***Brisbane Heat vs Adelaide Strikers***

How was that Rhino? 

I like Freddy Flintoff. Sounds like a fun bloke, would be a good off sider for a bender.

Yes, looks like the first one you would ring....

Jan 4, 2015 -- 8:58AM, BJT wrote:

How was that Rhino? 

I give it a B+

Gee whiz.  Posted it and inside 8 seconds the ball was gone for 6.  Best lift my game somewhat.... 

goneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Oh wow.

what a fkn rock star this guy is. Pure gangsta

what a catch

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh no

Ouch..  No time to panic Reardon, the guy up the other end is a fcuking animal with the bat if he gets going.  200 still on if he can play himself in, just give him a chance to.

Your team mate takes 2 absolute blinders and then you do that. Hang your head in shame.

after tonight the big bash isn't live into qld again

Really?  Missed the first 2 games too.  Will be chasing yashy's stream.....   or commentary...

i'll just pay the extra money and watch the cricket australia stream

These two just need to chill for a few of overs and look for a couple of 20+ overs off the last few.

why is it not live into Qld?

How live is the CA stream?

it has to be more live than his stream

113/4 after 16

66666666666666666666666

143/4 after 18

2 overs with cutting could see 185, or without could be 160.  Tipping 176.

goneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

goneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Just hit the ball ****.

Going to break his back swinging here.

you'd be feeling sick if you backed him to be the high scorer

As unlikely as it looked, Forrest has hung on

Jan 4, 2015 -- 9:36AM, SecondComing wrote:

you'd be feeling sick if you backed him to be the high scorer

tbf, he should have been caught on 2 and run out on 20 odd. Justice prevails IMO

Not good enough. Brisbane a chance as Adelaide are vulnerable if they lose early wickets but I'm not taking on Ludewad and Fatwad. Taking a small red.

Looks a pretty poor score, as although the ball did a bit early on, the Heats bowling attack, isn't very good.

Opposite for me - Heat defend this imo.  Can't be having a side with Botha at 6 - extremely long tail.  Early wickets and Brisbane win easily for mine.

:)

Odds know what is going on here.  They underperformed. 

Pitch offers both bowlers and batters a bit, just takes a little to play yourself in and there are runs available.  A few lucky shots early gave them a boost, and then a few caught on the rope evened it out, so luck evens for mine, just swinging too hard, too early for mine the difference.

The upside here, is that playing yourself in is not something Ludeman/Simmons will generally do, so could be a wicket or 2 up for grabs early. 

The game is Adelaide's for the taking, just need to approach it the right way.

Probably have Strikers closer to 1.70 here, but sitting out until I get more information about the next innings before making a play.  As usual, will be looking at jumping on a flow of runs, as backing for a wicket gets very expensive very quickly if it doesn't happen.

if they can get Ludeman early that makes it advantage Brisbane, Pollard isn't as dangerous as he once was and especially on a bouncy track

it's a world known fact he hates short bowling

First 6 overs very important.  Simmons/Ludeman usually go hard at the ball - could take the game away from Brisbane if they come off.  Hopefully a couple of wickets fall though in which case you'd fancy Brisbane.

Only 9 overs they scored more than 6 runs.  I put it down to not playing themselves in, but maybe it isn't as good a pitch as it seems.

Nothing clean yet, trying to talk myself into a lay of Strikers.  After this goose with the ridiculous action I think......

Gannon may look like a retard with his bowling action but he knows how to get a wicket

Missed out.  (Me).    Yeah, knows how to get one, but can't put money on him doing it at the same time.

Well and truly game on here.

they're giving it to him

6 moves market more than a wicket here.

Maybe not....  lol

Adelaide don't bat really deep either unlike the Heat, hmm....

game on

Heat defo on top here, and Ludeman got no idea.  I am on Heat for now.  They are my bet for now, and the value.  IMO

Can't give that out based on the lights.

Who's to say the bails were off.

Good decision, good fielding.  Good position.

Jan 4, 2015 -- 10:25AM, Blake84 wrote:

Can't give that out based on the lights.

those lights don't light until a bail is dislodged

Jan 4, 2015 -- 10:26AM, Blake84 wrote:

Who's to say the bails were off.

The lights apparantly don't light up until no contact.

Bullsh#t.

Not my wallet talking

deserved to go, was slow and no problem with the decision and it will cost me a stake

Jan 4, 2015 -- 10:26AM, BJT wrote:

Good decision, good fielding.

If that isn't the case, they need to fcuk them off.

I got a little off.  Letting some ride a little as I think they are well behind, and it is looking tougher to bat on than I thought.

I remember one last season where the close up of the bail (where was that here) was distorted by the red glow and you couldn't tell whether the bail was dislodged. Forget what the decision was.

some huge punters are in the business

People here think it was out, the comms think it was out, the 3rd umpire think it was out. What more you need Blake?

Based on the zing lights. Ok then, no doubt what so ever.

Was a lot tighter than I thought, but looked out live, and was backed up by the replays.  Happy with the decision.



But, it did make me money, or at least put me in a much better financial position.  Generally don't let that effect my opinion though.

What is this 135km/h off the bat rubbish?  Surely that isn't even accurate?  I mean can a bowler bowl a 100 metre 6?  Johnson good for bowling a 120 metre 6?

Based on his bat not being over the line at the point the bails, for all intents and purposes, were removed. And yes the lights aid in that. If he had've run faster he would have had no issue, but he didn't.

I think was probably out but in any other form they would have a close up to confirm that the bails were dislodged. Where was that. Third umpire decisions are usually inconclusive or not out. Zing bails are not inconclusive in that situation.

Blake, you clearly have a position on Adelaide here or you wouldn't care so much about such a minor issue

Jan 4, 2015 -- 10:35AM, Blake84 wrote:

I think was probably out but in any other form they would have a close up to confirm that the bails were dislodged. Where was that. Third umpire decisions are usually inconclusive or not out. Zing bails are not inconclusive in that situation.

Yes, but this is the ruling in this comp, that the lights indicate bails are off.

They aren't just for show, they are for purpose, and as that is the case, then the decisions they make are based on that.

I stated at the change of innings I took a small equal red. Technology, DRS, umpires call is something that always pisses me off.

Strikers need a to find a few ropes here nxt few overs else heat be on top

Jan 4, 2015 -- 10:30AM, Blake84 wrote:

I remember one last season where the close up of the bail (where was that here) was distorted by the red glow and you couldn't tell whether the bail was dislodged. Forget what the decision was.

I agree with what you are saying somewhat.


Not sure when it was, or if it happened, but either it happened or I put forward the idea that it could happen? (I recall discussing it, not the details), that the bails were to bounce off, indicating leaving contact, but without dislodging, as if they fell back into place, which is perfectly reasonable to accept will happen, and has plenty throughout cricket history without our knowledge, is it out?

Are the bails dislodged when they lose contact, or when they no longer have the opportunity to be "lodged", or are they dislodged on losing contact provided they never get contact back?   Etc etc etc etc etc.

Jan 4, 2015 -- 10:36AM, BJT wrote:

They aren't just for show, they are for purpose, and as that is the case, then the decisions they make are based on that.

They are just for show. That was a frame by frame call that was given out based on lighting up. That does not confirm that the bails were fully dislodged. They probably were but the point is that if there were no zing bails we would have sat through close ups of the bails being dislodged. They've use it incorrectly.

they've been using the light up bails for a few years now and they've been consistent at the point in which they light up, they're down to a thousandth of a second in which the bail is dislodged and you can't actually see that

they'll be needing 10 runs an over soon and I can't see who is going to be able to hit them

For the record, they also use a bigger stump to accomodate the camera, so should it be out if it hits the part of the stump which is bigger than the initial rules state?  The camera is there for show right?



Anyway.... Playing%20Conditions_14_DOM%20BBL%20T20_Final.pdf

28.  Law 28 The Wicket is Down
   Law 28 shall apply with the addition of the following;

   For the purposes of Law 28.1, when 'Zing' stumps and bails are in use, the bails will be deemed to have been dislodged when the lights on the stumps and/or bails illuminate procided that one or both of the bails remain dislodged.

Any spelling/format issues are there from.  Official KFC big bash rules, as far as I can tell.

from me****

That's even worse!

http://www.cricketaustralia.com.au/cricket/~/media/cricketaustraliacomau/Fil...

Having said that I don't want the BBL, IPL etc to be taken too seriously. But it is.

ffs, google big bash zing bails rulings and it is 5th link down.....


Of course they have.  The same way they changed the number of overs to 20........   etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

Not the same at all.

?  DRS.  Technology has been introduced and tweaked into the rules in all formats of the game.  The stump sizes have been changed for the show, cameras installed everywhere for decisions against the umpire in charge, and bails lighting up to enhance both decisions, and for the show.


Plenty of rules and things have changed in cricket, across all forms.

Fair enough I guess. It's the same as basing a decision on hawk eye which imo is inconclusive. Doesn't make it right though.

Yeah.  Without them lighting up it wouldn't be out.  Even with technology it would have been at least another frame before we saw the bails "dislodged".


As long as they work properly, I have no issue with it.  No preference either way.  I am not a purist.  I watch cricket so I can bet on it, the same way I watch anything else.

I hear you. I hate that about betting. But when it comes to cricket I'm a purist.

brisbane are by far worse bowling team

Jan 4, 2015 -- 11:00AM, Blake84 wrote:

Fair enough I guess. It's the same as basing a decision on hawk eye which imo is inconclusive. Doesn't make it right though.

I don't think the naked eye is any more reliable than hawkeye though is it

i know that what made them a great lay at sub 1.27

Think the initial feeling was correct, in that the pitch just required spending the time to get in.  Made a decent chunk on the game, nothing spectacular, but locked in.  Lost a bit today on the races but ending the day green so all good.  Enough to pay for coverage from now on apparantly.

Watched a bit of NFL last night Rhino and made a few quid after you  said on here  the Panthers should win by more than 7. Good call did it make you $

Jan 4, 2015 -- 11:09AM, therhino wrote:

Jan  4, 2015 -- 11:00AM, Blake84 wrote:Fair enough I guess. It's the same as basing a decision on hawk eye which imo is inconclusive. Doesn't make it right though.I don't think the naked eye is any more reliable than hawkeye though is it

But we're not pretending the naked eye is inconclusive. What I hate about the technology, or the DRS in particular is they still don't get it. They still leave it to a rigid structure like it has to over turn the umps call instead of taking the chance to say lets all look at this and make the logical call. And I do realise that goes against my zing bail argument but still different.

The problem with hawkeye is that it is based on the players.  As you say, if that is to be used in decisions, then it should be used by the umpires to help their calls.  In which case, I still think they should give an opinion which would require the same scenarios to overturn, but would have nothing to do with the players.  Just the same as when they check every catch for a no ball, which has nothing to do with any rule as far as I know, just crept into the game somehow.

Good solid batting line up the strikers  . Get Hodge fit and they can win it

Don't get me started on the no ball check situation.

Jan 4, 2015 -- 11:20AM, bobweenit wrote:

Good solid batting line up the strikers

Jan 4, 2015 -- 11:12AM, bobweenit wrote:

Watched a bit of NFL last night Rhino and made a few quid after you

Hawkeye about a foot out in the West Indies appeal.....  lol

Haha, saw that.

FFS. Yeah bob, made some $. Ravens too. Not sure bout tomorrow, but def wouldn't trust the Cowboys as a 1.37 shot. If you're interested in fantasy golf head to the golf forum...