-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Cricket
- Thread starter mb64
- Start date
Fair dinkum? Umps are always sure of what they have observed and act with total conviction on that basis. I'll be buggered.
Sorry but this is where you are wrong.
For LBW, the 1st thing to check is where the ball pitches, then where it impacts and finally where the ball is tracking towards the stumps. This is and has always been the method.
Should the ball not pitch in line, then they go no further, because it doesn't matter where the impact is, or where the ball ends up.
If it pitches in line, it then checks where the impact is, again if its outside the line, then it doesn't matter where the ball ends up.
The last thing to check is always whether it is hitting the stumps. This is the process of the DRS but also of the onfield umpire making the decision, so yes, if it pitches outside or impacts outside, then no one cares where the ball ends up (hitting the stumps or not) because it does not matter.
Yes if the ump gives him out, then he's out. You wouldn't have heard me complain about it, thats the rules. You are the only 1 arguing and complaining about it, and it seems from your last statement thats because you are letting emotion get in the way, clearly that "salty" comment at Buttler (I don't even understand where it comes from, trying to infer Buttler is salty and complaining about stuff) suggests that you don't like England and are biased in terms of your viewing of this incident despite there being multiple times over the years of this exact same thing occurring.
No need to apologise Posh old bean, I'm not emotional, I'm just enjoying the debate. Salty was the batsman, Phil Salt, wasn't Butler. (They should bring back Onions ha ha, and Lamb, just need some Rosemary, sorry I'll quit while I'm behind))
And I just don't agree re if thats the first thing. It might be for some umps in some cases, but like most things it depends.
Generally, and its only MO and wouldn't be true for all umps in all cases, you'd think 'thats hitting the stumps I reckon.. OK, in line? did he hit it? did he offer a shot?'
You're acting like my take is whackyland, yet you agree if the ump had given it out it would have stayed out. By definition, that is not whackyland. we basically agree on the substance, just not the style.
Last edited:
Ump gives it out, DRS says umps call, out
Ump gives it not out, DRS says umps call, not out
Yes that is pretty simple. Its not the first time its happened, and won't be the last.
Ump calls a goal then can still be referred to arc
If arc has definitive evidence can overrule
If arc refs mates have money on line can decide if evidence is definitive
Tigersnake on the reverse arc wanting to back in an incorrect call so it would stand.
nuh, the opposite.
not out, technically correct
out, technically (within margin for error) and morally correct.
"Smashing into the stumps"
Only just outside the line.
Only my opinion.
Last edited:
well, was starting to think I might have been taking crazy pills. Playing a lone hand here. Against a few who didn't see the incident too. That's fine, all good, sweet as.
Anyway, seems I am most definitely not on my Pat Malone, plenty of support from both sides, and few different views again. Thats not to say I'm right of course, but I do have support. check it out, in particular the replies which has a zoom of how close the 'not in line' was:
Anyway, seems I am most definitely not on my Pat Malone, plenty of support from both sides, and few different views again. Thats not to say I'm right of course, but I do have support. check it out, in particular the replies which has a zoom of how close the 'not in line' was:
Last edited:
Haha I take that back. I don't know why i thought it was Buttler. I get your comment on Salt. Stupid name by the way, should have called him Table.
It’s definitely close.
The argument is purely about whether it hit in line or outside the line though. I guess you are arguing whether the very edge of the ball is over the line of the very edge of the leg stump or not.
I’d lean to no but it’s tight as.
I reckon you have you answer there Tigersnake.
I didn't see it, but with the split opinions it would be fair to apply the unwritten law of cricket; that the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt.
More odd scheduling by CA. There’s an ODI on at the AO with a very sparse crowd. A little embarrassing as Gilly tries to beat it up a bit. “Great crowd atmosphere here” as the camera pans around empty stands.
Last edited:
Aussies should comfortably beat England today. With the T20 final last week, we've rested a lot of players. Looks a weak England side.
Has David Warner done more harm to Australian cricket then Trevor Chappell ?
Pretty good score from that also ran England team. I think Australia will be a bit disappointed that we managed to post 287 from where we were with pretty much Australias premier bowling attack (bar Hazlewood).
You'd expect the Aussie batsmen to score well against this England bowling attack though. I think Stone and Jordan might trouble them, but they should bat comfortably against the others.
'Very bad': England T20 World Cup act divides cricket world
The images of England's victorious T20 World Cup squad have sparked debate across the cricket world. More here.
au.sports.yahoo.com
Not sure what others think about this, but to me this is pathetic journalism.
Neither Rashid nor Ali have complained about this, and actually said they support it, yet this (and other) articles state they were "alienated".
Is this yet another example of the world we have become where people not involved in something are more outraged than those that are? Rather than them being "alienated" this was a part of the celebration which they opted not to be a part of.
