Dar ruins the final match
Groundhog
less. We should allow challenges for each team so that such obvious
howlers are reversed in the replay.
This match is over. England to win easily. What was set up to be a
great final match has been ruined because of umpiring incompetence.
prakmel
Did you also see how Sachin has been given out just now?
A bunch of jokers are umpires.
Might as well just have the umpires decide who they prefer to win.
And ICC still have the gall to say that the umpires get 90+% correct?
And you have posters who claim things even out.
Might as well just give the MOS award to the umpires.
max.it
wrote:
You haven't seen the SRT one yet then ?
sub...@hotmail.com
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 03:35:19 -0700, Groundhog <ramji...@netzero.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Absolute disgrace of a decision to get rid of RD. Actually I blame Dar
> >less. We should allow challenges for each team so that such obvious
> >howlers are reversed in the replay.
>
> >This match is over. England to win easily. What was set up to be a
> >great final match has been ruined because of umpiring incompetence.
>
> You haven't seen the SRT one yet then ?
>
> max.it
let us not criticise umpires, posh white boys don't like it.
Groundhog
It is not even about bozo umpires in the bigger picture. It is about
use of technology.
Nasser Hussain is one of the few comms to have the balls to directly
criticize the lack of technology. To me that is the biggest issue. I
never ever have believed that things even out or that teams should
overcome human decisions. Use technology everywhere you can. This is
no longer a back yard game. it is a multi million dollar business.
Cannot have careers ruined by bozos in umpiring clothes.
Rodney
> Absolute disgrace of a decision to get rid of RD.
Bollocks. He was out. You're letting the player's reaction dictate yours.
--
Cheers,
Rodney Ulyate
I'll take a quiet life, a handshake, some carbon monoxide.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
alvey
> Absolute disgrace of a decision to get rid of RD.
Looked out to me & Techo ump.
Besides, have you considered that if these over-rated prima donnas actually
middled the ball more frequently then they wouldn't be in this position so
fucking often?
snip whatever
alvey
Phil.
The umpire gave out Dravid caught off the back of the bat, confirmed
by technology!
SRT probably not out, noise likely from bat hitting pad.
Uthappa should have been out, definite edge.
Dhoni should have been out lbw according to Hawkeye.
So beware what you wish for.
Phil.
prakmel
> On Sep 8, 6:35 am, Groundhog <ramji...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
> > Absolute disgrace of a decision to get rid of RD. Actually I blame Dar
> > less. We should allow challenges for each team so that such obvious
> > howlers are reversed in the replay.
>
> > This match is over. England to win easily. What was set up to be a
> > great final match has been ruined because of umpiring incompetence.
>
> The umpire gave out Dravid caught off the back of the bat, confirmed
> by technology!
So another English joker.
Are you saying that the umpire actually saw this?
When it is a marginal decision against an English batsman, then the
umpire is justified in turning it down even though it is confirmed by
technology!
But the same logic doesn't apply when Englishmen are fielding.
Quite simple - different rules for different countries.
That's why we need umpires - and not technology.
QED
> SRT probably not out, noise likely from bat hitting pad.
ROFL. Probably not out!! - didn't the technology not confirm it.
> Uthappa should have been out, definite edge.
> Dhoni should have been out lbw according to Hawkeye.
>
> So beware what you wish for.
>
> Phil.
Nothing to beware of - a level playing field where the umpires are not
the MOS.
Rodney
> On Sep 8, 8:05 pm, "Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>> On Sep 8, 6:35 am, Groundhog <ramji...@netzero.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Absolute disgrace of a decision to get rid of RD. Actually I blame Dar
>>> less. We should allow challenges for each team so that such obvious
>>> howlers are reversed in the replay.
>>> This match is over. England to win easily. What was set up to be a
>>> great final match has been ruined because of umpiring incompetence.
>> The umpire gave out Dravid caught off the back of the bat, confirmed
>> by technology!
> So another English joker.
> Are you saying that the umpire actually saw this?
Who cares what the umpire saw if his decision was the right one?
prakmel
> prakmel wrote:
> > On Sep 8, 8:05 pm, "Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote:
> >> On Sep 8, 6:35 am, Groundhog <ramji...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
> >>> Absolute disgrace of a decision to get rid of RD. Actually I blame Dar
> >>> less. We should allow challenges for each team so that such obvious
> >>> howlers are reversed in the replay.
> >>> This match is over. England to win easily. What was set up to be a
> >>> great final match has been ruined because of umpiring incompetence.
> >> The umpire gave out Dravid caught off the back of the bat, confirmed
> >> by technology!
> > So another English joker.
> > Are you saying that the umpire actually saw this?
>
> Who cares what the umpire saw if his decision was the right one?
My dear snipping Aussie friend:
-------------------------
kipps
IF SRT and Dravid were not out India would not have lost 6 wkts, might
have been 200 for 3??
Rodney
> When it is a marginal decision against an English batsman, then the
> umpire is justified in turning it down even though it is confirmed by
> technology!
> But the same logic doesn't apply when Englishmen are fielding.
> Quite simple - different rules for different countries.
> That's why we need umpires - and not technology.
So, in spite of the fact that Dravid was out, he should've been given
not out?
Rodney
> My dear snipping Aussie friend:
Firstly, I'm South African; secondly, I'm not dear to you; finally, I'm
not your friend.
Three mistakes in one sentence. An applaudible effort, even for you.
prakmel
> prakmel wrote:
> > When it is a marginal decision against an English batsman, then the
> > umpire is justified in turning it down even though it is confirmed by
> > technology!
> > But the same logic doesn't apply when Englishmen are fielding.
> > Quite simple - different rules for different countries.
> > That's why we need umpires - and not technology.
>
> So, in spite of the fact that Dravid was out, he should've been given
> not out?
>
Clearly logic is not your strong point.
In fact due to our long association over the years, I have been
convinced that logic and you (with your numerous nicks) are mutually
exclusive :-)
prakmel
> prakmel wrote:
> > My dear snipping Aussie friend:
>
> Firstly, I'm South African; secondly, I'm not dear to you; finally, I'm
> not your friend.
>
> Three mistakes in one sentence. An applaudible effort, even for you.
ROLF my dear friend.
So you post another message first and then you remember that you are
pretending to be a South African.
Hilarious.
My dear friend, how about you swearing on everything you hold holy
that the following comment by you is the truth and nothing but the
truth:
Rodney
I swear by everything I hold holy that the following comment by me is
the truth and nothing but the truth.
Now, fool, how about you start substantiating these empty accusations?
Rodney
> On Sep 8, 9:13 pm, Rodney <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> prakmel wrote:
>>> When it is a marginal decision against an English batsman, then the
>>> umpire is justified in turning it down even though it is confirmed by
>>> technology!
>>> But the same logic doesn't apply when Englishmen are fielding.
>>> Quite simple - different rules for different countries.
>>> That's why we need umpires - and not technology.
>> So, in spite of the fact that Dravid was out, he should've been given
>> not out?
>>
>
> Clearly logic is not your strong point.
>
> In fact due to our long association over the years
I've only been posting here since November last year. Thankfully, our
association in that time has been minimal.
> I have been convinced that logic and you (with your numerous nicks)
Name one and, while you're at it, gimme a Google-Groups link to one of
those occasions when, as you say, I've been "caught out" -- but you'll
more likely than not ignore that request and continue to spew out lies.
You really are a filthy piece of work.
sub...@hotmail.com
that's enough surfing for the day for you rodders. eat you veg, drink
your milk and take a nap. otherwise, bad boy, no nobel.
Rodney
> prakmel wrote:
> > On Sep 8, 9:18 pm, Rodney <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> prakmel wrote:
> >>> My dear snipping Aussie friend:
> >> Firstly, I'm South African; secondly, I'm not dear to you; finally,
> >> I'm not your friend.
> >> Three mistakes in one sentence. An applaudible effort, even for
> >> you.
> > ROLF my dear friend.
> > So you post another message first and then you remember that you are
> > pretending to be a South African.
> > Hilarious.
> > My dear friend, how about you swearing on everything you hold holy
> > that the following comment by you is the truth and nothing but the
> > truth:
> > Firstly, I'm South African; secondly, I'm not dear to you; finally,
> > I'm not your friend.
> I swear by everything I hold holy that the following comment
That should read "preceding comment".
prakmel
> prakmel wrote:
> > On Sep 8, 9:18 pm, Rodney <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> prakmel wrote:
> >>> My dear snipping Aussie friend:
> >> Firstly, I'm South African; secondly, I'm not dear to you; finally, I'm
> >> not your friend.
>
> >> Three mistakes in one sentence. An applaudible effort, even for you.
>
> > ROLF my dear friend.
>
> > So you post another message first and then you remember that you are
> > pretending to be a South African.
>
> > Hilarious.
>
> > My dear friend, how about you swearing on everything you hold holy
> > that the following comment by you is the truth and nothing but the
> > truth:
>
> > Firstly, I'm South African; secondly, I'm not dear to you; finally,
> > I'm not your friend.
>
> I swear by everything I hold holy that the following comment by me is
> the truth and nothing but the truth.
>
> Now, fool, how about you start substantiating these empty accusations?
ROFL..
My dear Aussie friend, try to be a little smarter.
You really expected to get away with that attempt to deceive - I am
impressed by your IQ
Seeing that you are pretending to be even dumber than you already are,
let me repeat and type this really S L O W LY:
------------------
My dear friend, how about you swearing on everything you hold holy
that the following comment by you is the truth and nothing but the
truth:
Firstly, I'm South African; secondly, I'm not dear to you; finally,
I'm not your friend.
---------------
Are your clients even dumber than you that they come to you for
advice?
Absolutely unbelievable if true.
kenh...@hotmail.com
Racist prick
Higgs
sub...@hotmail.com
well, classist as well, if you ask me.
kenh...@hotmail.com
Quite possibly, but obviously racist.
No surprises there
Higgs
Rodney
> that's enough surfing for the day for you rodders. eat you veg,
> drink your milk and take a nap. otherwise, bad boy, no nobel.
You're sick. Very, very sick.
I hereby banish you to the sickening depths of my killfile, oh Sick One,
where you and all of your sick comrades can do suitably sick things
to/with one another. (And, please, for your own unworthy sake, do try
not to respond to this message. It would appear that many of your
brainless kinfolk still aim their pathetic bubbles of thought and
vitriol at me -- in spite of my making it palpably clear that I won't be
able to read them anymore. CricketLeague, for example, judging by the
rare snippets of tripe that I've seen quoted here and there, still makes
the odd attempt, and I waited out of interest before bringing the
guillotine down on Kunal, to find that he was similarly lacking in gray
matter; I'd wager that he's still arguing with me now, poor fool.)
Rodney
your claims. If you're not going to, however, simply inform me and I'll
at last be able to facilitate that long-overdue trip into my killfile
for you.
Wog George
"Rodney" <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:46e2883f$0$8096$8826...@free.teranews.com...
> prakmel wrote:
>> On Sep 8, 8:05 pm, "Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>>> On Sep 8, 6:35 am, Groundhog <ramji...@netzero.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Absolute disgrace of a decision to get rid of RD. Actually I blame Dar
>>>> less. We should allow challenges for each team so that such obvious
>>>> howlers are reversed in the replay.
>>>> This match is over. England to win easily. What was set up to be a
>>>> great final match has been ruined because of umpiring incompetence.
>>> The umpire gave out Dravid caught off the back of the bat, confirmed
>>> by technology!
>> So another English joker.
>> Are you saying that the umpire actually saw this?
>
> Who cares what the umpire saw if his decision was the right one?
>
>
technology confirmed his decision. End of story. To argue that the umpire
should have given it not out on the grounds that it was pretty close is
ludicrous!
--
George
"I got such a raging clue that I almost shot clue goo all over Joe." - Frank
Hardly - 11 October 2006
Wog George
"prakmel" <prakm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189254686.2...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 8, 8:26 pm, Rodney <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> prakmel wrote:
>> > On Sep 8, 8:05 pm, "Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>> >> On Sep 8, 6:35 am, Groundhog <ramji...@netzero.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>> Absolute disgrace of a decision to get rid of RD. Actually I blame
>> >>> Dar
>> >>> less. We should allow challenges for each team so that such obvious
>> >>> howlers are reversed in the replay.
>> >>> This match is over. England to win easily. What was set up to be a
>> >>> great final match has been ruined because of umpiring incompetence.
>> >> The umpire gave out Dravid caught off the back of the bat, confirmed
>> >> by technology!
>> > So another English joker.
>> > Are you saying that the umpire actually saw this?
>>
>> Who cares what the umpire saw if his decision was the right one?
>
> My dear snipping Aussie friend:
>
So prakmel = CretinLeague??
I'm only kidding, of course! The MO for your post may be similar on this
occasion, but I recall that you usually seem more intelligent. Why do you
think Rodney is an Aussie (dirty stinking rodents, though we might be)?
--
George
"If I don't see you in the future, I'll see you in the past" - Tommy Bolin -
Melbourne 1975
Wog George
> On Sep 8, 9:13 pm, Rodney <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> prakmel wrote:
>> > When it is a marginal decision against an English batsman, then the
>> > umpire is justified in turning it down even though it is confirmed by
>> > technology!
>> > But the same logic doesn't apply when Englishmen are fielding.
>> > Quite simple - different rules for different countries.
>> > That's why we need umpires - and not technology.
>>
>> So, in spite of the fact that Dravid was out, he should've been given
>> not out?
>>
>
> Clearly logic is not your strong point.
>
Which part of logic is Rodney having difficulty with? Is it the bit about
the ball hitting the bat, being caught by an opposing fieldsman, and the
player holding said bat being adjudged as out?
> In fact due to our long association over the years, I have been
> convinced that logic and you (with your numerous nicks) are mutually
> exclusive :-)
>
The occasional sultana, maybe. An entire fruit cake?
Seek help. I mean that most sincerely.
--
George
"Maybe I meant 'Seek kelp.'" - Wog George - 9 September 2007
Phil.
> prakmel wrote:
> > On Sep 8, 9:13 pm, Rodney <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> prakmel wrote:
> >>> When it is a marginal decision against an English batsman, then the
> >>> umpire is justified in turning it down even though it is confirmed by
> >>> technology!
> >>> But the same logic doesn't apply when Englishmen are fielding.
> >>> Quite simple - different rules for different countries.
> >>> That's why we need umpires - and not technology.
> >> So, in spite of the fact that Dravid was out, he should've been given
> >> not out?
>
> > Clearly logic is not your strong point.
>
> > In fact due to our long association over the years
>
> I've only been posting here since November last year. Thankfully, our
> association in that time has been minimal.
>
> > I have been convinced that logic and you (with your numerous nicks)
>
> Name one and, while you're at it, gimme a Google-Groups link to one of
> those occasions when, as you say, I've been "caught out" -- but you'll
> more likely than not ignore that request and continue to spew out lies.
> You really are a filthy piece of work.
Hi Rodney, par for the course, about 6 years ago I was taken to task
by the same poster for the fact that the two different computers I
used had different versions of my name!
"Another case of your flip and flop is the name you use for posting.
In this thread you have used both Phil G. Felton and P.G. Felton.
Clearly you are
having an identity crisis"!
Phil.
Skootti
> I'll take a quiet life, a handshake, some carbon monoxide.
Could you start with the Carbon Monoxide please?
-SB
sub...@hotmail.com
> > > > let us not criticise umpires, posh white boys don't like it.
>
> > > Racist prick
>
> > > Higgs
>
> > well, classist as well, if you ask me.
>
> Quite possibly, but obviously racist.
and here i was, trying to be sensitive to people's likes and dislikes.
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
From where I was, on the top deck of the Pavilion, there was no noise
at all when Dravid was out so I wasn't entirely surprised when Dravid
seemed unimpressed, but when Tendulkar was wrongly given out, there
was a distinct click audible as the ball went past the bat, not the
usual thud of bat hitting pad, so it had every appearance of being a
routine caught behind and I was very surprised to see Tendulkar's
reaction until I turned round to watch the TV replay.
SRT would do himself a favour by getting some softer facings to his
pads so that it doesn't sound like bat hitting ball.
Cheers,
Mike
--
will_s
> On Sep 8, 8:05 pm, "Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>> On Sep 8, 6:35 am, Groundhog <ramji...@netzero.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Absolute disgrace of a decision to get rid of RD. Actually I blame Dar
>> > less. We should allow challenges for each team so that such obvious
>> > howlers are reversed in the replay.
>>
>> > This match is over. England to win easily. What was set up to be a
>> > great final match has been ruined because of umpiring incompetence.
>>
>> The umpire gave out Dravid caught off the back of the bat, confirmed
>> by technology!
>
> So another English joker.
>
> Are you saying that the umpire actually saw this?
>
> When it is a marginal decision against an English batsman, then the
> umpire is justified in turning it down even though it is confirmed by
> technology!
I cant believe it. This dipshit is criticizing an umpire for making the
right decision.
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>It is not even about bozo umpires in the bigger picture. It is about
>use of technology.
>
>Nasser Hussain is one of the few comms to have the balls to directly
>criticize the lack of technology. To me that is the biggest issue. I
>never ever have believed that things even out or that teams should
>overcome human decisions. Use technology everywhere you can. This is
>no longer a back yard game. it is a multi million dollar business.
>Cannot have careers ruined by bozos in umpiring clothes.
What is being ruined for whom?
Dravid, for instance, does not trust the technology and says he does
not want any extension beyond the present use for line calls and
clearing catches where the umpire is unsighted. And he said that in
today's post-match press conference, not some time in 1998.
Logically, the maximum use of technology seems incredibly sensible,
especially in the light of this career-ruining stuff, but the
strongest body of opinion against the extension of technology seems to
be the players themselves rather than the umpires or administrators.
I realise that current players are somewhat constrained by ICC rules
in terms of what they can say about umpiring, but I've noticed that
quite a few memoirs of fairly recent players who have retired and are
no longer bound by the Code of Conduct argue against the encroachment
of technology - they would prefer to take the bad decisions as part of
the game.
The year-round schedule of international cricket is punishing enough
both physically and mentally for the player, and it's mostly done for
the benefit of the administrators and the public. I'm rather inclined
to think that once the players get out on the pitch, there should be a
bias towards accommodating how the players themselves want to play the
game, and if they don't want technology, let's leave them to it.
Cheers,
Mike
--
david...@yahoo.com
> This match is over. England to win easily. What was set up to be a
> great final match has been ruined because of umpiring incompetence.
Not really. India lost the series because they were an inferior side
compared to England (not that either side is all that good).
You don't even had to watch India's bowling to see how ordinary it
was. Just the fact that they lost to a side which had Cook and Bell in
the top 3 itself is enough proof of the mediocre quality of bowling
and the number of buffet balls served up.
Then of course the Indian fielding.
prakmel
wrote:
> "Rodney" <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:46e2883f$0$8096$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>
> > prakmel wrote:
> >> On Sep 8, 8:05 pm, "Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote:
> >>> On Sep 8, 6:35 am, Groundhog <ramji...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> Absolute disgrace of a decision to get rid of RD. Actually I blame Dar
> >>>> less. We should allow challenges for each team so that such obvious
> >>>> howlers are reversed in the replay.
> >>>> This match is over. England to win easily. What was set up to be a
> >>>> great final match has been ruined because of umpiring incompetence.
> >>> The umpire gave out Dravid caught off the back of the bat, confirmed
> >>> by technology!
> >> So another English joker.
> >> Are you saying that the umpire actually saw this?
>
> > Who cares what the umpire saw if his decision was the right one?
>
> I think prakmel may have lost it, Rodney. The umpire gave it out; the
> technology confirmed his decision. End of story. To argue that the umpire
> should have given it not out on the grounds that it was pretty close is
> ludicrous!
But George has no problem and keeps quiet when an English batsman in
this series is given not out - though technology confirms that the
umpire was wrong.
As stated before in this thread:
-----------------
When it is a marginal decision against an English batsman, then the
umpire is justified in turning it down even though it is confirmed by
technology!
But the same logic doesn't apply when Englishmen are fielding.
Quite simple - different rules for different countries.
That's why we need umpires - and not technology.
QED
------------------
It's very simple: Let's keep track by technology and see how the stats
add up.
We have a deal I take it.
prakmel
Par for the course Phil who ignores difficult messages.
Avoid answering the message to you and later on have a red herring.
In case you come up with the excuse that you didn't see it, here's the
link:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/5f7f3f876b15dfb6?hl=en&
I'll be waiting with baited breath for Phil's gems
Phil.
> On Sep 8, 8:05 pm, "Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 8, 6:35 am, Groundhog <ramji...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
> > > Absolute disgrace of a decision to get rid of RD. Actually I blame Dar
> > > less. We should allow challenges for each team so that such obvious
> > > howlers are reversed in the replay.
>
> > > This match is over. England to win easily. What was set up to be a
> > > great final match has been ruined because of umpiring incompetence.
>
> > The umpire gave out Dravid caught off the back of the bat, confirmed
> > by technology!
>
> So another English joker.
>
> Are you saying that the umpire actually saw this?
I've no reason to believe he didn't he's only 20 yds away, why do you
suppose that he didnt?
Phil.
>
> When it is a marginal decision against an English batsman, then the
> umpire is justified in turning it down even though it is confirmed by
> technology!
>
> But the same logic doesn't apply when Englishmen are fielding.
>
> Quite simple - different rules for different countries.
>
> That's why we need umpires - and not technology.
>
> QED
>
> > SRT probably not out, noise likely from bat hitting pad.
>
> ROFL. Probably not out!! - didn't the technology not confirm it.
>
> > Uthappa should have been out, definite edge.
> > Dhoni should have been out lbw according to Hawkeye.
>
> > So beware what you wish for.
>
> > Phil.
>
> Nothing to beware of - a level playing field where the umpires are not
> the MOS.
Rodney
> "Rodney" <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:46e2883f$0$8096$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>> prakmel wrote:
>>> On Sep 8, 8:05 pm, "Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>>>> On Sep 8, 6:35 am, Groundhog <ramji...@netzero.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Absolute disgrace of a decision to get rid of RD. Actually I blame Dar
>>>>> less. We should allow challenges for each team so that such obvious
>>>>> howlers are reversed in the replay.
>>>>> This match is over. England to win easily. What was set up to be a
>>>>> great final match has been ruined because of umpiring incompetence.
>>>> The umpire gave out Dravid caught off the back of the bat, confirmed
>>>> by technology!
>>> So another English joker.
>>> Are you saying that the umpire actually saw this?
>> Who cares what the umpire saw if his decision was the right one?
> I think prakmel may have lost it, Rodney.
You think correctly, W.G. (lovely initials, those).
> The umpire gave it out; the
> technology confirmed his decision. End of story. To argue that the umpire
> should have given it not out on the grounds that it was pretty close is
> ludicrous!
His assertion that I'm an R.S.C. veteran of Australian origin follows a
similarly ludicrous train of thought.
--
Cheers,
Rodney Ulyate
I'll take a quiet life, a handshake, some carbon monoxide.
--
Rodney
> On Sep 8, 10:32 pm, "Wog George" <wog-NotThisBit-geo...@amd-p.com>
> wrote:
>> "Rodney" <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:46e2883f$0$8096$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>>> prakmel wrote:
>>>> On Sep 8, 8:05 pm, "Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 8, 6:35 am, Groundhog <ramji...@netzero.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Absolute disgrace of a decision to get rid of RD. Actually I blame Dar
>>>>>> less. We should allow challenges for each team so that such obvious
>>>>>> howlers are reversed in the replay.
>>>>>> This match is over. England to win easily. What was set up to be a
>>>>>> great final match has been ruined because of umpiring incompetence.
>>>>> The umpire gave out Dravid caught off the back of the bat, confirmed
>>>>> by technology!
>>>> So another English joker.
>>>> Are you saying that the umpire actually saw this?
>>> Who cares what the umpire saw if his decision was the right one?
>> I think prakmel may have lost it, Rodney. The umpire gave it out; the
>> technology confirmed his decision. End of story. To argue that the umpire
>> should have given it not out on the grounds that it was pretty close is
>> ludicrous!
> But George has no problem and keeps quiet when an English batsman in
> this series is given not out
He's only broken his silence here to remark upon the wretched muck that
you're so characteristically flinging.
kenh...@hotmail.com
I've got no time for racists.
Goodbye
Higgs
alvey
Oh relax Rodney. It's only Prakash.
alvey
kenh...@hotmail.com
Small matter, Alvey.
Your killfile doesn't appear to be working.
Didn''t you loudly and proudly proclaim that not only do you never see
anything I write, but also that any thread I enter automatically gets
bumped from your newsreader?
Given that I've posted to this thread several times in the past few
days, I'm wondering what's going on?
You routing through Sri Lanka and getting a delayed feed, or is Sam
passing on my posts to you?
Higgs
with an enquiring mind
Rodney
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 05:05:33 -0700, "Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu>
> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>> On Sep 8, 6:35 am, Groundhog <ramji...@netzero.net> wrote:
>>> Absolute disgrace of a decision to get rid of RD. Actually I blame Dar
>>> less. We should allow challenges for each team so that such obvious
>>> howlers are reversed in the replay.
>>>
>>> This match is over. England to win easily. What was set up to be a
>>> great final match has been ruined because of umpiring incompetence.
>> The umpire gave out Dravid caught off the back of the bat, confirmed
>> by technology!
>> SRT probably not out, noise likely from bat hitting pad.
>> Uthappa should have been out, definite edge.
>> Dhoni should have been out lbw according to Hawkeye.
>>
>> So beware what you wish for.
>
> From where I was, on the top deck of the Pavilion, there was no noise
> at all when Dravid was out so I wasn't entirely surprised when Dravid
> seemed unimpressed, but when Tendulkar was wrongly given out, there
> was a distinct click audible as the ball went past the bat, not the
> usual thud of bat hitting pad, so it had every appearance of being a
> routine caught behind and I was very surprised to see Tendulkar's
> reaction until I turned round to watch the TV replay.
You'd be equally surprised, p'rhaps, to learn that Dravid most certainly
*was* out.
> SRT would do himself a favour by getting some softer facings to his
> pads so that it doesn't sound like bat hitting ball.
I've a pair of similarly firm pads that Cullinan gave me when I was but
a doting lad of eleven. I still wear them today, seven years on -- in
spite the fact that (like Tendulkar) I'm very frequently caught off
them. It's a sentimental thing.
Rodney
> On Sep 8, 11:05 pm, "Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>> Hi Rodney, par for the course, about 6 years ago I was taken to task
>> by the same poster for the fact that the two different computers I
>> used had different versions of my name!
>> "Another case of your flip and flop is the name you use for posting.
>> In this thread you have used both Phil G. Felton and P.G. Felton.
>> Clearly you are
>> having an identity crisis"!
>> Phil.
> Par for the course Phil who ignores difficult messages.
Such as mine regarding your conspicuous failure to corroborate any of
the patently empty charges that you've been laying against me?
> Avoid answering the message to you
Just as you've done, in only this thread, a number of times already.
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/5f7f3f876b15dfb6?hl=en&
>
> I'll be waiting with baited breath for Phil's gems
And I'll be waiting with similarly bated -- *that*, by the way, is how
you spell it -- breath for that Groups link to just *one* instance of my
being "caught" (as you so snootily put it) using a nom de plume.
Rodney
> On Sep 8, 9:59 am, Rodney <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> prakmel wrote:
>>> On Sep 8, 9:13 pm, Rodney <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> prakmel wrote:
>>>>> When it is a marginal decision against an English batsman, then the
>>>>> umpire is justified in turning it down even though it is confirmed by
>>>>> technology!
>>>>> But the same logic doesn't apply when Englishmen are fielding.
>>>>> Quite simple - different rules for different countries.
>>>>> That's why we need umpires - and not technology.
>>>> So, in spite of the fact that Dravid was out, he should've been given
>>>> not out?
>>> Clearly logic is not your strong point.
>>> In fact due to our long association over the years
>> I've only been posting here since November last year. Thankfully, our
>> association in that time has been minimal.
>>
>>> I have been convinced that logic and you (with your numerous nicks)
>> Name one and, while you're at it, gimme a Google-Groups link to one of
>> those occasions when, as you say, I've been "caught out" -- but you'll
>> more likely than not ignore that request and continue to spew out lies.
>> You really are a filthy piece of work.
>
> Hi Rodney, par for the course, about 6 years ago I was taken to task
> by the same poster
Out of interest, was *he* posting under a different name?
> for the fact that the two different computers I
> used had different versions of my name!
Thanks. I was worried for a while that I might've gone irretrievably
schizophrenic in my old age. Conscious cleared, however, I may now
safely killfile the deluded fool.
> "Another case of your flip and flop is the name you use for posting.
> In this thread you have used both Phil G. Felton and P.G. Felton.
> Clearly you are
> having an identity crisis"!
<chortles loudly>
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>Mike Holmans wrote:
>> From where I was, on the top deck of the Pavilion, there was no noise
>> at all when Dravid was out ...
>> when Tendulkar was wrongly given out....
>
>You'd be equally surprised, p'rhaps, to learn that Dravid most certainly
>*was* out.
A circumstance to which I did more than allude by phrasing my
descriptions of the two dismissals differently. I realise that you've
been indulging in the bewildering pursuit of trying to argue with
Prakash Madlooni, from which no poster emerges mentally unscathed, but
I usually write what I mean and mean what I write.
Cheers,
Mike
--
kenh...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> "Rodney" <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think you'll find that there's another poster on rsc arguing that
BoD ought to have gone to Dravid in this instance, but given that he's
a screaming racist, I'm not so sure too many people will give him any
credence
Higgs
Rodney
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 13:28:21 +0200, Rodney <rodney...@gmail.com>
> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>> Mike Holmans wrote:
>
>>> From where I was, on the top deck of the Pavilion, there was no noise
>>> at all when Dravid was out ...
>>> when Tendulkar was wrongly given out....
>> You'd be equally surprised, p'rhaps, to learn that Dravid most certainly
>> *was* out.
>
> A circumstance to which I did more than allude by phrasing my
> descriptions of the two dismissals differently. I realise that you've
> been indulging in the bewildering pursuit of trying to argue with
> Prakash Madlooni
Be that Prakmel or Subirwa (or, indeed, that pleasant David feller who
sees fit to make unjustifiable calls on the fullness of your life)?
> from which no poster emerges mentally unscathed
Kindly refrain from patronising me.
> but I usually write what I mean and mean what I write.
In this case, you wrote that you weren't "entirely surprised when Dravid
seemed unimpressed"; hence my perfectly logical postulation that you
might be unaware that it was a perfectly tolerable verdict.
Andrew Dunford
> Stop stuffing about, Prakmel, and at least *attempt* to substantiate your
> claims. If you're not going to, however, simply inform me and I'll at last
> be able to facilitate that long-overdue trip into my killfile for you.
You're wasting your time there.
I must say though that I am impressed by the lengths to which you go to in
order to pretend to be South African. Enrolling at school, for example:
Andrew
Rodney
Disclaimer: I've always played far better cricket for club than for
school, so please don't read too deeply into those decidedly average
statistics.
Andrew Dunford
> Andrew Dunford wrote:
>> "Rodney" <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:46e2a65e$0$23023$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>>> Stop stuffing about, Prakmel, and at least *attempt* to substantiate
>>> your claims. If you're not going to, however, simply inform me and I'll
>>> at last be able to facilitate that long-overdue trip into my killfile
>>> for you.
>>
>> You're wasting your time there.
>>
>> I must say though that I am impressed by the lengths to which you go to
>> in order to pretend to be South African. Enrolling at school, for
>> example:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/37bb4a
>
> Disclaimer: I've always played far better cricket for club than for
> school, so please don't read too deeply into those decidedly average
> statistics.
There's no point doing too well. If you succeed conspicuously, selection
for the South African national team will surely follow. Eventually the
whole sad story of how a middle-aged Australian financial advisor living
simultaneously in Victoria and Western Australia came to pose as a South
African schoolboy will come tumbling out, and Prakash will be a hero for
unmasking you.
Andrew
Rod
wrote:
>> from which no poster emerges mentally unscathed
>
>Kindly refrain from patronising me.
You'll soon come to realise (if you haven't already) there was
absolutely nothing patronising about that remark!
Cheers,
Rod.
warren....@three.com.au
> Absolute disgrace of a decision to get rid of RD. Actually I blame Dar
> less. We should allow challenges for each team so that such obvious
> howlers are reversed in the replay.
>
> This match is over. England to win easily. What was set up to be a
> great final match has been ruined because of umpiring incompetence.
My name is Warren Brennan and I am the owner of the Hot Spot Cricket
system used in both Australia and the UK. I was operating the system
for the final ODI at Lords on Saturday.
I am the first person to admit the use of technology in Cricket is a
touchy topic....and rightly so.
For the Hot Spot we only use two cameras one at each end and we are
not always guaranteed that the Hot Spot will be facing either of these
cameras particularly if the batman turns the bat away from the
camera.
On the Dravid dismissal I went to air with a very fine Hot Spot in the
frame after he hit the ball. On the following frame his bat was
turning and the Hot Spot went out of view. In my opinion from what I
have seen in the past 9 months Dravid hit the ball.
The Tendulkar dismissal was more interesting and shows the perils of
any form of technology.
The Hot Spot showed the bat-on-pad contact and the commentators were
happy with that, end of story or so I thought. The problem was I
didn't play the clip on long enough to show that there was also
another Hot Spot on the other side of the bat. I couldn't see this for
another 3-4 seconds until Tendulkar finally turned his bat around to
face the camera.
Now I didn't pick this up the first time I replayed the clip, in fact
I didn't find this out until I checked it at lunch time. I thought I
would just go over it another time without the pressure of the TV
director being in my ear saying "where is it....where is it".
This is a classic case where the technology was OK but the operator
and the heat of the moment didn't create the correct answer.
Regards
Warren Brennan
alvey
gday Warren,
What are the chances of more than two cameras being used in future?
oh btw, expect some flaming now that you've committed the cardinal sin of
stating that SRT was correctly given out.
alvey
warren....@three.com.au
>
> - Show quoted text -
It would be great to have 2 cameras side on to the wicket on Pan-and-
Tilt heads(so we could move them from end to end). This would allow us
to have 3 cameras in play at all times and give us much more certainty
of seeing the Hot Spot from most angles.
I figure that I can only tell the truth from what I have seen. I could
have said anything and just let the incident go away, but I think the
most important thing is to show that even when you use technology
coupled with the heat of the moment then sometimes things don't turn
out correctly.
Warren
Mike Holmans
<alvey_embarr...@yahoo.com> tapped the keyboard and brought
forth:
>On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 00:43:32 -0700, warren....@three.com.au wrote:
Tee-hee indeed.
Now that we have had it confirmed that the umpire was right and the
television presentation was wrong in the Dravid and Tendulkar cases,
do you think we are going to get any of the usual suspects ranting
away about what a disgrace it was that Uthappa was reprieved?
When the umpiring errors went 1-0 in India's favour, what does that do
to the "argument" of the racists that the umpires are always biased
against India?
Cheers,
Mike
--
SultanOfSwing
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:51:14 +1000, alvey
I haven't seen either of Tendulkar's or Dravid's dismissals,
though I've heard a lot of commentators (including Harsha
Bhogle) opine that Aleem Dar had a rather bad day at Lords.
It wouldn't be right for me to make any comments on those
decisions. What I did see was a rather horrendous
decision by Dar to give Prior "not out" when he was in fact,
plumb LBW off Zaheer Khan. I can recall another howler
from Dar in the 4th ODI at Old Trafford. Pietersen was
similarly plumb LBW off Zaheer, but the appeal was
turned down. Zaheer looked dangerously close to being
accused of showing dissent against the umpire's
decision. IMHO, both were absolutely plumb (no inside edge,
would have gone on to hit the stunps); they should be have
been given out by any umpire at the international level.
I don't care whether some posters interpret my comments
as "whingeing". I just expressed my frank opinion on
some questionable umpiring decisions.
> When the umpiring errors went 1-0 in India's favour, what does that do
> to the "argument" of the racists that the umpires are always biased
> against India?
Who are the "racists" who uphold the argument that "the umpires
are always biased against India"? It is fashionable to throw around
the term "racists" in this newsgroup. Personally, I prefer to use
that term for scum like Darkfalz, Robert Henderson and their ilk.
alvey
snip
>
> Who are the "racists" who uphold the argument that "the umpires
> are always biased against India"?
alvey
Mike Holmans
However, you did not jump up and down about any of the examples you've
just dragged up at the time, did you?
Not that I'm suggesting that you should have, by the way.
>> When the umpiring errors went 1-0 in India's favour, what does that do
>> to the "argument" of the racists that the umpires are always biased
>> against India?
>
> Who are the "racists" who uphold the argument that "the umpires
> are always biased against India"? It is fashionable to throw around
> the term "racists" in this newsgroup. Personally, I prefer to use
> that term for scum like Darkfalz, Robert Henderson and their ilk.
I find very little difference between Robert Henderson and Skootti.
Skootti sees everything in racist terms, just as Henderson does. And
if you don't think the troll which has called itself Sampath,
CricketLeague and the rest is peddling racist filth, then you must be
under the slight misapprehension that only white people can be
racists. That's why I won't voluntarily read a post by any of them.
Cheers,
Mike
--
sub...@hotmail.com
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 02:53:10 -0700, SultanOfSwing wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>
> > Who are the "racists" who uphold the argument that "the umpires
> > are always biased against India"?
>
>
> alvey
seems the cane toad barbeques have finally caused you irreversible
brain damage.
kenh...@hotmail.com
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 02:53:10 -0700, SultanOfSwing
Good for you, Mike.
I'm not in the habit of always agreeing with you, but I concur that
Skooti & CricketLeague are racist filth, as is subi...@hotmail.com.
Henderson gets short shrift, and so he should.
I see no reason treat these other scumbags any differently
Higgs
sub...@hotmail.com
> I'm not in the habit of always agreeing with you, but I concur that
> Skooti & CricketLeague are racist filth, as is subi...@hotmail.com.
>
> Henderson gets short shrift, and so he should.
> I see no reason treat these other scumbags any differently
wow, your campaign to malign me is quite impressive. however, what i
cannot fathom is why you keep on saying 'you don't want to bother with
racists like me' and then cannot contain yourself from bothering with
the likes of me.
obviously your anti-racist line is pure posturing: if you were ever
involved in anti-racist politics, you wd know that terms such as
'white power', 'white supremacy' and 'whiteness' are key anaytical
categories. but you jump everytime the word white is used. unlike you,
i have never used racial categories in an un-delimited way. my point
has merely been that indians got more bad decisions than the english,
and that this happens to teams visiting england and australia. this
has driven you to the edge of madness, and the fact that i did not
take kindly to your puerile habit of calling all ex-colonials who
disagree with you 'racist pricks' who bash up their wives.
that you are wasting your time with racists pricks like me does have
some positives. it keeps you from reading - or, for all i know,
writing - bnp propaganda (they too argue that non-whites are racists
for pointing out the racism of some white people). and of course for
the sexual and gynaecological health of livestock in your area.
SultanOfSwing
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 02:53:10 -0700, SultanOfSwing
No arguments about the fact that the poster who variously
appears as "Sampath", "CricketLeague" and countless
other nicks is obviously a "racist" troll.
kenh...@hotmail.com
But subiracist, there you were, just yesterday assuring me that you're
always happy to admit an error when you make one, yet you thought it
an absolute disgrace that Dravid and SRT were given out, even though
both the umpire and technology said they were.
You further lectured me on how your problem with the Dravid dismissal
actually was that the B-e-n-e-f-i-t o-f D-o-u-b-t ought to have gone
to Dravid as the technology was inconclusive (even though Snicko WAS
conclusive and, as I pointed out at the time, HotSpot is not yet
wholly reliable, as vindicated by the post from Warren).
This is not the first time that you have whinged about an umpiring
decision, even though technology has shown it to be correct.
No surprises that they've all involved Indians.
And there you were putting forward your ridiculous racist theory that
umpires were deliberately targetting Indian batsmen, specifically SRT
& Dravid.
Your problem is (apart from you being a racist prick) is that you
don't like seeing Indian batsmen given out.
Trouble is, in cricket, most batsmen get given out virtually every
time they play, very few get to carry their bat.
I suggest you give up watching cricket, it will surely save you
further angst (and the rest of us your racist claptrap)
Higgs
kenh...@hotmail.com
> "Rodney" <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:46e47e2c$0$16321$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Andrew Dunford wrote:
> >>news:46e2a65e$0$23023$8826...@free.teranews.com...
> >>> Stop stuffing about, Prakmel, and at least *attempt* to substantiate
> >>> your claims. If you're not going to, however, simply inform me and I'll
> >>> at last be able to facilitate that long-overdue trip into my killfile
> >>> for you.
>
> >> You're wasting your time there.
>
> >> I must say though that I am impressed by the lengths to which you go to
> >> in order to pretend to be South African. Enrolling at school, for
> >> example:
>
> >>http://tinyurl.com/37bb4a
>
> > Disclaimer: I've always played far better cricket for club than for
> > school, so please don't read too deeply into those decidedly average
> > statistics.
>
> There's no point doing too well. If you succeed conspicuously, selection
> for the South African national team will surely follow. Eventually the
> whole sad story of how a middle-aged Australian financial advisor living
> simultaneously in Victoria and Western Australia came to pose as a South
> African schoolboy will come tumbling out, and Prakash will be a hero for
> unmasking you.
>
> Andrew
Perhaps Colin will send him another book as a prize.
Or not, as the case may be.
Higgs
In Willeton, wondering if said book ever was sent
kipps
Home teams always get the advantage in calls, cricket, tennis or
whatever. Interesting in NBA, more foul calls are made against black
players, who basically dominate by white referees. Why was a Paki ump
calling the Indian ODI, better with a SA or NZ or OZ ump? eh?
kenh...@hotmail.com
> On 10 Sep, 14:06, kenhig...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > I'm not in the habit of always agreeing with you, but I concur that
> > Skooti & CricketLeague are racist filth, as is subi...@hotmail.com.
>
> > Henderson gets short shrift, and so he should.
> > I see no reason treat these other scumbags any differently
>
> wow, your campaign to malign me is quite impressive. however, what i
> cannot fathom is why you keep on saying 'you don't want to bother with
> racists like me' and then cannot contain yourself from bothering with
> the likes of me.
>
Ok,
I wont bother with you any more, you racist moron
Higgs
sub...@hotmail.com
of course i whinge about umpiring, i am the first to admit. most of it
is justified, some of it is not, but this is not the courts of law and
i am not under oath!!!
i have also whinged about matt prior's lbw and even about shrisanth
not been given lbw to panesar in the indian second inning at lords,
that wd have given england the test match. i have also whinged on
behalf of england during the ashes tour of australia. let me say this
so that you understand: I WHINGE ABOUT BAD UMPIRING.
as for the india angle, and it is not even and india angle, i believe
that tendulkar, lara and inzi and damien martyn get more bad decisions
against them and ponting, hayden and pietersen get more bad decisions
in their favour. i have even ventured the guess that his might be
because of how they look on the crease. i cannot understand what
cretinous logic leads you think this is racist.
as for whinging about bad umpring, perhaps you saw hants vs gloucs in
which your man ian gould gave spearman out lbw to warne that pitched
on off and moved violently to the slips, hitting the poor fellow about
8 inches outside the line.
snicko catches sound, hotspot catches sight. the difference is not one
i expect you to comprehend, but perhaps you shd listen to holding and
nasser commentating instead of using your hands inapproriately.
kenh...@hotmail.com
> On 10 Sep, 14:28, kenhig...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> of course i whinge about umpiring, i am the first to admit. most of it
> is justified, some of it is not, but this is not the courts of law and
> i am not under oath!!!
>
And?
> i have also whinged about matt prior's lbw and even about shrisanth
> not been given lbw to panesar in the indian second inning at lords,
> that wd have given england the test match. i have also whinged on
> behalf of england during the ashes tour of australia. let me say this
> so that you understand: I WHINGE ABOUT BAD UMPIRING.
>
No you don't, you whinge about Indian batsmen being given out, even
when both umpires and technology show they were out.
> as for the india angle, and it is not even and india angle, i believe
> that tendulkar, lara and inzi and damien martyn get more bad decisions
> against them and ponting, hayden and pietersen get more bad decisions
> in their favour. i have even ventured the guess that his might be
> because of how they look on the crease. i cannot understand what
> cretinous logic leads you think this is racist.
>
It's your comments about people with white skin that lead me to
realise that you are a racist.
> as for whinging about bad umpring, perhaps you saw hants vs gloucs in
> which your man ian gould gave spearman out lbw to warne that pitched
> on off and moved violently to the slips, hitting the poor fellow about
> 8 inches outside the line.
>
> snicko catches sound, hotspot catches sight. the difference is not one
> i expect you to comprehend, but perhaps you shd listen to holding and
> nasser commentating instead of using your hands inapproriately.
I understand that when the umpire gives it out, Snicko says it's out
and so does HotSpot, it's very, very likely to be out.
I don't understand what benefit of the doubt you are claiming in these
instances.
Higgs
sub...@hotmail.com
> No you don't, you whinge about Indian batsmen being given out, even
> when both umpires and technology show they were out.
no, i whinge about bad umpiring DECISIONS in general and i have a
record to prove it. this has included decisions against players of
most nationalities (though i am not sure about b'desh, kenya,
zimbabwe, and some other cricket playing nations). i have consistently
praised taufel and dar for many of their decisions, despite their
occasional mistakes, and have even commended bucknor for some of his
decisions. the only umpire i believe to have been racist is hair. just
because you are still on a bad datura trip doesn't mean that whatever
you are hallucinating is true.
> It's your comments about people with white skin that lead me to
> realise that you are a racist.
well, you are racist and deserve no better. the way you start abusing
the minute someone criticises bad decisions suggests you are the jeff
gilooly of the umpires federation. while you accuse me of wife-
beating, i am quite concerned for yours (if by some cruel twist of
fate you have managed to find one; not likely if you ask me) given
your lack of manners, intemperate language and lack of control over
mental faculties.
> I understand that when the umpire gives it out, Snicko says it's out
> and so does HotSpot, it's very, very likely to be out.
hotspot didn't confirm, which is why the guardian and the independent
also called them controversial, as did the commentators. (by the way,
those are newspapers, some people with above-subnormal intellect read
them).
umpires often go with sound, while they should go with what they see,
not what they hear. umpires also sometimes get swayed by
overenthusiastic appealing, which the english seem to have learnt, to
their advantage, from the australians.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
> My name is Warren Brennan and I am the owner of the Hot Spot Cricket
> system used in both Australia and the UK. I was operating the system
> for the final ODI at Lords on Saturday.
At first, I wasn't sure if you are for real or just someone with a
sense of humor. The earnestness of your post and the sincerity of the
responses lead me to believe that this is for real. I for one had
never heard of this 'Hot Spot' before.
Are you doing this in official capacity? Did anyone hire you to do
this or are you performing this task on your own perhaps to get some
business later? In general, does anyone avail of your services;
newspapers, TV channels, cricket associations etc?
> I am the first person to admit the use of technology in Cricket is a
> touchy topic....and rightly so.
It should not be, but for some reason it is. But then, Luddites have
always resisted improvements through science, especially if it takes
away their advantage and evens out the playing field.
> On the Dravid dismissal I went to air with a very fine Hot Spot in the
> frame after he hit the ball. On the following frame his bat was
> turning and the Hot Spot went out of view. In my opinion from what I
> have seen in the past 9 months Dravid hit the ball.
OK; but that's your conclusion based on prior experience as opposed to
a direct reading by Hot Spot, correct? Not saying you are wrong; as a
matter of fact all indications point to you being correct; but I'm
curious if that's a reading off the Hot Spot or your educated guess.
> The Tendulkar dismissal was more interesting and shows the perils of
> any form of technology.
I don't believe it does. Currently, cricket operates at a different
paradigm; the umpires are supposed to give out only when they are 100%
certain. If they are not, they are supposed to give the benefit of
doubt to the batsman; primarily because the bowler will get another
opportunity get the batsman in that innings. This 'benefit of doubt'
stuff was not being practiced by umpires consistently in the recently
concluded IND V ENG series which has led to cries for the use of
technology by the affected parties and by those who believe in
fairness.
However, technology, well utilized, can render that paradigm
unnecessary. In case of the benefit of doubt in either direction, the
ump (or the players) will have an option to use the technology,
including yours. It will make the game much more favorable for the
bowler; which is only fair in this era of smaller grounds and fielding
restrictions. Moreover, it will vastly reduce the umpires' ability to
influence the result of the game either due to incompetence or
predisposition towards one team.
> The Hot Spot showed the bat-on-pad contact and the commentators were
> happy with that, end of story or so I thought. The problem was I
> didn't play the clip on long enough to show that there was also
> another Hot Spot on the other side of the bat. I couldn't see this for
> another 3-4 seconds until Tendulkar finally turned his bat around to
> face the camera.
Help me understand this better. Are you saying that the ball hit the
back of SRT's bat? Looking at the replays, that does not seem
possible. Therefore I have to ask, is it possible to deduce - by
reading the Hot Spot - what made contact with the back of the bat?
Could it possibly have been the pad or even SRT tapping the bat with
his fist? You mention that you waited 4 seconds till you saw the Hot
Spot on the back of the bat. How long does the hot spot last? I
assume in a matter of seconds the temperature difference goes away.
How long is that?
> This is a classic case where the technology was OK but the operator
> and the heat of the moment didn't create the correct answer.
Sure. However, this is hardly the case for not using the technology.
Instead of having 2 bozos stand around giving incorrect and result-
altering decisions, train technicians to use the technology correctly
and give the correct reading. What you have described above is not
inadequacy of technology, but inability to use it correctly. The
'benefit of doubt' will never go away entirely, but it will certainly
be reduced considerably. More importantly, it will make the game so
much more rational and just.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
CricketLeague
"SultanOfSwing" <asla...@yahoo.co.in> wrote in message
news:1189430586....@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
No idea who sam path is. Never heard of that word or phrase.
If I am a racist then Nasser Hussain and Ravi Shastri the commentators are
also racist.
Nasser Hussain said
"I cant believe what umpire Aleem
Dar is doing, the ball is nowhere near the bat, I cant believe it" when
tendulkar was given out. "
Ravi Shastri said
"Dar is ruining the match" when tendulkar was given out
I am a racist but "Will_s, alvey shitcast, Mike Hollowman, Andrew Dunford,
Erchie, Wog George, max.it, Higgsy, Phil, Rodney, dechuka" to name a few are
GREAT HUMAN BEINGS and SAINTS.
Sultan of Swing, please get their pictures and WORSHIP them for all I
care........
Roflmao........
Rodney
Good move.
Rodney
Mwahaha.
Rodney
Very interesting stuff, Warren. Thank you. Kindly elucidate, though: was
Tendulkar, in your retrospective opinion, out?
CricketLeague
"Rodney" <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:46e52cf8$0$25520$8826...@free.teranews.com...
Warren Brennan is the owner of the hotstop and I am the president of
Universe.
You desperately need a brain, Rodney.
Rod
<s_kar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I don't believe it does. Currently, cricket operates at a different
>paradigm; the umpires are supposed to give out only when they are 100%
>certain. If they are not, they are supposed to give the benefit of
>doubt to the batsman; primarily because the bowler will get another
>opportunity get the batsman in that innings. This 'benefit of doubt'
>stuff was not being practiced by umpires consistently in the recently
>concluded IND V ENG series which has led to cries for the use of
>technology by the affected parties and by those who believe in
>fairness.
What piece of technology were you using to measure the level of
doubt in the umpires mind to come up with that gem?
Cheers,
Rod.
Paul Robson
> This 'benefit of doubt'
> stuff was not being practiced by umpires consistently in the recently
> concluded IND V ENG series which has led to cries for the use of
> technology by the affected parties and by those who believe in
> fairness.
So, no India fans involved then.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
> What piece of technology were you using to measure the level of
> doubt in the umpires mind to come up with that gem?
It doesn't matter; cuz it's supposed to be boolean. If the ump has a
doubt in his mind, he is supposed to give not out.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
Paul Robson
>> This is a classic case where the technology was OK but the operator
>> and the heat of the moment didn't create the correct answer.
>
> Very interesting stuff, Warren. Thank you. Kindly elucidate, though: was
> Tendulkar, in your retrospective opinion, out?
Tendulkar is never out. Not even if you knock all three stumps out.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
wrote:
> So, India fans involved then.
Typo corrected. (poor use of language *not* corrected).
SK
Sanjiv Karmarkar
wrote:
--== SNIP ==--
You always answer questions not addressed to you. Is that because you
are sad and lonely or because you are an utter nincompoop? (My money
is riding on the latter; I'm sure there is enough unwashed east-end
riff-raff to slum together).
Sanjiv Karmarkar
Andrew Dunford
"Sanjiv Karmarkar" <s_kar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189443927.8...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 10, 3:43 am, warren.bren...@three.com.au wrote:
>> My name is Warren Brennan and I am the owner of the Hot Spot Cricket
>> system used in both Australia and the UK. I was operating the system
>> for the final ODI at Lords on Saturday.
>
> At first, I wasn't sure if you are for real or just someone with a
> sense of humor. The earnestness of your post and the sincerity of the
> responses lead me to believe that this is for real. I for one had
> never heard of this 'Hot Spot' before.
Warren has posted here in the past, on the subject of bowling speed radar
guns. Here is an article about Hot Spot:
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Articles/300329/Heat+seeker.htm
<snip>
Andrew
arahim
> On Sep 8, 12:35 pm, Groundhog <ramji...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
> > Absolute disgrace of a decision to get rid of RD. Actually I blame Dar
> > less. We should allow challenges for each team so that such obvious
> > howlers are reversed in the replay.
>
> > This match is over. England to win easily. What was set up to be a
> > great final match has been ruined because of umpiring incompetence.
>
> system used in both Australia and the UK. I was operating the system
> for the final ODI at Lords on Saturday.
>
> touchy topic....and rightly so.
>
> For the Hot Spot we only use two cameras one at each end and we are
> not always guaranteed that the Hot Spot will be facing either of these
> cameras particularly if the batman turns the bat away from the
> camera.
>
> On the Dravid dismissal I went to air with a very fine Hot Spot in the
> frame after he hit the ball. On the following frame his bat was
> turning and the Hot Spot went out of view. In my opinion from what I
> have seen in the past 9 months Dravid hit the ball.
>
> The Tendulkar dismissal was more interesting and shows the perils of
> any form of technology.
>
> The Hot Spot showed the bat-on-pad contact and the commentators were
> happy with that, end of story or so I thought. The problem was I
> didn't play the clip on long enough to show that there was also
> another Hot Spot on the other side of the bat. I couldn't see this for
> another 3-4 seconds until Tendulkar finally turned his bat around to
> face the camera.
>
> Now I didn't pick this up the first time I replayed the clip, in fact
> I didn't find this out until I checked it at lunch time. I thought I
> would just go over it another time without the pressure of the TV
> director being in my ear saying "where is it....where is it".
>
> and the heat of the moment didn't create the correct answer.
>
> Warren Brennan
So when the ICC gives its ranking (for the umpires) will these
decisions count for or against Dar :)
Rod
So how can you claim that umpires weren't giving the benefit
of the doubt when you don't know whether the umpires had doubt
in the decisions they gave?
Cheers,
Rod.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
> So how can you claim that umpires weren't giving the benefit
> of the doubt when you don't know whether the umpires had doubt
> in the decisions they gave?
Fair question; but the empirical evidence in this series is simply too
strong IMO.
There were simply too many decisions that were obviously wrong based
on the replays, hawk-eye, snicko etc. that were not considered
borderline for one team but were for the other team. I so do not
enjoy playing a victim or wallowing in self-pity, but at the same time
I am also very much averse to living in denial.
And denial can be very seductive and yet quite damaging. I mean if
you want to sit there and justify Gould standing with his hands folded
(Shah dismissal) or the SRT dismissals in the 90s, then that's a
personal problem that you have to sort out all by yourself, I cannot
help you.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
prakmel
> prakmel wrote:
> > On Sep 8, 11:05 pm, "Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote:
> >> Hi Rodney, par for the course, about 6 years ago I was taken to task
> >> by the same poster for the fact that the two different computers I
> >> used had different versions of my name!
> >> "Another case of your flip and flop is the name you use for posting.
> >> In this thread you have used both Phil G. Felton and P.G. Felton.
> >> Clearly you are
> >> having an identity crisis"!
> >> Phil.
> > Par for the course Phil who ignores difficult messages.
>
> Such as mine regarding your conspicuous failure to corroborate any of
> the patently empty charges that you've been laying against me?
>
> > Avoid answering the message to you
>
> Just as you've done, in only this thread, a number of times already.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/5f7f3f876b15dfb6...
>
> > I'll be waiting with baited breath for Phil's gems
>
> And I'll be waiting with similarly bated -- *that*, by the way, is how
> you spell it --
Little boy Rodney, you may learn to become more punny when you grow
up.
> breath for that Groups link to just *one* instance of my
> being "caught" (as you so snootily put it) using a nom de plume.
Little boy Rodney, you may learn there are different ways to skin a
cat when you grow up.
prakmel
wrote:
> "prakmel" <prakmel2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1189258265.4...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...> >> > When it is a marginal decision against an English batsman, then the
> >> > umpire is justified in turning it down even though it is confirmed by
> >> > technology!
> >> > But the same logic doesn't apply when Englishmen are fielding.
> >> > Quite simple - different rules for different countries.
> >> > That's why we need umpires - and not technology.
>
> >> So, in spite of the fact that Dravid was out, he should've been given
> >> not out?
>
> > Clearly logic is not your strong point.
>
> Which part of logic is Rodney having difficulty with?
Taking a guess George, I think it would be with the Truth and being
honest.
> Is it the bit about
> the ball hitting the bat, being caught by an opposing fieldsman, and the
> player holding said bat being adjudged as out?
>
> > In fact due to our long association over the years, I have been
> > convinced that logic and you (with your numerous nicks) are mutually
> > exclusive :-)
>
> The occasional sultana, maybe. An entire fruit cake?
>
> Seek help. I mean that most sincerely.
Much appreciated. Perhaps you should suggest it to your dishonest
Aussie in this thread.
> --
> George
> "Maybe I meant 'Seek kelp.'" - Wog George - 9 September 2007
prakmel
> Stop stuffing about, Prakmel, and at least *attempt* to substantiate
> your claims.
What claims are you talking about?
And when are you going to swear that you are South African as you have
claimed?
For an 18 year old kid, you do seem surprisingly devious
> If you're not going to, however, simply inform me and I'll
> at last be able to facilitate that long-overdue trip into my killfile
> for you.
Does avoiding the truth make you feel better?
prakmel
> >> >> On Sep 8, 6:35 am, Groundhog <ramji...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
> >> >>> Absolute disgrace of a decision to get rid of RD. Actually I blame
> >> >>> Dar
> >> >>> less. We should allow challenges for each team so that such obvious
> >> >>> howlers are reversed in the replay.
> >> >>> This match is over. England to win easily. What was set up to be a
> >> >>> great final match has been ruined because of umpiring incompetence.
> >> >> by technology!
> >> > So another English joker.
> >> > Are you saying that the umpire actually saw this?
>
> >> Who cares what the umpire saw if his decision was the right one?
>
> > My dear snipping Aussie friend:
>
> So prakmel = CretinLeague??
>
> I'm only kidding, of course! The MO for your post may be similar on this
> occasion, but I recall that you usually seem more intelligent. Why do you
> think Rodney is an Aussie (dirty stinking rodents, though we might be)?
George, you usually seem more intelligent than most Aussies.
So why would you not have figured out that the supposed Rodnety is an
Aussie? Seems somewhat surprising.
By the way, I do not have sufficient information to agree or disagree
with your strong assertion that most Aussies may be 'dirty stinking
rodents'?
Seeing that you are an Aussie (or at least claim to be one unlike the
Rodent Rodney - I actually like the sound of Rodent Rodney), please
elaborate why you feell that they are 'dirty stinking rodents'. Thanks.
prakmel
> > wrote:
> >> "Rodney" <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:46e2883f$0$8096$8826...@free.teranews.com...
> >>> prakmel wrote:
> >>>> On Sep 8, 8:05 pm, "Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sep 8, 6:35 am, Groundhog <ramji...@netzero.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> Absolute disgrace of a decision to get rid of RD. Actually I blame Dar
> >>>>>> less. We should allow challenges for each team so that such obvious
> >>>>>> howlers are reversed in the replay.
> >>>>>> This match is over. England to win easily. What was set up to be a
> >>>>>> great final match has been ruined because of umpiring incompetence.
> >>>>> The umpire gave out Dravid caught off the back of the bat, confirmed
> >>>>> by technology!
> >>>> So another English joker.
> >>>> Are you saying that the umpire actually saw this?
> >>> Who cares what the umpire saw if his decision was the right one?
> >> technology confirmed his decision. End of story. To argue that the umpire
> >> should have given it not out on the grounds that it was pretty close is
> >> ludicrous!
> > But George has no problem and keeps quiet when an English batsman in
> > this series is given not out
>
> He's only broken his silence here to remark upon the wretched muck that
> you're so characteristically flinging.
Little boy Rodney, explain what "broken his silence here' means.
Seeing that George has been posting inthis thread, would you perhaps
have 'here' referring to South africa by any chance?
Does muck = truth in South Africa?
Really confused by 'characteristically'. Please explain.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Rodney Ulyate
prakmel
> "prakmel" <prakmel2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 8, 8:05 pm, "Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote:
> >> On Sep 8, 6:35 am, Groundhog <ramji...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
> >> > Absolute disgrace of a decision to get rid of RD. Actually I blame Dar
> >> > less. We should allow challenges for each team so that such obvious
> >> > howlers are reversed in the replay.
>
> >> > This match is over. England to win easily. What was set up to be a
> >> > great final match has been ruined because of umpiring incompetence.
>
> >> The umpire gave out Dravid caught off the back of the bat, confirmed
> >> by technology!
>
> > So another English joker.
>
> > Are you saying that the umpire actually saw this?
>
> > umpire is justified in turning it down even though it is confirmed by
> > technology!
>
> right decision.
Did you actually read what was written? And comprehended it?
prakmel
> On Sep 8, 8:20 am, prakmel <prakmel2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 8, 8:05 pm, "Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 8, 6:35 am, Groundhog <ramji...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Absolute disgrace of a decision to get rid of RD. Actually I blame Dar
> > > > less. We should allow challenges for each team so that such obvious
> > > > howlers are reversed in the replay.
>
> > > > This match is over. England to win easily. What was set up to be a
> > > > great final match has been ruined because of umpiring incompetence.
>
> > > The umpire gave out Dravid caught off the back of the bat, confirmed
> > > by technology!
>
> > So another English joker.
>
> > Are you saying that the umpire actually saw this?
>
> suppose that he didnt?
>
> Phil.
So the joker Phil is back.
Does the fact that you have no reason to believe it makes it a fact?
Do academics nowadays have such a conceited opinion of themselves?
Have you ever known an umpire to make a mistake?
QED
>
>
>
>
>
> > When it is a marginal decision against an English batsman, then the
> > umpire is justified in turning it down even though it is confirmed by
> > technology!
>
> > But the same logic doesn't apply when Englishmen are fielding.
>
> > Quite simple - different rules for different countries.
>
> > That's why we need umpires - and not technology.
>
> > QED
>
> > > SRT probably not out, noise likely from bat hitting pad.
So we have the joker Phil saying that SRT was probably not out despite
what the umpire Dar decided.
So let me introduce the two Phils, one of whom had this brilliant
sense of logic:
"I've no reason to believe he didn't he's only 20 yds away, why do you
suppose that he didnt."
Please be kind enough to inform me whether Dr Jeckyl or Mr Hyde won
that argument. Many thanks.
>
> > ROFL. Probably not out!! - didn't the technology not confirm it.
Speechless Phil.
>
> > > Uthappa should have been out, definite edge.
Why is it definite? Because Phil thinks so.
> > > Dhoni should have been out lbw according to Hawkeye.
So make up your mind. Do you believe in HE or not? Or do you want to
have different rules for different countries?
>
> > > So beware what you wish for.
>
> > > Phil.
>
> > Nothing to beware of - a level playing field where the umpires are not
> > the MOS.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
prakmel
> Mike Holmans wrote:
> > On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 05:05:33 -0700, "Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu>
> > tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
> >>> Absolute disgrace of a decision to get rid of RD. Actually I blame Dar
> >>> less. We should allow challenges for each team so that such obvious
> >>> howlers are reversed in the replay.
>
> >>> This match is over. England to win easily. What was set up to be a
> >>> great final match has been ruined because of umpiring incompetence.
> >> The umpire gave out Dravid caught off the back of the bat, confirmed
> >> by technology!
>
>
> > at all when Dravid was out so I wasn't entirely surprised when Dravid
> > seemed unimpressed, but when Tendulkar was wrongly given out, there
> > was a distinct click audible as the ball went past the bat, not the
> > usual thud of bat hitting pad, so it had every appearance of being a
> > routine caught behind and I was very surprised to see Tendulkar's
> > reaction until I turned round to watch the TV replay.
>
> You'd be equally surprised, p'rhaps, to learn that Dravid most certainly
> *was* out.
>
> > SRT would do himself a favour by getting some softer facings to his
> > pads so that it doesn't sound like bat hitting ball.
>
> I've a pair of similarly firm pads that Cullinan gave me when I was but
> a doting lad of eleven. I still wear them today, seven years on -- in
> spite the fact that (like Tendulkar) I'm very frequently caught off
> them. It's a sentimental thing.
It's really touching this story of yours. You have me convinced,
Rodent Rodney.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Rodney Ulyate
prakmel
> > tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>
> >>> From where I was, on the top deck of the Pavilion, there was no noise
> >>> when Tendulkar was wrongly given out....
> >> You'd be equally surprised, p'rhaps, to learn that Dravid most certainly
> >> *was* out.
>
> > descriptions of the two dismissals differently. I realise that you've
> > been indulging in the bewildering pursuit of trying to argue with
> > Prakash Madlooni
>
> Be that Prakmel or Subirwa (or, indeed, that pleasant David feller who
> sees fit to make unjustifiable calls on the fullness of your life)?
>
> > from which no poster emerges mentally unscathed
>
> Kindly refrain from patronising me.
In another thread, you wrote this about Mike:
"Mike is not my friend -- aside from my never having met him, he comes
across in his posts as a bit of an arse"
Does 'patronising me' equate to the above?
>
> > but I usually write what I mean and mean what I write.
>
> In this case, you wrote that you weren't "entirely surprised when Dravid
> seemed unimpressed"; hence my perfectly logical postulation that you
> might be unaware that it was a perfectly tolerable verdict.
Earlier you wrote 'You'd be equally surprised, p'rhaps, to learn that
Dravid most certainly
*was* out.'
So this equates to a perfectly tolerable decision. In South Africa, at
least.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Rodney Ulyate
>
> I'll take a quiet life, a handshake, some carbon monoxide.
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -
prakmel
> > wrote:
>
> >>> from which no poster emerges mentally unscathed
> >> Kindly refrain from patronising me.
>
> > You'll soon come to realise (if you haven't already) there was
> > absolutely nothing patronising about that remark!
>
> Mwahaha.
>
Little boy, do you really speak like that?