-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Cricket
- Thread starter mb64
- Start date
How on earth are the floodlights not good enough when they can play at night under them. Its ludicrous.
It's also the luminous pink ball. This is just part of the 19th century disease left in this game. Dated and pedantic rules.
After a 100 tests you'd think that just occasionally he'd not try to bludgeon an attack to death right from ball one. Ball simply to close to the body to play that shot properly n sold Jansen a lollypop.
Only 1.5 metres required for social distancing, it's all good. Bloody Hazlewood's brave though, first minute back from another injury n he's standing half a metre off Renshaw during the anthem. Tempting the karma *smile* to *smile* whip him.
Stuff like this will turn people off Tests and send them into the arms of T20.
More than happy for sports to return to the umpires call in live time. However the only way you can do that is to cancel all television broadcasts of games. Slo mo replays, snickos n hot spots render the umpires as fallible far to often for the perfection expected.
I never understand that argument, people always say we have to check decisions because of what is at stake but what is actually at stake?
Understand gambling is impacted but that can get stuffed as far as I'm concerned anyway but I don't see what else?
A player's career doesn't live and die by a bad decision here and there and if it does they weren't getting far anyway.
The AFL argument for ARC is what if it costs a team a Grand Final, but again I say so what if it does? Swings and roundabouts of the games as it was for 100+ years in most of them.
Pre third umpire, the ICC used to have a rule that limited the replays of decisions on the screen at the ground and on TV, wouldn't be the worst thing to go back to.
I dunno TM there are a lot of LBWs overturned after the replay shows edges. Another one today from Khawaja, given out LBW by the umpire but hit his glove first.
The system is not perfect but there are a lot of incorrect decisions found out by the 3rd umpire.
That actually backs up my comment Sinner. No t.v. n it's umpires decision in real time n speed of the game. Rub of the green says you win some n you lose some and there's no further discussion.
T.V. broadcast with slo mo replays, freeze frame, ball tracker, snicko n hot spot shows every close decision on high rotation so there's no more umpires decision n rub of the green coz every decision is forensically analysed n dissected.
It's either absolutely no tech or as much tech as you can possibly get with cricket now.
If you want to stamp out corruption, then use the tech to review the umpires after the match. Statistics will highlight the biased umps, alongsidd those NGE, and push them out.
Lets not conflate the in-match /decision referral with umpires' capabilities/culpabilities. If its ethics it can be addressed offline
Lets not conflate the in-match /decision referral with umpires' capabilities/culpabilities. If its ethics it can be addressed offline
This is the truth.
The rules are arbitrary to make the game hum (all sports)
Bringing in tech reviews loses the momentum, energy, passion of the moment.
It brings the focus on the tech, which is never good enough. The line simply becomes finer but is always a blurry grey at the highest resolution.
We can live with umpires call and accept that its a decision and move on.
There,s a petition to replay the soccer World Cup, signed mostly in french, because of a contentious decision.
Never gonna happen.
Argentina beat England in 86 because of a deliberate handball. Ha!
It happens.
Game is over and we move on
You should think about it more.
Money =Corruption
Getting better decisions is in everyone’s best interests. silly to argue otherwise.
Reduces a lot of angst for players/officials/s or spectators etc.
Whether to use the tech is a difficult one. When you look back at McEnroe's complaints about tennis umpires you have to conclude they needed the tech, some of the decisions were woeful. That LBW today where it hit the glove, yeah, that's not out so the tech was needed.
Where it gets ridiculous is when the tech over-rides the umpire without sufficient evidence. Happened today with that catch and happened in our Elimination Final. The problem in those cases is not the tech, it is the incompetence of those making the decision.
The other issue is the tech used. When they are putting these systems in they need to use high res and robust systems or not bother. Do it properly or don't bother.
If done properly then having a closer look is reasonable.
The reality is that the TV coverage, which some here like to point out funds the various sports, is not going to take kindly to being told they can't use snicko, hot spot, slo mo etc in their coverage. It makes for a better spectacle on TV, bit of controversy and the like. So, if you expect the TV to fund sport, then you have to put up with what the TV wants to put to air.
DS
Where it gets ridiculous is when the tech over-rides the umpire without sufficient evidence. Happened today with that catch and happened in our Elimination Final. The problem in those cases is not the tech, it is the incompetence of those making the decision.
The other issue is the tech used. When they are putting these systems in they need to use high res and robust systems or not bother. Do it properly or don't bother.
If done properly then having a closer look is reasonable.
The reality is that the TV coverage, which some here like to point out funds the various sports, is not going to take kindly to being told they can't use snicko, hot spot, slo mo etc in their coverage. It makes for a better spectacle on TV, bit of controversy and the like. So, if you expect the TV to fund sport, then you have to put up with what the TV wants to put to air.
DS
Got me a massive beef with the supply n usage of the tech in regard to the catch that wasn't.
Channel 7 the official broadcaster of the game and supplier of game footage to the umpires for reviewing of decisions.
How the hell do channel 7 then get away with only providing limited footage to the umpires for review and then come up with their own unofficial footage that shows maybe the review decision was wrong.
Missed the bit of the game where the catch happened but from footage I watched later the front on view showed it was probably a legit catch, definitely close enough to not be able to override the umps call. Side on view during the news later looked like ball had hit the deck n worthy of overriding the umpire call.
Hun this morning claiming the umpire didn't get the high res front on image when making the decision as it wasn't part of the official broadcast WTF??? Does this mean channel 7 runs say half a dozen cameras during the game with only four for official input n two spares just for fun, practice n controversy?
Channel 7 the official broadcaster of the game and supplier of game footage to the umpires for reviewing of decisions.
How the hell do channel 7 then get away with only providing limited footage to the umpires for review and then come up with their own unofficial footage that shows maybe the review decision was wrong.
Missed the bit of the game where the catch happened but from footage I watched later the front on view showed it was probably a legit catch, definitely close enough to not be able to override the umps call. Side on view during the news later looked like ball had hit the deck n worthy of overriding the umpire call.
Hun this morning claiming the umpire didn't get the high res front on image when making the decision as it wasn't part of the official broadcast WTF??? Does this mean channel 7 runs say half a dozen cameras during the game with only four for official input n two spares just for fun, practice n controversy?
The problem is that the off field umpires seem to be too willing to overturn decisions on the basis of not enough evidence. Someone needs to point out what conclusive means, it means the evidence clearly shows the original decision was incorrect. If the evidence is not conclusive then the original decision should not be over-ruled.
We don't have to go far to see this: the LBW decision which was over-turned was a good use of the tech, there was conclusive evidence of the ball hitting the glove, clear conclusive evidence, change the decision The catch, there was inconclusive evidence, the decision of the umpire on the field stands.
It really does not need to be so difficult. With the catch, reasonable commentary would have been that maybe it hit the ground but on the evidence you couldn't definitively say that, so going with the decision of the umpire is a good outcome.
DS
We don't have to go far to see this: the LBW decision which was over-turned was a good use of the tech, there was conclusive evidence of the ball hitting the glove, clear conclusive evidence, change the decision The catch, there was inconclusive evidence, the decision of the umpire on the field stands.
It really does not need to be so difficult. With the catch, reasonable commentary would have been that maybe it hit the ground but on the evidence you couldn't definitively say that, so going with the decision of the umpire is a good outcome.
DS
<
Thoroughbred racing
|
TV shows
>
