SA Footy

Its very rare in my 38 years that I've ever switched off the cricket but when either Warne or Ian Chappell are commentating I just have to switch over.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

The Bedge wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:One thing that has irked me is the fact that we've had two Aussie umpires, we've been afforded all of the favours on-field, it's embarrassing, Smith's LBW yesterday and then Burns' getting fired out caught behind last night almost before the ball made it to Carey.

I don't remember who said it (**** probably was Warne ) but i agree that LBW referrals shouldn't factor in whether they're hit in line if the ball is hitting the stumps.

Two balls the same in terms of umpires call and hitting the stumps (Lyon and Broad), and two different outcomes due to umpires decision - and then the umpire rating isn't impacted on it because technically they haven't made a wrong decision.

Yeah, if it's out it's out.

Disagree strongly for two reasons
1. There is an error associated with ball tracking so it might say just hitting or just missing there are no absolute guarantees that the ball is going to hit or miss the stumps, flicked or not flicked the glove s etc therefore umpires call stands. Teh error is more pronounced when it is an LB to someone playing forward, therefor a longer distance to travel post impact and a shorter distance to base to computations on)
2. DRS is there to get rid of the howler the absolute stinkers (e.g Katich at Trent Bridge in 2005 when he smashed onto his pads and Bucknor gave him LB) that should have been given out or not out. it's not there for the line ball judgement calls of the umpire.

If you remember what the DRS is there for (getting rid of the stinkers not the line ball calls) it works perfectly (provided you havent got Billy Bowden type 3rd umpires looking endlessly at replays trying to find something that isnt clearly there).

On Smith he got given out on a umpires call in teh 1st innings (LBW) and not out on an umpires call in teh 2nd innings (LCW) swings and roundabouts.

The Bedge wrote:Can England show a bit of fight today?

Geez they've relied heavily on Malan and Root to score their runs - only two blokes with 100+ runs this series so far.

Hameed 58 @ 14.50 from 4 inn
Burns 51 @ 12.75 from 4 inn
Pope 44 @ 14.66 from 3 inn

Do they have any other batsmen on this tour?

Pope to fall quickly then Stokes and Buttler to put on a 150 run partnership

Win at 8:46

am Bays wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:

The Bedge wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:One thing that has irked me is the fact that we've had two Aussie umpires, we've been afforded all of the favours on-field, it's embarrassing, Smith's LBW yesterday and then Burns' getting fired out caught behind last night almost before the ball made it to Carey.

I don't remember who said it (**** probably was Warne ) but i agree that LBW referrals shouldn't factor in whether they're hit in line if the ball is hitting the stumps.

Two balls the same in terms of umpires call and hitting the stumps (Lyon and Broad), and two different outcomes due to umpires decision - and then the umpire rating isn't impacted on it because technically they haven't made a wrong decision.

Yeah, if it's out it's out.

Disagree strongly for two reasons
1. There is an error associated with ball tracking so it might say just hitting or just missing there are no absolute guarantees that the ball is going to hit or miss the stumps, flicked or not flicked the glove s etc therefore umpires call stands. Teh error is more pronounced when it is an LB to someone playing forward, therefor a longer distance to travel post impact and a shorter distance to base to computations on)
2. DRS is there to get rid of the howler the absolute stinkers (e.g Katich at Trent Bridge in 2005 when he smashed onto his pads and Bucknor gave him LB) that should have been given out or not out. it's not there for the line ball judgement calls of the umpire.

If you remember what the DRS is there for (getting rid of the stinkers not the line ball calls) it works perfectly (provided you havent got Billy Bowden type 3rd umpires looking endlessly at replays trying to find something that isnt clearly there).

On Smith he got given out on a umpires call in teh 1st innings (LBW) and not out on an umpires call in teh 2nd innings (LCW) swings and roundabouts.

OK.

Sorry if that cam over a bit strong but as Whuffer knows sports that go all in on trusting technology create another set of problems see NFL 10 years ago and current issues with VAR in soccer.

Technology is not the perfect panacea so hearing blokes go on about it in the commentary that we should accept it as out or not out without acknowledging the errors gives me the irrits (Hi Shane)

Use technology to get rid of the howlers and acknowledge the glorious uncertainty of sport where all participants have to make line ball decisions in the heat of the moment.

PS if you make sport perfect and get rid of the line ball contentious decisions what would we talk about apart from Port, Adelaide and where is Carey?

smith live to me looked outside the line. Broad didnt even appeal he celebrated, probably cost him the on field decision to be out.

am Bays wrote:Sorry if that cam over a bit strong but as Whuffer knows sports that go all in on trusting technology create another set of problems see NFL 10 years ago and current issues with VAR in soccer.

Technology is not the perfect panacea so hearing blokes go on about it in the commentary that we should accept it as out or not out without acknowledging the errors gives me the irrits (Hi Shane)

Use technology to get rid of the howlers and acknowledge the glorious uncertainty of sport where all participants have to make line ball decisions in the heat of the moment.

PS if you make sport perfect and get rid of the line ball contentious decisions what would we talk about apart from Port, Adelaide and where is Carey?

Everyone has their opinions mate and I respect yours, I'm not an arguer and I don't think that my opinion is any righter than anyone elses.

Smith's one was out and IMO was a howler, it fitted the necessary criteria and was only given not out for the protection of the umpires integrity.

am Bays wrote:Disagree strongly for two reasons
1. There is an error associated with ball tracking so it might say just hitting or just missing there are no absolute guarantees that the ball is going to hit or miss the stumps, flicked or not flicked the glove s etc therefore umpires call stands.

That's where 'umpires call' does come into play - not when the impact inline is judged too close and umpires call but the ball is cannoning into the middle of middle stump.

Smith should've been out, no two ways about it, but a technicality on the line of impact saved him.

That's a howler IMO.

am Bays wrote:Sorry if that cam over a bit strong but as Whuffer knows sports that go all in on trusting technology create another set of problems see NFL 10 years ago and current issues with VAR in soccer.

Technology is not the perfect panacea so hearing blokes go on about it in the commentary that we should accept it as out or not out without acknowledging the errors gives me the irrits (Hi Shane)

Use technology to get rid of the howlers and acknowledge the glorious uncertainty of sport where all participants have to make line ball decisions in the heat of the moment.

PS if you make sport perfect and get rid of the line ball contentious decisions what would we talk about apart from Port, Adelaide and where is Carey?

VAR in soccer is an absolute dogs breakfast and the worst use of video technology in global sport.

I've always thought that 2 umpires doing 90 overs for 5 day, 7.5 hour days is far to much especially when there job is judge in millimetres. Could there be a case for having 4 umpires who rotate throughout a day, in theory better concentration levels better decision making. You could make a case there would be further interpretations but you already get different interpretations from different ends so im not sure that would be a concern.

I would also immediately stop the umpires from having to judge no-balls (some would say they are already doing that) and use technology for that and run outs/stumpings only.

I would also drop reduce the reviews to one so teams only use it for the genuine howler rather than tactical use.

The Bedge wrote:

am Bays wrote:Disagree strongly for two reasons
1. There is an error associated with ball tracking so it might say just hitting or just missing there are no absolute guarantees that the ball is going to hit or miss the stumps, flicked or not flicked the glove s etc therefore umpires call stands.

That's where 'umpires call' does come into play - not when the impact inline is judged too close and umpires call but the ball is cannoning into the middle of middle stump.

Smith should've been out, no two ways about it, but a technicality on the line of impact saved him.

That's a howler IMO.

So your saying the clause in the LBW law of being hit outside the line of the stumps is wrong? As we all know doesn't matter if the ball is cannoning into the stumps if you're struck outside the line, it's not out. Its like say the ball hit the stumps but the bails haven't come off so its still out.

I admit it was a line ball decision and the umpire has made a judgement call technology has basically said it's not an "unreasonable" call, go with it.

IMO It's not a howler

David Gower in the 2nd innings at Adelaide in 1991 on day five was a howler.

Law 36
1. Out LBW
The striker is out LBW in the circumstances set out below.
(a) The bowler delivers a ball, not being a No ball and
(b) the ball, if it is not intercepted full pitch, pitches in line between wicket and wicket or on the off side of the striker's wicket and
(c) the ball not having previously touched his bat, the striker intercepts the ball, either full pitch or after pitching, with any part of his person and
(d) the point of impact, even if above the level of the bails, either;
(i) is between wicket and wicket or
(ii) if the striker has made no genuine attempt to play the ball with his bat, is either between wicket and wicket or outside the line of the off stump
and (e) but for the interception, the ball would have hit the wicket.

2. Interception of the ball
(a) In assessing points (c), (d) and (e) in 1 above, only the first interception is to be considered.
(b) In assessing point (e) in 1 above, it is to be assumed that the path of the ball before interception would have continued after interception, irrespective of whether the ball might have pitched subsequently or not.;

I reckon there's already wiggle room already to allow impact outside the line of off stump to give out.
I agree leave leg side outside the line the same, not convinced for the off side.

5/86.. does this last an hour?

The Bedge wrote:5/86.. does this last an hour?

Unlikely

The Bedge wrote:5/86.. does this last an hour?

These two put on 150

Warne has suggested more slips.. start the clock now, count how many times he says it again in next 10min..

Pope was supposedly the great white hope and the brightest batting prospect coming through. Utter dud

Jim05 wrote:Pope was supposedly the great white hope and the brightest batting prospect coming through. Utter dud

Burns Hammed Pope Buttler not up to it with the bat

Carey first mistake

Oh that's bad

That was shocking Carey