• 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*** South Africa in Australia

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Jono said:
I've never actually thought of that before, but that is extremely odd and, well, stupid. We don't use video replays for lbws or edges, but we do for diving saves at the boundary. :dry:
ICC logic :dry:
 

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Unfortunately, hawk-eye is only 98% accurate - that is why it isnt available for lbw's.
 

andyc

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
social said:
Unfortunately, hawk-eye is only 98% accurate - that is why it isnt available for lbw's.
Well it's more accurate than the umpires, who get something like 92% right.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
social said:
Unfortunately, hawk-eye is only 98% accurate - that is why it isnt available for lbw's.
I'm not really calling for hawkeye. Replays to show pitching in line or looking for inside edges make sense though. Well, they make sense if we're gonna use them for diving saves at the boundary anyway.
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
social said:
Yeah, but that's the info from the manufacturers
I find it hard to believe they've give such a percentage - what would they base such a number on?

A margin of error is the sort of thing they'd produce.
 

Nate

You'll Never Walk Alone
I got see a lot of it today, good cricket. Ponting was awesome, but I feel so sorry for Symonds! Silly Dar :p
In saying that, there were 2 or 3 PLUMB decisions that went against the Saffies. Not that they made a huge difference, as all of them got out soon later.

Important late strike by Lee, and somehow, Australia could still win this match. Wow.
 

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Scaly piscine said:
I find it hard to believe they've give such a percentage - what would they base such a number on?

A margin of error is the sort of thing they'd produce.
Quoting the ABC analysts in response to a question as to why it isnt used as a matter of course.

Apparently, greatest margin of error comes with full-pitched deliveries - the closer the ball pitches to the stumps, the less time there is for the cameras to make an accurate reading.

Overall, it's about 98.33% accurate.
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
social said:
Quoting the ABC analysts in response to a question as to why it isnt used as a matter of course.

Apparently, greatest margin of error comes with full-pitched deliveries - the closer the ball pitches to the stumps, the less time there is for the cameras to make an accurate reading.

Overall, it's about 98.33% accurate.
So it gets 98.33% of lbws 'correct'? It's 98.33% accurate in relation to the distance the ball has travelled? It's 98.33% accurate in relation to the distance the ball has travelled after pitching? This "98.33% accurate" doesn't mean anything unless there's some context.
 

Langeveldt

Soutie
Shame about the shocking umpiring, I guess one just has to take the rough with the smooth and not get too angry about it..

And can somebody tell me why Shaun Pollock and Andre Nel are being called Kaffirs? I know many segments of the Aussie crowd have the IQ of a salad, and a bad one at that, but have they undergone Michael Jackson like operations?
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
social said:
Quoting the ABC analysts in response to a question as to why it isnt used as a matter of course.

Apparently, greatest margin of error comes with full-pitched deliveries - the closer the ball pitches to the stumps, the less time there is for the cameras to make an accurate reading.

Overall, it's about 98.33% accurate.
During the Ashes, didn't they have to reconfigure the settings? It was when Shane Warne turned a ball a LOT. They said by Hawke-Eye's interpretation it was impossible.
 

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Scaly piscine said:
So it gets 98.33% of lbws 'correct'? It's 98.33% accurate in relation to the distance the ball has travelled? It's 98.33% accurate in relation to the distance the ball has travelled after pitching? This "98.33% accurate" doesn't mean anything unless there's some context.
It's 100% accurate in relation to speed (speed of delivery as appears on your screen is provided by hawk-eye) but not direction.

That's why it cant be used for lbws.
 

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Langeveldt said:
Shame about the shocking umpiring, I guess one just has to take the rough with the smooth and not get too angry about it..

And can somebody tell me why Shaun Pollock and Andre Nel are being called Kaffirs? I know many segments of the Aussie crowd have the IQ of a salad, and a bad one at that, but have they undergone Michael Jackson like operations?
Given that the abuse is in Afrikaans, I think it's safe to assume that the perpetrators are either SA immigrants (in which case, they should be punted immediately) or unwelcome tourists.
 

Slats4ever

International Vice-Captain
Langeveldt said:
Shame about the shocking umpiring, I guess one just has to take the rough with the smooth and not get too angry about it..

And can somebody tell me why Shaun Pollock and Andre Nel are being called Kaffirs? I know many segments of the Aussie crowd have the IQ of a salad, and a bad one at that, but have they undergone Michael Jackson like operations?
:blink: :blink: that was going on ages ago.
Get with the times
I've been to the SCG the last three days and today i got maggot on the bondary and started getting stuck in to the south africans.

I made AB DeVilliers laugh at one stage cos I kept on crapping on and calling him Fanie. Then I got more maggot and started calling Pollock "Ranger".
 

Langeveldt

Soutie
social said:
Given that the abuse is in Afrikaans, I think it's safe to assume that the perpetrators are either SA immigrants (in which case, they should be punted immediately) or unwelcome tourists.
I don't think it takes a degree in Afrikaans to know what a kaffir means! Still whoever it is it's pretty shocking behaviour and I hope the authorities come down nice and hard on them..
 

Langeveldt

Soutie
Slats4ever said:
:blink: :blink: that was going on ages ago.
Get with the times
I've been to the SCG the last three days and today i got maggot on the bondary and started getting stuck in to the south africans.

I made AB DeVilliers laugh at one stage cos I kept on crapping on and calling him Fanie. Then I got more maggot and started calling Pollock "Ranger".
whats a maggot?
 

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Langeveldt said:
I don't think it takes a degree in Afrikaans to know what a kaffir means! Still whoever it is it's pretty shocking behaviour and I hope the authorities come down nice and hard on them..
Given that the SA players were being abused about the treatment of people in the "rainbow nations" of the black townships, I think it's fair to say that it requires a greater knowledge of SA than 99.999999999999999% of Aus cricket fans will ever obtain.
 

Top