ODI's

[God is an Englishman]

Great start to them and what a knock by Jason Roy.

[Bomber]

Crowd got their money's worth, over 600 runs.

This bloke has struggled in BBL (supposedly, don't watch it much) but obvious question is what's he like at the long form of the game?

[God is an Englishman]

Crowd got their money's worth, over 600 runs.

This bloke has struggled in BBL (supposedly, don't watch it much) but obvious question is what's he like at the long form of the game?

Inconsistent.

Had his chance and failed a few times. Similar to Warner, when he fires he's quality but fails a few times too many.

[Bomber]

Crowd got their money's worth, over 600 runs.

This bloke has struggled in BBL (supposedly, don't watch it much) but obvious question is what's he like at the long form of the game?

Inconsistent.

Had his chance and failed a few times. Similar to Warner, when he fires he's quality but fails a few times too many.

So this dig was a fluke.

[God is an Englishman]

Crowd got their money's worth, over 600 runs.

This bloke has struggled in BBL (supposedly, don't watch it much) but obvious question is what's he like at the long form of the game?

Inconsistent.

Had his chance and failed a few times. Similar to Warner, when he fires he's quality but fails a few times too many.

So this dig was a fluke.

No, definitely no but you were asking about his ability in the long form of the game. Very good player and I thought he deserved a spot in the test side but he has failed a bit recently. Scores a lot of runs in the shorter games though.

[Cooper]

England win again but the game will be remembered for the terrible third umpire decision with the Smith dismissal. How could they get it so wrong, it was clear to all watching that the ball deflected into the ground then back into the glove. They need to get rid of the soft call with these types of appeal/wickets

[Bomber]

England win again but the game will be remembered for the terrible third umpire decision with the Smith dismissal. How could they get it so wrong, it was clear to all watching that the ball deflected into the ground then back into the glove. They need to get rid of the soft call with these types of appeal/wickets

Yet if an Aussie did it, well, cheat this, cheat that.........

[God is an Englishman]

England win again but the game will be remembered for the terrible third umpire decision with the Smith dismissal. How could they get it so wrong, it was clear to all watching that the ball deflected into the ground then back into the glove. They need to get rid of the soft call with these types of appeal/wickets

It wasn't clear to all at all, fair catch. I don't remember smith saying anything about the soft dismissal when Broad was given out.

It may also be remembered for the allegation of ball tampering on smith as well.

Or maybe it will be remembered for such a slow over rate that Smith was fined and given a first warning.

Ot remembered for England winning the series.

[Cooper]

England win again but the game will be remembered for the terrible third umpire decision with the Smith dismissal. How could they get it so wrong, it was clear to all watching that the ball deflected into the ground then back into the glove. They need to get rid of the soft call with these types of appeal/wickets

It wasn't clear to all at all, fair catch. I don't remember smith saying anything about the soft dismissal when Broad was given out.

It may also be remembered for the allegation of ball tampering on smith as well.

Or maybe it will be remembered for such a slow over rate that Smith was fined and given a first warning.

Ot remembered for England winning the series.

You can see in the slow mo that it hits the glove deflects into the ground and then back to the glove, blind Freddie could see that it was a dropped catch.

As for the other stuff I either don't care or don't know enough about it.

But yes England won the series with that game. Cant deny their dominance in the ODI's at the moment

[God is an Englishman]

No you can't. It's just like the Khawaja one, not enough evidence to overturn.

[Bomber]

No you can't. It's just like the Khawaja one, not enough evidence to overturn.

I think more pertinent is the fact that in both cases, the on field umpires gave it out albeit "softly". How they can give both out when the laws of the game generally say benefit of the doubt goes to batsman when to the human eye they wouldn't have had a clue. I reckon in each case they just went with the "confidence of appeal" as the default position, which to me is wrong. If you don't know for sure, then its not out. If you know for sure, then why call for a replay as they did to begin with?

[God is an Englishman]

No you can't. It's just like the Khawaja one, not enough evidence to overturn.

I think more pertinent is the fact that in both cases, the on field umpires gave it out albeit "softly". How they can give both out when the laws of the game generally say benefit of the doubt goes to batsman when to the human eye they wouldn't have had a clue. I reckon in each case they just went with the "confidence of appeal" as the default position, which to me is wrong. If you don't know for sure, then its not out. If you know for sure, then why call for a replay as they did to begin with?

My opinion is that on both ocassions technology has not been able to prove either way. Had technology not been available then the same decision would have been made.

What you seem to be saying is akin to getting rid of umpires and using technology completely. Shall we get rid of all "umpires call" while we're at it?

[Bomber]

No you can't. It's just like the Khawaja one, not enough evidence to overturn.

I think more pertinent is the fact that in both cases, the on field umpires gave it out albeit "softly". How they can give both out when the laws of the game generally say benefit of the doubt goes to batsman when to the human eye they wouldn't have had a clue. I reckon in each case they just went with the "confidence of appeal" as the default position, which to me is wrong. If you don't know for sure, then its not out. If you know for sure, then why call for a replay as they did to begin with?

My opinion is that on both ocassions technology has not been able to prove either way. Had technology not been available then the same decision would have been made.

What you seem to be saying is akin to getting rid of umpires and using technology completely. Shall we get rid of all "umpires call" while we're at it?

Quite the opposite really. Ditch technology and accept that umpires and players are all human and will make mistakes. Like football referees, I've always said I don't blame them for missing things, but I get pissed when they "see" something that never happened.

If technology must be used, then let the third umpire intervene on his own accord (no review request allowances etc etc) ONLY IF a clear 100% wrong decision has been made and it doesn't take 5 minutes of slow motion replays back and forth (suggesting enough doubt anyway).

[Jørgen Inge Mykland]

How they can give both out when the laws of the game generally say benefit of the doubt goes to batsman

You assume the umpire was in doubt. Maybe they were sure of what they saw (whether it was right or wrong).

*I haven't seen either, just saying in the umpires' mind there probably was no doubt

[Bomber]

How they can give both out when the laws of the game generally say benefit of the doubt goes to batsman

You assume the umpire was in doubt. Maybe they were sure of what they saw (whether it was right or wrong).

*I haven't seen either, just saying in the umpires' mind there probably was no doubt

If there was no doubt whatsoever, and no reviews left, then they should just say its out and be done with it. Players then must accept it and get on with it.

[God is an Englishman]

Quite the opposite really. Ditch technology and accept that umpires and players are all human and will make mistakes. Like football referees, I've always said I don't blame them for missing things, but I get pissed when they "see" something that never happened.

If technology must be used, then let the third umpire intervene on his own accord (no review request allowances etc etc) ONLY IF a clear 100% wrong decision has been made and it doesn't take 5 minutes of slow motion replays back and forth (suggesting enough doubt anyway).

So in that case, Smith would have been out anyway. What are you whingeing about?

[God is an Englishman]

Can you also show me the law that says benefit of doubt to the batsmen?

[Bomber]

Quite the opposite really. Ditch technology and accept that umpires and players are all human and will make mistakes. Like football referees, I've always said I don't blame them for missing things, but I get pissed when they "see" something that never happened.

If technology must be used, then let the third umpire intervene on his own accord (no review request allowances etc etc) ONLY IF a clear 100% wrong decision has been made and it doesn't take 5 minutes of slow motion replays back and forth (suggesting enough doubt anyway).

So in that case, Smith would have been out anyway. What are you whingeing about?

Who's whingeing? Why didn't the finger go up straight away? I'll answer - he had no idea, hung around, looked confused, took soft option and called for replay and given Buttler's "I caught it" celebration gave it a "soft out".

[Bomber]

Can you also show me the law that says benefit of doubt to the batsmen?

Its probably no law, but even you know about the spirit of the game and how its been umpired for 150 years. If you're uncertain about a wicket, then its not out, not "maybe out".

[God is an Englishman]

So in that case, Smith would have been out anyway. What are you whingeing about?

Who's whingeing? Why didn't the finger go up straight away? I'll answer - he had no idea, hung around, looked confused, took soft option and called for replay and given Buttler's "I caught it" celebration gave it a "soft out".[/quote]

Well what would you call what you are doing, still going on about a correct decision.

Well he did have an idea, that's why he gave the soft dismissal as out. Replays confirmed it. Pavillion's that way Smith, now fuck off. Smith didn't seem to complain when Broad was given out the same way. Smith is in no position to complain after his antics recently.

[Frank Costanza]

We have finally beaten England in an ODI! - albeit at the U/19 World Cup

Defending 127, the Aussie leg-spinner took 8/35 to skittle the English for less than 100.
Lloyd Pope - remember the name!

[Bomber]

Replays did NOT confirm it.

Why didn't the finger go up straight away, even after a few seconds? That's what umpires usually do if they know a batsman is definitely out.

[God is an Englishman]

Replays did NOT confirm it.

Why didn't the finger go up straight away, even after a few seconds? That's what umpires usually do if they know a batsman is definitely out.

Because the umpires confer, together they discussed it and agreed they believed it to be out. However, to be sure it is then checked. Replays then did not show any proof to change that opinion. As you would know these days, umpires are frightened to make any decisions.

Did you complain like this when Broad was given out?

[Bomber]

Replays did NOT confirm it.

Why didn't the finger go up straight away, even after a few seconds? That's what umpires usually do if they know a batsman is definitely out.

Because the umpires confer, together they discussed it and agreed they believed it to be out. However, to be sure it is then checked. Replays then did not show any proof to change that opinion. As you would know these days, umpires are frightened to make any decisions.

Did you complain like this when Broad was given out?

Why would I when I know you'd be on to it quicker than a fly on a newly laid shit?

Fact is, I didn't think he (Broad) should have been given out.

Maybe its like when footballers dive all the time - they get a legitimate foul against them so the ref waves play on based on history, even if its wrong. Sometimes they have to suck it up, which Smith (and Broad) eventually did. Swings and roundabouts as they say.

Whilst we're on it, do you think DRS and/or the use of technology as a whole has :
a) made umpires better
b) reduced controversy
c) enhanced the flow of the game

[God is an Englishman]

Replays did NOT confirm it.

Why didn't the finger go up straight away, even after a few seconds? That's what umpires usually do if they know a batsman is definitely out.

Because the umpires confer, together they discussed it and agreed they believed it to be out. However, to be sure it is then checked. Replays then did not show any proof to change that opinion. As you would know these days, umpires are frightened to make any decisions.

Did you complain like this when Broad was given out?

Why would I when I know you'd be on to it quicker than a fly on a newly laid cabernet?

Fact is, I didn't think he (Broad) should have been given out.

Maybe its like when footballers dive all the time - they get a legitimate foul against them so the ref waves play on based on history, even if its wrong. Sometimes they have to suck it up, which Smith (and Broad) eventually did. Swings and roundabouts as they say.

Whilst we're on it, do you think DRS and/or the use of technology as a whole has :
a) made umpires better
b) reduced controversy
c) enhanced the flow of the game

I actually agree with you, it's strange when you're at the ground and you celebrate a wicket only to have it over turned. Get rid of it but allow the 3rd umpire to check if he feels it's relevant.

[God is an Englishman]

Replays did NOT confirm it.

Why didn't the finger go up straight away, even after a few seconds? That's what umpires usually do if they know a batsman is definitely out.

Because the umpires confer, together they discussed it and agreed they believed it to be out. However, to be sure it is then checked. Replays then did not show any proof to change that opinion. As you would know these days, umpires are frightened to make any decisions.

Did you complain like this when Broad was given out?

Why would I when I know you'd be on to it quicker than a fly on a newly laid cabernet?

Fact is, I didn't think he (Broad) should have been given out.

Maybe its like when footballers dive all the time - they get a legitimate foul against them so the ref waves play on based on history, even if its wrong. Sometimes they have to suck it up, which Smith (and Broad) eventually did. Swings and roundabouts as they say.

Whilst we're on it, do you think DRS and/or the use of technology as a whole has :
a) made umpires better
b) reduced controversy
c) enhanced the flow of the game

I actually agree with you, it's strange when you're at the ground and you celebrate a wicket only to have it over turned. Get rid of it but allow the 3rd umpire to check if he feels it's relevant.

[Bomber]

Going tomorrow?

I'm watching from pub - no corporate box this time.

[God is an Englishman]

Going tomorrow?

I'm watching from pub - no corporate box this time.

Of course I am going.

Obviously, there's a fair few tickets going spare, they're even offering BOGOF tickets, that's how bad sales are. Adelaide Barmies meeting at 10am in the pub

[Bomber]

Going tomorrow?

I'm watching from pub - no corporate box this time.

Of course I am going.

Obviously, there's a fair few tickets going spare, they're even offering BOGOF tickets, that's how bad sales are. Adelaide Barmies meeting at 10am in the pub

I hope you lot can hold your liquor and behave this time. :wink:

[God is an Englishman]

Going tomorrow?

I'm watching from pub - no corporate box this time.

Of course I am going.

Obviously, there's a fair few tickets going spare, they're even offering BOGOF tickets, that's how bad sales are. Adelaide Barmies meeting at 10am in the pub

I hope you lot can hold your liquor and behave this time. :wink:

Got a spare members pass if you want it, real fans go to games.