Players Speak Out!

[Dasa]

I assume you mean where the ball pitches?

That's a fair call (although alternatives would include lines down the pitch wicket to wicket or giving the 3rd umpire no balls so the field man is always looking down the wicket)

I've suggested having lines down the pitch before, but thinking about it, it'd be too much of an advantage for the batsman (when they already have so much in their favour these days). It makes it so easy to judge the line of the ball and play accordingly.

 

[andyc]

Since Hawkeye has recently shown a bowled dismissal as missing the stumps I guess that's a fairly major flaw.

True, but we see wrong LBW decisions given by umpires far more often. All the same, I don't think Hawkeye should be used as yet, but it's definetely better than the human eye for mine. I do feel the 3rd umpire should be able to adjudicate on LBW's in terms of where it pitched and whether or not it was edged. Having the lines actually on the pitch, however, is something I'm not in support of at all, for the reasons that Dasa said.

 

[Richard]

Not by Pat Symcox, all South Africans walk on water according to him. Im so desperate with his commentary I considering hurting myself by watching SABC's coverage.

It was painful listening to his non-stop insistence that Telemachus was going to win the match last night, especially when I could see that SA were never in front of the game.

 

[Richard]

Possibly because the one can be proven with far more certainty than the other (and is far less of a negative impact if its wrong)

Since Hawkeye has recently shown a bowled dismissal as missing the stumps I guess that's a fairly major flaw.

Which one was that? "(!)"

 

[Richard]

So to have common sense one just has to love South Africans then?

No, they just have to not have the utter irrational hatred of everything to do with South African cricket that so, so many Englishmen do.

 

[marc71178]

I've suggested having lines down the pitch before, but thinking about it, it'd be too much of an advantage for the batsman (when they already have so much in their favour these days). It makes it so easy to judge the line of the ball and play accordingly.

That is the one problem I guess.

Perhaps giving the 3rd umpire no balls would be the answer then - if umpires are concentrating on only 1 thing, they're surely going to get it right more often?

 

[luckyeddie]

No, they just have to not have the utter irrational hatred of everything to do with South African cricket that so, so many Englishmen do.

Generalisations are stupid.

Why do all Yorkshiremen generalise?

And they keep exaggerating. If I've told them once, I must have told them a thousand times.

 

[PY]

Which one was that? "(!)"

Anil Kumble to Ian Bell had the ball missing the stumps when it clipped the top of off.

 

[luckyeddie]

Anil Kumble to Ian Bell had the ball missing the stumps when it clipped the top of off.

You've seen the brilliant success of 'super subs' and 'power plays' - why wouldn't you really trust anything else on Angus Fraser's say-so?

 

[Richard]

Anil Kumble to Ian Bell had the ball missing the stumps when it clipped the top of off.

It did?
I knew I should've been properly awake.
I've said since I saw the thing that there's a systematic fault where it places the stumps a fraction too far towards off (meaning balls that I reckon a fool could see were missing leg are judged to be clipping it and balls that I reckon are flicking off are down as missing), and now we find there's also a tiny fault with the height too.

 

[Richard]

Generalisations are stupid.

Why do all Yorkshiremen generalise?

And they keep exaggerating. If I've told them once, I must have told them a thousand times.

Why do you keep calling me a Yorkshireman?
Is it because I support Yorkshire?

 

[luckyeddie]

Why do you keep calling me a Yorkshireman?
Is it because I support Yorkshire?

No-one in their right mind who wasn't born in the county would ever support them. Why on eart....

I just answered my own question - statement withdrawn.

 

[Richard]

FTR...
I was born in Llandrindod Wells, lived from 3-months-4years11months in Yorkshire (first Wrenthorpe in Wakefield, then Kirkhamgate just outside Wakefield), then moved to Geordieland (medium-sized town called Morpeth just north of Newcastle) until 10y11m, then have lived in Exeter (have moved house 5 times) since.

 

[Jono]

Please no lines on the pitch, Dasa made it clear why. It takes skill for a batsman to know where there off stump is and when to play and leave a ball. That would make it so much easier.

3rd umpires being responsible for calling no balls is the way to go.

 

[marc71178]

Along with the stump mic linked to the umpires to listen for nicks?

 

[Jono]

I heard somewhere that they already started that, didn't they?

 

[marc71178]

Think they might have used it for the "Super" Test, I seem to remember Billy Bowden saying something about it.

 

[Richard]

They used it in ICC CT 2004, whether they used it again in the Super Series I don't know.
Why not use a machine rather than the Third-Umpire for no-balls?

 

[Langeveldt]

2) Why were the rules changes for Murilitheran's bent arm and no such concession for Johan Botha. (Okay, so Kallis may be a bit bias on this one, but he has a point doesn't he!?)

Too true..

 

[tooextracool]

It did?
I knew I should've been properly awake.
I've said since I saw the thing that there's a systematic fault where it places the stumps a fraction too far towards off (meaning balls that I reckon a fool could see were missing leg are judged to be clipping it and balls that I reckon are flicking off are down as missing), and now we find there's also a tiny fault with the height too.

to be honest the ball never looked like hitting the stumps and even after it did at first i thought the keeper knocked the bails down. any umpire who gave an lbw to that ball were it to hit the pad would have to be a very brave one indeed.