Cricket Luverly Cricket.

[jambutty]

So England won the second test against New Zealand but like in the first test the contentious LBW law played its part.

I’m the first to accept that the test umpires are very good at their job and try to be as fair as possible in making their decisions, but umpires are human beings and human beings make mistakes. None more so when adjudicating on an LBW decision.

Time and time again Hawkeye has shown that the umpire got it wrong and a batsman was given “Not Out” when Hawkeye clearly showed that he should have been. Or vice versa.

The difference between the ball hitting the stumps and just missing them can be measured in microns. If the ball just misses the leg stump of a right handed batsman by the narrowest of margins it means that if the ball was just a few microns to the left of its path it would have hit the leg peg.

I defy any human being to differentiate to that degree of accuracy from close up especially when the umpire’s vision is blocked by the batsman, let alone from 22 yards.

Thus I feel that Hawkeye should be used to adjudicate on LBW appeals.

After all the precedent has already been set with using technology in the form of TV replays to determine whether a batsman was run out or not and even if a catch was legal or not. Not forgetting if the fielder did stop the ball from crossing the boundary rope.

But those old fuddy duddies at Lords would have an apoplectic fit if they joined the 21st century so it is unlikely to happen.

[shillelagh]

Crickets boring - they wear long trousers least footie and rugby players wear shorts!!!!

[lindsay ormerod]

Originally Posted by shillelagh

Crickets boring - they wear long trousers least footie and rugby players wear shorts!!!!

Oddly we don't all watch cricket to ogle the players, some of us actually understand and like the sport.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by shillelagh

Crickets boring - they wear long trousers least footie and rugby players wear shorts!!!!

That confirms a long standing suspicion – that women attend sporting events not for the sport but so that they can ogle the male competitors and in some cases the female ones.

You should watch a limited overs day/night match. The players wear pyjamas.

[Royboy39]

Originally Posted by jambutty

But those old fuddy duddies at Lords would have an apoplectic fit if they joined the 21st century so it is unlikely to happen.

I never had you down as anti establishment Jim..............

[Kiwi John]

Ahem... pleased to see that there's no 'gloating ' going on. General opinion over here is that we were a pack of Drongos in our second innings,but Englands batting performance did recieve alot of praise on Radio Sport by various and sundry.
..Onwards to the third...

[jambutty]

In the recent 20/20 match a New Zealand batsman collided with Sidebottom and both hit the deck. Meanwhile the ball was returned to the stumps and the batsman was run out. Then uproar.

The umpire asked Paul Collingwood if he wanted to withdraw the appeal. Collingwood declined and thus the batsman was declared out. The sporting thing to do was to withdraw the appeal.

To be fair Collingwood did apologise later and the apology was accepted with good grace.

As it turned out it was all academic because New Zealand won on an overthrow off the last ball. Poetic justice I reckon.

However the real point is, why isn’t there a law to cover this eventuality because such an incident has happened before? I know that bowlers generally try and get out of the way of a running batsman but some have been known to stand their ground sort of accidentally.

Something like “If a batsman and fielder/bowler collide whilst the batsman is attempting a run and is thus prevented from completing the run or returning to his crease, the ball should be declared dead.”

Or is that too simple for the cricket authorities to grasp?

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by jambutty

In the recent 20/20 match a New Zealand batsman collided with Sidebottom and both hit the deck. Meanwhile the ball was returned to the stumps and the batsman was run out. Then uproar.

The umpire asked Paul Collingwood if he wanted to withdraw the appeal. Collingwood declined and thus the batsman was declared out. The sporting thing to do was to withdraw the appeal.

To be fair Collingwood did apologise later and the apology was accepted with good grace.

As it turned out it was all academic because New Zealand won on an overthrow off the last ball. Poetic justice I reckon.

However the real point is, why isn’t there a law to cover this eventuality because such an incident has happened before? I know that bowlers generally try and get out of the way of a running batsman but some have been known to stand their ground sort of accidentally.

Something like “If a batsman and fielder/bowler collide whilst the batsman is attempting a run and is thus prevented from completing the run or returning to his crease, the ball should be declared dead.”

Or is that too simple for the cricket authorities to grasp?

The reason there is no exact law to cover this type of insident is that cricket is played by gentlemen, allegedly, I think these laws were introduced before the Aussies began playing the game

[Kiwi John]

I have yet to see the incident,but boy do I know all about it.radio Sport was full of it yesterday, and far from gettingstuck into Collingwood and co,the majority of callers were of the opinion.."Shut up Vettori and get on with it.Thats cricket." The point was raised that unless the powers that be make some firm rule up, the next stage will be batsman charging the fielder and giving them the bash with a good old sword of willow.
BTW JAMBUTTY, it was a 50 over game.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Kiwi John

I have yet to see the incident,but boy do I know all about it.radio Sport was full of it yesterday, and far from gettingstuck into Collingwood and co,the majority of callers were of the opinion.."Shut up Vettori and get on with it.Thats cricket." The point was raised that unless the powers that be make some firm rule up, the next stage will be batsman charging the fielder and giving them the bash with a good old sword of willow.
BTW JAMBUTTY, it was a 50 over game.

Seems like the Kiwi's have taken it better than some of the English pundits John, Anyway the Newzealanders were always good at the shoulder charge, they been charging down British Rugby teams for years

[Mancie]

Let's not forget Jambutty that "hawkeye" is just a computer graphic that predicts the flight of the ball..are you presuming it is always correct?

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by jaysay

The reason there is no exact law to cover this type of insident is that cricket is played by gentlemen, allegedly, I think these laws were introduced before the Aussies began playing the game

In days of old, when men were bold and women weren’t invented, cricket was a gentleman’s sport where they walked before the umpire raised his finger. Even after the ‘bodyline series’. Today it is win at all costs. Sad really but that’s progress I guess.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by Kiwi John

I have yet to see the incident,but boy do I know all about it.radio Sport was full of it yesterday, and far from gettingstuck into Collingwood and co,the majority of callers were of the opinion.."Shut up Vettori and get on with it.Thats cricket." The point was raised that unless the powers that be make some firm rule up, the next stage will be batsman charging the fielder and giving them the bash with a good old sword of willow.
BTW JAMBUTTY, it was a 50 over game.

Thanks for the correction.

Too much 20/20 around these days.

I got confused. It’s my age you know.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by Mancie

Let's not forget Jambutty that "hawkeye" is just a computer graphic that predicts the flight of the ball..are you presuming it is always correct?

I would rather trust Hawkeye than an umpire 22 yards away with the stumps obscured by the batsman, no matter how experienced he may be.

As I explained the difference between the ball hitting the stumps and missing can be measured in microns and no human eye can do that from close up let alone 22 yards away with the vision obscured.

I accept that there could be some very, very late swing but equally there could not.

I’m not presuming anything just pointing out the best option for accuracy and that is Hawkeye.

[Loz]

Originally Posted by jambutty

That confirms a long standing suspicion – that women attend sporting events not for the sport but so that they can ogle the male competitors and in some cases the female ones.

You should watch a limited overs day/night match. The players wear pyjamas.

Hope that was tongue in cheek JB!
I happen to love lots of sports cricket included and i most certainly do not watch it to ogle the players!
I happen to understand the rules of the game and enjoy watching it!
I also agree about hawkeye,it is about time the game was dragged fully into the 21st century.