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

taipan · by taipan on Fri 15 Jan 2010, 06:54

DJ_Smerk wrote:
I mean, it's highly unlikely that it'll rain on the same hour everyday,

4.30/5 is probably nearer the mark

taipan · by taipan on Fri 15 Jan 2010, 06:57

smo wrote:God knows what's wrong with Trott, looks totaly out of his depth??

Maybe someone should tell Trev that.

Henry · by Henry on Fri 15 Jan 2010, 07:40

Shoeshine wrote:
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!

The line belongs to the umpire. some part of the foot has to be BEHIND the line. It's clearly not. Harper is an incompetent c*nt. I mean honestly. It's right there. It's a line decision. It really doesn't take a genius.

taipan · by taipan on Fri 15 Jan 2010, 07:44

The sooking about this has become almost subiesque.

embee · by embee on Fri 15 Jan 2010, 07:47

Trev

One ...It's a still shot ..you cant make a no ball call from it (same as you cant call a chuck from a single photo even if MuMu's elbow is at right angles) ...if his foot has landed behind the line and slid forward ...it's not a no ball

Two ...His heel is in the air ...as long as some part of that was behind the line (even if raised) it's not a no ball

"It really doesn't take a genius"

That's correct ...but you've got it wrong ...so you can come to your own conclusion as to what that means

Henry · by Henry on Fri 15 Jan 2010, 07:49

I saw it live. It looked like a no ball then. His foot didn't slide forwards.

taipan · by taipan on Fri 15 Jan 2010, 07:50

It's odd. I just got this morning's paper. It still says he's out

Zat · by Zat on Fri 15 Jan 2010, 08:08

Henry wrote:The line belongs to the umpire. some part of the foot has to be BEHIND the line. It's clearly not. Harper is an incompetent c*nt. I mean honestly. It's right there. It's a line decision. It really doesn't take a genius.

Sorry to point out the obvious to everyone. Harper is Australian. Trev is NEVER going to be objective about anything involving Australians.

Henry · by Henry on Fri 15 Jan 2010, 09:18

That's f*cking bullshit. Smith hit the cover off that and everyone heard the nick except for Tony Hill it would seem.

Why don't the ICC pay for hotspot? It's no longer for viewer entertainment, it's for decisions, so the ICC needs to cough up the money.

tac · by tac on Fri 15 Jan 2010, 09:20

And Trev shoves another handful of sand up his vagina . . .

taipan · by taipan on Fri 15 Jan 2010, 09:20

Henry wrote:That's f*cking bullshit. Smith hit the cover off that and everyone heard the nick except for Tony Hill it would seem.

Why don't the ICC pay for hotspot?

Are we playing England or India?

embee · by embee on Fri 15 Jan 2010, 09:22

The Yarps should ask for a review on that ...Not as Big Daz would probabbly over rule it just to piss Trev off

Blackadder · by Blackadder on Fri 15 Jan 2010, 09:39

taipan wrote:
Henry wrote:That's f*cking bullshit. Smith hit the cover off that and everyone heard the nick except for Tony Hill it would seem.

Why don't the ICC pay for hotspot?

Are we playing England or India?

Judging by the sookiness, fugged if I know. scratch

Shoeshine · by Shoeshine on Fri 15 Jan 2010, 09:50

Well, you can understand an unhappiness about that - clearly Smith hit it. Nicks behind have been missed by umpires for time immemorial, so it's not a new thing there. The thing I don't understand about the review thing is why (lacking hotspot and snicko) the third umpire refuses to go by the sound? That's what the on field umpire does anyway, so why not the third umpire? scratch

embee · by embee on Fri 15 Jan 2010, 09:55

It's a combination of sight and sound ...not sound alone ...that an umpire uses ...