09 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by CrowleyWith the current system we already have teams "gambling" with their first referral. I wouldn't like to see teams given more, as it would make that worse.
Referrals are here to stay and I'm behind them 100%. In this professional sports day and age, I'm surprised the system took so long to get off the ground.
I'd actually like to see the system refined further, in that both sides get an extra review per session of play.
I've heard one suggestion which makes some sense, though, which might be a compromise. At the moment the original decision only gets overturned if it's clearly wrong (which I agree with). Which means that in a borderline case the decision stands and the referral is lost.
The suggestion was that in a borderline case the decision should stand but the referral shouldn't be lost. The idea is to avoid encouraging spurious appeals, but not to penalise sensible ones. For example, there was a case in the last test where the appeal was eventually shown to be correct, but the technology wasn't available to the third umpire. Fair enough - that's how it goes - but shouldn't they have got the referral back?
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by mtthwInteresting.
With the current system we already have teams "gambling" with their first referral. I wouldn't like to see teams given more, as it would make that worse.
I've heard one suggestion which makes some sense, though, which might be a compromise. At the moment the original decision only gets overturned if it's clearly wrong (which I agree with). Which means ...[text shortened]... ire. Fair enough - that's how it goes - but shouldn't they have got the referral back?
I'd still like to see teams getting an extra review per completed session, but possibly only start out with 1 or 2. So what if teams gamble on one or two decisions a match? These are tests we're talking about here, played over 5 days.
Another refinement I'd like to see is punishment for slow over rates. For every 2 overs under the rate, the team loses 1 review in their current or next innings, in conjunction with the current match fee penalties etc.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by MarinkatombI've heard rumours of Warne coming out of retirement. If so, it'll be 2-1, possibly 3-1, to the Ozzies; if not, which frankly seems the more likely, it'll be 3-0 or 4-0 for the Poms.
England 4-0, that's my prediction. Don't want to sound over confident but all the early signs point towards a complete whitewash atm, and i might just add that it's about time the boot swung back the other way for a change!
Richard
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by Shallow BlueWhen I suggested he could be 'talked into a return,' it was laughed at or noted as 'more than highly unrealistic'..but I'm a great fan and the mere notion gets my heart racing 🙂
I've heard rumours of Warne coming out of retirement. If so, it'll be 2-1, possibly 3-1, to the Ozzies; if not, which frankly seems the more likely, it'll be 3-0 or 4-0 for the Poms.
Richard
09 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Shallow Blueshows how desprate the Aussies are!!! 😏
I've heard rumours of Warne coming out of retirement. If so, it'll be 2-1, possibly 3-1, to the Ozzies; if not, which frankly seems the more likely, it'll be 3-0 or 4-0 for the Poms.
Richard
England are on a high and will really rub their faces in it.
10 Dec 10
Originally posted by RevRSleekerWarnie's probably looking at the odds closely, clutching his credit card.
'bringbackwarne.com' is a curious affair, $1m doesn't seem enough, multiples thereof I'd have thought ...I can't see him being fit enough myself but Warne's tweets are typically mischievous lol, I've just read a few...6-1 the odds on a return.
11 Dec 10
Originally posted by homeaboveYour assesment is right, however, as Robbie pointed out, The Aussies let em off the hook in the first test.
I don't want to sound cynical, but when a side wins a match by an innings and 71 runs, I don't think luck really comes into it.
If I was Australian, I would be worried about the impotency of the bowling attack: They don't look like being capable of taking 20 wickets, or even putting England under a sustained period of pressure with tight bowling, maidens etc.
However, as an Englishman, I am not too concerned!
England have been the better team, but the aussie selectors should share the blame.
They prepare Hauritz for the ashes, then drop. Johnson, one great strike bowler who could swing a match, was left out because of one bad performance.
There is no confidence in the bowling (or batting ) when players are playing for their spots in the team, rather than playing for the team.
Ponting is crap when the chips are down, unlike Border or Waugh.
And basically they're going to toss the ball to a new spinner (Beer) in hope, rather than any confidence in his form.
I'm glad they put Smith in. He is the future. Lets blood him, let him get smashed for 0/100 and then stick with him. He has the skill to hold his position as a bowler, let alone his batting. He should've been playing in the first test, rather than give Doherty a chance after a 20/20 performance...Terrible.
The media...The captain...the bowlers...
And they were going to drop Hussey...
What is going on?
11 Dec 10
Originally posted by CrowleyAgreed. There is much improvement needed.
You raise an interesting point.
Will be funny to see the number 11 batsman - needing just 10 runs for victory, or having to survive just a few more overs or something similar - calling for a referral after being cleaned up and then getting the decision reversed because it's a close-call no-ball.
Oh man, I can hear the 'purists' wail already.
Referra ...[text shortened]... per session of play.
Let's at least attempt to get the correct result with every call.
I remember Harris clearly hitting the ball and being given out, despite the technology showing he clearly hit it. It probably wouldn't have made a difference to the result, but when the whole crowd (including the barmy army) could see he hit the ball and the third umpire, with all his technology couldn't , you have to wonder...
11 Dec 10
Originally posted by Shallow BlueNo,no...Warny is not an option.
I've heard rumours of Warne coming out of retirement. If so, it'll be 2-1, possibly 3-1, to the Ozzies; if not, which frankly seems the more likely, it'll be 3-0 or 4-0 for the Poms.
Richard
Even the mention of such an idea shows what a crappy state the aussies are in 🙁
11 Dec 10
Originally posted by karoly aczela friend told me that all Warney has to do is flash his pearly whites and he will blind the English batsmen, who cares if he can bowl, just smile 🙂
No,no...Warny is not an option.
Even the mention of such an idea shows what a crappy state the aussies are in 🙁
11 Dec 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHe was a fantastic player in his day , but i think it would be like Benny Hill with a blonde wig on facing you now, with all the pie's he's been munching !!
a friend told me that all Warney has to do is flash his pearly whites and he will blind the English batsmen, who cares if he can bowl, just smile 🙂
14 Dec 10
Originally posted by SiskinLets get Boony to open in place of the injured Simon Katich, after all he holds the alltime beer consumed on one international flight (52 ,n.o.)
Warne 1,319 first class wickets at 26.11 vs Beer 16 first class wickets at 39.93, bit of a come down.
Warne isn't coming back, but just to make sure England have sent agent Vanessa Kensington on the case. The Ashes are staying in Blighty. Groovy Baby.
14 Dec 10
Originally posted by karoly aczelI read that the Aussies have not been beaten at the Waka since 1978 in an ashes test, long may it continue! I predict an Aussie win, or errmm, a riot!
Lets get Boony to open in place of the injured Simon Katich, after all he holds the alltime beer consumed on one international flight (52 ,n.o.)