posted Jul 24, 2008

I agree, whats good for Tennis should be good for Cricket..we've got the technologie, now we should use it and give the Umpire all the help they can get..also with ball tempering!!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 24, 2008

If the technology exists and ensures the correct decision is made, then use the technology.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 24, 2008

i'm not sure but as they are looking to limit the number of appeals it kinda makes them pointless to some extent if you have a dodgy umpire or a capitan who never agrees with the umpire. I think it will just further the gap between professional and amature sport as this osrt of thing certainly wont be coming to an village club soon

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 24, 2008

OK, Reading some of the comments on this thread you'd think the central purpose, the whole raison d'etre of cricket was to give umpires decisions to make, and that anything that interfered with that was bad for cricket.

Maybe my understanding of the game is shallow, because when I go along I pay the most attention to the batsmen, bowlers and fielders.

Yes, listening to Dickie Bird yelling at the 'corporates' to shut their window so the sunlight doesn't reflect into the batsmen's face raises a grin - but it ain't why I spend a day at the cricket ground.

Anything that helps the correct decision to be reached is good.

Someone said eventually cricket would be umpired by a computer. Assuming such a program could be written the problem with that would be?

The batsmen, bowlers and fielders would still be there, and the decisions would be made 100% consistently and without any possible bias. Sounds like cricket to me!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 25, 2008

Why all the debate their Kasprowicz's hand was on the bat or not. If it was he was out caught if not he was out for handling the ball. Either way England win lol

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 25, 2008

Its a bit too much of a technology usage etc...keep it simple and Im sure many will agree sometimes a wrong dicision by an umpire add more excitement to the game.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 25, 2008

WHAT IS GOING ON WITH ROGER FEDERER

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 25, 2008

This thread is for Srilanka Vs. India test match, not for for WUMS to trash with an influx of verbal diarrhea.

Superb display by the ever green splendid magician Murali once again. Shows who's the spin king no doubt. Formidable Indian batting line up blown apart, batting superstars back in the hut, magician proves that he is still king.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 26, 2008

Have ravibala and tendulkarisgod run away?
I thought India were supposed to be the best test match side in the world. Individually brilliant but absolutely appalling as a team - no change there then.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 14, 2008

i'm not sure but as they are looking to limit the number of appeals it kinda makes them pointless to some extent if you have a dodgy umpire or a capitan who never agrees with the umpire. I think it will just further the gap between professional and amature sport as this osrt of thing certainly wont be coming to an village club soon

--------------

jokeykid, you seem to have missed the point. If the umpire is dodgy, you call his appeal and are right, your number of challenges doesn't go down. As for the captain never agreeing with the umpire; that is just another aspect added into the captaincy. If the captain is a good one he will challenge at the correct times, and it is up to the team to pick one that will do that.

And finally, I completely fail to see how this increases the gap between professional and amateur cricket. It doesn't mean that amateur cricket is going to struggle any more in comparison.

add comment | complain about this comment