Australia v England, 3rd Test, 16th December , 23.30

[yorkyexile]

It was and it was a very poor opening spell before I went to bed. 1 ball on the stumps in 7 overs I think it was (without scrolling back up)

About 69% short of a length and outside either was the stat i remember at the time.

Archer went for 7 runs from his 6 overs with 1 wicket. Bowled tight and his pace went into the 90mph bracket around his 4th over

that was his first maiden iirc?

 

[mackinbristol]

What a joke. Even Carey has admitted he nicked it.

Cheats.

Cheating? Bet you didn't think it was cheating when Broad failed to walk after an obvious edge.

 

[DonaldDownTheWing]

I used to refrain from criticising none walkers because they'd get plenty of wrong calls against them and have to go.

Then we got technology, hawkeye, snicko etc that made me change my mind as that should remove the bad decisions, and therefore those that know they are out should walk.

However, this calamity casts doubt on the technology (or its use of) so I'm reluctantly moving back towards not criticising those that don't walk.

I get that. I just think when the umpire has given you not out, then you stay until the technology overturns it. Now if Carey was certain that there was an error with the technology then maybe he should’ve walked.

It doesn’t do England any favours in this series, but hopefully it will force Australia to use UltraEdge rather than Snicko in the future.

We saw with the Smith dismissal how rubbish Snicko is, and if there’s any shots later in this match where the spike doesn’t line up exactly with the ball passing the edge, it’s only going to create more controversy.

I wouldn’t expect the Aussies to do anything to try and rectify what’s happened. I’m sure they’ll have a conversation about it but it’s not in their nature to do so. Hopefully it just puts more fire in the English bellies to go out there and put on a massive score. We’re right in this test, but the players have to deliver.

 

[Shandy drinker]

England all out 180
Aussies make 400
Innings and 200 run defeat
Stokes injury and means he can’t play any further part

What’s the point

 

[Aidan11]

Cheating? Bet you didn't think it was cheating when Broad failed to walk after an obvious edge.

Yes I did. Cheating is cheating whichever side does it.

 

[rentaghost]

It’s mental that they have fucked it up, but criticising Carey for not walking after the Broad one is funny

I agree but I think the absolute Aussie outrage over Broad which was a national incident while they brush this off as nowt is even funnier. They have no self awareness.

 

[scotch]

You must be logged on to see external links

Goes back to what I said at the time, 3rd umpire was far too quick to claim the ball was nowhere near the bat from just two looks

 

[mackinbristol]

Yes I did. Cheating is cheating whichever side does it.

Well at least you're wrong for both players then!

There is nothing at all in the laws of the game that say a player must walk if they know they've hit the ball.

Until you are given out by the umpire, don't go anywhere.

The entire game would be so much better if people actually played to the rules. All of the "spirit of the game" drama that crops up at least a few times a year would vanish instantly if people played to the rules of the game.

 

[Parkside]

Well at least you're wrong for both players then!

There is nothing at all in the laws of the game that say a player must walk if they know they've hit the ball.

Until you are given out by the umpire, don't go anywhere.

The entire game would be so much better if people actually played to the rules. All of the "spirit of the game" drama that crops up at least a few times a year would vanish instantly if people played to the rules of the game.

Be better still if all walked if they knew they were out.imho.

 

[mackinbristol]

Be better still if all walked if they knew they were out.

But then that opens up a can of worms. There are always situations where you'll have no idea whether you've hit the ball or not. Even what looks like quite a big deflection can often be near impossible to feel, and as a batter you simply can't tell one way or the other.

You'd end up with players being absolutely slated for not walking when they had no idea they'd hit the ball, or you'd have players who walked when it turned out that they hadn't hit it.

The rules and technology is in place for a reason, and this incident doesn't require huge sweeping changes, or for all players to change their behaviour. All it requires is one more line being added to the steps the umpires follow on a review - "Check mic input".

 

[Parkside]

But then that opens up a can of worms. There are always situations where you'll have no idea whether you've hit the ball or not. Even what looks like quite a big deflection can often be near impossible to feel, and as a batter you simply can't tell one way or the other.

You'd end up with players being absolutely slated for not walking when they had no idea they'd hit the ball, or you'd have players who walked when it turned out that they hadn't hit it.

The rules and technology is in place for a reason, and this incident doesn't require huge sweeping changes, or for all players to change their behaviour. All it requires is one more line being added to the steps the umpires follow on a review - "Check mic input".

We're all entitled to an opinion.

 

[Fleagle]

Be better still if all walked if they knew they were out.imho.

Do you expect a footballer to own up every time they foul an opponent in scoring a goal? Of course not. Maybe a few public school boys in the Victorian era thought you should, but we’ve grown out of that. It’s time cricket grew out of the remnants of it as well.

The right way to play any sport that has officials there to give decisions is to take the following two principles on board:
Play to the whistle;
Accept that the officials are just as imperfect as you are, and so take the rough with the smooth with as good grace as you can.

Anything else is nonsense.

 

[Parkside]

Do you expect a footballer to own up every time they foul an opponent in scoring a goal? Of course not. Maybe a few public school boys in the Victorian era thought you should, but we’ve grown out of that. It’s time cricket grew out of the remnants of it as well.

The right way to play any sport that has officials there to give decisions is to take the following two principles on board:
Play to the whistle;
Accept that the officials are just as imperfect as you are, and so take the rough with the smooth with as good grace as you can.

Anything else is nonsense.

We're all entitled to our opinions. I accept and respect that we all have different mindsets and hence would never label a differing viewpoint nonsense.
I wasn't aware that you could play to the whistle in cricket. The duties and responsibilities of umpires and referees are different.
The referee makes decisions,the umpires has to be asked to rule on a decision. I haven't chosen to be pedantic.

 

[Voice of fair play]

But then that opens up a can of worms. There are always situations where you'll have no idea whether you've hit the ball or not. Even what looks like quite a big deflection can often be near impossible to feel, and as a batter you simply can't tell one way or the other.

You'd end up with players being absolutely slated for not walking when they had no idea they'd hit the ball,

Imo players/ batters know 99% of time whether they have hit the ball or not.

 

[jcrossan]

They don't even need to cheat to win this series.

But I guess its just part of their DNA

 

[Parkside]

Imo players/ batters know 99% of time whether they have hit the ball or not.

And if you're not certain you've nicked it,you don't walk

 

[Voice of fair play]

And if you're not certain you've nicked it,you don't walk

Yeah of course.

But my point was I think 99% of times a player does know whether they have nicked it or not.

Don’t subscribe to this ‘a player is not sure’

I think they know

 

[Inside Forward]

But then that opens up a can of worms. There are always situations where you'll have no idea whether you've hit the ball or not. Even what looks like quite a big deflection can often be near impossible to feel, and as a batter you simply can't tell one way or the other.

You'd end up with players being absolutely slated for not walking when they had no idea they'd hit the ball, or you'd have players who walked when it turned out that they hadn't hit it.

The rules and technology is in place for a reason, and this incident doesn't require huge sweeping changes, or for all players to change their behaviour. All it requires is one more line being added to the steps the umpires follow on a review - "Check mic input".

As someone who plays cricket I’ve always known when I’ve nicked it tbh. I can’t recall a single instance where I’ve been unsure.

 

[Voice of fair play]

As someone who plays cricket I’ve always known when I’ve nicked it tbh. I can’t recall a single instance where I’ve been unsure.

Yeah me too played for loads of years all be it at a low level and knew every single time whether nicked it or not

 

[Mr Redknapp]

I understand the cheating accusations.. I don't think this like Smith and the sandpaper where it was done with forethought and with the plan on gaining an unfair advantage... Many batsman in the game often try there luck with a review despite even feeling guilty, he got lucky and it happens. Fair play to the company for admitting the balls up too.

From a match perspective.. England will be delighted with 8 down but Aussies have 320 on the board with an attack capable of defending what ever they post, we'll have to wait and see how the lads bat and hope they dig in..jacks leaked runs but he's not a frontline spinner in his defence and who knows he may have a bigger say later