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

Another thing - a point raised by most of the commentary team on tv, and Athers in his newspaper column .....

What on earth was Strauss thinking of regarding his use of Anderson? You'd think our best - and most successful - quick bowler would be bowling first thing. No, we've Broad who's hardly bowled straight after a meal/rain break throughout the series, and Sidebottom who hasn't bowled in anger for months on end.

Botham couldn't see why Anderson wasn't used after the long rain break - sounded quite shocked actually - and the other commentators agreed with him.

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? It's no longer for viewer entertainment, it's for decisions, so the ICC needs to cough up the money.

I know I gave Trev a rev-up for jumping up and down about Harper on the 'no ball or not no ball' decision on the first day (a decision which looks quite sensible when compared to Harper's next trick) but the Smiff edge was a disgrace. And if it turns out to be true (seemingly no way it couldn't) that Harper had turned down the volume, or failed to turn up the volume, in his box, then the bloke should be given the arse from international umpiring for several years.

Henry wrote:

Merlin wrote:I believe that asking for a fine edge catch behind to be reviewed in Saffer land is a total waste of a referral.

SATV (?) do not have Snicko nor Hot Spot and for the 3rd ump to freeze frame a 750 pixel screen looking for a feather edge I'd imagine, is almost impossible.

And Trev - I think you might find that it's not upto the ICC to provide a TV station's camermen with all the gadgetry that would ensure one Saffer was given out!

Like I said, when hotspot was merely a gadget to entertain the TV viewer, then there was no problem with the TV company paying for it. However, it has now become a vital part of the ICC's referral system, and some TV companies (like SABC in this series) can't afford it. So if the ICC wants to improve decision making on the field, they need to fork out the money to get the best technology available for all games.

I've been saying for ages in here - in the face of some strident criticism from a few people - that if the ICC is going to allow technology to 'assist' the umpires, then it should be an all-or-nothing process. As it stands, there's no minimum requirement for broadcasters to have, there are systems in place that could be manipulated by a dodgy host broadcaster.

And as for hawkeye - which I still don't agree with the predictive path element being used - it makes no sense that the same set of circumstance can give an 'out' or a 'not out', simply by virtue of which team is doing the asking.

If you're going to use technology to eliminate doubt over decisions, then use it to eliminate doubt over decisions, not to enshrine doubt that could confuse the issue further.















Oh, and 'Sucked in England!'

So looks like Yarps will lose another series at home...

Shoeshine wrote:and watch Taips go purple with rage for about the next three years every time we mention it.

Actually Shooey I subscribe to the Kipling theory

Brass Monkey wrote:how's about getting some proper drainage system.

By all acounts the drainage was pretty good. On the SA radio feed they were saying that some pom journos were doubting whether the gorund would be fit by Monday

2 early wickets for England.

taipan wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:and watch Taips go purple with rage for about the next three years every time we mention it.

Actually Shooey I subscribe to the Kipling theory

I know. It's just my nasty sense of humour.

Swanneee! gets a wicket first up again.

See. I told you that there is nothing wrong with the review system

Mmmmm, well he probably didn't hit it, so I guess the right decision was made.

Swanneee! is ragging the ball square here. That wasn't expected.

I love this system

the question is can de villiers really make use of this ?

See that's the idiocy of the review system.

It's an entirely reasonable decision to give that out, not playing a shot. But because Hawekeye says no, it gets overturned. The right decision as the system is structured, but he's left a straight one basically - he doesn't remotely deserve to be reprieved by a computer program.

I think it's difficult to handle Swann here. The highveld sun and low moisture will crack up the topsoil and help the spinners.

they need to go after the faster bowlers.

buckSH wrote:low moisture will crack up the topsoil and help the spinners.

they need to go after the faster bowlers.

This drought is killing us

Shoeshine wrote:See that's the idiocy of the review system.

It's an entirely reasonable decision to give that out, not playing a shot. But because Hawekeye says no, it gets overturned. The right decision as the system is structured, but he's left a straight one basically - he doesn't remotely deserve to be reprieved by a computer program.

Was a poor decision in the first place

It always takes spin in those conditions then,

My predictions for this test match first innings were.

1. SA first innings score of 340 plus.
2. Swanny to make a mark but would it be enough.

taipan wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:See that's the idiocy of the review system.

It's an entirely reasonable decision to give that out, not playing a shot. But because Hawekeye says no, it gets overturned. The right decision as the system is structured, but he's left a straight one basically - he doesn't remotely deserve to be reprieved by a computer program.

Was a poor decision in the first place

Don't remotely see how you can say that. It was a straight ball and he left it. Sod off for being a cretin and not playing a shot. Use the bat.

Indeed, shoey, umps have recently been quick to gun batsmen padding up . . .and so they should . . . .

Shoeshine wrote:

taipan wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:See that's the idiocy of the review system.

It's an entirely reasonable decision to give that out, not playing a shot. But because Hawekeye says no, it gets overturned. The right decision as the system is structured, but he's left a straight one basically - he doesn't remotely deserve to be reprieved by a computer program.

Was a poor decision in the first place

Don't remotely see how you can say that. It was a straight ball and he left it. Sod off for being a cretin and not playing a shot. Use the bat.

You argued 2 matches ago that Boucher shouldn't have been given out. With the bounch and turn Swann was getting there is no way the umpire could be sure that was hitting.

Sidebottom imho should be reserved exclusively for early morning and late evening conditions only. He can't do much post twelve and before four.

Oh dear. Sky now reckoning that AB might well have gloved that catch and querying why it was overturned when there was no conclusive evidence that he didn't hit it - given that they didn't overturn the Smith dismissal on the same grounds.

Now, let's be fair here, that one was a nightmare for a third umpire to give, so I don't have a huge problem with the decision at all. But the good thing - and this is hard to credit - is that Sky are rocking it back and forth on the HD picture. Harper doesn't have HD on his monitor. Seriously.

hand over that new ball to stuart broad and james anderson please.

taipan wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

taipan wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:See that's the idiocy of the review system.

It's an entirely reasonable decision to give that out, not playing a shot. But because Hawekeye says no, it gets overturned. The right decision as the system is structured, but he's left a straight one basically - he doesn't remotely deserve to be reprieved by a computer program.

Was a poor decision in the first place

Don't remotely see how you can say that. It was a straight ball and he left it. Sod off for being a cretin and not playing a shot. Use the bat.

You argued 2 matches ago that Boucher shouldn't have been given out. With the bounch and turn Swann was getting there is no way the umpire could be sure that was hitting.

Yep, indeed. Difference isn't in my complaint about the system, it's that on that occasion Boucher was playing a shot. It's more about the fact that batsmen who leave straightish balls should be automatically gunned in my view - I have not a shred of sympathy for them. If they're so sure it's missing why put the pad in the way in the first place? So if they pad up and Hawkeye suggests it might be just missing, tough titty - use the bat.

Shoeshine wrote:

taipan wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

taipan wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:See that's the idiocy of the review system.

It's an entirely reasonable decision to give that out, not playing a shot. But because Hawekeye says no, it gets overturned. The right decision as the system is structured, but he's left a straight one basically - he doesn't remotely deserve to be reprieved by a computer program.

Was a poor decision in the first place

Don't remotely see how you can say that. It was a straight ball and he left it. Sod off for being a cretin and not playing a shot. Use the bat.

You argued 2 matches ago that Boucher shouldn't have been given out. With the bounch and turn Swann was getting there is no way the umpire could be sure that was hitting.

Yep, indeed. Difference isn't in my complaint about the system, it's that on that occasion Boucher was playing a shot. It's more about the fact that batsmen who leave straightish balls should be automatically gunned in my view - I have not a shred of sympathy for them. If they're so sure it's missing why put the pad in the way in the first place? So if they pad up and Hawkeye suggests it might be just missing, tough titty - use the bat.

So if AB had played a forward defensive and the ball beat the bat you would have said not out?

I saw on cricinfo- Sidebottom to Boucher, 5 runs, and i just knew Pietersen would have been involved even without the commentary having updated.