Umpires cost Australia the Ashes

[willvillain]

Holding is a bias twat.

His tally was that stupid it wasn't funny.

Holding is an imbecile.

Cool voice though.

 

[fish eel]

I'm not missing anything, your the one who has said we havent been beaten legitimatly. You need to look at more than just the umpires....the dropped catches etc that have nithing to do with the umpires.

I'm going to actually defend the umpires at bit though.

Sure, they've make some blunders, but they are under a lot more scrutiny than ever before with things like hawkeye. They are also only human, take an Andrew Flintoff LBW appeal. He bowls at what, between 80-90 miles and hour.

So, the umpire, needs to look at the popping crease to check for a noball...then how much time does he have to focus on the wicket. The batsman is then wrapped on the pad.

so, in no time at all, the umpire has had to check the delivery, and then make a call on where the ball pitched, where it hit the batsman, and whether it was going to hit the stumps. Not easy, and its never going to be an exact science, unless its handed over to hawkeye.

Is that good for the game? Well, I personally think we're doing fine with the human element, it adds something to the game, the appeals and waiting on the decision from the umpire. they're not right all the time but it balances out in the end.

I'd rather just stick with the third umpire for the 'line' decisions.

As an aside, do we have any qualified umpires on these boards?

 

[Scott]

I have done some umpiring courses.

 

[fish eel]

Me to.
I used to umpire quite a bit a few years ago, but havent gone anywhere near it for a while.

 

[JJ]

NZ fans wopuld argue that we didnt beat them legitimatly a few years back, so hey, if we're going to say a side wasnt beaten legitmatly because of some umpiring decisions, why not hand back trophies???

you didn't beat us legitimately - that series was drawn!!

But I agree, everyone gets some bad decisions, looking to blame umpires is an age old way to go

 

[JoeD]

Funniest thread ever. It was close but just beat the sub fielder thread. Australia has been getting the rub of the green as far as umpire decisions go for years. Get over it, it happens to everyone.

 

[El Diablo]

I have done some umpiring courses.

Maybe you could give Bucknor and Dar some tips then.

 

[waltzing Meninga]

so, in no time at all, the umpire has had to check the delivery, and then make a call on where the ball pitched, where it hit the batsman, and whether it was going to hit the stumps. Not easy, and its never going to be an exact science, unless its handed over to hawkeye.

Thats exactly right. So when you see a bat very close to the ball as it hits the pad, or you see a ball that is pitching towards the leg stump, you give it not out as there is sufficient doubt to suggest that they may have got bat to it or it may have pitched outside leg.

It seems the english batsmen are the only ones getting the benifit of the doubt.

I would be happy with the not out given to flintoff as long as the same benifit of the doubt rule was applied to Australia when they were batting.

 

[Scott]

Maybe you could give Bucknor and Dar some tips then.

Every umpire in the game makes mistakes. Sure Aussie have been dealt a couple of shockers but it is usually the other way round!

 

[Iafeta]

Thats exactly right. So when you see a bat very close to the ball as it hits the pad, or you see a ball that is pitching towards the leg stump, you give it not out as there is sufficient doubt to suggest that they may have got bat to it or it may have pitched outside leg.

It seems the english batsmen are the only ones getting the benifit of the doubt.

I would be happy with the not out given to flintoff as long as the same benifit of the doubt rule was applied to Australia when they were batting.

No you don't. You take into account only if you think the ball hit the bat, not if the bat was close by. Thats just ridiculous thinking.

Like a couple of the above, I have done a bit of umpiring, and even with bowlers bowling 60-70k's an hour it is a very tough gig. The only way in my opinion to fix it up internationally is to have the device they use in tennis that judges faults judging no balls. The reason being it is incredibly difficult to focus on the no ball, have not long to watch the ball actually happen, and then make an accurate decision on the spot. I know personally I've made decisions, then when I've thought about it later on there may well have been reasons to give benefit of the doubt.

Waltzing made, you are beginning to sound like a very sour loser. A lot of your fellow countrymen are being embarrassed by some of your carry-on. Lift your game. It is a difficult gig, and truth be told, you've had a helluva lot more decisions in your favour at very crucial times over the past 15 years than other cricketing nation. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, the shoe is now on the other foot, deal with it.

 

[waltzing Meninga]

Well If I sound like a Sour loser thats too bad, but Im just teeling it how it is. Im sure most of my fellow countrymen agree with what I am saying.

I guarantee that if Hoggard was given an attrocious decision with 20 runs to get last night and then Australia won the test and the Ashes, there would be 1000 Englishmen and probably Kiwis ( because they don't have a team good enough to support so they support england) whinging and whining just as I am doing now

 

[borat]

Waltzing made, you are beginning to sound like a very sour loser. A lot of your fellow countrymen are being embarrassed by some of your carry-on. Lift your game. It is a difficult gig, and truth be told, you've had a helluva lot more decisions in your favour at very crucial times over the past 15 years than other cricketing nation. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, the shoe is now on the other foot, deal with it.

Surely you could have stuck a few more cliches in there Iafeta. Lift your game.;-)

 

[fish eel]

The only way in my opinion to fix it up internationally is to have the device they use in tennis that judges faults judging no balls.

thats not a bad suggestion, though I'm not sure how practical it would be.

I'd hate to see the human element completely removed from the game.

 

[Iafeta]

Surely you could have stuck a few more cliches in there Iafeta. Lift your game.;-)

:lol: :lol: Sorry your honour, I'll try better next time.

 

[Iafeta]

Well If I sound like a Sour loser thats too bad, but Im just teeling it how it is. Im sure most of my fellow countrymen agree with what I am saying.

I guarantee that if Hoggard was given an attrocious decision with 20 runs to get last night and then Australia won the test and the Ashes, there would be 1000 Englishmen and probably Kiwis ( because they don't have a team good enough to support so they support england) whinging and whining just as I am doing now

What are you going on about?

We've won four on the trot, had India 8/44. We're doing alright at the moment. Even if we'd lost four on the trot, it wouldn't matter. Thats got nothing to do with it. You really are clutching at straws.

Give it up, you lost, big deal, move on, stop being such a poor sport. Next.

 

[Lego_Man]

If the grapes were any sourer in this thread there'd be vinegar spurting out of my computer screen.

 

[JJ]

nah = you Ozzies is right, yous wuz robbed!


pffffttt

 

[waltzing Meninga]

Don't tell me you whinging Poms wouldnt be complaining if you were robbed of the Ashes.

Anyway I've had my tantrum now and am ready to move on to the 5th test.

 

[Iafeta]

Don't tell me you whinging Poms wouldnt be complaining if you were robbed of the Ashes.

Anyway I've had my tantrum now and am ready to move on to the 5th test.

You're posting against Australians and New Zealanders first and foremost.

You should have moved on four pages ago.

 

[Big_Bad_Shark_Fan]

England played better cricket, but that leads on from poor umpiring decisions. If Flintoffs given out for 8 LBW in the first innings when he was out, then noone would be talking about how well he batted for 102. If Jones is given out for 35 when we had him out, noone would say how well he batted for 85. It would be like Hayden getting given not out in the first innings when he was plumb, then going on to get 60 or so... if that happened everyone would be saying how well Haydo batted.

England played better cricket...however if every decision was correctly made in the match, i have no doubt australia would of won. (Ponting,Martyn,Katich robbed out.... Flintoff out in both innings given not out , Jones out given not out)