LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksSome total moron on the radio, forgotten his name, repeating that old misunderstanding that lbw when hit on the full means the umpire has to suddenly assume the ball will go straight, as in wicket-to-wicket line.
Some total moron on the radio, forgotten his name, repeating that old misunderstanding that lbw when hit on the full means the umpire has to suddenly assume the ball will go straight, as in wicket-to-wicket line.
Can we at least let Williamson score a fifty please?
Direbirds FTL!
Originally Posted by Athlai
President of T.I.T.S
Tamim Isn't Talented Society
Proudly supporting Central Districts
RIP Craig Walsh
Will do it in edges at this rate. But yeah, that would be good.
It's surely got to reach a point soon where the owners of Hawkeye start making some sort of noises about VirtualEye. It's cr*p! But because 99% of viewers (and players?) assume they're all the same system, Hawkeye's reputation gets damaged by Virtual Eye's dubious performance. The tracking on that LBW just looked all wrong, which rarely happens with Hawkeye.
Do the two systems actually supposedly work on the same basis, or are there actual technical differences? Do they treat swing in the same way, for example?
If Steyn is genuinely getting controlled reverse then this could be pure carnage.
EDIT: oops. only two balls left.
Tomorrow morning, then.
Last edited by Spark; 15-03-2012 at 11:00 PM.
+ time's fickle card game ~ with you and i +
I'm not sure what the situation is here with swing - do they have to assume no further swing after the ball hits the pad? I know they are supposed to assume no spin for spinners if the ball hasn't bounced (for obvious reasons).
Pretty bad.
Yep. The path Taylor's lbw took on VirtualEye seemed to be completely devoid of the very obvious swing. Also, somehow it managed to get the impact point wrong. It was outrageous tbh, I honestly think that was missing.
Yes. Once it hits the pad, it's assumed to go on straight.
Yes but the path Steyn's ball was on BEFORE hitting the pad was taking it sharply from off to leg, in this case surely the continuation of that path would have it clipping leg at best
Radiosport denying they have an infatuation with fast bowling.
My understanding is that the ball will continue its current trajectory - so if it is a big hooping inswinger then you assume it will continue at the same angle - but not that it will swing even more.
umpiring in club games this is a common source of controversy.
Munro watch:
Auckland 47,103, 27, 269*, 59, 118
Tests 0,15
Mostly agree - isn't the ICC supposed to be getting independent testing of these systems done at the moment?
Also the Hawkeye guys have been proactive in talking about the pros and cons of the system and how they're improving things - seem like a professional outfit. Less sure about Virtual Eye.
post the law...if you have the time.
Yeah no further swing assumed after impact. What the guy on the radio was saying was that if full toss the umpire should suddenly the assume the ball is going to miraculously travel a wicket-to-wicket line. ie. parallel to the path between middle stump at one end and middle stump at the other.
It's just amazing that a commentator who is supposed to know the game can think this.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote