Mixed feelings on that VAR ****. I felt it worked

[Billy Goat Sverige]

When they looked at something which happened just before the ball went dead like the Maitland-Niles penalty, but it felt weird with the Fabregas one when play continued for a while after the actual incident.

On balance I’m not a fan.

[Pat Vegas]

When they looked at something which happened just before the ball went dead like the Maitland-Niles penalty, but it felt weird with the Fabregas one when play continued for a while after the actual incident.

On balance I’m not a fan.

I didn't like it. felt American. we are going to have loads of added time from now on.

The playing on bit is weird. what if they score then they have a look to see if it should be a penalty.

[Luis Anaconda]

I didn't like it. felt American. we are going to have loads of added time from now on.

The playing on bit is weird. what if they score then they have a look to see if it should be a penalty.

Well, if they score they wouldn't look (why would they, unless it was for violent conduct which could still result in the red card). If we had broken down the other end and scored ( :hehe: ) that would be a whole different can of worms

[Pat Vegas]

Well, if they score they wouldn't look (why would they, unless it was for violent conduct which could still result in the red card). If we had broken down the other end and scored ( :hehe: ) that would be a whole different can of worms

I suppose it's new so I'll give it a go.

What if they score, but indeed it was a penalty. We could have saved the penalty. (:hehe: )

[IUFG]

When they looked at something which happened just before the ball went dead like the Maitland-Niles penalty, but it felt weird with the Fabregas one when play continued for a while after the actual incident.

On balance I’m not a fan.

it'll end up like rugby where the referee ends up referring 3/4 of all tries to the VAR.

It is also time to have open time keeping for the match imo. When VAR is instigated the clock should stop. That will save the ridicules c.10 minutes of added time at the end of 90 mins.

[Burney]

it'll end up like rugby where the referee ends up referring 3/4 of all tries to the VAR.

It is also time to have open time keeping for the match imo. When VAR is instigated the clock should stop. That will save the ridicules c.10 minutes of added time at the end of 90 mins.

I've long thought that football matches should be 60 minutes of playing time with the clock stopping every time the ball is out of play. In effect, that is about the amount of time spent playing anyway, after all.

[Pat Vegas]

it'll end up like rugby where the referee ends up referring 3/4 of all tries to the VAR.

It is also time to have open time keeping for the match imo. When VAR is instigated the clock should stop. That will save the ridicules c.10 minutes of added time at the end of 90 mins.

I hope it doesn't become where everybody starts to challenge every single goal and any sort of physical contact in the box could be come a long boring game.

[Luis Anaconda]

I hope it doesn't become where everybody starts to challenge every single goal and any sort of physical contact in the box could be come a long boring game.

Wenger has said for years that they should have a challenge system like in cricket/tennis - still quite random at the moment

[PSRB]

When they looked at something which happened just before the ball went dead like the Maitland-Niles penalty, but it felt weird with the Fabregas one when play continued for a while after the actual incident.

On balance I’m not a fan.

Call it paranoia (probably is) but I felt they were looking for any way to give the penalty to Chelsea rather than stick with the original (and correct) decision. Whereas our appeal was turned away almost instantly

[PSRB]

I hope it doesn't become where everybody starts to challenge every single goal and any sort of physical contact in the box could be come a long boring game.

I don't particularly want to watch managers doing the TV charade as per Conte last night. Will get very tedious, very quickly!

[Luis Anaconda]

Call it paranoia (probably is) but I felt they were looking for any way to give the penalty to Chelsea rather than stick with the original (and correct) decision. Whereas our appeal was turned away almost instantly

Didn't have the sound for the game - do they have the screen at the side of the pitch like they do in the Bundesliga. Find it very odd that Atkinson didn't look at it for our pen - which clearly was a pen. We should be able to hear what the VAR is saying a la cricket and rugby. The secrecy is ridiculous

[Burney]

Didn't have the sound for the game - do they have the screen at the side of the pitch like they do in the Bundesliga. Find it very odd that Atkinson didn't look at it for our pen - which clearly was a pen. We should be able to hear what the VAR is saying a la cricket and rugby. The secrecy is ridiculous

It seems to me that the very last person on the pitch who ought to be deciding what does or doesn't go to the VAR is the on-field referee. :shrug:

[PSRB]

Didn't have the sound for the game - do they have the screen at the side of the pitch like they do in the Bundesliga. Find it very odd that Atkinson didn't look at it for our pen - which clearly was a pen. We should be able to hear what the VAR is saying a la cricket and rugby. The secrecy is ridiculous

Nope, no screen or communication relayed to the fans at the match, which is poor and needs to be sorted. I assumed on the telly we were seeing the same replays the 4th official was but maybe not.

This is my issue, I assume our penalty wasn't given as there wasn't enough evidence to overturn it and that decision was made quickly (sticking with the on field decision, if you will), whereas the Chelsea one they seemed to be looking for any way to reverse the decision!

[Billy Goat Sverige]

Didn't have the sound for the game - do they have the screen at the side of the pitch like they do in the Bundesliga. Find it very odd that Atkinson didn't look at it for our pen - which clearly was a pen. We should be able to hear what the VAR is saying a la cricket and rugby. The secrecy is ridiculous

I thought it was going to be like that. Bloke up stairs says you need to have a look at this and then he goes to the side of the pitch and watches the replays.

[Pat Vegas]

I don't particularly want to watch managers doing the TV charade as per Conte last night. Will get very tedious, very quickly!

He can't help it he's Italian so it's built in.

[Peter]

Didn't have the sound for the game - do they have the screen at the side of the pitch like they do in the Bundesliga. Find it very odd that Atkinson didn't look at it for our pen - which clearly was a pen. We should be able to hear what the VAR is saying a la cricket and rugby. The secrecy is ridiculous

The phrase 'overturning obvious errors' worries me. I am tempted to think they mean that, for instance, the penalty given at West Brom wouldn't be overturned as technically it did hit a hand. This would be pretty farcical and would perhaps have pushed wenger over the edge......

[redgunamo]

It seems to me that the very last person on the pitch who ought to be deciding what does or doesn't go to the VAR is the on-field referee. :shrug:

No, he's practically the only person who ought to. Otherwise the players might just as soon officiate matches amongst themselves.

[redgunamo]

The phrase 'overturning obvious errors' worries me. I am tempted to think they mean that, for instance, the penalty given at West Brom wouldn't be overturned as technically it did hit a hand. This would be pretty farcical and would perhaps have pushed wenger over the edge......

That's just the usual Trojan Horse, I think. Very soon after, they'll be insisting on using it for everything.

[SWv2]

He can't help it he's Italian so it's built in.

To be fair it the concept is to be introduced by FIFA/PL/whoeever then it is only natural for managers to seek it's use when it suits them.

No different really to them berating the poor 4th official which happens every match.

[Luis Anaconda]

I thought it was going to be like that. Bloke up stairs says you need to have a look at this and then he goes to the side of the pitch and watches the replays.

That's what happened over here - don't see why it isn't. Really don't get the point of it - the VAR must be reluctant to overturn onfield refs decisions (as they are going to be in that position at other times); onfield ref doesn't get a chance to review the incident. Have no problem with Atkinson not giving the pen last night as he couldn't be 100 per cent certain sure given the pace it happened at but on replay it was surely a pen

[Burney]

No, he's practically the only person who ought to. Otherwise the players might just as soon officiate matches amongst themselves.

But a referee going to the VAR when he's uncertain doesn't help us with the main problem, which is referees being certain they're right when they're absolutely wrong. It seems clear to me that there has to be an appeals process available to the teams a la cricket.

[redgunamo]

Wenger has said for years that they should have a challenge system like in cricket/tennis - still quite random at the moment

I'm still not comfortable with them challenging the umpires decisions in cricket. It's not .. er .. cricket, imo.

Couldn't care less what they do in the tennis though, of course.

[Luis Anaconda]

To be fair it the concept is to be introduced by FIFA/PL/whoeever then it is only natural for managers to seek it's use when it suits them.

No different really to them berating the poor 4th official which happens every match.
Should be in the stand like rugby coaches

[Burney]

I'm still not comfortable with them challenging the umpires decisions in cricket. It's not .. er .. cricket, imo.

Couldn't care less what they do in the tennis though, of course.

If it means fewer bad decisions get made, it's a good thing. I simply don't see any counter-argument to that. :shrug:

[redgunamo]

But a referee going to the VAR when he's uncertain doesn't help us with the main problem, which is referees being certain they're right when they're absolutely wrong. It seems clear to me that there has to be an appeals process available to the teams a la cricket.

No different to players being certain they're right when they're absolutely wrong, I think. The principle that the game must go on ought to be paramount, regardless of right or wrong. All we've done is encourage toddler-like tantruming, if that's a word, and a refusal to accept adjudication #NotMyUmpire

[Peter]

If it means fewer bad decisions get made, it's a good thing. I simply don't see any counter-argument to that. :shrug:

It has helped with lbw and nicks in cricket, also run outs. For some reason it has led to umpires not bothering to check for no balls anymore, which is a bit weird. It may also have made the standard of umpiring slightly worse.

THe one where Malan was given out after a huge inside edge. Leaving aside the fact that he should have challenged it I was watching it live and was stunned the umpire gave out. My initial reaction was it wasn't out in a million years- hit him outside the line, he's moving and there was something wrong with it- which turned out to be a massive inside edge. I still cant quite believe he gave it out.

[Peter]

No different to players being certain they're right when they're absolutely wrong, I think. The principle that the game must go on ought to be paramount, regardless of right or wrong. All we've done is encourage toddler-like tantruming, if that's a word, and a refusal to accept adjudication #NotMyUmpire

Its hugely different. Player dont give a **** about right or wrong, they want what they want. Referees are supposed to want nothing, they are supposed to be impartial and interested only in getting a decision right.

[Bergkamp Was Best]

If it means fewer bad decisions get made, it's a good thing. I simply don't see any counter-argument to that. :shrug:

I agree entirely Burney.

Football is way too open to poor decisions being made because of human error. Every goal should be reviewed to help eliminate things like incorrect offside decisions (for and against) and unspotted fouls that definitely interfere with play. However, I don't think that it should be left solely to the referee on the pitch to make a final decision though.

[Tony C]

Third umpire was useless yesterday....


https://youtu.be/Ftm-nS4GJgM

[Burney]

It has helped with lbw and nicks in cricket, also run outs. For some reason it has led to umpires not bothering to check for no balls anymore, which is a bit weird. It may also have made the standard of umpiring slightly worse.

THe one where Malan was given out after a huge inside edge. Leaving aside the fact that he should have challenged it I was watching it live and was stunned the umpire gave out. My initial reaction was it wasn't out in a million years- hit him outside the line, he's moving and there was something wrong with it- which turned out to be a massive inside edge. I still cant quite believe he gave it out.

I'd agree that the standard of on-field umpiring has fallen dramatically, but would argue that that is because umpires are not being held to account for making poor on-field decisions. I'd argue that if your decisions are getting regularly overturned, you need to be kicked off the international umpire's panel and replaced with someone better. You'd soon see on-field decisions improving again.

The Malan thing is bizarre. Sure, it was a terrible decision, but I can remember worse from the days before DRS. However, I've played cricket for 35 years and never in all that time have I even feathered one and not known it (I mean I've stood there swearing blind I didn't hit it when I knew I did, obviously, but that's different :-D ). That someone can smash the ball into his pad like that and not know he's done it enough to challenge the decision is simply astonishing to me.

In short, Malan was out there because he was a thick cünt.

[redgunamo]

If it means fewer bad decisions get made, it's a good thing. I simply don't see any counter-argument to that. :shrug:

It's a silly thing done in a silly way. But, if you must, then get the video umpire and his on-field colleagues to be in constant conference with each other, independent of baying from the players. If any of them notice anything, they should make their decision which is then relayed to everybody else through the on-field official-in-charge.

[Burney]

No different to players being certain they're right when they're absolutely wrong, I think. The principle that the game must go on ought to be paramount, regardless of right or wrong. All we've done is encourage toddler-like tantruming, if that's a word, and a refusal to accept adjudication #NotMyUmpire

But in this scenario, players are the children and referees are supposed to be the grown-ups. Being a grown-up means having your decision-making scrutinised.

[PSRB]

I'd agree that the standard of on-field umpiring has fallen dramatically, but would argue that that is because umpires are not being held to account for making poor on-field decisions. I'd argue that if your decisions are getting regularly overturned, you need to be kicked off the international umpire's panel and replaced with someone better. You'd soon see on-field decisions improving again.

The Malan thing is bizarre. Sure, it was a terrible decision, but I can remember worse from the days before DRS. However, I've played cricket for 35 years and never in all that time have I even feathered one and not noticed it (I mean I've stood there swearing blind I didn't hit it when I knew I did, obviously, but that's different :-D ). That someone can smash the ball into his pad like that and not know e's done it enough to challenge the decision is simply astonishing to me.

In short, Malan was out there because he was a thick cünt.

Thick hands not to have felt that edge!

[Burney]

Third umpire was useless yesterday....


https://youtu.be/Ftm-nS4GJgM


Yes, but that's a judgement call where the umpire is being asked to discern motive, which is not really what they're there for.

[redgunamo]

Its hugely different. Player dont give a **** about right or wrong, they want what they want. Referees are supposed to want nothing, they are supposed to be impartial and interested only in getting a decision right.

Not when players can "officially" appeal, it isn't; they are very often convinced before deciding a failed challenge could cost them.

Just leave the whole business to the officials, imo, with video too. Far more seemly.

[PSRB]

It's a silly thing done in a silly way. But, if you must, then get the video umpire and his on-field colleagues to be in constant conference with each other, independent of baying from the players. If any of them notice anything, they should make their decision which is then relayed to everybody else through the on-field official-in-charge.

That's what they do in Rugby Union, the off field ref also tells the onfield ref that he's looking at something whilst the game continues, that way the decision is usually in place by the time they reach the next break of play.

[redgunamo]

But in this scenario, players are the children and referees are supposed to be the grown-ups. Being a grown-up means having your decision-making scrutinised.

Yes, but crucially, not by children.

[Burney]

Third umpire was useless yesterday....


https://youtu.be/Ftm-nS4GJgM

Mind you, what's interesting about that decision is that from schoolboy level on, you're actually coached to run between the fielder and the stumps to increase the chances of the ball hitting you rather than the stumps on a tight run. It's basic stuff that's drilled into you like grounding your bat or backing up a throw.

Given that, you could argue that batsmen could be given out every time the ball hits them from a throw. :shrug:

[Peter]

Not when players can "officially" appeal, it isn't; they are very often convinced before deciding a failed challenge could cost them.

Just leave the whole business to the officials, imo, with video too. Far more seemly.

Again, players bear no responsibility for the right decision being made. They are, by definition, wholly biased and are only interested in getting what they can.

A referee has no allegiance other than to the truth. To stick to your decision when you are clearly wrong is the act of a ****

[Burney]

Not when players can "officially" appeal, it isn't; they are very often convinced before deciding a failed challenge could cost them.

Just leave the whole business to the officials, imo, with video too. Far more seemly.

But it's not seemly at the moment. Referees are open to suggestions of bias and unfair dealing as things stand. Taking some decisions out of their hands can counterbalance that.

[Peter]

I'd agree that the standard of on-field umpiring has fallen dramatically, but would argue that that is because umpires are not being held to account for making poor on-field decisions. I'd argue that if your decisions are getting regularly overturned, you need to be kicked off the international umpire's panel and replaced with someone better. You'd soon see on-field decisions improving again.

The Malan thing is bizarre. Sure, it was a terrible decision, but I can remember worse from the days before DRS. However, I've played cricket for 35 years and never in all that time have I even feathered one and not known it (I mean I've stood there swearing blind I didn't hit it when I knew I did, obviously, but that's different :-D ). That someone can smash the ball into his pad like that and not know he's done it enough to challenge the decision is simply astonishing to me.

In short, Malan was out there because he was a thick cünt.

Well..... how would you know, b? If you are convinced you didn't nick it then you cant know that you did, can you? It doesn't mean you didn't.

[redgunamo]

That's what they do in Rugby Union, the off field ref also tells the onfield ref that he's looking at something whilst the game continues, that way the decision is usually in place by the time they reach the next break of play.

Right. But I thought it was all my own idea :homer:

[redgunamo]

But it's not seemly at the moment. Referees are open to suggestions of bias and unfair dealing as things stand. Taking some decisions out of their hands can counterbalance that.

I am subjected to suggestions of bias and unfair dealing when doling out the pocket money. I'm in charge though; I'm responsible so I'm right and if they don't quit their caterwauling sharpish, they will get fück all :shrug:

[Burney]

Well..... how would you know, b? If you are convinced you didn't nick it then you cant know that you did, can you? It doesn't mean you didn't.

As you know, p. The feel of the ball hitting the edge of the bat is something to which every batsman is immensely sensitive. Sure, the snickometer has shown us that there are infinitesimally small nicks that it's possible not to notice, but 99.995% of the time, if you nick it, you know. And given that Malan absolutely smashed the fücker, I cannot believe he didn't realise.

I remember on one occasion I was batting to save a game and did a great job of looking innocent as the fielders shouted for a catch behind. Once all the furore had died down and the wicketkeeper had finally finished calling me a cheating cünt. I looked down to take guard and there was a new, bright red mark on the edge of my bat :hehe:

[Rich]

As you know, p. The feel of the ball hitting the edge of the bat is something to which every batsman is immensely sensitive. Sure, the snickometer has shown us that there are infinitesimally small nicks that it's possible not to notice, but 99.995% of the time, if you nick it, you know. And given that Malan absolutely smashed the fücker, I cannot believe he didn't realise.

I remember on one occasion I was batting to save a game and did a great job of looking innocent as the fielders shouted for a catch behind. Once all the furore had died down and the wicketkeeper had finally finished calling me a cheating cünt. I looked down to take guard and there was a new, bright red mark on the edge of my bat :hehe:

I never really knew what to do in order to look innocent. I was always worried that the umpire would give me out based on my guilty appearance.

I usually went on a walk toward square leg while I twizzled my bat in my hands. But never knew if I should just stand there, re-take my guard and shuffle about nervously until the appeal died down.

[Burney]

I never really knew what to do in order to look innocent. I was always worried that the umpire would give me out based on my guilty appearance.

I usually went on a walk toward square leg while I twizzled my bat in my hands. But never knew if I should just stand there, re-take my guard and shuffle about nervously until the appeal died down.

The trick is to make immediate eye contact with the umpire and look extremely surprised and not a little offended that there should be such an obviously frivolous appeal. If you're feeling bold, you can add an indulgent look that says 'Oh, these over-enthusiastic children, eh? Bless 'em'.

This has worked more often than it should have done.

[redgunamo]

Again, players bear no responsibility for the right decision being made. They are, by definition, wholly biased and are only interested in getting what they can.

A referee has no allegiance other than to the truth. To stick to your decision when you are clearly wrong is the act of a ****

Sorry, no. It is not a crime to be wrong. But if people genuinely want to believe that officials get decisions wrong deliberately, maliciously, then everyone may as well go home as there's nothing to be done for them, with or without video.

[Rich]

The trick is to make immediate eye contact with the umpire and look extremely surprised and not a little offended that there should be such an obviously frivolous appeal. If you're feeling bold, you can add an indulgent look that says 'Oh, these over-enthusiastic children, eh? Bless 'em'.

This has worked more often than it should have done.

I would often show the keeper a slightly loose strap on my pad in an attempt to pacify him.

[Burney]

I would often show the keeper a slightly loose strap on my pad in an attempt to pacify him.

How often did that work? I'm going with 'never'.

One should never attempt to reason with wicketkeepers imo. They are generally subhuman.

[PSRB]

How often did that work? I'm going with 'never'.

One should never attempt to reason with wicketkeepers imo. They are generally subhuman.

Much the same as goalkeepers

[Burney]

Much the same as goalkeepers

:nod: Both are wronguns, but wicketkeepers have that fiercely annoying yappy Jack Russell (the dog, not the wicketkeeper, ironically) thing going on that makes you fantasise about burying your bat in their brain pan.

[Luis Anaconda]

Third umpire was useless yesterday....


https://youtu.be/Ftm-nS4GJgM

Read about that but hadn't seen it - ****ing hell. Imagine if that happened in proper cricket

[Burney]

Read about that but hadn't seen it - ****ing hell. Imagine if that happened in proper cricket

An absolutely mad decision. We can only assume the third umpire had nipped out for a pee and the work experience kid was on duty.

[Rich]

How often did that work? I'm going with 'never'.

One should never attempt to reason with wicketkeepers imo. They are generally subhuman.

It hasn't ever worked but it would at least make me feel less guilty as I had provided a plausible explanation for the noise.

Once, on the following ball, I played the following delivery onto my off peg via the inside edge. The wicketkeeper was still clearly apoplectic and ran into my path as I left the field of play and screamed 'you f*cking hit that one didn't you, c**t?!' in my face :-(

He got slapped with a 2 game ban for that.

[Tony C]

Loooool LA

Jofra Archer with throw. This was his big catch yesterday.

The kid’s reaction was mine o:


https://youtu.be/aV9OihLcnqE

[Tony C]

Alongside VAR I would like the Refs to be miked up so we actually here their rationale.

That’s one aspect of the system in Rugby I like.

Would also help shame a few players ie the ones constantly moaning and swearing at the ref. Reckon you would see a massive reduction in this side of the game if they did that.

[Burney]

Alongside VAR I would like the Refs to be miked up so we actually here their rationale.

That’s one aspect of the system in Rugby I like.

Would also help shame a few players ie the ones constantly moaning and swearing at the ref. Reckon you would see a massive reduction in this side of the game if they did that.

The TV companies would insist on it. And what the TV companies want, they tend to get.

[Luis Anaconda]

Loooool LA

Jofra Archer with throw. This was his big catch yesterday.

The kid’s reaction was mine o:


https://youtu.be/aV9OihLcnqE
wow - superb talent. Joke he can't play for English til 2022. He has an English father ffs (and the alternative argument that he could play for the Windies is a non-starter)

[Peter]

As you know, p. The feel of the ball hitting the edge of the bat is something to which every batsman is immensely sensitive. Sure, the snickometer has shown us that there are infinitesimally small nicks that it's possible not to notice, but 99.995% of the time, if you nick it, you know. And given that Malan absolutely smashed the fücker, I cannot believe he didn't realise.

I remember on one occasion I was batting to save a game and did a great job of looking innocent as the fielders shouted for a catch behind. Once all the furore had died down and the wicketkeeper had finally finished calling me a cheating cünt. I looked down to take guard and there was a new, bright red mark on the edge of my bat :hehe:

Oh, without question, it is absurd that Malan didnt know he had hit it. Perhaps he thought it hit the pad first. Either way, you review it. Cook should have told him it didnt look out anyway.

I agree, I think you always know. I hardly ever nicked anything because my judgement outside off was impeccable- I was far too busy getting out lbw :)

One occasion I think it is possible that I may have nicked it. THe bat heavily brushed the pad at the same time and I felt that. It is slightly possible I may have nicked at the same time but I didnt feel it, so I didnt walk. Three aussies called me a cheating ****, without a break, for roughly the next hour or so. I said nothing and focused instead on leaving the **** out of every delivery for the rest of the afternoon. Match drawn, 87-3 from 47 overs. 22 not out.

I cant recall an afternoon where I have enjoyed myself more :). I hope I did ****ing hit it.....

[Luis Anaconda]

Oh, without question, it is absurd that Malan didnt know he had hit it. Perhaps he thought it hit the pad first. Either way, you review it. Cook should have told him it didnt look out anyway.

I agree, I think you always know. I hardly ever nicked anything because my judgement outside off was impeccable- I was far too busy getting out lbw :)

One occasion I think it is possible that I may have nicked it. THe bat heavily brushed the pad at the same time and I felt that. It is slightly possible I may have nicked at the same time but I didnt feel it, so I didnt walk. Three aussies called me a cheating ****, without a break, for roughly the next hour or so. I said nothing and focused instead on leaving the **** out of every delivery for the rest of the afternoon. Match drawn, 87-3 from 47 overs. 22 not out.

I cant recall an afternoon where I have enjoyed myself more :). I hope I did ****ing hit it.....

I always did the decent thing and walked. Although tbf not many of my dismissals were caught behind - difficult to stand your ground when you are caught on the boundary

[PSRB]

I always did the decent thing and walked. Although tbf not many of my dismissals were caught behind - difficult to stand your ground when you are caught on the boundary

I seemed to frequently get out down leg side when the ball had clearly hit thigh pad/jumper/trousers, ****ing infuriating

[Burney]

I always did the decent thing and walked. Although tbf not many of my dismissals were caught behind - difficult to stand your ground when you are caught on the boundary

I took the view that no bowler was going to recall me if I was given out when they knew I wasn't, so I was fücked if I was going to walk to help them out.

[Burney]

I seemed to frequently get out down leg side when the ball had clearly hit thigh pad/jumper/trousers, ****ing infuriating

I was once caught off my pad when I'd played the ball with the bat behind the pad and absolutely hadn't hit it. That fücked me right off.

[Luis Anaconda]

I took the view that no bowler was going to recall me if I was given out when they knew I wasn't, so I was fücked if I was going to walk to help them out.

I fully appreciate that view - just think it is a personal thing. Wouldn't enjoy a victory if I knew I was out

[Pokster]

I was once caught off my pad when I'd played the ball with the bat behind the pad and absolutely hadn't hit it. That fücked me right off.

Perhaps you were LBW by not playing a shot

[Burney]

I fully appreciate that view - just think it is a personal thing. Wouldn't enjoy a victory if I knew I was out

Meh. A win's a win. :shrug:

It has always bothered me that there's supposed to be a moral imperative for the batsman to own up when he thinks he's out, but absolutely none for the fielding side not to appeal for absolutely everything even when they know it's not out.

[Burney]

Perhaps you were LBW by not playing a shot

Well by the interpretation of the laws at the time, I was playing a shot and it was six inches outside off stump and only going wider, so I don't think so.

[Luis Anaconda]

I seemed to frequently get out down leg side when the ball had clearly hit thigh pad/jumper/trousers, ****ing infuriating

Funny thing was I don't think in years of cricket I ended up with that many bad calls against me. Only one that really sticks out I was given out caught behind when I was nowhere near it - umpire tried to excuse himself by saying I the other umpire would have given me out stumped anyway (even though the shot - admittedly poor - was off the back foot). I got 75 and had just been robbed of a six by a cheating fielder calling it a four. Needless to say I very much enjoyed the fact that we routed the opposition in the field

[Luis Anaconda]

Meh. A win's a win. :shrug:

It has always bothered me that there's supposed to be a moral imperative for the batsman to own up when he thinks he's out, but absolutely none for the fielding side not to appeal for absolutely everything even when they know it's not out.

Yep - didn't like my teams doing that either. Or giving needless **** to batsman or questioning the umpire. Standards, b

[Peter]

I took the view that no bowler was going to recall me if I was given out when they knew I wasn't, so I was fücked if I was going to walk to help them out.

I took the view that it was the umpire's decision. Who am I to interfere with his work? :)

I was once stumped off a leg side wide (nowhere near leaving my crease) and was on 49 at the time. ****s.

[Viva Prat Vegas]

Was Mike Riley the umpire ?

[Burney]

I took the view that it was the umpire's decision. Who am I to interfere with his work? :)

I was once stumped off a leg side wide (nowhere near leaving my crease) and was on 49 at the time. ****s.

There were many variables to just how cünty I'd be about it. I'd be: the state of the match; how well I was batting; how knackered I was; how quick the bowlers were, etc, etc.

Actually, the last one is a joke, but I have played with guys who'd have walked on an lbw appeal if someone a bit rapid was operating. :hehe:

[Peter]

There were many variables to just how cünty I'd be about it. I'd be: the state of the match; how well I was batting; how knackered I was; how quick the bowlers were, etc, etc.

Actually, the last one is a joke, but I have played with guys who'd have walked on an lbw appeal if someone a bit rapid was operating. :hehe:

I did once face a young chap from Trinidad who was frighteningly quick and far too good for our league. He bowled left arm round the wicket at my throat for about four overs with not a single ball in my half. I couldnt even get out, he was getting so much seam movement I couldnt even get a nick on it. He bowled one on to the pads which I flicked for four and that only made him angrier.

The only time in my cricketing career that I was ever actually quite frightened. I got out to a fat spinner a few overs later.....

I am racking my brains but I cant think of a single time when I actually walked..... :)

[Burney]

I did once face a young chap from Trinidad who was frighteningly quick and far too good for our league. He bowled left arm round the wicket at my throat for about four overs with not a single ball in my half. I couldnt even get out, he was getting so much seam movement I couldnt even get a nick on it. He bowled one on to the pads which I flicked for four and that only made him angrier.

The only time in my cricketing career that I was ever actually quite frightened. I got out to a fat spinner a few overs later.....

I am racking my brains but I cant think of a single time when I actually walked..... :)

Yes. There was always that dreadful thing of looking at the opposition and seeing the usual array of teenagers and middle-aged fat blokes and there, sticking out like a bulldog's böllocks in deepest Surrey stockbroker country would be some strapping young black geezer. And the opposition captain would give you a grin when you were going out to toss up and say something like 'Young Denzil's joined us this year. Played a pretty high standard, I believe. Lovely lad'. This 'lovely lad' would then spend the first few overs of the game trying to rearrange your face. :-(

It was quite fun when you had the ringer, though. One season we had two. That made skippering so easy.

[Luis Anaconda]

Yes. There was always that dreadful thing of looking at the opposition and seeing the usual array of teenagers and middle-aged fat blokes and there, sticking out like a bulldog's böllocks in deepest Surrey stockbroker country would be some strapping young black geezer. And the opposition captain would give you a grin when you were going out to toss up and say something like 'Young Denzil's joined us this year. Played a pretty high standard, I believe. Lovely lad'. This 'lovely lad' would then spend the first few overs of the game trying to rearrange your face. :-(

It was quite fun when you had the ringer, though. One season we had two. That made skippering so easy.
Yes - I remember playing Burnham and they had a lad from Barbados playing for them. He was a bit rapid. At one point I was umpiring (having cunningly batted and been out while he was taking a breather) and he was even scary then. Our batsman manage to dig out a yorker, run and single and said to me "That was close." "Damned right," I replied. "To be honest if he appealed I would have just given you out not to anger him"

[Ash]

Call it paranoia (probably is) but I felt they were looking for any way to give the penalty to Chelsea rather than stick with the original (and correct) decision. Whereas our appeal was turned away almost instantly

I think a few people's paranoia might have been engaged when ref boss Mike Riley was interviewed from VAR HQ. So Neil Swarbrick is the VAR ref, with Mr Riley standing behind him making sure the decision is correct. :hehe:

So next season, Mike Riley gets to call the big decisions in ALL our games. :cloud9:

[Luis Anaconda]

I think a few people's paranoia might have been engaged when ref boss Mike Riley was interviewed from VAR HQ. So Neil Swarbrick is the VAR ref, with Mr Riley standing behind him making sure the decision is correct. :hehe:

So next season, Mike Riley gets to call the big decisions in ALL our games. :cloud9:
My thinking exactly

[IUFG]

So next season, Mike Riley gets to call the big decisions in ALL our games. :cloud9:

* * * * Mike Riley Klaxon * * * *


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM747L9Wf8M

[SWv2]

I think a few people's paranoia might have been engaged when ref boss Mike Riley was interviewed from VAR HQ. So Neil Swarbrick is the VAR ref, with Mr Riley standing behind him making sure the decision is correct. :hehe:

So next season, Mike Riley gets to call the big decisions in ALL our games. :cloud9:

Is it being rolled out across all PL matches next season?

I note it was used in our match but not the previous night on the basis that Bristol City were not a PL side.

[Ash]

My thinking exactly

I feel sorry for Mr Riley's bookie.

[Peter]

Yes. There was always that dreadful thing of looking at the opposition and seeing the usual array of teenagers and middle-aged fat blokes and there, sticking out like a bulldog's böllocks in deepest Surrey stockbroker country would be some strapping young black geezer. And the opposition captain would give you a grin when you were going out to toss up and say something like 'Young Denzil's joined us this year. Played a pretty high standard, I believe. Lovely lad'. This 'lovely lad' would then spend the first few overs of the game trying to rearrange your face. :-(

It was quite fun when you had the ringer, though. One season we had two. That made skippering so easy.

I dont mind someone quick, I dont mind someone bowling short- even n the nets. I mind facing someone who is quick and far too good for me. That is when you get hurt.

Funny thing is, I got hit plenty of times and didnt really mind it- hip, fingers, shoulder, chest, elbow, thigh. It is the prospect of getting hit that I don't like, plus the fear of taking one right in the face.

Why is the ringer never a bloody spinner?? Facing a genuinely good spinner is tremendous fun but it never happens. Most are just chaps who decided to become a spinner once they reached a certain weight.

I used to love facing the first eleven spinner in the nets. He was brilliant, and there was no better preparation for the technique. Tremendous fun.

THe first eleven pace bowlers, not so much fun :(