Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership

TomF

England summer cricket internationals

Recommended Posts

Smith being brought on to chuck pies at Roy must be one of the highlights of the tournament?

Guerilla Cricket commentary described the last ball of his over as "an almost pisstaking dot" :laughcont:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can see why the umpires given that with the late swing, so frustrating given Bairstow's looked out and we chose to review

  • Like 1
  • Hmmm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MichaelRobartes said:

Smith being brought on to chuck pies at Roy must be one of the highlights of the tournament?

 

Being hit for 21 😂. Couldn't happen to a nicer bloke.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Appalling decision , eventually bowing to prolongated appeal from probably the worst umpire in circuit

#shock

Roy will be in trouble for his reaction but you can understand 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to sack off reviewing on the chance it pitched outside leg, there's no umpire's call allowance so its a big gamble on a chance. It was never not out on height or line, just the slim chance it pitched outside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely awful decision! I guess we’re just lucky it’s happened while we’re well in control (he says, hoping we don’t capitulate).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, phantom said:

We'll see this through losing maybe 2/3 wickets at most

Great shout in fairness

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice  that we arnt rushing to knock them off too quick

Nice to leave the cheats out there , humiliated , a little longer

:yawn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, phantom said:

We'll see this through losing maybe 2/3 wickets at most

Cheers lol

FB_IMG_1562862074875.jpg

  • Flames 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rolf Harris, Kylie Minogue, Don Bradman... your boys took one hell of beating

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So question is, is Roy in the sh*te for his reaction. Already got 1 point, level 2 offence could = 3 more. 4 is a ban..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TomF said:

So question is, is Roy in the sh*te for his reaction. Already got 1 point, level 2 offence could = 3 more. 4 is a ban..

If he cops a fine then Bairstow should pay it for him after wasting that review like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Northern Red said:

If he cops a fine then Bairstow should pay it for him after wasting that review like that.

Could easily cop a one match ban. Imagine Vince opening in a World Cup final :facepalm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TomF said:

Could easily cop a one match ban. Imagine Vince opening in a World Cup final :facepalm:

Aye. I'd rather give Moeen a go, even if he is horribly out of nick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, TomF said:

Could easily cop a one match ban. Imagine Vince opening in a World Cup final :facepalm:

 

10 minutes ago, Northern Red said:

Aye. I'd rather give Moeen a go, even if he is horribly out of nick.

Or Jos. Athers was saying earlier he could put the game out of sight in the first ten overs.

Or get a first-baller from Trent Boult of course!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interested to see channel 4 are to show the final live but they're scheduled to show the British grand prix too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, phantom said:

Interested to see channel 4 are to show the final live but they're scheduled to show the British grand prix too...

Starts on C4 and moves to More4 when Grand Prix is on and then back to C4

Roy’s ticked off but not banned 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got back from Edgbaston.

Great day out at the cricket and well worth it. Terrific atmosphere throughout both innings and when the Aussies were 3 down for very little the buzz around Edgbaston was fantastic. 

The Aussie score of 223 was nowhere near par and England cruised to an easy victory, despite Barstow wasting the review when he was plumb lbw.......:facepalm: and that ultimately cost Roy his wicket on 85 when he was nowhere the ball.

Great chant towards the end of  “Warner, Warner, what’s the score?” went  up..........:rofl2br:

A long and tiring day but well worth the early rise  and £90 ticket price........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys, I profess to admit, I dont watch much of cricket. Watched todays game and whoop whoop we're in the finals.

Although I need to ask, cos I cant seem to find why online (did a brief look, it wasnt obvious) So I'm asking if any of you knowledgeable folk know why reviews in cricket are limited? I am the UN-informative one after all, even in football IoI)

If it was Football it would've gone straight to VAR and Roy wouldnt in the end be declared out.

During the whole day of play, there wasnt really much call for reviews, so why is it limited?

Thanks in advance.

Edit: cant someone please change the "IoI" to just initially be the letters IoI? Instead of : laugh :

Edited by CrazyInWeston

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CrazyInWeston said:

Hi guys, I profess to admit, I dont watch much of cricket. Watched todays game and whoop whoop we're in the finals.

Although I need to ask, cos I cant seem to find why online (did a brief look, it wasnt obvious) So I'm asking if any of you knowledgeable folk know why reviews in cricket are limited? I am the UN-informative one after all, even in football :laugh:)

If it was Football it would've gone straight to VAR and Roy wouldnt in the end be declared out.

During the whole day of play, there wasnt really much call for reviews, so why is it limited?

Thanks in advance.

Edit: cant someone please change the ":laugh:" to just initially be the letters :laugh:?

Each side only has one review - if they review and they’re successful they retain the review for future use. The only slight variation is on LBW where if the call is umpires call it stays with the umpires decision but whoever called the review - either batsmen who was given out by umpire or fielding side who didn’t get the decision - retain it for later.  Aus used theirs up in second over when Finch was given out LBW but reviewed it and was still out.  England twice reviewed LBWs not given but retained it because umpires call in both.

Run outs are down to the umpire who can call as many reviews on that as he likes - alongside debatable catches although the umpire usually gives a soft decision of what they think happened in/out and then the 3rd umpire has to have proof that their is evidence to overturn it 

Test cricket you get 2 a side, which then get reset (ie another 2) every 80 overs. 

I hope VAR eventually becomes as well oiled at reviews in cricket as generally it runs quickly and efficiently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, CrazyInWeston said:

Hi guys, I profess to admit, I dont watch much of cricket. Watched todays game and whoop whoop we're in the finals.

Although I need to ask, cos I cant seem to find why online (did a brief look, it wasnt obvious) So I'm asking if any of you knowledgeable folk know why reviews in cricket are limited? I am the UN-informative one after all, even in football IoI)

If it was Football it would've gone straight to VAR and Roy wouldnt in the end be declared out.

During the whole day of play, there wasnt really much call for reviews, so why is it limited?

Thanks in advance.

Edit: cant someone please change the "IoI" to just initially be the letters IoI? Instead of : laugh :

You get one and keep it if you're successful, or if its 'umpires call' which is the margin of error. You only get one because unlike football they're only supposed to be used for howlers and its to stop it being used on the off chance for everything

2 hours ago, TomF said:

Could easily cop a one match ban. Imagine Vince opening in a World Cup final :facepalm:

I'd go with Warne's suggestion and go Buttler 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, hodge said:

You get one and keep it if you're successful, or if its 'umpires call' which is the margin of error. You only get one because unlike football they're only supposed to be used for howlers and its to stop it being used on the off chance for everything

I'd go with Warne's suggestion and go Buttler 

Thankfully Roy only got 2 points not 3. I think the ICC wouldn’t dare ban him for final. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pretty sure every single WC game has been streamed live on hesgoal.com, which I guess I was only aware of because of the live football streaming sites threads we always get when City are away.  I always find this the best streaming site as you don't have to "register" and having Norton always fends off any dodgy virus things.  You also get the Sky commentary (rather than Bulgarian, Swedish or Russian etc that you sometimes get for the footie), all for free.  

I do pay Virgin Media for all the Sky Sports etc anyway but having said that, in this warm summer it is nice to watch it on the old laptop in the garden.  But it does show that you don't have to pay and subscribe for anything and still watch it for free. I realise that this bit of advice is of absolutely no use now to anyone who wanted to watch the WC tournament but couldn't afford it or didn't want to pay for Sky, sorry about that!

Edited by New Dazzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Thanks @TomF and @hodge for your replies, makes it clearer a little.

As for VAR.

18 minutes ago, TomF said:

I hope VAR eventually becomes as well oiled at reviews in cricket as generally it runs quickly and efficiently. 

Dont wish to derail the topic, but I mentioned on the Football forum that its a joke ATM, some fouls blatently needed VAR yet ignored, yet that Eng womens penalty vs USA which was the softest touch ever went to VAR and we got awarded the penalty. Not to mention that vs Cameroon a STAMP on the foot was declared a NON penalty by that ref. Many things needed sorting out there, I'm surprised how bad it is.

Back to Cricket, is that 1 review per ODI then? As in it carries from fielding to batting?

Edited by CrazyInWeston

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, CrazyInWeston said:

 Thanks @TomF and @hodge for your replies, makes it clearer a little.

As for VAR.

Dont wish to derail the topic, but I mentioned on the Football forum that its a joke ATM, some fouls blatently needed VAR yet ignored, yet that Eng womens penalty vs USA which was the softest touch ever went to VAR and we got awarded the penalty. Not to mention that vs Cameroon a STAMP on the foot was declared a NON penalty by that ref. Many things needed sorting out there, I'm surprised how bad it is.

Back to Cricket, is that 1 review per ODI then? As in it carries from fielding to batting?

The problem with football rules compared to cricket is the subjective nature of the rules in football whereas cricket by the letter they're very simple, ie can't pitch outside leg, must hit inline blah blah, so when it goes to a review it goes bang, bang, bang through the system and churned out quickly.

Its 1 review per innings in ODI's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, CrazyInWeston said:

 Thanks @TomF and @hodge for your replies, makes it clearer a little.

As for VAR.

Dont wish to derail the topic, but I mentioned on the Football forum that its a joke ATM, some fouls blatently needed VAR yet ignored, yet that Eng womens penalty vs USA which was the softest touch ever went to VAR and we got awarded the penalty. Not to mention that vs Cameroon a STAMP on the foot was declared a NON penalty by that ref. Many things needed sorting out there, I'm surprised how bad it is.

Back to Cricket, is that 1 review per ODI then? As in it carries from fielding to batting?

I think that (but stand to be corrected) that it is one per innings, so yes one for fielding and one for batting.  The weird thing is that if you lose a review ie LBW because it would just have hit the stumps but it remains the Umpire's call you keep that review for future use (if that makes sense!)  What I really don't get is that if ball tracking shows that on an lbw the ball would have hit the stumps (even only just) that should surely be given out, whatever decision the Umpire has originally given.

The Jason Roy incident today showed that, whatever system is used, their will still seems to be some controversy with the review system used, be it cricket, football or whatever.  I am pretty sure the Umpire was not totally convinced he had made the right decision, but (unlike with a run out or stumping or a catch that might have hit the ground) he could not refer it directly to the 3rd Umpire, which seems a nonsense as surely they want to get as many decisions as correct as possible and that one would have been proven wrong in about 15 seconds.

Edited by New Dazzler
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hodge said:

Its 1 review per innings in ODI's

So the simple answer, Fielding/Batting Its 1 review for the whole thing.

Maybe VAR should be the same. At first you'll get teams asking at the first instant, but over time, the game will be as it has been for many years (controversial decisions going either way) but you get that one chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CrazyInWeston said:

So the simple answer, Fielding/Batting Its 1 review for the whole thing.

Maybe VAR should be the same. At first you'll get teams asking at the first instant, but over time, the game will be as it has been for many years (controversial decisions going either way) but you get that one chance.

1 innings while batting and then 1 while fielding regardless of whether the one in the previous innings was successful.

I think it could work like that if the referee can then review certain things upon request, like potential red card tackles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hodge said:

1 innings while batting and then 1 while fielding regardless of whether the one in the previous innings was successful.

I think it could work like that if the referee can then review certain things upon request, like potential red card tackles.

Well I dont see why not. The amount of cameras watching the games. Make VAR like how it is in cricket, like 1 per half or 1 per game (would be better) It would then like today in cricket be the refs/umpires call like how it happened today with Roy and just bloody get on with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, New Dazzler said:

I think that (but stand to be corrected) that it is one per innings, so yes one for fielding and one for batting.  The weird thing is that if you lose a review ie LBW because it would just have hit the stumps but it remains the Umpire's call you keep that review for future use (if that makes sense!)  What I really don't get is that if ball tracking shows that on an lbw the ball would have hit the stumps (even only just) that should surely be given out, whatever decision the Umpire has originally given.

The Jason Roy incident today showed that, whatever system is used, their will still seems to be some controversy with the review system used, be it cricket, football or whatever.  I am pretty sure the Umpire was not totally convinced he had made the right decision, but (unlike with a run out or stumping or a catch that might have hit the ground) he could not refer it directly to the 3rd Umpire, which seems a nonsense as surely they want to get as many decisions as correct as possible and that one would have been proven wrong in about 15 seconds.

The umpire could have reviewed Roy with the soft signal of out.  He just didn’t choose to think about it and went with giving it out on field 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...