Question for the master statistician Aslam Siddique:

How many Australian test wins were due to favourable umpiring ? :=)



Tony Cozier on Umpiring in Aus vs WI test

The decision that favoured Andrew Symonds on a gloved leg-side catch was 
the exact opposite to that against Dwayne Bravo off his thigh pad at the 
start of Tiffin's triple intervention. They inevitably raised, once 
again, the increasingly debated subject of the use of television 
technology to aid umpires for each one was shown, on replay, to be flawed

-------------------------------------------------------

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/wivaus/content/current/story/353436.html

West Indies v Australia, 2nd Test, Antigua, 4th day

A strong case for technology

Tony Cozier

June 3, 2008

That is the nature of the game but West Indies again had more than their 
fair share on the fourth day of the second Test on Monday.

The most crippling were three in the space of four balls by Russell 
Tiffin that helped Brett Lee's awesome spell of fast swing bowling 
before lunch turn a match slowly but surely heading towards a draw into 
the probability of an Australian victory.

Another, late in the day by Mark Benson that denied Jerome Taylor a 
deserved third wicket, was less significant. But the decision that 
favoured Andrew Symonds on a gloved leg-side catch was the exact 
opposite to that against Dwayne Bravo off his thigh pad at the start of 
Tiffin's triple intervention. They inevitably raised, once again, the 
increasingly debated subject of the use of television technology to aid 
umpires for each one was shown, on replay, to be flawed.

Last March, the ICC board approved a trial for an umpire-review system 
that would allow players to ask the on-field umpire to review any aspect 
of a decision, other than line, in consultation with the third umpire. 
Each team would be limited to a maximum of three unsuccessful referrals 
in an innings. The ICC's cricket committee, comprising eminent former 
players along with umpires and media representatives, endorsed the 
proposal at its meeting early last month.

Had it been in operation yesterday as many as six decisions would have 
been reversed - 4-2 in favour of West Indies - and the Test might have 
been in an entirely different state entering the last day with the home 
batsmen under pressure to bat out the available 98 overs.

They seemed headed towards safety through the first hour and a half as 
Shivnarine Chanderpaul was steadily accumulating another of his now 
habitual hundreds and Bravo, intent on not wasting a lifeless pitch and 
a sound start, had dug in with him for a partnership of 132. It all 
changed when Lee was handed a ball 94 overs old by captain Ricky 
Ponting. Immediately, Australia's strike bowler was bending it like 
Beckham. In the modern jargon, the ball was "reversing", swinging sharp 
and late against the polished side.

Striving for pace and still adjusting his radar, Lee was just off line 
with the fourth ball of his second comeback over. Angled down the leg 
side, Bravo attempted to turn it off his hip, one of his favoured 
strokes. Wicketkeeper Brad Haddin tumbled to gather the ball, Tiffin 
raised his finger to verify strong appeals and Bravo threw his head back 
in despair before trudging off.

Reason for his reaction was soon evident as TV replays revealed the 
deflection was from his thigh, not his bat. Such decisions are difficult 
to detect but it is usual that batsmen get the benefit of any doubt.

Denesh Ramdin replaced Bravo and copped an unplayable first ball, fast, 
swerving late into his front pad and heading for the off stump. Up went 
Tiffin's finger to Lee's insistent appeal for lbw. Darren Sammy let 
Lee's - and Tiffin's - hat-trick ball pass dangerously close to off 
stump. An intervening over of Andrew Symonds offered brief respite.

Lee's next ball was a repeat of that to Ramdin and the outcome was the 
same, crashing into Sammy's front pad for Tiffin to once more raise his 
right index finger. In each case, the off stump would have been knocked 
back. In each case, the TV replay clearly indicated the pad was struck 
outside off stump, geometry that should have negated the lbw decision.

Late in the day, Benson lapsed into errors of his own, giving Symonds in 
on his gloved catch and Lee out to a catch off his forearm. In six 
hours, the case for the use of technology had been appreciably advanced.

© Trinidad & Tobago Express

--
posted via www.usenetfast.com - Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !

> on his gloved catch and Lee out to a catch off his forearm. In six
> hours, the case for the use of technology had been appreciably advanced.

hear hear

jzfredricks wrote:
>> on his gloved catch and Lee out to a catch off his forearm. In six
>> hours, the case for the use of technology had been appreciably advanced.
> 
> hear hear




You deliberately chose to ignore the fact Brett Lee is not
a top order batsman.

Australian team regularly gets more favourable decisions than
any other team in cricket from the umpires.

It was proven in the last Aus vs Ind series and again in
this Aus vs WI series.






--
posted via www.usenetfast.com - Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !

On Jun 4, 11:19 am, Villanova  wrote:
> jzfredricks wrote:
> >> on his gloved catch and Lee out to a catch off his forearm. In six
> >> hours, the case for the use of technology had been appreciably advanced.
>
> > hear hear
>
> You deliberately chose to ignore the fact Brett Lee is not
> a top order batsman.
>
> Australian team regularly gets more favourable decisions than
> any other team in cricket from the umpires.
>
> It was proven in the last Aus vs Ind series and again in
> this Aus vs WI series.
>
> --
> posted viawww.usenetfast.com- Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !

Well, duh. That's what happens when you don't allow the best umpires
to stand in tests which Australia plays. The best umpires are
Australian.

Draco, poking the RSC anthill with a stick

On Jun 4, 11:19 am, Villanova  wrote:
> jzfredricks wrote:
> >> on his gloved catch and Lee out to a catch off his forearm. In six
> >> hours, the case for the use of technology had been appreciably advanced> > hear hear
>
> You deliberately chose to ignore the fact Brett Lee is not
> a top order batsman.

????

not sure what you're on about, but I'm pro-technology and anti-crap-
umpiring.

the 'hear hear' was in support of "the case for the use of technology
had been appreciably advanced."

Australia has been dominant in the game for many, many years.  That doesn't
just happen because of a few dodgy umpires. Can you say SORE LOSER?

On Jun 4, 4:05 am, "Dave -Turner"  wrote:
> Australia has been dominant in the game for many, many years.  That doesn't
> just happen because of a few dodgy umpires. Can you say SORE LOSER?

Correct. That has happened because of MANY dodgy decisions over that
period. I have campaigned to bring this to light over the past 3-4
years at rsc. Not only is Aus's winning record is therefore greatly
inflated, but so to the batting records of ponting and hayden, and the
bowling records of mcgrath, warne, lee et al. this is not to say they
are not excellent teams or players: they are. It is just that they are
not so far ahead of the pack. Bring on technology and the gap becomes
smaller still.

Getting Sydneyed: to move quickly from a winning to a losing position
playing against Aus due to bad umpiring decisions.

draco664 wrote:
> On Jun 4, 11:19 am, Villanova  wrote:
>> jzfredricks wrote:
>>>> on his gloved catch and Lee out to a catch off his forearm. In six
>>>> hours, the case for the use of technology had been appreciably advanced.
>>> hear hear
>> You deliberately chose to ignore the fact Brett Lee is not
>> a top order batsman.
>>
>> Australian team regularly gets more favourable decisions than
>> any other team in cricket from the umpires.
>>
>> It was proven in the last Aus vs Ind series and again in
>> this Aus vs WI series.
>>
>> --
>> posted viawww.usenetfast.com- Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !
> 
> Well, duh. That's what happens when you don't allow the best umpires
> to stand in tests which Australia plays. The best umpires are
> Australian.
> 
> Draco, poking the RSC anthill with a stick


Hey, Hey, Hey,  be careful what you poke that anthill with.

draco664 wrote:
> On Jun 4, 11:19 am, Villanova  wrote:
>> jzfredricks wrote:
>>>> on his gloved catch and Lee out to a catch off his forearm. In six
>>>> hours, the case for the use of technology had been appreciably advanced.
>>> hear hear
>> You deliberately chose to ignore the fact Brett Lee is not
>> a top order batsman.
>>
>> Australian team regularly gets more favourable decisions than
>> any other team in cricket from the umpires.
>>
>> It was proven in the last Aus vs Ind series and again in
>> this Aus vs WI series.
>>
>> --
>> posted viawww.usenetfast.com- Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !
> 
> Well, duh. That's what happens when you don't allow the best umpires
> to stand in tests which Australia plays. The best umpires are
> Australian.



 From what I read on rsc Andrew Dunfords opinions are well regarded.
He said Darrel Hair gave bad LBW decisions.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/aca93e640e44d300



> Draco, poking the RSC anthill with a stick


No need to change your daily habit of poking all your orifices
with that same stick.








--
posted via www.usenetfast.com - Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !

The Old Fellow wrote:
> draco664 wrote:
>> On Jun 4, 11:19 am, Villanova  wrote:
>>> jzfredricks wrote:
>>>>> on his gloved catch and Lee out to a catch off his forearm. In six
>>>>> hours, the case for the use of technology had been appreciably 
>>>>> advanced.
>>>> hear hear
>>> You deliberately chose to ignore the fact Brett Lee is not
>>> a top order batsman.
>>>
>>> Australian team regularly gets more favourable decisions than
>>> any other team in cricket from the umpires.
>>>
>>> It was proven in the last Aus vs Ind series and again in
>>> this Aus vs WI series.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> posted viawww.usenetfast.com- Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !
>>
>> Well, duh. That's what happens when you don't allow the best umpires
>> to stand in tests which Australia plays. The best umpires are
>> Australian.
>>
>> Draco, poking the RSC anthill with a stick
> 
> 
> Hey, Hey, Hey,  be careful what you poke that anthill with.



Old fellow,

Your buddy Draco missed poking all your orifices today with his
god given tiny biological stick.

You better hurry up before he starts screaming and crying
after having lunch and dinner. lol




--
posted via www.usenetfast.com - Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !

jzfredricks wrote:
> On Jun 4, 11:19 am, Villanova  wrote:
>> jzfredricks wrote:
>>>> on his gloved catch and Lee out to a catch off his forearm. In six
>>>> hours, the case for the use of technology had been appreciably advanced.
>>> hear hear
>> You deliberately chose to ignore the fact Brett Lee is not
>> a top order batsman.
> 
> ????
> 
> not sure what you're on about, but I'm pro-technology and anti-crap-
> umpiring.


You chose to leave Brett Lee's bad decision comment while leaving
out others.



> the 'hear hear' was in support of "the case for the use of technology
> had been appreciably advanced."


You did a great job but fact is Australia gets majority of favourable
umpiring decisions as has been shown in the last Aus vs India
and the current Aus vs WI series.

--
posted via www.usenetfast.com - Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !

subi...@notmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 4, 4:05 am, "Dave -Turner"  wrote:
>> Australia has been dominant in the game for many, many years.  That doesn't
>> just happen because of a few dodgy umpires. Can you say SORE LOSER?
> 
> Correct. That has happened because of MANY dodgy decisions over that
> period. I have campaigned to bring this to light over the past 3-4
> years at rsc. Not only is Aus's winning record is therefore greatly
> inflated, but so to the batting records of ponting and hayden, and the
> bowling records of mcgrath, warne, lee et al. this is not to say they
> are not excellent teams or players: they are. It is just that they are
> not so far ahead of the pack. Bring on technology and the gap becomes
> smaller still.
> 
> Getting Sydneyed: to move quickly from a winning to a losing position
> playing against Aus due to bad umpiring decisions.



Getting Sydneyed !!!

Great one.

It should become the standard cricket term to describe
bad umpiring in the future.





--
posted via www.usenetfast.com - Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !

jzfredricks wrote:
> On Jun 4, 11:19 am, Villanova  wrote:
>> jzfredricks wrote:
>>>> on his gloved catch and Lee out to a catch off his forearm. In six
>>>> hours, the case for the use of technology had been appreciably advanced.
>>> hear hear
>> You deliberately chose to ignore the fact Brett Lee is not
>> a top order batsman.
> 
> ????
> 
> not sure what you're on about, but I'm pro-technology and anti-crap-
> umpiring.
> 




You chose to leave Brett Lee's bad decision comment while "snipping"
bad decisions given to WI players.



 > the 'hear hear' was in support of "the case for the use of technology
 > had been appreciably advanced."


You did a great job but fact is Australia gets majority of favourable
umpiring decisions as has been shown in the last Aus vs India
and the current Aus vs WI series.

--
posted via www.usenetfast.com - Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !

> You chose to leave Brett Lee's bad decision comment while "snipping"
> bad decisions given to WI players.

no point quoting the whole post. I wanted to address techology.

check this post out;

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/browse_thread/thread/eaf89435a9650773#

On Jun 4, 5:04 pm, Villanova  wrote:
> subi...@notmail.com wrote:
> > On Jun 4, 4:05 am, "Dave -Turner"  wrote:
> >> Australia has been dominant in the game for many, many years.  That doesn't
> >> just happen because of a few dodgy umpires. Can you say SORE LOSER?
>
> > Correct. That has happened because of MANY dodgy decisions over that
> > period. I have campaigned to bring this to light over the past 3-4
> > years at rsc. Not only is Aus's winning record is therefore greatly
> > inflated, but so to the batting records of ponting and hayden, and the
> > bowling records of mcgrath, warne, lee et al. this is not to say they
> > are not excellent teams or players: they are. It is just that they are
> > not so far ahead of the pack. Bring on technology and the gap becomes
> > smaller still.
>
> > Getting Sydneyed: to move quickly from a winning to a losing position
> > playing against Aus due to bad umpiring decisions.
>
> Getting Sydneyed !!!
>
> Great one.
>
> It should become the standard cricket term to describe
> bad umpiring in the future.
>
> --
> posted viawww.usenetfast.com- Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !

Of course, back in thre 60s it would probably have been "Getting
Bombayed"

On Jun 4, 9:49 am, John Dennis  wrote:
> On Jun 4, 5:04 pm, Villanova  wrote:
>
>
>
> > subi...@notmail.com wrote:
> > > On Jun 4, 4:05 am, "Dave -Turner"  wrote:
> > >> Australia has been dominant in the game for many, many years.  That doesn't
> > >> just happen because of a few dodgy umpires. Can you say SORE LOSER?
>
> > > Correct. That has happened because of MANY dodgy decisions over that
> > > period. I have campaigned to bring this to light over the past 3-4
> > > years at rsc. Not only is Aus's winning record is therefore greatly
> > > inflated, but so to the batting records of ponting and hayden, and the> > > bowling records of mcgrath, warne, lee et al. this is not to say they
> > > are not excellent teams or players: they are. It is just that they are> > > not so far ahead of the pack. Bring on technology and the gap becomes
> > > smaller still.
>
> > > Getting Sydneyed: to move quickly from a winning to a losing position
> > > playing against Aus due to bad umpiring decisions.
>
> > Getting Sydneyed !!!
>
> > Great one.
>
> > It should become the standard cricket term to describe
> > bad umpiring in the future.
>
> > --
> > posted viawww.usenetfast.com-Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !
>
> Of course, back in thre 60s it would probably have been "Getting
> Bombayed"

how times have changed

"subi...@notmail.com"  wrote in message 
news:d6ff5901-2734-406e-9e21-3b40d0f47bc3@l17g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 4, 9:49 am, John Dennis  wrote:
> On Jun 4, 5:04 pm, Villanova  wrote:
>
>
>
> > subi...@notmail.com wrote:
> > > On Jun 4, 4:05 am, "Dave -Turner"  wrote:
> > >> Australia has been dominant in the game for many, many years. That 
> > >> doesn't
> > >> just happen because of a few dodgy umpires. Can you say SORE LOSER?
>
> > > Correct. That has happened because of MANY dodgy decisions over that
> > > period. I have campaigned to bring this to light over the past 3-4
> > > years at rsc. Not only is Aus's winning record is therefore greatly
> > > inflated, but so to the batting records of ponting and hayden, and the
> > > bowling records of mcgrath, warne, lee et al. this is not to say they
> > > are not excellent teams or players: they are. It is just that they are
> > > not so far ahead of the pack. Bring on technology and the gap becomes
> > > smaller still.
>
> > > Getting Sydneyed: to move quickly from a winning to a losing position
> > > playing against Aus due to bad umpiring decisions.
>
> > Getting Sydneyed !!!
>
> > Great one.
>
> > It should become the standard cricket term to describe
> > bad umpiring in the future.
>
> > --
> > posted viawww.usenetfast.com-Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !
>
> Of course, back in thre 60s it would probably have been "Getting
> Bombayed"

how times have changed

not overly you are FUCKED in the BRAIN now as you would have been in the 
past

On Jun 4, 5:48 pm, "dechucka"  wrote:
> "subi...@notmail.com"  wrote in message
>
> news:d6ff5901-2734-406e-9e21-3b40d0f47bc3@l17g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 4, 9:49 am, John Dennis  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 4, 5:04 pm, Villanova  wrote:
>
> > > subi...@notmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Jun 4, 4:05 am, "Dave -Turner"  wrote:
> > > >> Australia has been dominant in the game for many, many years. That
> > > >> doesn't
> > > >> just happen because of a few dodgy umpires. Can you say SORE LOSER?> > > > Correct. That has happened because of MANY dodgy decisions over that> > > > period. I have campaigned to bring this to light over the past 3-4
> > > > years at rsc. Not only is Aus's winning record is therefore greatly
> > > > inflated, but so to the batting records of ponting and hayden, and the
> > > > bowling records of mcgrath, warne, lee et al. this is not to say they
> > > > are not excellent teams or players: they are. It is just that they are
> > > > not so far ahead of the pack. Bring on technology and the gap becomes
> > > > smaller still.
>
> > > > Getting Sydneyed: to move quickly from a winning to a losing position
> > > > playing against Aus due to bad umpiring decisions.
>
> > > Getting Sydneyed !!!
>
> > > Great one.
>
> > > It should become the standard cricket term to describe
> > > bad umpiring in the future.
>
> > > --
> > > posted viawww.usenetfast.com-Fastestdownloads from $4.50/month !
>
> > Of course, back in thre 60s it would probably have been "Getting
> > Bombayed"
>
> how times have changed
>
> not overly you are FUCKED in the BRAIN now as you would have been in the
> past

thanks for acknowledging that i have a brain to get fucked. i am
afraid i cannot say the same for you after your cultish and
fundamentalist defense of hair. and no i was not around 'back in the
60s' to have a yearning for the good old days of yore.

On Jun 3, 3:30 pm, Villanova  wrote:
> Question for the master statistician Aslam Siddique:
>
> How many Australian test wins were due to favourable umpiring ? :=)
>
> Tony Cozier on Umpiring in Aus vs WI test
>
> The decision that favoured Andrew Symonds on a gloved leg-side catch was
> the exact opposite to that against Dwayne Bravo off his thigh pad at the
> start of Tiffin's triple intervention. They inevitably raised, once
> again, the increasingly debated subject of the use of television
> technology to aid umpires for each one was shown, on replay, to be flawed
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/wivaus/content/current/story/353436.html
>
> West Indies v Australia, 2nd Test, Antigua, 4th day
>
> A strong case for technology
>
> Tony Cozier
>
> June 3, 2008
>
> That is the nature of the game but West Indies again had more than their
> fair share on the fourth day of the second Test on Monday.
>
> The most crippling were three in the space of four balls by Russell
> Tiffin that helped Brett Lee's awesome spell of fast swing bowling
> before lunch turn a match slowly but surely heading towards a draw into
> the probability of an Australian victory.
>
> Another, late in the day by Mark Benson that denied Jerome Taylor a
> deserved third wicket, was less significant. But the decision that
> favoured Andrew Symonds on a gloved leg-side catch was the exact
> opposite to that against Dwayne Bravo off his thigh pad at the start of
> Tiffin's triple intervention. They inevitably raised, once again, the
> increasingly debated subject of the use of television technology to aid
> umpires for each one was shown, on replay, to be flawed.
>
> Last March, the ICC board approved a trial for an umpire-review system
> that would allow players to ask the on-field umpire to review any aspect
> of a decision, other than line, in consultation with the third umpire.
> Each team would be limited to a maximum of three unsuccessful referrals
> in an innings. The ICC's cricket committee, comprising eminent former
> players along with umpires and media representatives, endorsed the
> proposal at its meeting early last month.
>
> Had it been in operation yesterday as many as six decisions would have
> been reversed - 4-2 in favour of West Indies - and the Test might have
> been in an entirely different state entering the last day with the home
> batsmen under pressure to bat out the available 98 overs.
>
> They seemed headed towards safety through the first hour and a half as
> Shivnarine Chanderpaul was steadily accumulating another of his now
> habitual hundreds and Bravo, intent on not wasting a lifeless pitch and
> a sound start, had dug in with him for a partnership of 132. It all
> changed when Lee was handed a ball 94 overs old by captain Ricky
> Ponting. Immediately, Australia's strike bowler was bending it like
> Beckham. In the modern jargon, the ball was "reversing", swinging sharp
> and late against the polished side.
>
> Striving for pace and still adjusting his radar, Lee was just off line
> with the fourth ball of his second comeback over. Angled down the leg
> side, Bravo attempted to turn it off his hip, one of his favoured
> strokes. Wicketkeeper Brad Haddin tumbled to gather the ball, Tiffin
> raised his finger to verify strong appeals and Bravo threw his head back
> in despair before trudging off.
>
> Reason for his reaction was soon evident as TV replays revealed the
> deflection was from his thigh, not his bat. Such decisions are difficult
> to detect but it is usual that batsmen get the benefit of any doubt.
>
> Denesh Ramdin replaced Bravo and copped an unplayable first ball, fast,
> swerving late into his front pad and heading for the off stump. Up went
> Tiffin's finger to Lee's insistent appeal for lbw. Darren Sammy let
> Lee's - and Tiffin's - hat-trick ball pass dangerously close to off
> stump. An intervening over of Andrew Symonds offered brief respite.
>
> Lee's next ball was a repeat of that to Ramdin and the outcome was the
> same, crashing into Sammy's front pad for Tiffin to once more raise his
> right index finger. In each case, the off stump would have been knocked
> back. In each case, the TV replay clearly indicated the pad was struck
> outside off stump, geometry that should have negated the lbw decision.
>
> Late in the day, Benson lapsed into errors of his own, giving Symonds in
> on his gloved catch and Lee out to a catch off his forearm. In six
> hours, the case for the use of technology had been appreciably advanced.
>
> © Trinidad & Tobago Express
>
> --
> posted viawww.usenetfast.com- Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !

82.7% Oz gmet a favorable decision from the [f]u[ck]mpires

On Jun 4, 4:59 pm, Villanova  wrote:
> The Old Fellow wrote:
> > draco664 wrote:
> >> On Jun 4, 11:19 am, Villanova  wrote:
> >>> jzfredricks wrote:
> >>>>> on his gloved catch and Lee out to a catch off his forearm. In six
> >>>>> hours, the case for the use of technology had been appreciably
> >>>>> advanced.
> >>>> hear hear
> >>> You deliberately chose to ignore the fact Brett Lee is not
> >>> a top order batsman.
>
> >>> Australian team regularly gets more favourable decisions than
> >>> any other team in cricket from the umpires.
>
> >>> It was proven in the last Aus vs Ind series and again in
> >>> this Aus vs WI series.
>
> >>> --
> >>> posted viawww.usenetfast.com-Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !
>
> >> Well, duh. That's what happens when you don't allow the best umpires
> >> to stand in tests which Australia plays. The best umpires are
> >> Australian.
>
> >> Draco, poking the RSC anthill with a stick
>
> > Hey, Hey, Hey,  be careful what you poke that anthill with.
>
> Old fellow,
>
> Your buddy Draco missed poking all your orifices today with his
> god given tiny biological stick.
>
> You better hurry up before he starts screaming and crying
> after having lunch and dinner. lol
>
> --
> posted viawww.usenetfast.com- Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !- Hide quoted text -
>

Sounding more like the Indian StraightDrive lunatic with every post

R. Spanditt wrote:
> On Jun 4, 4:59 pm, Villanova  wrote:
>> The Old Fellow wrote:
>>> draco664 wrote:
>>>> On Jun 4, 11:19 am, Villanova  wrote:
>>>>> jzfredricks wrote:
>>>>>>> on his gloved catch and Lee out to a catch off his forearm. In six
>>>>>>> hours, the case for the use of technology had been appreciably
>>>>>>> advanced.
>>>>>> hear hear
>>>>> You deliberately chose to ignore the fact Brett Lee is not
>>>>> a top order batsman.
>>>>> Australian team regularly gets more favourable decisions than
>>>>> any other team in cricket from the umpires.
>>>>> It was proven in the last Aus vs Ind series and again in
>>>>> this Aus vs WI series.
>>>>> --
>>>>> posted viawww.usenetfast.com-Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !
>>>> Well, duh. That's what happens when you don't allow the best umpires
>>>> to stand in tests which Australia plays. The best umpires are
>>>> Australian.
>>>> Draco, poking the RSC anthill with a stick
>>> Hey, Hey, Hey,  be careful what you poke that anthill with.
>> Old fellow,
>>
>> Your buddy Draco missed poking all your orifices today with his
>> god given tiny biological stick.
>>
>> You better hurry up before he starts screaming and crying
>> after having lunch and dinner. lol
>>
>> --
>> posted viawww.usenetfast.com- Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !- Hide quoted text -
>>
> 
> Sounding more like the Indian StraightDrive lunatic with every post





Spanditt,

I never stopped you from killfiling me and that other "Indian lunatic" 
StraightDrive.

It is not surprising that you do not have any problems with "Australian" 
and "English" lunatics Paul Bailey, Paul Robson, Mike Holmans.

You sure are a synonym for hypocrisy.

--
posted via www.usenetfast.com - Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !

jzfredricks wrote:
>> You chose to leave Brett Lee's bad decision comment while "snipping"
>> bad decisions given to WI players.
> 
> no point quoting the whole post. 


You don't have to quote the whole post as long as you
do not snip the real facts in Aus vs WI test that Aussies get
all the critical favourable umpiring decisions.



>I wanted to address techology.


Check the subject title of this thread.




> check this post out;
> 
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/browse_thread/thread/eaf89435a9650773#
> 

--
posted via www.usenetfast.com - Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !

> You don't have to quote the whole post as long as you
> do not snip the real facts in Aus vs WI test that Aussies get
> all the critical favourable umpiring decisions.

Do you realise how stupid you look when you say;

1) I have to quote stuff not relevant to what I want to talk about
2) that the 'real facts' were that the aussies got 'all the critical
decisions in their favour'

I'll say for the last time (in this thread), my snipped quote
contained all I wanted - that there WERE bad umpiring mistakes that I
think more technology would solve.

I don't need some racist, paranoid, conspiracy, bullshit, mad and
juvenile theory about all elite umpires cheating to help Australia.

I feel sorry for you. So much hate. For no reason. Or sadly, for
possibly very good reasons. Whatever turned you into the fucked up
person that you are must have been terrible, and beyond healing.

"subi...@notmail.com"  wrote in message 
news:4a201ade-54a3-4271-a2c3-471f1e7a3e32@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 4, 4:05 am, "Dave -Turner"  wrote:
>> Australia has been dominant in the game for many, many years. That 
>> doesn't
>> just happen because of a few dodgy umpires. Can you say SORE LOSER?
>
> Correct. That has happened because of MANY dodgy decisions over that
> period. I have campaigned to bring this to light over the past 3-4
> years at rsc. Not only is Aus's winning record is therefore greatly
> inflated, but so to the batting records of ponting and hayden, and the
> bowling records of mcgrath, warne, lee et al. this is not to say they
> are not excellent teams or players: they are. It is just that they are
> not so far ahead of the pack. Bring on technology and the gap becomes
> smaller still.
>
> Getting Sydneyed: to move quickly from a winning to a losing position
> playing against Aus due to bad umpiring decisions.


Well what you need to do is to go back over all the Tests for the last 10 
years and go through them ball by ball and then convert the number of leg 
mate appeals against decisions given in favour.


The go back to the studios involved and confirm the calibration of their 
devices like hawkeye etc


Then go and have a course in 2d v 3d animations etc so you understand the 
difference between a TV view and a 3d view


Now go and do all this and come back in 10 years or so with all the figures

On Jun 5, 2:45 am, "will_s"  wrote:
> "subi...@notmail.com"  wrote in message
>
> news:4a201ade-54a3-4271-a2c3-471f1e7a3e32@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 4, 4:05 am, "Dave -Turner"  wrote:
> >> Australia has been dominant in the game for many, many years. That
> >> doesn't
> >> just happen because of a few dodgy umpires. Can you say SORE LOSER?
>
> > Correct. That has happened because of MANY dodgy decisions over that
> > period. I have campaigned to bring this to light over the past 3-4
> > years at rsc. Not only is Aus's winning record is therefore greatly
> > inflated, but so to the batting records of ponting and hayden, and the
> > bowling records of mcgrath, warne, lee et al. this is not to say they
> > are not excellent teams or players: they are. It is just that they are
> > not so far ahead of the pack. Bring on technology and the gap becomes
> > smaller still.
>
> > Getting Sydneyed: to move quickly from a winning to a losing position
> > playing against Aus due to bad umpiring decisions.
>
> Well what you need to do is to go back over all the Tests for the last 10
> years and go through them ball by ball and then convert the number of leg
> mate appeals against decisions given in favour.
>
> The go back to the studios involved and confirm the calibration of their
> devices like hawkeye etc
>
> Then go and have a course in 2d v 3d animations etc so you understand the
> difference between a TV view and a 3d view
>
> Now go and do all this and come back in 10 years or so with all the figures

all this just to please you when easy evidence is available in any
test match featuring oz? no, thanks.
what you need to do, simply, is to get spectacles and see a shrink to
deal with your lunatic hyper-nationalism. come back later in the
afternoon, the world will look different, literally.

jzfredricks wrote:
>> You don't have to quote the whole post as long as you
>> do not snip the real facts in Aus vs WI test that Aussies get
>> all the critical favourable umpiring decisions.
> 
> Do you realise how stupid you look when you say;


I do realize you are very deceptive.



> 1) I have to quote stuff not relevant to what I want to talk about



You did not have to leave the comment about only Brett Lee's decision.



> 2) that the 'real facts' were that the aussies got 'all the critical
> decisions in their favour'


That is the fact in Aus vs WI test. Majority of umpiring errors were
in favor of Australia.




> I'll say for the last time (in this thread), my snipped quote
> contained all I wanted - that there WERE bad umpiring mistakes that I
> think more technology would solve.


I will say it for the last time too.

Read this threads subject title.

You deliberately chose to leave the umpiring error of Brett Lee and
snip the bad umpiring decisions against WI players.



> I don't need some racist, paranoid, conspiracy, bullshit, mad and
> juvenile theory about all elite umpires cheating to help Australia.


There you go. I do not post comments for "you".

Your needs are your problem.



> I feel sorry for you. So much hate. For no reason. Or sadly, for
> possibly very good reasons. Whatever turned you into the fucked up
> person that you are must have been terrible, and beyond healing.


You are angry, upset and went berserk because I exposed your
deception of snipping the decisions against WI players and leaving
the decision against Brett Lee in your comment.

I feel really sorry for your pathetic life full of deception and
lies.

--
posted via www.usenetfast.com - Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !

> > 2) that the 'real facts' were that the aussies got 'all the critical
> > decisions in their favour'
>
> That is the fact in Aus vs WI test. Majority of umpiring errors were
> in favor of Australia.

I'm glad you've finally seen the light and changed from 'all' to 'the
majority'

about time

jzfredricks wrote:
>>> 2) that the 'real facts' were that the aussies got 'all the critical
>>> decisions in their favour'
>> That is the fact in Aus vs WI test. Majority of umpiring errors were
>> in favor of Australia.
> 
> I'm glad you've finally seen the light and changed from 'all' to 'the
> majority'
> 
> about time



Both "All" and "Majority" are correct in the context of the
comment and Aus vs WI test that ended yesterday.

I really feel sorry for you are nit picking on some silly word
to misdirect the cricket lovers on rsc away from your deception.

You are a poor cretin like your fellow ozzy friends Spanditt,
dechuka and the rest.




--
posted via www.usenetfast.com - Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !

> Both "All" and "Majority" are correct in the context of the
> comment and Aus vs WI test that ended yesterday.

when mistakes favoured both teams 'all' and 'majority' are two very
different things

you seem to be changing your mind back and forth so I'll let you talk
to yourself for a bit

jzfredricks wrote:
>> Both "All" and "Majority" are correct in the context of the
>> comment and Aus vs WI test that ended yesterday.
> 
> when mistakes favoured both teams 'all' and 'majority' are two very
> different things


They are not two different things when "All crictical" and "Majority"
of decisions went in favor of Australia and against West Indies.



> you seem to be changing your mind back and forth so I'll let you talk
> to yourself for a bit



Your mentality reminds me of John Travolta character in Swordfish movie,
you know the "misdirection mastery"


--
posted via www.usenetfast.com - Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !

>
> You did a great job but fact is Australia gets majority of favourable
> umpiring decisions as has been shown in the last Aus vs India
> and the current Aus vs WI series.


If you create more chances you are going to get more appeals dufus- Law of 
averages?

Anyway, I hope it does happen so all the whingers can hang their collective 
hats on "We wuz robbed"

On Jun 5, 7:50 am, "Cicero"  wrote:
> > You did a great job but fact is Australia gets majority of favourable
> > umpiring decisions as has been shown in the last Aus vs India
> > and the current Aus vs WI series.
>
> If you create more chances you are going to get more appeals dufus- Law of
> averages?
>
> Anyway, I hope it does happen so all the whingers can hang their collective
> hats on "We wuz robbed"

Apart from their claiming dropped catches, off pads etc, which makes
up for the remaining 11%!

On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 00:42:07 -0700, Villanova
 wrote:

>jzfredricks wrote:
>>> Both "All" and "Majority" are correct in the context of the
>>> comment and Aus vs WI test that ended yesterday.
>> 
>> when mistakes favoured both teams 'all' and 'majority' are two very
>> different things
>
>
>They are not two different things when "All crictical" and "Majority"
>of decisions went in favor of Australia and against West Indies.

All= 100%
Majority= >50%.

Quite a difference I'd suggest, so which is it?

fish
>
>
>
>> you seem to be changing your mind back and forth so I'll let you talk
>> to yourself for a bit
>
>
>
>Your mentality reminds me of John Travolta character in Swordfish movie,
>you know the "misdirection mastery"
>
>
>--
>posted via www.usenetfast.com - Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !

Fish Womper wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 00:42:07 -0700, Villanova
>  wrote:
> 
>> jzfredricks wrote:
>>>> Both "All" and "Majority" are correct in the context of the
>>>> comment and Aus vs WI test that ended yesterday.
>>> when mistakes favoured both teams 'all' and 'majority' are two very
>>> different things
>>
>> They are not two different things when "All crictical" and "Majority"
>> of decisions went in favor of Australia and against West Indies.
> 
> All= 100%
> Majority= >50%.
> 
> Quite a difference I'd suggest, so which is it?
> 
> fish



"All Critical"

"Majority"

I pray to God to enlighten all you English native language speakers.



>>
>>> you seem to be changing your mind back and forth so I'll let you talk
>>> to yourself for a bit
>>
>>
>> Your mentality reminds me of John Travolta character in Swordfish movie,
>> you know the "misdirection mastery"
>>
>>
>> --
>> posted via www.usenetfast.com - Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !
> 

--
posted via www.usenetfast.com - Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !

On Jun 5, 10:45 am, Villanova  wrote:
> R. Spanditt wrote:
> > On Jun 4, 4:59 pm, Villanova  wrote:
> >> The Old Fellow wrote:
> >>> draco664 wrote:
> >>>> On Jun 4, 11:19 am, Villanova  wrote:
> >>>>> jzfredricks wrote:
> >>>>>>> on his gloved catch and Lee out to a catch off his forearm. In six> >>>>>>> hours, the case for the use of technology had been appreciably
> >>>>>>> advanced.
> >>>>>> hear hear
> >>>>> You deliberately chose to ignore the fact Brett Lee is not
> >>>>> a top order batsman.
> >>>>> Australian team regularly gets more favourable decisions than
> >>>>> any other team in cricket from the umpires.
> >>>>> It was proven in the last Aus vs Ind series and again in
> >>>>> this Aus vs WI series.
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> posted viawww.usenetfast.com-Fastestdownloads from $4.50/month !
> >>>> Well, duh. That's what happens when you don't allow the best umpires
> >>>> to stand in tests which Australia plays. The best umpires are
> >>>> Australian.
> >>>> Draco, poking the RSC anthill with a stick
> >>> Hey, Hey, Hey,  be careful what you poke that anthill with.
> >> Old fellow,
>
> >> Your buddy Draco missed poking all your orifices today with his
> >> god given tiny biological stick.
>
> >> You better hurry up before he starts screaming and crying
> >> after having lunch and dinner. lol
>
> >> --
> >> posted viawww.usenetfast.com-Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Sounding more like the Indian StraightDrive lunatic with every post
>
> Spanditt,
>
> I never stopped you from killfiling me and that other "Indian lunatic"
> StraightDrive.
>
> It is not surprising that you do not have any problems with "Australian"
> and "English" lunatics Paul Bailey, Paul Robson, Mike Holmans.
>
> You sure are a synonym for hypocrisy.
>

1. I can't killfile,
2. I couldn't care less where you're from, nor any of the other names
you mentioned,
3. If i did care where you were from, how on earth would i know you're
not Australian?

If hypocrisy is telling you that you don't have any idea, so be it.
Your argument came straight back like a fart in a head wind.

R. Spanditt wrote:
> On Jun 5, 10:45 am, Villanova  wrote:
>> R. Spanditt wrote:
>>> On Jun 4, 4:59 pm, Villanova  wrote:
>>>> The Old Fellow wrote:
>>>>> draco664 wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 4, 11:19 am, Villanova  wrote:
>>>>>>> jzfredricks wrote:
>>>>>>>>> on his gloved catch and Lee out to a catch off his forearm. In six
>>>>>>>>> hours, the case for the use of technology had been appreciably
>>>>>>>>> advanced.
>>>>>>>> hear hear
>>>>>>> You deliberately chose to ignore the fact Brett Lee is not
>>>>>>> a top order batsman.
>>>>>>> Australian team regularly gets more favourable decisions than
>>>>>>> any other team in cricket from the umpires.
>>>>>>> It was proven in the last Aus vs Ind series and again in
>>>>>>> this Aus vs WI series.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> posted viawww.usenetfast.com-Fastestdownloads from $4.50/month !
>>>>>> Well, duh. That's what happens when you don't allow the best umpires
>>>>>> to stand in tests which Australia plays. The best umpires are
>>>>>> Australian.
>>>>>> Draco, poking the RSC anthill with a stick
>>>>> Hey, Hey, Hey,  be careful what you poke that anthill with.
>>>> Old fellow,
>>>> Your buddy Draco missed poking all your orifices today with his
>>>> god given tiny biological stick.
>>>> You better hurry up before he starts screaming and crying
>>>> after having lunch and dinner. lol
>>>> --
>>>> posted viawww.usenetfast.com-Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !- Hide quoted text -
>>> Sounding more like the Indian StraightDrive lunatic with every post
>> Spanditt,
>>
>> I never stopped you from killfiling me and that other "Indian lunatic"
>> StraightDrive.
>>
>> It is not surprising that you do not have any problems with "Australian"
>> and "English" lunatics Paul Bailey, Paul Robson, Mike Holmans.
>>
>> You sure are a synonym for hypocrisy.
>>
> 
> 1. I can't killfile,


"Your" problem.



> 2. I couldn't care less where you're from, nor any of the other names
> you mentioned,  3. If i did care where you were from, how on earth would i know you're
> not Australian?



Then you have no business to refer to StraightDrive as "Indian lunatic"
in your comments.

When will you grow up and take responsibility for "your" actions ?





> If hypocrisy is telling you that you don't have any idea, so be it.



Hypocrisy is abusing and calling a poster "Indian lunatic" while
simulataneously loving your fellow Australian lunatics Paul Bailey,
will_s, dechuka, jzfredericks, fish womper etc.





--
posted via www.usenetfast.com - Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !

"Villanova"  wrote in message 
news:48480ca4$0$7345$805e43db@news.usenetfast.com...
> Fish Womper wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 00:42:07 -0700, Villanova
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> jzfredricks wrote:
>>>>> Both "All" and "Majority" are correct in the context of the
>>>>> comment and Aus vs WI test that ended yesterday.
>>>> when mistakes favoured both teams 'all' and 'majority' are two very
>>>> different things
>>>
>>> They are not two different things when "All crictical" and "Majority"
>>> of decisions went in favor of Australia and against West Indies.
>>
>> All= 100%
>> Majority= >50%.
>>
>> Quite a difference I'd suggest, so which is it?
>>
>> fish
>
>
>
> "All Critical"
>
> "Majority"
>
> I pray to God to enlighten all you English native language speakers.
>
>



Lord Jesus failed miserably to give common sense to the
westerners.

Read how this German guy Brad couldn't find one with a bit of
"common sense".....LOL

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/d2e5e7f4999dd7a5?hl=en




>>>
>>>> you seem to be changing your mind back and forth so I'll let you talk
>>>> to yourself for a bit
>>>
>>>
>>> Your mentality reminds me of John Travolta character in Swordfish movie,
>>> you know the "misdirection mastery"
>>>

"Villanova"  wrote in message 
news:48486bba$0$7359$805e43db@news.usenetfast.com...
> R. Spanditt wrote:
>> On Jun 5, 10:45 am, Villanova  wrote:
>>> R. Spanditt wrote:
>>>> On Jun 4, 4:59 pm, Villanova  wrote:
>>>>> The Old Fellow wrote:
>>>>>> draco664 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 4, 11:19 am, Villanova  wrote:
>>>>>>>> jzfredricks wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> on his gloved catch and Lee out to a catch off his forearm. In 
>>>>>>>>>> six
>>>>>>>>>> hours, the case for the use of technology had been appreciably
>>>>>>>>>> advanced.
>>>>>>>>> hear hear
>>>>>>>> You deliberately chose to ignore the fact Brett Lee is not
>>>>>>>> a top order batsman.
>>>>>>>> Australian team regularly gets more favourable decisions than
>>>>>>>> any other team in cricket from the umpires.
>>>>>>>> It was proven in the last Aus vs Ind series and again in
>>>>>>>> this Aus vs WI series.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> posted viawww.usenetfast.com-Fastestdownloads from $4.50/month !
>>>>>>> Well, duh. That's what happens when you don't allow the best umpires
>>>>>>> to stand in tests which Australia plays. The best umpires are
>>>>>>> Australian.
>>>>>>> Draco, poking the RSC anthill with a stick
>>>>>> Hey, Hey, Hey,  be careful what you poke that anthill with.
>>>>> Old fellow,
>>>>> Your buddy Draco missed poking all your orifices today with his
>>>>> god given tiny biological stick.
>>>>> You better hurry up before he starts screaming and crying
>>>>> after having lunch and dinner. lol
>>>>> --
>>>>> posted viawww.usenetfast.com-Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !- 
>>>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>> Sounding more like the Indian StraightDrive lunatic with every post
>>> Spanditt,
>>>
>>> I never stopped you from killfiling me and that other "Indian lunatic"
>>> StraightDrive.
>>>
>>> It is not surprising that you do not have any problems with "Australian"
>>> and "English" lunatics Paul Bailey, Paul Robson, Mike Holmans.
>>>
>>> You sure are a synonym for hypocrisy.
>>>
>>
>> 1. I can't killfile,
>
>
> "Your" problem.
>
>
>
>> 2. I couldn't care less where you're from, nor any of the other names
>> you mentioned,  3. If i did care where you were from, how on earth would 
>> i know you're
>> not Australian?
>
>
>
> Then you have no business to refer to StraightDrive as "Indian lunatic"
> in your comments.
>
> When will you grow up and take responsibility for "your" actions ?
>
>
>
>
>
>> If hypocrisy is telling you that you don't have any idea, so be it.
>
>
>
> Hypocrisy is abusing and calling a poster "Indian lunatic" while
> simulataneously loving your fellow Australian lunatics Paul Bailey,
> will_s, dechuka, jzfredericks, fish womper etc.
>
>



R Spanditt also posts by the name R Shakey.

"Its" cricket knowledge is "ZERO" and its only expertize is
in abusing Indian posters on rsc.

> Then you have no business to refer to StraightDrive as "Indian lunatic"
> in your comments.

but.. but... it's true :(

"subi...@notmail.com"  wrote in message 
news:a166d0ae-f034-40c7-95e9-37384b7098ce@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 5, 2:45 am, "will_s"  wrote:
>> "subi...@notmail.com"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:4a201ade-54a3-4271-a2c3-471f1e7a3e32@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 4, 4:05 am, "Dave -Turner"  wrote:
>> >> Australia has been dominant in the game for many, many years. That
>> >> doesn't
>> >> just happen because of a few dodgy umpires. Can you say SORE LOSER?
>>
>> > Correct. That has happened because of MANY dodgy decisions over that
>> > period. I have campaigned to bring this to light over the past 3-4
>> > years at rsc. Not only is Aus's winning record is therefore greatly
>> > inflated, but so to the batting records of ponting and hayden, and the
>> > bowling records of mcgrath, warne, lee et al. this is not to say they
>> > are not excellent teams or players: they are. It is just that they are
>> > not so far ahead of the pack. Bring on technology and the gap becomes
>> > smaller still.
>>
>> > Getting Sydneyed: to move quickly from a winning to a losing position
>> > playing against Aus due to bad umpiring decisions.
>>
>> Well what you need to do is to go back over all the Tests for the last 10
>> years and go through them ball by ball and then convert the number of leg
>> mate appeals against decisions given in favour.
>>
>> The go back to the studios involved and confirm the calibration of their
>> devices like hawkeye etc
>>
>> Then go and have a course in 2d v 3d animations etc so you understand 
>> theSo you are to scared
>> difference between a TV view and a 3d view
>>
>> Now go and do all this and come back in 10 years or so with all the 
>> figures
>
> all this just to please you when easy evidence is available in any
> test match featuring oz? no, thanks.

just plain scared are u ?


Scared that your pathetic little fantasies will go up in smoke


You made the allegations so its up to you to provide true facts and not 
pathetic whinges

jzfredricks wrote:
>> Then you have no business to refer to StraightDrive as "Indian lunatic"
>> in your comments.
> 
> but.. but... it's true :(



but....but....it is also true you are a deception and
misdirection expert.




--
posted via www.usenetfast.com - Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !

On Jun 6, 8:29 am, "will_s"  wrote:
> "subi...@notmail.com"  wrote in message
>
> news:a166d0ae-f034-40c7-95e9-37384b7098ce@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 2:45 am, "will_s"  wrote:
> >> "subi...@notmail.com"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:4a201ade-54a3-4271-a2c3-471f1e7a3e32@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com..> >> > On Jun 4, 4:05 am, "Dave -Turner"  wrote:
> >> >> Australia has been dominant in the game for many, many years. That
> >> >> doesn't
> >> >> just happen because of a few dodgy umpires. Can you say SORE LOSER?
>
> >> > Correct. That has happened because of MANY dodgy decisions over that
> >> > period. I have campaigned to bring this to light over the past 3-4
> >> > years at rsc. Not only is Aus's winning record is therefore greatly
> >> > inflated, but so to the batting records of ponting and hayden, and the
> >> > bowling records of mcgrath, warne, lee et al. this is not to say they> >> > are not excellent teams or players: they are. It is just that they are
> >> > not so far ahead of the pack. Bring on technology and the gap becomes> >> > smaller still.
>
> >> > Getting Sydneyed: to move quickly from a winning to a losing position> >> > playing against Aus due to bad umpiring decisions.
>
> >> Well what you need to do is to go back over all the Tests for the last 10
> >> years and go through them ball by ball and then convert the number of leg
> >> mate appeals against decisions given in favour.
>
> >> The go back to the studios involved and confirm the calibration of their
> >> devices like hawkeye etc
>
> >> Then go and have a course in 2d v 3d animations etc so you understand
> >> theSo you are to scared
> >> difference between a TV view and a 3d view
>
> >> Now go and do all this and come back in 10 years or so with all the
> >> figures
>
> > all this just to please you when easy evidence is available in any
> > test match featuring oz? no, thanks.
>
> just plain scared are u ?
>
> Scared that your pathetic little fantasies will go up in smoke
>
> You made the allegations so its up to you to provide true facts and not
> pathetic whinges

scared of stating the blindingly obvious? scared that you lot might
commit mass harakiri when faced with the facts? you call sydney and
antigua 'pathetic little fantasies'? goes to show who really is
delusional. ozzie ozzie ozzie oi oi oi.

> scared of stating the blindingly obvious? scared that you lot might
> commit mass harakiri when faced with the facts? you call sydney and
> antigua 'pathetic little fantasies'? goes to show who really is
> delusional. ozzie ozzie ozzie oi oi oi.

here's the delusion test;

do u think the favourable umpiring in Syd+Ant+any-other-test-you-want
was due to crap, yet honest, umpiring... or due to a bias* favouring
australia?

*in my books if an ump is knowingly biased then baised == cheating

All of them?

-- 

cheers,
calvin

Calvin wrote:
> 
> All of them?
> 



Calvin,

I can't say no if a cricket genius like you says "yes
all of them".




--
posted via www.usenetfast.com - Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !

"Villanova"  wrote in message 
news:484895b9$0$7340$805e43db@news.usenetfast.com...
> Calvin wrote:
>>
>> All of them?
>>
>
>
>
> Calvin,
>
> I can't say no if a cricket genius like you says "yes
> all of them".
>
>


Though I bet you have heard the word often when with a female.

On Jun 6, 9:50 am, jzfredricks  wrote:
> > scared of stating the blindingly obvious? scared that you lot might
> > commit mass harakiri when faced with the facts? you call sydney and
> > antigua 'pathetic little fantasies'? goes to show who really is
> > delusional. ozzie ozzie ozzie oi oi oi.
>
> here's the delusion test;
>
> do u think the favourable umpiring in Sydɻ繪other-test-you-want
> was due to crap, yet honest, umpiring... or due to a bias* favouring
> australia?
>
> *in my books if an ump is knowingly biased then baised == cheating

here is one for you: if, over a 15 year period, one team gets
'favourable umpiring' (including not calling for 3rd umps, 3rd umps
ruling not out even when the whole world can see it was; all benefits
of the doubts going to one team and not one to another, one team has
players given out when obviously not, the other team has players given
not out when they are obviously are), what do you call it?

if he incompetence was evenly spread, i would have nothing to whine
about. was that the case in sydney, antigua etc? why did lara get
given out on so many occasions in aus when he was not? where does
'playing the umpire' (warne) or 'theatrics' (langer)? why do aus
players who abuse on the field, show dissent, hang around after being
caught at second slip etc never get pulled up for dissent?

you tell me boss, i don't know.

> you tell me boss, i don't know.

is there a clear line between the umpires KNOWINGLY cheating and them
being bad?

'bad' includes non-deliberate stuff like; letting pressure/reputation/
crowds effect your calls

If you agree there's a difference between cheating and being
bad...again i ask...what side are you on?

That's my delusion test, and it'd be nice if you took it

On Jun 6, 5:32 pm, "subi...@notmail.com"  wrote:
> On Jun 6, 9:50 am, jzfredricks  wrote:
>
> > > scared of stating the blindingly obvious? scared that you lot might
> > > commit mass harakiri when faced with the facts? you call sydney and
> > > antigua 'pathetic little fantasies'? goes to show who really is
> > > delusional. ozzie ozzie ozzie oi oi oi.
>
> > here's the delusion test;
>
> > do u think the favourable umpiring in Sydɻ繪other-test-you-want
> > was due to crap, yet honest, umpiring... or due to a bias* favouring
> > australia?
>
> > *in my books if an ump is knowingly biased then baised == cheating
>
> here is one for you: if, over a 15 year period, one team gets
> 'favourable umpiring' (including not calling for 3rd umps, 3rd umps
> ruling not out even when the whole world can see it was; all benefits
> of the doubts going to one team and not one to another, one team has
> players given out when obviously not, the other team has players given
> not out when they are obviously are), what do you call it?
>
> if he incompetence was evenly spread, i would have nothing to whine
> about. was that the case in sydney, antigua etc? why did lara get
> given out on so many occasions in aus when he was not? where does
> 'playing the umpire' (warne) or 'theatrics' (langer)? why do aus
> players who abuse on the field, show dissent, hang around after being
> caught at second slip etc never get pulled up for dissent?
>
> you tell me boss, i don't know.

What's more believable... you have a victim mentality further enhanced
by your blatant nationality or that there is a secret conspiracy
amongst the elite umpires and cricket organisations that has continued
undetected by the press and public for 15 years to aid the Australian
team and disparrage any opposition?

The only reason people notice the bad decisions against the opposition
is because Australia wins. It's no surprise that when Australia loses
people suddenly notice the bad decisions against them (a series of bad
decisions against Australia in India a few years back comes to mind).

On Jun 6, 12:40 pm, jzfredricks  wrote:
> > you tell me boss, i don't know.
>
> is there a clear line between the umpires KNOWINGLY cheating and them
> being bad?
>
> 'bad' includes non-deliberate stuff like; letting pressure/reputation/
> crowds effect your calls
>
> If you agree there's a difference between cheating and being
> bad...again i ask...what side are you on?
>
> That's my delusion test, and it'd be nice if you took it

to my knowledge, i have not called the umpires crooks or cheats, i
have called aussies crooks and cheats for playing the umpires,
theatrics, and so on. i feel some umpires are biased in favour of oz.
if they were uniformly bad, i'd understand. when their mistakes favour
one team overwhelmingly, then they have let those extraneous factors
affect their judgement and should be removed. all umpires make
mistakes but they should not make mistakes favouring one team only. i
don't think any current umpire is a cheat. hope that clarifies my
position.

> to my knowledge, i have not called the umpires crooks or cheats, i
> have called aussies crooks and cheats for playing the umpires,
> theatrics, and so on. i feel some umpires are biased in favour of oz.
> if they were uniformly bad, i'd understand. when their mistakes favour
> one team overwhelmingly, then they have let those extraneous factors
> affect their judgement and should be removed. all umpires make
> mistakes but they should not make mistakes favouring one team only. i
> don't think any current umpire is a cheat. hope that clarifies my
> position.

I agree with you that the aussies pressure/persuade the umpires better
than any other team around. I won't call this cheating or being a
crook, though, even though i don't like this part of the game. You
have to realise that EVERY international team does this - it's just
that the aussies are better than most teams (like most facets of their
game).

The mistake you are making is using the word 'biased', especially when
you agree it is NOT deliberate, but rather a mistake by the umpires.
By common definition 'biased' means prejudice and deliberate, which IS
cheating when it comes to umpiring.

Blame the aussies as much as you want, and say the umps are bad at
their jobs, but you really should stop calling them biased or cheats.

here is one for you: if, over a 15 year period, one team gets
'favourable umpiring' (including not calling for 3rd umps, 3rd umps
ruling not out even when the whole world can see it was; all benefits
of the doubts going to one team and not one to another, one team has
players given out when obviously not, the other team has players given
not out when they are obviously are), what do you call it?

if he incompetence was evenly spread, i would have nothing to whine
about. was that the case in sydney, antigua etc? why did lara get
given out on so many occasions in aus when he was not? where does
'playing the umpire' (warne) or 'theatrics' (langer)? why do aus
players who abuse on the field, show dissent, hang around after being
caught at second slip etc never get pulled up for dissent?

you tell me boss, i don't know.

Could you please give some stats to prove this. Remember, anecdotes are not 
data.

On Jun 6, 9:12 pm, "Cicero"  wrote:
> here is one for you: if, over a 15 year period, one team gets
> 'favourable umpiring' (including not calling for 3rd umps, 3rd umps
> ruling not out even when the whole world can see it was; all benefits
> of the doubts going to one team and not one to another, one team has
> players given out when obviously not, the other team has players given
> not out when they are obviously are), what do you call it?
>
> if he incompetence was evenly spread, i would have nothing to whine
> about. was that the case in sydney, antigua etc? why did lara get
> given out on so many occasions in aus when he was not? where does
> 'playing the umpire' (warne) or 'theatrics' (langer)? why do aus
> players who abuse on the field, show dissent, hang around after being
> caught at second slip etc never get pulled up for dissent?
>
> you tell me boss, i don't know.
>
> Could you please give some stats to prove this. Remember, anecdotes are not
> data.

You could perhaps try to present some facts too. Your comments are
purely anecdotal.

"John Dennis"  wrote in message 
news:94d878fa-66c5-4806-ac29-94b30b123779@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 6, 9:12 pm, "Cicero"  wrote:
>> here is one for you: if, over a 15 year period, one team gets
>> 'favourable umpiring' (including not calling for 3rd umps, 3rd umps
>> ruling not out even when the whole world can see it was; all benefits
>> of the doubts going to one team and not one to another, one team has
>> players given out when obviously not, the other team has players given
>> not out when they are obviously are), what do you call it?
>>
>> if he incompetence was evenly spread, i would have nothing to whine
>> about. was that the case in sydney, antigua etc? why did lara get
>> given out on so many occasions in aus when he was not? where does
>> 'playing the umpire' (warne) or 'theatrics' (langer)? why do aus
>> players who abuse on the field, show dissent, hang around after being
>> caught at second slip etc never get pulled up for dissent?
>>
>> you tell me boss, i don't know.
>>
>> Could you please give some stats to prove this. Remember, anecdotes are 
>> not
>> data.
>
> You could perhaps try to present some facts too. Your comments are
> purely anecdotal.

If you could name the comments I have made it would be a starting point.

On Jun 6, 6:21 am, jzfredricks  wrote:
> > to my knowledge, i have not called the umpires crooks or cheats, i
> > have called aussies crooks and cheats for playing the umpires,
> > theatrics, and so on. i feel some umpires are biased in favour of oz.
> > if they were uniformly bad, i'd understand. when their mistakes favour
> > one team overwhelmingly, then they have let those extraneous factors
> > affect their judgement and should be removed. all umpires make
> > mistakes but they should not make mistakes favouring one team only. i
> > don't think any current umpire is a cheat. hope that clarifies my
> > position.
>
> I agree with you that the aussies pressure/persuade the umpires better
> than any other team around. I won't call this cheating or being a
> crook, though, even though i don't like this part of the game. You
> have to realise that EVERY international team does this - it's just
> that the aussies are better than most teams (like most facets of their
> game).
>
> The mistake you are making is using the word 'biased', especially when
> you agree it is NOT deliberate, but rather a mistake by the umpires.
> By common definition 'biased' means prejudice and deliberate, which IS
> cheating when it comes to umpiring.
>
> Blame the aussies as much as you want, and say the umps are bad at
> their jobs, but you really should stop calling them biased or cheats.

It is cheating, like McEnroe yelling at the linesmen, gamesmanship,
cheating all the same Oz is the best in that and cricket too as proved
in the IPL!!

> It is cheating, like McEnroe yelling at the linesmen, gamesmanship,
> cheating all the same Oz is the best in that and cricket too

Then every international team cheats. They all do it. Some teams are
just better at it.

Terry Scott wrote:
> "Villanova"  wrote in message 
> news:484895b9$0$7340$805e43db@news.usenetfast.com...
>> Calvin wrote:
>>> All of them?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Calvin,
>>
>> I can't say no if a cricket genius like you says "yes
>> all of them".
>>
>>
> 
> 
> Though I bet you have heard the word often when with a female. 
> 
> 




I am sure Calvin is intelligent enough to reply to my response.
He does not need your fag help.

So many Australian fags on rsc........Jeeeeeeez





--
posted via www.usenetfast.com - Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !

"subi...@notmail.com"  wrote in message 
news:03198dc4-3322-45ee-b5f8-f58851e63437@v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 6, 8:29 am, "will_s"  wrote:
>> "subi...@notmail.com"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:a166d0ae-f034-40c7-95e9-37384b7098ce@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 5, 2:45 am, "will_s"  wrote:
>> >> "subi...@notmail.com"  wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:4a201ade-54a3-4271-a2c3-471f1e7a3e32@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Jun 4, 4:05 am, "Dave -Turner"  wrote:
>> >> >> Australia has been dominant in the game for many, many years. That
>> >> >> doesn't
>> >> >> just happen because of a few dodgy umpires. Can you say SORE LOSER?
>>
>> >> > Correct. That has happened because of MANY dodgy decisions over that
>> >> > period. I have campaigned to bring this to light over the past 3-4
>> >> > years at rsc. Not only is Aus's winning record is therefore greatly
>> >> > inflated, but so to the batting records of ponting and hayden, and 
>> >> > the
>> >> > bowling records of mcgrath, warne, lee et al. this is not to say 
>> >> > they
>> >> > are not excellent teams or players: they are. It is just that they 
>> >> > are
>> >> > not so far ahead of the pack. Bring on technology and the gap 
>> >> > becomes
>> >> > smaller still.
>>
>> >> > Getting Sydneyed: to move quickly from a winning to a losing 
>> >> > position
>> >> > playing against Aus due to bad umpiring decisions.
>>
>> >> Well what you need to do is to go back over all the Tests for the last 
>> >> 10
>> >> years and go through them ball by ball and then convert the number of 
>> >> leg
>> >> mate appeals against decisions given in favour.
>>
>> >> The go back to the studios involved and confirm the calibration of 
>> >> their
>> >> devices like hawkeye etc
>>
>> >> Then go and have a course in 2d v 3d animations etc so you understand
>> >> theSo you are to scared
>> >> difference between a TV view and a 3d view
>>
>> >> Now go and do all this and come back in 10 years or so with all the
>> >> figures
>>
>> > all this just to please you when easy evidence is available in any
>> > test match featuring oz? no, thanks.
>>
>> just plain scared are u ?
>>
>> Scared that your pathetic little fantasies will go up in smoke
>>
>> You made the allegations so its up to you to provide true facts and not
>> pathetic whinges
>
> scared of stating the blindingly obvious? scared that you lot might
> commit mass harakiri when faced with the facts? you call sydney and
> antigua 'pathetic little fantasies'? goes to show who really is
> delusional. ozzie ozzie ozzie oi oi oi.


the blatant obvious is that you are a whining prat who whinges constantly 
but wont provide proof to back up your allegations

>
> 82.7% Oz gmet a favorable decision from the [f]u[ck]mpires


How many close appeals in the match were there ?   How many appeals in total 
?

On Jun 6, 9:30 pm, "Cicero"  wrote:
> "John Dennis"  wrote in message
>
> news:94d878fa-66c5-4806-ac29-94b30b123779@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 6, 9:12 pm, "Cicero"  wrote:
> >> here is one for you: if, over a 15 year period, one team gets
> >> 'favourable umpiring' (including not calling for 3rd umps, 3rd umps
> >> ruling not out even when the whole world can see it was; all benefits
> >> of the doubts going to one team and not one to another, one team has
> >> players given out when obviously not, the other team has players given
> >> not out when they are obviously are), what do you call it?
>
> >> if he incompetence was evenly spread, i would have nothing to whine
> >> about. was that the case in sydney, antigua etc? why did lara get
> >> given out on so many occasions in aus when he was not? where does
> >> 'playing the umpire' (warne) or 'theatrics' (langer)? why do aus
> >> players who abuse on the field, show dissent, hang around after being
> >> caught at second slip etc never get pulled up for dissent?
>
> >> you tell me boss, i don't know.
>
> >> Could you please give some stats to prove this. Remember, anecdotes are
> >> not
> >> data.
>
> > You could perhaps try to present some facts too. Your comments are
> > purely anecdotal.
>
> If you could name the comments I have made it would be a starting point.

Let's start with this, which as far as I can tell, was made by you:

"if, over a 15 year period, one team gets 'favourable
umpiring' (including not calling for 3rd umps, 3rd umps ruling not out
even when the whole world can see it was; all benefits of the doubts
going to one team and not one to another, one team has players given
out when obviously not, the other team has players given not out when
they are obviously are), what do you call it? "

Have you gone back over the 15 years and analysed all of the
decisions?  There has been 650 tests or so played over that period,
but unless you can point to some hard, unbiased, evidence - rather
than relying on hysterical ramblings of rsc posters - that has counted
all of the bad or near things, then your statement is nothing more
than something based on anecdotal evidence.

Don't just concentrate on the Australia games, look at all 650 of
them. Otherwise you might be missing some blatant examples of whatever-
it-is-you-are-trying-to-prove in games not involving Australia,

When you have analysed all of the decisions, come back to us, and then
we might be able to determine the affect the umpires have on results
over that period.

On Jun 6, 3:21 pm, jzfredricks  wrote:

> The mistake you are making is using the word 'biased', especially when
> you agree it is NOT deliberate, but rather a mistake by the umpires.
> By common definition 'biased' means prejudice and deliberate, which IS
> cheating when it comes to umpiring.


actually, and i have said this before, i use the word bias purely in
its statistical meaning, without attributing motive. hope that
clarifies things.