-
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 West Indies in New Zealand***
- Thread starter Athlai
- Start date
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Indeed, which is why we've introduced the technological assistance. To expect the human eye to be that accurate would be ridiculous.
Sure that ball has just hit in line, but to me, that's not out. To me, it's LBW if the umpire is SURE that it's hit him in line, not if it technically does.
Despite the fact that through closer inspection, that was actually out, I still believe that it should have been given not out.
Days of Grace
International Captain
Will a NZ batsmen ever score a century again, FFS?
Incorrect, bowling all-rounder.I agree with Jimmy.
Guessing Jimmy is a batter and Prince is a bowler - probably a spinner no less..
Athlai
Not Terrible
A quick too.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
In an era of flat pitches, small boundries, revolutionary bat technology and evolving batting techniques (not to mention batting powerplays and free hits in one day cricket), surely something that might benefit bowlers a little bit on balance is only going to improve the balance of the game.
I'm absolutely stoked it was given out, really. I'd love nothing more than to take the possibility of human error or "unsurity" as you put it out of the game totally.
As I was saying before, umpires have existed throughout cricket's history because they have been necessary; not because they actually make cricket a better game with their input.
I agree, but that's not really what we're arguing about.
If I was Flynn there would be holes all over that changing room, and my **** would be everywhere. I don't believe that it's good that a decision that would've been not out a week ago is given out today.
Even on hawkeye the ball's only hit half-and-half in line! I would accept it if the ball had fully hit him in line but that was very iffy to say the least.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Nah, definitely out for mine. Couldn't disagree more with what you're saying but I've done it all before and it just goes around in circles so I'll stop now.
99*
International Debutant
Umpires haven't been needed since television replays became available. So why would they still be there? There's more to it than just getting the right decision every time (or rather 3 times per innings as this works iirc)
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
After seeing that referral, I am instantly not a fan. Firstly it took too long and secondly I didn't much like the decision.
I never quite realised how much this referral crap would take out the "benefit of the doubt" for the batsman. For mine, Flynn should have got the benefit of the doubt, because simply, there was a lot of doubt of whether it hit him in line or not.
On the plus side, Vettori is going to get an absolute bucketload more LBW's go in his favour.
I never quite realised how much this referral crap would take out the "benefit of the doubt" for the batsman. For mine, Flynn should have got the benefit of the doubt, because simply, there was a lot of doubt of whether it hit him in line or not.
On the plus side, Vettori is going to get an absolute bucketload more LBW's go in his favour.
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
**** me, it isn't that dark. What bull****.