Umpire Hill

[jzfredricks]

had an excellent Test. Well done! I'd like to see more of him.

[jzfredricks]

[Andrew Dunford]

"jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:220c7477-d091-4485...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

> had an excellent Test. Well done! I'd like to see more of him.

Which is another way of saying that Harper was poor and is being found out
by the review system.

Between them, the umpires should not have allowed Trott and Collingwood to
return to the wrong ends after the morning drinks break.

Andrew

[dechucka]

"Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifax.net> wrote in message
news:7qn12c...@mid.individual.net...

>
>
> "jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:220c7477-d091-4485...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>> had an excellent Test. Well done! I'd like to see more of him.
>
> Which is another way of saying that Harper was poor and is being found out
> by the review system.

Actually it is not it is saying Hill had an excellent Test. Harper is not
mentioned

[dechucka]

"dechucka" <vo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a5idnYFQV6n7z9vW...@westnet.com.au...

Oh and throw in a comma somewhere
>

[jzfredricks]

> Which is another way of saying that Harper was poor and is being found out
> by the review system.

Infer away, if you insist. I'm sure other readers will understand that
it wasn't my intention to imply this.

> Between them, the umpires should not have allowed Trott and Collingwood to
> return to the wrong ends after the morning drinks break.

Sounds like a boo-boo. I did see him make some bloody awesome
decisions, though. Ones that mattered, ie appeals. Real tough ones,
too.

[HVS]

On 07 Jan 2010, jzfredricks wrote

>> Which is another way of saying that Harper was poor and is
>> being found out by the review system.
>
> Infer away, if you insist. I'm sure other readers will
> understand that it wasn't my intention to imply this.

FWIW, I didn't infer that from your post -- but that said, at least
two of Harper's calls were absolute stinkers, rightfully overturned;
not a very reassuring testament to his umpiring skills.

--
Cheers,
Harvey

[Andrew Dunford]

"jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:475c2fa6-92c0-467f...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...

>> Which is another way of saying that Harper was poor and is being found
>> out
>> by the review system.
>
> Infer away, if you insist. I'm sure other readers will understand that
> it wasn't my intention to imply this.

I know - it was just a good chance for me to piggyback about Harper. Too
lazy to start a new thread.

>> Between them, the umpires should not have allowed Trott and Collingwood
>> to
>> return to the wrong ends after the morning drinks break.
>
> Sounds like a boo-boo. I did see him make some bloody awesome
> decisions, though. Ones that mattered, ie appeals. Real tough ones,
> too.

I thought he was only average when first appointed to the panel, and don't
get to see him much now because most of the coverage shown here is of NZ
matches.

I will however dispute the implication that the batsmen returning to the
wrong ends doesn't matter. Such a decision is responsible for rewriting
the entire course of the match from that moment onwards.

Andrew

[jzfredricks]

> I will however dispute the implication that the batsmen returning to the
> wrong ends doesn't matter.  

boo-boo = mistake

[Andrew Dunford]

"jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:c55a4bd8-a316-4b5d...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

>> I will however dispute the implication that the batsmen returning to the
>> wrong ends doesn't matter.
>
> boo-boo = mistake

I inferred from "Ones that mattered, ie appeals" that the aforementioned
mistake over ends didn't really matter.

Andrew