by mal » Sun Jul 19, 2015 12:50 am
by mal » Sun Jul 19, 2015 12:51 am
daysofourlives wrote:Fair to say Watson has played his last test with Marsh getting the 2 key wickets today
by RustyCage » Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:00 am
by Jim05 » Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:05 am
RustyCage wrote:Broad doesn't want to be out there
by helicopterking » Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:44 am
by gadj1976 » Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:27 am
mal wrote:Ali survives a referral
When there is a referral , SHOULD we forget what the umpire adjudicates ?
If the ball hits the stumps whether it be middle stump or by a bees dick it should be
OUT
Cook OUT B Marsh 96
7/266
by bennymacca » Sun Jul 19, 2015 11:47 am
gadj1976 wrote:mal wrote:Ali survives a referral
When there is a referral , SHOULD we forget what the umpire adjudicates ?
If the ball hits the stumps whether it be middle stump or by a bees dick it should be
OUT
Cook OUT B Marsh 96
7/266
I used to think the same thing but I've realised they're trying to protect the umpires reputations and confidence.
by Jim05 » Sun Jul 19, 2015 11:56 am
bennymacca wrote:gadj1976 wrote:mal wrote:Ali survives a referral
When there is a referral , SHOULD we forget what the umpire adjudicates ?
If the ball hits the stumps whether it be middle stump or by a bees dick it should be
OUT
Cook OUT B Marsh 96
7/266
I used to think the same thing but I've realised they're trying to protect the umpires reputations and confidence.
By making them so gun-shy for fear of making a wrong decision?
by tigerpie » Sun Jul 19, 2015 12:51 pm
by jackpot jim » Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:09 pm
by jackpot jim » Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:11 pm
tigerpie wrote:Yep they need to take the umpires decision out of it.
by bennymacca » Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:22 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.
by RustyCage » Sun Jul 19, 2015 3:26 pm
by Q. » Sun Jul 19, 2015 4:06 pm
RustyCage wrote:Warne was right. This whole "It wasn't hitting enough of the stump" is crap. The umpire got it wrong. He said the ball wasn't going to hit the stumps. It was
by tigerpie » Sun Jul 19, 2015 4:16 pm
jackpot jim wrote:tigerpie wrote:Yep they need to take the umpires decision out of it.
So what do you want them to do out there?
Count to 6 and call over ?
Im sure we have the technology to do that off the field as well
by mal » Sun Jul 19, 2015 5:24 pm
by tigerpie » Sun Jul 19, 2015 6:52 pm
mal wrote:?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
One of the reasons for giving batters not out to balls clipping the stumps on revues is to keep batters batting longer as well ?
The longer they bat , the more chance of 5 days of cricket
More $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
by Jim05 » Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:00 pm
tigerpie wrote:mal wrote:?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
One of the reasons for giving batters not out to balls clipping the stumps on revues is to keep batters batting longer as well ?
The longer they bat , the more chance of 5 days of cricket
More $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
That wasn't the case in smiths dismissal was it.
by mal » Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:20 pm
tigerpie wrote:mal wrote:?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
One of the reasons for giving batters not out to balls clipping the stumps on revues is to keep batters batting longer as well ?
The longer they bat , the more chance of 5 days of cricket
More $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
That wasn't the case in smiths dismissal was it.
by tigerpie » Sun Jul 19, 2015 8:09 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |