
- Apr 19, 2008
- 22,253
- 36,941
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Stars, Mets, USC, Southport Sharks
The western part does have an unofficial local time, to compensate for the fact that the Sun refuses to comply with the CCP's wishes.

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Supercoach Rd 20 SC Talk - Trade Talk - Capt/VC - BigFooty Cup - Quarter Finals - Last Coach Standing - Final 6 ,//, AFLW Fantasy 2025! ,//, AFL Fantasy Rd 20 AFF Talk Rd 20 - AF Trades - Captains/VCs
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
The western part does have an unofficial local time, to compensate for the fact that the Sun refuses to comply with the CCP's wishes.
This spelling of his nameVirat Kholi..
Numbers and names on whites
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
One small part of the traditionalist in me agrees but the rest doesn’t: well the names anyway.
Numbers yes I think they’re pointless, but what’s wrong with the names?
I honestly have no logical reason, just feels tacky. I realise it probably makes it easier for fans, but I never felt like cricketers were moving around so much you couldn’t tell who was who.
I can remember when the scoreboard operators used to put a dot or a dash next to the fielders name on the scoreboard so you could tell who it was when you were at the ground.Fair point. I think the big thing is that for a long time during the 70s and 80s when a lot of people (not sure of your age) and even 90s, you had the Aussies playing who generally everyone would know, and touring sides where MOST fans were fairly familiar with the faces they saw because there were less teams, so they were touring more often, and they didn’t have 3 separate squads for 3 different formats: they’d arrive, play the World Series cup, play their test matches, then be back a few years later with 50-80 per cent similar players so you’d be familiar with a lot of them and know who they were.
Now nobody knows one player from the next when they get here. I follow cricket as close as most and beyond Babar, Rizwan, Abbas - and I didn’t even realise he was back in the team - and 1-2 others - I would be f**ked trying to recognise anyone in the Pakistan team that played the other night
User name to post checks outThe current version of Daddles the Duck.
The original had so much more character.
You must be a big fan of this board then. Some real carpet cricket warriors on here.Language like "useless", "spud" etc. when referring to international cricketers.
Extremely jarring to me.
Found the names useful on Monday trying to identify some of the sub fielders through the binoculars.One small part of the traditionalist in me agrees but the rest doesn’t: well the names anyway.
Numbers yes I think they’re pointless, but what’s wrong with the names?
It has improved the game.DRS.
So much annoys me about DRS I hardly know where to begin. For a start, the system was implemented to eradicate the "howler". All very good, but we rarely see that. In the case of Jaiswal's not out being overturned, terrific. Cummins KNEW it was out and called for the review immediately. No discussion necessary.
However, I detest these 15 second committee meetings trying to decide whether the umpire MAY have got it wrong. I'd give them 5 seconds to decide, not 15. Then we see the ridiculous situation where a team has 3 reviews, they get it wrong but retain the review. WTF? They got it wrong, why should they retain it?
IMHO, Ball tracking is nothing more than an educated guess. It should be scrapped and only used for edges, stumpings, run outs, etc. Make the umpires get it right. Ball tracking is not proof, I've seen way too many times where the ball behaved like the magic bullet. We've all seen them. The ball is pitching in line, hits the batsman on the back foot playing from the crease, then mysteriously takes off and missing leg stump by a margin or bouncing over the top? WTF?
I feel too many umpires use it as a security blanket, waiting for players to do their job for them. Ridiculous calls for run outs when the batsman has passed the crease and almost past the stumps. Umpires should be making those calls themselves, otherwise why are they even out there?
And finally, 9 wickets down, a plumb LBW or clear catch to win the Test match, players jumping around celebrating, and the No.11 calls for the review and just annoys the crap out of everyone.
Besides Root (66) I wouldn’t know a player around the world on number, not even a wild guess.Found the names useful on Monday trying to identify some of the sub fielders through the binoculars.
Numbers are unnecessary though I agree.
One small part of the traditionalist in me agrees but the rest doesn’t: well the names anyway.
Numbers yes I think they’re pointless, but what’s wrong with the names?
But that's the problem: it only gets rid of the howler if there are reviews left.It has improved the game.
When people complain that it "was supposed to get rid of the howler" guess what, it has.
Of course it brings with it it's own peculiarities , but overall the game is in a good place with it. Perfectionists will never be pleased.
Cannot agree. It has brought in more controversy we could do without.It has improved the game.
When people complain that it "was supposed to get rid of the howler" guess what, it has.
Of course it brings with it it's own peculiarities , but overall the game is in a good place with it. Perfectionists will never be pleased.
I actually like the "retains review" when 1%-50% of the ball is hitting/missing (opposite to umpires decision).
My only issue with DRS (apart from when the 3rd ump gets it wrong!) is the 51% of the ball to overturn a decision. I know this is due to the 'dot' the software uses (then a ball is extrapolated around the dot), but feel at least in Australia we have enough cameras/graphics/data points to narrow the margin considerably, with perhaps 25% or even 10% of the ball hitting being sufficient.
How often do we see someone bowled by hitting the bail or outside edge of the stump? How often are the stumps hit, yet the bails stay on? At the moment, DRS is saying it's 50/50, when it's probably 99% of the time it is out.
I was thinking of having a break but now it's essential I keep postingRun n spread
ThisI understand what you’re trying to say, the relevance to an ACTUAL ball clipping the stumps doesn’t matter though because the Hawkeye projections are all about what Hawkeye says MIGHT happen but acknowledges isn’t certain; so when it says ‘look we think it would probably clip the bails which we know would be out, we also know that the projection is imperfect, THATS why there’s a margin of error.’ But to avoid ONLY batsmen benefitting from that margin of error they have ensured that if the bowler has already had the decision go their way, the decision doesn’t get overturned when the ball is clipping during the batsman’s review.
I think that’s fair enough.
Yes, having more incorrect decisions would surely reduce the amount of controversy in the game...Cannot agree. It has brought in more controversy we could do without.