Koertzen's century nothing to celebrate!

filosofee wrote:Humans are more forgiving of human error than they are of machine/technology error.
....

Quite rightly, though. Cricket technology has no obvious raison d'etre other than to get it right. It's what it's invented for. Entertainment value is just a bonus.

Whereas the soft machine .... ah, the soft machine.

Just look at Billy B go.

filosofee wrote:

taipan wrote:

filosofee wrote:With teams being fined for slow-bowling rates, what's a little extra time spent deploying technology for more confident decision-making.

So they can fine them more?

Fine the umpires if they refer too many to technology!

yep, that sorted Hair out.

taipan wrote:

filosofee wrote:

taipan wrote:

filosofee wrote:With teams being fined for slow-bowling rates, what's a little extra time spent deploying technology for more confident decision-making.

So they can fine them more?

Fine the umpires if they refer too many to technology!

yep, that sorted Hair out.

Did he refer too many to technology?!

In tennis, Hawkeye shows what happened, it doesn't predict what might happen. Even there, there are question marks over its accuracy.

Isn't that first sentence the wrong way round?

embee wrote:It's only circular if you have your head up your clacker...

If Rudi is better than his possible replacements he should still be on the elite panel


Still circular to you?

I think you've got your possessive pronouns all wrong. I've got your head up my clacker and there is nothing circular about that comment.
This is the second time you present your opinion as fact. Its only your opinion that Rudi is better than his replacement. It isn't shared by many. As during the Sydney test, maybe you were on a vacation during the second Ashes test too.

ffs

this has the makings of hearsay

Only if you don't believe what you yourself are hearing or telling you yourself

taipan wrote:Only if you don't believe what you yourself are hearing or telling you yourself

I've found that is quite often the safest path.

What if I believe what tac's girlfriend tells me I see

jim rich wrote:

embee wrote:It's only circular if you have your head up your clacker...

If Rudi is better than his possible replacements he should still be on the elite panel


Still circular to you?

I think you've got your possessive pronouns all wrong. I've got your head up my clacker and there is nothing circular about that comment.
This is the second time you present your opinion as fact. Its only your opinion that Rudi is better than his replacement. It isn't shared by many. As during the Sydney test, maybe you were on a vacation during the second Ashes test too.

My opinions are so good they should be fact...

embee wrote:

jim rich wrote:

embee wrote:It's only circular if you have your head up your clacker...

If Rudi is better than his possible replacements he should still be on the elite panel


Still circular to you?

I think you've got your possessive pronouns all wrong. I've got your head up my clacker and there is nothing circular about that comment.
This is the second time you present your opinion as fact. Its only your opinion that Rudi is better than his replacement. It isn't shared by many. As during the Sydney test, maybe you were on a vacation during the second Ashes test too.

My opinions are so good they should be fact...

wow...they are always so sage I always assumed they were fact

embee wrote:

jim rich wrote:

embee wrote:It's only circular if you have your head up your clacker...

If Rudi is better than his possible replacements he should still be on the elite panel


Still circular to you?

I think you've got your possessive pronouns all wrong. I've got your head up my clacker and there is nothing circular about that comment.
This is the second time you present your opinion as fact. Its only your opinion that Rudi is better than his replacement. It isn't shared by many. As during the Sydney test, maybe you were on a vacation during the second Ashes test too.

My opinions are so good they should be fact...

jr and mb in anal-cranial loop...

Interesting take by Rudi (linky follows)...

Rudi says players are cheats

"UNDER-fire umpire Rudi Koertzen has accused modern players of "cheating" after the South African survived the Lord's controversy and will stand in the third Test at Edgbaston."

...

"Koertzen also failed to detect that Simon Katich's second-innings dismissal came from an Andrew Flintoff no-ball.

However, the veteran umpire has put the blame at the feet of the players and suggested all catches be referred to the third umpire.

"It's a shame that you have to do it that way. The players will stand there, nick the ball and wait for the umpire to make a decision. For me, that's cheating," Koertzen said."

Zat wrote:

embee wrote:

jim rich wrote:

embee wrote:It's only circular if you have your head up your clacker...

If Rudi is better than his possible replacements he should still be on the elite panel


Still circular to you?

I think you've got your possessive pronouns all wrong. I've got your head up my clacker and there is nothing circular about that comment.
This is the second time you present your opinion as fact. Its only your opinion that Rudi is better than his replacement. It isn't shared by many. As during the Sydney test, maybe you were on a vacation during the second Ashes test too.

My opinions are so good they should be fact...

jr and mb in anal-cranial loop...

It would be like that scene in Interracial Hole Stretching IV

G.Wood wrote:

Zat wrote:

embee wrote:

jim rich wrote:

embee wrote:It's only circular if you have your head up your clacker...

If Rudi is better than his possible replacements he should still be on the elite panel


Still circular to you?

I think you've got your possessive pronouns all wrong. I've got your head up my clacker and there is nothing circular about that comment.
This is the second time you present your opinion as fact. Its only your opinion that Rudi is better than his replacement. It isn't shared by many. As during the Sydney test, maybe you were on a vacation during the second Ashes test too.

My opinions are so good they should be fact...

jr and mb in anal-cranial loop...

It would be like that scene in Interracial Hole Stretching IV

I'll take your word for that.

skully wrote:

"It's a shame that you have to do it that way. The players will stand there, nick the ball and wait for the umpire to make a decision. For me, that's cheating," Koertzen said."

Doesn't Rudi know there is a special sooking thread.

I thought it was the umpires role to make decissions. Does he expect to just stand there and count balls?
He's not english fss.

G.Wood wrote:

skully wrote:

"It's a shame that you have to do it that way. The players will stand there, nick the ball and wait for the umpire to make a decision. For me, that's cheating," Koertzen said."

Doesn't Rudi know there is a special sooking thread.

I thought it was the umpires role to make decissions. Does he expect to just stand there and count balls?
He's not english fss.

He's lost it. Wants his six-figure stipend for travelling the world and expects every batsman to be Gilchrist. Sack him now.

Aye. If he did say that, it was a very ill-conceived thing for an international umpire to say.

Koertzen is correct.

When you knowingly nick the ball to a fielder and stay there you are cheating. You may justify that by saying:
a) It's the umpire's job to give me out
b) It evens out the bad decisions
c) It's disrespectful to the umpire to go against his decision.

That's all well and good, but when you get down to the nitty gritty you are still cheating. It's a large part of why we have umpires in the first place. We need them to make a decision when both teams legitimately have a difference of opinion. We also need them to make a decision when one player/team cheats.

Many players/teams get away with cheating because the umpires themselves are only human.

As with anything in life, just because you don't get caught doesn't mean you weren't cheating.

eg Strauss the Louse

Just to clarify.

Under my definition of "cheating" 99 per cent of cricketers are cheats.

That's just the way it is. Some players are bigger cheats than others.

Who is in the 1% in your view, apart from Gilly?

I wasn't ever a real fan of being a walker. Had a coach once who insisted on it though (Scottish wanker...)

One day, after a couple of matches where I'd done absolutely nothing with the bat, and was under threat of being dropped a grade, I got a spectacular edge that must have been heard by the entire state.

Except the umpire.

I decided to stay there until his finger went up, which didn't happen. Being the last ball of the over, the bowler concerned went to fine leg and spent the next over fuming and sniping.

First ball of his next over, I was again on strike.

I knew the bouncer was coming. And he pounded in, and let fly, the ball may well have bounced in his third of the pitch, it was very short, and then it came at my skull (helmets being a rarity in junior cricket in the 80s) like a guided missile, with target lock. I weaved back, it kept coming, I weaved back further, until I was about as far back as I could go, in the time I had (not much), and I wore it. Stitches straight up and down, in the middle of my forehead. And I hit the deck like a sack of shit.

'Retired hurt' thought I as I was helped from the ground... 'I'll get to go back in when the quicks are a bit tired.'

Coach then says to me, in a deep Scots brogue, 'That's why y'walk when y'know y've hit it, son. It'll come back and get ye worse later.'

Turns out I'd dropped my bat onto the stumps and was not only out cold for a few seconds, but out hit wicket as well.

Mind you, I can't see what Koerzen's problem is with batsmen standing and waiting for a decision. After all, if he knows a batsman's hit it, then he should be giving it out. If he doesn't give it out, then he's obviously not sure the batsman's hit it, and therefore if the batsman doesn't walk, then he's got no recourse to complain. I've been sawn off by umpires, I almost got away with the above tale, and had another couple of innings where I got away with thin edges.

But there were also a couple of times where I didn't know myself if I'd hit the ball, as I'd hit the ground, or my boot. I was given out on one of those, not out a couple of times. The umpire did his job. As he's supposed to. And at Test level, I want a bloke who's getting over $100K US pa + allowances, accommodation & travel to make the appropriate decision on every ball of the day, not drift along in some sort of semi-comatose state only to stick his finger up at some rendomly-determined interval.

Sure, it's hard work to pay that kind of intense attention to every ball from your end, but what's next? Asking for someone else to take over the no-ball duties as well? The bloke's losing the plot.

PeterCS wrote:Who is in the 1% in your view, apart from Gilly?

Hmm, I was probably being generous by saying 99%. It's probably closer to 99.99%. And I don't know for certain who the .01 % are. Even Gilly would have stayed there after knowingly nicking it at some point earlier in his career.

The point is that all players cheat and cheating (to some extent) has become an accepted part of the game. They shouldn't recoil in horror if Rudi decides to call them on their cheating once in a while.

Walkers are pansies. As are umpires who whinge about non-walkers. FFS.