collapse collapse

Please donate to help towards the costs of keeping this site going. Thank You.

Recent Topics

Boubacar Kamara by London Villan
[Today at 09:29:34 AM]


Ezri Konsa by Hookeysmith
[Today at 09:12:38 AM]


Matty Cash by chrisw1
[Today at 09:08:18 AM]


The combined Maccabi thread - now with are you going? poll by ChicagoLion
[Today at 08:34:13 AM]


Wake me up when it's over by Lucky Eddie
[Today at 08:18:57 AM]


I know none of you care but ........ (the Baseball thread) by Meanwood Villa
[Today at 08:15:42 AM]


Other Games 2025-26 by ChicagoLion
[Today at 07:57:35 AM]


Evann Guessand by Percy McCarthy
[Today at 02:04:38 AM]

Recent Posts

Re: Boubacar Kamara by London Villan
[Today at 09:29:34 AM]


Re: Ezri Konsa by Hookeysmith
[Today at 09:12:38 AM]


Re: Boubacar Kamara by stevo_st
[Today at 09:10:27 AM]


Re: Matty Cash by chrisw1
[Today at 09:08:18 AM]


Re: Boubacar Kamara by TelfordVilla
[Today at 08:56:46 AM]


Re: The combined Maccabi thread - now with are you going? poll by ChicagoLion
[Today at 08:34:13 AM]


Re: Boubacar Kamara by thick_mike
[Today at 08:22:15 AM]


Re: Wake me up when it's over by Lucky Eddie
[Today at 08:18:57 AM]

Follow us on...

Author Topic: The Cricket Thread 2013  (Read 555056 times)

Online PaulWinch again

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 56058
  • Location: winchester
  • GM : 25.05.2026
Re: The Cricket Thread 2013
« Reply #3195 on: August 10, 2013, 12:59:12 PM »
We really need to stem the flow of runs, we can't afford any partnership to get away.

Online PaulWinch again

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 56058
  • Location: winchester
  • GM : 25.05.2026
Re: The Cricket Thread 2013
« Reply #3196 on: August 10, 2013, 01:03:59 PM »
As has been the case this series we have one bowler bowling well and the rest not great.

Online paul_e

  • Member
  • Posts: 37845
  • Age: 45
  • GM : July, 2013
Re: The Cricket Thread 2013
« Reply #3197 on: August 10, 2013, 01:05:58 PM »
The rogers decision comes down to the way the request was made and probably should be handled by a prompt from the 3rd umpire.  When it went for review the on-field will have stated what they gave it out for, the TV umpire should, in that situation, ask if they want to consider the lbw if there is no edge.  By not asking the implied 'umpire's call' has to be that he wouldn't have given it out for lbw, meaning that the benefit of the doubt was with the batsman.

This is another case where a dedicated TV umpire would be better suited than the current rotation process.

Online PaulWinch again

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 56058
  • Location: winchester
  • GM : 25.05.2026
Re: The Cricket Thread 2013
« Reply #3198 on: August 10, 2013, 01:08:12 PM »
I've seen nothing so far to suggest that Bresnan was a better selection than Onions.

Offline taylorsworkrate

  • Member
  • Posts: 7957
  • Location: Summer Lovin Torture Party
Re: The Cricket Thread 2013
« Reply #3199 on: August 10, 2013, 01:19:35 PM »
The rogers decision comes down to the way the request was made and probably should be handled by a prompt from the 3rd umpire.  When it went for review the on-field will have stated what they gave it out for, the TV umpire should, in that situation, ask if they want to consider the lbw if there is no edge.  By not asking the implied 'umpire's call' has to be that he wouldn't have given it out for lbw, meaning that the benefit of the doubt was with the batsman.

This is another case where a dedicated TV umpire would be better suited than the current rotation process.

I think the rule needs changing. Regardless of the original reason for being out, there should be absolute proof that giving a batsmen out was completely wrong in all aspects

Online paul_e

  • Member
  • Posts: 37845
  • Age: 45
  • GM : July, 2013
Re: The Cricket Thread 2013
« Reply #3200 on: August 10, 2013, 01:44:05 PM »
The rogers decision comes down to the way the request was made and probably should be handled by a prompt from the 3rd umpire.  When it went for review the on-field will have stated what they gave it out for, the TV umpire should, in that situation, ask if they want to consider the lbw if there is no edge.  By not asking the implied 'umpire's call' has to be that he wouldn't have given it out for lbw, meaning that the benefit of the doubt was with the batsman.

This is another case where a dedicated TV umpire would be better suited than the current rotation process.

I think the rule needs changing. Regardless of the original reason for being out, there should be absolute proof that giving a batsmen out was completely wrong in all aspects

I agree completely.  Just explaining why it wasn't out, he was saved by a technicality.

PWA - surely Bresnan deserves a little more than 18 balls before you make a statement like that.

Online paul_e

  • Member
  • Posts: 37845
  • Age: 45
  • GM : July, 2013
Re: The Cricket Thread 2013
« Reply #3201 on: August 10, 2013, 01:48:20 PM »
The rogers decision comes down to the way the request was made and probably should be handled by a prompt from the 3rd umpire.  When it went for review the on-field will have stated what they gave it out for, the TV umpire should, in that situation, ask if they want to consider the lbw if there is no edge.  By not asking the implied 'umpire's call' has to be that he wouldn't have given it out for lbw, meaning that the benefit of the doubt was with the batsman.

This is another case where a dedicated TV umpire would be better suited than the current rotation process.

I think the rule needs changing. Regardless of the original reason for being out, there should be absolute proof that giving a batsmen out was completely wrong in all aspects

I agree completely.  Just explaining why it wasn't out, he was saved by a technicality.

PWA - surely Bresnan deserves a little more than 18 balls before you make a statement like that.

4 more to be exact!

:D

Offline taylorsworkrate

  • Member
  • Posts: 7957
  • Location: Summer Lovin Torture Party
Re: The Cricket Thread 2013
« Reply #3202 on: August 10, 2013, 01:50:50 PM »
We're getting back into a reasonable position in this game, but how the batsmen must be ruing the horrendous way they played yesterday, particularly against the non spin of Lyon.

Online paul_e

  • Member
  • Posts: 37845
  • Age: 45
  • GM : July, 2013
Re: The Cricket Thread 2013
« Reply #3203 on: August 10, 2013, 01:56:37 PM »
Broad looks far too good for them here, bit more muck and he could be doing better as well.

Offline taylorsworkrate

  • Member
  • Posts: 7957
  • Location: Summer Lovin Torture Party
Re: The Cricket Thread 2013
« Reply #3204 on: August 10, 2013, 02:08:18 PM »
Bresnan bowling a much better line now

Online paul_e

  • Member
  • Posts: 37845
  • Age: 45
  • GM : July, 2013
Re: The Cricket Thread 2013
« Reply #3205 on: August 10, 2013, 02:10:17 PM »
unlucky for bres there, very nearly got him c&b, very very tough chance though.

Offline KevinGage

  • Member
  • Posts: 14193
  • Location: Singing from under the floorboards
  • GM : 20.09.20
Re: The Cricket Thread 2013
« Reply #3206 on: August 10, 2013, 02:17:52 PM »
Can't be passing up those kind of chances.

Offline taylorsworkrate

  • Member
  • Posts: 7957
  • Location: Summer Lovin Torture Party
Re: The Cricket Thread 2013
« Reply #3207 on: August 10, 2013, 02:20:53 PM »
Having absolutely no luck at the moment. Rogers should definitely purchase his lottery ticket tonight

Offline taylorsworkrate

  • Member
  • Posts: 7957
  • Location: Summer Lovin Torture Party
Re: The Cricket Thread 2013
« Reply #3208 on: August 10, 2013, 04:41:40 PM »
Pitch is looking rather flat now.

Offline taylorsworkrate

  • Member
  • Posts: 7957
  • Location: Summer Lovin Torture Party
Re: The Cricket Thread 2013
« Reply #3209 on: August 10, 2013, 05:02:08 PM »
Think our luck is going to run out and we'll lose this one

 


SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal