West Indies tour of Australia, November-December 2009

[iridescentt]

lol.

"I thought he definitely hit that" - Shane Watson

Contradiction much?

 

[TumTum]

as well? so sure about this one? when his bat hit the pad. use your eyes mate.

Either ur blind to see a sqaure box on the screen and some zig-zagging lines or listening to cricket on radio.


No point denying mate, we all know they were out, even the commentators are convinced.

 

[Dare]

No point denying mate, we all know they were out, even the commentators are convinced.

see the box in the 2nd one? do you see the bat hit the pad or are you too blind to see a piece of wood half the length of Chanders body hit his pad which clearly moves after contact.
If the 1st one wasn't give out then there is no way the 2nd one should have been.

 

[TumTum]

see the box in the 2nd one? do you see the bat hit the pad or are you too blind to see a piece of wood half the length of Chanders body hit his pad which clearly moves after contact.
If the 1st one wasn't give out then there is no way the 2nd one should have been.

Didn't you see the ball change direction on the normal video replay?

And it was before it even got close to his pads as well.

Argue as long as you like.

 

[ajdude]

Didn't you see the ball change direction on the normal video replay?

And it was before it even got close to his pads as well.

Argue as long as you like.

You're even embarrassing me, I'll admit the second one was more towards out, but the first one wasn't, I don't care what snicko said. Snicko doesn't just pick up noises from the bat, it could have been a noise from his pads hitting eachother or something, the ball was nowhere near the bat tbh

Get the fearsome tweak over it, both of you

 

[Dare]

Didn't you see the ball change direction on the normal video replay?

And it was before it even got close to his pads as well.

Argue as long as you like.

ball changes direction only from one angle you show it from the others and there is no conclusive evidence. The bat hits the pad at the exact same time, his bat was always beside the pad. Get some glasses this aint your 1st time.


Like I said if the 1st one wasn't out the 2nd one should have never been. More evidence on the 1st one then the 2nd one.

We're getting plenty of feedback about the Chanderpaul decision, almost all of it outraged at the outcome. It was a difficult one for the television umpire. The front-on replay suggested there was an edge, but the view from behind and hot spot did not back it up.

 

[TumTum]

One video is enough, you don't need them all to show it.

Obviously the other cameras are position on an angle which is difficult to spot any deflections.

 

[angryangy]

I'm impressed the 3rd umpire went with his eyes, as it was a visible deflection that could not have come off the pad, even if hotspot again couldn't come to the party due to the angle of the bat. As I've said before, it's important that for referrals go up on such decisions, that it is reasonable to actually expect some sort of conclusion. Let's not let infrared vision deprive us of our other senses; if there is no value in what we see in replays, why waste time with them?

I wonder though, if you could use Hawkeye to demonstrate that a ball has deflected off the bat in a more clinical manner.

 

[TumTum]

I'm impressed the 3rd umpire went with his eyes, as it was a visible deflection that could not have come off the pad, even if hotspot again couldn't come to the party due to the angle of the bat. As I've said before, it's important that for referrals go up on such decisions, that it is reasonable to actually expect some sort of conclusion. Let's not let infrared vision deprive us of our other senses; if there is no value in what we see in replays, why waste time with them?

I wonder though, if you could use Hawkeye to demonstrate that a ball has deflected off the bat in a more clinical manner.

Exactly what I am talking about, no point in arguing against common sense by some dodgy "checkpoints".

I personally dont trust Hawk-eye but that Is a good idea.

 

[Dare]

One video is enough, you don't need them all to show it.

Obviously the other cameras are position on an angle which is difficult to spot any deflections.

one video that apparently shows the ball changing course and one that doesn't. Dont see how that's conclusive to you. I guess the only camera that was positioned correctly is the one that suits your point of view.
No conclusive evidence dude, that's all it is.
If the ball clearly hit it you would have seen as much deviation and change form the balls trajectory from the camera looking into the back of the batsman.

 

[aussie1st]

Well played Bravo, took a while to get settled but once he did he really took the attack back to us.

 

[TumTum]

OMFG my camera angle WAS the best. The other was from further away distance.

ANWYZ how can 1 video be WRONG HUH???????????????

DAts it I am not going to argue any more...

 

[angryangy]

one video that apparently shows the ball changing course and one that doesn't. Dont see how that's conclusive to you. I guess the only camera that was positioned correctly is the one that suits your point of view.
No conclusive evidence dude, that's all it is.
If the ball clearly hit it you would have seen as much deviation and change form the balls trajectory from the camera looking into the back of the batsman.

And yet if Hotspot showed an edge, most would take that evidence regardless of what the other replays say. It's flawed thinking. There are multiple cameras and angles because they don't all see the same things.

 

[irottev]

Umpire made the right call on that decision IMO. Benefit of the doubt went to the batsman and the umpire as there was doubt. Don't understand all the bitching, but then again it is Australia.

Bravo bravo. (lame) Good stuff young man. Bravo is one of those players who is exciting to watch. Always nice to see him doing well. Hope Nash can come and continue. We might have a contest on our hands this time.

Oh and Siddle is over-rated. Siddle is Diddle.

 

[Dare]

your camera angle? how can the other one be wrong?
show me conclusive evidence that he was out and I will gladly admit it and even say he should have been out the 1st time.

And yet if Hotspot showed an edge, most would take that evidence regardless of what the other replays say. It's flawed thinking. There are multiple cameras and angles because they don't all see the same things.

like I said shoe me clear evidence and I will gladly say I was wrong but until then there is no reason to give him out now if he wasn't given out the 1st time.