Jupiter Jazz Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Ramdin made an appeal he knew to be false, not the sane as alerting the umpire to an error. Ramdin never appealed he just didn't let on to anyone he spilt it. Anyways cheating is cheating. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 (edited) it's good to see the english showing themselves to be arseholes over this. argar - it goes straight to the 3rd umpire, the evidence is inconclusive, got to be not out. trott. australia go to DRS. the 3rd ump follows the process and all the available results point to out. he had no other choice. broad - blatant cheating. giving yourself a healthy benefit of the doubt is one thing, what he did is completely dishonest. the trott decision sums up why i'm against instant replay or any technology that involves broadcasting companies in football. the hotspot camera wasn't on at the required time because of a sky editorial decision. test cricket is obviously inconsequential but imagine a national broadcaster standing to make millions if their team makes it to the world cup controlling the technology in a play off game? Edited July 12, 2013 by T_S_A_R 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Skidmarks Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 it's good to see the english showing themselves to be arseholes over this. argar - it goes straight to the 3rd umpire, the evidence is inconclusive, got to be not out. trott. australia go to DRS. the 3rd ump follows the process and all the available results point to out. he had no other choice. broad - blatant cheating. giving yourself a healthy benefit of the doubt is one thing, what he did is completely dishonest. the trott decision sums up why i'm against instant replay or any technology that involves broadcasting companies in football. the hotspot camera wasn't on at the required time because of a sky editorial decision. test cricket is obviously inconsequential but imagine a national broadcaster standing to make millions if their team makes it to the world cup controlling the technology in a play off game? Hotspot was invented and is run by an Australian that works for Sky and Fox Australia. Not that I think this had anything to do with it not being recorded, I listened to an interview where he said that they were re-running the Root dismissal and it was human error that caused Trotts dismissal not to be recorded. If all the required technology is not available them the umpires decision should be final. Broad although what he did wasnt exactly moral, was within his rights to stand, I think he should have walked though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 As much as I like & rate Broad as a cricketer.....he should have walked. People talk about which Aussies would have walked.....Adam Gilchrist would have for sure. On the plus side it should fire up the Aussies & may even make it a closer series 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Skidmarks Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 As much as I like & rate Broad as a cricketer.....he should have walked. People talk about which Aussies would have walked.....Adam Gilchrist would have for sure. On the plus side it should fire up the Aussies & may even make it a closer series Its obvious Broad should have walked, he however is entitled to stay and shouldnt be punished for Aleem Dars mistake. Clarke wasted his reviews on silly appeals especially on the one from Watson that was nowhere near the wicket. This should spice up the game as you mentioned, this is why the Ashes is the best series in Cricket. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Hotspot was invented and is run by an Australian that works for Sky and Fox Australia. Not that I think this had anything to do with it not being recorded, I listened to an interview where he said that they were re-running the Root dismissal and it was human error that caused Trotts dismissal not to be recorded. If all the required technology is not available them the umpires decision should be final. Broad although what he did wasnt exactly moral, was within his rights to stand, I think he should have walked though. the DRS protocol is agreed in advance of the match. they go with what is available and in the trott decision they had a good ball, hitting the pads, hitting the stumps and nothing on one hotspot or snicko. the third umpire has no other choice but to give out, he is basically ticking boxes agreed by the two nations before the test match. england greeting about DRS being applied to the letter after moaning so much about india not using it is rank hypocrisy. their attitude about broad not walking also stinks after invoking 'the spirit of the game' when the indians got bell out a couple of years ago. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Its obvious Broad should have walked, he however is entitled to stay and shouldnt be punished for Aleem Dars mistake. Clarke wasted his reviews on silly appeals especially on the one from Watson that was nowhere near the wicket. This should spice up the game as you mentioned, this is why the Ashes is the best series in Cricket. Totally agree that the Ashes is the best series in World cricket......and agree that Broad is perfectly entitled to stay but cricket is always put up there with golf in that "integrity & honesty" is an unwritten rule. Great stuff so far...long may it continue! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Skidmarks Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 the DRS protocol is agreed in advance of the match. they go with what is available and in the trott decision they had a good ball, hitting the pads, hitting the stumps and nothing on one hotspot or snicko. the third umpire has no other choice but to give out, he is basically ticking boxes agreed by the two nations before the test match. england greeting about DRS being applied to the letter after moaning so much about india not using it is rank hypocrisy. their attitude about broad not walking also stinks after invoking 'the spirit of the game' when the indians got bell out a couple of years ago. I know DRS is agreed before the game and it is a normally successful review system, similar to the one they have in tennis. However the onfield umpires decision is always final, if one piece of technology is faulty and it is inconclusive whether Trott got an inside edge then the onfield umpire gets the final say. The third umpire is there to check every available resource, when one of them isnt available then he cant overturn the onfield umpire who for all he knows might have heard a nick. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtie23 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Broad is a class A w****r 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Broad is a class A w****r Too far. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 I know DRS is agreed before the game and it is a normally successful review system, similar to the one they have in tennis. However the onfield umpires decision is always final, if one piece of technology is faulty and it is inconclusive whether Trott got an inside edge then the onfield umpire gets the final say. The third umpire is there to check every available resource, when one of them isnt available then he cant overturn the onfield umpire who for all he knows might have heard a nick. as i understand it if one component is unavailable then it is discounted in the decision making process. ie. the third umpire had to make his decision on the sources that were working. is that not the case? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jupiter Jazz Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 On the Trott one surely Rasmus or whatever his name is could see the deviation from the close up replays - it was a clear inside edge - and didn't actually need hot spot. Was he aware at the time that hot spot wasn't working? If he was then his decision is even more baffling. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Skidmarks Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 as i understand it if one component is unavailable then it is discounted in the decision making process. ie. the third umpire had to make his decision on the sources that were working. is that not the case? DRS was supposed to be a conclusive result to an appeal that was a result of the onfield umpire missing something. It takes away the power from the umpire as it gets abused constantly ( today being a fine example when Clarke run out of appeals when he really needed it) If the case is inconclusive then it reverts to the onfield umpires decision, similar to when LBWs always go back to the umpires decision when it looks like its skiffing offstump. I'm not goimg to pretend I understand the smallprint of the system but from what I have read and seen I understood that the third umpire was there to assist the umpire and not over rule him without it being conclusive. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lex Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Been an excellent test so far. Decisions evened themselves out, Trott shouldn't have been out, Broad should have. Think Agar deserved the benefit of the doubt. All set up for a fantastic day tomorrow. Australia need the 4 wickets early and their top order needs to step up, Johnston in particular. I think they're still marginal favourites. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Been an excellent test so far. Decisions evened themselves out, Trott shouldn't have been out, Broad should have. Think Agar deserved the benefit of the doubt. All set up for a fantastic day tomorrow. Australia need the 4 wickets early and their top order needs to step up, Johnston in particular. I think they're still marginal favourites. Really? On a pitch that is desintigating? My money is on England especially if the can get another 59-75 runs. Onions will play a major part in the Aussie 2nd innings....esp when you consider the numbr of left handed batsmen the Aussies have. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Skidmarks Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Really? On a pitch that is desintigating? My money is on England especially if the can get another 59-75 runs. Onions will play a major part in the Aussie 2nd innings....esp when you consider the numbr of left handed batsmen the Aussies have. Swann? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lex Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Really? On a pitch that is desintigating? My money is on England especially if the can get another 59-75 runs. Onions will play a major part in the Aussie 2nd innings....esp when you consider the numbr of left handed batsmen the Aussies have. Pitch played excellently today, the Aussies have said they can't wait to get on it and bat tomorrow. I expect England to be all out within the hour tomorrow and the Aussie charge to begin. The key will be their top order, if they can put a few long partnerships together i think they'll edge it. On a knife edge though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Swann? Apologies....yes Swann. Brain fart moment! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Pitch played excellently today, the Aussies have said they can't wait to get on it and bat tomorrow. I expect England to be all out within the hour tomorrow and the Aussie charge to begin. The key will be their top order, if they can put a few long partnerships together i think they'll edge it. On a knife edge though. Thing is the batting is the Aussies big weakness. Their bowling can possibly keep up for periods of a test but Englands depth in the batting rightly makes them favorates.....today just shows this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utdtillidie Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Think it's in the bag already for England. Anderson and Swann will rip into them once they have built up a lead of around 350. As for Broad technically he did nothing wrong but it goes against the values of the game. Would any of the Aussie's walked? No. By the looks of things some people think that because one Aussie walked during his career everyone else should, conveniently forgetting the thousands of ones that didn't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.