*Official* Second Test at Lords

[Jamee999]

Maybe Richard would prefer it if nobody saw cricket, so nobody could make incorrect decisions.

 

[Richard]

But a wrong decision does not detract from the batsman having a chance at scoring some runs. He may be out next ball, he may score 300 the only thing that can be said is that he shouldn't have been out that ball.

I don't care about that. Hughes was lucky to have been there for that to happen, so he can't moan about being sawn-off. Bopara was lucky to be there for his referral, because Ponting had already dropped him.

In the end neither drop cost much.

 

[TT Boy]

big muscles, let's blue, etc

You sound nice.

 

[Prince EWS]

And to think I was feeling bad about saying the recently arrived Aussie contingent from Planet Cricket were by and large morons.

I think Jakester joined here before he joined PC, actually. Wasn't actually *from* PC even if not though - it's pretty much my fault he's here.

*hides*

 

[alternative]

Meanwhile I stand convinced about Hughes being a good prospect but unfortunately not yet there. What the **** was he doing against that ball? Moving laterally in the crease like a tailender?? He reminds me of Saurav Ganguly a lot. An extremely good player on the off side but scratchy against the short stuff.

TBF, Ganguly is GOD.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

And to think I was feeling bad about saying the recently arrived Aussie contingent from Planet Cricket were by and large morons.

You're a disgrace to your country, abusing your fellow countrymen in an Ashes thread.

BTW, Collingwood are ****ing ****.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Maybe Richard would prefer it if nobody saw cricket, so nobody could make incorrect decisions.

If a ball shatters the stumps in the forest and no one is around, is it out bowled?

 

[zaremba]

Just curious, but how do you know Ponting "expected" Flintoff to take his word for the claimed catch? My reading of what happened is that Flintoff asked him if he caught it and Ponting said yes. I'm not really sure what else you'd expect him to do.

I don't know, obviously. But from the TV pictures I read it differently to you. St Ricky very much "volunteered" his confirmation that he'd caught it. In fact he pointedly told Freddie twice which suggests that he was trying to persuade him rather than answer a question.

Anyhow I do have some sympathy for the Aussies on this, the decision should have been referred in the same way as Hauritz's catch, and if it had been the inconclusive replay would have led to a Not Out decision.

 

[biased indian]

Inconsistent umpiring indeed. That Hughes catch should have been referred. England indeed fortunate to be on top here.

Meanwhile Fred Flintoff is kicking it up. It is so heartening to see him making the ball jump all the way to the top of the keeper's head. Looks like Lords feels like Perth.

thought they where dominating this test from day 2 onwards

 

[Athlai]

I don't care about that. Hughes was lucky to have been there for that to happen, so he can't moan about being sawn-off. Bopara was lucky to be there for his referral, because Ponting had already dropped him.

In the end neither drop cost much.

Official decisions shouldn't count in this. While fielding errors are a part of the game and sport in general, the judges and umpires shouldn't be able to make mistakes that change the game.

 

[Richard]

Informed decision > Split second one

You damage your prospects of an informed decision by taking in faulty information like a camera picture of an attempted catch.

The view of the on-field Umpire is better than that of the camera which is miles away from the field.

 

[duffer]

We've learnt from the best.

Can't let this go without some props.

 

[Burgey]

haha..... that looked not out..

Still Ricky you harp on about spirit of cricket..... you're not the ****ing umpire don't try to be one.

This from the stinking soap dodgers who stand on the balcony of the dressing shed yelling at Pietersen to turn around and go back when one bounces in front of Dhoni but he claims it.
Fair dinkum worst people in the world.

 

[pasag]

BTW, Collingwood are ****ing ****.

Makes a fair point and well said.

 

[superkingdave]

Still, nothing like a bit of controversy to boost the thread's post tally eh?

 

[James90]

England have been far and away the better team and will win this test comfortably. I really think umpiring errors were more costly in the first test. If Broad had been given LBW to Johnson as he should have been, Australia would have wrapped it up easily.

On the recent incident...absolutely outrageous that Hauritz's would be referred and turned down when Strauss' didn't even go upstairs.

Having said that...when you're not behind the ball and move your back foot away from it while barely getting across with the front foot, you deserve to be out.

 

[Athlai]

You damage your prospects of an informed decision by taking in faulty information like a camera picture of an attempted catch.

The view of the on-field Umpire is better than that of the camera which is miles away from the field.

Thats bull, they don't ignore what the Umpire thinks on the matter and they review it, to expect the umpire is more correct than the third umpire with all the benefits of the umpires opinion and multiple camera replays is ludicrous.

 

[Richard]

Official decisions shouldn't count in this. While fielding errors are a part of the game and sport in general, the judges and umpires shouldn't be able to make mistakes that change the game.

Should or shouldn't (and I agree they shouldn't), as things currently stand they do, and that's going to be the case until we get a decent technological system.

So therefore, for the purposes of the batsman, a let-off\saw-off is exactly the same whether it comes from Umpire or fielder.

 

[Craig]

Still, nothing like a bit of controversy to boost the thread's post tally eh?

89 people currently viewing this thread.

 

[zaremba]

Yeah how dare they change the result by checking it!

If a ball shatters the stumps in the forest and no one is around, is it out bowled?