Tom Halsey
International Coach
Yes it would. It hit him in line, would have hit middle about 3/4 way up. How is that not plumb?
-
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.
*Official* England in South Africa Thread
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
Tom Halsey
International Coach
Well, I fail to see how it would have possibly missed then. If there's doubt in something that would almost certainly have hit middle, there's doubt in anything.
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Leave it alone folks. The ball hit the pad, the umpire raised the finger, Gibbs had to walk. It's done. Finished. Over with. It was one ball, one decision, one moment in time.
Legglancer
State Regular
Bad light, bad decision, bad for cricket by Neil Manthorp
Posted on 14 January 2005
Cricket, in general, has an amazing tendency to stick its head up its own backside. Even 'normal' people who once regarded themselves as decent, honest human beings can become power-monsters when appointed to a position of authority within cricket.
At the Wanderers on Friday morning a genuinely decent looking woman appeared to take pleasure in refusing entry to the media because they were at the 'wrong gate.' Never mind that it was raining hard and the 'right gate' was a hundred metres away. It wasn't her fault. That's what cricket does to you.
Take Steve Bucknor, for example. Some extremely senior eyebrows were raised when he and match referee Clive Lloyd arrived at the stadium at 11.30, some time after the rain had stopped. As custodians of the game, and as the men who make the final decision on the fitness and readiness of the ground for play to start, it seemed like a remarkably cavalier approach.
But not nearly as cavalier as the decision by Bucknor and his junior colleague, Aleem Dar, to offer the light to England's batsmen on the first evening without even resorting to a reading from their light meters - which were back in the pavilion. So their yardstick for measuring light for the rest of the match was based on a gut feel.
Even more cavalier was their collective approach to conditions on the second afternoon. Common sense and care for the common people who had paid to watch the match clearly never entered their thinking for a second. Bucknor proudly corrected the perception at the close of play that the umpires had offered the light to the fielding side.
In fact, there had been no offer - not even a discusion, infact. The two umpires had simply ordered the players from the field while the day's final half hour of sunshine bathed the square in a light that was more likely to be too bright than too dark.
The game is till trying to market itself effectively in South Africa and when potential converts see such a mockery unfolding they have every reason to look elsewhere for their entertainment. Just as people sitting at home have reason to regard cricket as a retrospective, antiquated joke when a batsmen is given out despite the unarguable, irrefutable evidence of a television replay thay see barely three seconds after the umpire's finger has been raised.
Dreadful umpiring decisions are not, as the dinosaurs would have us beleive, part of the 'charm' of the game. Mistakes are a part of the game, sure, but they can be rectified - and should be - with the simple aid of a call from the third umpire's box to the men in the middle.
But unadulterated arrogance in deciding when, and if, play should start or continue is a more difficult problem to solve. To do so would require a massive, collective decision by the game's worldwide administrators to remove their heads from their arses and accept that that game belongs to the people who watch it, not them.
Posted on 14 January 2005
Cricket, in general, has an amazing tendency to stick its head up its own backside. Even 'normal' people who once regarded themselves as decent, honest human beings can become power-monsters when appointed to a position of authority within cricket.
At the Wanderers on Friday morning a genuinely decent looking woman appeared to take pleasure in refusing entry to the media because they were at the 'wrong gate.' Never mind that it was raining hard and the 'right gate' was a hundred metres away. It wasn't her fault. That's what cricket does to you.
Take Steve Bucknor, for example. Some extremely senior eyebrows were raised when he and match referee Clive Lloyd arrived at the stadium at 11.30, some time after the rain had stopped. As custodians of the game, and as the men who make the final decision on the fitness and readiness of the ground for play to start, it seemed like a remarkably cavalier approach.
But not nearly as cavalier as the decision by Bucknor and his junior colleague, Aleem Dar, to offer the light to England's batsmen on the first evening without even resorting to a reading from their light meters - which were back in the pavilion. So their yardstick for measuring light for the rest of the match was based on a gut feel.
Even more cavalier was their collective approach to conditions on the second afternoon. Common sense and care for the common people who had paid to watch the match clearly never entered their thinking for a second. Bucknor proudly corrected the perception at the close of play that the umpires had offered the light to the fielding side.
In fact, there had been no offer - not even a discusion, infact. The two umpires had simply ordered the players from the field while the day's final half hour of sunshine bathed the square in a light that was more likely to be too bright than too dark.
The game is till trying to market itself effectively in South Africa and when potential converts see such a mockery unfolding they have every reason to look elsewhere for their entertainment. Just as people sitting at home have reason to regard cricket as a retrospective, antiquated joke when a batsmen is given out despite the unarguable, irrefutable evidence of a television replay thay see barely three seconds after the umpire's finger has been raised.
Dreadful umpiring decisions are not, as the dinosaurs would have us beleive, part of the 'charm' of the game. Mistakes are a part of the game, sure, but they can be rectified - and should be - with the simple aid of a call from the third umpire's box to the men in the middle.
But unadulterated arrogance in deciding when, and if, play should start or continue is a more difficult problem to solve. To do so would require a massive, collective decision by the game's worldwide administrators to remove their heads from their arses and accept that that game belongs to the people who watch it, not them.
So one ball, one decision, and one moment in time could not have significantly impacted the result of the match?Mr Mxyzptlk said:
And even if so, what do you mean "leave it alone folks"? The whole point of this forum is to do the opposite. People talk about idiotic things like fallen trees but when an argument is broached about a legitimate cricketing topic, about a horrible decision that cost a country a test match and a shot to win the series, and which has also likely caused them to lose the series, they should leave it alone?
Neil Pickup
Request Your Custom Title Now!
The way you talk about it you make it sound like it pitched three feet outside leg stump and then Gibbs reverse swept it onto his head...
SpaceMonkey
International Debutant
He wasnt moaning at the topic of conversation, more the fact this thread was just going round and round in circles on the same argument.Gangster said:
SpaceMonkey
International Debutant
I've seen them given!Neil Pickup said:
SpaceMonkey
International Debutant
I think Australia would suffer more if you took McGrath and Warne out than any 2 batsmen. Which is why it will be interesting in a few years time or so to see what replacements Australia have lined up when they do call it a day.
Could just bring them slightly closer to the chasing pack...or they might just bring in 2 better bowlers
(although unlikely considering the skill of McGrath and Warne).
Could just bring them slightly closer to the chasing pack...or they might just bring in 2 better bowlers
(although unlikely considering the skill of McGrath and Warne).Haha, well average is garbage by Aussie standards, isnt it?Mr Casson said:Wow... way to backtrack.
"Take two people out of any team in the world, they're all garbage."
"Australia: take Gilchrist and Ponting out, they're now decidedly average."
Average and garbage are the same? You have high standards!
Well we've seen them without Warne for a year, and McGrath for a year and it barely slowed them down. Even Ponting in India was out and it barely slowed them, but that was because of Gilchrist's batting and leadership. Gilchrist is the fulcrum on which that test team balances.SpaceMonkey said:I think Australia would suffer more if you took McGrath and Warne out than any 2 batsmen. Which is why it will be interesting in a few years time or so to see what replacements Australia have lined up when they do call it a day.
Could just bring them slightly closer to the chasing pack...or they might just bring in 2 better bowlers