**Official**VB Series 2005 Australia,Pakistan,West Indies.

[Scallywag]

I don't think Australia needs any helps from umpires to win matches. However i must say that the umpiring in this match was terrible, it doesn't matter as to which team wins the game, but watching matches conducted by such inefficient umpires really dissapoints and frustates cricket fans.

Your not frustrated cricket fans you are dim witted fools who have no idea what cricket is. But still the ICC makes money out of you and Tony Greig and co give you someone to look up to and having you increase the ratings allows us to get to see the cricket on TV.

 

[marc71178]

I may be wrong but dosent the bails have to be broken regardless of what the stump does.

I think you're right there.

The bails have to be seen to have fallen from the stumps. It is actually possible that they jump up in the air and land back in the grooves - in which case it is not out!

 

[marc71178]

The bails were knocked off and the moment they are disturbed, i.e when the stump moves to dislodge them is the moment the batsman is run out. That's my understanding of the run out rule anyway.

It's when the bails as visible as being off the stumps.

From the debate here it sounds as if the decision were tight and doubtful, in which case not out was the correct one.

 

[Crazy Sam]

pakistan will win this one if these two are at the crease still with 10 overs left.

 

[marc71178]

People think just because the camera showed it looked out it must be out not knowing how much a camera can be distorted and giving false illusions.

Exactly why I'm against the use of technology for that sort of decision.

 

[Scallywag]

pakistan will win this one if these two are at the crease still with 10 overs left.

Pakistan will only win if they pass Australias score regardless of who is at the crease at whatever over.

 

[marc71178]

That why they have HawkEye for us armchair viewers. It is not 100% accurate, but 99.99% is good enough isn't it.

If it were 99.99% accurate yes.

 

[marc71178]

A study was done on it and it was found that it was 99.99% accurate, i'm not sure who did the study but.

And how exactly could they carry out a study?

For a start, how do they define if it's accurate or not on an given ball.

When they made the study was there a batsman standing there, was it inside or outside, was it a straight up and down bowler or a swing bowler or a spinner?

 

[marc71178]

No mate technology should only be used in LBWs to make the decision whether the ball hit in line or pitiched outside leg stump.

I wouldn't even go that far - pitching outside leg is the only thing I think it can do for certain.

 

[Dizzy #4]

Pakistan looking good, Ul-Haq and Malik makin 5 runs an over

 

[marc71178]

Who cares, as long as the right decision is made?

So when the technology is guaranteed to give the right decision, then it can be implemented, but at the moment it isn't.

 

[marc71178]

Believe me, these arguments stand no matter which team gets the benefit of the decisions. Cricket wont be any less appealing.

It would be slowed down significantly, and the game is already too slow.

 

[Sir Redman]

I dont beleive that Hawkeye is as accurate as its producers say. I particularly remember a ball in the NZ-ENG test series that Hawkeye showed to be hitting the stumps (off an LBW appeal, I think it was Harmison to Richardson). You could see the ball pitch and seam down leg side, it would have missed by 6 inches, yet Hawkeye showed it going straight on or even seaming the other way.
In an episode of the Cricket Company over here Danny Morrison did an interview with the Hawkeye producer during the ENG series. When asked about how much speculation/prediction was involved he said something along the lines of "There is no speculation. We measure the speed/angle of the ball when it leaves the pitch with 3 different cameras so it is completely accurate"

 

[marc71178]

You think members shouldnt be allowed to mention wrong decisions on the forums ?

Except some of these "wrong" decisions were correct!

 

[marc71178]

To his critics despair, Lee is bowling magnificently so far.....

No doubt they will still find something to criticise him about.

His first over LBW was exactly the same ball he got Fleming with in the first NZ onedayer. Fullpitched and fast with late swing. Very difficult for a lefthanded early on.

How people describe him as a rubbish bowler is beyond me....

Test Cricket and ODI's are completely different though - he has been poor in Tests since his injury.

 

[Arrow]

Why do batsmen risk so much for a measly single? The loss of a wicket and and the slowing of the run rate because of it dwarfs the value of a ****y single.
Never understood that.

 

[Fiery]

So when the technology is guaranteed to give the right decision, then it can be implemented, but at the moment it isn't.

Let's go back to using abacus's too

 

[Scallywag]

Lee strikes again.

 

[Scallywag]

Let's go back to using abacus's too

If you are obsessed with using technology then watch american football, you will notice all the players standing around watching the replays on the screen and guess what, they will then have a big argument after watching several replays as to each persons interpretation on the concrete rock solid proof.

 

[Josh]

So, should we still drop Lee??