If you could change anything about cricket -

[Craig]

The English just dream of being number one in Test cricket well, for ever, but not that I think will be happening for some time

 

[Linda]

Its called a J-O-K-E

 

[LongHopCassidy]

I'd get rid of the "not an LBW if pitched outside leg" rule.

Saw Tendulkar just padding away MacGill in Adelaide. Darn annoying.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I'd get rid of the "not an LBW if pitched outside leg" rule.

Saw Tendulkar just padding away MacGill in Adelaide. Darn annoying.

Definately don't think that one should go. It'd make things much too easy for bowlers (and I am one haha).

 

[LongHopCassidy]

It is a batsman's game, SOC.......

 

[Son Of Coco]

It is a batsman's game, SOC.......

I'd have to disagree with you mate.......how do you think bringing in your proposed rule change is going to help the situation?

 

[tooextracool]

Well at least the umpire can have a look (upstairs)....and the incident can only be ruled on by 3rd ump if it's obvious.....if it's not obvious then throw it back to the umpires.

err if the third umpires cant figure it out, whats the point of referring it to the on field umpires?

 

[tooextracool]

Here we go again

They're not accurate enough.

but are they more accurate than the umpires?

 

[vic_orthdox]

overrates are too slow as it is. there is no way that cricket could hope to continue its prosperity as a spectator sport if we had decisions being referred to a 3rd umpire every few overs and taking a minimum of two minutes to be decided.

and what excuses would we have when our side loses a series?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Well, going off recent history.. pitch, chucking, nasty opposing captains, dodgy food...

 

[Son Of Coco]

Well, going off recent history.. pitch, chucking, nasty opposing captains, dodgy food...

haha, actually I'll give it to you boys, you never seem to come out with any excuses when you lose. Everyone just goes 'we were crap' and the rest of us nod our heads in agreement having realised that well in advance.

(But maybe not this time around.......)

 

[odyssey]

err if the third umpires cant figure it out, whats the point of referring it to the on field umpires?

Well if the third umpire can't pick up something obvious then send it back to on-field umps.....and they will probably let decision stand (not out) or...w/e

 

[Joao_Quinto]

If I could change anything about cricket, it would be my skill level(Improvement of course).

 

[Joao_Quinto]

A-U-S-T-R-A-L-I-A.

M-a-k-e t-h-e-m c-r-a-p

We would still beat you english!

 

[Langeveldt]

haha, actually I'll give it to you boys, you never seem to come out with any excuses when you lose. Everyone just goes 'we were crap' and the rest of us nod our heads in agreement having realised that well in advance.

(But maybe not this time around.......)

Not any more.. England think they are good.. Get ready for some "Dodgy Biltong" stories!

 

[Richard]

There is far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far too much for me to single anything out.
Eveything to make the game as neat and tidy, fair and fulsome, as possible - decision-making, judgement of batsmen and bowlers, etc.
The recognition amongst fans that Test-match statistics are not the be-all-and-end-all, and do not sum-up conclusively a player's performance.

 

[marc71178]

Well at least the umpire can have a look (upstairs)....and the incident can only be ruled on by 3rd ump if it's obvious.....if it's not obvious then throw it back to the umpires.

So waste an amount of time and make no decision then tell the umpire he's got to make it?

That makes no sense to me.

 

[marc71178]

but are they more accurate than the umpires?

Not necessarily.

 

[tooextracool]

Not necessarily.

oh commone, an lbw decision would be far more accurate using technology than an umpire....

 

[marc71178]

Not necessarily it wouldn't until the technology is guaranteed 100% correct.

At the moment it isn't, and although someone may say 99%, that is 99% of all decisions, and the 1% is going to be the really tight one.