On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 7:30:10 PM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
> In message <fd4e6191-827d-43ee...@googlegroups.com>,
> mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> >At 84-2, england seemed heading for a biggish lead, but a few t20 shots
> >later it all changed. i guess with all the time lost, they felt the
> >need to go for it but together with the rain break it has let RSA back
> >into the match.
> SA's second innings followed a similar course to England's first -
> without the T20 shots, of course. I wonder how things might have gone
> had Elgar reviewed his lbw decision, where the ball was missing leg
> stump by a substantial margin. The umpiring in this match has been
> pretty good (decisions on when to go off for bad light aside), but that
> decision was a bit of a shocker. Elgar didn't help his cause by seeming
> to walk even before the umpire's finger went up.

yes i dont remember that before, usually top batters always review lbws.
i thought it was plum too, but surprise it was missing easily. and
that was a vital wkt, RSA were on top, england couldnt make a
breakthrough, both anderson and broad been knocked about.
After that the game changed back to england.
> >
> >RSA last 4 wkts added 82, ours only 25, its a problem that wont go
> >away.
> Not with our current last four batsmen, it won't. But in English
> conditions, the three quicks chosen are clearly our best - at any rate
> given that neither Woods nor Archer is fit - and had it been a normal
> Oval pitch Leach would have been needed.
> > chasing anything over 150 batting last will be challenging against the
> >3 safy quicks on this wkt.
> Luckily we didn't have to chase that many, but England's opening
> partnership has proved surprisingly successful. I don't think South
> Africa's bowlers used the conditions quite as well as England's, and Lee
> in particular needed a fair amount of luck. Crawley played as well as
> he's done for quite some time. Perhaps given the licence to be
> hyper-aggressive freed him up. Today it was more swing rather than
> yesterday's seam movement that the bowlers were getting, and perversely
> in SA's second innings there seemed to be more swing after about 20
> overs. England setting off at such a pace means that, though they have
> 97 on the board, their innings is still only 17 overs old.
> --

yes they caught RSA flat after that poor batting effort, and it was
certainly enjoyed by the england supporters, most of whom were
hoping to see victory this evening. However Lees looks awful
doing the bazball thing, better off nudging 1s and 2s and rotating the
strike, he was very lucky to still be there, and i'll be v surprised if he
is opening vs Oz next year. many on other forums did predict this sort
of match becos we have 2 sides whose bowlers are better than their
batters.

mike

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 4:30:10 AM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
> I wonder how things might have gone
> had Elgar reviewed his lbw decision, where the ball was missing leg
> stump by a substantial margin.

And I wonder how things might have gone if DRS wasn't the pile of shit it is today.
And it will remain such a pile whilst we expect players to be umpires.
We KNOW that was a bad umpiring error, one that could very well have changed the outcome of this SERIES.
And yet we let it fly because Elgar didn't have the umpiring skill to be confident enough to refer it.

Before MH lies about what I've said - I 100% support DRS. Just think it can be MUCH improved. I want all appeals referred, that's how much I believe in it.

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 3:52:58 AM UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 4:30:10 AM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
> > I wonder how things might have gone
> > had Elgar reviewed his lbw decision, where the ball was missing leg
> > stump by a substantial margin.
> And I wonder how things might have gone if DRS wasn't the pile of shit it is today.
> And it will remain such a pile whilst we expect players to be umpires.
> We KNOW that was a bad umpiring error, one that could very well have changed the outcome of this SERIES.
> And yet we let it fly because Elgar didn't have the umpiring skill to be confident enough to refer it.
>
> Before MH lies about what I've said - I 100% support DRS. Just think it can be MUCH improved. I want all appeals referred, that's how much I believe in it.

That would result in interminable use of DRS because players make huge numbers of appeals each day. RH

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 4:17:07 PM UTC+10, anywh...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 3:52:58 AM UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 4:30:10 AM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
> > > I wonder how things might have gone
> > > had Elgar reviewed his lbw decision, where the ball was missing leg
> > > stump by a substantial margin.
> > And I wonder how things might have gone if DRS wasn't the pile of shit it is today.
> > And it will remain such a pile whilst we expect players to be umpires.
> > We KNOW that was a bad umpiring error, one that could very well have changed the outcome of this SERIES.
> > And yet we let it fly because Elgar didn't have the umpiring skill to be confident enough to refer it.
> >
> > Before MH lies about what I've said - I 100% support DRS. Just think it can be MUCH improved. I want all appeals referred, that's how much I believe in it.
> That would result in interminable use of DRS because players make huge numbers of appeals each day. RH

Doubters said the exact same thing about front-foot no-balls. Now every single one is checked.

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 8:50:55 AM UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 4:17:07 PM UTC+10, anywh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 3:52:58 AM UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 4:30:10 AM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
> > > > I wonder how things might have gone
> > > > had Elgar reviewed his lbw decision, where the ball was missing leg
> > > > stump by a substantial margin.
> > > And I wonder how things might have gone if DRS wasn't the pile of shit it is today.
> > > And it will remain such a pile whilst we expect players to be umpires..
> > > We KNOW that was a bad umpiring error, one that could very well have changed the outcome of this SERIES.
> > > And yet we let it fly because Elgar didn't have the umpiring skill to be confident enough to refer it.
> > >
> > > Before MH lies about what I've said - I 100% support DRS. Just think it can be MUCH improved. I want all appeals referred, that's how much I believe in it.
> > That would result in interminable use of DRS because players make huge numbers of appeals each day. RH
> Doubters said the exact same thing about front-foot no-balls. Now every single one is checked.

The two cases are entirely different: appeals for dismissal are debatable and arise from members of the bowling side making them: front foot noballs are not and rely entirely on the umpires/technology . My what a fellow you are for getting things wrong! RH

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 6:12:44 PM UTC+10, anywh...@gmail.com wrote:
> The two cases are entirely different:

Only to a luddite, or someone who lacks understanding of DRS.

Front-foot no-ball can start to be checked before the ball gets to the batsman.
The ball tracking process can start immediately. No need to wait for a referral.
Same with snicko.
Was-it-a-clean catch will be the biggest time drain.

What is a bigger crime in cricket? Letting Elgar's bad decision stand (and impact the entire series), or taking a bit more time to get things right?
I obviously think the former is a bigger crime.

In message <c505b9c6-cf6a-4a0c-907a-7e16199e9a9an@googlegroups.com>,
jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com> writes
>On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 4:30:10 AM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
>> I wonder how things might have gone
>> had Elgar reviewed his lbw decision, where the ball was missing leg
>> stump by a substantial margin.
>
>And I wonder how things might have gone if DRS wasn't the pile of shit
>it is today.
>And it will remain such a pile whilst we expect players to be umpires.
>We KNOW that was a bad umpiring error, one that could very well have
>changed the outcome of this SERIES.
>And yet we let it fly because Elgar didn't have the umpiring skill to
>be confident enough to refer it.
>
>Before MH lies about what I've said - I 100% support DRS. Just think it
>can be MUCH improved. I want all appeals referred, that's how much I
>believe in it.

Let's do some cost-benefit analysis. Broad in particular is such an
over-enthusiastic appealer that with him bowling you'd be going to DRS
every over or two, which would slow the game down even further. At a
guess, DRS has increased the percentage of correct lbw decisions from
something like 80% to around 97%. I'm happy with that, without being
prepared to suffer further delays to the game to increase it to 99.5%.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 9:22:23 AM UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 6:12:44 PM UTC+10, anywh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The two cases are entirely different:
> Only to a luddite, or someone who lacks understanding of DRS.
>
> Front-foot no-ball can start to be checked before the ball gets to the batsman.
> The ball tracking process can start immediately. No need to wait for a referral.
> Same with snicko.
> Was-it-a-clean catch will be the biggest time drain.
>
> What is a bigger crime in cricket? Letting Elgar's bad decision stand (and impact the entire series), or taking a bit more time to get things right?
> I obviously think the former is a bigger crime.

SIGH. What a wonderful lack of general comprehension you possess. OK, let's make the proposal concrete.

Fielders appeal every time the balls hits the pads.
Fielders appeal every time the ball beats the bat.

The other thing which will cause over appealing is to use the opportunity to break a batsman's concentration or simply unnerve them

RH

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 6:56:05 PM UTC+10, anywh...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 9:22:23 AM UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 6:12:44 PM UTC+10, anywh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > The two cases are entirely different:
> > Only to a luddite, or someone who lacks understanding of DRS.
> >
> > Front-foot no-ball can start to be checked before the ball gets to the batsman.
> > The ball tracking process can start immediately. No need to wait for a referral.
> > Same with snicko.
> > Was-it-a-clean catch will be the biggest time drain.
> >
> > What is a bigger crime in cricket? Letting Elgar's bad decision stand (and impact the entire series), or taking a bit more time to get things right?
> > I obviously think the former is a bigger crime.
> SIGH. What a wonderful lack of general comprehension you possess. OK, let's make the proposal concrete.
>
> Fielders appeal every time the balls hits the pads.
> Fielders appeal every time the ball beats the bat.
>
> The other thing which will cause over appealing is to use the opportunity to break a batsman's concentration or simply unnerve them

Frivolous appealing can still be punished.
Hitting the pads wouldn't be frivolous.
Ball missing everything would be (it would also take little time to check and could be done as the bowler walks back to his mark).

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 9:47:18 AM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
> In message <c505b9c6-cf6a-4a0c...@googlegroups.com>,
> jack fredricks <jzfre...@gmail.com> writes
> >On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 4:30:10 AM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
> >> I wonder how things might have gone
> >> had Elgar reviewed his lbw decision, where the ball was missing leg
> >> stump by a substantial margin.
> >
> >And I wonder how things might have gone if DRS wasn't the pile of shit
> >it is today.
> >And it will remain such a pile whilst we expect players to be umpires.
> >We KNOW that was a bad umpiring error, one that could very well have
> >changed the outcome of this SERIES.
> >And yet we let it fly because Elgar didn't have the umpiring skill to
> >be confident enough to refer it.
> >
> >Before MH lies about what I've said - I 100% support DRS. Just think it
> >can be MUCH improved. I want all appeals referred, that's how much I
> >believe in it.
> Let's do some cost-benefit analysis. Broad in particular is such an
> over-enthusiastic appealer that with him bowling you'd be going to DRS
> every over or two, which would slow the game down even further. At a
> guess, DRS has increased the percentage of correct lbw decisions from
> something like 80% to around 97%. I'm happy with that, without being
> prepared to suffer further delays to the game to increase it to 99.5%.
> --

yes i dont know what the stats on this are either or if therye even kept, but
if every appeal was reviewed, i think it would get pretty boring to watch,
especially if you had say 10 appeals without a wkt. I spose they could
introduce a VAR type system whereby the 3rd ump could decide to
review any appeal or decision himself and then relay the result if
he overturned it. In this case they could announce this as pending
on the big screen b4 elgar walked off. However we cant blame DRS,
you can blame the umpire who gave it out, or Elgar who didnt review it
but not DRS.

mike

On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 02:53:28 -0700 (PDT), mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>> In message <c505b9c6-cf6a-4a0c...@googlegroups.com>,
>> jack fredricks <jzfre...@gmail.com> writes
>> >Before MH lies about what I've said - I 100% support DRS. Just think it
>> >can be MUCH improved. I want all appeals referred, that's how much I
>> >believe in it.

Well, that's what one would expect from a moron who doesn't understand
DRS, umpiring or cricket.

>yes i dont know what the stats on this are either or if therye even kept, but
>if every appeal was reviewed, i think it would get pretty boring to watch,

If the pitch is turning, we'd be lucky to get play at all. I've
certainly seen passages of play when there was an appeal almost every
ball, and under the latest jzf proposal to destroy cricket, we'd be
getting four overs an hour.

The one constant about DRS is that every single proposal jzf makes
about it is cretinously stupid.

Cheers,

Mike

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 10:36:24 AM UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 6:56:05 PM UTC+10, anywh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 9:22:23 AM UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 6:12:44 PM UTC+10, anywh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > The two cases are entirely different:
> > > Only to a luddite, or someone who lacks understanding of DRS.
> > >
> > > Front-foot no-ball can start to be checked before the ball gets to the batsman.
> > > The ball tracking process can start immediately. No need to wait for a referral.
> > > Same with snicko.
> > > Was-it-a-clean catch will be the biggest time drain.
> > >
> > > What is a bigger crime in cricket? Letting Elgar's bad decision stand (and impact the entire series), or taking a bit more time to get things right?
> > > I obviously think the former is a bigger crime.
> > SIGH. What a wonderful lack of general comprehension you possess. OK, let's make the proposal concrete.
> >
> > Fielders appeal every time the balls hits the pads.
> > Fielders appeal every time the ball beats the bat.
> >
> > The other thing which will cause over appealing is to use the opportunity to break a batsman's concentration or simply unnerve them
> Frivolous appealing can still be punished.
> Hitting the pads wouldn't be frivolous.
> Ball missing everything would be (it would also take little time to check and could be done as the bowler walks back to his mark).

That would be fun not . Talk about unworkable. RH

On 12/09/2022 12:08, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 02:53:28 -0700 (PDT), mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>>> In message <c505b9c6-cf6a-4a0c...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> jack fredricks <jzfre...@gmail.com> writes
>
>>>> Before MH lies about what I've said - I 100% support DRS. Just think it
>>>> can be MUCH improved. I want all appeals referred, that's how much I
>>>> believe in it.
>
> Well, that's what one would expect from a moron who doesn't understand
> DRS, umpiring or cricket.
>
>
>> yes i dont know what the stats on this are either or if therye even kept, but
>> if every appeal was reviewed, i think it would get pretty boring to watch,
>
> If the pitch is turning, we'd be lucky to get play at all. I've
> certainly seen passages of play when there was an appeal almost every
> ball, and under the latest jzf proposal to destroy cricket, we'd be
> getting four overs an hour.
>
> The one constant about DRS is that every single proposal jzf makes
> about it is cretinously stupid.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

I wonder if it's possible to have discussions about cricket without
personal abuse.
Steve Hague

On 12/09/2022 15:31, steve hague wrote:
> I wonder if it's possible to have discussions about cricket without personal abuse.

+1.

Most of the posters here manage it. It would help if the vociferous
minority thought about it before pressing "Send". Also if the provocative
minority thought about /that/ before pressing "Send".

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Praetorius

In message <tfnj28$vsk$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
writes
>On 12/09/2022 15:31, steve hague wrote:
>> I wonder if it's possible to have discussions about cricket without
>>personal abuse.
>
> +1.
>
> Most of the posters here manage it. It would help if the vociferous
>minority thought about it before pressing "Send". Also if the provocative
>minority thought about /that/ before pressing "Send".
>

Having decided to send it, before finally doing so to pass it to their
own mental decision review system.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 3:31:12 PM UTC+1, steve hague wrote:
> On 12/09/2022 12:08, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 02:53:28 -0700 (PDT), mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> In message <c505b9c6-cf6a-4a0c...@googlegroups.com>,
> >>> jack fredricks <jzfre...@gmail.com> writes
> >
> >>>> Before MH lies about what I've said - I 100% support DRS. Just think it
> >>>> can be MUCH improved. I want all appeals referred, that's how much I
> >>>> believe in it.
> >
> > Well, that's what one would expect from a moron who doesn't understand
> > DRS, umpiring or cricket.
> >
> >
> >> yes i dont know what the stats on this are either or if therye even kept, but
> >> if every appeal was reviewed, i think it would get pretty boring to watch,
> >
> > If the pitch is turning, we'd be lucky to get play at all. I've
> > certainly seen passages of play when there was an appeal almost every
> > ball, and under the latest jzf proposal to destroy cricket, we'd be
> > getting four overs an hour.
> >
> > The one constant about DRS is that every single proposal jzf makes
> > about it is cretinously stupid.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Mike
> I wonder if it's possible to have discussions about cricket without
> personal abuse.
> Steve Hague

I'm afraid that the liberal bigot fraternity cannot stop themselves. RH

On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 16:26:00 +0100, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 12/09/2022 15:31, steve hague wrote:
>> I wonder if it's possible to have discussions about cricket without personal abuse.
>
> +1.
>
> Most of the posters here manage it. It would help if the vociferous
>minority thought about it before pressing "Send". Also if the provocative
>minority thought about /that/ before pressing "Send".

Well many people decide not to think before speaking and prefer to be
as surprised, offended, unimpressed, dazzled or whatever by what comes
out of their mouth as everyone else is.
That's because spontaneity these days resides in fingers that type
point and wag and the thought comes about after the fingers have
wagged and pointed and typed; if thought ever comes at all.

max.it

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 9:08:46 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 02:53:28 -0700 (PDT), mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
> >> In message <c505b9c6-cf6a-4a0c...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> jack fredricks <jzfre...@gmail.com> writes
> >> >Before MH lies about what I've said - I 100% support DRS. Just think it
> >> >can be MUCH improved. I want all appeals referred, that's how much I
> >> >believe in it.
> Well, that's what one would expect from a moron who doesn't understand
> DRS, umpiring or cricket.

Laughable coming from someone who thinks an umpire's mind is never in doubt.
Also someone who probably doesn't know which end of a cricket bat one holds.
Whereas I'll be opening the batting against a bunch of uni students on the weekend.

> >yes i dont know what the stats on this are either or if therye even kept, but
> >if every appeal was reviewed, i think it would get pretty boring to watch,
> If the pitch is turning, we'd be lucky to get play at all. I've
> certainly seen passages of play when there was an appeal almost every
> ball, and under the latest jzf proposal to destroy cricket, we'd be
> getting four overs an hour.
>
> The one constant about DRS is that every single proposal jzf makes
> about it is cretinously stupid.

Almost every change in DRS I've called for has happened.
I called for unlimited referrals, or failing that, more referrals. The latter happened (increase to 3, refreshed after 80? overs, free referrals for ump's call).
I called for changes to the ball tracking benefits of doubt. Happened.
I called for public and thorough testing of DRS. They say it happened.

As for unlimited referrals, it was tested a few years ago in one of the ECB comps. Not sure which one. It's absolutely on the cards.
Time wasting isn't even the biggest issue. That's solvable, but it will drive the cost up too much.

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 12:31:12 AM UTC+10, steve hague wrote:
> > The one constant about DRS is that every single proposal jzf makes
> > about it is cretinously stupid.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Mike
> I wonder if it's possible to have discussions about cricket without
> personal abuse.

I don't mind MH being a rude curmudgeon. It's very much a result of his IRL misfortune. Water off a duck's back as far as I'm concerned.

I do rail against his constant attempts to twist and lie about my own remarks.