Re: South Africa v England, 4th Test, Jo’burg, Jan 14-18

by Shoeshine Fri 15 Jan 2010, 00:09

Zat wrote:Tell you what Shoey, I won't really worry about it.

Until Australia gets dudded by one, then I will start the whole range of histrionics. Deal?

I'm less bothered by the impact on the match as I am by the incompetence of it all.

by Shoeshine Fri 15 Jan 2010, 00:13

Blackadder wrote:
Shoeshine wrote:This is the one Harper based his decision on:

As the reverse side shows, it was a legitimate delievery (just) so regardless Harper got the call right... :arrow:

It's an arguable one. All depends when the foot actually landed. But given that Harper got it wrong on what he saw - what the hell's he doing there? Just go with the original umpire's call instead!

by Zat Fri 15 Jan 2010, 00:15

Shoeshine wrote:
Zat wrote:Tell you what Shoey, I won't really worry about it.

Until Australia gets dudded by one, then I will start the whole range of histrionics. Deal?

I'm less bothered by the impact on the match as I am by the incompetence of it all.

I still think the ICC has stuffed up the whole referral idea. But that shouldn't surprise anyone.

by Eric Air Emu Fri 15 Jan 2010, 01:33

[not tom]

well anyway, england could have tried harder: http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/62792.html

by Batman Fri 15 Jan 2010, 04:31

beamer wrote:Just about to watch the whole craptaculation on the Sky highlights, but from what I've heard so far there's plenty of questions:

1) Why exactly did we choose to bat on a pitch that was always going to favour the seamers? Scared of batting last and/or didn't trust the bowlers, that's all it could be. Put them in first and either you roll them over and get yourselves the advantage, or they get a big score and take time out of the game when you only need a draw. They got a call from John......

2) Sidebottom for Onions? Bringing in a bowler who has hardly any overs on tour and to be quite honest has shown little in terms of form and fitness since his spectacular year of re-introduction to international cricket. Onions hadn't done that badly and might have cashed in here and been rewarded for his efforts throughout the series. Inspired by Dhoni? Drop an inform substitute player with someone fresh from injury without a match under the belt for a big match and expect the gamble to pay off.....

There you go.....

by taipan Fri 15 Jan 2010, 05:54

DJ_Smerk wrote:
I mean, it's highly unlikely that it'll rain on the same hour everyday,

4.30/5 is probably nearer the mark

by taipan Fri 15 Jan 2010, 05:57

smo wrote:God knows what's wrong with Trott, looks totaly out of his depth??

Maybe someone should tell Trev that.

by Henry Fri 15 Jan 2010, 06:40

Shoeshine wrote:
Blackadder wrote:
Shoeshine wrote:This is the one Harper based his decision on:

As the reverse side shows, it was a legitimate delievery (just) so regardless Harper got the call right... :arrow:

It's an arguable one. All depends when the foot actually landed. But given that Harper got it wrong on what he saw - what the hell's he doing there? Just go with the original umpire's call instead!

The line belongs to the umpire. some part of the foot has to be BEHIND the line. It's clearly not. Harper is an incompetent c*nt. I mean honestly. It's right there. It's a line decision. It really doesn't take a genius.

by taipan Fri 15 Jan 2010, 06:44

The sooking about this has become almost subiesque.

by embee Fri 15 Jan 2010, 06:47

Trev

One ...It's a still shot ..you cant make a no ball call from it (same as you cant call a chuck from a single photo even if MuMu's elbow is at right angles) ...if his foot has landed behind the line and slid forward ...it's not a no ball

Two ...His heel is in the air ...as long as some part of that was behind the line (even if raised) it's not a no ball

"It really doesn't take a genius"

That's correct ...but you've got it wrong ...so you can come to your own conclusion as to what that means

by Henry Fri 15 Jan 2010, 06:49

I saw it live. It looked like a no ball then. His foot didn't slide forwards.

by taipan Fri 15 Jan 2010, 06:50

It's odd. I just got this morning's paper. It still says he's out

by Zat Fri 15 Jan 2010, 07:08

Henry wrote:The line belongs to the umpire. some part of the foot has to be BEHIND the line. It's clearly not. Harper is an incompetent c*nt. I mean honestly. It's right there. It's a line decision. It really doesn't take a genius.

Sorry to point out the obvious to everyone. Harper is Australian. Trev is NEVER going to be objective about anything involving Australians.

by Henry Fri 15 Jan 2010, 08:18

That's f*cking bullshit. Smith hit the cover off that and everyone heard the nick except for Tony Hill it would seem.

Why don't the ICC pay for hotspot? It's no longer for viewer entertainment, it's for decisions, so the ICC needs to cough up the money.

by tac Fri 15 Jan 2010, 08:20

And Trev shoves another handful of sand up his vagina . . .

by taipan Fri 15 Jan 2010, 08:20

Henry wrote:That's f*cking bullshit. Smith hit the cover off that and everyone heard the nick except for Tony Hill it would seem.

Why don't the ICC pay for hotspot?

Are we playing England or India?

by embee Fri 15 Jan 2010, 08:22

The Yarps should ask for a review on that ...Not as Big Daz would probabbly over rule it just to piss Trev off

by Blackadder Fri 15 Jan 2010, 08:39

taipan wrote:
Henry wrote:That's f*cking bullshit. Smith hit the cover off that and everyone heard the nick except for Tony Hill it would seem.

Why don't the ICC pay for hotspot?

Are we playing England or India?

Judging by the sookiness, fugged if I know. scratch

by Shoeshine Fri 15 Jan 2010, 08:50

Well, you can understand an unhappiness about that - clearly Smith hit it. Nicks behind have been missed by umpires for time immemorial, so it's not a new thing there. The thing I don't understand about the review thing is why (lacking hotspot and snicko) the third umpire refuses to go by the sound? That's what the on field umpire does anyway, so why not the third umpire? scratch

by embee Fri 15 Jan 2010, 08:55

It's a combination of sight and sound ...not sound alone ...that an umpire uses ...

by Shoeshine Fri 15 Jan 2010, 08:58

Not so. Tiny edges never deviate, the umpire gives it on sound.

by taipan Fri 15 Jan 2010, 08:59

Shoeshine wrote:Well, you can understand an unhappiness about that - clearly Smith hit it. Nicks behind have been missed by umpires for time immemorial, so it's not a new thing there. The thing I don't understand about the review thing is why (lacking hotspot and snicko) the third umpire refuses to go by the sound? That's what the on field umpire does anyway, so why not the third umpire?

Yeah, and yesterday according to the comments here Morkel was clearly over the line.

by Merlin Fri 15 Jan 2010, 09:00

Sight AND sound Shoey ...

Re Sniffer ... he's not a walker - so move on.

by embee Fri 15 Jan 2010, 09:00

The ball must be seen to be hitting the bat ..you dont look for deviations

by tac Fri 15 Jan 2010, 09:01

taipan wrote:
Shoeshine wrote:Well, you can understand an unhappiness about that - clearly Smith hit it. Nicks behind have been missed by umpires for time immemorial, so it's not a new thing there. The thing I don't understand about the review thing is why (lacking hotspot and snicko) the third umpire refuses to go by the sound? That's what the on field umpire does anyway, so why not the third umpire?

Yeah, and yesterday according to the comments here Morkel was clearly over the line.

Yeah, but it SOUNDED like his foot was over the line . . .

by Sponsored content