| VAR in cricket 12:20 - Jul 15 with 3658 views | WarkTheWarkITFC |
How good was that?
Can I see this? Done. Can I see that? Done. I'm checking this? Done. This is what I have given and you all know why.
Boom. Took no more than 15-30 seconds.
I appreciate the football dynamics are different. But if we used it for specific stuff there's no reason why that wouldn't work, albeit checking whilst play had potentially carried on. |  |
| |  |
| VAR in cricket on 16:00 - Jul 15 with 536 views | Reuser_is_God |
| VAR in cricket on 15:44 - Jul 15 by Radlett_blue |
It's interesting that it appears that the on-field umpires made an error yesterday, when the 4 overthrows via Stokes's outstretched bat should have made England's score from that ball 5, not 6. Overthrows should only be added to runs where the batsmen have crossed before the fielder released the ball and Stokes & partner hadn't crossed at that time. So 6 should have become 5 & who knows what the outcome would then have been.
Credit to the Kiwis for not making a big deal over a controversial, unfortunate incident at the time & apparently not whingeing about if afterwards. |
Could 3rd umpire / match referee to have looked at that & come to that conclusion whilst match continued? |  |
| |
| VAR in cricket on 16:14 - Jul 15 with 531 views | Garv |
| VAR in cricket on 15:44 - Jul 15 by Radlett_blue |
It's interesting that it appears that the on-field umpires made an error yesterday, when the 4 overthrows via Stokes's outstretched bat should have made England's score from that ball 5, not 6. Overthrows should only be added to runs where the batsmen have crossed before the fielder released the ball and Stokes & partner hadn't crossed at that time. So 6 should have become 5 & who knows what the outcome would then have been.
Credit to the Kiwis for not making a big deal over a controversial, unfortunate incident at the time & apparently not whingeing about if afterwards. |
It would be different if that extra run had directly won the match there and then, but NZ still had to bat and knew the total they needed. |  |
| |
| VAR in cricket on 16:20 - Jul 15 with 527 views | Radlett_blue |
| VAR in cricket on 16:00 - Jul 15 by Reuser_is_God |
Could 3rd umpire / match referee to have looked at that & come to that conclusion whilst match continued? |
An excellent question. I think the protocol is that the 3rd umpire only looks at something if he is asked to do so, such as a dubious catch or if a fielder has touched the boundary while preventing a 4.
However, I was at an ODI in Brisbane a few years ago when the announced after the end of England's innings that they had retrospectively been awarded extra runs as a fielder had prevented a 6 by palming the ball back while outside the playing area. [Post edited 15 Jul 2019 16:22]
|  |
| |
| VAR in cricket on 16:21 - Jul 15 with 526 views | Reuser_is_God |
| VAR in cricket on 16:20 - Jul 15 by Radlett_blue |
An excellent question. I think the protocol is that the 3rd umpire only looks at something if he is asked to do so, such as a dubious catch or if a fielder has touched the boundary while preventing a 4.
However, I was at an ODI in Brisbane a few years ago when the announced after the end of England's innings that they had retrospectively been awarded extra runs as a fielder had prevented a 6 by palming the ball back while outside the playing area. [Post edited 15 Jul 2019 16:22]
|
Yes, I believe you to be right.
Which is the opposite of football where the off field officials will be in the refs ear about something they've missed. | |
| |
| VAR in cricket on 16:24 - Jul 15 with 525 views | Guthrum |
| VAR in cricket on 15:59 - Jul 15 by Radlett_blue |
Disagree. While there have long been guidelines issued to referees as to when a ball striking a player's arm is handball, including the distance from the ball and to whether he could have avoided contact, this will always be contentious & open to interpretation. e.g. A player may have his arm out, but the ball strikes his arm after a deflection.
I hate the new interpretation directive on handball as it will lead to far more absurd penalty kicks being given when a goal was highly unlikely to result. |
It seem that the recent changes to the rules and their interpretation are vastly more of a problem than the use of VAR in enforcing them.
And how is it possible for a sport to survive without clarity and definition on the rules? Among those officiating, at the very least.
Regarding deflected handballs and suchlike, we need to go back to why the rule was originally written, namely to prevent outfield players from blocking or controlling the ball with their hands. Not to penalise chance impacts of the ball upon those parts of the body. Likewise with contact fouls - to stop deliberate or clumsy tripping, not to reward those encountering the slightest contact and throwing themselves to the ground. |  |
| |
| VAR in cricket on 17:17 - Jul 15 with 514 views | Radlett_blue |
| VAR in cricket on 16:21 - Jul 15 by Reuser_is_God |
Yes, I believe you to be right.
Which is the opposite of football where the off field officials will be in the refs ear about something they've missed. |
It would be OK if the off-field officials only intervened in the case of "clear & obvious errors" rather than not-picking over hairsbreadth off-sides or highly debatable fouls, involving minimal contact. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
