SA Footy

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

daysofourlives wrote:Fair to say Watson has played his last test with Marsh getting the 2 key wickets today

Incorrect
Marsh might be injured before the 5th test of this series

Broad doesn't want to be out there

RustyCage wrote:Broad doesn't want to be out there

He never does, soft as butter

Seeyaayer Ali. Soon we get to see Anderson crap himself, always worth watching.

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.

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?

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?

Yep, that was just a poor call by the ump last night, too gutless to make a decision. He has had a shocker this test.

Yep they need to take the umpires decision out of it.
Smiths decision is case in point.
Umpire gives it, and we review it. Its pitching in line by a ball hair so the umpires decision stands?
Ali's was proven to be crashing into leg stump by half a ball width but umpires call stands?

The review system was bought in to take the obvious howler out of the game.

Its not working as it should. Review the review system now!

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.

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

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.

Fair point. Warney did go overboard last night for sure. Was kinda looking forward to having the English commentators for this but then was pretty disappointed when I found out that 9 sent their team over there for the first time in years

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

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

According to technology it may have been hitting the stumps. There's an element of error associated with the technology, hence 'umpires call'.

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

Not at all. Just once the review process starts.
That's why we have it. To confirm the umpires decision!

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
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 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

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.

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.

Anyone playing a reverse sweep should be fired regardless of if its hitting the stumps

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.

Correct Tiger
Yeah the East Coast Smith example is the opposite to what Im alluding to[and Shane Watson first test first innings]

What Im getting to is when the batter gets given not out by the umpire
The fielding team goes for the referral
The ball clips the stump and is given not out
IF the ball is hitting the stumps batters should be given out [Like Smith and Watson]


The way I think LBW could be adjudicated
The umps get it right MOST times , leave it with them
The only batting referrals for LBWs should be if the batsman thinks he edged or snicked it first b4 the pad

OR

Let the umpires review ALL LBW decisions they are not sure off
Would slow the game down if they did this ,
but it would eliminate the rafferty rules we have at present, and not go back to umps original decision

Smiths decision is different as that adjudication was that he was hit inline with the stumps, by a mm or less and given out.
Ali's was clearly going to hit. What's the go with with that?

And yes reverse sweep you cop your whack. I agree.