ah now i wondered why the facebook comments had stopped!!!
8 wickets 8 damn WICKETS!!!!
C'mon England!!!!!!
ODI World Cup.
-
think positive
- Posts: 40200
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:33 pm
- Location: somewhere
- Has liked: 240 times
- Been liked: 91 times
Last edited by think positive on Sat Jul 13, 2019 10:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
-
think positive
- Posts: 40200
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:33 pm
- Location: somewhere
- Has liked: 240 times
- Been liked: 91 times
as for missing a match, WTAF!!! barry hall actually hit someone, yeah thats a comparison:
While the decision was quite obviously the incorrect one, Cowan said that Roy had no right to stand his ground after Dharmasena had raised his finger.
"I've never seen that on a cricket field. You can't stand in the middle of the ground, arms outstretched, asking how is that out and try and refer it knowing you've already used a referral," he said.
"Honestly, he's been watching too much Premier League soccer. That was a disgrace. You cannot treat umpires like that on a cricket field."
Roy and Dharmasena will meet once again in Sunday's World Cup final with the Sri Lankan named as one of the on-field umpires for the tournament finale alongside South Africa's Marais Erasmus.
While the decision was quite obviously the incorrect one, Cowan said that Roy had no right to stand his ground after Dharmasena had raised his finger.
"I've never seen that on a cricket field. You can't stand in the middle of the ground, arms outstretched, asking how is that out and try and refer it knowing you've already used a referral," he said.
"Honestly, he's been watching too much Premier League soccer. That was a disgrace. You cannot treat umpires like that on a cricket field."
Roy and Dharmasena will meet once again in Sunday's World Cup final with the Sri Lankan named as one of the on-field umpires for the tournament finale alongside South Africa's Marais Erasmus.
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
^ It actually was an awful feeling watching it - it was like watching the soccer. Sometimes the decision goes your way, sometimes it goes against you - it just isn't OK to carry on that like that. As K said, it wouldn't have been an issue if England hadn't wasted its review on Bairstow's lbw - they started off thinking it might have missed leg - and they were right, it was going to hit middle.
He really should have been suspended - it was a weak decision to let him play and will probably lead to more unedifying spectacles like that one. They will beat NZ without him - 180 runs will probably be enough.
He really should have been suspended - it was a weak decision to let him play and will probably lead to more unedifying spectacles like that one. They will beat NZ without him - 180 runs will probably be enough.
I cannot think of a worse reaction to an umpire's out or not-out decision in cricket ever. (I do not say that lightly. I have thought about it, and the only serious competitors I can recall are implied or actual threats from captains to take their players off the field and refuse to play. None of those occurred in response to a simple out decision.)
The Roy incident has tarnished the whole game. That might not matter to people who care not a jot for the game, which regrettably includes most English people. That itself is part of the problem. So desperate have been the ECB and English cricketers to gain some attention from the English public that they have been prepared to do anything to achieve it, including seriously damaging the game itself in many different ways.
On the topic of "actually hitting someone, yeah that's a comparison", there is a player in the English team who could easily have killed someone and is very fortunate not to have received a 3- to 5-year jail term for his actions (also caught on video and lasting a whole minute). There is another thread devoted to the very serious legal questions surrounding that affair. If that outcome had been reached by a court in a non-English-speaking country, for example with English speakers as the victims, there is no doubt that the English-language media would have denounced the entire country's judicial system and probably demanded government action in protest.
The Roy incident has tarnished the whole game. That might not matter to people who care not a jot for the game, which regrettably includes most English people. That itself is part of the problem. So desperate have been the ECB and English cricketers to gain some attention from the English public that they have been prepared to do anything to achieve it, including seriously damaging the game itself in many different ways.
On the topic of "actually hitting someone, yeah that's a comparison", there is a player in the English team who could easily have killed someone and is very fortunate not to have received a 3- to 5-year jail term for his actions (also caught on video and lasting a whole minute). There is another thread devoted to the very serious legal questions surrounding that affair. If that outcome had been reached by a court in a non-English-speaking country, for example with English speakers as the victims, there is no doubt that the English-language media would have denounced the entire country's judicial system and probably demanded government action in protest.
-
think positive
- Posts: 40200
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:33 pm
- Location: somewhere
- Has liked: 240 times
- Been liked: 91 times
Yes, the English indifference to cricket is a huge problem for the ECB. If they win tomorrow, the English public will be excited not by the game itself but by the thought of winning something, anything.
But English or not, cricket-loving or not, everyone should care about violent crime, justice, etc. Those are things that matter to all of humanity.
But English or not, cricket-loving or not, everyone should care about violent crime, justice, etc. Those are things that matter to all of humanity.
-
think positive
- Posts: 40200
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:33 pm
- Location: somewhere
- Has liked: 240 times
- Been liked: 91 times
FMD he told the umpire he was wrong, and he was! whatever incident your talking about, didnt take place in this game, so its not relevant!K wrote:Yes, the English indifference to cricket is a huge problem for the ECB. If they win tomorrow, the English public will be excited not by the game itself but by the thought of winning something, anything.
But English or not, cricket-loving or not, everyone should care about violent crime, justice, etc. Those are things that matter to all of humanity.
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
I realize you don't follow cricket at all, but ranting at umpires for a whole minute (did you watch the video?) is not acceptable in any sport. In football (soccer), he would have been given a red card, which means missing the rest of that game and the next one as well. In baseball, he would also have been ejected.
-
think positive
- Posts: 40200
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:33 pm
- Location: somewhere
- Has liked: 240 times
- Been liked: 91 times
-
think positive
- Posts: 40200
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:33 pm
- Location: somewhere
- Has liked: 240 times
- Been liked: 91 times
Such dissent is of course inexcusable even if you don't "win some, lose some", but it's even worse when you have recently benefited from umpiring error. It was quickly pointed out at the time of Roy's meltdown that in the game England v. India (at (10.4) in the England innings), the opposite error happened. Pandya clearly had Roy caught behind, and umpire Aleem Dar gave it as a wide. 
India had their review, but they decided not to take it as the clock ticked down. Dhoni is regarded as someone who always gets DRS reviews right. Sadly, it looks like he has lost that skill as well as his batting skill. (His inclusion in India's WC squad has been criticised, though it's easy to say in hindsight.)
Here's Pandya's dismissal of Roy that wasn't, according to Aleem.
India had their review, but they decided not to take it as the clock ticked down.
Dhoni is regarded as someone who always gets DRS reviews right. Sadly, it looks like he has lost that skill as well as his batting skill. (His inclusion in India's WC squad has been criticised, though it's easy to say in hindsight.)Here's Pandya's dismissal of Roy that wasn't, according to Aleem.
The (on-field) umpires for the final are the same as for the second semifinal: Kumar Dharmasena and Marais Erasmus. Rod Tucker is the third umpire. (Chris Gaffaney cannot be, because NZ is competing. That also rules out umpires like Richard Kettleborough.) Aleem Dar is the fourth.
Ranjan Madugalle is the match referee.
I assume that means Rod is in charge of TV reviews. If an umpire goes down (for example, after being assaulted by an out-of-control England player), does Rod take the field and Aleem take the remote control? I guess so.
Ranjan Madugalle is the match referee.
I assume that means Rod is in charge of TV reviews. If an umpire goes down (for example, after being assaulted by an out-of-control England player), does Rod take the field and Aleem take the remote control? I guess so.
It would possibly have been the best poetic justice if Roy had ranted for another couple of minutes and then the umpires had decided that his replacement, Morgan, was also out, in accordance with Rule 40.1 of the Laws of Cricket, the fall of the wicket having occurred at the moment umpire Dharmasena's finger went up. (For betting purposes -- leading wicket-taker in the innings -- it's important to know that that fantasy wicket would not have been credited to Cummins. 
)
"40.1 Out Timed out
40.1.1 After the fall of a wicket or the retirement of a batsman, the incoming batsman must, unless Time has been called, be in position to take guard or for the other batsman to be ready to receive the next ball within 3 minutes of the dismissal or retirement. If this requirement is not met, the incoming batsman will be out, Timed out.
...
40.2 Bowler does not get credit
The bowler does not get credit for the wicket."
(Marylebone Cricket Club 2017)
)"40.1 Out Timed out
40.1.1 After the fall of a wicket or the retirement of a batsman, the incoming batsman must, unless Time has been called, be in position to take guard or for the other batsman to be ready to receive the next ball within 3 minutes of the dismissal or retirement. If this requirement is not met, the incoming batsman will be out, Timed out.
...
40.2 Bowler does not get credit
The bowler does not get credit for the wicket."
(Marylebone Cricket Club 2017)
-
think positive
- Posts: 40200
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:33 pm
- Location: somewhere
- Has liked: 240 times
- Been liked: 91 times