-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
White lines to aid umpires in LBW calls
- Thread starter Kiwi
- Start date
Langeveldt
Soutie
Heard some aussie say that all this could be solved if we gave third umpires the power to revert a bad decision.......
Absolute straight talking simplicity, and it would work....
Absolute straight talking simplicity, and it would work....
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Clearly I was right ... easily annoyed.Cloete said:
I think the smilie face generally indicates that I too was not serious.
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
Assuming an equal number of appeals at each end....marc71178 said:
Maybe Asoka got 20% of his right after all :
100 - ((0.5 * 100) + (0.5 * 20)) = 40%
Works for me.
Langeveldt
Soutie
Heard the commentators today say that having white lines will help batsman know where there off stump is, and what balls to play and leave...
Very Valid point, i think this idea will be scrapped just as soon as it was created
Very Valid point, i think this idea will be scrapped just as soon as it was created
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
I still thing that the 40% is a ridiculous figure to pick out of the air.
I watched EVERY ball in the series and apart from inside edges on to pad (did he get bat on it or didn't he) there were about four decisions in the series which were clearly wrong to me at first glance (and a few others after 2 or 3 replays).
The inside edge types, you cannot do anything about (it's very noisy at Caribbean games so how is the umpire expected to hear two noises?) - but 40%?
You're saying that if the umpires (both of them in each game) had just tossed a coin, they would have only done a little worse.
I watched EVERY ball in the series and apart from inside edges on to pad (did he get bat on it or didn't he) there were about four decisions in the series which were clearly wrong to me at first glance (and a few others after 2 or 3 replays).
The inside edge types, you cannot do anything about (it's very noisy at Caribbean games so how is the umpire expected to hear two noises?) - but 40%?
You're saying that if the umpires (both of them in each game) had just tossed a coin, they would have only done a little worse.
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Except of course for that blatant inside edge by Lara which was promptly given out.luckyeddie said:
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
A classic case of jumping the gun - as is the Cricinfo headline this time around too. Way to score two own goals with the same story.Mr Mxyzptlk said:
It has NOT been refused - they (the ICC) have said that the CC-P will make their recommendations after studying it 'under test conditions' - i.e. nets, practice matches and the like.
Once again, CricketWeb are right, Cricinfo are wrong. What's the score now, about 122-0?
Neil Pickup
Cricket Web Moderator
Okay. Let's say nine wrong LBW decisions in the four-test series.
That means there were 13 correct LBW decisions if 40% is accurate.
Making a total of 22 LBW appeals in the entire series.
Let's have a look at the total number of LBW dismissals:
1st Test: WI 4, Aus 2, WI 4 = 10
2nd Test: Aus 2, WI 2, Aus 1, WI 3 = 8
3rd Test: Aus 1, WI 1, WI 4, Aus 1 = 7
4th Test: Aus 0, WI 1, Aus 0, WI 1 = 2
10+8+7+2 = 27 LBW dismissals.
We're already down to 33%, and when you add in the fact that there will have been at least as many LBW appeals that weren't given out, you have 9/54 (conservative estimate).
Which is 17% - maximum.
Eclipse?
That means there were 13 correct LBW decisions if 40% is accurate.
Making a total of 22 LBW appeals in the entire series.
Let's have a look at the total number of LBW dismissals:
1st Test: WI 4, Aus 2, WI 4 = 10
2nd Test: Aus 2, WI 2, Aus 1, WI 3 = 8
3rd Test: Aus 1, WI 1, WI 4, Aus 1 = 7
4th Test: Aus 0, WI 1, Aus 0, WI 1 = 2
10+8+7+2 = 27 LBW dismissals.
We're already down to 33%, and when you add in the fact that there will have been at least as many LBW appeals that weren't given out, you have 9/54 (conservative estimate).
Which is 17% - maximum.
Eclipse?
Langeveldt
Soutie
Hmm, this is madness, the ICC are looking at having three umpires on the field instead of two...
I have never heard so much b******* in my life.. Having Two umpires is bad enough and creates so much controversy, having three will just complicate matters even more....
I have never heard so much b******* in my life.. Having Two umpires is bad enough and creates so much controversy, having three will just complicate matters even more....