*Official* England in South Africa Thread

[Pratters]

How could I take something that you'd already said a different way?

Because you did not understand properly for whatever reason?

I questioned the decision of the umpire but I did not moan over it as is made out. If it is thought I did moan or any thing about it, its contrived like in the case of Marc or misunderstood maybe if you believe that as well.

 

[marc71178]

It would be better to go on that thread and point out properly rather than calling me a hypocrite which is cheap and shows more about you than me.

I assume you know what a hypocrite is?

 

[marc71178]

But at no point did I moan over the decision like Marc contrives to.

By merely keeping going on about how it was a wrong decision (when it wasn't - either decision that you've moaned about that is) - you were moaning.

 

[Pratters]

Even though he didn't even watch it!

I have watched some twenty20 cricket and have talked enoug on it in earlier threads. You cant logically prove any thing and keep crying. So do so.

 

[marc71178]

I thought it was wrong in the sense of it being a mistake by an umpire. Should not have been given out. But I accept such decisions happen in cricket.

Wow, you accept that correct decisions should happen - good thing you do, because that's surely what the idea of an umpire is?

 

[marc71178]

Show one place I have contradicted myself before opening your mouth.

Erm, over the blaming the umpires?

You keep changing your mind as to whether you're blaming them or not - and all the time it's when he's made a correct call!

 

[Pratters]

By merely keeping going on about how it was a wrong decision (when it wasn't - either decision that you've moaned about that is) - you were moaning.

If other people keep going about it being not out for various reasons, I have ever right to show my case.

It does not mean I moan or do not accept the decision.

 

[Mr Casson]

Because you did not understand properly for whatever reason?

I questioned the decision of the umpire but I did not moan over it as is made out. If it is thought I did moan or any thing about it, its contrived like in the case of Marc or misunderstood maybe if you believe that as well.

I'm not talking about you bemoaning the decision; I was never under the impression that you did.

I was talking about you questioning the decision itself. You have used a wide variety of words to describe it, including 'questionable' and 'wrong'. I'm telling you the decision was not wrong because the umpire had every reason to give it out. Now if you're going to answer this by saying "The umpire shouldn't have given it out because he couldn't be sure" then that is different to it being wrong. Wrong it was not; questionable as to why the umpire gave it out, perhaps. But there is no way at all that it can be both.

Water for your hole?

 

[Pratters]

Erm, over the blaming the umpires?

You keep changing your mind as to whether you're blaming them or not - and all the time it's when he's made a correct call!

I did not change my mind even once. Dont cook up stuff.

 

[marc71178]

a) You are bent on not readint properly. Its not my problem.

b) When did I say Marc did? Marc said I moaned about the decision which I did not. Learn to read properly.

a) It's hard to read what you mean when you keep changing your mind.

b) You most definitely did, and indeed continue to.

 

[marc71178]

You are one of the few people who think twenty20 cricket is equal for both and I am afraid no one can convince you against your adamancy.

Nobody has ever said it's completely equal - but what we have said is that it is not as skewed towards batting as you seem to think it is.

 

[marc71178]

I questioned the decision of the umpire but I did not moan over it as is made out.

You went on and on about it for days saying it was wrong, even though it was right.

 

[Pratters]

I'm not talking about you bemoaning the decision; I was never under the impression that you did.

Atleast some one does not agree with Marc for the sake of it like Halsey.

I was talking about you questioning the decision itself. You have used a wide variety of words to describe it, including 'questionable' and 'wrong'. I'm telling you the decision was not wrong because the umpire had every reason to give it out. Now if you're going to answer this by saying "The umpire shouldn't have given it out because he couldn't be sure" then that is different to it being wrong. Wrong it was not; questionable as to why the umpire gave it out, perhaps. But there is no way at all that it can be both.

Water for your hole?

It was more a reaction like 'I dont think it should have been given out.' Hence wrongly given out. But it does not mean the umpire could not give it out.

I just questioned the decision.

I hope it has been clarified.

 

[marc71178]

I have watched some twenty20 cricket

2 games, neither of which is the final we talked about - no instead you decided the low scoring in the final was to do with the conditions, in spite of it being the same conditions as in the 2 higher-scoring semis.

 

[marc71178]

If other people keep going about it being not out for various reasons, I have ever right to show my case.

Erm, nobody else ever did though - because it was purely and simply correct.

You however continued to moan about it up until yesterday (when you started on the Giles LBW from yesterday - even though that too was correct)

 

[Pratters]

Nobody has ever said it's completely equal - but what we have said is that it is not as skewed towards batting as you seem to think it is.

It is not skewed towards bowling. Read the concerned thread to find which people have said its skewed or not.

 

[Pratters]

You went on and on about it for days saying it was wrong, even though it was right.

We were talking about the decision itself and I was not moaning over any thing.

 

[Mr Casson]

Atleast some one does not agree with Marc for the sake of it like Halsey.



It was more a reaction like 'I dont think it should have been given out.' Hence wrongly given out. But it does not mean the umpire could not give it out.

I just questioned the decision.

I hope it has been clarified.

You used the word 'wrong'. Whether that was to describe the decision as plain wrong (meaning the ball would not have hit the stumps), or that the umpire was wrong to have given that out, it doesn't really matter. It wasn't wrong because he made a decision which for what it's worth now, was indeed correct.

 

[Pratters]

You used the word 'wrong'. Whether that was to describe the decision as plain wrong (meaning the ball would not have hit the stumps), or that the umpire was wrong to have given that out, it doesn't really matter. It wasn't wrong because he made a decision which for what it's worth now, was indeed correct.

I used the word wrong as I believed and still do it was wrongly given out for the element of doubt.

The umpire believed it was out and gave it out.

Whether it was wrong or not does not show I have contradicted myself any where.

 

[marc71178]

It was more a reaction like 'I dont think it should have been given out.' Hence wrongly given out. But it does not mean the umpire could not give it out.

Which bit of correct decision do you not get?!