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.
@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.
-
Perhaps CdG is the all-rounder we've been looking for, particularly as Neesham and Anderson are walking foodbills.
Agree that Nicholls must be on his last chance.
There is still enough in the pitch to interest the bowlers so hopefully NZ can get 250+.
-
266 for 8 at tea
Good work by BJ on 45
Southee's swinging kind of paid off for 29 off 29. Liked the guy keeping the stats on the Southee Swingometer or whatever it was called :).
Henry caught a couple in the middle too.
I think any more from here is probably a decent bonus given I thought we'd struggle to get to 250.
Happy for the tail to have a bit of a crack once BJ gets fitty.
-
Watling has 12 not outs now in 77 innings. I don't see why he always has to be at 7, especially when the player at 6 is clearly a worse batsmen. In the past, Santner has batted at 6 ans Watling has batted at 7 so I don't see why Santner is now at 8 and Watling is still at 7.
