Cricket 24/7  

Welcome to the Cricket 24/7.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   Cricket 24/7 > Cricket Discussion Forums > International Cricket
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 6th January 2011, 22:43   #41
ddb
Established International
 
ddb's Avatar
http://www.cricket-match-special.com/
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rey View Post
And the moaning would be justified, whether you think it's biased or not. Wouldn't you be aggrieved if the situation was reversed?
I lost the will to argue in length for umpiring decisions after Sydney tbh.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Breacan View Post
Ah, nothing like a one-eyed viewpoint, is there? From a neutral perspective (actually, slightly prejudiced against South Africa for reasons I won't go into) South Africa played the better cricket at Newlands, and without the unnecessary gift by the umpires to Tendulkar of a second life (which he seized and made full use of in a way many lesser batsmen cannot) would probably have deservedly won the match - and series.
Which gift was that one? The LBW sliding down? the "catch" that they never appealed for?

And India never deserved to draw in South Africa? Not going to even bother.
__________________
"Well, like a few, creaking Terminators, we're back..."
Dravid on his and Sachin's return to Australia to lose 4-0.
ddb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th January 2011, 22:46   #42
slop
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): South Africa
Age: 41
Posts: 18,805
I think India need to get over this fear of the STURDy.

But I think using the SA test is a bad example. I think SA had a couple of decisions go their way too.

Last edited by slop : 6th January 2011 at 22:58.
slop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th January 2011, 22:46   #43
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 18,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddb View Post
I lost the will to argue for umpiring decisions after Sydney tbh.



Which gift was that one? The LBW sliding down? the "catch" that they never appealed for?

And India never deserved to draw in South Africa? Not going to even bother.
Yeah that one sliding straight into leg stump lol

England should insist on it.

Some absolute shockers have been turned over during the ashes. Watson and cook both got absolute shockers turned over. Prior had one terrible one too.
Sir Virgs and Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th January 2011, 22:49   #44
ddb
Established International
 
ddb's Avatar
http://www.cricket-match-special.com/
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora View Post
Yeah that one sliding straight into leg stump lol

England should insist on it.

Some absolute shockers have been turned over during the ashes. Watson and cook both got absolute shockers turned over. Prior had one terrible one too.
Yeah the one that you were certain that was going to into middle of leg but actually wouldnt have been turned on review as it was clipping the outside of leg stump.
__________________
"Well, like a few, creaking Terminators, we're back..."
Dravid on his and Sachin's return to Australia to lose 4-0.
ddb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th January 2011, 22:53   #45
ddb
Established International
 
ddb's Avatar
http://www.cricket-match-special.com/
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by slop View Post
I think India need to get over this fear of the STURDy.

But I think using the SA test is a bad example. I think they had a couple of decisions go their way too.
They are only scared cos they cried after having 1 successful review out of 10 in SL in 2008.

The ICC should definitely make it compulsory for all games, but to continually moan and insist on the ECB forcing India is getting tedious. The UDRS does not make the game change that much as you are all suggesting.
__________________
"Well, like a few, creaking Terminators, we're back..."
Dravid on his and Sachin's return to Australia to lose 4-0.
ddb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th January 2011, 23:02   #46
slop
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): South Africa
Age: 41
Posts: 18,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddb View Post
The ICC should definitely make it compulsory for all games, but to continually moan and insist on the ECB forcing India is getting tedious.
You can't draw people into an argument and the complain that they're going on about it

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddb View Post
The UDRS does not make the game change that much as you are all suggesting.
I agree. I think bad decisions usually even themselves out. But it'd still be good to reduce their frequency.
slop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th January 2011, 00:16   #47
Apex
International Material
 
Apex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Woolloomooloo
Team(s): India
Posts: 1,608
I am happy to use technology but all close decisions (catches, edges, LBW's and run outs) should be made by using technology and by the Umpire only.

Don't like the stupid review system as people abuse it, and if you are trying to take out errors of judgment why limit it to two?
Apex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th January 2011, 03:11   #48
Rob
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 11,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddb View Post
God forbid if a decision goes against you this summer, the interweb might breakdown with all your biased moaning and conspiracy theories.
Maybe but you won't hear it from me.

Flaws all taken into account, the use of UDRS overall reduces the number of incorrect decisions made in games. Fact. It's the way forward. If not used by the officials, the technology as shown on TV is only going to serve to make umpires and players look stupid, and frustate fans.

I think we get our knickers too much in a twist worrying about the rights and wrongs of decisions made against tiny microscopic little inside edges (like the Bell one) and whether the balls going to miss or clip leg stump by a matter of millimetres etc. , and just need to deal with the fact that even with technology we are never going to get all decisions right - there are too many small margins and estimates.

Of course your going to get frustrated if the UDRS prevents your team from getting an important wicket, but you just have to take your medicine and accept it. Its gone against England plenty of times in the past and I don't remember much complaining. Chances are its going to save one of your own batsmens arse/get you a wicket at some other point in the game/series.
Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th January 2011, 08:06   #49
Breacan
International Material
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apoc View Post
I am happy to use technology but all close decisions (catches, edges, LBW's and run outs) should be made by using technology and by the Umpire only.
Interesting - the best people to decide whether or not a decision needs to be reviewed because it's a howler are... erm... the people who made the howler. Which they demonstrably aren't going to do. BTW, they tried umpire referrals back in 2006 (Aus vs RoW), and it failed miserably. It slowed the game down, and still didn't stop the umpires being sufficiently confident to make decisions which turned out to be wrong.
Quote:
Don't like the stupid review system as people abuse it, and if you are trying to take out errors of judgment why limit it to two?
If used properly, it is unlimited. If abused, it's limited to two abuses per team per innings. If a team can't use it to reverse a howler because they've squandered their two on speculative reviews (as with England at Brisbane) then I have little sympathy.
__________________
Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.
Breacan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th January 2011, 15:29   #50
ddb
Established International
 
ddb's Avatar
http://www.cricket-match-special.com/
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob View Post
Maybe but you won't hear it from me.

Flaws all taken into account, the use of UDRS overall reduces the number of incorrect decisions made in games. Fact. It's the way forward. If not used by the officials, the technology as shown on TV is only going to serve to make umpires and players look stupid, and frustate fans.

I think we get our knickers too much in a twist worrying about the rights and wrongs of decisions made against tiny microscopic little inside edges (like the Bell one) and whether the balls going to miss or clip leg stump by a matter of millimetres etc. , and just need to deal with the fact that even with technology we are never going to get all decisions right - there are too many small margins and estimates.

Of course your going to get frustrated if the UDRS prevents your team from getting an important wicket, but you just have to take your medicine and accept it. Its gone against England plenty of times in the past and I don't remember much complaining. Chances are its going to save one of your own batsmens arse/get you a wicket at some other point in the game/series.
__________________
"Well, like a few, creaking Terminators, we're back..."
Dravid on his and Sachin's return to Australia to lose 4-0.
ddb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th January 2011, 17:08   #51
Jock McTuffnel v3
World Class
 
Jock McTuffnel v3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): England
Posts: 5,514
URS gets rid of the absolute howler ie LBWs given when there is a massive inside edge or when ball pitches outside leg.

For those 2 reasons alone it should be compulsary.
Jock McTuffnel v3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th January 2011, 00:08   #52
Rob
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 11,541
Any reason why it isn't being used in the NZ v Pakistan series either?
Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th January 2011, 00:12   #53
Rob
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 11,541
Found a few articles on the net saying the same thing. This is one of them:

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...n-PakNZ-series

It appears both sides have mutually agreed not to use it.
Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd July 2011, 05:42   #54
BAT
International Material
 
BAT's Avatar
Almost as good as James Anderson.
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,065
Poor old Stuart Broad. Imho the ball that trapped him lbw wouldn't have hit a second set of stumps, yet the unofficial Hawkeye footage showed the ball hitting leg stump, what a joke. The ball that trapped him lbw was a booming inswinger. The ball hit him in line with leg stump and all three stumps were visible yet Hawkeye suggested that the ball would have held it's line/veered to the right in a straight line like an off-break, which is ridiculous.

I'm all for technology but Hawkeye is seriously flawed and needs consigning to the dustbin.
BAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd July 2011, 10:43   #55
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by BAT View Post
Poor old Stuart Broad. Imho the ball that trapped him lbw wouldn't have hit a second set of stumps, yet the unofficial Hawkeye footage showed the ball hitting leg stump, what a joke. The ball that trapped him lbw was a booming inswinger. The ball hit him in line with leg stump and all three stumps were visible yet Hawkeye suggested that the ball would have held it's line/veered to the right in a straight line like an off-break, which is ridiculous.

I'm all for technology but Hawkeye is seriously flawed and needs consigning to the dustbin.
The scary thing is that elections can be used in the same way.
sanskritsimon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd July 2011, 10:58   #56
Psyduck
Posting God
 
Psyduck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Manchester
Team(s): England, Lancashire, Man Utd
Posts: 15,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by BAT View Post
Poor old Stuart Broad. Imho the ball that trapped him lbw wouldn't have hit a second set of stumps, yet the unofficial Hawkeye footage showed the ball hitting leg stump, what a joke. The ball that trapped him lbw was a booming inswinger. The ball hit him in line with leg stump and all three stumps were visible yet Hawkeye suggested that the ball would have held it's line/veered to the right in a straight line like an off-break, which is ridiculous.

I'm all for technology but Hawkeye is seriously flawed and needs consigning to the dustbin.
You seem to have missed the point BAT. The on-field umpire gave the Broad out. It had nothing to do with the UDRS.
Psyduck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd July 2011, 11:07   #57
Rey
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Castleford
Team(s): Yorkshire
Posts: 14,309
I wonder what you're watching, BAT. The ball didn't have that far to travel, hit him in line with the leg stump and was shown to just clip the edge of the wickets. The path didn't change whatsoever.
__________________
"He has sat on the fence so long that the iron has entered his soul."
Rey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2011, 23:00   #58
mustardcharlie
Established International
 
mustardcharlie's Avatar
You know there ain't no devil: It's just God when he's drun
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bedfordshire
Team(s): Yorkshire, England, LUFC, Otley RFC.
Age: 65
Posts: 4,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rey View Post
I wonder what you're watching, BAT. The ball didn't have that far to travel, hit him in line with the leg stump and was shown to just clip the edge of the wickets. The path didn't change whatsoever.
I run the risk of repeating myself here, but I think all onfield decisions should be made by the umpire in the first case as they were 20 years ago. That goes for stumpings, LBW, run-outs and whether the ball crossed the line for 3 runs or 4. If you, as a player think that the ball didn't cross the line, then you use the the review system. If 1 run is that important. If you think you were not out LBW, so be it. If you think a bowler has bowled a no-ball then the best player to see that is the non-striker. Umpires should have no right to refer any decisions.

Look at the decision with Morgan today. He stood because he knew that cameras might show it touching a blade of grass, whatever. In my opinion, he should either go for a review or use the referral system. I use Morgan as an example because he knew he'd hit it in the first innings. Cut out the ********. You know when you've edged one. You know when you've grassed one. And if you have any ability at all, you know when you've nicked one. Morgan gets plus points 'cos he walked. One of the great plus points for the UDRS is that you are shown up to be a complete and utter **** if you waste a referral. Strauss has done it, as have several of his team.
__________________
Answers 3d
Answers (requiring thought) 6d
Answers (correct) 1s
mustardcharlie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2011, 20:12   #59
High Druid Nathan Barley
Posting God
 
High Druid Nathan Barley's Avatar
Don't look at me with those freak show eyes
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Shrewsbury
Team(s): Essex, Southend
Age: 41
Posts: 12,012
Couple of stinkers from Billy later on today. But it's worth noting that UDRS wouldn't have changed anything because England wouldn't have had any referrals left. They'd definitely have referred the early LBW shout from Broad on Gambhir which pitched marginally outside the line, so one lost. They'd then have referred the caught behind which they did refer and no evidence of the nick was forthcoming so 2 down and none left to correct Billy's stinkers.
__________________
Then one day it happened, she cut her hair and I stopped loving her.

Self defence is not simply about punching someone repeatedly in the face until they're unconscious, is it?

She took all I had and then she fed me dirt.
High Druid Nathan Barley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2011, 21:13   #60
Minor Maggie
Buttleresque
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Lancashire, England
Posts: 26,629
I'd argue that England might not have burnt their review on a slim caught behind issue if they knew that they could refer lbws. However we'll never know so it's irrelevamt anyway.

I did notice that the commentators raised the issue that KP has had to learn how to play differently now that the DRS system is in place whereas the Indian batsmen were playing with bat very close to pad.
Minor Maggie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 14:23.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org