Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Messages

This section allows you to view all Messages made by this member. Note that you can only see Messages made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - PezzDogg95

31
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: Baby Blues vs. Sandringham at Visy on Saturday
Half Time: Northern Blues 6. 10. (46) lead Sandringham 5. 3. (33)

GOALS: Collins 2, Robinson, Bell, Lambert, Wilson
STATS: Lambert 15, Ellard 14, Robinson 14, Joseph 12, Lucas 12

By the sounds of it Nick Graham is playing, not sure if Andy McInnes is though. Can anyone shed some light on this?

Source: Northern Blues twitter
32
The Sports Desk / Re: The Ashes - First Test @ Trent Bridge
Quote from: spf on
It was interesting the Trott decision with many people labelling it 'poor' but based upon what?

The 'poor' part was the fact one of their key pieces of technology wasn't ready for the ball!

When the decision was referred it fell to the 3rd umpire to decide if the standing umpire (Dar in this case) had gotten it wrong. Based upon the evidence how could you not give it out? Did he hit the ball? - if you're not sure then the benefit should have gone to the batsman particularly with the LBW law. The technology not being available probably must have put the decision into some doubt however the front on hot spot showed nothing, the replay seemed to indicate it was pad first and then (and this is the big thing for me) that 'snicko' technology picked up nothing before the pad AND the bat was some way out in front by that stage.

Based upon that and the fact that ball pitched and but for the fact it intercepted the batsman AND he had not hit the ball it would have gone on to hit the stumps (clearly is what I look for). You must be certain.

I have no doubt Trott felt he hit it but the evidence did not show that. The question therefore is: Was there enough evidence to overturn the standing umpires decision (you have to be sure)?. When we say "OUT" the batsman in our mind is clearly out - we are sure. When we say "NOT OUT" we are not sure and that can be for any number of reasons.

An awful lot of time was taken up with that decision so I would love to know what else took place in that process - did the 3rd umpire speak with the standing umpire? I noted that 'snicko' wasn't included in the review package of replays initially so the question remains was it looked at as well during or afterwards.

All very interesting. If you have a look at the footage 'live' with no replay and once only what would your decision have been? OUT or NOT OUT?

I agree with what you have posted. It is very unfortunate that the square-leg hot-spot wasn't ready for that delivery, as that would have given a definitive answer. When i watched it live i thought it was pretty plum, but that was probably due to my bias.  :-*

Correct me if i am wrong, but as i recall, one of the commentators said that Aleem Dar (field ump) suggested that it hit pad first, but he wasn't sure about whether it was hitting the stumps or something (i was half asleep). So when the third umpire told him it was hitting middle and leg, he gave it out.
In the AFL it would have been umpire's call because IMO that vision was inconclusive.
33
The Sports Desk / Re: The Ashes - First Test @ Trent Bridge
Quote from: Mantis on
Quote from: TheSheik on
BUGGER !!

He smashed it and got caught at mid-wicket.

Great last wicket record stand. Is his average the highest of all batsmen in our squad at international level for test cricket yet ?  ;D

He did well and probably helped the form of Hughes too.

I feel sorry for the kid. If anyone deserved a century it was him.

It was still a fantastic partnership between him and Hughes, single-handedly brought us back into this test match.
35
The Sports Desk / Re: The Ashes - First Test @ Trent Bridge
what is par for our batsmen this inning?

considering we are 4/75 overnight and England are all out for 215.

Reports are that Stuart Broad is fit and ready to bowl,
It is a glorious SUNNY 8) day, should be a good day to bat.