******Cricket Thread******

[neel]

Whts more fucked drs or var

 

[Wretched Vengeance]

I expect this will be all over by the time my alarms sounds at 05:40.

Root a very lucky boy.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

"Kohli wants to put his throat on the English players."
Top punditing there.

 

[jimharri]

Hit him outside the line, or at least was umpires call. Still, it looked out all the way, surprised the umpire didn't give it on first viewing.

Something I can never get my head around. If the ball strikes the batsman outside the line, or if it pitches outside leg stump, the batsman can't be given out LBW, even if ball tracking shows the delivery to be going on to hit the stumps. Why disregard ball tracking in these cases, yet depend on it in other cases?

 

[Citizen in Pakistan]

Whts more fucked drs or var

Var all day long

 

[Nightmare Walking]

Win the toss - win the match.

We just need to be obstinate tomorrow, hang in there and frustrate the Indian's. We are not saving the match but I hope we don't just roll over and blame the pitch.

 

[joe123]

Something I can never get my head around. If the ball strikes the batsman outside the line, or if it pitches outside leg stump, the batsman can't be given out LBW, even if ball tracking shows the delivery to be going on to hit the stumps. Why disregard ball tracking in these cases, yet depend on it in other cases?

I *think* the law is in place to protect batsmen from balls they couldn't reasonably play. Like, something that spins massively from what would be 5th or 6th stump.

 

[jimharri]

I *think* the law is in place to protect batsmen from balls they couldn't reasonably play. Like, something that spins massively from what would be 5th or 6th stump.

But if the delivery is still shown to be going on to hit the stumps, then that ball should be playable at the point it reaches the popping crease, no?


Not arguing with YOU, by the way. More, arguing with the law. If a bowler produces such a stunner of a delivery like the one in your example, why is he (in effect) penalised, by not getting the decision? Why have ball tracking at all, if it's disallowed in certain circumstances?

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Something I can never get my head around. If the ball strikes the batsman outside the line, or if it pitches outside leg stump, the batsman can't be given out LBW, even if ball tracking shows the delivery to be going on to hit the stumps. Why disregard ball tracking in these cases, yet depend on it in other cases?

I thought legside stuff was more to prevent loading of that side and eliminating half the field - I think it's a different principle to the offside stuff.

Offside law on LBW is just the principle that if you play a shot, you have to be struck in line. It would be very difficult for an umpire to tell if a shot is played and missed and the ball is going on to hit the stumps, and it is (relatively) easy to rule on.

Ball tracking is for no shot played, with direction and height prediction being all it adds. It's not perfect though, hence Umpire's Call.

EDIT: it also has to be consistent for when there is no DRS.

 

[jimharri]

I thought legside stuff was more to prevent loading of that side and eliminating half the field - I think it's a different principle to the offside stuff.

Offside law on LBW is just the principle that if you play a shot, you have to be struck in line. It would be very difficult for an umpire to tell if a shot is played and missed and the ball is going on to hit the stumps, and it is (relatively) easy to rule on.

Ball tracking is for no shot played, with direction and height prediction being all it adds. It's not perfect though, hence Umpire's Call.

EDIT: it also has to be consistent for when there is no DRS.

Isn't that where ball tracking comes in then? To confirm, or not, that the ball is going on to hit the stumps?