Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 14 of 26 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 196 to 210 of 381
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: The last Ashes without referrals – a running tally of umpiring errors

  1. #196
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Trumpers_Ghost View Post
    **conspiracy alert** - Just had a thought; Are umpires lazier and more trigger happy in the fourth innings of a match that is effectively over? A tendancy to give marginal decisions particularly once the tail is batting and defeat is assured. Not saying deliberately, more subcontiously..........hmm something to ponder.
    Quite possibly, in addition to being more trigger-happy when tailenders are at the crease. Have thought that for a fair while.

    Obviously Umpires are going to be most keen to avoid errors at important times... which naturally doesn't mean they will, unfortunately.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  2. #197
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyGS View Post
    Jesus Christ, this takes it to a whole new level.

  3. #198
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad View Post
    It's obviously highly unlikely but it'll probably happen one day, and it'll be in a match like this one, with an excellent batting pitch and a strong(ish) batting lineup that failed in the first innings and left a big target and a lot of time to chase. Teams have already chased well over 400 so 520 isn't that much of a stretch.

    If Australia were 1/200 at tea for example, you'd be pretty optimistic as an England fan if you didn't feel like Australia could win. England were 95% favourites but the game wasn't over, so a couple of wickets makes a difference. That's all there is to it.
    If you prefer, you can view it as "Australia were damn lucky they suffered the saw-offs in an innings where they had an almost impossible task".

    Surely even the most deliberate contrarion would fail to argue that they're not infinitely better-off having three out of the top five sawn-off when they're chasing 500+ rather than chasing 200+, trying to set a decent score, replying to a decent score, or batting first?

  4. #199
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Marburg, Germany
    Posts
    27,072
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    If you prefer, you can view it as "Australia were damn lucky they suffered the saw-offs in an innings where they had an almost impossible task".

    Surely even the most deliberate contrarion would fail to argue that they're not infinitely better-off having three out of the top five sawn-off when they're chasing 500+ rather than chasing 200+, trying to set a decent score, replying to a decent score, or batting first?
    Fundamental misunderstanding of probability at work here, m'thinks. That is, if you're arguing that they've somehow used up their bad luck so it'll be less likely to happen from now on.
    Last edited by Top_Cat; 21-07-2009 at 05:50 AM.


  5. #200
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    30,594
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    If you prefer, you can view it as "Australia were damn lucky they suffered the saw-offs in an innings where they had an almost impossible task".

    Surely even the most deliberate contrarion would fail to argue that they're not infinitely better-off having three out of the top five sawn-off when they're chasing 500+ rather than chasing 200+, trying to set a decent score, replying to a decent score, or batting first?
    Well considering that having three bad decisions go against you in one innings makes it no more or less likely that another three will go against you in another innings, there's no way in hell anyone with a brain could ever describe Australia as lucky.

  6. #201
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Cat View Post
    Fundamental misunderstanding of probability at work here, m'thinks. That is, if you're arguing that they've somehow used up their bad luck so it'll be less likely to happen from now on.
    Nope, not at all. Nonetheless, if bad out decisions are going to happen (there may or may not be more) then you'd prefer them at this time than any other.

    We only wait to see how many more there will be.

  7. #202
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    Well considering that having three bad decisions go against you in one innings makes it no more or less likely that another three will go against you in another innings, there's no way in hell anyone with a brain could ever describe Australia as lucky.
    Obviously it doesn't make a massive impact, but Umpires are not coins. When one side has been obviously hard-done-by early-ish in a long-ish series, you'd have to have watched not-very-much cricket to think that there isn't a small chance that some amount of subconscious "best be careful that doesn't happen again" or (unforgiveably if so) some amount of "need to even that up" will creep in for the rest of the rubber.

    Every time I've seen such a horrible case of errors piling-up in favour of one side at the start of a three\five-match series, there's been nothing of the sort for the rest of the time. And more often than not there's been an "evening-up". Now, of course, some of that will be due to coincidence, but I think you'd be stretching credulity if you argued all of it was.

  8. #203
    Cricketer Of The Year zaremba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Burgess Hill
    Posts
    9,386
    Rudi Koertzen explains himself

    3 points:

    1. Hauritz - both umpires missed the flight of the ball and neither was sure whether the ball carried, so they were obliged to refer it.

    2. Strauss - Koertzen was entirely unsighted (didn't even see who caught it) so went to Doctrove who said it was a clean catch, so Koertzen was obliged to give it out.

    Hard to criticise his logic with regard to those two decisions, even though Aussies may continue to feel hard done-by. The fact that both decisions were close calls does not make the 2 cases identical. Catches can only be referred if both on-field umpires are unable to make a decision - this was the case with Hauritz but not Strauss.

    3. Ponting - Koertzen confirmed that if he had thought Ponting didn't hit it, he would have given it LBW anyway.
    Last edited by zaremba; 22-07-2009 at 05:17 AM.

  9. #204
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    69,003
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    Rudi Koertzen explains himself

    3 points:

    1. Hauritz - both umpires missed the flight of the ball and neither was sure whether the ball carried, so they were obliged to refer it.

    2. Strauss - Koertzen was entirely unsighted (didn't even see who caught it) so went to Doctrove who said it was a clean catch, so Koertzen was obliged to give it out.

    Hard to criticise his logic with regard to those two decisions, even though Aussies may continue to feel hard done-by. The fact that both decisions were close calls does not make the 2 cases identical. Catches can only be referred if both on-field umpires are unable to make a decision - this was the case with Hauritz but not Strauss.

    3. Ponting - Koertzen confirmed that if he had thought Ponting didn't hit it, he would have given it LBW anyway.
    Jeez, (2) is far from satisfactory if he's not even sure who caught it. T'was a regulation nick in the direction of 1st slip. Christ only knows what he was looking at if he didn't pick the flight of that ball.
    WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie

    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
    - JK Galbraith
    Quote Originally Posted by TNT View Post
    You need to clap a cows c**** over your head and get a woolly bull to f**** some sense into you.

    "Do you know why I have credibility? Because I don't exude morality." - Bob Hawke

    #408. Sixty three not out forever.

  10. #205
    Cricketer Of The Year zaremba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Burgess Hill
    Posts
    9,386
    Quote Originally Posted by Burgey View Post
    Jeez, (2) is far from satisfactory if he's not even sure who caught it. T'was a regulation nick in the direction of 1st slip. Christ only knows what he was looking at if he didn't pick the flight of that ball.
    The bowler's follow-through blocked his view.

  11. #206
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    69,003
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    The bowler's follow-through blocked his view.
    Ah, was he around the wicket? Can't recall now but that would make sense. Ta.

  12. #207
    International Coach
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    england
    Posts
    10,469
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    Rudi Koertzen explains himself

    3 points:

    1. Hauritz - both umpires missed the flight of the ball and neither was sure whether the ball carried, so they were obliged to refer it.

    2. Strauss - Koertzen was entirely unsighted (didn't even see who caught it) so went to Doctrove who said it was a clean catch, so Koertzen was obliged to give it out.

    Hard to criticise his logic with regard to those two decisions, even though Aussies may continue to feel hard done-by. The fact that both decisions were close calls does not make the 2 cases identical. Catches can only be referred if both on-field umpires are unable to make a decision - this was the case with Hauritz but not Strauss.

    3. Ponting - Koertzen confirmed that if he had thought Ponting didn't hit it, he would have given it LBW anyway.
    Although he's not the greatest umpire in the World I agree with one of his statements "The players will stand there, nick the ball and wait for the umpire to make a decision. For me, that's cheating." That's something that a few on this board have said while others have tried to claim that allowing the umpire to make a decision in all circumstances is respecting the umpire and not cheating. I'm glad to see that at least one top umpire thinks non-walkers are cheats, along side those who appeal for things that they know are not out.

  13. #208
    Hall of Fame Member social's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    16,858
    Will only say 2 things

    1. When a team is playing badly, luck also goes against them

    2. Koertzen and Doctrove are pitifully bad umpires who should've been sacked years ago

  14. #209
    U19 Vice-Captain pietersenrocks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    553
    I was highly dissappointed with the results in Caribbean where referrals were actually used.

    In South Africa, Kallis and Boucher both got shocking decision after referring. As of now, referrals have only created more controversies in the game rather than over-turning definite errors.

  15. #210
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by social View Post
    Will only say 2 things
    Was going to do a "fix'd" post but thought this was more accurate.
    1. When a team is playing badly, luck also goes against them
    More like, when a team is playing well, luck going against them isn't noticed much, and when it is playing badly, it is.
    2. Koertzen and Doctrove are pitifully bad umpires who should've been sacked years ago
    So in that case should everyone whose name isn't Simon Taufel. And you'd be left with anarchy on the field.

Page 14 of 26 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Aussie Ashes squad 2009
    By redhotchilipepa in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18-05-2009, 07:20 PM
  2. Ashes Squad Prediction
    By dossa in forum Ashes 2009
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 18-05-2009, 01:05 AM
  3. The unhealthy obsession with the Ashes
    By Fidel Castro in forum Ashes 2009
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 16-04-2009, 09:31 PM
  4. An A to Z of Cricketing Terms for newcomers
    By Dave Gregory in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 24-02-2008, 08:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •