Sober Symonds
Member
Re: West Indies in Australia
Ditto.
molly29;381211 said:
Ditto.
West Indies in Australia
- Thread starter Ljp86
- Start date
a for effort
Active Member
Re: West Indies in Australia
Hahahaha what the !@#$ is this? The referral system has to go if it can't overturn obviously incorrect decisions.
Hahahaha what the !@#$ is this? The referral system has to go if it can't overturn obviously incorrect decisions.
a for effort
Active Member
Re: West Indies in Australia
No.
No.
Caesar
Member
Re: West Indies in Australia
I find it hard to believe he nicked that. I was surprised it was given even before seeing the replay - there was no deviation or noise. Maybe there was some subtle sound, but personally I suspect Bowden gave it on the strength of the Aussies' reaction.
It can be argued that maybe it's rough to overturn an umpire's decision like that, but if you're going to allow it to be referred I'm not sure how you can then deny the appeal when it shows absolutely no evidence of a nick.
I find it hard to believe he nicked that. I was surprised it was given even before seeing the replay - there was no deviation or noise. Maybe there was some subtle sound, but personally I suspect Bowden gave it on the strength of the Aussies' reaction.
It can be argued that maybe it's rough to overturn an umpire's decision like that, but if you're going to allow it to be referred I'm not sure how you can then deny the appeal when it shows absolutely no evidence of a nick.
Sober Symonds
Member
Re: West Indies in Australia
Doesn't seem as though he did, but he is still given out. It proves the system is only half as useful as it could be. Disappointing way to end the match and the series. I wanted to look away when they gave the verdict in case it was not out and caused another of our country's cricketing representatives to put on an embarassing show of dissent.
What about Healy interview with Bollinger coming off the ground - what the hell was going on there? Surely our latest bowling find is not as incredibly brainless as he comes across!
Doesn't seem as though he did, but he is still given out. It proves the system is only half as useful as it could be. Disappointing way to end the match and the series. I wanted to look away when they gave the verdict in case it was not out and caused another of our country's cricketing representatives to put on an embarassing show of dissent.
What about Healy interview with Bollinger coming off the ground - what the hell was going on there? Surely our latest bowling find is not as incredibly brainless as he comes across!
Re: West Indies in Australia
With nicks like that I don't think it should come to technology and endless replays. The more you watch it, the less you see. It should come down to whether the umpire should think the batsman is out. If he has been timing cut shots all day and has a suspected edge, the umpire is less likely to give him out if its a bad ball; short and wide. If, however he gets tangled up and off balance like I think he was, it shows a bit more the batsman was unsure about the stroke play and the bowler got the better of him. Fair enough decision.
Really good try by the West Indies. Did so well to get to where they were and all in all I think that will be the Test of the summer. Hopefully I get proved wrong with some good cricket to come, but that was the meaning of Test cricket to me, except for the poor bowling from both sides.
With nicks like that I don't think it should come to technology and endless replays. The more you watch it, the less you see. It should come down to whether the umpire should think the batsman is out. If he has been timing cut shots all day and has a suspected edge, the umpire is less likely to give him out if its a bad ball; short and wide. If, however he gets tangled up and off balance like I think he was, it shows a bit more the batsman was unsure about the stroke play and the bowler got the better of him. Fair enough decision.
Really good try by the West Indies. Did so well to get to where they were and all in all I think that will be the Test of the summer. Hopefully I get proved wrong with some good cricket to come, but that was the meaning of Test cricket to me, except for the poor bowling from both sides.
Caesar
Member
Re: West Indies in Australia
I'm not going to disagree, because personally I'd prefer the umpire making this type of call. But I think if you aren't going to back the technology you shouldn't use it. Why allow batsman appeals on feathered edges, if you're not going uphold it when the technology says it was not out?Boris;381305 said:
Re: West Indies in Australia
To be honest I don't think it would have made a difference.
When Johnson gets on a roll he usually takes his wickets for the match in quick succession, finally getting it right for a short spell. If he didn't get Roach that ball, I don't think he would have survived much longer.
Not a fair way to look at it, and I agree with both of you, but in the end I don't think it would have made a difference.
To be honest I don't think it would have made a difference.
When Johnson gets on a roll he usually takes his wickets for the match in quick succession, finally getting it right for a short spell. If he didn't get Roach that ball, I don't think he would have survived much longer.
Not a fair way to look at it, and I agree with both of you, but in the end I don't think it would have made a difference.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
Banned
Re: West Indies in Australia
Snicko showed a noise as the ball passed the bat - the bat wasn't near the ground or near the pad - in that regard Im not sure what else could have made the noise but ball on bat.
It has been stated numerous times that hotspot will not always pick up faint edges, once more, the fainter the edge, the quicker the hotspot fades. As such by the time the batsmen shows the edge of the bat to the camera it is quite possible for the hotspot to have completely disappeared.
This is the problem with having one camera facing the batsmen. Firstly, it is quite possible that the batsmen won't show the edge of the bat in question to the camera, and we are likely to have in the future batsmen intentionally hiding the edge of the bat from the camera.
To ameliorate this problem we need a '3D' view of proceedings. Therefore we need 3 hotspot cameras rather than 1, considering there are 4 hot spot cameras in existence that can be used for the cricket then this doesn't appear to be an issue that is going to be solved anytime soon. One camera should face the batsmen and the other 2 should focus in from square leg and point, therefore you can pick up 'hotspots' as the ball passes the bat, rather then waiting for the batsmen to present the bat to the camera in his follow through.
There was obviously a noise on snicko, indicating that in real time there was a noise as the ball passed the bat.
Im quite happy for the decision to be given by the on-field umpire in that instance.
Hotspot is not a smoking gun, a lot of people here are missing that fact.
Furthermore, your kidding yourself if you think a 2D picture on your tv is going to show faint edges.
In the SA - Eng game at the moment Cook was caught behind in the first test in the first innings. The nick was faint but on camera it didn't look like the ball had hit the edge and no noise was heard through my tv set anyway.
The appeal was upheld and there was no argument or referral.
Snicko showed a noise as the ball passed the bat - the bat wasn't near the ground or near the pad - in that regard Im not sure what else could have made the noise but ball on bat.
It has been stated numerous times that hotspot will not always pick up faint edges, once more, the fainter the edge, the quicker the hotspot fades. As such by the time the batsmen shows the edge of the bat to the camera it is quite possible for the hotspot to have completely disappeared.
This is the problem with having one camera facing the batsmen. Firstly, it is quite possible that the batsmen won't show the edge of the bat in question to the camera, and we are likely to have in the future batsmen intentionally hiding the edge of the bat from the camera.
To ameliorate this problem we need a '3D' view of proceedings. Therefore we need 3 hotspot cameras rather than 1, considering there are 4 hot spot cameras in existence that can be used for the cricket then this doesn't appear to be an issue that is going to be solved anytime soon. One camera should face the batsmen and the other 2 should focus in from square leg and point, therefore you can pick up 'hotspots' as the ball passes the bat, rather then waiting for the batsmen to present the bat to the camera in his follow through.
There was obviously a noise on snicko, indicating that in real time there was a noise as the ball passed the bat.
Im quite happy for the decision to be given by the on-field umpire in that instance.
Hotspot is not a smoking gun, a lot of people here are missing that fact.
Furthermore, your kidding yourself if you think a 2D picture on your tv is going to show faint edges.
In the SA - Eng game at the moment Cook was caught behind in the first test in the first innings. The nick was faint but on camera it didn't look like the ball had hit the edge and no noise was heard through my tv set anyway.
The appeal was upheld and there was no argument or referral.
breeno
Active Member
Re: West Indies in Australia
What about his bat looking nowhere like being near the ball, and the fact that snicko lines are long and thin when there is an edge? Don't know why you're so wrapped up on hotspot, most of us said that we didn't think he hit it before the replays.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT;381337 said:
What about his bat looking nowhere like being near the ball, and the fact that snicko lines are long and thin when there is an edge? Don't know why you're so wrapped up on hotspot, most of us said that we didn't think he hit it before the replays.
Re: West Indies in Australia
Does anyone think that the Windies were actually going to manage to chase it down with Johnson on a roll and the number 11 in? Even if he was given not out I would have put my bets on Johnson getting him a few balls later.
The game is over now. IMO the Windies out played Australia, despite the result. That should be enough.
Does anyone think that the Windies were actually going to manage to chase it down with Johnson on a roll and the number 11 in? Even if he was given not out I would have put my bets on Johnson getting him a few balls later.
The game is over now. IMO the Windies out played Australia, despite the result. That should be enough.
eddiesmith
Active Member
Re: West Indies in Australia
Thats funny considering that Johnson wasnt even bowlingBoris;381380 said:
Sober Symonds
Member
Re: West Indies in Australia
What the ?
For one, Johnson didn't take the wicket so what sort of roll was he on?
Secondly, the perception that he "usually" takes his wickets in quick succession is irrelevant. If everyone did what they usually do, why would we bother turning up or tuning in? I can't believe I'm even having this discussion.
Furthermore, how can you say it wouldn't have mattered? Of course, the Windies had it all to do, but to even suggest that Roach may as well have been given out because he didn't or doesn't play the shot convincingly or would have soon gone out anyway is absolutely ludicrous. That is what you're saying, is it not? (Please, don't go blind us with ambiguity again)
Have you ever heard the call, "cricket is a funny game"? Stick around a bit longer, you will. What you're saying is next time Bollinger comes out to bat, we ought to declare because he's crap. True most of the time, but what about if Clarke's with him on 90 and just needs him to hang around a couple of overs in order to get three figures and redeem himself for recent indiscretions? Again, to argue this point is nonsensical so I'll go no further with it.
You must have a lot of money. The way you can predict what's going to happen, you could put your house on whatever you want and all you have to do is just sit back and watch it happen.
Correct, but you can bet your life there will still be blind spots even if we increased the technology. Where do we stop?
Well they did for some of it, but for the first 3 days quite the opposite. That is the beauty of Test cricket.
Having said that, I found myself willing them towards a win in the end. The behaviour of the Australians has been nothing short of childish. Carrying on like spoilt brats in a contest that is hardly going to decide the world championship. We expect to be the No.1 Test nation, we're playing a comparitive bunch of misfits on our own soil, and apparently the "gloves are off".
If I sound down on my own team I am. I didn't like what I saw and I wouldn't be alone. Some of those blokes out there need a reality check. They are very well paid, have the priviledge of playing for their country, and use that as an excuse to be "passionate" to the point of bringing the game into disrepute.
Boris;381314 said:
What the ?
For one, Johnson didn't take the wicket so what sort of roll was he on?
Secondly, the perception that he "usually" takes his wickets in quick succession is irrelevant. If everyone did what they usually do, why would we bother turning up or tuning in? I can't believe I'm even having this discussion.
Furthermore, how can you say it wouldn't have mattered? Of course, the Windies had it all to do, but to even suggest that Roach may as well have been given out because he didn't or doesn't play the shot convincingly or would have soon gone out anyway is absolutely ludicrous. That is what you're saying, is it not? (Please, don't go blind us with ambiguity again)
Have you ever heard the call, "cricket is a funny game"? Stick around a bit longer, you will. What you're saying is next time Bollinger comes out to bat, we ought to declare because he's crap. True most of the time, but what about if Clarke's with him on 90 and just needs him to hang around a couple of overs in order to get three figures and redeem himself for recent indiscretions? Again, to argue this point is nonsensical so I'll go no further with it.
You must have a lot of money. The way you can predict what's going to happen, you could put your house on whatever you want and all you have to do is just sit back and watch it happen.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT;381337 said:
Correct, but you can bet your life there will still be blind spots even if we increased the technology. Where do we stop?
Boris;381380 said:
Well they did for some of it, but for the first 3 days quite the opposite. That is the beauty of Test cricket.
Having said that, I found myself willing them towards a win in the end. The behaviour of the Australians has been nothing short of childish. Carrying on like spoilt brats in a contest that is hardly going to decide the world championship. We expect to be the No.1 Test nation, we're playing a comparitive bunch of misfits on our own soil, and apparently the "gloves are off".
If I sound down on my own team I am. I didn't like what I saw and I wouldn't be alone. Some of those blokes out there need a reality check. They are very well paid, have the priviledge of playing for their country, and use that as an excuse to be "passionate" to the point of bringing the game into disrepute.
Re: West Indies in Australia
I didn't word the post about Johnson correctly.
IMO I don't think Roach would have lasted to the end of the innings. It's all trivial now, but with Johnson bowling and was actually landing the ball somewhere near where he was aiming at the time, Bollinger going well for the whole series, Hauritz zoning in and taking wicket just prior and McKay coming off the thought of his first Test wicket, there isn't much room left for a number 11 to survive quite a few overs. Roach isn't the greatest number 11 either. Just all opinion and speculation, but had he not been given out then, I can't have seen him going on for too long. The collapse was still continuing.
I believe for the Windies to come from being devastated by the might (*cough*) of Queensland in a tour match to where they were in the third Test, with injuries, was a very good achievement. They win the series in my head.
I didn't word the post about Johnson correctly.
IMO I don't think Roach would have lasted to the end of the innings. It's all trivial now, but with Johnson bowling and was actually landing the ball somewhere near where he was aiming at the time, Bollinger going well for the whole series, Hauritz zoning in and taking wicket just prior and McKay coming off the thought of his first Test wicket, there isn't much room left for a number 11 to survive quite a few overs. Roach isn't the greatest number 11 either. Just all opinion and speculation, but had he not been given out then, I can't have seen him going on for too long. The collapse was still continuing.
I believe for the Windies to come from being devastated by the might (*cough*) of Queensland in a tour match to where they were in the third Test, with injuries, was a very good achievement. They win the series in my head.
Sober Symonds
Member
Re: West Indies in Australia
A moral victory, of sorts.
A moral victory, of sorts.