If I remember correctly Tendulkar was the first batsman to be given out LBW to the video umpire. I think overall it was a good idea, but it was shown to not be 100% perfect.Slow Love™ said:Yup - although if true (sometimes these stories have the look of old wives tales in that they rarely get corroborated) it could mean that the methods used for this particular aid need to be tightened up.
BTW, greg, I didn't know that technology was used for LBW decision-making in the Champions Trophy, but I only followed it on cricinfo. Out of curiosity, what was the response to it? And how often was it used? All I happened to read afterwards was concerned with the bowlers being measured in realtime with regards to the chucking tests...
Doubt it will hurt us in the next 12 months - I could make runs against the Windies and South Africa.aussie said:The bloke sounds crushed which he darn well should be i hope he gets back into the test side though or else it could really hurt Australia in the near future such experience at talent is priceless....
So why the hell is Rudi Koertzen in the test!????cricketweb story said:"The Super Series is a contest for the top players in the world so it is only fitting that the best-performing officials should be appointed to stand in the matches," ICC chief executive Malcom Speed said.
Didn't they try that sometime?marc71178 said:For me the technology I'd introduce would be an earpiece attached to the stump mic and give the 3rd umpire no balls.
Just the no balls will mean the umpire can concentrate on what's happening at the batting end.
Hear Hear, he's absolutely shockingandyc said:So why the hell is Rudi Koertzen in the test!????
If thats correct, thats one helluva coincidence. Tendulkar was also the first batsman to be declared run-out by a third umpire.Mister Wright said:If I remember correctly Tendulkar was the first batsman to be given out LBW to the video umpire. I think overall it was a good idea, but it was shown to not be 100% perfect.
God he's been playing cricket a hell of a long time lol.Deja moo said:If thats correct, thats one helluva coincidence. Tendulkar was also the first batsman to be declared run-out by a third umpire.
The LBW etc (I think side on shots were used to adjudge on height) trial was in the previous Champions Trophy in Sri Lanka (?)Slow Love™ said:Yup - although if true (sometimes these stories have the look of old wives tales in that they rarely get corroborated) it could mean that the methods used for this particular aid need to be tightened up.
BTW, greg, I didn't know that technology was used for LBW decision-making in the Champions Trophy, but I only followed it on cricinfo. Out of curiosity, what was the response to it? And how often was it used? All I happened to read afterwards was concerned with the bowlers being measured in realtime with regards to the chucking tests...
lol yeah, he has. It was in South Africa in 91, IIRC.Jono said:God he's been playing cricket a hell of a long time lol.
Woody_cloudofsm said:and did u know that saryl hair is openly a homosexual, he does as well with women as he does as an umpire
One bad decision. The first one was Bucknor.Woody_cloudofsm said:aleem dar is a fantastic umpire probably the best ive ever seen in my last 20 years of being an avid watcher of cricket, but we saw him probably end martos career with some horrible decisions if only someones sitting in that 3rd umpires chair could have detected those inside edges and marto would be still playing and england wouldny have taken back the ashes
Did they use side-on alone? Or front-on footage also? I was curious as to how hard the time cost might have been - as in how often it was called for, and how much it broke up play.greg said:The LBW etc (I think side on shots were used to adjudge on height) trial was in the previous Champions Trophy in Sri Lanka (?)
The first LBW was Shoaib Malik lbw Vaas.Deja moo said:If thats correct, thats one helluva coincidence. Tendulkar was also the first batsman to be declared run-out by a third umpire.
yeah, it seemed a good idea. Although time consuming considering that bowlers would then appeal for just about anything.greg said:I think it was pretty useless for determining height though. It obviously could avoid glaring mistakes, but then of all the things which umpires should be able to avoid, glaring errors on height should be the easiest. (the big error, for example, on the Katich dismissal was where it pitched, the fact that Hawkeye showed it to be going over the top (but not by much) just added to the sense that it was a terrible decision)