DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
MT Lives!
HTML https://mtlives.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2589--------------------------------------------------
Cricket question
By: Muscle Date: July 11, 2019, 5:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
England bowler lands the ball and it hits the batters pad.
LBW is called but umpire says no.
England called for a review.
Video review indicates the ball would have hit the stumps.
The decisionis is still not overturned.
Why is this? Is it because the ball wasn't in alignment when it
hit the ground before hitting the stumps. If so why would that
matter because the ball still would have hit the stumps.
#Post#: 2604--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cricket question
By: dirtyvest Date: July 11, 2019, 10:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Do the video refs see the same video review footage they use on
TV showing predicted ball path etc? Or do they just see a simple
replay of the action to decide if it's obvious enough of a
missed call to over-ride the field umpires decision?
#Post#: 2613--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cricket question
By: billy2shots Date: July 11, 2019, 11:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Muscle link=topic=137.msg2589#msg2589
date=1562841483]
England bowler lands the ball and it hits the batters pad.
LBW is called but umpire says no.
England called for a review.
Video review indicates the ball would have hit the stumps.
The decisionis is still not overturned.
Why is this? Is it because the ball wasn't in alignment when it
hit the ground before hitting the stumps. If so why would that
matter because the ball still would have hit the stumps.
[/quote]
Lots of potential reasons so without seeing that particular ball
it’s hard t call.
- did the ball pitch (hit the ground) outside of leg stump.
- did the ball hit the pad in line with the stumps
- did the ball touch any bat/glove before hitting the pad.
If everything above is fine then
- was the bowlers front foot over the no ball line when he
bowled
The most crucial
- was the ball going to just graze the stumps. Because the
umpire has made a decision, 51% of the ball has to be hitting
the wickets for his decision to be reversed. If less than 51%
the the video umpire will stick with the on field decision.
#Post#: 2614--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cricket question
By: Muscle Date: July 11, 2019, 11:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=dirtyvest link=topic=137.msg2604#msg2604
date=1562858650]
Do the video refs see the same video review footage they use on
TV showing predicted ball path etc? Or do they just see a simple
replay of the action to decide if it's obvious enough of a
missed call to over-ride the field umpires decision?
[/quote]
Yeah video refs see the predicted ball path. Its because the
ball wasn't in lineament of the stumps when it hit the ground.
Must be that. Almost certain its that. Can't see why that
matters. What should matter is the ball ends up.
#Post#: 2615--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cricket question
By: ANIMAL Date: July 11, 2019, 12:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
All this new fangled technology.. it’s just not cricket!
I really detest the video refs. In the old days when the games
were invented(football, rugby, cricket etc).. you learnt that
refs decision is final, you respected it and the ref. If it was
a bad call, you lived with it. Now anyone can challenge a ref.
I liken it to the failing of society. Kids don’t respect
coppers, teachers, and they grow up to not respect a gentleman’s
sport so they invent ways to get round it with technology when
they get older!
Ba
#Post#: 2618--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cricket question
By: Muscle Date: July 11, 2019, 12:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=billy2shots link=topic=137.msg2613#msg2613
date=1562863430]
[quote author=Muscle link=topic=137.msg2589#msg2589
date=1562841483]
England bowler lands the ball and it hits the batters pad.
LBW is called but umpire says no.
England called for a review.
Video review indicates the ball would have hit the stumps.
The decisionis is still not overturned.
Why is this? Is it because the ball wasn't in alignment when it
hit the ground before hitting the stumps. If so why would that
matter because the ball still would have hit the stumps.
[/quote]
Lots of potential reasons so without seeing that particular ball
it’s hard t call.
- did the ball pitch (hit the ground) outside of leg stump.
- did the ball hit the pad in line with the stumps
- did the ball touch any bat/glove before hitting the pad.
If everything above is fine then
- was the bowlers front foot over the no ball line when he
bowled
The most crucial
- was the ball going to just graze the stumps. Because the
umpire has made a decision, 51% of the ball has to be hitting
the wickets for his decision to be reversed. If less than 51%
the the video umpire will stick with the on field decision.
[/quote]
It might be the last one there mate. It amazes me in cricket
there is always something new to learn. All the names for the
positions, all the terminology involved even the weather can
interfere and decide the outcome of some games lol. I can
actually watch one day international and 20/20 with a bet on.
But for me all matches should be done in a day and have the
music playing ect. I can't watch test cricket.
did the ball pitch (hit the ground) outside of leg stump.
Wouldn't that have made it a wide? It wasn't a wide. They put
that blue line on screen. the ball wasn't hitting the stumps on
the bonce, but direction change after the bonce.
did the ball hit the pad in line with the stumps
Ball did hit the pad in line with the stumps, but only after the
bonce.
did the ball touch any bat/glove before hitting the pad
No bat/glove before hitting the pad
was the bowlers front foot over the no ball line when he bowled
Fair delivery
Only the bottom part of the ball would have hit the wickets, so
it might be classed as graze of the stumps. I t was high on the
stumps from what I remember.
None of it matter anyway from a betting point of view England
won and I hope they win in the final against new Zealand. Thanks
for that last suggestion though somehting else I didn't know in
cricket lol
#Post#: 2619--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cricket question
By: dirtyvest Date: July 11, 2019, 12:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=ANIMAL link=topic=137.msg2615#msg2615
date=1562864862]
All this new fangled technology.. it’s just not cricket!
I really detest the video refs. In the old days when the games
were invented(football, rugby, cricket etc).. you learnt that
refs decision is final, you respected it and the ref. If it was
a bad call, you lived with it. Now anyone can challenge a ref.
I liken it to the failing of society. Kids don’t respect
coppers, teachers, and they grow up to not respect a gentleman’s
sport so they invent ways to get round it with technology when
they get older!
Ba
[/quote]
The problem is that now there is a lot of money to be made in
and around sport, we can all see it on TV for ourselves and the
sports media can replay and breakdown every single missed call
or wrong call from every conceivable angle. The result of which
constantly puts the jobs of referees and umpires in to question
and can greatly exacerbate any bad call especially if it results
in a championship result being decided.
When the games where invented you would never know for certain
if a call is right or wrong other than what you thought in your
head - and everyone's view would differ.... today we can now
confirm the decision as good or bad within seconds.
When the games where invented you only lost or won for pride....
now you win for fame and money beyond most people's wildest
dreams.
When the games where invented officials had little to gain from
'favourable' calls.... now corruption can make some people very
wealthy indeed.
Not saying it's a good or bad thing, but this is why it has
become a thing I think
#Post#: 2620--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cricket question
By: Muscle Date: July 11, 2019, 12:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=ANIMAL link=topic=137.msg2615#msg2615
date=1562864862]
All this new fangled technology.. it’s just not cricket!
I really detest the video refs. In the old days when the games
were invented(football, rugby, cricket etc).. you learnt that
refs decision is final, you respected it and the ref. If it was
a bad call, you lived with it. Now anyone can challenge a ref.
I liken it to the failing of society. Kids don’t respect
coppers, teachers, and they grow up to not respect a gentleman’s
sport so they invent ways to get round it with technology when
they get older!
Ba
[/quote]
Its essential in cricket. To many decisions would be wrong. If
someone is runout it must go upstairs if its close. Why not get
it right? Countless things really. I like VAR ect for crucial
decisions in football and goal line tech. Better to have the
correct decision for certain situations.
#Post#: 2621--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cricket question
By: billy2shots Date: July 11, 2019, 12:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Muscle link=topic=137.msg2618#msg2618
date=1562865204]
[quote author=billy2shots link=topic=137.msg2613#msg2613
date=1562863430]
[quote author=Muscle link=topic=137.msg2589#msg2589
date=1562841483]
England bowler lands the ball and it hits the batters pad.
LBW is called but umpire says no.
England called for a review.
Video review indicates the ball would have hit the stumps.
The decisionis is still not overturned.
Why is this? Is it because the ball wasn't in alignment when it
hit the ground before hitting the stumps. If so why would that
matter because the ball still would have hit the stumps.
[/quote]
Lots of potential reasons so without seeing that particular ball
it’s hard t call.
- did the ball pitch (hit the ground) outside of leg stump.
- did the ball hit the pad in line with the stumps
- did the ball touch any bat/glove before hitting the pad.
If everything above is fine then
- was the bowlers front foot over the no ball line when he
bowled
The most crucial
- was the ball going to just graze the stumps. Because the
umpire has made a decision, 51% of the ball has to be hitting
the wickets for his decision to be reversed. If less than 51%
the the video umpire will stick with the on field decision.
[/quote]
It might be the last one there mate. It amazes me in cricket
there is always something new to learn. All the names for the
positions, all the terminology involved even the weather can
interfere and decide the outcome of some games lol. I can
actually watch one day international and 20/20 with a bet on.
But for me all matches should be done in a day and have the
music playing ect. I can't watch test cricket.
did the ball pitch (hit the ground) outside of leg stump.
Wouldn't that have made it a wide? It wasn't a wide. They put
that blue line on screen. the ball wasn't hitting the stumps on
the bonce, but direction change after the bonce.
did the ball hit the pad in line with the stumps
Ball did hit the pad in line with the stumps, but only after the
bonce.
did the ball touch any bat/glove before hitting the pad
No bat/glove before hitting the pad
was the bowlers front foot over the no ball line when he bowled
Fair delivery
Only the bottom part of the ball would have hit the wickets, so
it might be classed as graze of the stumps. I t was high on the
stumps from what I remember.
None of it matter anyway from a betting point of view England
won and I hope they win in the final against new Zealand. Thanks
for that last suggestion though somehting else I didn't know in
cricket lol
[/quote]
Just watching the highlights. We reviewed an lbw that was just
clipping the bails so I guess that’s the delivery you are
talking about.
Because it’s not a clear umpire mistake they stick with the
umpires on field decision.
RE the ball pitching outside leg being a wide. The ball can
pitch wherever. The important bit is where it passes the
batsman. As long as the bowler bowls within his marlins he can
pitch it outside leg at an angle that then reaches the batsmen
as a legal delivery. That totally rules out lbw though due to
the rules.
#Post#: 2622--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cricket question
By: dirtyvest Date: July 11, 2019, 12:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Could probably also add to my reasonings is that the nature of
most games has also changed since their invention. Technological
advancements in equipment and scientific advances in performance
mean that games are quicker, and faster, balls etc move more and
move differently making the calling of a game more difficult.
I do struggle with video decisions that completely ruin the flow
of the game. Commentators can instantly pull up 3 or 4 different
angles confirming the call almost immediately 99% of the time,
very few seem to require extensive assessment. VAR type
referrals should be given something like a 30sec deadline
otherwise the field refs decision stands regardless - the time
it ordinarily takes to collect the ball and get ready for
whatever the next piece of game action is.
Sorry, going a bit OT now
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page