Symonds (almost) stumping
Wog George
enough even though it looked like it might have been out. After the
decision was made, they showed another replay from front on that I assume
the third umpire didn't actually see. It seemed to suggest very strongly
that Symond's foot was airborne at the time the bails were removed.
Rather than the normal replays that they have, they should have the super
slo-mo so that they can see "between the frames". They give another party
jurisdiction to make a decision but not the tools to adjudicate accurately.
--
George
"I just wonder if I could get a baby real quick?" - Hat McCullough - 10 July
2002
sdavmor
> The third umpire gave Symonds the benefit of the doubt, which
> seemed fair enough even though it looked like it might have been
> out. After the decision was made, they showed another replay from
> front on that I assume the third umpire didn't actually see. It
> seemed to suggest very strongly that Symond's foot was airborne at
> the time the bails were removed.
>
> Rather than the normal replays that they have, they should have the
> super slo-mo so that they can see "between the frames". They give
> another party jurisdiction to make a decision but not the tools to
> adjudicate accurately.
As a fan who is a technogeek I love to see everything. But the problem
with showing anything that an umpire can't use in making a decision
(like a front-on view for a side-on "line" call) is that it's
irrelevant. One day we'll get to the super-slo mo between the frames
tools in the booth, but for now it seems awfully picky to criticise an
umpire for giving the batsman the benefit of the doubt on a close call
if the available tools don't (can't) allow him to raise the finger. I
look forward to seeing the highlights so I can make by own guess as to
whether or not this was out.
--
Cheers,
SDM -- a 21st century schizoid man
Systems Theory internet music project links:
official site <www.systemstheory.net>
MySpace MP3s <www.myspace.com/systemstheory>
CDBaby <www.cdbaby.com/systemstheory>
"Soundtracks For Imaginary Movies" CD released Dec 2004
"Codetalkers" CD coming Xmas 2007
NP: nothing
Crains
> The third umpire gave Symonds the benefit of the doubt, which seemed
> fair enough even though it looked like it might have been out. After
> the decision was made, they showed another replay from front on that I
> assume the third umpire didn't actually see. It seemed to suggest very
> strongly that Symond's foot was airborne at the time the bails were
> removed.
>
> Rather than the normal replays that they have, they should have the
> super slo-mo so that they can see "between the frames". They give
> another party jurisdiction to make a decision but not the tools to
> adjudicate accurately.
The people supplying the footage to the 3rd umpire are Australians.
Enough said.
Dave -Turner
> Enough said.
That is a ridiculous statement. It is cameras that supply footage, not
people, or are you suggesting that cameras are now racist?
Australia has done more to introduce technology into the game to assist both
viewers and umpires than any other country.
RishiX
Not that I agree with the point of there being any conspiracy, but I
think "The people supplying the footage to the 3rd umpire are
Australians." was in response to "After the decision was made, they
showed another replay from front on that I
assume the third umpire didn't actually see. It seemed to suggest
very strongly that Symond's foot was airborne at the time the bails
were removed." and not anything to do with the cameras.
Geico Caveman
That's nonsense.
kethe...@gmail.com
> > The people supplying the footage to the 3rd umpire are Australians.
> > Enough said.
>
> That is a ridiculous statement. It is cameras that supply footage, not
> people, or are you suggesting that cameras are now racist?
>
who talked about racism here?
probably you are one of those, so you always think about it.
did you see clark's tinkering with the ball.
it was never shown again.
Dave -Turner
have your pantyhose in a knot from the last test?
alvey
>
> The people supplying the footage to the 3rd umpire are Australians.
> Enough said.
True, but the cameras were made in Japan.
alvey
Rodney Ulyate
> The third umpire gave Symonds the benefit of the doubt, which seemed fair
> enough even though it looked like it might have been out. After the
> decision was made, they showed another replay from front on that I assume
> the third umpire didn't actually see. It seemed to suggest very strongly
> that Symond's foot was airborne at the time the bails were removed.
> Rather than the normal replays that they have, they should have the super
> slo-mo so that they can see "between the frames". They give another party
> jurisdiction to make a decision but not the tools to adjudicate accurately.
Why do T.V. directors insist on seesawing from frame to frame instead of
simply pausing on the exact point at which the stumps are broken?
That's really all we need, but we never seem to get it long enough to
achieve unanimity.
--
Rodney Ulyate
"Don't tell me his average or his top score at Trent Bridge. How many
runs, how many wickets, did he get against Yorkshire?"
Douglas Jardine
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Wog George
"Rodney Ulyate" <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:477ba8f0$0$26054$8826...@free.teranews.com...
> Wog George reported:
>> The third umpire gave Symonds the benefit of the doubt, which seemed fair
>> enough even though it looked like it might have been out. After the
>> decision was made, they showed another replay from front on that I assume
>> the third umpire didn't actually see. It seemed to suggest very strongly
>> that Symond's foot was airborne at the time the bails were removed.
>> Rather than the normal replays that they have, they should have the super
>> slo-mo so that they can see "between the frames". They give another
>> party jurisdiction to make a decision but not the tools to adjudicate
>> accurately.
>
> Why do T.V. directors insist on seesawing from frame to frame instead of
> simply pausing on the exact point at which the stumps are broken? That's
> really all we need, but we never seem to get it long enough to achieve
> unanimity.
>
>
that shows the critical moment.
--
George
"I will be able to tell my grandkids that I hit the future monarch around
the head with a 2 pound potato." - David Robertson - 15 December 2006
Rodney Ulyate
> "Rodney Ulyate" <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:477ba8f0$0$26054$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>> Wog George reported:
>>> The third umpire gave Symonds the benefit of the doubt, which seemed fair
>>> enough even though it looked like it might have been out. After the
>>> decision was made, they showed another replay from front on that I assume
>>> the third umpire didn't actually see. It seemed to suggest very strongly
>>> that Symond's foot was airborne at the time the bails were removed.
>>> Rather than the normal replays that they have, they should have the super
>>> slo-mo so that they can see "between the frames". They give another
>>> party jurisdiction to make a decision but not the tools to adjudicate
>>> accurately.
>> Why do T.V. directors insist on seesawing from frame to frame instead of
>> simply pausing on the exact point at which the stumps are broken? That's
>> really all we need, but we never seem to get it long enough to achieve
>> unanimity.
> They need to seesaw between the frames because there is no frame in between
> that shows the critical moment.
There was a frame that looked conclusive enough to me, although it
seemed only to emerge, in circumstances that some would describe as
convenient, only after the third official had adjudicated. Or maybe (it
being ridiculously in the morning) I just wasn't paying close enough
attention.
--
Rodney Ulyate
"As harrowing occupations go, there can't be much to choose between the
Australian cricket captaincy and social work on Skid Row."
Doug Ibbotson
Rodney Ulyate
early
> in the morning) I just wasn't paying close enough attention.
--
Rodney Ulyate
"It's better to have loved and lost than to have to do forty pounds of
laundry a week."
Laurence J. Peter
qarnos
> >news:477ba8f0$0$26054$8826...@free.teranews.com...
> >> Wog George reported:
> >>> The third umpire gave Symonds the benefit of the doubt, which seemed fair
> >>> enough even though it looked like it might have been out. After the
> >>> decision was made, they showed another replay from front on that I assume
> >>> the third umpire didn't actually see. It seemed to suggest very strongly
> >>> that Symond's foot was airborne at the time the bails were removed.
> >>> Rather than the normal replays that they have, they should have the super
> >>> slo-mo so that they can see "between the frames". They give another
> >>> party jurisdiction to make a decision but not the tools to adjudicate
> >>> accurately.
> >> Why do T.V. directors insist on seesawing from frame to frame instead of
> >> simply pausing on the exact point at which the stumps are broken? That's
> >> really all we need, but we never seem to get it long enough to achieve
> >> unanimity.
> > They need to seesaw between the frames because there is no frame in between
> > that shows the critical moment.
>
> There was a frame that looked conclusive enough to me, although it
> seemed only to emerge, in circumstances that some would describe as
> convenient, only after the third official had adjudicated. Or maybe (it
> being ridiculously in the morning) I just wasn't paying close enough
> attention.
>
Your brain was probably "filling in the gaps" in between images - they
are good at that kind of thing.
Unfortunately the 3rd umpire needs a definitive frame.
Rodney Ulyate
Particularly at three in the morning without caffeine.
<snip>
--
Rodney Ulyate
"Blurry Boycott! Ah get 171, 'n' they drop me!"
Dickie Bird, rather the worse for drink at Headingley during a
county game some time in the late 'eighties/early 'nineties
Mango
"sdavmor" <sda...@fakeemailaddy.com> wrote in message
news:jqKdna3dLNBVh-ba...@iswest.net...
> Wog George wrote:
>> The third umpire gave Symonds the benefit of the doubt, which
>> seemed fair enough even though it looked like it might have been
>> out. After the decision was made, they showed another replay from
>> front on that I assume the third umpire didn't actually see. It
>> seemed to suggest very strongly that Symond's foot was airborne at
>> the time the bails were removed.
>>
>> Rather than the normal replays that they have, they should have the
>> super slo-mo so that they can see "between the frames". They give
>> another party jurisdiction to make a decision but not the tools to
>> adjudicate accurately.
>
> As a fan who is a technogeek I love to see everything. But the problem
> with showing anything that an umpire can't use in making a decision
> (like a front-on view for a side-on "line" call) is that it's
> irrelevant. One day we'll get to the super-slo mo between the frames
> tools in the booth, but for now it seems awfully picky to criticise an
> umpire for giving the batsman the benefit of the doubt on a close call
> if the available tools don't (can't) allow him to raise the finger. I
> look forward to seeing the highlights so I can make by own guess as to
> whether or not this was out.
Have you had a chance to see it now, and if you did have you come to the
same conclusion as the majority of us.
Wog George
> Wog George explained:
>> "Rodney Ulyate" <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:477ba8f0$0$26054$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>>> Wog George reported:
>>>> The third umpire gave Symonds the benefit of the doubt, which seemed
>>>> fair enough even though it looked like it might have been out. After
>>>> the decision was made, they showed another replay from front on that I
>>>> assume the third umpire didn't actually see. It seemed to suggest very
>>>> strongly that Symond's foot was airborne at the time the bails were
>>>> removed.
>>>> Rather than the normal replays that they have, they should have the
>>>> super slo-mo so that they can see "between the frames". They give
>>>> another party jurisdiction to make a decision but not the tools to
>>>> adjudicate accurately.
>>> Why do T.V. directors insist on seesawing from frame to frame instead of
>>> simply pausing on the exact point at which the stumps are broken? That's
>>> really all we need, but we never seem to get it long enough to achieve
>>> unanimity.
>> They need to seesaw between the frames because there is no frame in
>> between that shows the critical moment.
>
> There was a frame that looked conclusive enough to me, although it seemed
> only to emerge, in circumstances that some would describe as convenient,
> only after the third official had adjudicated. Or maybe (it being
> ridiculously in the morning) I just wasn't paying close enough attention.
>
>
thereabouts? I mentioned that one yesterday as being the most conclusive
and the fact that we didn't see it until the decision had been made. In
fact, I can see my post just up there a bit.
--
George
"I got such a raging clue that I almost shot clue goo all over Joe." - Frank
Hardly - 11 October 2006
sdavmor
No I haven't. Maybe tomorrow I'll acquire the highlights. Certainly by
the weekend.
Rodney Ulyate
Yebo.
> I mentioned that one yesterday as being the most conclusive and the fact
> that we didn't see it until the decision had been made. In fact, I can
> see my post just up there a bit.
<checks>
Indeed you did. Which is nice, as it shows my capacities as a nocturnal
viewer not to have entirely deserted me.
--
Rodney Ulyate
"Daft cricket. They slog your good balls and get out to your bad ones."
Matthew Hoggard