cricket world cup thread

[Longy]

Windies only need 19 from their point of view, a tie and England can still through if Bangladesh lose to South Africa.

[iwillwinlots]

wooooooooooooooo

[Longy]

Get in!!!!!!!!

We are so good to watch, yet so mediocre.

[gatso]

watching england is amazing. wiiiiiiii

[Moskvich]

Wtf is that - "That's worked perfectly", "Correct decision" says David Lloyd - as he gets given not out in accordance with the on field decision.

But the replay showed it was out...! So how's it worked perfectly and is the correct decision..?

Also, didn't he give him not out because he thought he'd nicked it - suspect he did. In which case the fact that it's "only clipping" the top of middle shouldn't matter.

The replay was inconclusive although most people would say he hit the rope. When you touch the rope it's a boundary and always has been. Benefit of doubt always goes to the batsmen.

 There was a great catch a year or 2 back where the fielder caught it realised he would go over the rope so threw it up returned to the field and caught it which is fine.

Sandy

yeah I know the rules (Laws) but there isn't actually anything in them that says the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt. My point was that the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt on wicket decisions because it's right that you have to prove the wicket. But by the same token and in the same spirit you should have to prove the six, otherwise the fielder in that case should be the one who is innocent till proven guilty, and it should be the fielding side in that case should get the benefit of the doubt.

[Bongo]

Wtf is that - "That's worked perfectly", "Correct decision" says David Lloyd - as he gets given not out in accordance with the on field decision.

But the replay showed it was out...! So how's it worked perfectly and is the correct decision..?

Also, didn't he give him not out because he thought he'd nicked it - suspect he did. In which case the fact that it's "only clipping" the top of middle shouldn't matter.

There's a margin of error with the predictive thingy and so you can't be sure it's hitting when it's just clipping, thus no howler.

[Moskvich]

Wtf is that - "That's worked perfectly", "Correct decision" says David Lloyd - as he gets given not out in accordance with the on field decision.

But the replay showed it was out...! So how's it worked perfectly and is the correct decision..?

Also, didn't he give him not out because he thought he'd nicked it - suspect he did. In which case the fact that it's "only clipping" the top of middle shouldn't matter.

There's a margin of error with the predictive thingy and so you can't be sure it's hitting when it's just clipping, thus no howler.

It is a howler though if he only originally gave it not out because he thought he'd nicked it, which is what I was wondering. If he gave it not out on height then the "only clipping" thing is fair enough I guess. But if he didn't even consider the height because he thought he'd hit it, then "only clipping" should be enough to give it out on review once you've proved that he didn't in fact hit it.

[gatso]

It is a howler though if he only originally gave it not out because he thought he'd nicked it, which is what I was wondering. If he gave it not out on height then the "only clipping" thing is fair enough I guess. But if he didn't even consider the height because he thought he'd hit it, then "only clipping" should be enough to give it out on review once you've proved that he didn't in fact hit it.

agree with that. plus forget the margin of error on the technology, there were enough tv angles all of which showed it clearly hitting, no need to use technology to make a decision on height when it's that clear

[Moskvich]

It is a howler though if he only originally gave it not out because he thought he'd nicked it, which is what I was wondering. If he gave it not out on height then the "only clipping" thing is fair enough I guess. But if he didn't even consider the height because he thought he'd hit it, then "only clipping" should be enough to give it out on review once you've proved that he didn't in fact hit it.

agree with that. plus forget the margin of error on the technology, there were enough tv angles all of which showed it clearly hitting, no need to use technology to make a decision on height when it's that clear

Yeah, it's very generous to the umpires with the margin of error as it is here.

[Moskvich]

Treadwell's an interesting chap isn't he. Must be inspirational in the dressing room.

[Madone]

Treadwell's an interesting chap isn't he. Must be inspirational in the dressing room.

You don't want to many big ego's in the dressing room i would have thought!

[Dubai]

Good god i done it in and woke up fancying England- anyone who was betting on betfair would have seen have pro England the market was and i assume would have done it in

[Woodsey]

Lol WTF again 

[Bongo]

It is a howler though if he only originally gave it not out because he thought he'd nicked it, which is what I was wondering. If he gave it not out on height then the "only clipping" thing is fair enough I guess. But if he didn't even consider the height because he thought he'd hit it, then "only clipping" should be enough to give it out on review once you've proved that he didn't in fact hit it.

agree with that. plus forget the margin of error on the technology, there were enough tv angles all of which showed it clearly hitting, no need to use technology to make a decision on height when it's that clear

Yeah, it's very generous to the umpires with the margin of error as it is here.

It's a bit like Ian Bell against India (I think), everyone thought he was out but the rules said no because he'd been hit so far from the stumps. In that case it was hitting the middle of middle...

[Pelham Boy]

Jade Dernbach called up to replace Shahzad. Interesting choice.