perfection, in an imperfect world.

The beauty of sport, is in the interpretation.

Bradman was never given out on review, yet the game flourished.

Finally, a spell of short bowling. There seems to be some uneven bounce in the pitch at that length.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Rik E Boy wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:

jackpot jim wrote:What is with the Australian top order batsmen when they're given out ? They just stand around thinking they've been hard done by all the time.

It's the attitude that's been instilled into the group with the re-emergence of Smith and Warner, I'm a fan of Smith's but I'm rapidly losing respect for him again, Marnus is a deadset wanker, it's hard to tell when Smith ends and he starts.

Wade and Warner are a pair of floggers too, I hope Green can remain level-headed.

Piss Langer off and get in Punter or Tugger, even AB for that matter, get some Aussie grunt and tenacity back in the squad.

Poor old AB. Hasn't he given enough? I reckon someone like Mark Taylor might be ideal but I can't see Tubs making an appearance.

regards,

REB

F*** Tubby, he's too nice. He ranks #6 in the best captains of my era.

S.Waugh
Punter
AB
Clarke
G.Chappell
Taylor
Paine
Smith
Hughes

I Chappell
Taylor
AB
Clarke
S Waugh
G Chappell
Smith
Ponting
Paine
Hughes
Yallop

That's my take. Ponting not a great captain for mine. Absolute ball chaser. Waugh didn't need to captain with that side. Chappelli the stand out on and off the field an absolute players' man. Tubby very astute, AB the iconic figure but let the game drift at times, Clarke imaginative and severely underrated as a captain, Yallop a clear standout as the worst Hughes and Paine a real worry but at least Hughes faced absolute champion teams.

regards,

REB

Things that won't get hit by Australian bowlers today.

DOC wrote:

Review-1.png

**** that's more than 50% there.

Rik E Boy wrote:

DOC wrote:

Review-1.png

**** that's more than 50% there.

As discussed its not from the bails, its from the black line on the stumps.

Still less than 4 runs an over.... what chance they have a dip at the runs?

Corona Man wrote:Still less than 4 runs an over.... what chance they have a dip at the runs?

Not intentionally.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand here comes the draw.
We are nowhere near as good as some think we are,
I'd say about 3rd to 4th best test nation.

Corona Man wrote:Still less than 4 runs an over.... what chance they have a dip at the runs?

I think they'll be conservative in the middle session, but if they go into tea 1 or 2 down still with say 150 to get.. then game on.. especially if Gill is still at the crease.

They'd love to win, particularly given the Aussies record at the Gabba.

Rik E Boy wrote:
I Chappell
Taylor
AB
Clarke
S Waugh
G Chappell
Smith
Ponting
Paine
Hughes
Yallop

That's my take. Ponting not a great captain for mine. Absolute ball chaser. Waugh didn't need to captain with that side. Chappelli the stand out on and off the field an absolute players' man. Tubby very astute, AB the iconic figure but let the game drift at times, Clarke imaginative and severely underrated as a captain, Yallop a clear standout as the worst Hughes and Paine a real worry but at least Hughes faced absolute champion teams.

regards,

REB

[/quote]

Graham Yallop was handed the poisonous challis and never stood a chance, him and Ian Chappell were before my time to form judgement.

I just wasn't a Taylor fan, I think I found him a bit selfish in the way he continually captained and opened in the ODI's despite being Boycott-like at scoring along with playing on too long despite being out of form, the big 334* brought him more time, he had plenty of lean periods.

Each to their own I guess.