Blasted Poms
Rodney Ulyate
Anderson's pincers, the ball's undergoing the sort of tampering you'd
think best left to Afghan ballots.
Ever,
Rodney Ulyate
Unknown
Spiking the ball. It must be real high technology.
Spike and hope, you don't get caught, the ball swings.
The Sa like to run right up the middle of the pitch. It's almost like
they think the protected area is just for running on. Smith ran right
up the middle of the pitch all day, without a notice from the umpires.
Maybe there was a bun hidden behind the wickets and he could sniff
it..
Hill misses a stumping.
Broad spikes the ball.
Smith runs up and down the middle of the pitch all day.
Harper gives Prince out, 'cause he thought he was walking.
On that last one. Do you think that lowers the integrity of the review
system? I mean, a what about a deliberate howler in order to waste a
review? Always my yap, Technology could / will lead to more ways for
outside intervention in matches (I mean bookies).
Mad Hamish
>Harper gives Prince out, 'cause he thought he was walking.
>
>On that last one. Do you think that lowers the integrity of the review
>system? I mean, a what about a deliberate howler in order to waste a
>review?
if the victim of a howler calls for a review and is proved right then
the review isn't wasted so I'm not sure what you're talking about
here.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au
Unknown
<newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
>On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:42:01 GMT, (max.it) wrote:
>
>
>>Harper gives Prince out, 'cause he thought he was walking.
>>
>>On that last one. Do you think that lowers the integrity of the review
>>system? I mean, a what about a deliberate howler in order to waste a
>>review?
>
>if the victim of a howler calls for a review and is proved right then
>the review isn't wasted so I'm not sure what you're talking about
>here.
Sorry, I thought someone would pull that. I meant a player review.
Knobble the player to ask or to persuade for a review in order to
waste it.
I'm an umpire we don't do howlers ;) I should actually write what I'm
thinking, instead of when I'm thinking / drinking (same thing).
I'm actually still waiting on that thought to text, print what you
think software to arrive from Nigeria. A bargin only $500 US.
jzfredricks
> Knobble the player to ask or to persuade for a review in order to
> waste it.
Well you and I agree on one thing - limited referrals means a team
that runs out is at a disadvantage (ie once again can fall victim to
howlers)
Unknown
Or unfair tactics.
Consider the AB (non) stumping. If the third umpire had been asked to
look at that, I don't think he would have been able to see the
stumping from the footage available at the time. It was a while later
whenever the comms said have a look at this, that the VT guys have
just discovered, that the fair stumping seemed get noticed. Sure
enough AB was out stumped. There was an appeal for caught at the
wicket, given out and declined on review. Now this has been discussed
and there have been errors in law and procedure in this incident. The
question must be. If Hill had referred the appeal to the tv umpire, we
don't know if he answered the stumping appeal, but we must assume that
he did, would that discovered footage have been available right then
for the 3rd umpire's decision?
If Daren Brown can walk into a bookies with a beaten docket, and hand
it over, speak a few words and walk out with �17 everytime, what
chance have us mere mortals?
Rodney Ulyate
Hussain, was inspirational. "All he did," spake the England director,
his voice soft as dew, "was stop the ball."
Rodney
alvey
Footnote: Lancs used to regularly employ this tactic to start efforts to
get the ball reversing. Phil de Freitas would act out a petulant kick of
the pill.
alvey
in briz, drenching a short sentence. "His voice was soft as dew, but its
icy tone bought rivers of tears to his audience's eyes." Four. Beat that
Roddles.
Rodney Ulyate
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 22:37:13 -0800 (PST), Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > Andrew Flower's spin on the matter, in an interview with Nasser
> > Hussain, was inspirational. "All he did," spake the England director,
> > his voice soft as dew, "was stop the ball."
> get the ball reversing. Phil de Freitas would act out a petulant kick of
> the pill.
> icy tone bought rivers of tears to his audience's eyes." Four. Beat that
> Roddles.
Nah. The long lay-off's done for my form.
Rodney
Bob Dubery
If they do that then that means that the decision made on the field
was upheld twice. Which means that their own judgement wasn't that
good.
What did suprise me yesterday was Hill calling to the 3MU after
turning down an appeal against Smith after Strauss had queried the
decision. Surely he should have told Strauss to refer if he wasn't in
agreement. As it was it looks like he gave a decision and then was
pressured into revisiting that decision.
Bob Dubery
I have got to say that it looked innocent to me. You can clearly see
him moving his foot away very quickly, so I read it as he put his foot
down with the intent of stopping the ball, misjudged, realised that
he'd misjudged and immediately took his foot off the ball. It's not
like he gave it a good rolling around (as Cronje did some years ago)
or put all his weight onto it.
The footage of Anderson picking at the ball on the boundary seemed
more damning to me. But did the umpires inspect the ball and did they
find anything worrying?
Rodney Ulyate
> On Jan 6, 8:37 am, Rodney Ulyate <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Andrew Flower's spin on the matter, in an interview with Nasser
> > Hussain, was inspirational. "All he did," spake the England director,
> > his voice soft as dew, "was stop the ball."
> him moving his foot away very quickly
Not quickly enough for my currency, but I've yet to see it in real
time.
> so I read it as he put his foot down with the intent of stopping the ball,
> misjudged
If it was a misjudgement, it was the worst since StraightDrive. And I
don't see why he had to slam the boot down on it when flat-footedly
impeding its path would surely have sufficed.
> realised that he'd misjudged and immediately took his foot off the ball.
> It's not like he gave it a good rolling around (as Cronjè did some years ago
Cronjè, of course, wasn't aware he had a camera on him. (It would
require the sort of innocence Flower was affecting last night for
Broad to have followed suit.)
> or put all his weight onto it.
Perhaps I'm biased, but, again, I gleaned a different impression.
> The footage of Anderson picking at the ball on the boundary seemed
> more damning to me.
Oh good.
> But did the umpires inspect the ball and did they find anything worrying?
Not sure, but one half looked despoiled after only fifteen overs, and
Strauss was given a full-blooded wrist-spanking at the start of the
next session.
Rodney
Unknown
<mega...@gmail.com> wrote:
Was it a query for the same decision?
dodo
Andrew Dunford
"dodo" <dod...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e4e6f6e0-f692-40f5...@z40g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
Thanks - I hadn't seen it until now.
> Does not seem accidental ...
The standing on the ball is not accidental: the question is whether the
intent is to damage the ball or merely stop it. At best Broad's action was
unwise, but it's up to the umpires to determine whether or not the ball was
actually damaged by his actions - the rest of us have no idea.
I didn't find the Anderson footage to be very revealing.
Andrew
jzfredricks
> intent is to damage the ball or merely stop it. At best Broad's action was
> unwise, but it's up to the umpires to determine whether or not the ball was
> actually damaged by his actions - the rest of us have no idea.
That latter bit is the most important part, as the Laws don't care
about intent (thankfully!). Obviously the umps thought everything was
fine.
As far as intent goes, though, it's what matters to us, the fans. Is
Broad a "cheat"? I'd say not. I've seen MANY players stop the ball the
same way. And it was just a stop. He didn't stand on it, or grind his
foot into it.
Storm in a tea cup, as they say.
Bob Dubery
> On Jan 6, 2:59 pm, Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 6, 8:37 am, Rodney Ulyate <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Andrew Flower's spin on the matter, in an interview with Nasser
> > > Hussain, was inspirational. "All he did," spake the England director,
> > > his voice soft as dew, "was stop the ball."
> > I have got to say that it looked innocent to me. You can clearly see
> > him moving his foot away very quickly
>
> Not quickly enough for my currency, but I've yet to see it in real
> time.
>
> > so I read it as he put his foot down with the intent of stopping the ball,
> > misjudged
>
> If it was a misjudgement, it was the worst since StraightDrive. And I
> don't see why he had to slam the boot down on it when flat-footedly
> impeding its path would surely have sufficed.
>
> > realised that he'd misjudged and immediately took his foot off the ball.
> > It's not like he gave it a good rolling around (as Cronjè did some years ago
>
> Cronjè, of course, wasn't aware he had a camera on him. (It would
> require the sort of innocence Flower was affecting last night for
> Broad to have followed suit.)
not understand that anything they did on the field was liable to be
caught by a camera. That includes picking their nose and it also
includes doing things to the ball.
Not that I'm saying that Cronje didn't think that he was unobserved. I
just can't imagine how any player can think that something like that
WON'T be detected.
Some years ago some Australia players were bellyaching about what they
considered intrusive behaviour by broadcasters. Richie Benaud took
issue with this and said that the modern player has to accept that
anything they do on the field or on the balcony will get captured by a
camera, and conversely if the camera shows you doing something that is
only possible because you did it.
>
> > or put all his weight onto it.
>
> Perhaps I'm biased, but, again, I gleaned a different impression.
Well it's clear that ball went under the boot momentarily. But the
footage doesn't provide sufficient context, and we don't know what
thoughts Broad had in his mind. So we have to decide which way we will
incline, Reasonable men might disagree on this point.
Bob Dubery
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 04:56:19 -0800 (PST), Bob Dubery
> >What did suprise me yesterday was Hill calling to the 3MU after
> >turning down an appeal against Smith after Strauss had queried the
> >decision. Surely he should have told Strauss to refer if he wasn't in
> >agreement. As it was it looks like he gave a decision and then was
> >pressured into revisiting that decision.
>
> Was it a query for the same decision?
What else COULD it have been? Asking why Pietersen was given out on a
duck when England were batting?
I grant that it was an odd looking dismissal. The commentators were
all puzzled as to how the ball was caught where it was given the line
on which it was bowled and the shot that Smith played. What was
missed, and what the umpire seems to have seen, was that the ball hit
the inside of Prior's leg and that is why it deviated as it did. Full
marks to the umpire. He gave his decision quickly and then there was
talking amongs the England players and then Strauss went and had a
discussion with the ump. THEN the ump sent it up stairs. AFTER he'd
ruled not out. I'd have thought that he should have told Strauss "you
want to contest it, ask for a referral."
Unknown
<mega...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 6, 10:31=A0pm, (max.it) wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 04:56:19 -0800 (PST), Bob Dubery
>
>> >What did suprise me yesterday was Hill calling to the 3MU after
>> >turning down an appeal against Smith after Strauss had queried the
>> >decision. Surely he should have told Strauss to refer if he wasn't in
>> >agreement. As it was it looks like he gave a decision and then was
>> >pressured into revisiting that decision.
>>
>> Was it a query for the same decision?
>
>What else COULD it have been? Asking why Pietersen was given out on a
>duck when England were batting?
I didn't see it.
>
>I grant that it was an odd looking dismissal. The commentators were
>all puzzled as to how the ball was caught where it was given the line
>on which it was bowled and the shot that Smith played. What was
>missed, and what the umpire seems to have seen, was that the ball hit
>the inside of Prior's leg and that is why it deviated as it did. Full
>marks to the umpire. He gave his decision quickly and then there was
>talking amongs the England players and then Strauss went and had a
>discussion with the ump. THEN the ump sent it up stairs. AFTER he'd
>ruled not out. I'd have thought that he should have told Strauss "you
>want to contest it, ask for a referral."
It sure doesn't sound right.
Andrew Dunford
"Bob Dubery" <mega...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9c5b97bf-5491-42f9...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 6, 4:06 pm, Rodney Ulyate <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 6, 2:59 pm, Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 6, 8:37 am, Rodney Ulyate <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > Andrew Flower's spin on the matter, in an interview with Nasser
>> > > Hussain, was inspirational. "All he did," spake the England director,
>> > > his voice soft as dew, "was stop the ball."
>> > I have got to say that it looked innocent to me. You can clearly see
>> > him moving his foot away very quickly
>>
>> Not quickly enough for my currency, but I've yet to see it in real
>> time.
>>
>> > so I read it as he put his foot down with the intent of stopping the
>> > ball,
>> > misjudged
>>
>> If it was a misjudgement, it was the worst since StraightDrive. And I
>> don't see why he had to slam the boot down on it when flat-footedly
>> impeding its path would surely have sufficed.
>>
>> > realised that he'd misjudged and immediately took his foot off the
>> > ball.
>> > It's not like he gave it a good rolling around (as Cronj� did some
>> > years ago
>>
>> Cronj�, of course, wasn't aware he had a camera on him. (It would
>> require the sort of innocence Flower was affecting last night for
>> Broad to have followed suit.)
> I find it odd that any player in a Test match in the modern era would
> not understand that anything they did on the field was liable to be
> caught by a camera. That includes picking their nose and it also
> includes doing things to the ball.
>
> Not that I'm saying that Cronje didn't think that he was unobserved. I
> just can't imagine how any player can think that something like that
> WON'T be detected.
>
> Some years ago some Australia players were bellyaching about what they
> considered intrusive behaviour by broadcasters. Richie Benaud took
> issue with this and said that the modern player has to accept that
> anything they do on the field or on the balcony will get captured by a
> camera, and conversely if the camera shows you doing something that is
> only possible because you did it.
>>
>> > or put all his weight onto it.
>>
>> Perhaps I'm biased, but, again, I gleaned a different impression.
> Well it's clear that ball went under the boot momentarily. But the
> footage doesn't provide sufficient context, and we don't know what
> thoughts Broad had in his mind. So we have to decide which way we will
> incline, Reasonable men might disagree on this point.
The question you need to be asking is whether Broad's action changed the
condition of the ball.
Andrew
Unknown
The action doesn't actually have to alter the condition of the ball.
It only has to be "Likely to alter the condition of the ball".
Andrew Dunford
"max.it" wrote in message news:4b465601...@news.btinternet.com...
Yep, point taken.
It's a very long time since I wore bowling boots. How much difference to
the condition of the ball is Broad's action likely to have made? Either
way, it would be wise to avoid such a practice in the future.
Andrew
Unknown
<adun...@artifax.net> wrote:
5 penalty runs would have made sure it didn't happen again. We tell
the kids to treat the ball like an egg, catch it gently, and hit it
hard;) Don't step on it seems to go without saying.
If that did happen, and then with the other incident, whichever came
first. Whoever was bowling at the time of the second incident could
have been taken off. Ten runs short and a bowler down.....
Robert Henderson
<972a8120-ea64-4be8...@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Rodney Ulyate <rodney...@gmail.com> writes
I always smile when I hear rages against ball tampering. What is
shining the ball if it is not ball tampering? In the fifties spinners
used to rub the ball in the run ups to get rid of the shine so they
could grip the ball more easily, this being done with the umpires
happily watching on Back in the 19th century bowlers would put mud on a
ball to make it behave irregularly.
A sensible change in the law would be to allow bowlers to do what they
like with the ball provided they use nothing more than their hands. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Andrew Dunford
"Robert Henderson" <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4TZPqmHc...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
I hate to break this to you, but those things at the end of Broad's legs
with the spikes in them are feet, not hands.
Andrew
Bob Dubery
> "Bob Dubery" <megap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I'd think that if somebody was trying to change the condition of the
ball and couldn't get it right then he should still be in the pooh.
Intent is an issue here.
Strauss made the point that if you WERE trying to rough up the ball
you wouldn't do it the way that Broad is alleged to have done simply
because you'd not be able to control which part of the ball the studs
made contact with.
Robert Henderson
<adun...@artifax.net> writes
>> I always smile when I hear rages against ball tampering. What is
>>shining the ball if it is not ball tampering? In the fifties
>>spinners used to rub the ball in the run ups to get rid of the shine
>>so they could grip the ball more easily, this being done with the
>>umpires happily watching on Back in the 19th century bowlers would
>>put mud on a ball to make it behave irregularly.
>>
>> A sensible change in the law would be to allow bowlers to do what
>>they like with the ball provided they use nothing more than their
>>hands. RH
>
>I hate to break this to you, but those things at the end of Broad's
>legs with the spikes in them are feet, not hands.
>
>Andrew
Fielding with boots is a time honoured bowlers prerogative. Quite legal.
Toby
like he did! It was totally naive of him.
dodo
> > <adunf...@artifax.net> writes
moreover the ball was quite slowly hit. Usually, bowlers stop a
quicker ball. That was somewhat deliberate treading on a slow ball.
Rodney Ulyate
contorted his lineaments into what he claims was a grin:
> In message
> <972a8120-ea64-4be8-9df1-cba1531ea...@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Rodney Ulyate <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> writes
> >Excuse the smart-casual bigotry, but really: From Broad's spikes to
> >Anderson's pincers, the ball's undergoing the sort of tampering you'd
> >think best left to Afghan ballots.
Oh, my. Really? I should make more of them.
> What is shining the ball if it is not ball tampering?
Legal.
> In the fifties spinners used to rub the ball in the run ups to get rid of the
> shine so they could grip the ball more easily, this being done with the
> umpires happily watching on Back in the 19th century bowlers would
> put mud on a ball to make it behave irregularly.
A non sequitur. And let's do keep in mind, please, that prior to the
1970s the conjurations of reverse swing (the raison d'être for the
ball-tampering statute) weren't yet a twinkle in Sarfraz's eye.
Still, such is the disproportional favour accorded the batsmen these
days that it's hard not to see the merit in your wish. Would that
you'd reason it better.
<snip>
Rodney Ulyate
Rodney Ulyate
> On Jan 7, 11:28 pm, "Andrew Dunford" <adunf...@artifax.net> wrote:
> > "Bob Dubery" <megap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:9c5b97bf-5491-42f9...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Jan 6, 4:06 pm, Rodney Ulyate <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Jan 6, 2:59 pm, Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > or put all his weight onto it.
> > >> Perhaps I'm biased, but, again, I gleaned a different impression.
> > > Well it's clear that ball went under the boot momentarily. But the
> > > footage doesn't provide sufficient context, and we don't know what
> > > thoughts Broad had in his mind. So we have to decide which way we will
> > > incline, Reasonable men might disagree on this point.
> > The question you need to be asking is whether Broad's action changed the
> > condition of the ball.
> you wouldn't do it the way that Broad is alleged to have done simply
> because you'd not be able to control which part of the ball the studs
> made contact with.
It's worth keeping in mind, of course, that one *can* have a brain
explosion and malefic intent concurrently.
Rodney Ulyate
Robert Henderson
<toby....@gmail.com> writes
>>> Andrew
>> Fielding with boots is a time honoured bowlers prerogative. Quite
>>legal. RH
>>
>The side of the boot, toe of the boot, but not the studs of the boot
>like he did! It was totally naive of him.
Nothing in the laws to stop it unless it can be shown to be deliberate.
Robert Henderson
<21a8b7d7-98d0-4156...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Rodney Ulyate <rodney...@gmail.com> writes
>
>> What is shining the ball if it is not ball tampering?
>
>Legal.
Irrelevant to the question of whether the ball is altered. RH
>
>> In the fifties spinners used to rub the ball in the run ups to get rid of the
>> shine so they could grip the ball more easily, this being done with the
>> umpires happily watching on Back in the 19th century bowlers would
>> put mud on a ball to make it behave irregularly.
>
>A non sequitur.
I suggest you go away and discover what constitutes a non sequitur. RH
> And let's do keep in mind, please, that prior to the 1970s the
>conjurations of reverse swing (the raison d'�tre for the ball-tampering
>statute) weren't yet a twinkle in Sarfraz's eye. Still, such is the
>disproportional favour accorded the batsmen these days that it's hard
>not to see the merit in your wish. Would that you'd reason it better.
>
Oh, the irony.... RH
><snip>
>
>Rodney Ulyate
Rodney Ulyate
blated:
> In message
> <21a8b7d7-98d0-4156-b2e2-21a8a94d6...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> Rodney Ulyate <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> writes
> >> What is shining the ball if it is not ball tampering?
> >Legal.
> Irrelevant to the question of whether the ball is altered. RH
Which itself is irrelevant to the question of whether the ball is
tampered with.
> >> In the fifties spinners used to rub the ball in the run ups to get rid of the
> >> shine so they could grip the ball more easily, this being done with the
> >> umpires happily watching on Back in the 19th century bowlers would
> >> put mud on a ball to make it behave irregularly.
> >A non sequitur.
> I suggest you go away and discover what constitutes a non sequitur. RH
That advice would be rather better spent on you: The premiss that it
was once legal in no way supports the conclusion that it should be
now.
<snip>
Rodney Ulyate
arahim
Yep. 26 cameras. Nothing on 'em. The ball very clean by any standard.
But apparently Fletcher's and Proctor's whisper's and his own biases
were enough for Hair. Doctrove actually initially got it right but
bullied.
> > > or put all his weight onto it.
>
> > Perhaps I'm biased, but, again, I gleaned a different impression.
>
> Well it's clear that ball went under the boot momentarily. But the
> footage doesn't provide sufficient context, and we don't know what
> thoughts Broad had in his mind. So we have to decide which way we will
> incline, Reasonable men might disagree on this point.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -