Fred's Favourites

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Just wanted to make some comments on the normal amount of crap that has come from the media after this first test.

I dunno how biased I am, but I didn't think Tendulkar's decision was that bad. It looked like it hit near the roll on the front pad, and was definitely in line with the stumps. I reckon Hawkeye over-estimated how high it was going to pass over the stumps. Even then it was only about 5-10cm over the top. And no matter how much people protest, not playing a shot does make an LBW closer... ;-)

To justify how 'bad' Bucknor has been during this test they bought up the Langer no-ball again, really a line-ball decision, not an 'obvious mistake', and some of the other Indian LBWs that 'should' have been given out- never clear-cut decisions no matter what Hawkeye says.
Perhaps they shouldn't subscribe to the Tawny Grig school of decision-making. I actually thought Heals did a pretty good job of defending the umpires in this morning's commentary with a review of the LBW decisions over the last few days.

No doubt we will hear more about the terrible decisions and despicable performance by Steve Waugh in the coming month. So looking forward to it 8-|

― Poseiden (Poseiden), Monday, 8 December 2003 03:13 (twenty-two years ago)

By the strict letter of the law Tendles might not have been out, but this umpire 'bias' against batsmen that don't attempt a shot isn't something that this particular umpire started in this particular match. Word has been out for years.

The Langer no-ball: it was not a legal delivery. The line is there for all to see. If the fieldsman had caught it as far off the ground as the bowler had infringed the crease by, it would still have been a catch. Umpires find it hard enough to judge a no-ball to a visible line, how the hell are they going to go if they have to judge 'near misses' according to an imaginary line?

― Fred Nerk (Fred Nerk), Monday, 8 December 2003 03:28 (twenty-two years ago)

The Tendulkar decision has only been chastisised so much because it was the little master, without a run to his name, on the receiving end. You won't hear the end of it either, I can't believe that there's people out there still whinging about the shoulder decision in 1999. And that one was actually a good decision.

The decision yesterday wasn't a good decision, but there's been plenty of decisions that have been much worse.

― Ross (Ross), Monday, 8 December 2003 03:29 (twenty-two years ago)

We've just seen the third replay of the 1st inns run out in three overs.

If Ch 9 keep flogging this particular dead horse they might unite the country behind Waugh, the same way the ravings of Richie and Tawns caused the public to start screaming at them to get off Greg Chappell's case after the underarm incident.

― Fred Nerk (Fred Nerk), Monday, 8 December 2003 03:56 (twenty-two years ago)

Hawk-eye is seriously flawed in that it works on the assumption that the same ball pitching in roughly the same spot will always behave in the same manner.

If this were the case Warne would have closer to 291 than 491 test wickets.

― powwow, Monday, 8 December 2003 07:25 (twenty-two years ago)

Sod Hawk-eye - the side-on shot showed the arc of the ball had flattened - it wasn't going to rise any more, may even have descended a little before it reached the stumps.

Would have preferred to have seen the batsman get the benefit, but don't really have that much of a problem with the decision.

― tailender (tailender), Monday, 8 December 2003 08:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Hawk-eye is rather like its MASH namesake in that far too many people place far too much importance on its opinion.

― Fred Nerk (Fred Nerk), Monday, 8 December 2003 08:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Agree, Fred.

I noticed on the tennis that J Alexander saif that Hawkeye was 100% accurate. What a goose.

― chrisso, Monday, 8 December 2003 10:18 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.