The Ashes Tour 2013

[Will27]

Broad was out, so clearly it beggars belief that the umpire did not raise his finger. This is a classic example of where technology available should be used.

It is not up to an individual player to judge himself out or not. If it was, a player when given out incorrectly could justifiably stand his ground, as it is up to him to decide. No, the decision is up to the Umpires of the game. This should not solely mean the field umpire, but the umpires off the ground using technology. In a case such as this the technology should be utilised and the player given out. It is very simple.

That each team gets 2 reviews per innings is a mistake itself. It puts some onus back to the players, taking tight decision making out of the on fields umpires mind and transferring it to the players to gamble one of their review chances. The video replay is automatically checked for a Bowler having bowled a No Ball after each wicket and the video is checked for each Run Out and Stumping decision. Why would the video not be checked for any caught behinds also?

The use of the video review system has already taken lot of controversy out of the game, allowing incorrect an decision to be rectified. In the days of no video reviews there were countless incorrect decisions on Run Outs, often affecting the game. The game has not suffered from the use of technology correctly deeming players Out or Not Out

Unfortunately for Broad, this incident will tarnish his reputation and image in the minds of many. In many ways it is unfair on him as he is playing by the rules given to him. Change the way reviews are made and such controversies that can blight a match will disappear.

One risk is that the Umpire in the middle may lose his authority. Now, in rugby league, it is almost always the video referee who judges whether a try is awarded, and he'll look at a host of things you or I or a mortal referee would rarely be able to see - was the player onside at the start of the play, was there any obstruction anywhere else, did he park neatly between the lines in the carpark, did he slurp his breakfast coffee... Batsmen will stand their ground waiting to hear the verdict of the voices in the Umpire's head...

Personally, I don't see why dishonest batsmen should be allowed to score more runs than honest ones, so though I am sure he would have liked to walk, Broad could not, as the Umpire had ruled he was not out. It would be ever so embarrassing if the Umpire had to call him back from the dressing room "Ah don't care what you felt, son, I never saw it so it never 'appened. Get back owt theur and stay in"

SC

Of course Broad could've walked. He could've have walked before given not out or he could've walked after given not out.

He chose not to as is his right. But once he's walked, he's not going to be called back.

Regards

Will

[StreetCowboy]

Broad was out, so clearly it beggars belief that the umpire did not raise his finger. This is a classic example of where technology available should be used.

It is not up to an individual player to judge himself out or not. If it was, a player when given out incorrectly could justifiably stand his ground, as it is up to him to decide. No, the decision is up to the Umpires of the game. This should not solely mean the field umpire, but the umpires off the ground using technology. In a case such as this the technology should be utilised and the player given out. It is very simple.

That each team gets 2 reviews per innings is a mistake itself. It puts some onus back to the players, taking tight decision making out of the on fields umpires mind and transferring it to the players to gamble one of their review chances. The video replay is automatically checked for a Bowler having bowled a No Ball after each wicket and the video is checked for each Run Out and Stumping decision. Why would the video not be checked for any caught behinds also?

The use of the video review system has already taken lot of controversy out of the game, allowing incorrect an decision to be rectified. In the days of no video reviews there were countless incorrect decisions on Run Outs, often affecting the game. The game has not suffered from the use of technology correctly deeming players Out or Not Out

Unfortunately for Broad, this incident will tarnish his reputation and image in the minds of many. In many ways it is unfair on him as he is playing by the rules given to him. Change the way reviews are made and such controversies that can blight a match will disappear.

One risk is that the Umpire in the middle may lose his authority. Now, in rugby league, it is almost always the video referee who judges whether a try is awarded, and he'll look at a host of things you or I or a mortal referee would rarely be able to see - was the player onside at the start of the play, was there any obstruction anywhere else, did he park neatly between the lines in the carpark, did he slurp his breakfast coffee... Batsmen will stand their ground waiting to hear the verdict of the voices in the Umpire's head...

Personally, I don't see why dishonest batsmen should be allowed to score more runs than honest ones, so though I am sure he would have liked to walk, Broad could not, as the Umpire had ruled he was not out. It would be ever so embarrassing if the Umpire had to call him back from the dressing room "Ah don't care what you felt, son, I never saw it so it never 'appened. Get back owt theur and stay in"

SC

Of course Broad could've walked. He could've have walked before given not out or he could've walked after given not out.

He chose not to as is his right. But once he's walked, he's not going to be called back.

Regards

Will

Are you suggesting that the Umpire would allow his opinion to be swayed by the behaviour of the batsman? That doesn't seem right...

[jackr]

It's 3:1 to the Aussies. Agar: out, Root: not out; Trott: not out; Broad: out (but tough titties I'm afraid). Stop whining Australia, you're well up in the balance of things.

[uptheos]

Would Michael Clarke have walked? (Anyone remember a bigger nick in 2008)?

[Bangkokhatter]

Broad was out, so clearly it beggars belief that the umpire did not raise his finger. This is a classic example of where technology available should be used.

It is not up to an individual player to judge himself out or not. If it was, a player when given out incorrectly could justifiably stand his ground, as it is up to him to decide. No, the decision is up to the Umpires of the game. This should not solely mean the field umpire, but the umpires off the ground using technology. In a case such as this the technology should be utilised and the player given out. It is very simple.

That each team gets 2 reviews per innings is a mistake itself. It puts some onus back to the players, taking tight decision making out of the on fields umpires mind and transferring it to the players to gamble one of their review chances. The video replay is automatically checked for a Bowler having bowled a No Ball after each wicket and the video is checked for each Run Out and Stumping decision. Why would the video not be checked for any caught behinds also?

The use of the video review system has already taken lot of controversy out of the game, allowing incorrect an decision to be rectified. In the days of no video reviews there were countless incorrect decisions on Run Outs, often affecting the game. The game has not suffered from the use of technology correctly deeming players Out or Not Out

Unfortunately for Broad, this incident will tarnish his reputation and image in the minds of many. In many ways it is unfair on him as he is playing by the rules given to him. Change the way reviews are made and such controversies that can blight a match will disappear.

One risk is that the Umpire in the middle may lose his authority. Now, in rugby league, it is almost always the video referee who judges whether a try is awarded, and he'll look at a host of things you or I or a mortal referee would rarely be able to see - was the player onside at the start of the play, was there any obstruction anywhere else, did he park neatly between the lines in the carpark, did he slurp his breakfast coffee... Batsmen will stand their ground waiting to hear the verdict of the voices in the Umpire's head...

Personally, I don't see why dishonest batsmen should be allowed to score more runs than honest ones, so though I am sure he would have liked to walk, Broad could not, as the Umpire had ruled he was not out. It would be ever so embarrassing if the Umpire had to call him back from the dressing room "Ah don't care what you felt, son, I never saw it so it never 'appened. Get back owt theur and stay in"

SC

Of course Broad could've walked. He could've have walked before given not out or he could've walked after given not out.

He chose not to as is his right. But once he's walked, he's not going to be called back.

Regards

Will

Are you suggesting that the Umpire would allow his opinion to be swayed by the behaviour of the batsman? That doesn't seem right...

If Broad had walked it would not have mattered what decision the umpire gave.

[Will27]

Broad was out, so clearly it beggars belief that the umpire did not raise his finger. This is a classic example of where technology available should be used.

It is not up to an individual player to judge himself out or not. If it was, a player when given out incorrectly could justifiably stand his ground, as it is up to him to decide. No, the decision is up to the Umpires of the game. This should not solely mean the field umpire, but the umpires off the ground using technology. In a case such as this the technology should be utilised and the player given out. It is very simple.

That each team gets 2 reviews per innings is a mistake itself. It puts some onus back to the players, taking tight decision making out of the on fields umpires mind and transferring it to the players to gamble one of their review chances. The video replay is automatically checked for a Bowler having bowled a No Ball after each wicket and the video is checked for each Run Out and Stumping decision. Why would the video not be checked for any caught behinds also?

The use of the video review system has already taken lot of controversy out of the game, allowing incorrect an decision to be rectified. In the days of no video reviews there were countless incorrect decisions on Run Outs, often affecting the game. The game has not suffered from the use of technology correctly deeming players Out or Not Out

Unfortunately for Broad, this incident will tarnish his reputation and image in the minds of many. In many ways it is unfair on him as he is playing by the rules given to him. Change the way reviews are made and such controversies that can blight a match will disappear.

One risk is that the Umpire in the middle may lose his authority. Now, in rugby league, it is almost always the video referee who judges whether a try is awarded, and he'll look at a host of things you or I or a mortal referee would rarely be able to see - was the player onside at the start of the play, was there any obstruction anywhere else, did he park neatly between the lines in the carpark, did he slurp his breakfast coffee... Batsmen will stand their ground waiting to hear the verdict of the voices in the Umpire's head...

Personally, I don't see why dishonest batsmen should be allowed to score more runs than honest ones, so though I am sure he would have liked to walk, Broad could not, as the Umpire had ruled he was not out. It would be ever so embarrassing if the Umpire had to call him back from the dressing room "Ah don't care what you felt, son, I never saw it so it never 'appened. Get back owt theur and stay in"

SC

Of course Broad could've walked. He could've have walked before given not out or he could've walked after given not out.

He chose not to as is his right. But once he's walked, he's not going to be called back.

Regards

Will

Are you suggesting that the Umpire would allow his opinion to be swayed by the behaviour of the batsman? That doesn't seem right...

Exactly what I'm saying. Once the batsman walks, he's out.

Here is one of the more famous times it's happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gVI8sOtdNk

Regards

Will

[Will27]

Would Michael Clarke have walked? (Anyone remember a bigger nick in 2008)?

Of course he wouldn't have.

To be honest, I'm not sure who would these days.

[Bangkokhatter]

I predict England will hit out 450 and then look to batter the Aussies poor batsmen. This is shaping up very well indeed!

A tad defensive don't you think?, get up to 350 ( won't be easy ) then stick them in, though doubt Cook will do that, they will bat until all out.

[uptheos]

Would Michael Clarke have walked? (Anyone remember a bigger nick in 2008)?

Of course he wouldn't have.

To be honest, I'm not sure who would these days.

Spot on Wil.

"In 2008 at Sydney, Michael Clarke edged Anil Kumble to first slip and didn't walk. He later apologized to Kumble about it. In the 2010-11 Ashes at Adelaide, he failed to walk off after being being caught off the bowling of Kevin Pietersen. He apologized again".

Maybe Broad should Twitter an apology?

Edited July 13, 2013 by uptheos

[BookMan]

Would Michael Clarke have walked? (Anyone remember a bigger nick in 2008)?

Of course he wouldn't have.

To be honest, I'm not sure who would these days.

Spot on Wil.

"In 2008 at Sydney, Michael Clarke edged Anil Kumble to first slip and didn't walk. He later apologized to Kumble about it. In the 2010-11 Ashes at Adelaide, he failed to walk off after being being caught off the bowling of Kevin Pietersen. He apologized again".

Maybe Broad should Twitter an apology?

I dont think apologies are needed.

The technology is there for such blatant clangers, the ICC need to come in line with other sports and use what they have at their disposal

[smokie36]

I predict England will hit out 450 and then look to batter the Aussies poor batsmen. This is shaping up very well indeed!

A tad defensive don't you think?, get up to 350 ( won't be easy ) then stick them in, though doubt Cook will do that, they will bat until all out.

Given there are still two days left i think England will push slowly up towards 400 then just swing the bat....no way the Aussies will score 350.

[Bangkokhatter]

I predict England will hit out 450 and then look to batter the Aussies poor batsmen. This is shaping up very well indeed!

A tad defensive don't you think?, get up to 350 ( won't be easy ) then stick them in, though doubt Cook will do that, they will bat until all out.

Given there are still two days left i think England will push slowly up towards 400 then just swing the bat....no way the Aussies will score 350.

your right, i mis-read your post, i was on about a 350 lead not a total.

[BookMan]

I predict England will hit out 450 and then look to batter the Aussies poor batsmen. This is shaping up very well indeed!

A tad defensive don't you think?, get up to 350 ( won't be easy ) then stick them in, though doubt Cook will do that, they will bat until all out.

Given there are still two days left i think England will push slowly up towards 400 then just swing the bat....no way the Aussies will score 350.

The English run rate has been diabolically slow

[smokie36]

I predict England will hit out 450 and then look to batter the Aussies poor batsmen. This is shaping up very well indeed!

A tad defensive don't you think?, get up to 350 ( won't be easy ) then stick them in, though doubt Cook will do that, they will bat until all out.

Given there are still two days left i think England will push slowly up towards 400 then just swing the bat....no way the Aussies will score 350.

The English run rate has been diabolically slow

A consequence of losing early wickets plus having so much time left to play.

By doing so they have restricted Aussie batting time and placed themselves in a likely draw or possible win scenario.

Smart test cricket Bookman!

[David48]

Now, in rugby league, it is almost always the video referee who judges whether a try is awarded, and he'll look at a host of things you or I or a mortal referee would rarely be able to see - was the player onside at the start of the play, was there any obstruction anywhere else, did he park neatly between the lines in the carpark, did he slurp his breakfast coffee... B

SC

Actually SC ... in the NRL, there has been a move away from the Video Referee deciding ... and the decision is more commonly made by the ground Referee ... but I digress.

.

[David48]

It's 3:1 to the Aussies. Agar: out, Root: not out; Trott: not out; Broad: out (but tough titties I'm afraid). Stop whining Australia, you're well up in the balance of things.

We Aussies aren't whining at all.

In fact we (well, I am anyway) are agreeing that the standard of Umpiring thus far is below par.

About the Agar out/not out ... I could have accepted either decision of the upstairs umpire.

He gave benefit of the doubt and that's it.

[David48]

I predict England will hit out 450 and then look to batter the Aussies poor batsmen. This is shaping up very well indeed!

A tad defensive don't you think?, get up to 350 ( won't be easy ) then stick them in, though doubt Cook will do that, they will bat until all out.

Given there are still two days left i think England will push slowly up towards 400 then just swing the bat....no way the Aussies will score 350.

Any chance ...

.

[smokie36]

I predict England will hit out 450 and then look to batter the Aussies poor batsmen. This is shaping up very well indeed!

A tad defensive don't you think?, get up to 350 ( won't be easy ) then stick them in, though doubt Cook will do that, they will bat until all out.

Given there are still two days left i think England will push slowly up towards 400 then just swing the bat....no way the Aussies will score 350.

Any chance ...

.

None whatsoever.....its blue skies all the way!

[David48]

Any chance ...

.

None whatsoever.....its blue skies all the way!

Well smokie36 ... your a little Ray of Sunshine aren't you ...

So nothin' but Blue Skies do you see ...

.

[tigerfish]

Any chance ...

.

None whatsoever.....its blue skies all the way!

Well smokie36 ... your a little Ray of Sunshine aren't you ...

So nothin' but Blue Skies do you see ...

.

30 degrees and blue skies all the way is the forecast for today.

Edited July 13, 2013 by tigerfish

[smokie36]

Any chance ...

.

None whatsoever.....its blue skies all the way!

Well smokie36 ... your a little Ray of Sunshine aren't you ...

So nothin' but Blue Skies do you see ...

.

30 degrees and blue skies all the way is the forecast for today.

Perfect batting conditions.

[BookMan]

Any chance ...

.

None whatsoever.....its blue skies all the way!

Well smokie36 ... your a little Ray of Sunshine aren't you ...

So nothin' but Blue Skies do you see ...

.

30 degrees and blue skies all the way is the forecast for today.

Explains why England is scoring so slowly.

They must be enjoying getting a tan

[tigerfish]

^ erm............ explain that one Bookman ?

two Englishmen batting alternatively depending on when one gets out against 11 Aussies who have spent 1 and a half days in the field so far.

apart from Ed Cowan that is who has spent most of his time in the pavilion, whether batting or fielding.

must have had one of those dodgy Nottingham Indian curries !

hey what's happened to this function BTW the text is all funny and i can't access the smiley thing a me jig ?

Edited July 13, 2013 by tigerfish

[BookMan]

^ erm............ explain that one Bookman ?

The batsmen are enjoying the sun and getting a tan...so they are batting slowly so they can stay in the centre and ...enjoy the sun and get a tan

Edited July 13, 2013 by BookMan

[smokie36]

^ erm............ explain that one Bookman ?

two Englishmen batting alternatively depending on when one gets out against 11 Aussies who have spent 1 and a half days in the field so far.

apart from Ed Cowan that is who has spent most of his time in the pavilion, whether batting or fielding.

must have had one of those dodgy Nottingham Indian curries !

hey what's happened to this function BTW the text is all funny and i can't access the smiley thing a me jig ?

Barmy army!

[7by7]

Some people need to remember that this is a test match, not a 20/20 game!

Both sides played their first innings as though it were a 20/20 game, and look what happened!

England are playing perfect test cricket. Build an innings, don't take chances (except for Prior's shot that got him out!) and put the game out of Australia's reach. Leaving a day and a half to bowl Australia out.

[David48]

The pitch has been described as like a piece of Weet-Bix,

and the day being 'Hot' as in Australian hot ... not what passes for Summer in England.

Here's hoping that, when our chance comes to bat ... we don't disgrace ourselves.

.

[BookMan]

Some people need to remember that this is a test match, not a 20/20 game!

Both sides played their first innings as though it were a 20/20 game, and look what happened!

England are playing perfect test cricket. Build an innings, don't take chances (except for Prior's shot that got him out!) and put the game out of Australia's reach. Leaving a day and a half to bowl Australia out.

2.45 Run rate for England. Slow by any modern day test Cricket standards.

I'd expect more from this excellent batting side of England

[7by7]

Slow, maybe; but determined by factors like the state of the game, the state of the pitch and the amount of time left.

Why risk getting out quickly by pushing the scoring rate along at a ODI rates when there is so much time left in the game?

I'm sure Australia would have done the same in England's position; indeed they would have been fools had they done otherwise!

[BookMan]

Slow, maybe; but determined by factors like the state of the game, the state of the pitch and the amount of time left.

Why risk getting out quickly by pushing the scoring rate along at a ODI rates when there is so much time left in the game?

I'm sure Australia would have done the same in England's position; indeed they would have been fools had they done otherwise!

Nah, they would have got on with the job.

Modern day run rates are above 3.3 now I believe. Get the runs on the board quickly, give yourself time to bowl out the opposition, allow for things like rain.

The only surprising thing is why England is being so timid with their shot selection