What is the point of the review system when ...
Crapats (TM)
1) The ball clearly missed the bat
2) There is no deviation of the ball after it passes the bat
3) Hot spot shows NO edge
4) Snicko shows no nick
And yet after all this the umpire still gives the batsman out! WTF!
Regarding (4), snicko does show a sound but it appears to be some
"dull" noise i.e. no typical snicko spike for an edge AND it was after
the ball had passed the bat.
jzfredricks
> 1) The ball clearly missed the bat
I find that in most of these cases it's not quite that clear. Some
people say "clearly missed", others say "clearly hit". When RSCers I
"trust" sit in both camps, it makes me realise just how hard it is to
judge.
StraightDrive
"jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f7264279-5a55-4eff...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Which proves majority of human beings like you and the RSC'ers you trust
have severe perception and judgment problems......
jzfredricks
wrote:
> Which proves majority of human beings like you and the RSC'ers you trust
> have severe perception and judgment problems......
You disappoint me SD. You used to put SOME effort into your ramblings.
Not any more....
R. Spanditt
I also felt as though it was very clear the ball missed the bat. We
were deprived.
alvey
> What is the point of the review system when replays clearly show:
>
> 1) The ball clearly missed the bat
Disagree.
> 2) There is no deviation of the ball after it passes the bat
So what? The ball won't visibly deviate off a feather.
> 3) Hot spot shows NO edge
Agreed.
> 4) Snicko shows no nick
Yes it did.
Summary: If the objective of the ICC's Byzanntine introduction of
Tech-umpiring is to reduce absolute umpiring Clangs then the disagreement
on whether or not there was a nick in this case indicates that they're on
track.
alvey
Andrew Dunford
"alvey" <al...@play.com> wrote in message
news:cq5e5ifr9sjg.10fcqcv2kosh1$.dlg@40tude.net...
Agree entirely. But the intellectually challenged amongst us seem to think
the television is doing the whole job, which it ain't.
At the same time, worth bearing in mind that by the same yardstick
Chanderpaul should not have been given out in the earlier Test.
Andrew
Crapats (TM)
> Yes it did.
Not in the conventional sense where a nick was indicated by long line
rather than short ones.
> Summary: If the objective of the ICC's Byzanntine introduction of
> Tech-umpiring is to reduce absolute umpiring Clangs then the disagreement
> on whether or not there was a nick in this case indicates that they're on
> track.
Disagree. If he did not nick it he should not have been given out.
Crapats (TM)
> Agree entirely. But the intellectually challenged amongst us seem to think
> the television is doing the whole job, which it ain't.
>
> At the same time, worth bearing in mind that by the same yardstick
> Chanderpaul should not have been given out in the earlier Test.
>
> Andrew
God I love you Dungford (TM)! You sure have a way of telling people
they are wrong!
Ian Galbraith
> What is the point of the review system when replays clearly show:
>
> 1) The ball clearly missed the bat
Except it didn't.
Case closed.
--
"We are here to drink beer. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the
church, state and educational system. We are here to kill war. We are
here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that death will
tremble to take us." - Charles Bukowski
Crapats (TM)
No, the ball missed the bat. No snicko, no hot spot and close ups
clearly show the ball missing the bat.
Case still open.
eusebius
It didn't 'clearly' miss the bat as you first posited. It was unclear,
at least to me.
Snicko showed something near at a point in time near the probable/
possible point of impact.
Perhaps there was a faint edge.
Ian Galbraith
As per your original comment the replay did not show the ball clearly
missing the bat.
--
"A man should hear a little music, read a little poetry, and see a fine
picture everyday of his life, in order that worldly cares may not
obliterate the sense of the beautiful which God has implanted in the
human soul." - Goethe
Will S
"Crapats (TM)" <crapa...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:ed5a6bbc-1c24-4cc1...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
well I have it virtually on frame by frame and its so close its hard to tell
you would really need a high speed camera to tell for certain
for me there was no definite proof that he hadn't nicked it and without
definite proof then the 3rd umpire wont overrule
btw: snicko did show a noise
Crapats (TM)
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 14:48:35 -0800 (PST), Crapats (TM) wrote:
> As per your original comment the replay did not show the ball clearly
> missing the bat.
The ball clearly missed the bat.
Crapats (TM)
> btw: snicko did show a noise
Snicko did show a sound AFTER the ball had passed the bat and the
snicko graph was not in line with normal nicks i.e. there was no sharp
spike.
Geoff Muldoon
@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Crapats (TM) says...
Clearly? You have the eyesight of Chris Martin!
GM
Crapats (TM)
wrote:
> Clearly? You have the eyesight of Chris Martin!
I don't think Fartin's (TM) eyesight is the problem ... more so his
hand/eye coordination.
Geoff Muldoon
eb36c8...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Crapats (TM) says...
"Like everyone with a New Zealand Cricket contract, Martin regularly has
his eyes tested and 18 months ago a test revealed he had a problem.
...
To expand on what he's talking about, Martin gives an example of a test
the Blacks Caps use: rows of numbers flash up on a screen with seven
numbers on each row. The numbers are on the screen for a fraction of a
second and players have to recite as many as they can. Those with faster
eyes can scan more numbers than those like Martin with slightly slower
eyes.
"I can get five or six in the top line, but a guy like Brendon McCullum
can do the whole top line and four or five of the second line; he can take
in more information visually in that split second than I ever could.
"I'd love to have a day with Brendon McCullum's eyes he just seems to pick
up the ball so quickly."
GM
R. Spanditt
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 17:50:42 -0800 (PST), Crapats (TM) wrote:
> > What is the point of the review system when replays clearly show:
>
> > 1) The ball clearly missed the bat
>
> Except it didn't.
??
You might have been watching something else? Only explanation.
R. Spanditt
Hate to admit but you're right...
The third umpire is there to make decisions, not be an indecisive
poofter. The noise was undoubtedly after the ball had passed the bat,
so the noise that Billy heard was more than likely the flicking of
gloves on pads or something. But what constitutes clear evidence for
one person will be entirely different for another...
'Ooooooooh i'm not totally sure, can't really say for certain'. If
you're going to come up with that answer, fuck off, grow some balls,
come back. You either think it was out or not out, and on the
evidence I watched Billy should have been advised that it appeared to
be clearly not out. No noise and no deviation of the seam as the ball
passed the bat.
Crapats (TM)
wrote:
> To expand on what he's talking about, Martin gives an example of a test
> the Blacks Caps use: rows of numbers flash up on a screen with seven
> numbers on each row. The numbers are on the screen for a fraction of a
> second and players have to recite as many as they can. Those with faster
> eyes can scan more numbers than those like Martin with slightly slower
> eyes.
>
> "I can get five or six in the top line, but a guy like Brendon McCullum
> can do the whole top line and four or five of the second line; he can take
> in more information visually in that split second than I ever could.
>
> "I'd love to have a day with Brendon McCullum's eyes he just seems to pick
> up the ball so quickly."
Irrelevant. Even if he had eyes like McCrapum's (TM) it would make
jack crap of a difference to his batting if he can't move the rest of
his body in time.
Crapats (TM)
> Hate to admit but you're right...
> The third umpire is there to make decisions, not be an indecisive
> poofter. The noise was undoubtedly after the ball had passed the bat,
> so the noise that Billy heard was more than likely the flicking of
> gloves on pads or something. But what constitutes clear evidence for
> one person will be entirely different for another...
>
> 'Ooooooooh i'm not totally sure, can't really say for certain'. If
> you're going to come up with that answer, fuck off, grow some balls,
> come back. You either think it was out or not out, and on the
> evidence I watched Billy should have been advised that it appeared to
> be clearly not out. No noise and no deviation of the seam as the ball
> passed the bat.
Thank you. Well said. Merry Christmas.
Bob Dubery
Here in SA what see on TV when there is a referral shows the steps
that the 3rd ump goes through. Starting with checking if the delivery
was legal or not. Then they give a point by point breakdown. EG for
LBWs they show a set of boxes that flash Green for "yes", red for "no"
and yellow for "undecided - revert to on-field call". So we will see
the "pitched on line box" then the "hit in line box" then the "would
have hit stumps" box and so on.
Calvin
wrote:
> On Dec 23, 4:21ï¿œpm, Geoff Muldoon <geoff.muld...@trap.gmail.com>
Eyesight is irrelevant to bating ability. You heard it here first.
--
cheers,
calvin
Crapats (TM)
> Eyesight is irrelevant to bating ability. You heard it here first.
Irrelevant in Fartin's (TM) case.
alvey
>>
>> Irrelevant. Even if he had eyes like McCrapum's (TM) it would make
>> jack crap of a difference to his batting if he can't move the rest of
>> his body in time.
>
> Eyesight is irrelevant to bating ability.
Wrong. It's commentating that you're thinking of...
alvey
eusebius
What's the point of an opinion, if its solely based on ignorance? I
don't know, I didn't see any other connection with bat to explain the
noise.
At first I thought, 'that's definitely not out', but after seeing the
reply with snicko, I wasn't sure.
If you like certain pronouncements, go see a born-again preacher, or a
Richard Dawkins disciple.
R. Spanditt
Most people do have the ability to make a decision based on the
evidence in front of them. Just doesn't seem like a difficult concept
to me. Make a decision based on what you can see with sufficient
justification. Stuffed if i can figure out how giving that one out can
be justified.