What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

2ND ASHES TEST: England v Australia at Lord's Jul 18-22, 2013

Timbo

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
20,281
Wow, on test match sofa they just reported that in the aftermath of that catch a tweet went up on the official Cricket Australia twitter that said:

'That decision sucked ass #bullshit'

They said it was quickly deleted, but good to know someone's angry.
 

undertaker

Coach
Messages
11,074
When was the last he succeeded full stop?

His last 11 innings in all formats:

11, 6, 9, 0, 0, 2, 0, 44, 4, 13, 8.

97 runs @ 8.8

His last 11 first class innings:

11, 6, 8, 0, 2, 71, 26, 6, 23, 59, 0

212 runs @ 19

This is our batting saviour?

Surely he isn't channeling Shaun Marsh here?:lol:
 

hineyrulz

Post Whore
Messages
154,896
Terrible decision but what can you do???

CA should be more about the spastics that are running Australian cricket into the ground.
 

BunniesMan

Immortal
Messages
33,738
Lol spastic

They dont even need runs
Wasting time is what they are doing
they have won the match already
Yes but there is no point to wasting time. They are 400 up with 6 wickets in hand.

I understand not declaring. I don't understand scoring at 2 an over. They're in a position to really hurt us. Going along at 2 an over is not hurting us.
 

undertaker

Coach
Messages
11,074
Seriously, how f**king hard it it?

These umpires get paid a metric f**ktonne of money to travel to some of the most beautiful and exotic places in the world to officiate in a game and they can't get basic shit like that right?

It's like the front foot no-ball checking after every wicket; how the f**k are you not seeing those yourself? It's been an umpires job for TWO HUNDRED f**kING YEARS. How many are you letting go during the game?

It drives me f**king spare how bad these useless pricks are at their job.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cr...nd-Australia-appeal-over-neutral-umpires.html

Umpires are paid a salary of around £200,000 plus expenses.
That's excellent money if you can get it, to literally do bugger .....uhmm, I meant to umpire a game of cricket. They get to stand like a statue most of the time, don't have to constantly run around like referees in soccer, rugby league, AFL etc. Furthermore, they get regular drinks breaks, lunch and tea during the game:lol:

Oh, and you mentioned getting to travel to places that most people will never get to go to in their lifetime.
 

undertaker

Coach
Messages
11,074
and from the same article, the same point I made about the lack of "neutral" umpires being able to officiate England/Australia test matches. I do believe that the umpires need to be neutral to maintain the integrity and professionalism of the game, but surely there has to be more neutral umpires, let alone better ones than the four I made reference to earlier.:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cr...nd-Australia-appeal-over-neutral-umpires.html
The news broke on the day it emerged the umpires at Trent Bridge failed to follow the correct procedure for the lbw dismissal of Jonathan Trott.

The failure of the Hot Spot thermal imaging system to provide a side-on angle which would have proved whether Trott hit the ball before it struck his pad should have ensured the not out decision of on-field umpire Aleem Dar stood.

Appendix three of the ICC playing regulations for Test cricket state in circumstances “where the television technology (all or parts thereof) is not available to the third umpire or fails” the third umpire can only offer advice but the final decision remains with the on-field umpire. Dar had orignally given Trott not out.

The introduction of dedicated television umpires will also be proposed to the ICC, with the belief growing among cricket boards that the job requires specialist training in the wake of the Trott controversy.

Only four members of the ICC Elite Panel of umpires are not from England or Australia, leaving Marais Erasmus, Aleem Dar, Tony Hill and Kumar Dharmasena to rotate as on-field and television umpires during a maximum of 150 highly pressurised sessions of Ashes cricket.


This fact has been raised by both Cricket Australia and the England and Wales Cricket Board at ICC level, with fears the workload could lead to a drop in umpiring standards and the potential for grudges to grow between players and umpires who have spent too much time working together.
England are already unhappy with the performance of Erasmus for his controversial decision to rule Trott lbw but have not objected to him standing out in the middle next week at Lord’s and for the third Test at Old Trafford. He will also be the third umpire for the fourth Test.
There are 12 umpires on the Elite panel list who stand in Tests around the world, but the four from England and four from Australia are ineligible for Ashes cricket as umpires cannot take charge of matches involving their own country.
The suggestion is for umpires to be promoted temporarily from the ICC’s international panel of officials, the level below the elite grade, although there are inevitable concerns about the standard of officials from that level.
That level includes Billy Bowden, who was recently demoted from the elite list, and umpires who have never stood in Test cricket.
The longer-term solution is an expansion of the elite panel list, which would incur extra expense for the ICC. There is no Indian representative at elite level but the Board of Control for Cricket in India has recently established an umpiring academy to raise standards.
The introduction of specialist television umpires would be costly but is seen as a method of reducing the workload of those on the elite list and offer experience to younger officials.
Simon Taufel, formerly one of the world’s leading umpires who is now in charge of training the next generation of officials, is believed to be in support of the proposal.
There is a two-day meeting next week in India where Taufel and the ICC’s national umpire managers will brainstorm ideas to improve training.
The Trott incident was complicated by the failure of the Hot Spot system to work and provide full technological evidence for Erasmus to consult. The inventor of Hot Spot will upgrade the system’s software during the Ashes series in order to ensure it does not happen again.
The mistake was caused by a failure of the system and operator error. The Hot Spot operator was trying to organise a replay of the Joe Root dismissal when Trott was struck on the pads. He inadvertently failed to record the Hot Spot image from square-leg for the Trott dismissal and store it to the hard drive.
“There were two mistakes and that was disappointing,” Warren Brennan, the inventor of Hot Spot told The Daily Telegraph. “I know there are things we can do to improve the system and we are going to have to push those improvements up the list.”
Bennett also believes the problem could be solved if cricket boards and the ICC contributed to the cost of the system which is largely paid for by broadcasters.
At the moment boards refuse to pay for an independent system and operators and rely on footage provided by television companies. The ECB pay a nominal amount to the cost incurred in this country but arguments over paying for the system has left cricket officials relying on television to make decisions which can have a huge impact on the result of a match.
“The ICC and other cricket boards have tried to take the easy way out with Hot Spot and the ball-tracking technology,” said Brennan.
“They have not wanted to put in any money into these systems and push it off to the broadcasters. That is the disappointing thing. If there was more focus and money put into the umpiring side we could have separate systems for television and the umpires.
"That would be best-case scenario. But with most of the cost paid by the broadcasters they see us as their client and vica-versa. We are not working for the cricket boards or the ICC.”
The ECB is a strong supporter of the decision review system but every time there is a mistake or controversial incident it further complicates delicate negotiations to persuade the Indian board to embrace the system.
“Until the Indians come on board there will not be extra money put in. Basically it is dogs chasing their own tails at the moment,” added Brennan.
How the ICC Elite Umpire panel works
The ICC umpires panel is managed by Vincent van der Byl, the former South African pace bowler, and reviewed on a 12-month basis by world cricket’s governing body.
Umpires are paid a salary of around £200,000 plus expenses. Last month Billy Bowden, the New Zealand umpire, was removed from the elite list after a review of his recent performances.
There is a five-step criteria for appointing umpires for international matches. Tests are officiated by three neutral umpires, one-day internationals by one neutral umpire and one home umpire.
Under the current ICC regulations, for Test matches umpires are chosen on the basis of the following criteria: neutrality, the best available for each series or match, better performing umpires used more often, frequency of individuals appointed to the same teams, and consideration of their workloads.
The current 12-man Elite panel
England

  • Nigel Llong
  • Ian Gould
  • Richard Kettleborough
  • Richard Illingworth
Australia

  • Steve Davis
  • Bruce Oxenford
  • Rod Tucker
  • Paul Reiffel
Sri Lanka

  • Kumar Dharmasena
South Africa

  • Marais Erasmus
New Zealand

  • Tony Hill
Pakistan

  • Aleem Dar

My solution would be to expand the elite panel to about 16-20 umpires and decrease the 200,000 pound salary as a result.
 

Timbo

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
20,281
There is a supplementary panel. Surely they'd get in one or two of them for a few tests.

Getting the same 4 umpires to rotate through ten consecutive tests is madness.

Having said that, the two they just removed from the panel are Asad Rauf and Billy Bowden so who bloody knows.
 

African Monkey

First Grade
Messages
8,671
Yes but there is no point to wasting time. They are 400 up with 6 wickets in hand.

I understand not declaring. I don't understand scoring at 2 an over. They're in a position to really hurt us. Going along at 2 an over is not hurting us.

lol a lead of 411 on day 3 is not hurting the aussies?
 

BunniesMan

Immortal
Messages
33,738
I reckon the LBW rule needs to be changed. Why is it LBW if it pitches outside off but not outside leg. That allows for too much negative batting.

Change the rule and make it as long as its hitting in line and the umpire thinks its hitting the stumps, its out. Dont worry about where it pitches. It would take a variable out and make it easier to get the right decision AND make it tougher for negative batting.
 
Last edited:

undertaker

Coach
Messages
11,074
I reckon the LBW rule needs to be changed. Why is LBW if it pitches outside off but not outside leg. That allows for too much negative batting.

Change the rule and make it as long as its hitting in line and the umpire thinks its hitting the stumps, its out. Dont worry about where it pitches. It would take a variable out and make it easier to get the right decision AND make it tougher for negative batting.

I've always been perplexed about the complexity of the LBW rule as well. One of the rare times I agree with you.

It never made sense to me why the ball can't pitch outside of leg stump and has to be hitting you in line with the stumps (unless you don't offera shot). The rule would be much simpler if it was: if you get hit on the pads first and you think the ball will hit the stumps, you're OUT. Especially to spinners, it'd stop batsmen from padding the ball away with consummate ease. Why can't it be that simple fellas?
 

8Ball

First Grade
Messages
5,132
I reckon the LBW rule needs to be changed. Why is it LBW if it pitches outside off but not outside leg. That allows for too much negative batting.

Change the rule and make it as long as its hitting in line and the umpire thinks its hitting the stumps, its out. Dont worry about where it pitches. It would take a variable out and make it easier to get the right decision AND make it tougher for negative batting.

:lol::lol:
 

RHCP

Bench
Messages
4,784
x3 on the lbw issues. If you have stopped the ball hitting the stumps with your leg, why is it not out if it pitched in the wrong spot?

Not a rhetorical question either lol. I feel like it'll be an obvious answer once somebody explains it :lol:
 

8Ball

First Grade
Messages
5,132
Because test matches would end in a day. Batsmen techniques would completely change. I'd wager that none of you have faced 130k+ bowling. Its very difficult to hit the ball when its coming from inside your eyeline at that pace. Spin bowlers would be made completely useless.

The game would be essentially this: A battery of pace bowlers spearing the ball into pads with 2 men behind square on the leg side fielding, a few more in front.
 
Last edited:

RHCP

Bench
Messages
4,784
I'm not proposing they change it, I'm sure there is a reason it was made so in the first place which is what I was interested in.

I seriously doubt that Test matches would end in a day if lbw's were given if they hit outside the line of off.
 

KeepingTheFaith

Referee
Messages
25,235
What would a forward defensive shot look like if you could get out with the ball pitching outside leg? Seriously, give it a go.

You'd have to stand almost front on, massively exposing the one region you don't want a 130km cricket ball hitting. That's reason enough imo.
 

BunniesMan

Immortal
Messages
33,738
I've given up any hope of winning this test a while ago but there will still be an opportunity for some good to come out of this. We will have plenty of time to bat and it will be a chance for all of our batsmen to find some form. If some guys can score big runs it'll do us good for the next test.

What would a forward defensive shot look like if you could get out with the ball pitching outside leg? Seriously, give it a go.

You'd have to stand almost front on, massively exposing the one region you don't want a 130km cricket ball hitting. That's reason enough imo.
I said it should still have to hit in line! Just the same rules as the off side. Where it pitches doesn't matter. All that matters is hitting in line and hitting the stumps.

Keeping the hitting in line rule would stop all these negative tactics some of you are coming up with, but getting rid of the pitching outside leg rule would reduce negative batting.

It'll never happen, but it just frustrates me when a batsman not looking to score has basically zero chance of getting out.
 

Latest posts

Top