Cricket

[Geddy2112]

I’d guess the same George. I’m not a fan of the technology as I think that it undermines the umpire’s who are doing a difficult job and as far as it appears that we both can see, they make very few errors. We even see LBW reviews where the tech shows that the ball would have nicked the stumps yet they don’t give it out.

Indeed so in one instance they remove the umpires' call then go back on that and state umpires' call why have it both ways, it either is hitting or it's not.

One issue that I do have in cricket is the amount of times players claim catches when it seems fairly obvious that the ball touched the ground. It’s made worse when you see slow motion replays and the commentators say that they think that it was a clean catch. It’s made worse by the fact that it appears that any benefit of doubt it always goes to the fielder.

From someone who played the game for many years and to a fairly high standard even including playing with current test players I can state hand and on heart as a fielder you know for certain if you catch the ball cleanly, fairly much in the way you know you have nicked it for a caught behind.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Indeed so in one instance they remove the umpires' call then go back on that and state umpires' call why have it both ways, it either is hitting or it's not.



From someone who played the game for many years and to a fairly high standard even including playing with current test players I can state hand and on heart as a fielder you know for certain if you catch the ball cleanly, fairly much in the way you know you have nicked it for a caught behind.

Exactly. The LBW rule mentions nothing about which part of the stumps the ball must have hit. A hit is a hit.

I’ve seen so many catches where I’ve been watching with a group of people and everyone has felt that the ball touched the ground yet it’s been given out. It’s seems strange that given the fact that there are cameras everywhere players are willing to appeal and don’t seem bothered these days about being suspected of falsely claiming catch.

[GBinOz]

Exactly. The LBW rule mentions nothing about which part of the stumps the ball must have hit. A hit is a hit.

I’ve seen so many catches where I’ve been watching with a group of people and everyone has felt that the ball touched the ground yet it’s been given out. It’s seems strange that given the fact that there are cameras everywhere players are willing to appeal and don’t seem bothered these days about being suspected of falsely claiming catch.

Regrettably this is becoming the case - win at all cost.

I recall seeing Rodney Marsh take a catch behind, and rather than appeal he indicated to the umpire that he didn't know whether he had legitimately taken the catch or not. Sportsmanship at its finest.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Regrettably this is becoming the case - win at all cost.

I recall seeing Rodney Marsh take a catch behind, and rather than appeal he indicated to the umpire that he didn't know whether he had legitimately taken the catch or not. Sportsmanship at its finest.

And Marsh was one of the toughest competitors ever.

[Geddy2112]

And Marsh was one of the toughest competitors ever.

And Stuart Broad middling one to first slip in the Ashes and not walking...

[Herlock Sholmes]

And Stuart Broad middling one to first slip in the Ashes and not walking...

Mind you, Boycott always used to say that you never walk. But yes, I remember the Broad one. He might as well have hooked one to the boundary and said “I never touched it…honest.”

[Geddy2112]

Mind you, Boycott always used to say that you never walk. But yes, I remember the Broad one. He might as well have hooked one to the boundary and said “I never touched it…honest.”

I used to, but nowadays especially in test cricket etc there are a few umpires and many cameras to make that decision for me. I mean if it was blatant then of course walk however I was given out many times when I know for certain I was not out and probably got a few cheeky wickets that I should not of, maybe it balances itself out over the course of time.

Its the same as these premier league football players today who feign injury or dive and cheat... why? There are dozens of UHD cameras on you all 90 mins which can be used to study and scrutinise your every foot step, why bother trying to cheat... but they still do it. I beginning to think they do because it gives Sky something to talk about.

[OneRound]

Mind you, Boycott always used to say that you never walk. But yes, I remember the Broad one. He might as well have hooked one to the boundary and said “I never touched it…honest.”

Hi Herlock and all - like it or not, the effective use of the review system is now an important part of Test and International cricket. If Australia had not wasted their two earlier reviews, Broad would have been out caught bang to rights.

Best regards,
OneRound

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock and all - like it or not, the effective use of the review system is now an important part of Test and International cricket. If Australia had not wasted their two earlier reviews, Broad would have been out caught bang to rights.

Best regards,
OneRound

Hi OneRound,

Yes, the system won’t be abandoned now. Ironically Broad wasted more reviews than anyone. If someone hit him for 4 he’d swear it was LBW. Great player though. It was always a pity that his batting suffered after getting hit that time. Early on I was thinking that he was going to end up as almost an all rounder.

[GBinOz]

And Marsh was one of the toughest competitors ever.

He was. I recall in the infamous under-arm incident against New Zealand, when a win revolved around that last delivery, seeing Marsh behind the stumps pleading with Greg Chappell not to do it. His
competitiveness was always tempered with a sense of fairness and integrity.

Just as an aside. I have often wondered, had Chappell asked Dennis Lillee to bowl that last over, and the last ball underarm, whether he might have received a suggestion as to where he could stick the cricket ball.

[GBinOz]

And Stuart Broad middling one to first slip in the Ashes and not walking...

I recall being very disappointed in Broad's decision in that case. But I think he redeemed himself in the career that followed.

[GBinOz]

I remember David Hookes being given out attempting a square cut that the replay showed had missed by 6". I believe that a series of "clangers" such as this prompted the review system. Never the less, I think that it is now being used as routine rather than to combat obvious umpiring errors.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He was. I recall in the infamous under-arm incident against New Zealand, when a win revolved around that last delivery, seeing Marsh behind the stumps pleading with Greg Chappell not to do it. His
competitiveness was always tempered with a sense of fairness and integrity.

Just as an aside. I have often wondered, had Chappell asked Dennis Lillee to bowl that last over, and the last ball underarm, whether he might have received a suggestion as to where he could stick the cricket ball.

Totally agree George. Lillee would have told him where to go. As would Thommo if he was playing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I remember David Hookes being given out attempting a square cut that the replay showed had missed by 6". I believe that a series of "clangers" such as this prompted the review system. Never the less, I think that it is now being used as routine rather than to combat obvious umpiring errors.

I wonder how or even if it would have worked if they had put the review system into the hands of the umpires and not the players? So that they could use it if they weren’t sure? Then again people would have ben constantly asking “why didn’t he…” for so many decisions.

[andy1867]

He was. I recall in the infamous under-arm incident against New Zealand, when a win revolved around that last delivery, seeing Marsh behind the stumps pleading with Greg Chappell not to do it. His
competitiveness was always tempered with a sense of fairness and integrity.

Just as an aside. I have often wondered, had Chappell asked Dennis Lillee to bowl that last over, and the last ball underarm, whether he might have received a suggestion as to where he could stick the cricket ball.

Trevor must have been in a bloody quandary though...told to bowl underarm by not only his captain but his older brother..The Stuart broad "Middle" to slip....I actually got up and went into the kitchen, came back in and presumed the umpire had called "No Ball"...til they replayed it over and over again,Australiain the main had a policy of "Not walking" ...I think there was only Gilchrist if ..(I recall correctly) that walked....so fair enough I suppose