England v Australia, 2nd Test, Lords, 14-18 August, 2019

Bradman wrote:FFS taips it was a throwaway line to start with and I'm just feeding the beast for reasons beyond comprehension.  I can't even remember why but painkillers are nice.  I just think done Safdie names are wierd, not bad wierd you understand, not Freddy Krueger wierd, but fun wierd.  We Anglos are boring with our names.  

But it still sounds better my way.

Bradders, I was just going along for the ride. There are always pronunciation variances. I really don’t give a shit

So the force is in balance? At least people stopped talking about the catch intermittently.

But seriously I think the reason the black guys won, coz they realised Chief Super xfunnyname from Boss ( and yes I know the name was changed ) couldn't be taken seriously.

The 'elite sport is tough (and so am I)' ex-player mafia in the press box will always make sure we never completely run out of 'pressure to play' - just ask JL.

I also remember the front bar table thumpers calling the first Steve Smith gutless for not going out to face Holding and co with a busted arm in the 84 one day finals. TF there was no SBM then.....

Former Australia Test bowler Mitchell Johnson thought England were relying too heavily on Jofra Archer in the second Ashes Test draw

It's not like the Aussies were relying on Smith for this entire Ashes so far.

Blackadder wrote:On the Loose change decision even if the fingers are under the ball, but splayed you will have the Ball touching the ground...

No physical possibility at all? What if his fingers are hovering an inch or two above the ground? We don't have the camera technology to forensically analyse the images at that level of detail.

embee wrote:

The Root "catch" bounced. Embarrassing decision.          

Bounced off his fingers, in both the onfield and third umpire's opinion based on the available "evidence".

Big Dog wrote:
I might have agreed if it was'nt for the fact that the ball is on the ground & none of Roots fingers are underneath it.

Aren't they? How can you tell for certain, from a zoomed, grainy, pixelated 2d image, what the third umpire couldn't? Do you have a special gift?

I've no idea if he caught it "legit" or not. But nor have you - or anyone else looking at these images.

If I could be bothered, I'd seek out a great piece Dermot Reeve filmed (before he was sacked for snorting his wages) where he demonstrated all manner of close to the ground catching positions where the ball was nowhere near touching the grass when he showed it with a close up camera, but in the broadcast angle looked for all the world like it was half buried in the turf.

The flaw is in the technology, which has never been fit for purpose regarding close to the ground catches and should never have been introduced.

So how do we resolve disputed low catches? Take the fielder's word for it? He can be mistaken, honestly or otherwise. Take the onfield umpire's word for it? He's arguably got the worst view of anyone involved, more often than not. Take the TV umpire's word for it, based on flawed, misleading technology? Or just rule all close to the ground catches not out on the basis that it's too hard to be certain?

I don't know the answer.

furriner wrote:

Former Australia Test bowler Mitchell Johnson thought England were relying too heavily on Jofra Archer in the second Ashes Test draw

It's not like the Aussies were relying on Smith for this entire Ashes so far.

Sure. But asking a fast bowler to bowl double the amount of overs of the other seamers and bend his back for marathon 8-9 over spells doesn't show a lot of tactical imagination beyond "chuck the ball to Jofra and hope he can carry the other ten of us home".

The workload Root put him through was crazy. It'll break him sooner rather than later, which will be a terrible waste of a rare talent.

And the madness of it all is Jack Leach absolutely locked an end down and was chipping in wickets. Root could've rotated all his quicks from the other end in 3-4 over bursts, keeping them fresh and the batsmen unable to settle in against one particular guy.

I wouldn't be surprised if he's seriously flagging in the next Test, if England have to field first.

Dello wrote:

Blackadder wrote:On the Loose change decision even if the fingers are under the ball, but splayed you will have the Ball touching the ground...

No physical possibility at all? What if his fingers are hovering an inch or two above the ground? We don't have the camera technology to forensically analyse the images at that level of detail.

embee wrote:

The Root "catch" bounced. Embarrassing decision.          

Bounced off his fingers, in both the onfield and third umpire's opinion based on the available "evidence".

Big Dog wrote:
I might have agreed if it was'nt for the fact that the ball is on the ground & none of Roots fingers are underneath it.

Aren't they? How can you tell for certain, from a zoomed, grainy, pixelated 2d image, what the third umpire couldn't? Do you have a special gift?

I've no idea if he caught it "legit" or not. But nor have you - or anyone else looking at these images.

If I could be bothered, I'd seek out a great piece Dermot Reeve filmed (before he was sacked for snorting his wages) where he demonstrated all manner of close to the ground catching positions where the ball was nowhere near touching the grass when he showed it with a close up camera, but in the broadcast angle looked for all the world like it was half buried in the turf.  

The flaw is in the technology, which has never been fit for purpose regarding close to the ground catches and should never have been introduced.

So how do we resolve disputed low catches? Take the fielder's word for it? He can be mistaken, honestly or otherwise. Take the onfield umpire's word for it? He's arguably got the worst view of anyone involved, more often than not. Take the TV umpire's word for it, based on flawed, misleading technology? Or just rule all close to the ground catches not out on the basis that it's too hard to be certain?

I don't know the answer.

I think you do. Leave it up to the umpires, flawed as they are. You could also dig up the horror stories of when ball tracker got it wrong. Basically once the ball hits the pitch or bat it's predictive, as well as being untested insuch conditions. A fact that the developer freely admits.

I think Trev summed it up best when he said it was one of those catches that was out if you're a Pom, and not out if you're an Aussie.

and if you're an Indian, it was not out and the player is a cheat for even appealing

I think until foolproof technology is found, they just have to be not-outed, harsh as that is on the fielders.

beamer wrote:I think until foolproof technology is found, they just have to be not-outed, harsh as that is on the fielders.

Not a bad idea. If the ump feels the need to review it then it's not out. Write it into the rules to take the heat off the umps. Either that or something along the lines of unless it's definately out from a camera angle mirroring the umps view it ain't.