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

England summer cricket internationals


Recommended Posts

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
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. 

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
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
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

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
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.

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.

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.

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 

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

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 

I thought that was just in cases of the ball carrying?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great to read this. I was unable to stay up all night and threw the towel in around 2am. Root and Morgan looking pretty comfortable at the time, but ya never know with England! Not much reporting on Australian news this morning funnily enough 😂

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Delightful highlights, Smith giving away 21 run over and 3 consecutive 6's whilst defending 224, terrible decision by Bairstow to review plumb in front LBW, denied Roy a century.

Gotta love the Aussies getting stuffed like that.

Edited by BanburyRed
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, TomF said:

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 

Couldn’t he only have done that if there was a doubt about ‘fair catch’ Tom (Which there wasnt) ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have absolutely no idea about cricket, only ever see what is shown on sports bulletins and recognise a few names from court case and other gossip, but very happy to see England reach the final. I had no idea there was a cricket World Cup, no idea it had been so long since we were in the final. I have heard of the Ashes thing though.

One thing that did strike me as I saw a bit of coverage yesterday were all the empty seats, as a ‘non believer’ can someone explain why this was? I said to my family, all ‘non believers’ too, maybe it was because people didn’t buy tickets thinking we wouldn’t get to the semi? Any other sporting event at this stage involving a home nation would be sold out surely. I do realise it was on a Thursday so is that partly why, but if it was football for example there would not have been empty seats any time or day of the week.

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

I have absolutely no idea about cricket, only ever see what is shown on sports bulletins and recognise a few names from court case and other gossip, but very happy to see England reach the final. I had no idea there was a cricket World Cup, no idea it had been so long since we were in the final. I have heard of the Ashes thing though.

One thing that did strike me as I saw a bit of coverage yesterday were all the empty seats, as a ‘non believer’ can someone explain why this was? I said to my family, all ‘non believers’ too, maybe it was because people didn’t buy tickets thinking we wouldn’t get to the semi? Any other sporting event at this stage involving a home nation would be sold out surely. I do realise it was on a Thursday so is that partly why, but if it was football for example there would not have been empty seats any time or day of the week.

International Cricket in every form is well supported in this country but the most passionate fanbases are those of the Asian teams like India and Pakistan.

A lot of tickets were purchased for yesterdays game by Indians fans (many born here) who thought their team would be in that semi final. It turned out India played in the other semi final. Lots still went yesterday and supported the country of birth rather than their country of heritage, but some didnt and I dont think a ticket resale was made easy.

The other factor I suppose is people coming and going throughout the game, late arrivals, early departees, getting food/drink. Not quite the same as football because the game lasts much longer.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, New Dazzler said:

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.

Because ball tracking isn't 100% accurate, it's a prediction of where the ball would have gone, based on its trajectory. It's not like Hawkeye in tennis or football where it's showing exactly where the ball was at a certain time, it's software making a (very) educated guess about where the ball would have ended up. So based on that I feel the "umpire's call" thing makes sense. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RedM said:

I have absolutely no idea about cricket, only ever see what is shown on sports bulletins and recognise a few names from court case and other gossip, but very happy to see England reach the final. I had no idea there was a cricket World Cup, no idea it had been so long since we were in the final. I have heard of the Ashes thing though.

One thing that did strike me as I saw a bit of coverage yesterday were all the empty seats, as a ‘non believer’ can someone explain why this was? I said to my family, all ‘non believers’ too, maybe it was because people didn’t buy tickets thinking we wouldn’t get to the semi? Any other sporting event at this stage involving a home nation would be sold out surely. I do realise it was on a Thursday so is that partly why, but if it was football for example there would not have been empty seats any time or day of the week.

The match tickets were pretty expensive. Mine was £90 and with a restricted view as my seat was next to the hospitality block. However we were able to move along the row to the other end with a perfect view. My buddy who got the tickets said that where we ended up sitting were priced at £140!  

Add to that two pints of Thatchers cost £11......the radio earpieces were a tenner......Parking was £8 plus fuel and a full English breakfast at £6 in a local cafe. It ends up being an expensive day out. I certainly was expecting the match tickets to be as expensive as they were. 

To many cricket fans the whole day means a day off work and is simply unaffordable.

Personally I thought it was a brilliant day despite the fact I must have got through around £160.

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

The match tickets were pretty expensive. Mine was £90 and with a restricted view as my seat was next to the hospitality block. However we were able to move along the row to the other end with a perfect view. My buddy who got the tickets said that where we ended up sitting were priced at £140!  

Add to that two pints of Thatchers cost £11......the radio earpieces were a tenner......Parking was £8 plus fuel and a full English breakfast at £6 in a local cafe. It ends up being an expensive day out. I certainly was expecting the match tickets to be as expensive as they were. 

To many cricket fans the whole day means a day off work and is simply unaffordable.

Personally I thought it was a brilliant day despite the fact I must have got through around £160.

Wow that's mad how much the ICC rinse you for the WC -  I went to the ICC Champions Trophy in 2013 and paid £50 for a ticket on second tier of the stand opposite the hollies. Parked for free down near the old pebble mill studios! 

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

Wow that's mad how much the ICC rinse you for the WC -  I went to the ICC Champions Trophy in 2013 and paid £50 for a ticket on second tier of the stand opposite the hollies. Parked for free down near the old pebble mill studios! 

We were almost opposite the hollies, next to the hospitality block.

My buddy did all the organising online (he’s a software engineer). He’d booked a parking space on a locals driveway about a 15 min stroll to Edgbaston. We were able to enjoy the walk with all the other cricket fans on their way to the stadium. There was nervous anticipatory ‘buzz’ all around. In many ways it was like attending a big football match.

All the roads around the venue were closed off with barriers. Lots of street vendors selling all sorts of merchandise. I hadn’t been to Edgbaston for around 35 years so it was all a new experience for me and even tho it was an expensive day I really enjoyed it.

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

The match tickets were pretty expensive. Mine was £90 and with a restricted view as my seat was next to the hospitality block. However we were able to move along the row to the other end with a perfect view. My buddy who got the tickets said that where we ended up sitting were priced at £140!  

Add to that two pints of Thatchers cost £11......the radio earpieces were a tenner......Parking was £8 plus fuel and a full English breakfast at £6 in a local cafe. It ends up being an expensive day out. I certainly was expecting the match tickets to be as expensive as they were. 

To many cricket fans the whole day means a day off work and is simply unaffordable.

Personally I thought it was a brilliant day despite the fact I must have got through around £160.

But all worth it to see us spank the Ozzies !

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...