***Official*** India in Australia

[archie mac]

If you introduced an appeal system with two appeals per innings per team, you wouldn't mind if it takes 30 seconds for images to come in. And you don't need any special technology for cases such as a place that the ball hit, or the clear inside edge like Ponting had onto his pad.

Mate I am for it, but still think it a little slow as yet. Not LBWs though (except for the snick into the pads), as I am not 100% sure about Hawke Eye

 

[Son Of Coco]

See, I don't think it is. I think we're just better able to see all of the mistakes a human makes in umpiring the game. I strongly suspect it's always been this way and certainly I've seen enough dud decisions in my time as a cricket watcher.

Hogg getting close to 50, SoC watching with anticipation.

I'm lathered in goose fat, have a lighter in hand, and am sitting a massive outpouring from last night's satay stir-fry in anticipation of joining the big fella on this momentous occasion with a streak around the lounge.

 

[Prince EWS]

who dropped whom?

Sharma dropped Hogg.

 

[archie mac]

Channel Nine are dire - that's why. It's all available immediately; they just don't show it straight away.

Are you sure?

 

[silentstriker]

Mate I am for it, but still think it a little slow as yet. Not LBWs though (except for the snick into the pads), as I am not 100% sure about Hawke Eye

So if its not clear or if its very close - uphold the decision of the on-field umpire. Simple. And you can choose not to use the predictive power of the hawk-eye, just where the ball pitched.

 

[Nate]

No it doesn't even up. That's not how stats work. Just because you get a decision in your favor, doesn't mean it is worth the same. They may work out to be even over an infinite period of time, but that is a pretty useless thing.

The law of averages means a team will get pretty much as many decisions for them as agaisnt them, and that works to a lesser extent with the individual. I won't lose sleep at night if Symonds averages 0.6 more because of a decision. It was part of cricket in the past, leave it IMO.

 

[Son Of Coco]

It hurts, doesnt it - to be second fiddle and not have your way.

This is not making any sense...

 

[Zinzan]

Mate I am for it, but still think it a little slow as yet. Not LBWs though (except for the snick into the pads), as I am not 100% sure about Hawke Eye

Tend to agree about LBW's, because then the technology is just predicting the path of the ball. But certainly I think the replays along with snicko should be trusted, nore so than the naked eye anyways

 

[Arjun]

Lackadascial fielding, wide throws, wide open field settings, blow-hot-on-one-blow-cold-on-other umpires, one bowler missing and no batsman contributing- then you wonder why the Indian bowlers can't take 20 wickets.

 

[Prince EWS]

Are you sure?

Yeah. Take Sky Sports Active for example. Press the red button and get the hawkeye of the previous ball. It's all there.

 

[archie mac]

So if its not clear or if its very close - uphold the decision of the on-field umpire. Simple. And you can choose not to use the predictive power of the hawk-eye, just where the ball pitched.

Yes I agree with all that

Edit: awta (becoming )

 

[JustTool]

That's rubbish, mistakes are made in every sport in every match. There is technology available to oversee errors in some cases, but you can't look after every variable or you'd never get a game finished. They could do more in cricket, I agree, but they don't at the moment. It's not like one team gets bad decisions and then when they bat there's technology available for the other team.

And I am dealing with it, you're either 5 or on the run from the asylum.

These stupid non-outs today have just ruined a great Text Match. And you are stuck in some rut of hopeless rationalizations. You shoul drun for office at the ICC - you will fit right in. Like thelas awesome organized world-cup. If itwast fomoney coming in from Indi such ineptness would have killed cricket long time ago. Ever wonder why so few countries still play it despite the ICC's (inane) attempts to promote it by inviting 16 teams to the World Cup.

Bad umpiring is just a symptom of a far more deep rooted problem. It's called te "ICC".

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

How well is Hogg batting? It's amazing. Obviously we all knew the guy could bat, but he's playing more like a 6 or 7 than a bowler. Definitely capable of making a big score here.

India could have this wrapped up if they'd been a bit sharper in the field though. Umpiring has been pretty bad, given that Ponting was given not out and then out, both incorrectly, and the horrible Symonds call just before, but India haven't made things any easier on themselves with their efforts in the field again. RP Singh bowled really well though, certainly surprised me.

What's par here? I think it'll definitely turn later in the match, so I'd say anything much over 300 is a passable total.

 

[silentstriker]

The law of averages means a team will get pretty much as many decisions for them as agaisnt them, and that works to a lesser extent with the individual..

No, it doesn't work like that either. Test cricket is a very small statistical sample. If a team played a Test game 365 days a year, the decisions might even out over a fifty year period. For example, this decision will not even out unless next session India get the exact same decision in their favor resulting in the exact same runs. Otherwise, they don't even out.

Just because decisions are a random entity that may be evenly distributed, that doesn't mean that he repercussions of those decisions are anywhere near spread evenly, even over an entire career.

 

[Nate]

Your missing the point, don't you think if would be a better game if more decisions were correct ?

Not really. One of the reasons I love cricket is because it's such a human game. Bunch of people, a park, a ball and bit of wood. Closer it stays to that the better for mine.

Keep It Simple, Stupid.

 

[archie mac]

Yeah. Take Sky Sports Active for example. Press the red button and get the hawkeye of the previous ball. It's all there.

Well in that case: Bloody ch9

I still think they should rotate the three umpires (includes video) during the play, so as to give them equal status

 

[silentstriker]

These stupid non-outs today have just ruined a great Text Match. And you are stuck in some rut of hopeless rationalizations. You shoul drun for office at the ICC - you will fit right in. Like thelas awesome organized world-cup. If itwast fomoney coming in from Indi such ineptness would have killed cricket long time ago. Ever wonder why so few countries still play it despite the ICC's (inane) attempts to promote it by inviting 16 teams to the World Cup.

Bad umpiring is just a symptom of a far more deep rooted problem. It's called te "ICC".

Calm down - bad umpiring has always been part of the game. It's a part that we should eradicate, but no one is the villain here - except those who cling to outdated ideas on tradition.

 

[Laurrz]

the Ishant Sharma ball to 'get rid of' Symo proves my point..some balls will just bounce extra.. and it's moving ENOUGH to take the edge... the Huss and Gilly dismissals could've been play and misses so yea

this total is already an OK one IMO.. thanks to this partnership

Clark and Symo imo with the ball will be a handful..particularly the former

 

[Evermind]

I'm incredulous that people are still resistant to using technology in cricketing decisions, and the excuse is "it all evens out in the end". Well maybe it does for an entire country over a 50-year period, but for individuals, you can have a single incident of umpiring incompetence mess with your chance at a 200* or a 5-fer.

We have the technology. Why would you wanna fight with a knife and a broadsword when we actually have guns now? It's some strange nostalgia for ye olde days that keeps technology out of the game it seems. There's no excuse anymore.

 

[Son Of Coco]

These stupid non-outs today have just ruined a great Text Match. And you are stuck in some rut of hopeless rationalizations. You shoul drun for office at the ICC - you will fit right in. Like thelas awesome organized world-cup. If itwast fomoney coming in from Indi such ineptness would have killed cricket long time ago. Ever wonder why so few countries still play it despite the ICC's (inane) attempts to promote it by inviting 16 teams to the World Cup.

Bad umpiring is just a symptom of a far more deep rooted problem. It's called te "ICC".

You're right, the ICC would benefit far more by having some trigger-brained fanatic such as yourself at the helm.