you dont like LBW rule?
so really you dont like cricket do you?
you dont have to make a thread every day you know otis. quality not quantity.
100 years from now there won't be any sports. Football has changed drastically over the last 25 years, f**k me, there wouldn't be any players from that era left on the pitch today, after making tackles that were allowed back then! All this technology doesn't belong in sport, that's what the f**king Refs and linesmen are there for. I Laugh my head off at some of the suggestions being bandied about on this thread(Game looked at ...AFTER the game, looking for "Diving") what a load of bo**ox. The very next game would be called off because neither side would be able to field a team. The game survived for well over 100 years without technology. We didn't have or need it then, we don't need it now! As for Cricket, the bails are an integral part of the wicket(Electronic wickets, f**k off) why not sit on your arse in front of a tv screen playing xbox ffs. Fiction is going to become reality soon, Rollerball will take the place of sport, and wars.(If you've never seen the film...watch it!)
I'd say penalising someone in rugby for 'not releasing' when under a pile of 20 stone men is a little dubious. Penalties in sport should be awarded for deliberate infringement of the rules, I think.
100 years from now there won't be any sports. Football has changed drastically over the last 25 years, f**k me, there wouldn't be any players from that era left on the pitch today, after making tackles that were allowed back then! All this technology doesn't belong in sport, that's what the f**king Refs and linesmen are there for. I Laugh my head off at some of the suggestions being bandied about on this thread(Game looked at ...AFTER the game, looking for "Diving") what a load of bo**ox. The very next game would be called off because neither side would be able to field a team. The game survived for well over 100 years without technology. We didn't have or need it then, we don't need it now! As for Cricket, the bails are an integral part of the wicket(Electronic wickets, f**k off) why not sit on your arse in front of a tv screen playing xbox ffs. Fiction is going to become reality soon, Rollerball will take the place of sport, and wars.(If you've never seen the film...watch it!)
I think you're taking what I say totally the wrong way mate. I'm saying with technology being introduced more and more into sport, it no longer becomes a sport does it. Refs/Umpires take coaching/badges/exams, over a long period of time(Sometimes years) to be overuled on decisions by computers, tv's, etc. Why should they bother? "Slow mo" replays being played over, and over, and over again to see if contact was actually made to decide if it was/wasn't a penalty/foul/punch/kick. A decision is made by a Ref instantly sometimes right, sometimes wrong. Serious foul play being "Looked at again" I totally agree with, but stupid ideas about diving, or did the ball cross the line, "Man up" for God's sake, these sort of things should be left up to the Ref/Umpire to make decisions on. Too much high tech in sport will kill it. As for me being aggressive, I'm sorry if it comes across like that, it's passion mate. Like I've already said, there will be no sport in the not too distant future, only fiction becoming reality...Rollerball(Watch the film)Keep your hair on pal. Fine, so let's take your unlikely situation where the next game is called off...the one after that there wouldn't be any diving would there? Diving isn't part of the game is cheating and it's embarrassing. I imagine back in yester year it wasn't something so common. So you disagree with retrospective punishment completely then? So if a player twats somebody in the face off the ball and noone sees it they should get away with it? You do talk some shit don't you, and you're so aggressive about it....
There was a situation in the recent Cricket WC final when the ball hit the wicket but the bails did not come off. The batsman was therefore not out. Seems like they need electronic stumps that ring a buzzer when the ball or the player touches them. The 'bails' are an outmoded concept.
I think you're taking what I say totally the wrong way mate. I'm saying with technology being introduced more and more into sport, it no longer becomes a sport does it. Refs/Umpires take coaching/badges/exams, over a long period of time(Sometimes years) to be overuled on decisions by computers, tv's, etc. Why should they bother? "Slow mo" replays being played over, and over, and over again to see if contact was actually made to decide if it was/wasn't a penalty/foul/punch/kick. A decision is made by a Ref instantly sometimes right, sometimes wrong. Serious foul play being "Looked at again" I totally agree with, but stupid ideas about diving, or did the ball cross the line, "Man up" for God's sake, these sort of things should be left up to the Ref/Umpire to make decisions on. Too much high tech in sport will kill it. As for me being aggressive, I'm sorry if it comes across like that, it's passion mate. Like I've already said, there will be no sport in the not too distant future, only fiction becoming reality...Rollerball(Watch the film)
100 years from now there won't be any sports. Football has changed drastically over the last 25 years, f**k me, there wouldn't be any players from that era left on the pitch today, after making tackles that were allowed back then! All this technology doesn't belong in sport, that's what the f**king Refs and linesmen are there for. I Laugh my head off at some of the suggestions being bandied about on this thread(Game looked at ...AFTER the game, looking for "Diving") what a load of bo**ox. The very next game would be called off because neither side would be able to field a team. The game survived for well over 100 years without technology. We didn't have or need it then, we don't need it now! As for Cricket, the bails are an integral part of the wicket(Electronic wickets, f**k off) why not sit on your arse in front of a tv screen playing xbox ffs. Fiction is going to become reality soon, Rollerball will take the place of sport, and wars.(If you've never seen the film...watch it!)
They do have electronic stumps, the stumps and wickets light up when the stumps come off and that's what's caused the problem as they are heavier than regular stumps. It's happened more than once during the world cup.
I think you're taking what I say totally the wrong way mate. I'm saying with technology being introduced more and more into sport, it no longer becomes a sport does it. Refs/Umpires take coaching/badges/exams, over a long period of time(Sometimes years) to be overuled on decisions by computers, tv's, etc. Why should they bother? "Slow mo" replays being played over, and over, and over again to see if contact was actually made to decide if it was/wasn't a penalty/foul/punch/kick. A decision is made by a Ref instantly sometimes right, sometimes wrong. Serious foul play being "Looked at again" I totally agree with, but stupid ideas about diving, or did the ball cross the line, "Man up" for God's sake, these sort of things should be left up to the Ref/Umpire to make decisions on. Too much high tech in sport will kill it. As for me being aggressive, I'm sorry if it comes across like that, it's passion mate. Like I've already said, there will be no sport in the not too distant future, only fiction becoming reality...Rollerball(Watch the film)
I don't mind the "20 cameras pulling the poor ref apart week after week." and I don't mind the "If you listen to talksport etc all you hear is about how bad the ref is and that they keep getting decisions wrong," THAT, is what the game is all about, and how it should stay...."Human Error" is part and parcel of sport. That's what makes sport exciting to watch and debate for the next week in work till the next game comes around again. Can you imagine if every minute detail of the game was analysed by "Slow Mo's" for the next 24 hours before a decision wether to let a goal stand, or if that player should have a red card. How many would debate that, "The computer and panel" still got that decision wrong? How many would be saying, their player tripped our CB and scored and it cost us 3 points? How many would debate that the "Winning goal" we scored was miles off side but we got away with it? Keeping mouths firmly shut on that one eh? There wouldn't be any debating, and no need for forums like this one!........The James Caan film from 1975 was much better than the later version, but the Idea of my post remains the same.Previously there wasnt £100M riding on the game like there is now with 20 cameras pulling the poor ref apart week after week. I know what you mean and to a certain extent agree with what you are saying, its always been good to debate wrong decisions etc but football in particualr has moved on significantly and they need technology to help keep up with it. You only have to look at the design in balls, kits, fitness, diets, stadia to name a few which reflect the change in which the game has changed. If you listen to talksport etc all you hear is about how bad the ref is and that they keep getting decisions wrong, i dont think they are that worse (maybe a little this season) but previously these decisions havn't been analysed to the nth degree. Rollerball was shite film by the way...
Three that annoy me:
- High feet. I know it's about safety or whatever, but technically any overhead kick would be banned. The game is football and you should always be able to go for the ball with your feet IMO.
- "Shepherding" the ball. It's fucking obstruction, they have no intention of playing the ball. Only allowed in certain areas of the pitch, you couldn't do it anywhere else.
- Players who are offside when the ball is kicked but onside when they recieve the ball should be classed as onside IMO.
Whilst you bring up "Talk Sport" I remember when Mike Parry and Alan Brazil presented the sports breakfast some 6 months previous to the 9-11 disaster, in which Parry would often talk about technology in sport, and in particular, Football. a subject (btw) Brazil never questioned Parry about. Parry very often said it was bad for football, and the sport was "Going to hell in a handcart" do you remember that?
I don't mind the "20 cameras pulling the poor ref apart week after week." and I don't mind the "If you listen to talksport etc all you hear is about how bad the ref is and that they keep getting decisions wrong," THAT, is what the game is all about, and how it should stay...."Human Error" is part and parcel of sport. That's what makes sport exciting to watch and debate for the next week in work till the next game comes around again. Can you imagine if every minute detail of the game was analysed by "Slow Mo's" for the next 24 hours before a decision wether to let a goal stand, or if that player should have a red card. How many would debate that, "The computer and panel" still got that decision wrong? How many would be saying, their player tripped our CB and scored and it cost us 3 points? How many would debate that the "Winning goal" we scored was miles off side but we got away with it? Keeping mouths firmly shut on that one eh? There wouldn't be any debating, and no need for forums like this one!........The James Caan film from 1975 was much better than the later version, but the Idea of my post remains the same.
One thing in cricket that really annoys me is the Hawkeye and review system, whereby a decision goes upstairs.
Now correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the object of the game of cricket to get players out by either hitting the wickets or by catches from the batsman hitting the ball in the air?
I therefore just cannot get my head round a decision that goes upstairs and the replay shows the ball was actually going to hit the stumps, but that because it was pitched outside the line it doesn't count. If it was going to hit the stumps it was going to hit the stumps wasn't it? Surely if the ball is shown that it would have been hitting the stumps then to my mind that should be out.
Some really trivial penalties in rugby annoy me too. A tiny, silly little foul and suddenly it results in 3 points and this happens with extreme regularity. At times it also seems like the ref has to explain the foul on many occasions, to players with baffled looks on their faces.
Thought the Montenegro Euro qualifier thing was wrong on Friday too. A Russian player during the game is hit by a flare thrown from the Montenegrin crowd, which puts him out of the game and yet Russia are charged with using one of their subs. Even more annoying as it is their first choice keeper, in which is obviously a very key role to any team.
Any other dumb rules to be found out there in the world of sports?
Players in an off side position but deemed not to be interfering with play? If they are blocking the keepers view of the ball, or step over the path of the ball....how is that not interfering with play?
Firstly, if the ball pitched outside leg-stump (not off-stump), it cannot result in an LBW decision because that is the law. It has nothing to do with the replays whatsoever. It's no dumber a rule than any other, it's the rule of the game and has been for decades.
What I think you probably actually have an issue with is probably the way that the ball can be hitting the stumps but not given out when it goes to a Decision Review if the original umpire's decision was that it was not out; in these circumstances, more than 50% of the ball has to be hitting the wicket. This is to allow for the fact that the umpire may still be slightly better than the technology. Which is fair enough as DRS is designed to rule out "the absolute howler", rather than adjudicate fine-line decisions.
That is interfering with play isn't it?
Firstly, if the ball pitched outside leg-stump (not off-stump), it cannot result in an LBW decision because that is the law. It has nothing to do with the replays whatsoever. It's no dumber a rule than any other, it's the rule of the game and has been for decades.
What I think you probably actually have an issue with is probably the way that the ball can be hitting the stumps but not given out when it goes to a Decision Review if the original umpire's decision was that it was not out; in these circumstances, more than 50% of the ball has to be hitting the wicket. This is to allow for the fact that the umpire may still be slightly better than the technology. Which is fair enough as DRS is designed to rule out "the absolute howler", rather than adjudicate fine-line decisions.
I think he's saying the actual law is stupid, why does it matter if the ball pitches outside of leg stump? Does pitching outside leg stump give the bowler some sort of unfair advantage with regards to LBW?
Also as part of the LBW law, if the ball impacts the pads outside the line of off stump it is not out (even if it was going onto hit the wickets) Whats the reason for that?
I think he's saying the actual law is stupid, why does it matter if the ball pitches outside of leg stump? Does pitching outside leg stump give the bowler some sort of unfair advantage with regards to LBW?
Also as part of the LBW law, if the ball impacts the pads outside the line of off stump it is not out (even if it was going onto hit the wickets) Whats the reason for that?
If you did this you would be strangling the very nature of the game. There needs to be fewer 'whistle stops' in the game. Let the referee do his job.
I am waiting for someone to score a goal, run to their fans taking their shirt off and throwing it into the crowd. Underneath they are still wearing a numbered club shirt.
would the ref have to book him for removing a shirt in celebration?
lol I vaguely remember something about that. One thing I do remember vividly is top players were on approx £70-80k per match. He said "There has to be a cap introduced, I can see wages rocketing to £250k to £300k per game, everyone took the piss out of him. Who was right in the end?Is that the one where parry spoke about wing mirrors for horses as well?
That is interfering with play isn't it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?