Author Topic: Sky coverage  (Read 29172 times)

Graham93

  • Guest
Sky coverage
« on: November 12, 2016, 08:09:25 PM »
I wonder whether I am alone in getting driven mad by the constant replays shown during live transmission. I can't tell sometimes which is live and which is not particularly when they show wickets previously fallen in the middle of an over.

alji

  • Guest
Re: Sky coverage
« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2016, 10:18:30 PM »
Annoys me too, I can remember the days when the action replay was "invented", always had something on the screen throughout to show that it was a replay.

jimmy

  • Guest
Re: Sky coverage
« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2016, 10:41:54 PM »
Grannies would get confused when they first introduced replays and think that a team had just scored two identical goals in the space of thirty seconds.

Offline LeedsExile

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
Re: Sky coverage
« Reply #3 on: November 13, 2016, 03:20:43 PM »
I loathe replays in all sports coverage. There is plenty of time at the interval when I can absent myself. It is particularly galling in rugby where it is not unknown for conversions to be missed whilst replaying the try. There should be an opt out button for replays.

Offline neil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1090
Re: Sky coverage
« Reply #4 on: November 13, 2016, 04:01:00 PM »
Grannies would get confused when they first introduced replays and think that a team had just scored two identical goals in the space of thirty seconds.

Well - as a male granny I never got confused. Ageism is rife on Essex Outfielder.  8) 8)

I  like replays. It's good to have a second look to see whether your first reaction was right - whether the decision was right etc. Cricket with it's natural breaks lends itself well to them

But I do, of course, recognise that anything after the 70s/80s is anathema to this board's membership....

Offline Andy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7896
Re: Sky coverage
« Reply #5 on: November 13, 2016, 06:36:58 PM »
Grannies would get confused when they first introduced replays and think that a team had just scored two identical goals in the space of thirty seconds.

Well - as a male granny I never got confused. Ageism is rife on Essex Outfielder.  8) 8)

But I do, of course, recognise that anything after the 70s/80s is anathema to this board's membership....

Indeed, it all started going downhill after Mafeking.

jimmy

  • Guest
Re: Sky coverage
« Reply #6 on: November 13, 2016, 08:52:37 PM »
Grannies would get confused when they first introduced replays and think that a team had just scored two identical goals in the space of thirty seconds.

Well - as a male granny I never got confused. Ageism is rife on Essex Outfielder.  8) 8)

I  like replays. It's good to have a second look to see whether your first reaction was right - whether the decision was right etc. Cricket with it's natural breaks lends itself well to them

But I do, of course, recognise that anything after the 70s/80s is anathema to this board's membership....
Not ageism, merely a fact, no offence intended, hell I'm waiting for the craze for "talkies" to blow over.


Offline bwildered

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2609
Re: Sky coverage
« Reply #7 on: November 13, 2016, 09:21:24 PM »
Not only the reply saga , but the coverage of Pujara, who effectively walked without consulting  DRS (his batting partner must have also thought he was out, has  well has the umpire and himself ) when incorrectly given out LBW.
I wondered if his future test  career would be instantly over, by court of media experts commentators, through  such a discretion of - walking without revue .


Offline neil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1090
Re: Sky coverage
« Reply #8 on: November 13, 2016, 09:43:48 PM »
Grannies would get confused when they first introduced replays and think that a team had just scored two identical goals in the space of thirty seconds.

Well - as a male granny I never got confused. Ageism is rife on Essex Outfielder.  8) 8)

I  like replays. It's good to have a second look to see whether your first reaction was right - whether the decision was right etc. Cricket with it's natural breaks lends itself well to them

But I do, of course, recognise that anything after the 70s/80s is anathema to this board's membership....
Not ageism, merely a fact, no offence intended, hell I'm waiting for the craze for "talkies" to blow over.

No offence taken

Offline essexfan548

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2519
Re: Sky coverage
« Reply #9 on: November 13, 2016, 10:31:11 PM »
Sky is optional - I will never subsidise Rupert Murdoch's lifestyle.

Offline Daren Mootoo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 353
Re: Sky coverage
« Reply #10 on: November 14, 2016, 09:47:57 AM »
It's all going to BT in the near future anyway!

Offline Valentines Park

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3828
  • In Ron We Trust
Re: Sky coverage
« Reply #11 on: November 14, 2016, 01:14:54 PM »
I will never subsidise Rupert Murdoch's lifestyle.

Don't agree with your moderation but agree with you on that.

Offline IlfordEagle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2248
Re: Sky coverage
« Reply #12 on: November 14, 2016, 06:02:47 PM »
The best way to appreciate Botham's commentary/views is with the sound turned down/off!!
From what I understand he is a critic of Cook's captaincy - I seem to recall his captaincy record being especially poor - much worse than that of Cook, enough said!!

Offline Valentines Park

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3828
  • In Ron We Trust
Re: Sky coverage
« Reply #13 on: November 15, 2016, 12:07:42 PM »
I do, of course, recognise that anything after the 70s/80s is anathema to this board's membership....

Well that was when Essex won stuff so you can understand the desire to live in the past.

Offline neil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1090
Re: Sky coverage
« Reply #14 on: November 15, 2016, 04:47:28 PM »
I do, of course, recognise that anything after the 70s/80s is anathema to this board's membership....

Well that was when Essex won stuff so you can understand the desire to live in the past.

Well that's to ignore the 10 titles Essex have won since 1990.

But, as I say, living in the 70s/80s.  8) 8). Still got your flares VP?