This entry is now closed for comments.
538.Chili Palmer - "....if technology can prove a ball is going to hit the wicket then a batsman should be given....."This is EXACTLY the problem - it can only prove it in limited circumstances. Even Hawk Eye's makers say it is only accurate to within about 2"......hence why if only half the ball is shown hitting the stumps the umpire can give the benefit of the doubt.......
England is blessed with a very reliable Bell. Hearty congratulations to the centurion. 3 hundreds in four Tests ! Wonderful feat.Dr. Cajetan Coelho
538.Chili Palmer "if technology can prove a ball is going to hit the wicket then a batsman should be given out." I could not agree more. The problem is, it often can't "prove" it. It can predict it might well have done, which is hardly the same thing. From a fellow bowler!
@539 If the tech does contain an element of doubt (it shouldn't, not hard to get the trajectory right) then it is still miles & miles less doubt than that of the umpires.I want correct decisions not guesswork from the umpires who clearly aren't up to scratch at the moment.
The new technology is not infallible, it contains an element of doubt. As for the batsman getting the benefit of any doubt, that's the way the game is played. "Probably out" should be not out and that has always been the case. Bowlers get another go if the umpire makes a mistake, batsmen do not, hardly an unfair advantage
I agree with Davey Bones, if technology can prove a ball is going to hit the wicket then a batsman should be given out. There is a real problem with hot spot but when the ball hit's the pad and would have hit the wicket then he should be out, yes I was a bowler.
The batsman has always had an unfair advantage, I repeat my question, why should a batsman be given the grey area?"With new technology there is no doubt". I assume you're joking?the technology is not biased either way any mistake could be either way. With the benefit of doubt always going to the batsman, the bowler has 90% and the batsman has 110%, if that can be made closer then good.
Regardless of the result, Clarke is a classy bat and even classier in defeat. If there are issues behind the scenes I hope he deals with it and gets the Aussies back on track. Watson looks every inch the plonker on and off the field. He gets out LBW more than I do and I am officially toilet!
530. rwjporter. ProudAussie seems to moan and whinge and whine.Careful ... you probably mean ProudAustralian. ProudAussie is a different person, who makes plenty of good and objective comments.
529.Davey Bones A 1st class umpire once told me the question an umpire should ask with an LBW is " Might that have missed the stumps?". If the answer is Yes, it's Not Out. He reckoned umpires are asking themselves " Was that hitting the stumps?" and giving batsmen out if the answer was " Probably". As for you last question - "With new technology there is no doubt". I assume you're joking?
3-0 but give the Aussies some credit, they have fought hard and long, the game and the ashes overall has been a hard battle.England have not been on form, Siddle and Harris have caused a lot of problems, but overall the Aussie batting just isn't test quality, and the worry is that the better batsmen in the Aussie team are all the veterans. Not looking good for the Aussies in the medium term.
ENGLAND WIN, ENGLAND WIN!!!!, Changes for the oval, rest Anderson for certain who even on the highlights as looked Jaded. maybe switch Taylor in for Bairstow.
Easy,easy...well not quite but deserved.
We're having some problems displaying the comments at the moment. Sorry. We're doing our best to fix it.
You must sign in to rate comments