Clanregeln » layed in a regular-sea

Charles Davis excellent statistical analysis of appeals prompted me to look back on recent internationals and contemplate some hypothetical rule changes that cricket might wish to embrace.I have watched almost every ball of the recent series in India, Australia and New Zealand involving the home teams versus England, South Africa and Pakistan respectively. It is apparent now that the referral process has moved light years away from its original mandate of being a safeguard against the howler. It is now a very valuable strategic tool that can change the momentum of a match if used judiciously (or vice versa - used poorly, it can significantly negatively impact a team). To see Joe Root backing up at the non-strikers end, almost directly in line with the umpire, so he can get a better angle on lbw decisions, presumably to advise his partner on whether to review or not, just shows how the thinking around the DRS has developed an acute strategic focus.The strategic element has come about because of the limited number of unsuccessful referrals available to each team. It is now common to see captains doing the arithmetic to calculate how many overs they have left before they get their full quota of referrals back and then deciding on whether to challenge an umpires decision or not. That pragmatic decision-making process is so far away from the original raison detre of the DRS as to make everything else that sits around it redundant too.Not many teams bowl their allotted overs in the specified time frame anyway, so why persist with the argument that allowing unlimited referrals would slow down the game? It is slow already. Unless the ICC gets serious about enforcing over rates, things wont change much, so why not invest a bit more time in getting every decision correct? Pakistan bowled 30-plus overs of spin on the first day at the Gabba and were still late finishing (even allowing for an injury delay). As it is, umpires make no effort to stop batsmen from changing gloves and taking drinks whenever they want, so clearly they are not serious about enforcing over rates. Some batsmen, like Steve Smith, seem to ask for a change of gloves within a few minutes of the previous change.So if umpires are not sure about a 50-50 call, why not give them the power to check with the third umpire, thereby ensuring the decision arrived at is the correct one? In most other sports, rugby for example, the referee calls for a video replay if he is not sure. Getting decisions correct is more important in most sports than time delays. Except cricket, which continues to pretend to care about punctuality but does very little to meaningfully enforce it.The number of poor referrals makes you wonder why the players are getting it wrong so often, especially when it looks so obvious to those watching at home on television. Perhaps the players themselves are not in the best position to hear nicks or judge angles and height. So if they are penalised by only being allowed to get two referrals wrong every 80 overs in Tests (one per innings in ODIs), should we not also, for the sake of balance, find some way to penalise umpires for getting two wrong decisions in that same time frame? After all, they have the best view in the stadium and their sole job is to concentrate on these matters (not on catching, bowling, batting and so on). If the umpires get it wrong more than x number of times within a specified time frame, how about if both teams get a referral back for that period? It doesnt seem fair otherwise that umpires are allowed to make mistake after mistake and there are no immediate on-field penalties. It got to the point in a recent Test match where the commentators were actually saying on air that the players would be better off not referring a decision made by Richard Kettleborough (because he tended to get it right) and to save their referrals for the other umpire instead. Surely it is a sign that the system is flawed when teams are making strategic decisions about which umpire to target?If an umpire was allowed to ask for a review for lbws and snicks (like they do for run out or stumped), he then makes the correct decision and it eliminates the need for each team to have a quota. Maybe give them one referral per innings, to deal with the absolute shocker, but if they get it wrong, a serious penalty - 25 runs? - is levied.Then theres the other ridiculous rule that if the batsman leaves the field of play, he cannot be recalled. Given that so many of crickets other antiquated laws have changed, this remains a dinosaur in a post-Jurassic world. Surely if there is clear evidence that the batsman should be recalled, why does it matter if hes halfway to the dressing room? The integrity of the correct decision is surely more important than some law from a bygone era that is no longer relevant in a sport where we are now allowed concussion substitutes, and soon even red cards. Another aspect of such situations is that they also have the potential to create bad blood and inflame tensions, especially in the case of fielders claiming low catches, when batsmen are asked to hang around until inconclusive replays are adjudicated on - with the fielding team then rounding on the batsman for supposedly not taking the fielders word that it was a fair catch.There is another aspect to this sort of situation - fielders appear mortally wounded when their integrity is questioned on low catches but have no similar moral conundrums if they appeal for catches that are clearly not out, or lbws that clip the inside edge, or if a batsman nicks the ball and stands impassively defiant when given not out. It appears that within the sport we have different layers of morality.Cheating is a dirty word but not walking when you nick it, shining the ball with a mint sweet, or stealing a yard at the non-strikers end are clearly de rigeur. At the professional level it is no longer a game of honour, governed by rules forged in that spirit. It is a ruthless, cutthroat business, so perhaps the laws need to move even further to ensure that technology allows us to reach the correct decision. What other sport allows the excuse of delays to corrupt the integrity of the decision-making process? Vapormax China Paypal . The team said Saturday that Lopez was hurt during its 121-120 overtime loss at Philadelphia on Friday. The Nets said they would issue another update next week after consultation with their doctors. Vans China Factory . The 27-year-old Scrivens will be joining his third NHL club since signing with the Toronto Maple Leafs as a free agent in 2010. The move also reunites with him with head coach Dallas Eakins from their time together with the American Hockey Leagues Toronto Marlies. http://www.fakeyeezyscheap.com/wholesale-air-force-1.html . The Olympic champion curler and TSN curling analyst immediately went online to look at the Halls long list of honoured members. Thats when the enormity of the honour sunk in. Wholesale Under Armour Shoes China . The Celtics closed out their first preseason under Stevens on Wednesday night with a 101-97 victory over the Brooklyn Nets, who rested a lot of their lineup including former Celtics Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce. Fake Yeezy Boost 350 v2 Cheap . In taking its goal tally to 99 in all competitions already this season, City delivered another demonstration of its lethal firepower at Etihad Stadium to set up a fourth-round match at home to another second-tier team -- Watford. GREEN BAY, Wis. -- Jordy Nelson wont be on a snap count during his first game action in nearly 13 months, but if he goes to the sideline for a break, the Packers receiver doesnt expect that it will be because of his knee.A day after coach Mike McCarthy said Nelson would be full bore for Sundays opener at Jacksonville, Nelson said he would be ready for anything.Except maybe the heat and a bunch of deep routes.If I end up for some reason getting three deep balls in a row, yeah Im coming out, Nelson said Tuesday. Ill come out at the end of the year on that, too. Things happen throughout a game that, you know, I could run a bunch of short routes all the way down the field and never have a problem. Its just going to be how the game flows, but I think everyone, throughout the preseason, we could see guys running deep ball after deep ball. You know you can just get stuck on certain things that, it happens that way. So you take a play or two off and go back in.He appeared to practice without limitations on Tuesday during the portion that was open to the media. The Packers dont have to submit an injury report until after Wednesdays practice, which means they did not have to list his participation level on Tuesday. Nelson played 92.1 percent of the Packers offensive snaps in 2014, when he last played in a regular-season game. He missed all of last season after he tore the ACL in his right knee in a preseason game on Aug. 23, 2015, and he didnt take a single snap of game action this preseason.Were not going to put a number on it, Nelson said. Weve discussed it.dddddddddddd I think the situation of being in Jacksonville, well play it snap-by-snap to be honest with you. Theres a lot of things that could happen differently. But seeing how the possessions are taken, seeing what the weather is like, I wouldnt be surprised if a lot of guys are rotating to stay fresh. But no, I feel great. Practice today felt great. Ive done a lot on my own to get ready. So I dont think it will honestly be an issue.Nelson said he wasnt sure what to expect from the Jaguars defense, and quarterback Aaron Rodgers concurred.It depends on how healthy they think he is, Rodgers said. But I think were all looking forward to the sight of No. 87 back on the field and healthy.Nelson barely practiced during training camp; he wasnt cleared for full team drills (11-on-11) until Aug. 29 and even then he was limited. Nelson traveled to the final two preseason road games and actually put on full pads to go through pregame warm-ups but did not play.Going through camp and everything would have prepared me better, Nelson said. But thats not the situation Ive been put in. I was in the meetings, I was at practice, I ran routes, so I dont feel like Im behind. Would it have been better going through camp? Yeah, probably. It wouldnt have hurt. But Im not worried about it. I dont think anyone in this locker room is worried about it. I dont think anybody in this building is worried about it. ' ' '