Re: Koertzen's century nothing to celebrate!

by taipan Tue 21 Jul 2009, 10:25

Red wrote:
taipan wrote:
skully wrote:Meh, Rudi's not the worst going around. He wasn't even the worst in this Test.

Exactly, this is all about Red's bias.

A pot just commented on the colour of the kettle.

I wonder if RK came from Australia whether or not you would be defending him with such ardour.

Eh? Where have I defended him as such. I am merely saying that you are having a go because of your Anti SA bias. Why haven't you had a go at Doctrove, who your fellow Aussies say had a worse game.

by taipan Tue 21 Jul 2009, 10:27

Shoeshine wrote:
taipan wrote:The umpiring is as good as it ever was, the problem that the ever improving technology is showing up more and more errors.

If we have the technology, bloody well use it.

Technology is only showing up errors if you believe the technology. Sure, there are some definite mistakes, but there are also many occasions where (for example) Hawkeye is viewed as gospel when it isn't.

My point is that umpires are getting blasted because of errors shown up by technology. Personally I think umpiring today is as good as it ever was.

by Merlin Tue 21 Jul 2009, 10:32

Hass wrote:
Merlin wrote:

Note - hardly a ripple of applause for Koertzen's 100 tests "award" from the packed crowd behind the presentation ceremony yesterday.

That's odd.

Maybe the TV coverage amplified the sound, but it seemed that Koertzen got a massive cheer when he received his award. It sounded like a wry "thanks for helping us win the test" cheer to me.

We were in the Tavern stand, immediately behind the presentation ... and trust me, a ripple was the best the crowd mustered. No denying the guy's a popular figure ... happily chatting to all and sundry in the Long Room, friendly with the players etc etc ... but ... there's something missing when it comes to his umpiring. Maybe he's going the same way as Bucknor ... another excellent umpire till his failing eyesight damned him.

taips - no balls are straightforward - you don't need techno to call it.
And Rudi does make a habit of missing them - let's face it, Katich's was crucial at the time.

by Shoeshine Tue 21 Jul 2009, 10:38

taipan wrote:
Shoeshine wrote:
taipan wrote:The umpiring is as good as it ever was, the problem that the ever improving technology is showing up more and more errors.

If we have the technology, bloody well use it.

Technology is only showing up errors if you believe the technology. Sure, there are some definite mistakes, but there are also many occasions where (for example) Hawkeye is viewed as gospel when it isn't.

My point is that umpires are getting blasted because of errors shown up by technology. Personally I think umpiring today is as good as it ever was.

Oh I see. Yes, I concur. It's also true that commentators are extremely willing to slate umpires over marginal decisions these days. Quite often you hear them say a not out lbw decision is terrible when it's anything but, simply because the technology apparently shows the ball hitting leg stump.

by taipan Tue 21 Jul 2009, 10:40

Merlin wrote:taips - no balls are straightforward - you don't need techno to call it.
And Rudi does make a habit of missing them - let's face it, Katich's was crucial at the time.

Agreed, but it technology which is highlighting the error. If you watch recordings of test cricket in the 60's, you wiil see that there was one fixed camera from one end of the ground only. No side on camera. The umpires of that era probably made more errors and got away with them.

by JKLever Tue 21 Jul 2009, 10:49

taipan wrote: The umpires of that era probably made more errors and got away with them.

Agree totally. Not just the 60's either, Dickie Bird would have been made to look a fool - a notorious non-lbw giver unless it was plumb.

by Merlin Tue 21 Jul 2009, 10:54

I've never been a great supporter of the techno stuff ... bar for stumpings, run-outs and iffy catches. Even close boundaries techno calls are farcical ...FFS a milimeter determining a four versus a two/three ... absolute bullshizzle ... should be left upto the fielder's honesty or the umpires' call.

The reliance of commentators on Hawkeye as their gospel is absurd in the extreme, and their subtle criticism ( "Oooh, he missed that one, did the umpire ) of an umpire whose decision disagrees with their precious hawkeye's view, is bloody irritating.

LBW's should be at the total and absolute discretion of the Umpire standing 25 yards away - he is in the best position to judge - end of.
A hundred replays and countless criticisms of the "dodgy" decision only serve to disparage the Ump and cast doubt on his capabilities.

by skully Tue 21 Jul 2009, 11:11

Merlin wrote:A hundred replays and countless criticisms of the "dodgy" decision only serve to disparage the Ump and cast doubt on his capabilities.

Possibly the sagest thing said on this thread.

by PeterCS Tue 21 Jul 2009, 11:20

*with agonising slowness, raises a crooked finger*

by Red Tue 21 Jul 2009, 11:34

taipan wrote:
Red wrote:
taipan wrote:
skully wrote:Meh, Rudi's not the worst going around. He wasn't even the worst in this Test.

Exactly, this is all about Red's bias.

A pot just commented on the colour of the kettle.

I wonder if RK came from Australia whether or not you would be defending him with such ardour.

Eh? Where have I defended him as such. I am merely saying that you are having a go because of your Anti SA bias. Why haven't you had a go at Doctrove, who your fellow Aussies say had a worse game.

Because he's umpired 100 tests. As Gideon Haigh said last Sunday morning, about 50 or so too many. He's also just turned sixty and the task of umpiring now seems beyond him, as it has for a number of years now. He was a good umpire when he first started. And I did say a couple of weeks ago that I thought it was harsh that Doctrove is still umpiring and Hair's not when both were involved in the debacle at The Oval in 2006.

I notice a SA site has a poll about RK regarding his merits among other umpires on the panel.

From our little paper yesterday. Hardly a panegyric re. Koertzen.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/robertcraddock/index.php/heraldsun/comments/rudi_koertzen_must_retire_now/

by taipan Tue 21 Jul 2009, 11:39

Red wrote: As Gideon Haigh said last Sunday morning, about 50 or so too many.

That must be right then

by skully Tue 21 Jul 2009, 11:42

Jebus, you been taking cut and paste lessons from MB, Red?? Shocked

by Hass Tue 21 Jul 2009, 11:43

Gideon Haigh's been losing me lately.

His latest piece on cricinfo is a tribute to Murali that more or less tells critics of his action to go jump (not that he puts it that bluntly of course).

by Red Tue 21 Jul 2009, 11:49

skully wrote:Jebus, you been taking cut and paste lessons from MB, Red??

It's a farking Saffie poll and no matter how often I try to get rid of it, it refuses to budge. Smile

by skully Tue 21 Jul 2009, 11:52

Red wrote:
skully wrote:Jebus, you been taking cut and paste lessons from MB, Red??

It's a farking Saffie poll and no matter how often I try to get rid of it, it refuses to budge.

They must have the same formatting gremlins as MB claims the West Australian (or whatever rag he copies from) has. Cool

by Red Tue 21 Jul 2009, 11:54

skully wrote:
Red wrote:
skully wrote:Jebus, you been taking cut and paste lessons from MB, Red??

It's a farking Saffie poll and no matter how often I try to get rid of it, it refuses to budge.
They must have the same formatting gremlins as MB claims the West Australian (or whatever rag he copies from) has.

I believe him, I can actually erase them from my screen but then they stay in the post. Smile

Probably SA ex-pats working at the WA rags.

by taipan Tue 21 Jul 2009, 11:55

Red wrote:
skully wrote:Jebus, you been taking cut and paste lessons from MB, Red??

It's a farking Saffie poll and no matter how often I try to get rid of it, it refuses to budge.

It has an anti-sabotage feature to keep nitwits out.

by taipan Tue 21 Jul 2009, 11:59

Red wrote:
skully wrote:
Red wrote:
skully wrote:Jebus, you been taking cut and paste lessons from MB, Red??

It's a farking Saffie poll and no matter how often I try to get rid of it, it refuses to budge.
They must have the same formatting gremlins as MB claims the West Australian (or whatever rag he copies from) has.

I believe him, I can actually erase them from my screen but then they stay in the post. Probably SA ex-pats working at the WA rags.

Pisspoor excuse.

by Red Tue 21 Jul 2009, 12:12

JKLever wrote:
taipan wrote: The umpires of that era probably made more errors and got away with them.

Agree totally. Not just the 60's either, Dickie Bird would have been made to look a fool - a notorious non-lbw giver unless it was plumb.

Agree in the general sense, though there is a school of thought that technology has also made umpires lazy, in the way that helmets have meant that many batsmen aren't as good at keeping their eyes on the ball. The umpires used to have to judge stumpings and run outs. Undoubtedly they got some of the close ones wrong but it did force them to focus.

by skully Tue 21 Jul 2009, 12:12

Doctrove was too lazy to call for the 3rd umpire on the 4th morning.

by taipan Tue 21 Jul 2009, 12:14

Absolute and utter BS. If anything it should make them concentrate harder for fear of being shown up in the replays

by Merlin Tue 21 Jul 2009, 12:20

a notorious non-lbw giver unless it was plumb.

Is there any other way of giving an lbw? Shocked

Surely everything else is guesswork on the umpire's part ... or are we asking Umps to guess turn, bounce, trajectory whilst spotting a straight 'un or a doosra ?

by Shoeshine Tue 21 Jul 2009, 12:50

Merlin wrote:
a notorious non-lbw giver unless it was plumb.

Is there any other way of giving an lbw?

Surely everything else is guesswork on the umpire's part ... or are we asking Umps to guess turn, bounce, trajectory whilst spotting a straight 'un or a doosra ?

Yes. That's exactly what they're being asked to do, and if it might just have possibly clipped the leg bail, then the umpire's a cretin for not giving it. Apparently.

by taipan Tue 21 Jul 2009, 12:56

Merlin wrote:
a notorious non-lbw giver unless it was plumb.

Is there any other way of giving an lbw?

Surely everything else is guesswork on the umpire's part ... or are we asking Umps to guess turn, bounce, trajectory whilst spotting a straight 'un or a doosra ?

Hawkeye?

by Shoeshine Tue 21 Jul 2009, 12:56

taipan wrote:
Merlin wrote:
a notorious non-lbw giver unless it was plumb.

Is there any other way of giving an lbw?

Surely everything else is guesswork on the umpire's part ... or are we asking Umps to guess turn, bounce, trajectory whilst spotting a straight 'un or a doosra ?

Hawkeye?

If you want extremely short matches and extremely inaccurate decision making, absolutely.

by Sponsored content