FootballNews

swannsong wrote: Mitchell Johnson...this Ashes series (wasn't looked at by the Umpires ) !

Did the umpire call it?

God is an Englishman wrote:

swannsong wrote: Mitchell Johnson...this Ashes series (wasn't looked at by the Umpires ) !

Did the umpire call it?

No !... Did the Umpire call Brett Lee's against Piers ?

swannsong wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

swannsong wrote: Mitchell Johnson...this Ashes series (wasn't looked at by the Umpires ) !

Did the umpire call it?

No !... Did the Umpire call Brett Lee's against Piers ?

there wasn't an umpire, so how could he call it.

God is an Englishman wrote:there wasn't an umpire, so how could he call it.

You know as well as I do that if you were arguing the opposite point you would be arguing that no umpire called it.

God is an Englishman wrote:

swannsong wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote: Did the umpire call it?

No !... Did the Umpire call Brett Lee's against Piers ?

there wasn't an umpire, so how could he call it.

So in both cases, in the Ashes game and in the nets, the "observer" observed that the front foot was over the line, however, neither were called no balls.
So either someone can get out on a no-ball and Brett Lee bowled no-balls to Piers, or, no-one can get out on a no-ball an Brett Lee's deliveries to Piers were legitimate....your choice ?

PS - A batsman can be run out off a no-ball So a wicket can fall on a no-ball !

swannsong wrote:So in both cases, in the Ashes game and in the nets, the "observer" observed that the front foot was over the line, however, neither were called no balls.
So either someone can get out on a no-ball and Brett Lee bowled no-balls to Piers, or, no-one can get out on a no-ball an Brett Lee's deliveries to Piers were legitimate....your choice ?

It's quite simple really.

Allow me explain for you.

Johnson's delivery you speak of wasn't a no ball because the umpire fucked up. There was an umpire there.

In Lee's case, there was no umpire in place but had there been he would have called them as they were HUGE!.

And you can be out off a no ball but a bowler can't take a wicket off one.

God is an Englishman wrote:

swannsong wrote:So in both cases, in the Ashes game and in the nets, the "observer" observed that the front foot was over the line, however, neither were called no balls.
So either someone can get out on a no-ball and Brett Lee bowled no-balls to Piers, or, no-one can get out on a no-ball an Brett Lee's deliveries to Piers were legitimate....your choice ?

It's quite simple really.

Allow me explain for you.

Johnson's delivery you speak of wasn't a no ball because the umpire shiraz up. There was an umpire there.

In Lee's case, there was no umpire in place but had there been he would have called them as they were HUGE!.

And you can be out off a no ball but a bowler can't take a wicket off one.

But there wasn't...end of !
Just as Mitchell Johnson's wicket would not have stood if the Umpires had followed protocol and waited for video confirmation.

swannsong wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

swannsong wrote:So in both cases, in the Ashes game and in the nets, the "observer" observed that the front foot was over the line, however, neither were called no balls.
So either someone can get out on a no-ball and Brett Lee bowled no-balls to Piers, or, no-one can get out on a no-ball an Brett Lee's deliveries to Piers were legitimate....your choice ?

It's quite simple really.

Allow me explain for you.

Johnson's delivery you speak of wasn't a no ball because the umpire shiraz up. There was an umpire there.

In Lee's case, there was no umpire in place but had there been he would have called them as they were HUGE!.

And you can be out off a no ball but a bowler can't take a wicket off one.

But there wasn't...end of !
Just as Mitchell Johnson's wicket would not have stood if the Umpires had followed protocol and waited for video confirmation.

How can you say an umpire has to call it if there isn't one, that doesn't make sense.

swannsong wrote:PS - A batsman can be run out off a no-ball So a wicket can fall on a no-ball !

That doesn't get credited to the bowler. Having said that, I've often wondered what the difference between a stumping and a run out is. Aren't they essentially the same thing?

Another Bodø Alias wrote:

swannsong wrote:PS - A batsman can be run out off a no-ball So a wicket can fall on a no-ball !

That doesn't get credited to the bowler. Having said that, I've often wondered what the difference between a stumping and a run out is. Aren't they essentially the same thing?

No, one of them requires skill by the bowler to deceive the batsmen.

swannsong wrote:PS - A batsman can be run out off a no-ball So a wicket can fall on a no-ball !

and as I said, a bowler cannot take a wicket off a no ball.

God is an Englishman wrote:No, one of them requires skill by the bowler to deceive the batsmen.

It it happens on a no ball would the batsmen be classed as run out?

God is an Englishman wrote: How can you say an umpire has to call it if there isn't one, that doesn't make sense.

Exactly, so they weren't no-balls then ?

swannsong wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote: How can you say an umpire has to call it if there isn't one, that doesn't make sense.

Exactly, so they weren't no-balls then ?

yes they were.

God is an Englishman wrote:

swannsong wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote: How can you say an umpire has to call it if there isn't one, that doesn't make sense.

Exactly, so they weren't no-balls then ?

yes they were.

How do yo arrive at that conclusion ?

swannsong wrote: How do yo arrive at that conclusion ?

because there was no umpire to call them. So using video technology I acted as "de facto" umpire and stated the bleeding obvious.

God is an Englishman wrote:

swannsong wrote: How do yo arrive at that conclusion ?

because there was no umpire to call them. So using video technology I acted as "de facto" umpire and stated the bleeding obvious.

Well that clears that up then

Rookie wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Rookie wrote:Starting to sad now you reckon, where have you been the last 4 years!!!!!!!

typical convict really, being correct is sad

Typical stinking fûcken pom, being you is sad

at least I'm not an aussie. I thank god every day he made me the same nationality as him.

any convicts want to comment on haddin's cheating on day 3?

at least I'm not an aussie. I thank god every day he made me the same nationality as him.[/quote]


I seriously think its time you consider pulling up stumps and returning to your mother land where you will be with people just like yourself

Rookie wrote: I seriously think its time you consider pulling up stumps and returning to your mother land where you will be with people just like yourself

if my kids could come with me, I'd get a one way flight tomorrow.

God is an Englishman wrote:any convicts want to comment on haddin's cheating on day 3?

Maybe you can tell us. Whilst you're at it, Bresnan stands there after being bowled, tell us all about that. If that were an Aussie, you'd be whingeing even more than you currently are.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Rookie wrote: I seriously think its time you consider pulling up stumps and returning to your mother land where you will be with people just like yourself

if my kids could come with me, I'd get a one way flight tomorrow.

I'm glad my parents did the opposite by bringing me here, can't say I would have had a worse life back in the UK...but so far I've been blessed living in Australia.

Still think there's a bit of opportunity for England to grab this today !

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:any convicts want to comment on haddin's cheating on day 3?

Maybe you can tell us. Whilst you're at it, Bresnan stands there after being bowled, tell us all about that. If that were an Aussie, you'd be whingeing even more than you currently are.

I only heard it on the radio, they said the umpire told him to stay as they thought it might have been a rebound off haddin's pads.

God is an Englishman wrote:

adelaidebloke wrote:think Australia will win this series

i think you've never been more wrong

God is an Englishman wrote:

Rookie wrote: I seriously think its time you consider pulling up stumps and returning to your mother land where you will be with people just like yourself

if my kids could come with me, I'd get a one way flight tomorrow.

Next Wednesday A2 day

http://tinyurl.com/n5jsngz

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

adelaidebloke wrote:think Australia will win this series

i think you've never been more wrong

anyone who thought England were going to lose this series, knows nothing about cricket.

predator wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Rookie wrote: I seriously think its time you consider pulling up stumps and returning to your mother land where you will be with people just like yourself

if my kids could come with me, I'd get a one way flight tomorrow.

Next Wednesday A2 day

http://tinyurl.com/n5jsngz

seriously, you're taking the daily mail as your inspiration for comments on immigration.

I'd still much rather be in England.

I just heard an aussie in the crowd. It was one of them counting down for a wave. Good to know there are some of them there though.

WE ARE THE ARMY
THE BARMY ARMY
WE ARE MENTAL AND WE ARE MAD
WE ARE THE LOYALIST CRICKET SUPPORTERS
THAT THE WORLD HAS EVER HAD