[Cricket] Shane LB Watson...

[Geestar]

Ha ha gold

 

[nwgull]

Like Watson, but better then?

Maybe I'm just rationalising a reason to keep him in the 11 in hope more than anything. I just watched that compilation now, the ones where it's hitting 2 stumps halfway up are particularly amusing, particularly his indignant face as if Hawk-Eye is some sort of English conspiracy.

I think umpire's call is a good rule: you've got a close decision but both the human and the technology agree, so that's enough to rule out any doubt that it's out.

 

[brakespear]

 

[sten_super]

I think umpire's call is a good rule: you've got a close decision but both the human and the technology agree, so that's enough to rule out any doubt that it's out.

I agree with you. But, at the risk of going further O/T, I don't like the inconsistency in it. They say that there's a potential for a bit of inaccuracy in it (hence umpire's call) but it's not applied equally.

At the moment, umpire's call is only if the ball is hitting by half a ball's width or less - so an LBW that's given not out by the umpire, but shown to be clipping leg, is given not out. However what about the reverse - if it's given out by the umpire, then shown to be missing by half a ball's width or less? At the moment that would be overturned, despite (presumably) the same amount of inaccuracy possibly coming into play.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

I agree with you. But, at the risk of going further O/T, I don't like the inconsistency in it. They say that there's a potential for a bit of inaccuracy in it (hence umpire's call) but it's not applied equally.

At the moment, umpire's call is only if the ball is hitting by half a ball's width or less - so an LBW that's given not out by the umpire, but shown to be clipping leg, is given not out. However what about the reverse - if it's given out by the umpire, then shown to be missing by half a ball's width or less? At the moment that would be overturned, despite (presumably) the same amount of inaccuracy possibly coming into play.

Surely the way it operates now IS consistent - the technology is there to support the umpire and remove glaring errors. I will admit that if the umpire gives you out LBW it'll take a lot to over-turn it, unless you've hit it of course.

 

[Stumpy Tim]

What I liked the other day when Watson reviewed his LBW wicket was how he clearly didn't want to review it, but being the last batsman left he had to really. He knew he was out & he knew people were going to laugh at him reviewing another LBW shout.

He really was in a lose-lose situation. Perfect

 

[nwgull]

I agree with you. But, at the risk of going further O/T, I don't like the inconsistency in it. They say that there's a potential for a bit of inaccuracy in it (hence umpire's call) but it's not applied equally.

At the moment, umpire's call is only if the ball is hitting by half a ball's width or less - so an LBW that's given not out by the umpire, but shown to be clipping leg, is given not out. However what about the reverse - if it's given out by the umpire, then shown to be missing by half a ball's width or less? At the moment that would be overturned, despite (presumably) the same amount of inaccuracy possibly coming into play.

But that's the same margin of error as Hawk-Eye overturning a not-out decision by the umpire. I think.

 

[sten_super]

Surely the way it operates now IS consistent - the technology is there to support the umpire and remove glaring errors. I will admit that if the umpire gives you out LBW it'll take a lot to over-turn it, unless you've hit it of course.

But that's the same margin of error as Hawk-Eye overturning a not-out decision by the umpire. I think.

I don't think it is.

Ignore for now the decision of the umpire. At the moment, if the ball is flicking one stump, the technology is not used - either to give someone out or not. I've always understood that the reason for this is because there's some uncertainty in the 'predictive' element of the technology. If the ball is just missing one stump, the technology is used to give that person not out. However presumably the uncertainty around the outcome still exists.

So ball just clips off stump, we support the umpire's decision. The ball just misses, we give the batsman not out. Why? In the first case, the ball was probably going to hit, but may not. In the second, the ball was probably going to miss, but may hit. What's the difference?

 

[nwgull]

I don't think it is.

Ignore for now the decision of the umpire. At the moment, if the ball is flicking one stump, the technology is not used - either to give someone out or not. I've always understood that the reason for this is because there's some uncertainty in the 'predictive' element of the technology. If the ball is just missing one stump, the technology is used to give that person not out. However presumably the uncertainty around the outcome still exists.

So ball just clips off stump, we support the umpire's decision. The ball just misses, we give the batsman not out. Why? In the first case, the ball was probably going to hit, but may not. In the second, the ball was probably going to miss, but may hit. What's the difference?

It works like this in cricket because the batsman has always been given the benefit of the doubt. This is based on the principle that, a batsman's innings will be over if given out with no second chance to rectify a bad decision, where as the bowler will usually have another chance to get him out next ball.

 

[Titanic]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVy924aahYo

Funny on so many levels! Watson was sure it was missing anyway

 

[teaboy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVy924aahYo

Funny on so many levels! Watson was sure it was missing anyway

Watson should've reviewed it!

 

[Dick Swiveller]

Just been poking round the net trying to find why Stick Cricket 2 crashes on my tablet and found these official release notes

What's New
v1.2.1
We've fixed a bug that prevented some users from playing International.
v1.2.0
WORLD DOMINATION: It's back by popular demand! Do you have what it takes to dominate the world? There's 30 trophies up for grabs, with both red and white ball challenges for you to conquer.
BUG FIXES: As part of our commitment to realism, when batting as Shane Watson you're now guaranteed to be trapped plumb LBW after getting your eye in.