• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

2nd Test at the MCG, Melbourne, 26 Dec - 30 Dec 2020

Gnske

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yeah it’s genuinely noticeable that the chat gets worse the higher the grade you play. The stuff in the park is usually better than in higher grade cricket, which seems better than that at FC level (in Aus anyway).

Weirdly though, I don’t mind Wade chirping back at Pant here from an individual pov. Might keep him focused
All for it. Hate the Langer doctrine on sledging tbh. Hearing Paine administer the new-wave of sledging can be pretty cringe.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
That glance was fine tbh, if we are using the Pujara “he’s genuinely nicked that but something something soft hands” line of thinking
 

Gob

International Coach
Can't believe what I'm seeing here. TPC could have played Ashlose with a stump in India. Looks clueless here. Should definitely consider getting on top of Ravi a bit more
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
well because imo the ball tracking representation isn't ideal and in truth there should be a cone of uncertainty around the projected point of impact. with those, i think the cone of uncertainty would actually have it as fairly uncertain that the ball is hitting the stumps and in such cases it should be not out.
What's the margin of error for umpires tracking the ball live though? Because that's the only thing that matters here surely.
Yeah I think @Spark makes some great and some not so great arguments about this, and this one falls into the latter category.

The fact that something isn't 100% accurate is not justification for using an even less accurate system. DRS > Bruce Oxenford watching behind the stumps. Deferring to the later on fringe decisions makes about as much sense flipping a coin to determine whether you should take an umbrella out with you because the BOM is only forecasting a 96% chance of rain.

I think the better arguments against changing it in this way revolve around the sensible idea that we just don't want to see that many lbws.
The earliest formal versions of the Laws of Cricket don't include an lbw law at all - it was introduced as a mechanism to discourage a pad-play in 1774. This is important as I think we should view the lbw as a mechanism to make sure the true staples of the game work properly than a staple itself.

Skull joked that what he was advocating could "halve batting averages" - and it might, at least at first - but the bigger impact would come in the form of exactly which batsmen and bowlers were successful. Whether or not you buy into my idea that, more or less, "lbws aren't real cricket, they just enable real cricket", this chnage would be far more significant than other law changes over the years because it would only apply to internationals. We're not going to have DRS in Under 12s or A-grade park cricket, so we'd be effectively creating a subtly different sport at the top level in which there were 3x more lbws than any level below. This could have all sorts of bad consequences beyond just the philosophical concern that batsmen are technically out more than they're given currently.
 

Gnske

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I maintain that I think Warner and Wade would revel batting with eachother at the top.
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Not sure about this around the wicket line to Wade from Bumrah

Also our bouncers have been way too short all game
 

Gnske

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I can't tell whether its the human being or the AFL player in Wade that wants to knock Pant's head off.
 

Top