Cricket 2019

[StanSP]

1 hour ago, Livid said:

I’m not getting the video review system in cricket.

 

It’s been brought into football, regardless of whether or not you agree with It, to cut out errors and mistakes by referees over the entirety of the game. 

 

Yesterday I saw a sport where because Australia had used up their reviews an abysmal LBW call by the on field umpire was allowed to stand. 

 

I know we won and it was the same for both teams but If we are going to use video assistance in sport we have to go all in. 

I disagree.

I'm all for VAR as my posts elsewhere would show but I'd also be an advocate of captains/managers being given a certain amount of 'appeals' in football, too. That way the onus is on the team in question to challenge as opposed to officials. Let's face it, we all love games of football where officials aren't talked about as the main protagonists - the less the officials are talked about the better the performance of the actual teams is more often than not.

 

I don't agree with going all in in cricket - I think the review system works brilliantly as each team is clear on how many reviews they can ask for and they have to be wise and shrewd enough to choose when to use it. As others have said and what I agree with is that Australia used up their review 'just because' and that was stupidly naive from them/Paine to do so. Not even to do with hindsight either with what happened with Lyon's ball soon after - it was just silly even if it was just to use it up at the time. It wasn't even close. But here we are talking about Paine's decision to review, not necessarily the umpire's decision.

 

I think a limited review system based on the same criteria - goals, handballs in the box, offsides, red cards - would work well in football; it'd give a real opening to how strong a captain's/manager's character is - do they go with their gut instinct or go with their fellow team-mates? Give them a 10-15 second window after an incident (when the ball has gone out) for them to quickly discuss and then just a simple message/signal needed to the referee for incidents to be checked over. That way the officials take much less slack and VAR isn't the focus - it's not the VAR decision, it's the players/manager's. Each team gets 3 in a game or perhas 1 or 2 per half. No reviews can be carried over from half to half like they do in cricket.

 

Sorry, went off on a tangent there but the point still applies! Wouldn't be wise to go all in in cricket, and also wise to amend what we have in football as well at the moment.

[Md9]

watched the highlights twice today and keep catching clips on Twitter to it was so good yesterday. My 6 yr old daughter watched the World Cup final and since then anytime we have watched cricket has asked stokes playing 😂😂 my kids are not overly in to watching sport but the cricket has had them interested recently so hopefully the next two games will keep them Interested and we pull off 2 more big wins (little less stressful to watch tho 😂)

Edited 26 August 2019 by Md9

[StanSP]

I reckon @Izzy ate the shit, forgot to press record on his phone, and is now in hospital somewhere...

[Bert]

On 25/08/2019 at 21:48, Walkers said:

Its hardly a barbaric opinion

I bet you’re fun at parties 

[Bert]

I would take the gloves from Bairstow and give them to Buttler so Bairstow can open with Burns and Roy can bat further down the order where they think he’s at his best. 

[Voll Blau]

8 hours ago, Goober said:

Anyone else think the Hawkeye got the LBW wrong anyway? Thought at the time that the ball tracker looked off and the more I see it the more convinced I am. There's no way the ball was coming back that much. Had it hooping back in a mile following the line of the ball AFTER it had flicked the front pad. Bit biased maybe but I think at worst it would've been umpire's call.

Yeah, don't think I'd have ever given that out personally. There have been some bad decisions this series but that wasn't anywhere near one of the worst 

[Stinkenzo]

1 hour ago, Bert said:

I bet you’re fun at parties 

Not particularly sure how you've came to that conclusion because I was agreeing with someone who failed to see us chasing anything north of whatever it was, when a day earlier we had been bowled out for 67, but okay

[UpTheLeagueFox]

15 hours ago, Vlad the Fox said:

Imagine how he must feel at that point, the release of tension, the adrenaline pumping through his veins, the atmosphere and the noise. Imagine the hit. You’d feel like a god. Incredible innings, the greatest under the circumstances. What a match. Go on and bring the ashes home now.

Pretty sure Stokes didn't raise his bat at 50 or 100 because he was so focused on getting the win.

What a man. Heroic.

[Vlad the Fox]

9 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Pretty sure Stokes didn't raise his bat at 50 or 100 because he was so focused on getting the win.

What a man. Heroic.

He didn’t, might have been 100, I was down the county so watched the highlights when I got home, but remember being impressed with his level of focus., another run, let’s get on with it attitude. 

[stripeyfox]

6 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Pretty sure Stokes didn't raise his bat at 50 or 100 because he was so focused on getting the win.

What a man. Heroic.

When he got to his 100, there was no fanfare or raising the bat - he just wanted to crack on. Getting a ton was irrelevant to him if he didn't finish the job.

 

An absolute shoe in for Sports Personality of the Year 2019 

[purpleronnie]

7 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Pretty sure Stokes didn't raise his bat at 50 or 100 because he was so focused on getting the win.

What a man. Heroic.

I would imagine no-one would have celebrated at that stage of the match, tbh I think it would've been a bit odd if he had celebrated given the situation in the match.

 

Still can't believe we won that match.

 

Stokes = Legend.

Edited 27 August 2019 by purpleronnie

[StanSP]

Superb

 

 

 

[AKCJ]

11 hours ago, Bert said:

I would take the gloves from Bairstow and give them to Buttler so Bairstow can open with Burns and Roy can bat further down the order where they think he’s at his best. 

Why not just give the opening slot to someone that has been playing red ball cricket all summer and that is in form as opposed to putting square pegs in round holes? 

 

Buttler's job is to add 30/40 runs low down in the order to take the game away from the opposition and he's just not done that. Even his world cup was pretty poor (barring some genuinely great knocks against Pakistan and New Zealand).

 

I'd sooner let Bairstow concentrate on scoring runs in the middle order and give the gloves to Foakes who IMO is our best wicket keeper.

 

Roy just isn't doesn't have the skill set for Test cricket. In white ball cricket he's undoubtedly world class but his lack of footwork and desperation to go after every ball is why he won't succeed in the test side.

[Bert]

30 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

Why not just give the opening slot to someone that has been playing red ball cricket all summer and that is in form as opposed to putting square pegs in round holes? 

 

Buttler's job is to add 30/40 runs low down in the order to take the game away from the opposition and he's just not done that. Even his world cup was pretty poor (barring some genuinely great knocks against Pakistan and New Zealand).

 

I'd sooner let Bairstow concentrate on scoring runs in the middle order and give the gloves to Foakes who IMO is our best wicket keeper.

 

Roy just isn't doesn't have the skill set for Test cricket. In white ball cricket he's undoubtedly world class but his lack of footwork and desperation to go after every ball is why he won't succeed in the test side.

I’m fully with you. But the fact is they’re not going to bring any new faces in for this series therefore I’d like to see us actually get off to start hence letting Bairstow open. Someone even said the other day that Roy is a number 5/6 think it might have been someone in the coaching setup or a pundit. Which he could then go after every ball with it being worn in that little bit more. 

[Bobby Hundreds]

19 hours ago, Goober said:

Anyone else think the Hawkeye got the LBW wrong anyway? Thought at the time that the ball tracker looked off and the more I see it the more convinced I am. There's no way the ball was coming back that much. Had it hooping back in a mile following the line of the ball AFTER it had flicked the front pad. Bit biased maybe but I think at worst it would've been umpire's call.

Agree 100% with this. I thought clipping leg at best but the ball tracker had it hitting it flush; interesting read below however from the Guardian.

 

"As owner of the Hot Spot system for Cricket I can tell you I have seen this happen many times before with the ball tracking where the ball-on-pad projection point is miscalculated. For example, Stokes may have gotten a very faint touch on the front pad and then a much more definitive touch on the back pad as well. If the ball tracking operator fails to see the front pad contact and uses the back pad as contact point then the physics of making the correct decision can be severely affected. The reason I know this is that our side on Hot Spot cameras pick up these ball-on-pad contacts extremely well (PLEASE NOTE...I have said many times before online and in the media that Hot Spot is not perfect particularly outside edges on fast bowlers when the batsmen is swinging the bat very quickly) but in this case the Hot Spot is the best reference tool to pickup ball-on-pad contact.

We go through a process with the ball tracking operator to advise them of where the first ball-on-pad contact is made so he can plot this correctly. I know that this sort of potential incident does not happen in Australia and New Zealand international Cricket because we provide Hot Spot in those two countries. Unfortunately, we weren't at Headingley for the 3rd test the other day as the host broadcaster for the series hasn't used Hot Spot on their Cricket broadcasts for the past 3 seasons.

Some people will chastise me and say it's just sour grapes that I am making these comments in a public forum and in these cases they most likely won't even entertain the comments I have made. For others hopefully this has given them some valuable information.

Regards
Warren Brennan
BBG Sports"

[purpleronnie]

4 hours ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

Agree 100% with this. I thought clipping leg at best but the ball tracker had it hitting it flush; interesting read below however from the Guardian.

 

"As owner of the Hot Spot system for Cricket I can tell you I have seen this happen many times before with the ball tracking where the ball-on-pad projection point is miscalculated. For example, Stokes may have gotten a very faint touch on the front pad and then a much more definitive touch on the back pad as well. If the ball tracking operator fails to see the front pad contact and uses the back pad as contact point then the physics of making the correct decision can be severely affected. The reason I know this is that our side on Hot Spot cameras pick up these ball-on-pad contacts extremely well (PLEASE NOTE...I have said many times before online and in the media that Hot Spot is not perfect particularly outside edges on fast bowlers when the batsmen is swinging the bat very quickly) but in this case the Hot Spot is the best reference tool to pickup ball-on-pad contact.

We go through a process with the ball tracking operator to advise them of where the first ball-on-pad contact is made so he can plot this correctly. I know that this sort of potential incident does not happen in Australia and New Zealand international Cricket because we provide Hot Spot in those two countries. Unfortunately, we weren't at Headingley for the 3rd test the other day as the host broadcaster for the series hasn't used Hot Spot on their Cricket broadcasts for the past 3 seasons.

Some people will chastise me and say it's just sour grapes that I am making these comments in a public forum and in these cases they most likely won't even entertain the comments I have made. For others hopefully this has given them some valuable information.

Regards
Warren Brennan
BBG Sports"

Interesting, I thought the same, clipping at best.

[StanSP]

 

 

[Bert]

Anyone seen the TMS clip of the near miss on the run out? If not watch it. And check the bloke out behind the commentary team  

[Guest MattP]

Having booked a weekend away in London I ended up watching the end of this on a phone on a traffic bollard in Knightsbridge - a lot of wealthy Arabs would have thought I was genuinely mad jigging about in the street shouting. 

 

It's got to be the best innings of all time, I just don't know how he managed to do it. 

 

What a sport as well, test match cricket is amazing. 

[AKCJ]

35 minutes ago, MattP said:

Having booked a weekend away in London I ended up watching the end of this on a phone on a traffic bollard in Knightsbridge - a lot of wealthy Arabs would have thought I was genuinely mad jigging about in the street shouting. 

 

It's got to be the best innings of all time, I just don't know how he managed to do it. 

 

What a sport as well, test match cricket is amazing. 

Yep Test Cricket at it's best doesn't get beaten by anything.

[Ric Flair]

On ‎26‎/‎08‎/‎2019 at 14:57, StanSP said:

I disagree.

I'm all for VAR as my posts elsewhere would show but I'd also be an advocate of captains/managers being given a certain amount of 'appeals' in football, too. That way the onus is on the team in question to challenge as opposed to officials. Let's face it, we all love games of football where officials aren't talked about as the main protagonists - the less the officials are talked about the better the performance of the actual teams is more often than not.

 

I don't agree with going all in in cricket - I think the review system works brilliantly as each team is clear on how many reviews they can ask for and they have to be wise and shrewd enough to choose when to use it. As others have said and what I agree with is that Australia used up their review 'just because' and that was stupidly naive from them/Paine to do so. Not even to do with hindsight either with what happened with Lyon's ball soon after - it was just silly even if it was just to use it up at the time. It wasn't even close. But here we are talking about Paine's decision to review, not necessarily the umpire's decision.

 

I think a limited review system based on the same criteria - goals, handballs in the box, offsides, red cards - would work well in football; it'd give a real opening to how strong a captain's/manager's character is - do they go with their gut instinct or go with their fellow team-mates? Give them a 10-15 second window after an incident (when the ball has gone out) for them to quickly discuss and then just a simple message/signal needed to the referee for incidents to be checked over. That way the officials take much less slack and VAR isn't the focus - it's not the VAR decision, it's the players/manager's. Each team gets 3 in a game or perhas 1 or 2 per half. No reviews can be carried over from half to half like they do in cricket.

 

Sorry, went off on a tangent there but the point still applies! Wouldn't be wise to go all in in cricket, and also wise to amend what we have in football as well at the moment.

The issue in football is, the game is played at such a pace that managers are 50 yards away from the goal mouth action and captains depending on the position they play are also away from certain key areas where such decisions would be crucial. Reviewing/challenging decisions would be no less of a lottery than the referees that currently make them or the pundits and fans who argue decisions either way over and over.

[StanSP]

5 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

The issue in football is, the game is played at such a pace that managers are 50 yards away from the goal mouth action and captains depending on the position they play are also away from certain key areas where such decisions would be crucial. Reviewing/challenging decisions would be no less of a lottery than the referees that currently make them or the pundits and fans who argue decisions either way over and over.

Understandable and fair point. It'd make teams and managers think twice though about 1) the kind of decision a referee has to make and 2) using up a review depending on how strongly they feel about the incident in question. 

 

In regards to your point about distance, that doesn't stop players from voraciously appealing for something despite being a considerably distance away, and then surrounding the referee while the game is still going on... 

[Ric Flair]

17 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Understandable and fair point. It'd make teams and managers think twice though about 1) the kind of decision a referee has to make and 2) using up a review depending on how strongly they feel about the incident in question. 

 

In regards to your point about distance, that doesn't stop players from voraciously appealing for something despite being a considerably distance away, and then surrounding the referee while the game is still going on... 

Oh yes, i'm not saying it wouldn't still happen it's just the accuracy managers and players have in the heat of the game is still wildly subjective. Them appealing a decision they believe is wrong is still pure guesswork mostly and for me that's an issue when it comes to having only a certain amount of reviews. You might also get teams tactically using a bogus review at crucial points in games when they are under the cosh and need a breather. It's a sport that is so difficult to find a platform where incorrect decisions within the laws of the game are abolished.

 

 

[leicsmac]

Sync this to 4.46....

 

...and sync this to 2.03.

 

Play them together, and thank me later.

[RowlattsFox]

I see the aussies are playing a tour match this week at Derby. Surely it would have been useful for some of our lads to get some red ball practice in, Roy and Buttler in particular.