Australia v South Africa, 2nd Test, Adelaide, 22-26 November, 2012 (II)

He was bitching about it being an abuse of the intention of the referral system

It was a tactical referral hoping that hawkeye would show the ball missing ...not a referral of 'farque me, that was never hitting the stumps, you blind qunt billy'

DRS referral against Weed. Doesn't look out.

Missing - Referral lost. So MB, was that a tactical DRS? Crappelli says this one was fair enough. What a dickhead.

Patsy doing a passable impression of a test quality bowler at the moment.

FMD, Weed threatens to run Paris out.

What are these DRS rule changes that they were banging on about in the first match? Seems the same as always.

embee wrote:He was bitching about it being an abuse of the intention of the referral system

It was a tactical referral hoping that hawkeye would show the ball missing ...not a referral of 'farque me, that was never hitting the stumps, you blind qunt billy'

He's been on for a while about the issue of DRS being introduced to get rid of the howlers yet all the marginal ones and the no ball calls etc. are forensic examinations of things. We want to get the decisions as accurate as possible but in some ways ruling when there are millimetres can be trivial. History would change considerably if we threw the record books on the mercy of DRS.

Tahir deserved to his wicket taken off him but you do wonder why an umpire can't pick up a spinner no-balling in the first instance.

tricycle wrote:What are these DRS rule changes that they were banging on about in the first match? Seems the same as always.

I think it is about where the ball pitches for overturning lbws. It used to be any part of the ball needs to be in line with the stumps. Now it needs to be 50%.

skully wrote:Missing - Referral lost. So MB, was that a tactical DRS? Crappelli says this one was fair enough. What a dickhead.

Smiffy must have forgot that if an ump doesn't fire a vomit when he gets the chance the ball must be missing by a long way

skully wrote:FMD, Weed threatens to run Paris out.

Is there anything more useless than a useless Victorian.

tricycle wrote:What are these DRS rule changes that they were banging on about in the first match? Seems the same as always.

According to Gideon Haigh adjustments were made to the LBW/umpire's call rulings after the original incarnation of it.

tricycle wrote:What are these DRS rule changes that they were banging on about in the first match? Seems the same as always.

They moved the pitch mat from the outside of off to the outside of leg to from the middle of off to the middle of leg. It saved Petersen in Brisbane to one that looked plumb, but half the ball was not inside the new mat.

JGK wrote:

skully wrote:FMD, Weed threatens to run Paris out.

Is there anything more useless than a useless Victorian.

It's why the Flaming Bails Rule on Selection of Victorians should always apply.

skully wrote:

JGK wrote:

skully wrote:FMD, Weed threatens to run Paris out.

Is there anything more useless than a useless Victorian.

It's why the Flaming Bails Rule on Selection of Victorians should always apply.

I wonder if we need a Glossary entry for that.

skully wrote:

tricycle wrote:What are these DRS rule changes that they were banging on about in the first match? Seems the same as always.

They moved the pitch mat from the outside of off to the outside of leg to from the middle of off to the middle of leg. It saved Petersen in Brisbane to one that looked plumb, but half the ball was not inside the new mat.

Cheers. And 50% of the ball has to be in that mat then.

JGK wrote:

skully wrote:

JGK wrote:

skully wrote:FMD, Weed threatens to run Paris out.

Is there anything more useless than a useless Victorian.

It's why the Flaming Bails Rule on Selection of Victorians should always apply.

I wonder if we need a Glossary entry for that.

Definitely.

tricycle wrote:

skully wrote:

tricycle wrote:What are these DRS rule changes that they were banging on about in the first match? Seems the same as always.

They moved the pitch mat from the outside of off to the outside of leg to from the middle of off to the middle of leg. It saved Petersen in Brisbane to one that looked plumb, but half the ball was not inside the new mat.

Cheers. And 50% of the ball has to be in that mat then.

Yup.

Fantastic 50 to Paris.

skully wrote:Have I mentioned Chappell is an arseclown? Bitching and moaning about Pup's referral. It cut back a long way. DRS showed it hitting top of leg - worth referring under the circumstances. What a qunt of a hooman been.

why aren't you listening to the radio?

Nath wrote:

skully wrote:Have I mentioned Chappell is an arseclown? Bitching and moaning about Pup's referral. It cut back a long way. DRS showed it hitting top of leg - worth referring under the circumstances. What a qunt of a hooman been.

why aren't you listening to the radio?

He's too cheap to get DAB+ so he can synchronise the tv and radio.

So what will Aus feel they need with only three bowlers available? 470 lead?

AS many as possible Trev, but as they've just shown on Nein, Cot and Milf will be support bowlers to Elmer, TCS and Pup.

Is PAtto fit enough to bat in this innings?

Is Siddle carrying a niggle as well? That was the impression I got yesterday. And Clarke was stretching his back a lot.

JGK wrote:

Nath wrote:

skully wrote:Have I mentioned Chappell is an arseclown? Bitching and moaning about Pup's referral. It cut back a long way. DRS showed it hitting top of leg - worth referring under the circumstances. What a qunt of a hooman been.

why aren't you listening to the radio?

He's too cheap to get DAB+ so he can synchronise the tv and radio.

I have a DAB radio, as I said when you made a similar remark in the Gabba Test. I choose to listen to Crappelli so I can bag him here on Bails.