*Official* Australia vs South Africa -2022/3

[Spikey]

i blame foxtel

 

[Spark]

In what world is "fingers are split" evidence that it's hit the ground?

 

[Prince EWS]

Markram and the new KP in there would be good too. Probably at 3 and 4.

Yeah strongly agree. They'd be my picks too.

 

[honestbharani]

He is being consistent. But he is also being consistently wrong. That third umpire.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Depends on the openers and the support. If you think I expect changing the entire batting line-up suddenly changes the fortunes of SA cricket, you're wrong. I not talking about winning games I`m talking about developing a team again, its going to take another 2-3 years at minimum to see real progress.

Brutally most of the non-SA supporters are putting in their 2cents based on a single tour that has brought these problems to the fore on an extreme basis, the SA supporters knew it was coming. No surprise whatsoever. This discussion is nearing the end of it cycle, what you are advocating is what any reasonable SA supporter was advocating 4 years ago. Since then no progress has been made and nothing was done and it has resulted in the situation we see SA in now. Its 4 years too late for a slow transitionary change its time for a complete rebuild.

I understand you are very frustrated, but I don't believe for a second the complete rebuild you are advocating for has any chance whatsoever of working in the manner you think. Rather than players initially failing but building in confidence and kicking on in 2-3 years as you say, what is infinitely more likely those early failures weighing said players down to the point where it would almost be cruel to keep selecting them, and then whoever eventually replaces them would then go into exactly the same cycle, rinse and repeat. I fundamentally do not believe putting players, especially those with little experience, into such sink or swim situations will ever be a beneficial thing towards their careers

Also you mention support, and honestly nothing about CSA as an orginisation gives me any faith they can provide that

 

[Spark]

He is being consistent. But he is also being consistently wrong. That third umpire.

Nah I don't think that one is the same as the others. The others it seemed like the ball might have been touching the ground. For this one you literally could not see whether the ball touched the ground because it was obscured. It should have been soft signal based on lack of a clear replay.

 

[honestbharani]

TBF, if this new SA20 goes off well then at least financial security is taken care of for some of these players.

 

[honestbharani]

Nah I don't think that one is the same as the others. The others it seemed like the ball might have been touching the ground. For this one you literally could not see whether the ball touched the ground because it was obscured. It should have been soft signal based on lack of a clear replay.

Fair enough. I am going by crapinfo descriptions and they updated this just now.

 

[morgieb]

It's worth noting that yesterday he wasn't entirely sure but he had claimed that one. I know you can't give decisions entirely on the fielder's verdict but surely that has to say something? The "grassed" on that one feels like an optical illusion.

More proof you need specialist 3rd umpires.

 

[Spark]

Sorry, I know you caught that ball at knee height but your fingers were split and that's enough for a not out decision now.

Just absolute junk logic

 

[Line and Length]

I thought the lbw was more obviously out than the catch. I have no problem with any element of doubt going to the batsman but it was frustrating to have no conclusive side-on video.

 

[Spark]

I thought the lbw was more obviously out than the catch. I have no problem with any element of doubt going to the batsman but it was frustrating to have no conclusive side-on video.

The thing is the on-field umpires thought it was out. So if there's doubt you surely defer to them.

 

[Prince EWS]

We're just down a total rabbit hole of "consistency" in this Test, one step after the other.

God was definitely a specialist RHB.

 

[Line and Length]

Sorry, I know you caught that ball at knee height but your fingers were split and that's enough for a not out decision now.

Just absolute junk logic

Not really. Split fingers vs fingers under the ball.

 

[Spark]

We're just down a total rabbit hole of "consistency" in this Test, one step after the other.

God was definitely a specialist RHB.

See I strongly disagree that it was consistent. The only thing consistent is finding some excuse to give it not out.

 

[Prince EWS]

The thing is the on-field umpires thought it was out. So if there's doubt you surely defer to them.

I like giving the benefit of the doubt to the batsman on every other edge case dismissal, but I reckon that if a fielder claims it we should give them the benefit of the doubt and maybe fine them if proven otherwise.

Anyone playing grade cricket or below knows that if it's claimed and you didn't see it ****ing bounce you walk off.

 

[Spark]

Like I can sort of accept the other two because they did kind of look grassed even if I thought they were both clean catches. But that one is absolute crap, reeks of the awful decisions we saw all the time in the mid 00s with clearly clean catches being given not out based on zoomed in 144p vision at obscure angles, which is why the soft signal had to come in in the first place.

 

[Nintendo]

Don't think klassan is a test #3 long term but he looks a good bat, hopefully he gets a longer run down the order.

 

[morgieb]

The Smith dismissal first innings was probably out but he didn't claim it so I could at least sort of see why it wasn't given out. And Marnus there were some replays that suggested that it might've bounced before it hit the palm so IDK.

But I don't see how you can conclusively say that was grassed.

 

[jcas0167]

In what world is "fingers are split" evidence that it's hit the ground?

That reminded me of Nigel "could have come from anywhere" Llong.