23 Jul 2004 16:40:22
clarkgable
Lara aggreaved

Yes, it was a poor decision, but I seem to remember him not being out for 0
at Antigua before he went on to make 400*, when it clearly was a nick
behind. So some you win, some you lose lad.




23 Jul 2004 21:53:09
Marc
Re: Lara aggreaved

Still a rubbish decision though by Umpire Harper.

"clarkgable" <nospam_princepeace@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:cdrf1m$ok3$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> Yes, it was a poor decision, but I seem to remember him not being out for
0
> at Antigua before he went on to make 400*, when it clearly was a nick
> behind. So some you win, some you lose lad.
>
>




24 Jul 2004 07:28:38
Robert Henderson
Re: Lara aggreaved

In article <cdrf1m$ok3$1@sparta.btinternet.com >, clarkgable
<nospam_princepeace@yahoo.com > writes
>Yes, it was a poor decision, but I seem to remember him not being out for 0
>at Antigua before he went on to make 400*, when it clearly was a nick
>behind. So some you win, some you lose lad.
>
>

Just before he was out in this Test, he was given not out to a plumb lbw
from Harmison, which was a full toss hitting the middle stump half way
up. Something really does need to be done about the umpiring which is
making the game seem like a lottery.

Why there was moaning about Gayles' dismissal I cannot understand. He
was hit in front, ie, not outside the offstump, and Hawkeye said it
would have hit middle. RH

--
Robert Henderson
philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk


24 Jul 2004 07:58:16
Toby Briggs
Re: Lara aggreaved


"Robert Henderson" <Philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk > wrote in message
news:PEa5drAWGgABFw$J@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> In article <cdrf1m$ok3$1@sparta.btinternet.com>, clarkgable
> <nospam_princepeace@yahoo.com> writes
> >Yes, it was a poor decision, but I seem to remember him not being out for
0
> >at Antigua before he went on to make 400*, when it clearly was a nick
> >behind. So some you win, some you lose lad.
> >
> >
>
> Just before he was out in this Test, he was given not out to a plumb lbw
> from Harmison, which was a full toss hitting the middle stump half way
> up. Something really does need to be done about the umpiring which is
> making the game seem like a lottery.
>
> Why there was moaning about Gayles' dismissal I cannot understand. He
> was hit in front, ie, not outside the offstump, and Hawkeye said it
> would have hit middle. RH
>

Remember Hawkeye is just a guide. Thing is that Gayle took a big stride, and
the umpire couldn't have been 100% certain that the ball was going on to hit
the wicket.

Had Gayle taken the same stride, and played a defensive shot, the umpired
would've no hesitation in turning down the appeal.

I know for certain in League cricket, umpires don't like the sweep, and a
lot of batsmen are given out on the shot, even though it would miss the
stumps by a county-mile! Neil Kendrick is one player who the umpires trigger
out at every opportunity when he sweeps!




24 Jul 2004 11:12:29
Robert Henderson
Re: Lara aggreaved

In article <2mefkaFlieu1U1@uni-berlin.de >, Toby Briggs <nospam@worldcric
ketacademy.com > writes
>
>"Robert Henderson" <Philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:PEa5drAWGgABFw$J@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <cdrf1m$ok3$1@sparta.btinternet.com>, clarkgable
>> <nospam_princepeace@yahoo.com> writes
>> >Yes, it was a poor decision, but I seem to remember him not being out for
>0
>> >at Antigua before he went on to make 400*, when it clearly was a nick
>> >behind. So some you win, some you lose lad.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Just before he was out in this Test, he was given not out to a plumb lbw
>> from Harmison, which was a full toss hitting the middle stump half way
>> up. Something really does need to be done about the umpiring which is
>> making the game seem like a lottery.
>>
>> Why there was moaning about Gayles' dismissal I cannot understand. He
>> was hit in front, ie, not outside the offstump, and Hawkeye said it
>> would have hit middle. RH
>>
>
>Remember Hawkeye is just a guide.

A damn sight more reliable than umpires, not least because the decision
is objective.
RH

>Thing is that Gayle took a big stride, and
>the umpire couldn't have been 100% certain that the ball was going on to hit
>the wicket.
>
That applies to most LBWs. Hawkeye was emphatic, hitting middle stump
several inches below the top. RH

>Had Gayle taken the same stride, and played a defensive shot, the umpired
>would've no hesitation in turning down the appeal.

Had he played a defensive shot he would have been outside the off stump
when it hit him. RH

>
>I know for certain in League cricket, umpires don't like the sweep, and a
>lot of batsmen are given out on the shot, even though it would miss the
>stumps by a county-mile! Neil Kendrick is one player who the umpires trigger
>out at every opportunity when he sweeps!
>
>

--
Robert Henderson
philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk


24 Jul 2004 18:43:40
Chris Henderson
Re: Lara aggreaved

"Robert Henderson" <Philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk > wrote in message
news:PEa5drAWGgABFw$J@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> Why there was moaning about Gayles' dismissal I cannot understand. He
> was hit in front, ie, not outside the offstump,

Wrong. He was hit considerably outside off stump.




24 Jul 2004 19:01:00
max.it
Re: Lara aggreaved

"Toby Briggs" <nospam@worldcricketacademy.com >

>
>"Robert Henderson" <Philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:PEa5drAWGgABFw$J@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <cdrf1m$ok3$1@sparta.btinternet.com>, clarkgable
>> <nospam_princepeace@yahoo.com> writes
>> >Yes, it was a poor decision, but I seem to remember him not being out for
>0
>> >at Antigua before he went on to make 400*, when it clearly was a nick
>> >behind. So some you win, some you lose lad.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Just before he was out in this Test, he was given not out to a plumb lbw
>> from Harmison, which was a full toss hitting the middle stump half way
>> up. Something really does need to be done about the umpiring which is
>> making the game seem like a lottery.
>>
>> Why there was moaning about Gayles' dismissal I cannot understand. He
>> was hit in front, ie, not outside the offstump, and Hawkeye said it
>> would have hit middle. RH
>>
>
>Remember Hawkeye is just a guide. Thing is that Gayle took a big stride, and
>the umpire couldn't have been 100% certain that the ball was going on to hit
>the wicket.
>
>Had Gayle taken the same stride, and played a defensive shot, the umpired
>would've no hesitation in turning down the appeal.
>
>I know for certain in League cricket, umpires don't like the sweep, and a
>lot of batsmen are given out on the shot, even though it would miss the
>stumps by a county-mile! Neil Kendrick is one player who the umpires trigger
>out at every opportunity when he sweeps!
>
>
I'm a country type upmire these days, the player moving back is usually out
if the rest of the criterea fits.
Then again hiding the bat....you know, if it looks out then it probably is out.

max.it


24 Jul 2004 14:37:35
Graham Davis
Re: Lara aggreaved

Robert Henderson wrote:
> In article <2mefkaFlieu1U1@uni-berlin.de>, Toby Briggs <nospam@worldcric
> ketacademy.com> writes
>
<snip >
>>>
>>
>>Remember Hawkeye is just a guide.
>
>
> A damn sight more reliable than umpires, not least because the decision
> is objective.
> RH
>
>
>>Thing is that Gayle took a big stride, and
>>the umpire couldn't have been 100% certain that the ball was going on to hit
>>the wicket.
>>
>
> That applies to most LBWs. Hawkeye was emphatic, hitting middle stump
> several inches below the top. RH
>

In another Test this summer, Hawkeye also showed the ball hitting middle
stump. The umpire and commentators (and me) immediately called it not
out because the ball had pitched on off-stump but seamed to the off
immediately before hitting the pad, and would have missed the off-stump
by several inches. Channel 4 commentators did not comment on Hawkeye's
error and Hawkeye's view of the incident was not shown again.

Mind you, umpires are their own worst enemies by adopting the upright
stance they do now. They should have a look at how umpires used to stand
fifty-and-more years ago. Perhaps they're worried about back strain if
they crouched as they used to?


<snip >
>


--
Graham Davis
Bracknell



25 Jul 2004 06:18:14
Robert Henderson
Re: Lara aggreaved

In article <cduaks$4l2$1@titan.btinternet.com >, Chris Henderson
<cmch83@hotmail.com > writes
>"Robert Henderson" <Philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:PEa5drAWGgABFw$J@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>> Why there was moaning about Gayles' dismissal I cannot understand. He
>> was hit in front, ie, not outside the offstump,
>
>Wrong. He was hit considerably outside off stump.
>
>

The ball pitched outside but hit him in front of middle and off. RH
--
Robert Henderson
philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk


25 Jul 2004 07:45:02
Paul Hyett
Re: Lara aggreaved

In uk.sport.cricket on Sat, 24 Jul 2004 at 11:12:29, Robert Henderson
wrote :
>>
>>Remember Hawkeye is just a guide.
>
>A damn sight more reliable than umpires, not least because the decision
>is objective.

But not practical (in terms of the time it would take) for every
decision.

Besides, IMO the problem is not with umpires decisions, which I doubt
are any worse than at any time in the past, it's just that they are
subject to far more scrutiny then ever before. In any case, Hawkeye as
often proves umpires right, as wrong.

Where Hawkeye could be useful would be in reviewing matches, so that
umpires could see what *kind* of decisions they most differed from
Hawkeye on.
>>
>That applies to most LBWs. Hawkeye was emphatic, hitting middle stump
>several inches below the top. RH

It does seem to be on height, rather than direction, that the biggest
differences of opinion lie.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham







25 Jul 2004 07:48:03
Paul Hyett
Re: Lara aggreaved

In uk.sport.cricket on Sat, 24 Jul 2004 at 14:37:35, Graham Davis wrote
:
>
>In another Test this summer, Hawkeye also showed the ball hitting middle
>stump. The umpire and commentators (and me) immediately called it not
>out because the ball had pitched on off-stump but seamed to the off
>immediately before hitting the pad, and would have missed the off-stump
>by several inches. Channel 4 commentators did not comment on Hawkeye's
>error and Hawkeye's view of the incident was not shown again.

Another thing Hawkeye cannot do, is tell whether the batsman was playing
a stroke to a ball that pitched outside off stump, but would have hit.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham







25 Jul 2004 15:39:39
Robert Henderson
Re: Lara aggreaved

In article <JNQ41NBub1ABFwPw@activist.demon.co.uk >, Paul Hyett
<pah@nojunkmailplease.co.uk > writes
>In uk.sport.cricket on Sat, 24 Jul 2004 at 11:12:29, Robert Henderson
>wrote :
>>>
>>>Remember Hawkeye is just a guide.
>>
>>A damn sight more reliable than umpires, not least because the decision
>>is objective.
>
>But not practical (in terms of the time it would take) for every
>decision.
>

It is available seconds after the ball hits the pad. RH

>Besides, IMO the problem is not with umpires decisions, which I doubt
>are any worse than at any time in the past, it's just that they are
>subject to far more scrutiny then ever before. In any case, Hawkeye as
>often proves umpires right, as wrong.
>

That says nothing. It merely means they are getting 50% of the decisions
right. RH

>Where Hawkeye could be useful would be in reviewing matches, so that
>umpires could see what *kind* of decisions they most differed from
>Hawkeye on.
>>>
>>That applies to most LBWs. Hawkeye was emphatic, hitting middle stump
>>several inches below the top. RH
>
>It does seem to be on height, rather than direction, that the biggest
>differences of opinion lie.

More than whether it was outside the leg stump? I don't think so. RH
--
Robert Henderson
philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk


26 Jul 2004 07:22:01
David North
Re: Lara aggreaved

"Paul Hyett" <pah@nojunkmailplease.co.uk > wrote in message
news:JNQ41NBub1ABFwPw@activist.demon.co.uk...
> In uk.sport.cricket on Sat, 24 Jul 2004 at 11:12:29, Robert Henderson
> wrote :
> >>
> >>Remember Hawkeye is just a guide.
> >
> >A damn sight more reliable than umpires, not least because the decision
> >is objective.
>
> But not practical (in terms of the time it would take) for every
> decision.
>
> Besides, IMO the problem is not with umpires decisions, which I doubt
> are any worse than at any time in the past, it's just that they are
> subject to far more scrutiny then ever before. In any case, Hawkeye as
> often proves umpires right, as wrong.
>
> Where Hawkeye could be useful would be in reviewing matches, so that
> umpires could see what *kind* of decisions they most differed from
> Hawkeye on.
> >>
> >That applies to most LBWs. Hawkeye was emphatic, hitting middle stump
> >several inches below the top. RH
>
> It does seem to be on height, rather than direction, that the biggest
> differences of opinion lie.

Checking with the square-leg umpire would help in that regard.

--
David North
Email to this address will be deleted as spam
Use usenetATlaneHYPHENfarm.fsnet.co.uk




26 Jul 2004 07:23:25
David North
Re: Lara aggreaved

"Graham Davis" <graham.p.davis@ntlworld.com > wrote in message news:2mg8q8Fmm85uU1@uni-berlin.de...
> Robert Henderson wrote:
> > In article <2mefkaFlieu1U1@uni-berlin.de>, Toby Briggs <nospam@worldcric
> > ketacademy.com> writes
> >
> <snip>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Remember Hawkeye is just a guide.
> >
> >
> > A damn sight more reliable than umpires, not least because the decision
> > is objective.
> > RH
> >
> >
> >>Thing is that Gayle took a big stride, and
> >>the umpire couldn't have been 100% certain that the ball was going on to hit
> >>the wicket.
> >>
> >
> > That applies to most LBWs. Hawkeye was emphatic, hitting middle stump
> > several inches below the top. RH
> >
>
> In another Test this summer, Hawkeye also showed the ball hitting middle
> stump. The umpire and commentators (and me) immediately called it not
> out because the ball had pitched on off-stump but seamed to the off
> immediately before hitting the pad, and would have missed the off-stump
> by several inches. Channel 4 commentators did not comment on Hawkeye's
> error and Hawkeye's view of the incident was not shown again.

If the distance the ball travels between pitch and pad is very short, Hawkeye's margin of error is
larger than normal, especially if there is a large deviation off the pitch. In Gayle's case, there
was a reasonable distance of travel between pitch and pad, so the margin of error would have been
reasonably small.

--
David North
Email to this address will be deleted as spam
Use usenetATlaneHYPHENfarm.fsnet.co.uk




26 Jul 2004 07:31:10
David North
Re: Lara aggreaved

"Robert Henderson" <Philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk > wrote in message
news:LQa4YLAWK0ABFw+y@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> In article <cduaks$4l2$1@titan.btinternet.com>, Chris Henderson
> <cmch83@hotmail.com> writes
> >"Robert Henderson" <Philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:PEa5drAWGgABFw$J@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> >> Why there was moaning about Gayles' dismissal I cannot understand. He
> >> was hit in front, ie, not outside the offstump,
> >
> >Wrong. He was hit considerably outside off stump.
> >
> >
>
> The ball pitched outside but hit him in front of middle and off. RH

When C4 froze the picture, presumably at the moment the ball hit the pad, it looked to me that the
edge of the ball was just in line with the edge of the off stump. The commentators didn't seem to
notice that. It certainly wasn't as terrible a decision as they were making out.
--
David North
Email to this address will be deleted as spam
Use usenetATlaneHYPHENfarm.fsnet.co.uk




26 Jul 2004 06:38:09
Paul Hyett
Re: Lara aggreaved

In uk.sport.cricket on Sun, 25 Jul 2004 at 15:39:39, Robert Henderson
wrote :
>>>>
>>>>Remember Hawkeye is just a guide.
>>>
>>>A damn sight more reliable than umpires, not least because the decision
>>>is objective.
>>
>>But not practical (in terms of the time it would take) for every
>>decision.
>>
>It is available seconds after the ball hits the pad. RH

Not what I meant.

Over-rates are already too slow, without stopping perhaps as often as
once-an-over to check Hawkeye.
>
>>Besides, IMO the problem is not with umpires decisions, which I doubt
>>are any worse than at any time in the past, it's just that they are
>>subject to far more scrutiny then ever before. In any case, Hawkeye as
>>often proves umpires right, as wrong.
>>
>That says nothing. It merely means they are getting 50% of the decisions
>right. RH

But umpiring mistakes were always accepted as an inevitable part of the
game in the past.
>>
>>It does seem to be on height, rather than direction, that the biggest
>>differences of opinion lie.
>
>More than whether it was outside the leg stump? I don't think so. RH

I'm talking in general terms now, not specifics.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham







26 Jul 2004 08:49:48
David Lewis
Re: Lara aggreaved


"Paul Hyett" <pah@nojunkmailplease.co.uk > wrote in message
news:xBa2WPBBjJBBFwA8@activist.demon.co.uk...
> In uk.sport.cricket on Sun, 25 Jul 2004 at 15:39:39, Robert Henderson
> wrote :
> >>>>
> >>>>Remember Hawkeye is just a guide.
> >>>
> >>>A damn sight more reliable than umpires, not least because the decision
> >>>is objective.
> >>
> >>But not practical (in terms of the time it would take) for every
> >>decision.
> >>
> >It is available seconds after the ball hits the pad. RH
>
> Not what I meant.
>
> Over-rates are already too slow, without stopping perhaps as often as
> once-an-over to check Hawkeye.
> >
> >>Besides, IMO the problem is not with umpires decisions, which I doubt
> >>are any worse than at any time in the past, it's just that they are
> >>subject to far more scrutiny then ever before. In any case, Hawkeye as
> >>often proves umpires right, as wrong.
> >>
> >That says nothing. It merely means they are getting 50% of the decisions
> >right. RH
>
> But umpiring mistakes were always accepted as an inevitable part of the
> game in the past.
> >>
> >>It does seem to be on height, rather than direction, that the biggest
> >>differences of opinion lie.
> >
> >More than whether it was outside the leg stump? I don't think so. RH
>
> I'm talking in general terms now, not specifics.
> --
> Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
>
A few years ago, Duncan Fletcher made the suggestion that each side should
be allowed three "appeals" to be referred to the 3rd umpire who would have
access to hamkeye, snicko, etc. If an appeal was agreeed by the 3rd umpire,
they would still have another 3. This would avoid the obviously duff
decisons such as Lara & Gayle in the 1st innings and Chanderpaul yesterday,
without holding up the game inordinately by every appeal being checked on
TV.

Cheers

David




26 Jul 2004 11:21:46
Robert Henderson
Re: Lara aggreaved

In article <xBa2WPBBjJBBFwA8@activist.demon.co.uk >, Paul Hyett
<pah@nojunkmailplease.co.uk > writes
>>>decision.
>>>
>>It is available seconds after the ball hits the pad. RH
>
>Not what I meant.
>
>Over-rates are already too slow, without stopping perhaps as often as
>once-an-over to check Hawkeye.
>>

That's twenty seconds added to an over. RH

>>>Besides, IMO the problem is not with umpires decisions, which I doubt
>>>are any worse than at any time in the past, it's just that they are
>>>subject to far more scrutiny then ever before. In any case, Hawkeye as
>>>often proves umpires right, as wrong.
>>>
>>That says nothing. It merely means they are getting 50% of the decisions
>>right. RH
>
>But umpiring mistakes were always accepted as an inevitable part of the
>game in the past.
>>>

The mistakes were rarely obvious. They are now. They are also very
frequent. RH

>>>It does seem to be on height, rather than direction, that the biggest
>>>differences of opinion lie.
>>
>>More than whether it was outside the leg stump? I don't think so. RH
>
>I'm talking in general terms now, not specifics.
>--
>Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

--
Robert Henderson
philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk


26 Jul 2004 11:23:15
Robert Henderson
Re: Lara aggreaved

In article <2mjmogFmfqeuU1@uni-berlin.de >, David North <dnorth@abbeymano
r.fsbusiness.co.uk > writes
>> >
>>
>> The ball pitched outside but hit him in front of middle and off. RH
>
>When C4 froze the picture, presumably at the moment the ball hit the pad, it
>looked to me that the
>edge of the ball was just in line with the edge of the off stump. The
>commentators didn't seem to
>notice that. It certainly wasn't as terrible a decision as they were making out.
>-

I reckon it was plumb lbw. People get distracted by the sweep shot which
confuses them when judging where the ball actually hits the pad. RH

>-
>David North

--
Robert Henderson
philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk


26 Jul 2004 18:26:34
Paul Hyett
Re: Lara aggreaved

In uk.sport.cricket on Mon, 26 Jul 2004 at 11:21:46, Robert Henderson
wrote :
>>
>>Over-rates are already too slow, without stopping perhaps as often as
>>once-an-over to check Hawkeye.
>>>
>That's twenty seconds added to an over. RH

... which amounts to 30 minutes a day - that's 7-8 fewer overs for the
paying spectators to see.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham







27 Jul 2004 06:17:56
Robert Henderson
Re: Lara aggreaved

In article <1rYX8$AK7TBBFwi$@activist.demon.co.uk >, Paul Hyett
<pah@nojunkmailplease.co.uk > writes
>In uk.sport.cricket on Mon, 26 Jul 2004 at 11:21:46, Robert Henderson
>wrote :
>>>
>>>Over-rates are already too slow, without stopping perhaps as often as
>>>once-an-over to check Hawkeye.
>>>>
>>That's twenty seconds added to an over. RH
>
>... which amounts to 30 minutes a day - that's 7-8 fewer overs for the
>paying spectators to see.

It won't be once an over. RH
--
Robert Henderson
philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk


27 Jul 2004 18:21:44
Paul Hyett
Re: Lara aggreaved

In uk.sport.cricket on Tue, 27 Jul 2004 at 06:17:56, Robert Henderson
wrote :
>>>>
>>>>Over-rates are already too slow, without stopping perhaps as often as
>>>>once-an-over to check Hawkeye.
>>>>>
>>>That's twenty seconds added to an over. RH
>>
>>... which amounts to 30 minutes a day - that's 7-8 fewer overs for the
>>paying spectators to see.
>
>It won't be once an over. RH

It might be, if a team wanted to waste time.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham







28 Jul 2004 10:12:22
Robert Henderson
Re: Lara aggreaved

In article <2wgn6tAo8oBBFwyo@activist.demon.co.uk >, Paul Hyett
<pah@nojunkmailplease.co.uk > writes
>In uk.sport.cricket on Tue, 27 Jul 2004 at 06:17:56, Robert Henderson
>wrote :
>>>>>
>>>>>Over-rates are already too slow, without stopping perhaps as often as
>>>>>once-an-over to check Hawkeye.
>>>>>>
>>>>That's twenty seconds added to an over. RH
>>>
>>>... which amounts to 30 minutes a day - that's 7-8 fewer overs for the
>>>paying spectators to see.
>>
>>It won't be once an over. RH
>
>It might be, if a team wanted to waste time.

They have to have an ostensible cause to appeal, hit the pads, pass the
bat etc. Doesn't happen that regularly. RH
--
Robert Henderson
philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk


28 Jul 2004 18:28:06
David North
Re: Lara aggreaved

"Robert Henderson" <Philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk > wrote in message
news:tpwh2JA6sNBBFwgr@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> In article <xBa2WPBBjJBBFwA8@activist.demon.co.uk>, Paul Hyett
> <pah@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> writes
> >>>decision.
> >>>
> >>It is available seconds after the ball hits the pad. RH
> >
> >Not what I meant.
> >
> >Over-rates are already too slow, without stopping perhaps as often as
> >once-an-over to check Hawkeye.
> >>
>
> That's twenty seconds added to an over. RH

In a lot of cases the decision could probably be made before the bowler had got back to his mark, so
if he was made to do that straight away (as a condition of the referral if necessary), rather than
hang around mid-pitch waiting for the verdict, very little time need be lost (for a not-out decision
at least).
--
David North
Email to this address will be deleted as spam
Use usenetATlaneHYPHENfarm.fsnet.co.uk




29 Jul 2004 07:06:10
Robert Henderson
Re: Lara aggreaved

In article <2mq638Fpl5fkU1@uni-berlin.de >, David North <dnorth@abbeymano
r.fsbusiness.co.uk > writes
>> >once-an-over to check Hawkeye.
>> >>
>>
>> That's twenty seconds added to an over. RH
>
>In a lot of cases the decision could probably be made before the bowler had got
>back to his mark, so
>if he was made to do that straight away (as a condition of the referral if
>necessary), rather than
>hang around mid-pitch waiting for the verdict, very little time need be lost
>(for a not-out decision
>at least).

I agree. RH
--
Robert Henderson
philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk