As for Smithy, he should have hit the ball properly ie. nowhere near a fielding side player. He clearly wasn't lighting up adequately for a ODI. I reckon Bairstow is a force of nature. Our bowlers are obviously having trouble reproducing line & length. We gave away 2 overs of extras !!
FWIW : 'when I was young' the umpire would only credit a catch if the hands were clearly above the turf. But that was pre-technology so the 'benefit of the doubt' has now moved due to frame-by-frame, snicko, IR etc. I remember this issue ( human vs techno ) being contentious some 20 years ago and I guess the pendulum is still swinging. Personally I think only the umpires should be able to generate a review if they have serious doubt. That would keep the game moving, affects both sides equally in the long run, and eliminates the gamesmanship of challenges. I am a little disturbed by LBW reviews especially the flight prediction of the ball - actually I'd like to know who/what/where has done the modeling for that. In physical truth, it is definitely not the case that one merely continues a parabolic path beyond some point of interruption.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Kavanagh wrote:Some
Thought Smith dismissal a bit harsh.
Have you seen The Tolkien style map of our area.
I'm back. But I'm sure
I'm back. But I'm sure nobody missed me. Just fighting off a cold.
Kathryn :o)
Einstein@Home Moderator
A pity.. The map is
A pity.. The map is inaccurate. Smith definitely out.
Richard
Well I wondered where Kath
Well I wondered where Kath went. :-)
As for Smithy, he should have hit the ball properly ie. nowhere near a fielding side player. He clearly wasn't lighting up adequately for a ODI. I reckon Bairstow is a force of nature. Our bowlers are obviously having trouble reproducing line & length. We gave away 2 overs of extras !!
FWIW : 'when I was young' the umpire would only credit a catch if the hands were clearly above the turf. But that was pre-technology so the 'benefit of the doubt' has now moved due to frame-by-frame, snicko, IR etc. I remember this issue ( human vs techno ) being contentious some 20 years ago and I guess the pendulum is still swinging. Personally I think only the umpires should be able to generate a review if they have serious doubt. That would keep the game moving, affects both sides equally in the long run, and eliminates the gamesmanship of challenges. I am a little disturbed by LBW reviews especially the flight prediction of the ball - actually I'd like to know who/what/where has done the modeling for that. In physical truth, it is definitely not the case that one merely continues a parabolic path beyond some point of interruption.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Thanks Mike *hug* It's
Thanks Mike *hug*
It's January in Cleveland. It's storming. Why am I not surprised.
Kathryn :o)
Einstein@Home Moderator
Just fighting off a cold. I
I trust you are winning. :-)
Greetings to all.
I am winning Sir Rodney!!
I am winning Sir Rodney!!
Hey! We're back! I thought
Hey! We're back! I thought we'd be down all day.
WINNING!!!
Seti Classic Final Total: 11446 WU.
RandyC wrote:Hey! We're
That's what I planned on.
Betreger wrote:RandyC
I too am glad you weren't!!