FootballNews

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:I suggest you look up the definition of a cheat.

Dodging the questions again I see. What did he get away with? How were his actions "unfairly giving Australia an advantage"?

Looking at the scores, it looks almost like things were evenly matched. We doubled their total runs, but they doubled total wickets (lost).

im sure if you look up the definition of cheat then you will see the answer to your own question. If you're still struggling after that then come back to me.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:I suggest you look up the definition of a cheat.

Dodging the questions again I see. What did he get away with? How were his actions "unfairly giving Australia an advantage"?

Looking at the scores, it looks almost like things were evenly matched. We doubled their total runs, but they doubled total wickets (lost).

im sure if you look up the definition of cheat then you will see the answer to your own question. If you're still struggling after that then come back to me.

Or you could just answer. If you prefer to pass, just say so, you wont be penalised, but I might be tempted to add you to your own "unanswered questions" thread.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:I suggest you look up the definition of a cheat.

Dodging the questions again I see. What did he get away with? How were his actions "unfairly giving Australia an advantage"?

Looking at the scores, it looks almost like things were evenly matched. We doubled their total runs, but they doubled total wickets (lost).

im sure if you look up the definition of cheat then you will see the answer to your own question. If you're still struggling after that then come back to me.

He doesn't have a dog, and bark himself.

Slinky_Pete wrote:
He doesn't have a dog, and bark himself.

Get barking then

Bomber wrote:
Or you could just answer. If you prefer to pass, just say so, you wont be penalised, but I might be tempted to add you to your own "unanswered questions" thread.

He didn't gain an advantage. Now any danger of you looking up the definition of cheat.

Ibelieve wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:Great bowling by Jimmy to scare rogers back into the changing room

Brilliant bowling

Along with your batting , i would call it pathetic

predator wrote:

Ibelieve wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:Great bowling by Jimmy to scare rogers back into the changing room

Brilliant bowling

Along with your batting , i would call it pathetic

I thought the same about yours a week ago. Good to know you've woken up though.

When does the third test kick off?

Brocken Spectre wrote:When does the third test kick off?

29th I think

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:
Or you could just answer. If you prefer to pass, just say so, you wont be penalised, but I might be tempted to add you to your own "unanswered questions" thread.

He didn't gain an advantage. Now any danger of you looking up the definition of cheat.

Done and not applicable to the example. Now given nothing came of it (ie didnt gain an advantage) then clearly its merely a beat up and attempted deflection from the core of the matter - you got smashed in this test!

We shot ourselves in the foot this test and not just the once either, still can't get over Butler walking. Anyone's series still with neither batting line up that convincing in truth.

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:
Or you could just answer. If you prefer to pass, just say so, you wont be penalised, but I might be tempted to add you to your own "unanswered questions" thread.

He didn't gain an advantage. Now any danger of you looking up the definition of cheat.

Done and not applicable to the example. Now given nothing came of it (ie didnt gain an advantage) then clearly its merely a beat up and attempted deflection from the core of the matter - you got smashed in this test!

I called him a cheat because he is one. It's there for all to see.

You outplayed us in this test but doesn't change the fact that 2 incidents of cheating in this series so far and both have come from your lot. Are you happy about that?

Meanwhile, Buttler walks off and doesn't wait for a decision like jug eared cheat did.

Brocken Spectre wrote:When does the third test kick off?

29th August at Edgbaston ( Birmingham )

I think it's in July (English summer time).

Bairstow in for Ballance, not unexpected and common sense move. Bairstow averaging 100+ in county and Ballance looks well in need of a break.

God is an Englishman wrote:
I called him a cheat because he is one. It's there for all to see.

You outplayed us in this test but doesn't change the fact that 2 incidents of cheating in this series so far and both have come from your lot. Are you happy about that?

Meanwhile, Buttler walks off and doesn't wait for a decision like jug eared cheat did.

Using your black and white stance, I guess any time an English player appeals for something even if he doesn't think its out, he will also be branded a cheat.
If any Aussie player deliberately and clearly does something outside the laws of the game to gain an unfair advantage and gets away with it, I'll be the first to jump down his throat. This hasn't happened. Play on.
But whinge on.........

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:
I called him a cheat because he is one. It's there for all to see.

You outplayed us in this test but doesn't change the fact that 2 incidents of cheating in this series so far and both have come from your lot. Are you happy about that?

Meanwhile, Buttler walks off and doesn't wait for a decision like jug eared cheat did.

Using your black and white stance, I guess any time an English player appeals for something even if he doesn't think its out, he will also be branded a cheat.
If any Aussie player deliberately and clearly does something outside the laws of the game to gain an unfair advantage and gets away with it, I'll be the first to jump down his throat. This hasn't happened. Play on.
But whinge on.........

I believe appealing when you don't think the person is out is cheating.

So, it has to be outside the laws of the game and you have to get away with it? Why do your lot cry about Broad so much then?

Neville and Voges cheated - typical of the cons to defend it though. More hypocrisy.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:
I called him a cheat because he is one. It's there for all to see.

You outplayed us in this test but doesn't change the fact that 2 incidents of cheating in this series so far and both have come from your lot. Are you happy about that?

Meanwhile, Buttler walks off and doesn't wait for a decision like jug eared cheat did.

Using your black and white stance, I guess any time an English player appeals for something even if he doesn't think its out, he will also be branded a cheat.
If any Aussie player deliberately and clearly does something outside the laws of the game to gain an unfair advantage and gets away with it, I'll be the first to jump down his throat. This hasn't happened. Play on.
But whinge on.........

I believe appealing when you don't think the person is out is cheating.

So, it has to be outside the laws of the game and you have to get away with it? Why do your lot cry about Broad so much then?

Neville and Voges cheated - typical of the cons to defend it though. More hypocrisy.

So all those times the poms appeal, and they have a review up their sleeve but don't use it, then they're cheating? In that case, you're whole team is guilty. Silly isn't it?

Bomber wrote:
I believe appealing when you don't think the person is out is cheating.

So, it has to be outside the laws of the game and you have to get away with it? Why do your lot cry about Broad so much then?

Neville and Voges cheated - typical of the cons to defend it though. More hypocrisy.

So all those times the poms appeal, and they have a review up their sleeve but don't use it, then they're cheating? In that case, you're whole team is guilty. Silly isn't it?[/quote]

If you appeal KNOWING the person isn't out then you're cheating. It's not always (in fact rarely) the person appealing who decides on the the review. You may to be cheating just not prepared to review an LBW because umpires call might come into it.

GIAE - what do you think about Warney's comments about the DRS system during the last test?

Forgetting the fact he's Australian and with his indiscretions in the past, do you think the 'Umpire's call' in a review is a cheap way for umpires to avoid being ridiculed or brought up for a bad decision?

The decision to give Moeen Ali not out on that LBW appeared very wrong in real time - despite technology projecting only half the ball would hit the stumps, I was quite astonished that he wouldn't give the decision to be out - regardless who was batting.

The Steve Smith LBW decision - about 1mm of the ball hit him in line with the stumps - and it was deemed 'Umpires call'.

I'm all for DRS to get rid of the bad decisions, but the system is actually scaring umpires to give a decision as 'out' because they're scared of the technology embarrassing them.

What gets me with DRS is that more than half the ball must be hitting the stump, but when it comes to "pitching in line", it only has to be 1mm. Why not make that half the ball too?

Reviews were brought in to stop the "howler" not just to be reviewed for the sake of it. If it's clipping the stumps then are argument can be made that the umpire was correct and an argument for being wrong. Was the contact enough to dislodge the bails?

However, with the DRS I would move it back to 1 incorrect review per innings but you do not lose a review for an "umpire's call".

I laughed at the drug cheats comments as it seemed he just wanted his countrymen to be not out.

Slinky_Pete wrote:What gets me with DRS is that more than half the ball must be hitting the stump, but when it comes to "pitching in line", it only has to be 1mm. Why not make that half the ball too?

Because where the ball pitches and where is hits the pass are irrefutable. Where the ball hits the stumps is a projection. Also, as per the above there is no subjection needed as to the force of the impact.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:
I believe appealing when you don't think the person is out is cheating.

So, it has to be outside the laws of the game and you have to get away with it? Why do your lot cry about Broad so much then?

Neville and Voges cheated - typical of the cons to defend it though. More hypocrisy.

So all those times the poms appeal, and they have a review up their sleeve but don't use it, then they're cheating? In that case, you're whole team is guilty. Silly isn't it?

If you appeal KNOWING the person isn't out then you're cheating. It's not always (in fact rarely) the person appealing who decides on the the review. You may to be cheating just not prepared to review an LBW because umpires call might come into it.[/quote]

Brilliant, you've just pointed out that nearly all cricketers are cheats at some point then.

Re DRS - umpire should call for this only if/when needed. It shouldn't be up to player/captain in my view.

Bomber wrote:
Brilliant, you've just pointed out that nearly all cricketers are cheats at some point then.

If you think that's the case, then I suggest you read my post again.

Bomber wrote:Re DRS - umpire should call for this only if/when needed. It shouldn't be up to player/captain in my view.

Might as well just put a coat peg next not the stumps if that happens.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:
Brilliant, you've just pointed out that nearly all cricketers are cheats at some point then.

If you think that's the case, then I suggest you read my post again.

Just did, and clearly players have appealed knowing a batsman isn't out. Why so many appeal when they know ball hit pad only (eg, short leg fielder takes catch off spinner) only to be given not out as ball shows no edge/glove? These people are cheats according to you.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:Re DRS - umpire should call for this only if/when needed. It shouldn't be up to player/captain in my view.

Might as well just put a coat peg next not the stumps if that happens.

When needed I said. That means if he gives you out LBW, then you're out, regardless. If he has some doubt (catch carried or close run out/stumping) then he calls for upstairs to have a look. I have no issue with "human error" component, just ensure umps are neutral (international cricket).

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:
Brilliant, you've just pointed out that nearly all cricketers are cheats at some point then.

If you think that's the case, then I suggest you read my post again.

Just did, and clearly players have appealed knowing a batsman isn't out. Why so many appeal when they know ball hit pad only (eg, short leg fielder takes catch off spinner) only to be given not out as ball shows no edge/glove? These people are cheats according to you.

The description you give above is clear cheating

Like I said, then just about every cricketer is