*Official* England in West Indies

[Richard]

Mmm Brendon Nash, such a talent. Kinda regretting he went to the West Indies now, could've done a real job in the Australian middle order, especially in this climate.

I think not. In any case, Qld didn't offer him a contract.

Either way there's no way he's a better batsman than Ponting, Hussey or Clarke, and if he's better than Marcus North or several others knocking around state cricket I'll eat my computer.

 

[Richard]

Classic England idiot on commentary trying to look for excuses, talking about how Sarwan got one in the first game... just accept that you're team got lucky and the Windies got screwed... pathetic!

I trust Hussain's description of the Chanderpaul wicket sated your satisfaction?

 

[Nate]

Mmm Brendon Nash, such a talent. Kinda regretting he went to the West Indies now, could've done a real job in the Australian middle order, especially in this climate.

Yeah, because we're scratching around for some talent or depth between Hussey, Clarke and North.

Would only just make State Cricket.

 

[inbox24]

Well he would've been a better pick than McDonald, not my first choice (Hussey). And maybe better than an injured Symonds.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Gonna ignore the pathetic use of scarcasm and concentrate on the fact that you are sympathising with the umpires... seriously, what the hell were you looking at... when they stopped the ball upon impact the ball was in line with the bails if not over and still had 2 meters to travel... that decision is undefendable!

The sarcasm was directed at sammy2's even more risible attempt to blame the decision on racism.

That is EXACTLY my point.

1. The ball is at stump height at impact. It is not over the top of the stumps.
2. Anything beyond the point of impact is a prediction.
3. Unless the ball is over the top at impact, it is therefore a prediction that the ball will go over the top.
4. The Third Umpire may not predict under the letter of the referral system.
5. The only permissible evidence to alter an LBW is inside edge or hitting/pitching out of line.
6. Therefore there is no permissible evidence to overturn the on field decision
7. Therefore out

I am not saying I agree with the decision - anyone with two functioning eyes and any experience or knowledge of playing cricket with a new ball on a hard track can tell that it's going over the top. I am simply explaing why, under the letter of the law, the decision can (and will) be argued as correct.

 

[ozone]

Yeah, because we're scratching around for some talent or depth between Hussey, Clarke and North.

Would only just make State Cricket.

Didn't FTR.

 

[Jigga988]

I trust Hussain's description of the Chanderpaul wicket sated your satisfaction?

Liked what Holding just said on commentery and agree whole-heartedly with that view-point, ball would've hit mount everest... nothing wrong with system it's the idiots operating it... people like Russel Tiffin and Harper, gives you some hindsight to all those people who were saying Bucknor was bad! have a look at those two jokes...

 

[Richard]

Didn't FTR.

Methinks he's made some improvements since leaving Australia though. Otherwise he'd not be having success currently in Test cricket.

 

[Nate]

Well he would've been a better pick than McDonald, not my first choice (Hussey). And maybe better than an injured Symonds.

There are, and I've counted them, 5,000,000 cricketers that would/should get a gig before Nash. McDonald is being chosen primarily as a bowler atm, and hence their roles are incomparable and irrelevent.

Didn't FTR.

I think the point being made is how the Nash of the moment, the one who is seemingly a capable Test batsman for the Windies, would fare in the Australian structure right now.

 

[Jigga988]

The sarcasm was directed at sammy2's even more risible attempt to blame the decision on racism.

That is EXACTLY my point.

1. The ball is at stump height at impact. It is not over the top of the stumps.
2. Anything beyond the point of impact is a prediction.
3. Unless the ball is over the top at impact, it is therefore a prediction that the ball will go over the top.
4. The Third Umpire may not predict under the letter of the referral system.
5. The only permissible evidence to alter an LBW is inside edge or hitting/pitching out of line.
6. Therefore there is no permissible evidence to overturn the on field decision
7. Therefore out

I am not saying I agree with the decision - anyone with two functioning eyes and any experience or knowledge of playing cricket with a new ball on a hard track can tell that it's going over the top. I am simply explaing why, under the letter of the law, the decision can (and will) be argued as correct.

Ha, lets hope you are no where near the comitee that decides how hawk-eye should be used... if so cricket will seriously struggle!

'4. The Third Umpire may not predict under the letter of the referral system.'
If this were the case then how is anything supposed to be given out or indeed not out... you're making no sense if the third umpire can't predict then his job is just a bit redundant isn't it!

 

[ozone]

Methinks he's made some improvements since leaving Australia though. Otherwise he'd not be having success currently in Test cricket.

Of course, I'm sure he has improved, but the fact remains, he didn't 'make it' in state cricket. Although it is true that now he would probably make the cut.

 

[four_or_six]

Maybe you just should only refer lbw's for whether it's pitched outside leg/hit outside off/got an edge.

 

[Richard]

There are, and I've counted them, 5,000,000 cricketers that would/should get a gig before Nash.

Nnanden Patrick - The Greatest Exaggerator In CricketWeb History.

I think the point being made is how the Nash of the moment, the one who is seemingly a capable Test batsman for the Windies, would fair in the Australian structure right now.

*fare

 

[Richard]

Ha, lets hope you are no where near the comitee that decides how hawk-eye should be used... if so cricket will seriously struggle!

'4. The Third Umpire may not predict under the letter of the referral system.'
If this were the case then how is anything supposed to be given out or indeed not out... you're making no sense if the third umpire can't predict then his job is just a bit redundant isn't it!

No, the point is that only the standing-Umpire may predict, the third-Umpire may not.

Which obviously is nonsense, and yet another reason why referrals are plain stupidity. The two Umpires together should predict, before any decision is made.

 

[Richard]

Maybe you just should only refer lbw's for whether it's pitched outside leg/hit outside off/got an edge.

Well that pitched outside leg and was too high as well.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

well that pitched outside leg and was too high as well.

out

 

[Jigga988]

That looked plum Nash=gone

 

[Nate]

Nnanden Patrick - The Greatest Exaggerator In CricketWeb History.

*fare

Haha, I'd hope a smart man like yourself can tell when someone is using humour to make a point.

And cheers.

Referrallllllllll

 

[Neil Pickup]

Ha, lets hope you are no where near the comitee that decides how hawk-eye should be used... if so cricket will seriously struggle!

'4. The Third Umpire may not predict under the letter of the referral system.'
If this were the case then how is anything supposed to be given out or indeed not out... you're making no sense if the third umpire can't predict then his job is just a bit redundant isn't it!

Please read what I am writing.

I am explaining WHY the decision has been made. The content of my post is NOT my opinion.

This is the letter of the regulations to my understanding: that the third umpire must work on fact. A fact is the ball pitching outside leg stump, or an inside edge having been taken on the way through. These are not predictions!

Now, this will be interesting...

 

[Jarquis]

Swann thinks that's out,
3rd umpire won't give it though.