Re: South Africa v England, 4th Test, Jo’burg, Jan 14-18

Zat · by Zat on Fri 15 Jan 2010, 00:32

I was tempted to blow the photo up and zoom right in.

Shoeshine · by Shoeshine on Fri 15 Jan 2010, 00:45

Zat wrote:
beamer wrote:3) The no-ball. If it's as blatant as it sounded then the umpire is corrupt rather than just incompetent, and Strauss should have asked his players to leave the field at least until the TV umpire was replaced.

Don't know if the Inzi technique would wash, beamer. here's a screenshot of the delivery stride in the referral.

And there is a part - albeit a really tiny part - of the foot behind the line. It's a legal delivery.

Trouble is Zat, the shot first shown, and which twatface Harper looked at, was the one on the other side, which doesn't show anything behind the line. He never looked at the image you've got above at all and never based his decision on it.

tac · by tac on Fri 15 Jan 2010, 00:47

Blame the Normans . . . .

Shoeshine · by Shoeshine on Fri 15 Jan 2010, 00:48

This is the one Harper based his decision on:

tac · by tac on Fri 15 Jan 2010, 00:49

That is still very tight to overturn a decision on . . .

Zat · by Zat on Fri 15 Jan 2010, 00:51

Well, there are some people who say the technology should preserve doubt...

JKLever · by JKLever on Fri 15 Jan 2010, 00:54

tac wrote:Not like the poms to have a farkin whinge though, is it?

*cough* Oval. Minefield. Big sooking *cough* Wink

Shoeshine · by Shoeshine on Fri 15 Jan 2010, 00:57

But the point about the no ball issue is that doubt is not in either direction. The 3rd dickhead (sorry, umpire - except when it's Harper or Ashoka) is told to simply rule on whether it's a legal delivery or not. The whole "overturning the decision" thing doesn't apply, the question is, is it a no ball or not. I think that's a no ball myself - but you may disagree.

As several of us have said, it's one wicket, it's not why England stuffed up, but I was watching and straight away you thought, that's a no ball. Harper looked at that shot I uploaded twice, with the above images the most legal of what was on offer (when did his foot actually land, because the others are even more blatantly over the line), then ignored it and carried on.

Zat · by Zat on Fri 15 Jan 2010, 01:03

Tell you what Shoey, I won't really worry about it.

Until Australia gets dudded by one, then I will start the whole range of histrionics. Deal?

Blackadder · by Blackadder on Fri 15 Jan 2010, 01:08

Shoeshine wrote:This is the one Harper based his decision on:

As the reverse side shows, it was a legitimate delievery (just) so regardless Harper got the call right... :arrow:

Shoeshine · by Shoeshine on Fri 15 Jan 2010, 01:09

Zat wrote:Tell you what Shoey, I won't really worry about it.

Until Australia gets dudded by one, then I will start the whole range of histrionics. Deal?

I'm less bothered by the impact on the match as I am by the incompetence of it all.

Shoeshine · by Shoeshine on Fri 15 Jan 2010, 01:13

Blackadder wrote:
Shoeshine wrote:This is the one Harper based his decision on:

As the reverse side shows, it was a legitimate delievery (just) so regardless Harper got the call right... :arrow:

It's an arguable one. All depends when the foot actually landed. But given that Harper got it wrong on what he saw - what the hell's he doing there? Just go with the original umpire's call instead!

Zat · by Zat on Fri 15 Jan 2010, 01:15

Shoeshine wrote:
Zat wrote:Tell you what Shoey, I won't really worry about it.

Until Australia gets dudded by one, then I will start the whole range of histrionics. Deal?

I'm less bothered by the impact on the match as I am by the incompetence of it all.

I still think the ICC has stuffed up the whole referral idea. But that shouldn't surprise anyone.

Eric Air Emu · by Eric Air Emu on Fri 15 Jan 2010, 02:33

[not tom]

well anyway, england could have tried harder: http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/62792.html

Batman · by Batman on Fri 15 Jan 2010, 05:31

beamer wrote:Just about to watch the whole craptaculation on the Sky highlights, but from what I've heard so far there's plenty of questions:

1) Why exactly did we choose to bat on a pitch that was always going to favour the seamers? Scared of batting last and/or didn't trust the bowlers, that's all it could be. Put them in first and either you roll them over and get yourselves the advantage, or they get a big score and take time out of the game when you only need a draw. They got a call from John......

2) Sidebottom for Onions? Bringing in a bowler who has hardly any overs on tour and to be quite honest has shown little in terms of form and fitness since his spectacular year of re-introduction to international cricket. Onions hadn't done that badly and might have cashed in here and been rewarded for his efforts throughout the series. Inspired by Dhoni? Drop an inform substitute player with someone fresh from injury without a match under the belt for a big match and expect the gamble to pay off.....

There you go.....