FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Just an aside, but if Ponting makes 67, he'll move past Border as the highest Australian run scorer.
Last week England bowled like crap and we took advantage of it. As soon as they bowled a few half decent spells and put some pressure on - we crumbled.As opposed to last week when England batted 1st, made 400+ and they scored 670? This time last week everyone was complimenting their application. As always, we wait and see with these things.
WD Rudi. WBC he is.
Doing so now.Somebody better sig this just quietly.
I guess that's the same questionable logic that Richard's: he is lucky to be there anyway, call rests on. Two independent events in both cases put together based on a belief in some sort of cricketing karma (which can be confined to one match/day/series etc.), perhaps a nicety for the cricketing fan who looks for another similar event to neutralise/justify the blow of a perceived mis-justice.Anyhow I do have some sympathy for the Aussies on this, the decision should have been referred in the same way as Hauritz's catch, and if it had been the inconclusive replay would have led to a Not Out decision.
It isn't. You are making the assumption that technological aids can only help - that they cannot hinder. This is not true. In the case of low catches, the far-off camera can introduce doubt where a closer view (from an eye or camera) would realise there is none.Yes I read that, if there is doubt it shouldn't be out. The Umpire by himself acts on far less than the third Umpire and to expect he will make more correct decisions without the aid of technology is as I said before ludicrous.
Doing so now.
Like ponting to broad?Australia now dead batting.
All of us have clearly said he wasn't out. We just don't like how we're being labelled cheats when it wasn't our fault.Just wondering if you guys thought the Hughes dismisal was out?
My final point on this is that you treat technology and on field umpires as being exclusive, which I maintain that they are not.It isn't. You are making the assumption that technological aids can only help - that they cannot hinder. This is not true. In the case of low catches, the far-off camera can introduce doubt where a closer view (from an eye or camera) would realise there is none.
I suggest we discuss this elsewhere and some other time, because there is a cricket match on and I for one quite want to watch it.
I've obviously not called anyone a whinger, but no, I didn't think it carried. However, I recognise that I have merely a far-off camera view; the Umpires actually had a better view.Just a quick read of posts and interesting to see England supporters calling us whingers... Just wondering if you guys thought the Hughes dismisal was out?
Broad into the attack. Australia now deciding that they can chase this down after all.Australia now dead batting.