FootballNews

Posted: **Sat Dec 14, 2013 9:14 pm**

God is an Englishman wrote:With referral system happening why do we still need neutral umpires. We have to have jokes like Bowden out there (he's not even on the elite panel). Twice this series we've had 7 ball overs.

Because 7 ball overs are why it's been so hard, right? Lets see... 12 days of play, 80 overs each, that's 0.0003% miscalculation...

I missed Smith's referral so can't comment but Root's was not out and blatantly obvious that it was not out.

Whinge whinge.

Posted: **Sat Dec 14, 2013 9:42 pm**

Chade...Where you been Bro?

Posted: **Sat Dec 14, 2013 9:48 pm**

Chade wrote:
God is an Englishman wrote:With referral system happening why do we still need neutral umpires. We have to have jokes like Bowden out there (he's not even on the elite panel). Twice this series we've had 7 ball overs.
Because 7 ball overs are why it's been so hard, right? Lets see... 12 days of play, 80 overs each, that's 0.0003% miscalculation...

I missed Smith's referral so can't comment but Root's was not out and blatantly obvious that it was not out.
Whinge whinge.

Are bubu and chade the same person?

I never once said it was so hard but they have a job and they haven't even managed to count to 6 properly.

fail to see a whinge just a comment that it wasn't out. Were the convicts all whinging about khawaja in England?

Bad decisions happen but with no excuses for a 3rd umpire to get it wrong they shouldn't under the referral system.

Posted: **Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:01 pm**

article on cricket Austalia claiming it was a 50/50 decision based that a poll run by channel 9 showed 51% thought Root had hit the ball.

51% of the viewing audience from a country known for his complete and utter non impartiality. The fact it only scored 51% shows how obviously it was not out.

Shit happens we move on, had the referral system not existed he'd be out so we live another day and move on.

Posted: **Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:10 pm**

God is an Englishman wrote:had the referral system not existed he'd be out

Posted: **Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:42 pm**

Steve#4 wrote:Chade...Where you been Bro?

Working...!

God is an Englishman wrote:I never once said it was so hard but they have a job and they haven't even managed to count to 6 properly.

Wrong.

fail to see a whinge just a comment that it wasn't out. Were the convicts all whinging about khawaja in England?

Bad decisions happen but with no excuses for a 3rd umpire to get it wrong they shouldn't under the referral system.

I don't think it was out, but 3rd umpire didn't get it wrong, they didn't have definitive evidence to "correct" it. Big difference. Try harder.

Posted: **Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:51 pm**

Chade wrote:
Steve#4 wrote:Chade...Where you been Bro?
Working...!

God is an Englishman wrote:I never once said it was so hard but they have a job and they haven't even managed to count to 6 properly.

Wrong.

fail to see a whinge just a comment that it wasn't out. Were the convicts all whinging about khawaja in England?

Bad decisions happen but with no excuses for a 3rd umpire to get it wrong they shouldn't under the referral system.
I don't think it was out, but 3rd umpire didn't get it wrong, they didn't have definitive evidence to "correct" it. Big difference. Try harder.

There was actually zero evidence that he was out though, no hot spot, snicko after the ball passed the bat, even Warny was mystified.

Posted: **Sun Dec 15, 2013 8:19 am**

Chade wrote:
Steve#4 wrote:Chade...Where you been Bro?
Working...!

God is an Englishman wrote:I never once said it was so hard but they have a job and they haven't even managed to count to 6 properly.

Wrong.

fail to see a whinge just a comment that it wasn't out. Were the convicts all whinging about khawaja in England?

Bad decisions happen but with no excuses for a 3rd umpire to get it wrong they shouldn't under the referral system.
I don't think it was out, but 3rd umpire didn't get it wrong, they didn't have definitive evidence to "correct" it. Big difference. Try harder.

How am I wrong? It doesn't go 1 2 3 4 5 5 6.

Snicko was at the wrong time, no hot spot. Fail to see how much more evidence they need.

Posted: **Sun Dec 15, 2013 10:24 am**

Nice One Cyril wrote:
Chade wrote:I don't think it was out, but 3rd umpire didn't get it wrong, they didn't have definitive evidence to "correct" it. Big difference. Try harder.
There was actually zero evidence that he was out though, no hot spot, snicko after the ball passed the bat, even Warny was mystified.

Players can be pretty blase about some of the rules, especially the ones governed by new-fangled technology - evidence: Mark Taylor has no idea about synchronising video and audio, otherwise he wouldn't be claiming that the Snicko blip was sufficient evidence. Do you know the process in evaluating reviews? The level of evidence required for overturning? Because if you do, share it...

This is where the ICC would remove a large portion of the complaints - just share the workflow, dammit.

God is an Englishman wrote:
Chade wrote:
God is an Englishman wrote:I never once said it was so hard but they have a job and they haven't even managed to count to 6 properly.

Wrong.
How am I wrong? It doesn't go 1 2 3 4 5 5 6.

Let's recap: you said that they haven't managed it - and you specifically didn't say "every single time", but implied that they haven't managed it at all. From pretty simple calculations, they've managed to count to 6 at least 99.997% of the time.

Posted: **Sun Dec 15, 2013 10:47 am**

Let's recap, they have twice not managed it. So they haven't managed it, I never said they haven't ever managed it.

Posted: **Sun Dec 15, 2013 11:01 am**

bob saget wrote:It's not the first time you've used that defence

Posted: **Sun Dec 15, 2013 11:17 am**

Beware Of Imitations wrote:
bob saget wrote:It's not the first time you've used that defence

If that's about me then I agree, and exactly what I thought of when I wrote it. I was right then and I'm right now.

Posted: **Sun Dec 15, 2013 11:28 am**

Stop kidding yourself.

Posted: **Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:14 pm**

Chade wrote:
Nice One Cyril wrote:There was actually zero evidence that he was out though, no hot spot, snicko after the ball passed the bat, even Warny was mystified.
Players can be pretty blase about some of the rules, especially the ones governed by new-fangled technology - evidence: Mark Taylor has no idea about synchronising video and audio, otherwise he wouldn't be claiming that the Snicko blip was sufficient evidence. Do you know the process in evaluating reviews? The level of evidence required for overturning? Because if you do, share it...

According to Warne (who should know I suppose), the third umpire has to have definitive evidence to overturn a decision. The problem is, what other evidence could possibly come to light more than no hot spot and no snicko? There isn't anything else.

Bizarrely, had the umpire given not out and Australia appealed, he would have been not out because there was not a shred of evidence that he was actually out.

So, what the third umpire is saying is, the field umpires gut feeling, or guess, is better than the technology. That's fine, but then why have the fucking technology at all, might as well dump it and go back to how it used to be, mistakes and all?

However, if you're going to use the technology, then let's trust it and use it all the time and let the umpires hold the bowlers' hat.

Posted: **Sun Dec 15, 2013 1:14 pm**

Fist wicket for the day. Incidentally, how many reviews do each team get?

Posted: **Sun Dec 15, 2013 2:32 pm**

England on the skids, their tail is so easy to bowl over.

Posted: **Sun Dec 15, 2013 3:24 pm**

An Eternity Turns wrote:Fist wicket for the day. Incidentally, how many reviews do each team get?

2 incorrect reviews every 80 overs.

Posted: **Sun Dec 15, 2013 3:27 pm**

Does the batsmen also get the right to a review if the umpire gives him out?

Posted: **Sun Dec 15, 2013 5:11 pm**

Broad definitely won't be walking now!

Aussies in the box seat now!

Posted: **Sun Dec 15, 2013 5:13 pm**

Red-4-Life wrote:Broad definitely won't be walking now!
Aussies in the box seat now!

How many do you think they'll need before they declare?

Posted: **Sun Dec 15, 2013 5:49 pm**

Another 200.

Posted: **Sun Dec 15, 2013 7:20 pm**

Prior having a cûnt off a day behind the stumps

Posted: **Sun Dec 15, 2013 7:22 pm**

He's not the only one having a cünt of a day.

Posted: **Sun Dec 15, 2013 8:04 pm**

When do the ODI's start?

Posted: **Sun Dec 15, 2013 8:52 pm**

Miyuki wrote:
Red-4-Life wrote:Broad definitely won't be walking now!
Aussies in the box seat now!
How many do you think they'll need before they declare?

They have enough now, but hey, give the public some more run making to witness, so bat another 90 minutes I reckon (as in morning, day 4).

Posted: **Sun Dec 15, 2013 9:31 pm**

Rookie wrote:Prior having a cûnt off a day behind the stumps

How do you go from one of the best keeper/batsmen in the world to hopefully getting dropped.

Posted: **Sun Dec 15, 2013 9:36 pm**

God is an Englishman wrote:
Rookie wrote:Prior having a cûnt off a day behind the stumps

How do you go from one of the best keeper/batsmen in the world to hopefully getting dropped.

All their fielding has been pretty poor.

Posted: **Sun Dec 15, 2013 10:42 pm**

24 to 48 hours from getting the urn back of the poms!!!

Posted: **Sun Dec 15, 2013 10:43 pm**

adelaidebloke wrote:24 to 48 hours from getting the urn back of the poms!!!

you will never get them.

Posted: **Sun Dec 15, 2013 10:48 pm**

God is an Englishman wrote:
adelaidebloke wrote:24 to 48 hours from getting the urn back of the poms!!!
you will never get them.

yeah, that's the funny thing, they make a lot of noise about winning the Ashes, but the actual urn never leaves Lords.

FootballNews

The ashes in Australia 2013-14

Re: The ashes in Australia 2013-14

Re: The ashes in Australia 2013-14

Re: The ashes in Australia 2013-14

Re: The ashes in Australia 2013-14

Re: The ashes in Australia 2013-14

Re: The ashes in Australia 2013-14

Re: The ashes in Australia 2013-14

Re: The ashes in Australia 2013-14

Re: The ashes in Australia 2013-14

Re: The ashes in Australia 2013-14

Re: The ashes in Australia 2013-14

Re: The ashes in Australia 2013-14

Re: The ashes in Australia 2013-14

Re: The ashes in Australia 2013-14

Re: The ashes in Australia 2013-14

Re: The ashes in Australia 2013-14

Re: The ashes in Australia 2013-14

Re: The ashes in Australia 2013-14

Re: The ashes in Australia 2013-14

Re: The ashes in Australia 2013-14

Re: The ashes in Australia 2013-14

Re: The ashes in Australia 2013-14

Re: The ashes in Australia 2013-14

Re: The ashes in Australia 2013-14

Re: The ashes in Australia 2013-14

Re: The ashes in Australia 2013-14

Re: The ashes in Australia 2013-14

Re: The ashes in Australia 2013-14

Re: The ashes in Australia 2013-14

Re: The ashes in Australia 2013-14