Even more controversy and that leading to a tw**t from James Taylor
James Taylor said:
How can you have technology involved in cricket if it is going to be so inconsistent...
It is the implementation as much as the system, I think it was Dirk Nannes saying that he thinks it is wrong batsmen should be not out if it hits their pads just because the ball hits outside the off stump, but the review England used up because of "umpire's call" where it wasn't definitely outside the line is just more controversy.
And I think they overcomplicate it with balancing umpire's own vision with dorkeye and hotspot and snickers-o-meter. Most of the pundits I've heard say anything about clean catches say if you slow it down there'll always be doubt and I think the same applies for wickets/reviews, there are so many factors thrown in the mix it causes too much doubt. Let dorkeye make a decision on LBWs, either hitting or not hitting the stumps, hitting the pad in line or not in line, and pitching in line or outside, none of this "umpire's call" cobblers.
Keep it simple, let the third umpire be a neutral arbiter, a second opinion if you like and if it contradicts the first opinion is that not what the reviewer is seeking?!?!? If, with added technology come gimmicks, he would give it out then let him.
It would remove the biggest single controversy for me which is the influence of "umpire's call" where it stays out if the umpire gives it out, or stays not out if the umpire gives it out.
----------
Leaking team information to opposition about teammates and sticking tape on the edge of your bat to avoid thin edges may be apples and oranges but they both fall under the category of dishonesty. Not as irrelevant to one another as you are trying to emphasise.
You seriously think batsmen are trying to dodge hotspot?!?! The point about the "pointless cheat" is it is like goalline technology for the 1 in 200 or more occaisions it may come into use, if the batsman is clean bowled, gets a thick edge, is out LBW or chips it to a fielder then this thin tape that so many are convinced is in circulation will not save them.
Not entirely pointless maybe, but still a drop in the ocean, IF players are indeed using it. I'm not defending England or English batsmen, but from the rest of your post I can see you wrongly believe that.
Funny that you bring up the Afridi incident in Pakistan. Look at KP's track record with the whole Peter Moores saga, the texting incident and now this. Afridi himself is never too far from controversy either.
What has KP's track record got to do with cheating, it is all off field? Keep it relevant and don't make it tit for tat like most tits do, when it comes to cheating I am neutral and am not singling out one country over another, simply trying to be objective.
Bitter is having J.Wilkinson kick a field goal in extra time to win a WC vs Australia and then complaining of their playing style.
Uh oh, like I really care if you want to try to exorcise a chip on your shoulder, you can blather on about English all you like but if you read my posts elsewhere I freely cite where England cheat, including Hussain and Broad, Athers with dirt in his pocket etc and other instances so stop trying to score points in some kind of p1ssing contest.
If you want a p1ssing contest I've heard Panesar is your man
Its hard not to question a teams integrity when you see and hear about these little devious subtleties like:
Peppermint lollies to make the ball swing.
Tape on the edge of the bat.
Graeme Swann trying to hide hand sprays from the camera.
Someone on the balcony to help with every review.
Broad and Anderson on and off the field during bowling spells.
I think you should suck on a lemon, I mean wow so you've identified my nationality and blathered on like a true plank, like I said, chip on your shoulder, possibly a chip shop on each. I have no intention of defending English players, you've clearly got both ends of the wrong stick. I condone no cheating on either side, I do however think that people are blowing a lot of smoke hoping that people conclude there is no smoke without fire........................
Bring on bat inspections, pocket checks whenever players go out onto the field, abolish sweets, methinks the smell of sour of grapes has been present ever since one nation started losing.............................
----------
^Yes I think that's the first rule, deny, deny, deny! It worked for Lance Armstrong for a while
Interesting on KPs point about how spotting the inside edge saved him in the first innings. If we can find a batsman that has tape on the outside, but not on the inside edge, then we've got a cheater
Most bats I see have that sleeve thing over all the bottom half.
Have we got any real evidence or is phil and all others like him just working themselves up? Might have guessed you'd be more pragmatic, rational and objective than most.
I just happen to be a non-believer on this one as I'm not sure, as you say, he gains any more than he loses. I'm not sure I believed jellybeangate either, it just sounded too pathetic for words but that doesn't mean it didn't happen just like the tape thing is possible but sounds too ridiculous for words.
I dunno about cheating, I'd be embarrassed if caught taking such measures, but then we could move on to bottle tops, sledging and intimidation with excess short stuff if we want to talk of any advantage, slight or otherwise (please note I talk generally, not about specific countries, I do no flag waving or p1ssing contests TYVM)
I am more believing of the "comfort breaks" that England adopted, especially knowing what Michael Yawn was like as a captain and the kind of prat he is. So actually I suppose anything (stupid/pathetic) is possible where he is concerned, I gather these days he gives his wicket away for charity!
