Indeed. That's what you get from players who played for Hampshire in their younger years
Beefy's Corner - The Off-Topic Chat Thread
- Thread starter TheSecondStain
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
Indeed. That's what you get from players who played for Hampshire in their younger years
Cannot abide the stumpy piece of ****ing **** , hope someone bowls a bouncer and knocks his ****ing head off , filth that he is !!!!!
Shows the value of reviews. England hold on to their reviews...in fact they would have had a decision earlier if they'd reviewed a previous decision. Clarke admitted he hadn't used his reviews well. Broad would have been out if they hadn't used their last review on an LBW. It was a wicket...so not really contentious.
Englands better use of the review system was the difference in the match. How many runs did Broad add after that edge!?
The last Australian test series I followed one of the teams didn't use their reviews very well and it cost them. I can't remember too much about it but I think it's silly to have the review in the hands of the players let the umpires or 3rd umpire use it and don't let the players touch it just like run outs.
Ideally we would let the umpires do their job and accept their decision. I'm also willing to accept drs but don't think it has been implemented optimally.
Ideally we would let the umpires do their job and accept their decision. I'm also willing to accept drs but don't think it has been implemented optimally.
No no no no no no please no!
Problem for two reasons, first of all, there would be endless reviews, it would get ridiculous, for me Umps are already getting too reliant on technology for run outs and stumpings, there's some really clear ones that any umpire worth their salt should be able to see from a mile that are getting pointless time-wasting reviews. Every appeal would get reviewed, it would ruin the flow of the game. Secondly some umpires will be too headstrong to review their decisions, and you'll end up with more howlers getting missed which ruins the point of DRS. It just wouldn't work at all, keeping it in the hands of the players is fine, nothing wrong with it, just got to use them sensibly and correctly.
Can't leave it solely in the hands of the umpires...the point is that they have made a decision which sometimes turns out to be wrong. Giving the players 2 reviews means they have a chance to check it, but not enough to be annoying and ruin the game. The umpires can use it if they want to now.
There must be some margin of error though, unless we just give all the stuff to an umpire and let him decide...which seems to miss the point of using technology to decide. Same problem in tennis, when you see a computerised ball bouncing a sliver outside the line it looks like a fact, but really there's a statistical distribution. What it should say is "there's an x% chance it was in/out" and deciding whether you think 75%, 90%, 99% is good enough. But clearly, a hotspot or sound is still completely open to interpretation.
Oh yeah. Take Hawkeye in LBW reviews for example. If the umpire gives the batsman not out, and Hawkeye shows that less than 50% of ball would have hit the stumps, then the decision does not get overturned. The batsman remains not out, as per the the umpire.
They said during Wimbledon that Hawkeye has a margin of error which all the tennis players accept. They know that sometimes it will go for you and sometimes against you. Some people seem to think technology stops all errors, but just not true. The cricket system has several checks unlike in tennis...I think it adds to the game.
Fair points it probably would head that way. However I would be inclined to trust the umpiring to the umpires but also give them quick access to technology. it seems to me like a logical and sound progression, handing over the umpiring to the players is in some ways a slap in the face for the umpires and doesn't enhance the umpiring of the game as much as giving the technology to the umpires. If the umpire is unsure and the 3rd umpire is unsure after one replay then go to a review, usually one quick replay is all it takes which wouldn't take up much time. This system of communication is already in place and is probably already used by the umpire to make live calls, delaying a live call by 30 seconds even would be a decent compromise and would definitely avoid howlers like broad's non-dismissal. Perhaps the captain's could also have reviews but I would prefer they didn't as like you say it wastes time and can be misused.No no no no no no please no!
Problem for two reasons, first of all, there would be endless reviews, it would get ridiculous, for me Umps are already getting too reliant on technology for run outs and stumpings, there's some really clear ones that any umpire worth their salt should be able to see from a mile that are getting pointless time-wasting reviews. Every appeal would get reviewed, it would ruin the flow of the game. Secondly some umpires will be too headstrong to review their decisions, and you'll end up with more howlers getting missed which ruins the point of DRS. It just wouldn't work at all, keeping it in the hands of the players is fine, nothing wrong with it, just got to use them sensibly and correctly.
We're now the only unbeaten side left in the competition. Should only need another two or three more wins to secure a QF place, yet again.
- Status