Black Caps v Pakistan
-
Shocking call. That's the problem in trying to get old people to understand new technology...
-
Have you seen it @Stockcar86? Sounds ridiculous. It's such an easy directive to follow - "you can only overturn a decision if there is clear and obvious evidence". Add that to the fact that Hotspot is far more reliable then Snicko, to the point that Snicko wasn't even used for a long time, how are decisions being overturned based on that alone?
Basic errors like that are pretty frustrating to watch for the spectator.
-
-
@Hooroo said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
Taylor has had enough of the dross and is having a good ole slap!
Your luck is going to run out on a pitch like that before too long so might as well have a whack. Especially if his eyes are fixed
@canefan said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@Hooroo said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
Taylor has had enough of the dross and is having a good ole slap!
Your luck is going to run out on a pitch like that before too long so might as well have a whack. Especially if his eyes are fixed
Not fixed, but not impeding his vision. He is having eye surgery after this match.
-
Rain comes down and it's 77/2 at lunch. That's a good return overall, Rosco hitting himself into form and Raval continues to be very steady at the top of the order which is bloody promising - at 28 he's no spring chicken so appears to have a good head on his shoulders. Would be great if he can parnter Latham for the next 4 - 6 years.
-
Rain comes down and it's 77/2 at lunch. That's a good return overall, Rosco hitting himself into form and Raval continues to be very steady at the top of the order which is bloody promising - at 28 he's no spring chicken so appears to have a good head on his shoulders. Would be great if he can parnter Latham for the next 4 - 6 years.
-
Have you seen it @Stockcar86? Sounds ridiculous. It's such an easy directive to follow - "you can only overturn a decision if there is clear and obvious evidence". Add that to the fact that Hotspot is far more reliable then Snicko, to the point that Snicko wasn't even used for a long time, how are decisions being overturned based on that alone?
Basic errors like that are pretty frustrating to watch for the spectator.
@No-Quarter said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
Have you seen it @Stockcar86? Sounds ridiculous. It's such an easy directive to follow - "you can only overturn a decision if there is clear and obvious evidence". Add that to the fact that Hotspot is far more reliable then Snicko, to the point that Snicko wasn't even used for a long time, how are decisions being overturned based on that alone?
Basic errors like that are pretty frustrating to watch for the spectator.
Second one I've seen like that in two days. Philander got one yesterday, with no hotspot evidence, but one single big spike on Snicko indicating the finest of edges.
To be fair, with Kane's it looked to me like he nicked it - and then it went onto his elbow and Snicko indicated that. Doull and Co. reckoned they could hear two noises and weren't upset at the decision. Mystifying that there was not hotspot mark though.
-
@No-Quarter said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
Have you seen it @Stockcar86? Sounds ridiculous. It's such an easy directive to follow - "you can only overturn a decision if there is clear and obvious evidence". Add that to the fact that Hotspot is far more reliable then Snicko, to the point that Snicko wasn't even used for a long time, how are decisions being overturned based on that alone?
Basic errors like that are pretty frustrating to watch for the spectator.
Second one I've seen like that in two days. Philander got one yesterday, with no hotspot evidence, but one single big spike on Snicko indicating the finest of edges.
To be fair, with Kane's it looked to me like he nicked it - and then it went onto his elbow and Snicko indicated that. Doull and Co. reckoned they could hear two noises and weren't upset at the decision. Mystifying that there was not hotspot mark though.
@Chris-B. said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@No-Quarter said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
Have you seen it @Stockcar86? Sounds ridiculous. It's such an easy directive to follow - "you can only overturn a decision if there is clear and obvious evidence". Add that to the fact that Hotspot is far more reliable then Snicko, to the point that Snicko wasn't even used for a long time, how are decisions being overturned based on that alone?
Basic errors like that are pretty frustrating to watch for the spectator.
Second one I've seen like that in two days. Philander got one yesterday, with no hotspot evidence, but one single big spike on Snicko indicating the finest of edges.
To be fair, with Kane's it looked to me like he nicked it - and then it went onto his elbow and Snicko indicated that. Doull and Co. reckoned they could hear two noises and weren't upset at the decision. Mystifying that there was not hotspot mark though.
Piss off with your completely reasonable comments. WE WUZ ROBBED!!
-
@No-Quarter said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
Have you seen it @Stockcar86? Sounds ridiculous. It's such an easy directive to follow - "you can only overturn a decision if there is clear and obvious evidence". Add that to the fact that Hotspot is far more reliable then Snicko, to the point that Snicko wasn't even used for a long time, how are decisions being overturned based on that alone?
Basic errors like that are pretty frustrating to watch for the spectator.
Second one I've seen like that in two days. Philander got one yesterday, with no hotspot evidence, but one single big spike on Snicko indicating the finest of edges.
To be fair, with Kane's it looked to me like he nicked it - and then it went onto his elbow and Snicko indicated that. Doull and Co. reckoned they could hear two noises and weren't upset at the decision. Mystifying that there was not hotspot mark though.
@Chris-B. said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@No-Quarter said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
Have you seen it @Stockcar86? Sounds ridiculous. It's such an easy directive to follow - "you can only overturn a decision if there is clear and obvious evidence". Add that to the fact that Hotspot is far more reliable then Snicko, to the point that Snicko wasn't even used for a long time, how are decisions being overturned based on that alone?
Basic errors like that are pretty frustrating to watch for the spectator.
Second one I've seen like that in two days. Philander got one yesterday, with no hotspot evidence, but one single big spike on Snicko indicating the finest of edges.
To be fair, with Kane's it looked to me like he nicked it - and then it went onto his elbow and Snicko indicated that. Doull and Co. reckoned they could hear two noises and weren't upset at the decision. Mystifying that there was not hotspot mark though.
To be fair, given Doull's performance in India, I'm not surprised he agreed with the umpires decision once again
-
I really don't think you should be able to overturn a caught behind if there is no hot spot.
@hydro11 said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
I really don't think you should be able to overturn a caught behind if there is no hot spot.
Pffffft hotspot. That could have come from anything...
-
@hydro11 said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
I really don't think you should be able to overturn a caught behind if there is no hot spot.
Pffffft hotspot. That could have come from anything...
@mariner4life said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@hydro11 said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
I really don't think you should be able to overturn a caught behind if there is no hot spot.
Pffffft hotspot. That could have come from anything...
Beat me to it
-
@mariner4life said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@hydro11 said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
I really don't think you should be able to overturn a caught behind if there is no hot spot.
Pffffft hotspot. That could have come from anything...
Beat me to it
-
that hasn't turned out to be the best news Bovidae! We need to dig in asap or we'll be giving Pakistan a great opportunity to put the hurt on.
