Author Topic: Cricket World Cup (Read 8731 times)

Sriram · « **Reply #50 on:** July 11, 2019, 05:27:24 PM »

Brilliant win by England!! WOW!!

Yes...I felt bad that Roy couldn't appeal. He was clearly not out. Why do we need limits on appeals....when the whole world is watching and knows someone is not out even though the umpire is raising his finger...or the other way around?! Seems stupid.

Nearly Sane · « **Reply #51 on:** July 11, 2019, 06:00:39 PM »

This does mean that the final will be on 'coonsel telly'. Do think that the matches up till now being on subscription keeps interest down

jeremyp · « **Reply #52 on:** July 11, 2019, 06:37:14 PM »

Quote from: Nearly Sane on July 11, 2019, 05:17:32 PM

Brilliant win. Only annoying thing was Bairstow pointlessly using up the appeal when Roy could have used it to get his hundred.

It's only fair. Finch used Australia's review on an absolute certain LBW thus depriving Stoinis of a review of a very iffy LBW later on.

jeremyp · « **Reply #53 on:** July 11, 2019, 06:40:05 PM »

Quote from: Sriram on July 11, 2019, 05:27:24 PM

Why do we need limits on appeals....

Because the team that is on the wrong end of the decision would challenge everything

jeremyp · « **Reply #54 on:** July 11, 2019, 06:42:00 PM »

Quote from: Nearly Sane on July 11, 2019, 05:17:32 PM

Brilliant win. Only annoying thing was Bairstow pointlessly using up the appeal when Roy could have used it to get his hundred.

It does mean that they didn't boringly give man of the match to the highest scoring batsman again.

Nearly Sane · « **Reply #55 on:** July 11, 2019, 07:26:42 PM »

Quote from: jeremyp on July 11, 2019, 06:42:00 PM

It does mean that they didn't boringly give man of the match to the highest scoring batsman again.

Woakes would have bowled the last over which would have meant that he would have bowled 9 of his allowed 10. Not sure why Morgan would have chosen him to have only bowled 9.

Sriram · « **Reply #56 on:** July 12, 2019, 05:48:18 AM »

Quote from: jeremyp on July 11, 2019, 06:40:05 PM

Because the team that is on the wrong end of the decision would challenge everything

No...the cameras record the fact. My point is that there is no purpose served by limiting the reviews. Any umpire decision that seems wrong can be reviewed and changed based on camera recorded details. Why not?!

The old tradition of 'umpire decisions cannot be challenged' doesn't make sense any more when the whole world can see that the decision is wrong.

jeremyp · « **Reply #57 on:** July 12, 2019, 11:22:54 AM »

Quote from: Sriram on July 12, 2019, 05:48:18 AM

No...the cameras record the fact. My point is that there is no purpose served by limiting the reviews. Any umpire decision that seems wrong can be reviewed and changed based on camera recorded details. Why not?!

All umpire decisions seem wrong to the team on the wrong end of the decision. If you don't limit the reviews, every LBW will be challenged and a lot of the caught behinds.

Quote

The old tradition of 'umpire decisions cannot be challenged' doesn't make sense any more when the whole world can see that the decision is wrong.

I disagree. The umpire must have authority and be seen to have authority. Don't forget that, at lower levels of cricket, there is no video evidence. When young cricketers see their role models challenging the decisions of umpires it undermines the authority of the umpires of their games.

ProfessorDavey · « **Reply #58 on:** July 12, 2019, 12:21:17 PM »

I would certainly not want to see unlimited challenges as, as Jeremy P indicate, all this would lead to would be every decision being challenged, from either side. I think there is also an exciting (and tactical) element when a side has to make a decision whether or not to use their reviews.

That said I think restricting to just a single challenge is too few in the current tournament - I think two would be more appropriate. I also think there should be a off field umpire option to over-rule to avoid gross errors on-field that cannot be reviewed by team on the receiving end.

Sriram · « **Reply #59 on:** July 12, 2019, 02:07:02 PM »

Quote from: jeremyp on July 12, 2019, 11:22:54 AM

All umpire decisions seem wrong to the team on the wrong end of the decision. If you don't limit the reviews, every LBW will be challenged and a lot of the caught behinds.
I disagree. The umpire must have authority and be seen to have authority. Don't forget that, at lower levels of cricket, there is no video evidence. When young cricketers see their role models challenging the decisions of umpires it undermines the authority of the umpires of their games.

Let every decision be challenged! Why not?! When there is a camera to record facts how does it matter if the umpire is challenged? They should be in fact. In World Cup matches every decision matters.

In smaller matches where the technology is not there, obviously the umpires need to continue.

Sriram · « **Reply #60 on:** July 12, 2019, 02:12:07 PM »

Quote from: ProfessorDavey on July 12, 2019, 12:21:17 PM

I would certainly not want to see unlimited challenges as, as Jeremy P indicate, all this would lead to would be every decision being challenged, from either side. I think there is also an exciting (and tactical) element when a side has to make a decision whether or not to use their reviews.

That said I think restricting to just a single challenge is too few in the current tournament - I think two would be more appropriate. I also think there should be a off field umpire option to over-rule to avoid gross errors on-field that cannot be reviewed by team on the receiving end.

Why two? Why not three or four.... or ten?!

I am talking of the 'Third Umpire' who is watching the cameras....so what is this off field umpire you are talking of? Ok...maybe the Third Umpire could be allowed to intervene even without the request for a review...if that is what you mean! Fine!

The point being that....it is ridiculous to take the umpires decision as 'God's word' when a billion people across the world are seeing that it is wrong.

ProfessorDavey · « **Reply #61 on:** July 12, 2019, 02:25:42 PM »

Quote from: Sriram on July 12, 2019, 02:12:07 PM

Why two? Why not three or four.... or ten?!

To avoid endless review and also to ensure that a team has to think carefully about calling for a review.

Quote from: Sriram on July 12, 2019, 02:12:07 PM

I am talking of the 'Third Umpire' who is watching the cameras....so what is this off field umpire you are talking of? Ok...maybe the Third Umpire could be allowed to intervene even without the request for a review...if that is what you mean! Fine!

So am I - but currently the 3rd umpire is powerless to intervene in a case of a gross error by the on-field umpire unless there is a review call from a team, and therefore is completely powerless once all reviews have been used.

So in the case of Roy yesterday although England couldn't review it was pretty obvious instantly to all involved that there was a gross error, but the 3rd umpire was powerless. I'd like to see a situation where that umpire could intervene under certain circumstances to correct a clearly wrong decision. This is what happens in VAR in football where the VAR referee can intervene.

Quote from: Sriram on July 12, 2019, 02:12:07 PM

The point being that....it is ridiculous to take the umpires decision as 'God's word' when a billion people across the world are seeing that it is wrong.

Hence my point above.

Sriram · « **Reply #62 on:** July 12, 2019, 02:38:54 PM »

Quote from: ProfessorDavey on July 12, 2019, 02:25:42 PM

To avoid endless review and also to ensure that a team has to think carefully about calling for a review.
So am I - but currently the 3rd umpire is powerless to intervene in a case of a gross error by the on-field umpire unless there is a review call from a team, and therefore is completely powerless once all reviews have been used.

So in the case of Roy yesterday although England couldn't review it was pretty obvious instantly to all involved that there was a gross error, but the 3rd umpire was powerless. I'd like to see a situation where that umpire could intervene under certain circumstances to correct a clearly wrong decision. This is what happens in VAR in football where the VAR referee can intervene.
Hence my point above.

Yeah...the Third Umpire intervening without necessarily a call for review is fine!

jeremyp · « **Reply #63 on:** July 14, 2019, 09:19:25 PM »

I think I may have just witnessed the greatest one day match ever.

Sriram · « **Reply #64 on:** July 15, 2019, 05:42:13 AM »

Yes...but they should have shared the Cup.

SusanDoris · « **Reply #65 on:** July 15, 2019, 06:49:51 AM »

I have not read this thread at all, but I did happen to turn on Five Live several overs from the endand must say I thought the ending was very exciting!

Udayana · « **Reply #66 on:** July 15, 2019, 08:09:19 AM »

Quote from: Sriram on July 15, 2019, 05:42:13 AM

Yes...but they should have shared the Cup.

Yes.

What is it with sports that they are unable to get to a point and just call it a draw? Same with tennis and penalty shootouts.

I find it pathetic - if not disgusting.

jeremyp · « **Reply #67 on:** July 15, 2019, 09:30:39 AM »

Quote from: Sriram on July 15, 2019, 05:42:13 AM

Yes...but they should have shared the Cup.

Quote from: Udayana on July 15, 2019, 08:09:19 AM

Yes.

What is it with sports that they are unable to get to a point and just call it a draw? Same with tennis and penalty shootouts.

I find it pathetic - if not disgusting.

The greatest cricket match ever played and you guys just want to whine about the rules. Give it a break.

ProfessorDavey · « **Reply #68 on:** July 15, 2019, 09:42:36 AM »

Quote from: Sriram on July 15, 2019, 05:42:13 AM

Yes...but they should have shared the Cup.

It's a competitive tournament - you have to have a way to determine the winner. Saying it is a tie doesn't mean they both won the tournament, it means that no-one won. That would be crazy.

There are plenty of ways in which tournaments decide the winner where the main competition is a dead heat or tie - this method seems to be one of the better ones, as it involved more competitive sport (rather than drawing lots or based on tournament disciplinary records) and was incredibly exciting.

ProfessorDavey · « **Reply #69 on:** July 15, 2019, 09:44:00 AM »

Quote from: jeremyp on July 15, 2019, 09:30:39 AM

The greatest cricket match ever played and you guys just want to whine about the rules. Give it a break.

I agree entirely - you have to have rules to decide which team wins and the rules used seemed totally appropriate and lead to the most exciting (one day) game of cricket ever.

Aruntraveller · « **Reply #70 on:** July 15, 2019, 09:53:31 AM »

I don't normally comment on Cricket as I really am not that interested, but come on you moaners that was bloody exciting.

And, of course you have to have a winner, especially in this case, or how else will all the other nations be able to experience schadenfreude when England inevitably falls from the top dog spot.

Which they will do

Sriram · « **Reply #71 on:** July 15, 2019, 10:47:09 AM »

Based on number of boundaries...!! Really..?!! Where did that come from?

If you should have a winner.....the NNR/the position on the points table would have been more appropriate.

Udayana · « **Reply #72 on:** July 15, 2019, 11:00:35 AM »

It's exciting as the players are pressured into taking more and more risks.

tbh, I see sport more as something to do, ie, participate in than to watch on TV, and appreciate the skill/ability aspects more than the competition. Spectating at local events or Wimbledon, or athletics, are good days out irrespective of who wins.

ProfessorDavey · « **Reply #73 on:** July 15, 2019, 11:00:52 AM »

Quote from: Sriram on July 15, 2019, 10:47:09 AM

Based on number of boundaries...!! Really..?!! Where did that come from?

The rules of the competition - sure you might consider other options, but I don't see why this is necessarily problematic. Both sides knew this from the outset, and both sides therefore knew that were the super over to end up level then England would win as they'd scored more boundaries. When NZ batted in the super over they knew they needed 16 not 15 to win, hence the desperate (and unsuccessful) attempt at a second run off the final ball.

Quote from: Sriram on July 15, 2019, 10:47:09 AM

If you should have a winner...

Of course you need a winner - it would be bonkers to go through a 6 week tournament and end up in a situation where no-one won.

Quote from: Sriram on July 15, 2019, 10:47:09 AM

..the NNR/the position on the points table would have been more appropriate.

That would be a possibility, but I disagree that it would be better. The approach adopted meant that the winner was decided entirely on what happened in the match yesterday between the 2 finalists. Being higher on the points table has an advantage in that your semi-final opponent will be a lower ranked team on the table (not that that proved to have any effect) - beyond that all teams should be equal and the winner should be decided purely on the performance on the day.

Can you imagine had it been decided on table position (therefore England would have still won) and New Zealand would have quite reasonably pointed out that had it rained on a different day then NZ rather than England would quite likely have won. I'd prefer to decide the tournament winner on the basis of cricket rather than rain.

ProfessorDavey · « **Reply #74 on:** July 15, 2019, 11:43:58 AM »

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/14/not-cricket-jacob-rees-mogg-criticised

JRM - what an idiot - was he really unaware that the England's winning captain is ... err ... Irish.

News:

Author Topic: Cricket World Cup (Read 8731 times)