Cricket changes poll

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rich Greenfield

Hawkeye is not accepted to be totally accurate. There was a study i found on the net somewhere that said it was 98% accurate.

Thanks for the info,when I was writing my post,I was trying to think of a figure,I did not know,but it goes to prove my point,Umpires are not 98%,if they were there would be need for replayes,and the like.

Ernest

[honestbharani]

I like the idea of having an European team, that sounds like something that would work, especially with the EU being in place now...... I voted for the footfault thing, that will always help the umpires, hawk eye is not something that I am sure about, I like the suggestion of captain being able to refer 3 decisions perday to the third umpire, that would make it interesting... I wanna have cameras to refer catches, that will always help.... Otherwise, this game rules.......

[SSA.]

Originally Posted by ernest

You like the cricket the way it is,but with Qualifications.I am not picking bones,but on one hand you say we need the ODI,for revenue( I agree ),but then you go on to say.there are too many meaningless ODIs Hmmm..

Morning Ernest,

I dont want any changes in the way the game is played i.e. lbw replays or red cards etc. All I am saying is I would rather see 3 test matches and 3 ODIs between two teams than 2 test matches and a long ODI tri series. The ICC and the cricket boards need all these ODIs becuase of the crowds which means more revenue. Fair enough, but why at the cost of test cricket which I and many others like me like? Yes ODIs are great fun but after a while they get too much.

Originally Posted by ernest

I dont see how we could cram any more test matches in.we are streched to the limits as it is..

I guess in this case I am talking more from an Indian point of view than English - India had two test series with NZ home and away and lots of ODIs. Why can't we have at least 3 tests and then ODIs can be planned in the time remaining. Now the BCCI is talking about playing 7 ODIs with South Africa and no tests. That is the kind of Test - ODI balance I have a problem with and I feel ICC should make it compulsory to have at least 3 tests in a series.

Originally Posted by ernest

I voted for 1 change,the umpire can use a replay,then they can get them LBWs,consistently right.

I did not vote for any changes becuase as I said I like the game as it is. Yes I too get upset and angry when I see questionable lbw decisions but then I think that we are picking the faults more becuase of the number of TV replays for every dodgy decision and the way the commentators go on and on about it. And then some newspaper reporters devote more time to the questionable decisions than the actual day's play. We are just not allowed to forget these things. I am sure there were enough umpiring errors in the old days as well but they were not replayed again and again or may be I was too young to know enough about the game to remember these things.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Rich Greenfield

Hawkeye is not accepted to be totally accurate. There was a study i found on the net somewhere that said it was 98% accurate.

98% accurate is still a hell of a lot better than the 'guesswork' Umpires currently use!!

Scott

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by SSA.

Morning Ernest,

I dont want any changes in the way the game is played i.e. lbw replays or red cards etc. All I am saying is I would rather see 3 test matches and 3 ODIs between two teams than 2 test matches and a long ODI tri series. The ICC and the cricket boards need all these ODIs becuase of the crowds which means more revenue. Fair enough, but why at the cost of test cricket which I and many others like me like? Yes ODIs are great fun but after a while they get too much.

Afternoon SSA,

I voted to a change in the rules,allowing umpires to refare tight LBW desicions,to be refered to a third umpire,then he with the benefit of hindsight can come to a fair and propper ruling,I being a rraditionalist am not keen on change,but the spate of bad umpiring desicions,and the bad will that follows,not to mention spectator frustration,makes change inevitable,98% accurate is the replays,you must admit,in recent tomes ,umpires have come no were near this.

Scuse me for saying this SSA,but on the one hand,you are saying we need the revenue,from ODIs,then you are saying we are playing to many one dayers.well you may be right on both counts,but what can be done about it?I for one cant see a different way...

Yes I am a lover of Test matches,there is no form of cricket that comes anywere near a good Test match(uninterupted by rain),well I was brought up with test cricket.

Never seen it.but I dont think I would care for this 20 overs a side stuff,dont get me wrong I would watch it,any form of cricket is better than no cricket at all,not going to help players to learn how to pick their shots ,is it?

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by honestbharani

I like the idea of having an European team, that sounds like something that would work, especially with the EU being in place now...... I voted for the footfault thing, that will always help the umpires, hawk eye is not something that I am sure about.

Hi

Ouch,a European cricket team,oh that hurts,how could you honestbharani,share our game with that lot,The ECB would go,and the rules would be re-wrote in Brussles.

I voted that an umpire should be able to refare a tight LBW decision to a 3rd umpire,who could make a decision,baced on a 98% accutate replay,fair play all round I think.

Ernest

[Goatman]

HB's remark was in reply to my suggestion above. The european cricket team - on the model of the WI team - would include NL, SCO, IRE and others, but not ENG, which is strong enough to act as a test team on its todd history etc. apart. I think such a structure would be of great benefit to the game (EU intereference aside....), for reasons I put forward above.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

98% accurate is still a hell of a lot better than the 'guesswork' Umpires currently use!!

Scott

Afternoon Scott,Yes spot on,one change the game needs

ernest

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Goatman

HB's remark was in reply to my suggestion above. The european cricket team - on the model of the WI team - would include NL, SCO, IRE and others, but not ENG, which is strong enough to act as a test team on its todd history etc. apart. I think such a structure would be of great benefit to the game (EU intereference aside....), for reasons I put forward above.

I dont think in European law your sugestion would be possible,well not in the long term at least. If your plan,as I understand it was put into action,England might find itself playing a team called Europe,wich would incude,Scotland,Wales,Ireland,Netherland and the rest,(not on, is it?)Polatics would come into play,and if we go deeper into Europe(god forbid),England would be sucked into the European team,there would be freedem of movement to consider,cricket is just a job like any other,and there would be no stopping Europe poaching our best players.I am all for the Netherlands,and any other team fo that matter ,getting together and forming a league,of wich the winner(if strong enough)could become a test playing nation.This Idea could be worldwide.

The EU would interfere Goatman,they do in everthing else.

Ernest

[Goatman]

Damn - I was just about to post a reply and the damn computer rebooted. Anyway, I'll put it in short form below:-

1) EU have no powers over the way in which a sport is run, only over the way in which it emplys those involved in it. What they could do is very, very limited, even if they could be bothered. Which is an idea I find rather unlikely - almost risible! Can you imagine "Monsignor Berlesconi, the French and German premiers have just flown in for the emergency meeting on Cricket reform!". Somehow, I just don't see it!

2) EU don't interfere in football, rugby, etc. in which ENG compete alone, to the exclusion of other EU states. Why on earth should circket be special?

3) EU can only do things according to an existing law, or by drafting a new law. The situation of British nations competeing alone or together at thier own convenience, northern ireland competintg alone, as part of britain or as part of Ireland at thier own conveneince and so on and so forth would make passing such a law completely impossible.

4) There is precident in cricket for having multinational teams competng as one, and EU have no grip on the WI.

5) There is no taint of discrimination, as it would be clear that any consituent nation of europe that is trong enough will be paired off, just as ENG have from Britain (and hense, europe). Its exactly analogous, and so EU have no stick with which to beat us anyway. SO they have no basis which which to make a case, contrary precident and no discernible way to distinguish a "just" division from an "unjust" one. In order to pass a law which will enforce what you fear, they would have to insist that sovereign nations alone can compete in sporting competetions - and that Europe is a sovereign nation! Can you imagine THAT being passed? Apart from Britain the governments of Sweden, Denmark and NL to my good knowledge, and all of the new accession countries to boot, would simply not accept a motion of that kind. There is no way of stopping my suggestion in European Law!

6) Europe already competes in some competitions as an entity - golf for example. EU are yet to interfere there, so why should they in cricket?

7) I don't see what you are worried about in terms of movement of working. I find it unlikely that European clubs would be able to pay as highly as English counties for some time, and so there would be no exodus on that level. What you would find was higher quality EU players making thier way into county cricket, which would be no bad thing. Most county games are of woefully low standard as it is, and this would be just as effective as any of the half-arsed county championship revision plans I've seen at improving standards. S for internation cricket, I don't see how the situation would be any different from that in Rugby or Football.