The Ashes: 1st Test, Trent Bridge

First topic message reminder :

England:
Alastair Cook*, Joe Root, Jonathan Trott, Kevin Pietersen, Ian Bell, Jonny Bairstow,
Matt Prior†, Stuart Broad, Graeme Swann, Steven Finn, James Anderson

Australia:
Shane Watson, Chris Rogers, Ed Cowan, Michael Clarke*, Steve Smith, Phil Hughes,
Brad Haddin†, Peter Siddle, Mitchell Starc, James Pattinson, Ashton Agar

You leave only one review and youve gone backwards... Far backwards... What if the Trott decision was originally given out? He appeals, still out... No reviews left, Bell goes LBW, cant review.... And that was another howler.

This should teach Clarke to use reviews for howlers only in future....

The word 'Howler' is being over used right now...

You go down to one review, then you either have to re-imburse a review for 'Umpires call', or you scrap the theory altogether and if its hitting youre out.

Sad day for sport. Broad and umpire are, lets face it, cheats !

21st Century Schizoid Man wrote:Sad day for sport.  Broad and umpire are, lets face it, cheats !

If Broad's a cheat, so is virtually every other professional cricketer.
And how did the umpire cheat?

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

21st Century Schizoid Man wrote:Sad day for sport.  Broad and umpire are, lets face it, cheats !

If Broad's a cheat, so is virtually every other professional cricketer sportsman of any kind
And how did the umpire cheat?

Corrected it. FES is a rugby fan. A sport that is effectively based on which team is better at cheating and has been all through my life. It's fine when people we like do it. We are all such hypocrites

incorrect - golfers on the whole dont do that thanks very much

Easier for golf though. You can add on a punishment at the end of a round if something is a miss. Stops as much potential cheating. You can't say after a cricket or football match that that's out or that wasn't a red card. Different scenarios.

As for the reviews, I think it is fine the way it is and the captains should learn to use it better. You can bet your life Clarke won't be wasting any reviews on speculative shouts for the rest of the series now. Lesson learned.

I was playing a match a year ago, came in at 70/3, missed the first ball, they appealed.. Not out. I told the wickey, Im a walker.
Two overs later, I edged a guide down third... Trying to get it between wickey and sleep... I sure as hell didnt walk!

I meant 21st Centriy Schozoid oos

no its truely not. golfers are not cheats. pro footballers and cricketers in this country also didnt used to be cheats.

there is a comment "thats just not cricket"

it refers to sportsmanship..

To reviews are there for a reason. If you waste them the you are a fool and deserve the troubles that comes from tat

If you are fair to an opposition you know from series upon series of experience will grasp every potential illicit advantage and then lose the series, does that moral victory help anyone? No. You botch about refs and cheating afterwards by in the end they still wn

Was given out though, and I did the Michael Clarke thing and apologized... Its just so much easier to walk on 130 with the team 305/4 with five overs to go in a provincial team, than on five with the team 75/4 in a limited team...

Yeah if you do the right thing and walk part if you feels like you are betraying your team mates

I've seen enough decisions go against me in the past where I wasn't out to understand Broads decision. You get good and bad decisions, this is a fact of life and we need to live with it.

Very little point point in calling him a cheat as 99.99% of batsmen don't walk.

ChequeredJersey wrote:If you are fair to an opposition you know from series upon series of experience will grasp every potential illicit advantage and then lose the series, does that moral victory help anyone? No. You botch about refs and cheating afterwards by in the end they still wn

 professional and team are the two key points here.

its so much easier taking the hit for yourself(individual sports like golf), but when you take the morale highground that affects your team mates, fans and country/club its so much harder.. the morality is about the team. Its very sad and never used to be the case but it is the case these days..

All the batsmen I've heard speak (Bumble, Strauss, Hussain, Atherton, Boycott) aren't fans of walking whereas the bowlers (Holding, Agnew) are. Funny that.  

JDizzle wrote:All the batsmen I've heard speak (Bumble, Strauss, Hussain, Atherton, Boycott) aren't fans of walking whereas the bowlers (Holding, Agnew) are. Funny that.  

 yeah typical

The fact that you can tack on punishments at the end of a round of golf discourages cheating. In football, cricket, rugby etc. this doesn't happen so gamesmanship is more common. Not really a fair comparison. And if you start handing out bans for people who don't work then it opens a huge can of worms.

To be frank, I think its more due to Broads reputation... How often in the past have you seen Broad given out and not walk... If hes bowled he wants the NB checked, caught pulling, he wants the height checked etc...

You cant tack on punishments- you should just be DQ'ed(well allways have been - you dont get a second chance- the whole tiger thing has since mudded the waters but lets not go there at the moment!)

I am a golfer and we are taught the etiquite of the game. Cheating is punished highly at clubs and seen as a very bad thing to do. However it is actually very easy to do, yet we dont do it on the whole.

Maybe you have to understand the game more to get the fact that golfers on the whole think very differently about cheating to other sportsmen.

It truely is nothing to do with punishment. It goes through the whole amatuer level as well.

All footballeers - sunday league or pro - dive. Golfers dont cheat . Medal or major!!

Tack on punishments, DQ, whatever. The point is you can be punished post round. The etiquette might be diffferent in golf, I don't play enough or well enough to know, but if there wasn't the option to DQ people at the end of a round there would be more cheating. That's the way professional sport is.

I don't think Broad should have walked. No way.

As for the actual cricket well played Ian Bell, but as Hoggy Bear pointed out earlier, why on earth has Clarke not put a third man back on the boundary for Bell?!?!

My only issue is, if we endorse not walking, then we are stating, indirectly ''its not cheating if you get caught''... If standing your ground when you know youre out is fine, I dont think you can reason that ball-tampering or bump catches are wrong...

It's a weird one. It's almost ingrained in cricket that not walking is fine (not a great choice of words, more isn't actively discouraged) and is seen as part of the game whereas claiming catches and ball tampering are seen as 'cheating'. In an ideal world you want everyone to walk but if you start handing out bans for non walkers then you open up a huge can of worms IMO.

we cant ban anyone for this.. you cant even prove broad knew about it. (ok we know he did)- but how can anyone conclusively prove he knew a ball hit his bat for a split second. In a court of law that can not stack up..

we need to kill the problem at source - make sure umpires arnt allowed to make the mistakes that human error will allways allow.

IMO I dont think you can curse the one while ignoring the other... There is no difference in morals (strong word)... It's just that one happens to be illegal, and the other gets a round of high fives in the dressing rooms

Decisions will even themselves out though. That stumping has been evened out by the Broad decision for example.

I don't want technology to take over the umpires role as human error is part of the game. They had two reviews and Clarke wasted his last one on an absolute shocker.

Mystir - I take your point. I do. But you cant prove fielders knew about bump balls either...

I agree whats the difference- nothing. its politics.

To be fair it should teach Clarke to use his reviews properly. It annoys me that captains seem to use them for the sake of it sometimes, rather than actually properly

But he lost the first one on ''Umpires call'' a term which might be the most ridiculous in sport.. Its a cop-out... Saying in effect, ''Yeah, youre right its hitting, but the umpire was so close to getting it right. So not out, plus u lose a review''

to be fair. The captains do know the rules behind umpires call so they have to realise they need to be sure it will be 'out or in enough' or they will waste a review.

On the other hand it is ridicuals that one person can be 'IN' in a situation where more of the ball hits the wicketc ompared to another where the ball hits less yet it is  OUT. A coin might as well be tossed tbh!

but as the rules stand we know them and you need to still understand that when reviewing.

kingraf wrote:But he lost the first one  on ''Umpires call'' a term which might be the most ridiculous in sport.. Its a cop-out... Saying in effect,  ''Yeah, youre right its hitting, but the umpire was so close to getting it right. So not out, plus u lose a review''  

Which misses the point of the review system. It's to prevent howlers as much as possible. You shouldn't be reviewing marginal calls and this is exactly which 'umpire's call' are.

But how do you know he was using it for the sake of it? Umpires (front on) habitually get it VERY wrong, but when a captain, standing at an angle behind the stump gets it wrong he was just taking a chance? How worse was it the Bell reversal?

liverbnz wrote:

kingraf wrote:But he lost the first one  on ''Umpires call'' a term which might be the most ridiculous in sport.. Its a cop-out... Saying in effect,  ''Yeah, youre right its hitting, but the umpire was so close to getting it right. So not out, plus u lose a review''  

Which misses the point of the review system. It's to prevent howlers as much as possible. You shouldn't be reviewing marginal calls and this is exactly which 'umpire's call' are.

 yes- however it does bring up the very valid argument that if we have the technolgy to tell us if a ball is hitting the wicket why arnt we using it?

Umpires call is the stupidest thing ever.

It's either hitting or it isn't

Live- If you kiss a stump, the guy is out, he isnt marginally out... He is as out as he was if you hit the root of middle...
Fair enough some decisions are too tight, but you cant take away the review as well...

This human nature of the game bit is bogus, though... Sounds like a Sepp Blatter line ''I know theres millions at stake, and peoples liveliihood, but dont you love the controversy?''

kingraf wrote:But how do you know he was using it for the sake of it? Umpires (front on) habitually get it VERY wrong, but when a captain, standing at an angle behind the stump gets it wrong he was just taking a chance? How worse was it the Bell reversal?  

Siddle basicially admitted it by saying 'we used them to try and get a few early on'. In other words, tactically reviewing.

Which to be fair is a perfectly acceptable gamble tbh.. The chances of an umpire missing the broad incident is very small and taking a top order batsmen could be the equivelent of taking 2 middle order or 4 tails..

kingraf wrote:Live- If you kiss a stump, the guy is out, he isnt marginally out... He is as out as he was if you hit the root of middle...
Fair enough some decisions are too tight, but you cant take away the review as well...  

From what I understand there is a margin for error with hawkeye so 'kissing the stump' on hawkeye could easily be missing the stump hence 'umpire's call'. I think that margin may have reduced since its introduction but I think that's why we have it.

Anyhow, there is no perfect solution to this. There will always be a human error and loopholes. The best we can do is ask for them to be reduced as much as possible and I think on the whole DRS has done that.

My point, is, just because it looks like a bad review, doesnt mean it was a gamble. The umpire has the best view in the house, and he occasionally gets it very wrong... Why arent captains afforded the same luxury?

mystiroakey wrote:Which to be fair is a perfectly acceptable gamble tbh.. The chances of an umpire missing the broad incident is very small and taking a top order batsmen could be the equivelent of taking 2 middle order or 4 tails..

The reviews aren't there to be 'gambled' with.

"From what I understand there is a margin for error with hawkeye so 'kissing the stump' on hawkeye could easily be missing the stump hence 'umpire's call'. I think that margin may have reduced since its introduction but I think that's why we have it."

That is not a valid enough reason to have umpires call- just use the tech and reduce the stump size on hawkeye, decrease the ball size or allocate a percentage of the ball.

liverbnz wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Which to be fair is a perfectly acceptable gamble tbh.. The chances of an umpire missing the broad incident is very small and taking a top order batsmen could be the equivelent of taking 2 middle order or 4 tails..

The reviews aren't there to be 'gambled' with.

The reviews are there for the side to do anything they want to do with them. Any smart captain will try and use them to his advantage.

mystiroakey wrote:

liverbnz wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Which to be fair is a perfectly acceptable gamble tbh.. The chances of an umpire missing the broad incident is very small and taking a top order batsmen could be the equivelent of taking 2 middle order or 4 tails..

The reviews aren't there to be 'gambled' with.

The reviews are there for the side to do anything they want to do with them. Any smart captain will try and use them to his advantage.

Well then they can live and die by their decisions like Clarke did today.

Live - Im actually a huge fan of DRS, but umpires call is still a cop out... If kissing could mean missing, then kissing could actually be crashing into off-stump, correct? Thus the umpires call could still be a howler?