Cricket: NZ vs Aus
-
@Donsteppa said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@Cyclops I worded it poorly, but I’ll stand by a sentiment that their notional paper strength going into the series makes their capitulation even more abysmal.
I’m also in the camp of feeling more disappointed in this performance than the RWC for some reason.
I agree on both counts there. I can't remember when I was last this gutted by a BC performance. This hurts more than both the CWC finals for me too.
I don't think I expected us to win the series, but I thought it would be a hard fought 1-1 or 2-1 for Aussie, with a chance for us to win if things go well.
-
@Siam said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@Snowy (whispering)...i don't think there's actually any official mention of benefit of the doubt in any binding laws or documents...
There's not, which is why I called a "tenet":
"a principle or belief, especially one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy" in this case a sport.I'm led to believe it's a brilliant rule of thumb dreamt up years ago, probably to adequately school all umpires back in the day.
Yes. So that it had to clear and obvious that a batsman was out. You are removing a player from the contest, so you really need to be sure, not guessing, that it would hit the stumps for an LBW.
Sorry snowy. But I did get umpired by Aleem once....didn't trust him all game mate🤔
Integrity of an umpire doesn't change the flaw in the system, that the guy with the least information gets the final say with "umpires call".
-
@dogmeat said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@Snowy @barbarian Re DRS the 1/2 ball thing for me is the key. Which makes the "it's there to eliminate the shockers argument" a bit of a sham IMO. The technology isn't perfect so to have it show the ball barely clipping a stump to me should mean the decision is not out.
Yep. That's why I have mentioned it all of the way through.
The pre match TB show where they explained the process (and where there was human input) was enough to prove that TB producers shouldn't be making the decision either, hence the 1/2 ball rule. It must be clearly out. Not a snick, a clip, a touch but ball hitting stumps. Of course if the umpire hadn't given it and it was reviewed it isn't out, which is the contradiction that Shane Warne has been going on about. Never thought that I would be discussing a point that he made, but here it is:
"I’ve said this for a while re DRS. If there is a review re LBW then take away the original umpires decision. Go through the checklist, hit in line & hitting the stumps. Then out or not out - simple. U can’t have the same delivery being out/not out depending on the umpire decision"
-
@Snowy said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@dogmeat said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@Snowy @barbarian Re DRS the 1/2 ball thing for me is the key. Which makes the "it's there to eliminate the shockers argument" a bit of a sham IMO. The technology isn't perfect so to have it show the ball barely clipping a stump to me should mean the decision is not out.
Yep. That's why I have mentioned it all of the way through.
The pre match TB show where they explained the process (and where there was human input) was enough to prove that TB producers shouldn't be making the decision either, hence the 1/2 ball rule. It must be clearly out. Not a snick, a clip, a touch but ball hitting stumps. Of course if the umpire hadn't given it and it was reviewed it isn't out, which is the contradiction that Shane Warne has been going on about. Never thought that I would be discussing a point that he made, but here it is:
"I’ve said this for a while re DRS. If there is a review re LBW then take away the original umpires decision. Go through the checklist, hit in line & hitting the stumps. Then out or not out - simple. U can’t have the same delivery being out/not out depending on the umpire decision"
Warne making perfect sense. It's a bit like a rugby ref saying try or no try. The DRS should not be clouded by the umpire's on field decision
-
@canefan said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
Warne making perfect sense.
Hard to take isn't it.
I have been trying to ignore any rugby analogies from @barbarian as they are such different sports, but if there is one, it is a red card that is overturned by TMO and the on field ref ignores it. The act removes the player from the rest of the contest (for that innings in cricket) and we have all seen batsmen given a life, through a dropped catch or whatever, and go on to score big runs that can change the course of the match, not necessarily the result. A red card usually has a similar affect. They aren't great comparisons though.
-
OK so let's implement the Snowy system, and remove 'umpire's call' from the equation. Is Latham out?
Because the DRS tracker shows the ball hitting the stumps. Sure it's the outside of leg, but still. And while the tech isn't perfect you could logically argue it's just as likely it was hitting the middle of leg as it was missing completely.
So where do you draw the line? The LBW law is pretty clear, and doesn't discriminate on what part of the stumps the ball would be hitting. Are we taking out balls clipping the bails as well?
My broad point is there is no perfect system here, and the one we have makes about as much sense as any other. Your system just creates a different grey area where we decide that the ball would have likely hit the stumps but it's still not out.
-
@barbarian said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
let's implement the Snowy system
It's the Warne system really, and no, neither of them are perfect but it would be an improvement than leaving the guy with the least information and at full speed from 22 yards away with the final say, rather than the guy who is a qualified umpire with all of the technology and in slow motion. Which makes more sense?
-
@barbarian said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
Are we taking out balls clipping the bails as well?
Yes. Enough doubt is not out, hence the 1/2 ball rule to make sure that it is hitting.
-
@Snowy said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@barbarian said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
let's implement the Snowy system
It's the Warne system really, and no, neither of them are perfect but it would be an improvement than leaving the guy with the least information and at full speed from 22 yards away with the final say, rather than the guy who is a qualified umpire with all of the technology and in slow motion. Which makes more sense?
So then I bring you back to the question I asked a while ago - why have the umpires on the field at all? Seriously.
If you believe they have the 'least information' and they are in a sub-optimal position to make decisions, then let's do away with them and empower the third umpire to do everything.
-
@barbarian said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
So then I bring you back to the question I asked a while ago - why have the umpires on the field at all? Seriously.
I answered that at the time as well - because every appeal can't be reviewed. The match would be unwatchable. It is only reviews, and each team only get two, they decide whether it is worth a look. Then it is taken out of the on field umpires hands.
-
@barbarian The counter argument is also why have a review system if we don't use it to full effect?
-
@Snowy We do. I believe the 'umpire's call' is the best way to navigate the grey areas of the system.
The problem with the Latham/Kane dismissals isn't that the DRS is flawed, it's that the standard of umpiring around the world is poor. The system you want to introduce is trying to solve that problem when the actual answer is just to have better umpires.
I disagree that the umpire isn't well placed to make LBW decisions, and that the technology is in all instances better placed. Clearly DRS is better when it comes to picking up ball hitting bat, but when it comes to the tracking I don't trust it much more than the eye. And by implementing a 'half ball' rule, it's clear you don't trust the tracking much either.
The on-field umpire is in line with the stumps, and can study the movement of the batsman, bounce of the ball and develop a feel for the game. I am entirely comfortable with the benefit of the doubt on LBW decisions going to the on-field umpire, rather than the batsman.
The fact is there is no perfect solution to a rule like LBW. It's always going to be hypothetical. I don't really think your system is any better than the one we have at the moment.
Better umpires solve the problem. Aleem Dar is equally hopeless. His 'running on the pitch' ruling was just bizarre. And don't get me started on Joel Wilson in the Ashes...
-
@barbarian said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
it's that the standard of umpiring around the world is poor. The system you want to introduce is trying to solve that problem when the actual answer is just to have better umpires.
Yes. I have said that repeatedly as well but we don't have better umpires which is why they introduced DRS, to make it better. So maximise it.
@barbarian said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
but when it comes to the tracking I don't trust it much more than the eye. And by implementing a 'half ball' rule, it's clear you don't trust the tracking much either.
It removes reasonable doubt and TB producers from the equation.
Better umpires are the ones that can see things several times, in close up, slow mo, with the use of snicko, hot spot, spin vision to help them, not the bloke who sees it once.
I'm pretty old school when it comes to some things but getting decisions correct more of the time I am all for, and as Warne says:
U can’t have the same delivery being out/not out depending on the umpire decision"
It is the same delivery. -
Great day at the SCG yesterday in the major sponsor's box.
Free beer and gourmet food.
Warner got a ton.
Ross Taylor got the Kiwi runs record.
Goat got a Michelle and a Tenfer.
Aussies wrapped up the series.
Mel McLaughlin walked past (@mariner4life she's tall)
I got to walk out on the SCG at the end.
-
-
And so, the worst outcome of this disaster has already started, the commentary on how this has been a shit summer of cricket, and we shouldn't be invited back until we can put up a decent fight. Basically we are back in to the days of not long ago where the "big 4" are really the only thing that matters, and everyone else can just play among themselves until we get flicked a bone here and there.
Of course, this kind of opinion ignores two things: The big crowds, especially in Melbourne, and the fact we entered this tour fresh off beating fucking England 1-0.
Get fucked Australia, your team has been good again for about 2 months. 12 moths ago you were dogshit. You didn't win in England, and at times looked 2nd rate. If Archer didn't hit Smith in the head, Loosebuschange is playing BBL right now.
Yes, you absolutely pummelled the fuck out of us. Your attack is all-time, especially in Australia. In Smith and the Lauboutin you have guys who can score runs all over the world, and in Warner a guy who can score heavily and quickly in Australia. Right now, i can't see anyone beating you in Australia. But take this elitist bullshit and fuck entirely off.
-
@NTA said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
And I also picked up a couple of these rad stubby holders.
That is well-cool! I saw it on your facebook post (But couldn't make out what it was)and saw you had your sunnies tucked in there and though that was a good little gimmick to stop you losing them while on the smash.
Looked a tough day.
-
@Godder said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@Cyclops said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
This is undoubtedly the best NZ team to have toured Aussie since the 80s, but I think it's shown that bowlers win you games, batsmen decide margins. I'd trade Kane for Paddles in a heartbeat.
Hard to argue with that.
I would say that our Batsmen lost this series and their Bowlers won it. Can't have one without the other.
Based on batting averages this was supposed to be the best NZ Team to tour. But its results that matter, so they must rank with the worst.
