Cricket 2019

[SouthStandUpperTier]

5 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Why would England review it? 

Because the umpire should have used his common sense and turned down the appeal, knowing England had a review if he was wrong.

[st albans fox]

5 minutes ago, wardyfox86 said:

Crucial wicket, crucial time. Not saying they WOULD have reviewed it. Moot point anyway as, like others said, NZ burned their review early.

 

Edit: I get what you mean now. I meant that, the umpire could have kept his finger down and let England review it. 

That’s the argument that we shouldn’t have umpires at all ....... (and take it forward.....no referee in football) ..... 

[Manwell Pablo]

5 minutes ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

Because the umpire should have used his common sense and turned down the appeal, knowing England had a review if he was wrong.

 

He thought it was lbw so he put his finger up. He was wrong, but he is not there the base his decision on who has a review left. If he thinks it’s out he gives it out.

[StanSP]

5 minutes ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

Because the umpire should have used his common sense and turned down the appeal, knowing England had a review if he was wrong.

Why would he turn down the appeal after he thinks he's given it out? That's not how the system works so why would he go against it? 

[Voll Blau]

Buzzing that so many non-cricket mates are watching this today.

[BraunstoneFox23]

Perfect timing for that one! 

[foxes_rule1978]

Another brilliant, looking good very good 

[RowlattsFox]

New Zealand are throwing away promising starts. Neesham looking really good but then gets himself out. 

[wardyfox86]

Crowd is awful. It's like a County Cricket match. 

Edited 14 July 2019 by wardyfox86

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

Top man Liam Plunkett! Restrict them to 240 it’ll be brilliant 

[Voll Blau]

Just now, wardyfox86 said:

Crowd it awful. It's like a County Cricket match. 

It's Lord's, and the tickets were ridiculously pricey. Not a good formula for atmosphere.

[RowlattsFox]

It has to be lords and I know there's a mixed crowd but can you imagine the final being played in Manchester, Leeds or Birmingham. It would be incredible. 

[SouthStandUpperTier]

4 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

He thought it was lbw so he put his finger up. He was wrong, but he is not there the base his decision on who has a review left. If he thinks it’s out he gives it out.

 

3 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Why would he turn down the appeal after he thinks he's given it out? That's not how the system works so why would he go against it? 

It's a similar principle to assistant referees keeping their flags down until after the striker has shot, so that VAR can sort out whether it was the right call. Nothing wrong with a bit of common sense IMHO.

[Manwell Pablo]

2 minutes ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

 

It's a similar principle to assistant referees keeping their flags down until after the striker has shot, so that VAR can sort out whether it was the right call. Nothing wrong with a bit of common sense IMHO.

 

It’s nothing like that that though is it. As your putting the team having to use their review at a clear disadvantage. 

 

Your basically saying England would have to review every non clear cut decision until they use up their review, they are not their to officiate the game. 

Edited 14 July 2019 by Manwell Pablo

[foxes_rule1978]

Restrict them to only another 40-50 in these last 10 and that would be a great chance to win this. 

[wardyfox86]

Just now, SouthStandUpperTier said:

 

It's a similar principle to assistant referees keeping their flags down until after the striker has shot, so that VAR can sort out whether it was the right call. Nothing wrong with a bit of common sense IMHO.

I'm agreeing with you in the main, the difference here is the number of incorrect reviews you get.

 

Perhaps in cricket changing how many reviews you get per innings. 1 review per 25 overs maybe. 

[SpacedX]

From the Guardian: 

"If you have a problem in the middle overs, if no one else can help, and if you can find him, maybe you can hire Liam Plunkett.

 

[SouthStandUpperTier]

3 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

It’s nothing like that that though is it. As your putting the team having to use their review at a clear disadvantage. 

 

Your basically saying England would have to review every non clear cut decision until they use up their review, they are not their to officiate the game. 

I see your point.

[Manwell Pablo]

2 minutes ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

I see your point.

 

Its a weird one given how good the system is you do wonder why they don’t just use the technology instead of having a review system.

[SouthStandUpperTier]

5 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

Its a weird one given how good the system is you do wonder why they don’t just use the technology instead of having a review system.

Especially as you rarely see the umpires give a runout decision without the use of the 3rd umpire, even when it's clear whether the batsman has made his ground or not.

Edited 14 July 2019 by SouthStandUpperTier

[Voll Blau]

2 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

Its a weird one given how good the system is you do wonder why they don’t just use the technology instead of having a review system.

Because of how time consuming it would be. Imagine having to do ball tracking every time a bowler or keeper went up for an LBW.

[SpacedX]

Archer's lethal.

[foxes_rule1978]

2 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Archer's lethal.

Yep I wouldn’t want to be a batsman with him bowling 

[EastAnglianFox]

This could be as simple as coming down to the 2 players with the X factor.

 

Roy v Boult

[UniFox21]

24 odd extras is piss poor