Re: Koertzen's century nothing to celebrate!

by embee Tue 21 Jul 2009, 17:31

It was the other 14 wickets that fell to crap bowlers ...plus Paris' WACA leave (FFS) on a less bouncy pitch

by Merlin Tue 21 Jul 2009, 17:36

embee wrote:It was the other 14 wickets that fell to crap bowlers ...plus Paris' WACA leave (FFS) on a less bouncy pitch

Emulating Strausser (FFS), who was playing on his home ground (FFS) .... aye, I know the feeling!

by taipan Wed 22 Jul 2009, 07:15

embee wrote:The Koertzen bashing by Red and Chloe Saltau in the Age article shows a complete ignorance of umpiring procedures or a willingness to distort facts to suit their agenda or most likely , both.

There's a surprise.

by G.Wood Wed 22 Jul 2009, 07:19

and her avatar isn't even worth looking at

by taipan Wed 22 Jul 2009, 07:21

G.Wood wrote:and her avatar isn't even worth looking at

Self portrait.

by Bradman Wed 22 Jul 2009, 07:22

G.Wood wrote:and her avatar isn't even worth looking at

Who is it btw?

by Red Wed 22 Jul 2009, 09:27

embee wrote:The Koertzen bashing by Red and Chloe Saltau in the Age article shows a complete ignorance of umpiring procedures or a willingness to distort facts to suit their agenda or most likely , both.

Rudi referred two appeals and didn't refer another ...any apparent mistakes made weren't actually his ....

He referred the Ponting dismissal to see if the ball had carried to Strauss as both he and Doctrove were unsure if the ball had carried . Llong made the mistake of not rejecting the appeal on the grounds of Ponting not hitting the ball ...(Rudi may have fired him LBW with that ruling anyway) ...but Rudi used the technology call correctly

He referred the Bopara "catch" because both he and Doctrove were unsure if the ball had carried ...the tv replay was inconclusive and so the third umpire made the "correct" decision to rule "no catch" ...again Rudi used the technology call correctly

The Hughes catch wasn't referred because Doctrove said the ball had carried to Strauss ...on that evidence Rudi is obliged to give the batsman out rather than refer the decision ...so again he has used the technology as he should

Dar and Taufel are probably the two best umpires at the moment but even they aren't mistake free

Add Greg Baum, Gideon Haigh and another truckload of letters to our broadsheet today.

So he thought Punter hit the ball meaning he rejected the LBW appeal. I don't see why that should go in his favour proving it was yet another error.

The point is, some of you are condemning my views and those of others on the basis that they're construed as reactive to the Lord's test. I was more referring to the fact that he's umpired 100 matches and it's time for him to call stumps because he's repeatedly made blatant errors for a number of years now. It's a pattern of mistakes, not just one test which calls into question his continuing presence on the panel.

Getting back to Lord's, he also made a critical error which saw Katich dismissed. And on the third umpire ruling regarding Punter, he had the ability to ask several questions to him but chose only to ask if the ball carried. That also casts doubt on his judgement as he never considered the idea that Ponting didn't hit it even though many initially thought that. He failed to consider that it might not have despite the bowler Anderson who was in the best position to judge this, appealing for an LBW.

by embee Wed 22 Jul 2009, 13:15

Actually Red ...Rudi is in the best position to judge ...head still ...staring straight down the pitch ...not falling over after propelling the ball down the pitch ...and if you thought that Punter had missed the ball on first look/hear then perhaps you should contact Cricket Victoria and take up umpiring

I'm undecided on the Katich dismissal ...I've only seen a still shot of the foot over the line ...that's not a no ball if the foot slid there from behind the line ...it was a marginal no ball and not easy to call anyway if that was where his foot had landed

by jim rich Wed 22 Jul 2009, 14:27

embee wrote:Actually Red ...Rudi is in the best position to judge ...head still ...staring straight down the pitch ...not falling over after propelling the ball down the pitch ...and if you thought that Punter had missed the ball on first look/hear then perhaps you should contact Cricket Victoria and take up umpiring

I'm undecided on the Katich dismissal ...I've only seen a still shot of the foot over the line ...that's not a no ball if the foot slid there from behind the line ...it was a marginal no ball and not easy to call anyway if that was where his foot had landed

MB, I'm surprised these comments never saw light when Bucknor twice loused up 2 different test matches at the SCG. I am aware that this may be slightly out of context, but what's good for the goose, is good for the gander. At that time the Aussies found all the excuses on earth to excuse Bucknor, yet now they'll do anything to fry Koertzen. To be fair to the Aussie media, some of them did fry Bucknor at that time.

by taipan Wed 22 Jul 2009, 14:32

embee wrote:Actually Red ...Rudi is in the best position to judge ...head still ...staring straight down the pitch ...not falling over after propelling the ball down the pitch ...and if you thought that Punter had missed the ball on first look/hear then perhaps you should contact Cricket Victoria and take up umpiring

I'm undecided on the Katich dismissal ...I've only seen a still shot of the foot over the line ...that's not a no ball if the foot slid there from behind the line ...it was a marginal no ball and not easy to call anyway if that was where his foot had landed

FFS embee, don't use reason. It will only confuse her.

by embee Wed 22 Jul 2009, 14:43

jim rich wrote:
embee wrote:Actually Red ...Rudi is in the best position to judge ...head still ...staring straight down the pitch ...not falling over after propelling the ball down the pitch ...and if you thought that Punter had missed the ball on first look/hear then perhaps you should contact Cricket Victoria and take up umpiring

I'm undecided on the Katich dismissal ...I've only seen a still shot of the foot over the line ...that's not a no ball if the foot slid there from behind the line ...it was a marginal no ball and not easy to call anyway if that was where his foot had landed
MB, I'm surprised these comments never saw light when Bucknor twice loused up 2 different test matches at the SCG. I am aware that this may be slightly out of context, but what's good for the goose, is good for the gander. At that time the Aussies found all the excuses on earth to excuse Bucknor, yet now they'll do anything to fry Koertzen. To be fair to the Aussie media, some of them did fry Bucknor at that time.

I was on overseas holiday for the Sydney Test that Banindia lost because their nine ten jack couldnt survive three overs of deadly spin from Pup Clarke so missed most of Bucknor's possible antiSubi decisions

Most of the storm about Lords is being whipped up by the media ...the Pom media because they enjoy having a laugh at Ozzie expense and the Ozzie media because angry Ozzies buy more papers or make more calls to talkback radio programs

by Red Wed 22 Jul 2009, 14:47

embee wrote:
jim rich wrote:
embee wrote:Actually Red ...Rudi is in the best position to judge ...head still ...staring straight down the pitch ...not falling over after propelling the ball down the pitch ...and if you thought that Punter had missed the ball on first look/hear then perhaps you should contact Cricket Victoria and take up umpiring

I'm undecided on the Katich dismissal ...I've only seen a still shot of the foot over the line ...that's not a no ball if the foot slid there from behind the line ...it was a marginal no ball and not easy to call anyway if that was where his foot had landed
MB, I'm surprised these comments never saw light when Bucknor twice loused up 2 different test matches at the SCG. I am aware that this may be slightly out of context, but what's good for the goose, is good for the gander. At that time the Aussies found all the excuses on earth to excuse Bucknor, yet now they'll do anything to fry Koertzen. To be fair to the Aussie media, some of them did fry Bucknor at that time.

I was on overseas holiday for the Sydney Test that Banindia lost because their nine ten jack couldnt survive three overs of deadly spin from Pup Clarke so missed most of Bucknor's possible antiSubi decisions

Most of the storm about Lords is being whipped up by the media ...the Pom media because they enjoy having a laugh at Ozzie expense and the Ozzie media because angry Ozzies buy more papers or make more calls to talkback radio programs

Forgetting the Lord's test, do you really believe Koertzen is still a good umpire Embee?

by embee Wed 22 Jul 2009, 14:55

I think Rudi is still good enough to be on the elite panel ...and is a lot better than most of the umpires on that panel ...his decision making is probably in decline though

But should he (be) retire(d) because he is making more errors than 5 years ago if he is still making less errors than the umpire who would replace him?

by jim rich Wed 22 Jul 2009, 15:07

embee wrote:I think Rudi is still good enough to be on the elite panel ...and is a lot better than most of the umpires on that panel ...his decision making is probably in decline though

But should he (be) retire(d) because he is making more errors than 5 years ago if he is still making less errors than the umpire who would replace him?

No, he isn't. Test matches aren't marble games. A lot depends on them and a lot of careers are made or broken on the face of bad decisions. An umpire should know when he's reached his turning point (e.g. Sheppard) and call it a day. I feel too many of them are still enamoured by travel and monetary expectations. Instead of talking up the irrelevant percentage of right decisions (without attaching the required calculation references and accountability), the ICC should be looking to promote good and proven umpires unnecessarily lingering in the lower leagues.

by embee Wed 22 Jul 2009, 15:12

If a batsman averaged 55 at the peak of his career but is currently averaging 50 ...should he be replaced by a batsman who can only average 45?

You said yourself ...it isn't a marbles game ...Do you know of many Umpires who aren't on the elite panel (and who want to be on it) who are DEFINITELY better than Rudi?

Taips...any Saffie candidates to replace him?

by jim rich Wed 22 Jul 2009, 15:19

No, but he should be replaced by one who averages 55 or more.

Regretably I do not possess the resources that the ICC has to review the abilities of its potential candidates, but if it doesn't use them on account of favouritsm or other such reasons, the ICC doesn't deserve to lead the cricketing world.

by embee Wed 22 Jul 2009, 15:24

It's not that easy to find batsmen who average 55 ...

by Merlin Wed 22 Jul 2009, 15:29

Look no further.

Bell - Under 17's.

I rest my case.

by jim rich Wed 22 Jul 2009, 15:31

embee wrote:It's not that easy to find batsmen who average 55 ...

Circular argument, MB. Very Happy

by embee Wed 22 Jul 2009, 15:37

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?

by taipan Wed 22 Jul 2009, 18:51

embee wrote:If a batsman averaged 55 at the peak of his career but is currently averaging 50 ...should he be replaced by a batsman who can only average 45?

You said yourself ...it isn't a marbles game ...Do you know of many Umpires who aren't on the elite panel (and who want to be on it) who are DEFINITELY better than Rudi?

Taips...any Saffie candidates to replace him?

Marais Erasmus ain't bad. Ian Howell seems to be going backwards.

The point is that no umpire will look good with the increased level of technology. We can shout to the heavens about umpires making decisions but if they are undermined by commentators it is a no win.

The technology is here, it might not be perfect, but use it. Otherwise we will have the studio pundits, and some a/holes on this forum, continually running them down.

It is dead easy to make a decision after 100 replays and the rest, but FFS these guys make the decision in real time.

by filosofee Wed 22 Jul 2009, 20:26

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

An umpire adjudging an lbw in a cricket match is as much predicting that a ball would go on to hit/shatter the stumps as hawk-eye's ball tracking system. It's been used for tennis championships and snooker, and is being developed to resolve the close goal-line calls in football.

Hawk-eye has more eyes than two on-field cricket umpires combined, with cameras scattered around grounds during matches, its accuracy will increase.

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

by taipan Wed 22 Jul 2009, 20:30

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?

by PeterCS Wed 22 Jul 2009, 20:33

They should get rid of the time-wasting drinks breaks.

As AB told Robin Smith in no uncertain terms.

by filosofee Wed 22 Jul 2009, 20:35

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!

by Sponsored content