Cricket: NZ vs Aus
-
@Snowy said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@Damo said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
Or one of these two and Watling.
So compared to any of the scenarios I'd actually back the odds of Monica being in Cairns and getting a bit hot, hence removing most of her clothes and then needing to borrow a phone and walking down @mariner4life 's driveway having eaten a dozen oysters and wanting a bit.
Monica might well be in Cairns, and I accept it's probably warm in Cairns and so needs to dress lightly. Where I depart company is the idea that in all of the houses in Cairns she'd be outside @mariner4life 's driveway. I don't think that's at all realistic.
No offence but I think you are starting to lose a bit of credibility now with your posting in this thread.
-
Isa and Warne discussing the DRS and Kane getting sawn off by Erasmus.
They make good points about the umpire's call, especially when the umpire doesn't give benefit of doubt to batsmen. The DRS system either has to be trusted or not. This half arsed stuff is weird.
-
@Snowy said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
Isa and Warne discussing the DRS and Kane getting sawn off by Erasmus.
They make good points about the umpire's call, especially when the umpire doesn't give benefit of doubt to batsmen. The DRS system either has to be trusted or not. This half arsed stuff is weird.
The Kane one just enabled a bad decision to stand. No way should a ball which is predicted to only barely touch a stump be given out.
-
@Damo said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@Snowy said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
Isa and Warne discussing the DRS and Kane getting sawn off by Erasmus.
They make good points about the umpire's call, especially when the umpire doesn't give benefit of doubt to batsmen. The DRS system either has to be trusted or not. This half arsed stuff is weird.
The Kane one just enabled a bad decision to stand. No way should a ball which is predicted to only barely touch a stump be given out.
One of the fundamental principles of cricket used to be benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman. It is now benefit of the doubt goes to the umpire.
-
@Damo said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
No way should a ball which is predicted to only barely touch a stump be given out.
Pretty much what they were getting at. A poor decision in the first place.
If it is reviewed remove the poor decision by the umpire and use the technology - or don't bother at all I guess.
-
@Snowy said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@Damo said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
No way should a ball which is predicted to only barely touch a stump be given out.
Pretty much what they were getting at. A poor decision in the first place.
If it is reviewed remove the poor decision by the umpire and use the technology - or don't bother at all I guess.
I don't mind the principle normally, but there should be an exception where the ball is (predicted to be) hitting only the tiniest slither of a stump. There should be a slight rule change to say the ball has to hit more than that to be given out.
-
@mariner4life said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
It is now benefit of the doubt goes to the umpire.
Yeah, in spite of evidence to the contrary.
Personally I reckon remove umpire's call. If there is enough doubt to review it then use the technology. It isn't perfect either, so go back to half a ball to give it out.
Just seen your post @damo and yep half a ball to be given out would work, but no umpire - they get to see it once and in real time. Get the decision right if it is reviewed.
-
I guess the original purpose of DRS was to remove the howlers - if it goes to umpires call then it's not really a howler of a decision. So the technology is working and improving the game.
That said, with DRS now backing them up I think umpires have been emboldened to give more LBWs than they used to knowing it'll get overturned if it's not out. I remember Bowden used to only give it out if it was hitting the base of middle stump.
I think I lean towards getting rid of umpires call and the 3rd umpire making a decision based on the evidence, given the 3rd umpire is also a qualified umpire. For that one Dar could have said benefit of the doubt to the batsmen, and Kane would have gone on to score a famous century saving the match.
-
@No-Quarter said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
That said, with DRS now backing them up I think umpires have been emboldened to give more LBWs than they used to knowing it'll get overturned if it's not out.
That is part of the problem when one of the basic tenets of cricket is benefit to the batsman. If you get Erasmus saying "might have hit leg, not sure, I'll give it out and let them decide elsewhere" we don't get the correct decision with umpire's call.
-
Blundell now has the highest NZ score on tour
-
@No-Quarter said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
Blundell now has the highest NZ score on tour
Interesting how some aggression makes things look a bit different, both batting and bowling.
-
-
-
@KiwiMurph said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
These umpires are kak
Blundell gets hit high on the thigh pad and the umpire tries to give him out. I'm starting to feel like I'm watching a warriors game
