Rightarmfast Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 7 hours ago, putrevus said: When Steve Waugh was at Somerset as a young man, he recalled the atmosphere in the dressing room changing a full week before their appointment with Mr Clarke. Waugh then faced what he called "the most awkward and nastiest" spell of his career. "It was something you can't prepare for." Speed is just not enough, Agarkar too bowled 140k but there was no nastiness in his bowling. Agarkar landing his 140 k and Garner landing his 140 k deliveries have different nastiness. That comes from the length at which those tall bowlers land the ball and the bounce they generated thats why IMHO this talk about just speed is irrelevant. Aaron can generate as much speed as anyone but he has no control and he is already yesterday's news.Sad thing is you can't even say he didn't fulfill his potential. Exactly! That's why a lot of bowlers are called because they are uneasy to face. And when you think of 70's without safety gears, all those tall bowlers who could bounce would be way awkward to face.. hence the term fast, when they actually werent! Exactly why a lot of players say Wasim Akram was fast when in real he was fast medium at his fastest. But due to his left arm angle, fast arm movement and an awkward runup, batsmen couldnt decipher him and felt he was difficult to handle. Not necessarily express but more awkward to face a genuine quick bowling at 150. express bowling 1 Link to comment
putrevus Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 32 minutes ago, Rightarmfast said: Exactly! That's why a lot of bowlers are called because they are uneasy to face. And when you think of 70's without safety gears, all those tall bowlers who could bounce would be way awkward to face.. hence the term fast, when they actually werent! Exactly why a lot of players say Wasim Akram was fast when in real he was fast medium at his fastest. But due to his left arm angle, fast arm movement and an awkward runup, batsmen couldnt decipher him and felt he was difficult to handle. Not necessarily express but more awkward to face a genuine quick bowling at 150. Safety gear does that eliminate fear, even today those 1980s WI bowlers would be the nastiest bowlers to face, every one was express and Holding was super express.When ball is bouncing chest high from short of length all the time no batsman is safe. Pommies inspite of all protective gear were scared like hell facing MJ in last ashes. MJ even at his fastest was at best equal to one of those four WI bowlers. Talking about just speed is just juvenile . Akram is like Steyn who if needed could operate at higher speeds but generally operated about 140 which is plenty because the amount of movement they generated. If you find a chance listen to Imran Khan talk about Holding's speed .He knows thing or two about fast bowling, listen to Dickie bird talk about them. Link to comment
Muloghonto Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 3 hours ago, Rightarmfast said: Exactly! That's why a lot of bowlers are called because they are uneasy to face. And when you think of 70's without safety gears, all those tall bowlers who could bounce would be way awkward to face.. hence the term fast, when they actually werent! Exactly why a lot of players say Wasim Akram was fast when in real he was fast medium at his fastest. But due to his left arm angle, fast arm movement and an awkward runup, batsmen couldnt decipher him and felt he was difficult to handle. Not necessarily express but more awkward to face a genuine quick bowling at 150. Look, you simply cannot hold the above view and think you can tell how fast someone is, on tv. If bunch of people with great eyesight (and almost all batsmen have had great eyesight compared to human average), facing bowlers in real life, for tens of thousands of time, cannot tell how fast a ball is travelling, then it stands to reason, a bunch of arm-chair critics watching a ball being bowled on tv can tell how fast the ball is. Period. Stop running away from this fairly elementary piece of fact and logic. I think one CAN tell how fast a ball is travelling, in comparison to another ball, just fine, in real life. They cannot tell, from front-on/batsmen-on camera angle, because that camera angle fundamentally distorts the motion of the ball to create an optical illusion of speed. Ie, on tv, particular angles can make a ball look faster or not (i.e., angle of trajectory), because of the way this is mapped on a 3d->2d mapping. Link to comment
Muloghonto Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 2 hours ago, putrevus said: Safety gear does that eliminate fear, even today those 1980s WI bowlers would be the nastiest bowlers to face, every one was express and Holding was super express.When ball is bouncing chest high from short of length all the time no batsman is safe. Pommies inspite of all protective gear were scared like hell facing MJ in last ashes. MJ even at his fastest was at best equal to one of those four WI bowlers. Talking about just speed is just juvenile . Akram is like Steyn who if needed could operate at higher speeds but generally operated about 140 which is plenty because the amount of movement they generated. If you find a chance listen to Imran Khan talk about Holding's speed .He knows thing or two about fast bowling, listen to Dickie bird talk about them. +1 Link to comment
rkt.india Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 6 hours ago, putrevus said: If you find a chance listen to Imran Khan talk about Holding's speed .He knows thing or two about fast bowling, listen to Dickie bird talk about them. it is trivial listening to them. They all exaggerate and use hyperbole. I have already an example of that in this same thread when a juicy half volley from Len Pascoe was called a yorker by Ashley Mallett. There were no speed guns in those days so no one had any clue what speeds they were facing or bowling and poor batsmanship also exaggerated their pace. As soemone in this thread said batsmen were not used playing high pace and bouncers and boucers used to be prohibited before Lloyd and Chappel started them again. This exaggerated things even more. Rightarmfast 1 Link to comment
Rightarmfast Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 4 hours ago, Muloghonto said: Look, you simply cannot hold the above view and think you can tell how fast someone is, on tv. If bunch of people with great eyesight (and almost all batsmen have had great eyesight compared to human average), facing bowlers in real life, for tens of thousands of time, cannot tell how fast a ball is travelling, then it stands to reason, a bunch of arm-chair critics watching a ball being bowled on tv can tell how fast the ball is. Period. Stop running away from this fairly elementary piece of fact and logic. I think one CAN tell how fast a ball is travelling, in comparison to another ball, just fine, in real life. They cannot tell, from front-on/batsmen-on camera angle, because that camera angle fundamentally distorts the motion of the ball to create an optical illusion of speed. Ie, on tv, particular angles can make a ball look faster or not (i.e., angle of trajectory), because of the way this is mapped on a 3d->2d mapping. Don't tell me what I can or can't do. I have a brain and I know how things work. You need cricketing knowledge and analytical skills to judge and understand which you clearly don't have. Don't even reply to my posts. Thanks! Link to comment
Muloghonto Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 4 minutes ago, Rightarmfast said: Don't tell me what I can or can't do. I have a brain and I know how things work. You need cricketing knowledge and analytical skills to judge and understand which you clearly don't have. Don't even reply to my posts. Thanks! If it is against Physics, i will 100% tell you what you CANNOT do. What you CANNOT do, is tell speeds of a bowler from a 'batsman-facing bowler' angle. Period. All the cricketing knowledge and analytical skills won't compensate for your eyes being unable to tell depth in a front-on view of TV. And whats rich, is you think YOU, an arm-chair critic, sitting in front of a TV, which doesn't show depth accurately in front on-view, with cameras set 100m from the action (i.e., by the boundary), can tell if a bowler is bowling 140kph or not, but people who have FACED the said bowlers, day in, day out, cannot. That is 100% BS. So take your nonsense about telling speeds from TV somewhere else, where fools with zero knowledge of physics and optical illusions reside. Link to comment
Muloghonto Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 19 minutes ago, rkt.india said: it is trivial listening to them. They all exaggerate and use hyperbole. I have already an example of that in this same thread when a juicy half volley from Len Pascoe was called a yorker by Ashley Mallett. There were no speed guns in those days so no one had any clue what speeds they were facing or bowling and poor batsmanship also exaggerated their pace. As soemone in this thread said batsmen were not used playing high pace and bouncers and boucers used to be prohibited before Lloyd and Chappel started them again. This exaggerated things even more. Your bias is noted against experts, but you simply saying ALL experts are biassed, doesn't make it so. It makes YOU crazy, to allege every single cricket professional out there is exgaggerating and using hyperbole. Poor batsmanship exgaggerated pace, for professionals who's JOB is to negotiate fast deliveries, but YOU, an armchair critic, who hasn't faced any of them, can tell from a 2d image, with zero depth perception, how fast the bowlers were. Sorry, we are not falling for your egotistic nonsense. Whenever people claim ALL experts are wrong and they are right, it usually means two things : a) they are narcissitic egotists and b) they are bat-$hit crazy. Link to comment
MCcricket Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 17 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: Your bias is noted against experts, but you simply saying ALL experts are biassed, doesn't make it so. It makes YOU crazy, to allege every single cricket professional out there is exgaggerating and using hyperbole. Poor batsmanship exgaggerated pace, for professionals who's JOB is to negotiate fast deliveries, but YOU, an armchair critic, who hasn't faced any of them, can tell from a 2d image, with zero depth perception, how fast the bowlers were. Sorry, we are not falling for your egotistic nonsense. Whenever people claim ALL experts are wrong and they are right, it usually means two things : a) they are narcissitic egotists and b) they are bat-$hit crazy. Cleveland.com Menu Set Weather SearchAccountSign InSubscribe Visual speed estimates by police are guesses with no formula, just practice, to guide them By Patrick O'Donnell, The Plain Dealer Email the author | Follow on Twitter on June 03, 2010 at 5:55 AM 300shares View full sizeDavid I. Andersen / The Plain Dealer, FileA State Highway Patrol trooper talks with a motorist pulled over for speeding on I-71 in Medina County. It's all guessing. Or, as the man in charge of police training standards for the entire state puts it, "dead reckoning." New police officers in Ohio receive no scientific training in estimating speeds of drivers in basic training. There's no timing of cars over fixed distances, no special methods of determining an actual speed, nothing with stopwatches. View full sizeWilliam Neff, The Plain Dealer There is just a repetition of watching cars go by and guessing speeds, then seeing how the guesses matches up with what the radar says. "There is no formula to apply," said Robert Fiatal, executive director of the Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission. "It's kind of a dead-reckoning kind of thing." An Ohio Supreme Court ruling Wednesday made a police officer's visual estimate of speed enough to make a speeding ticket stick. Though that had been the case in most of the state, the appeals court covering Cuyahoga County had required more than an officer's guess: radar readings or comparing a vehicle's speed to the speedometer reading in a police cruiser. The court ruled that an officer's estimate can hold up all by itself if an officer is trained by the Ohio Peace Officers Training Academy or a similar academy and has experience gauging speeds. The number of states that use that standard could not be determined Wednesday. Pennsylvania and Nebraska require more than just a visual speed estimate, though officers in those states have leeway to say a vehicle was traveling at an unsafe speed. Related content Ohio Supreme Court rules visual estimate of speed is enough to convict The Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission sets standards that all students in the more than 70 police academies in the state must meet to graduate. Officials from the police academies in Cleveland Heights and at Cuyahoga Community College each said they use the state curriculum. Cleveland Heights Lt. Larry Shaffer said officers are taught to track - follow behind -- vehicles suspected of speeding to determine speed, but the required state training allows a reasonable estimate. "Before you would be certified you have to be fairly accurate with the naked eye," he said. Visually estimating the speed of vehicles is only a small part of a five-hour unit on speed, which also includes lessons on stopping distance, benefits of speed enforcement, types of speed laws, how to track a given vehicle and how to fill out a traffic ticket. Traffic radar used to be part of basic training for all officers, but each department now trains its own officers in using the radar or laser system it owns. State standards call for students to use four principles to estimate vehicle speeds: their own knowledge and experience in watching traffic, watching vehicles move past stationary objects, seeing if a vehicle is moving in an unusual way like bouncing or the driver is driving erratically. But the required curriculum doesn't tell students how to determine a specific speed using those principles. Instructors must take students to areas with different kinds of traffic and have them estimate speeds. The instructor would use radar on the vehicle so the student can compare results. "You just refine that and refine that by looking at the radar," Fiatal said. Standards call for students to estimate speeds of 20 vehicles and the instructor to calculate the difference between the estimate and the actual speed. Students pass if the average difference is five miles per hour or less. Fiatal said that training is "certainly a start" for new officers to learn to estimate speeds. He said when they learn to use radar they will have more chances to measure their impressions against radar readings. As they gain more experience, guesses will be more educated. Promoted Links When Payments Are 100% Stress-FreeSage Isaiah Crowell on storming out of the game; Joe Schobert on Josh McCown; and Kenny Britt's statusCleveland.com How Alcohol Affects Your HeartHealthCentral.com 3 Common Window Dilemmas and Key Solutions to Help The Story Behind Your Last Name Will Surprise YouAncestry Jimmy Haslam conducts conference call with personnel staff as rift with coaching grows, per reportCleveland.com by Taboola 42 comments Sign In Please comment respectfully. + Follow Post comment as... Newest | Oldest | Top Comments From the Archive Newest | Oldest jstthikinJun 3, 2010 Nearing the age of retirement and yet another reason for me to get the heck outta dodge - Ohio the heart of it all - what a joke! mnmb3Jun 3, 2010 Our Constituional rights eroding right before your eyes. Sorry men and women in the Armed Forces, you have been dying for nothing. There will be no Constitition to up hold and preserve at this rate. (I know, I spend 22 yrs upholding and preserving myself. I love you guys.) I am sorry that the State of Ohio has chosen to belittle your brave and noble service godofwineJun 3, 2010 This will increase the amount of tickets written for DWB (Black driving thru a mostly White neighborhood, or DWW (White driving thru a mostly Black neighborhood). Not even including the tickets given by police because of boredom. This is a true story. In Norfolk while in the Navy I was riding with a friend of mine and he passed under a light that turned yellow just as he passed underneath (I remember clearly because the movement caught my eye). Seconds later we hear the sirens and pull over only to have the cop stop behind us. "Do you know why I pulled you over?" "No" "You ran a red light" "That light was yellow. Just TURNED yellow..." "No, it was red." After going back and forth the cop said, "The light was RED! Who the F**K do you think they are going to believe?" My buddy ended up paying the ticket and realizing that he was powerless, even with me as a witness. The only way you get out of a ticket is if the cop doesn't show up for court. If the cop shows up you lose. This law is going to make it even easier for cops to lie on you. I'm glad I don't have to go thru Linndale much anymore (though I know to look out for those cops). They can pull you over at random and say, "I saw you doing 42 in a 35", even if you were going 35. I use cruise control, even on city streets. This law needs to be repealed and the judges who voted on this kicked out. WOTJun 3, 2010 I know that speeding is illegal, and I'm not trying to justify it. I have been driving for 25 years with 0 speed related accidents. I have no problem admitting that I speed. Not just a few miles over, I drive at 20-30 over and have doubled the speed limit on the highway on more than a few occasions. When I get a ticket, I pay it or go to court if I think I actually wasn't speeding at the time. That all being said, this new 'estimate' law is simple: Radar and Laser guns are expensive. Cities need revenue. Speeders are easy sources of cash. Guessing speed is FREE. It's ironic that I did a bit of research yesterday, before I'd even heard of this, to find out what the number one cause of car accidents was. And it's NOT speeding, It's distraction. Speeding isn't even in the top 5. This law is not about safety, it's about money. If it were about safety, there would be a hell of a lot more cell phone, makeup, radio-adjusting, eating, drowsy, childseat and seatbelt tickets written. But there aren't. I have yet to see a 'Cell Phone trap' set up in a school zone or a 'changing lanes without a turn signal' lookout on a highway overpass. You don't see this because it's now easier to guess cars' speed for free than bother with an expensive radar gun... X-chipsJun 3, 2010 Let me get this straight. The same officers who couldn't tell the difference between a dead woman and a dead deer on the side of the road now get to "guesstamate" the speed at which I'm driving? Sounds fair to me. NOT! scoretiedJun 3, 2010 x-chips, the "same" officers? Put away that broad brush and use something with a little more precision. trintiJun 3, 2010 Hey scoretied, I dont think folks on this site are saying speeding is ok, what they are saying they dont trust the police judgement. You can be going 35mph and just because the police may be having a bad day, or dont like the way you look, can give you a speeding ticket. Would you like to take off from work for court to prove you was not speeding, and you know who will win. scoretiedJun 3, 2010 trinti, In other articles on this subject, I've actually seen posters claim that speed means nothing and that we should be able to go as fast as the traffic will bear. Having said that, I would be far more comfortable being stopped with radar than judgment. scoretiedJun 3, 2010 AH, another chance to go against the grain! In this case, the grain is made up of folks who think they have a "right" to drive at ridiculous speeds. If I'm in a 60 zone on a freeway, I typically nudge up to 70--and watch half the driving world blow past me at 80+. Some of you want to get out of Ohio? Try Pennsylvania, which has the highest fines imaginable. Move to Germany, where there is no maximum speed, just a minimum of 72 MPH; then we can hear you moan and groan about the six-month, $1,000 driving class you had to take to get a license in good ol' Deutschland. I love highway libertarians. I live on a street that cuts through from Mayfield Road to Ridgebury Boulevard in Lyndhurst. I'm at a four-way stop to boot. Various soccer moms and Jeff Gordon wannabes put on a real show. Last week, a lady with a small kid in the back of her Volvo station wagon blew through the stop sign at around 25-30 and flipped me off when I called out "Nice stop!" Why don't we make observing speed limits, even with a 10 MPH bonus, optional, along with red lights, stop signs, and lane markings. Do whatever you feel like. RReaganJun 3, 2010 There has always been a similar problem in this area. When an officer points a radar gun at a pack of cars and it comes back with a reading of 82, which car is actually going 82? I asked an officer at my golf course once, his answer - "the one that looks like he's pulling away from the pack is guilty". So if a guy passes you doing 82, but sees the cop quickly and slams on his brakes, leaving you pulling away from the pack at 67, you're guilty and pulled over for doing 82 in a 65 zone. The radar gun doesn't tell which car registered the speed it clocked. trintiJun 3, 2010 Hey, they can't even tell a dead human body laying on the road from a dead deer. How can they tell how fast you going by only sight. boneybennyJun 3, 2010 The right to be considered innocent until proven guilty is gone. Anthony Sowell is referred to as "accused" serial killer by the media, even though there were dead bodies in his house. Until he is convicted, the media could be sued for not using "accused" in his description. The rest of us are presumed guilty by the word of an unchallengeable policemans guess. The Bill of Rights means nothing anymore. caygey33Jun 3, 2010 Voters should keep passing police and fire taxes. What we need is more law enforcement who never prevent anything. The main job for most cops is to see how much money they can raise. The problem is that they are trying to get the money from people who either not working or making minimum wages. boneybennyJun 3, 2010 I bet Linndale (and the other speed trap communities) will double their income. lra064Jun 3, 2010 I am a retired Police Officer and agree that estimated speeds should be used but only for speeds that are far above the speed limit. You know, 90 in a 60 or 75 in a 35 etc. 13 MPH over the limit is cutting it too short for an estimite. A very large majorty of Police Officers give 15 over the limit except in school zones so this 13 is kind of low anyway. There were only a few that I know of that gave 13 over and they were looked at by the rest of us as jerks. Things may have changed though. born2hangJun 3, 2010 The radar reading was throw out because the officer didn't bring his certification to use radar to the trial. . I think the ruling is odd, but I guess I could see accepting it if it was a car going well in excess of the posted speed limit. Then it would be obvious the car was speeding. And, while you're going on just the word of the officer, we also go off the word of the officer when they ticket you for going through a stop sign or red light. And, with radar, you're also relying on the officer's word that he aimed the radar at the right car. With stop signs and red lights, the cop can see the offense clearly. But speed is hard to judge with the naked eye. Again, unless the car is going way over the speed limit. This officer thought the guy was going 70mph and the radar said 82 mph, so that suggests this officer was not very accurate. In the case it also says the cop filled out the ticket wrong. . This would all be of a lot less concern to me if there weren't so many communities that use speeding tickets for revenue generators, and if there weren't a lot of officers willing to lie in court. born2hangJun 3, 2010 Also, again, this officer was off by 12MPH in his naked eye estimate of the speed. 12 MPH can make a big difference on a ticket, and knock you up into a higher fine. . Like I said, I merely find this ruling odd. I'm not overly worried that it'll be abused, because if cops wanted to routinely pull innocent people over they can already do that by saying you were weaving, or went through a stop sign, or went through a red light when it was actually yellow, etc. But I really don't think you should get tcketed for speeding without a radar gun as evidence unless you were going way, way over the speed limit. If people start getting tickets when they were not extremely far over the speed limit and the officer has no radar evidence, it's going to cause a lot of bad will between citizens and the police/courts. We already have that going on with the way some of our communities engage in excessive traffic enforcement to generate money. . With all that said, I don't get pulled over much at all, and when I have been, I felt I deserved it, so I don't have any personal experience feeling unfairly ticketed. But I do feel there are some suburbs that seem to harass people with ticketing while others do not. If all the various police forces in Northeast Ohio would just agree to do things in good faith, there'd be no problem IMO. mnmb3Jun 3, 2010 Who is to say you weren't going only a little over. The Cop can say whatever he wants, and by the way, you are now opened up to other violations. The Cop may believe that e smells alcohol and may want to search your car. Next at 11:00, how to make sure your papers are in order when going into Indiana. cleavlanderJun 3, 2010 thats it....or i leave ohio or I have to sell my porsche!!!! all you sports car fans, owners , enthusiasts know cops are jealous of us owners, and now they got a license to ticket us, give us points and our insurance goes up...thats nice! NOT! go tribe! moongooseJun 3, 2010 The court should have included a clause that as long as the police officer writes a ticket based upon unscientific personal observations/evaluations there will be no trial; immediate finding by officer of guilt and ship the offender to jail immediately. No appeal. We have now become the old USSR or some third world nation where folks like McFaul walk and grandma goes to the can. quest4newsJun 3, 2010 This is one of the reasons I want to relocate outside of Ohio. Cleveland taxes are outrageous and now the police can randomly stop you and claim you were speeding. This will definitely take DWB (Driving While Black) to a new level. 2012Jun 3, 2010 It was already that for most of the state! Now it's in Cuyahoga County! 271 will be the most fun! I bet that's why they changed it! They watch 271 like a hawk! Their radars can only pick one car at a time! I always thought they needed to show proof before you got a ticket! You know to prove guilt not accuse!!! Interesting to see that most of the state was already that way!!! lakemistakesJun 3, 2010 Just another reason to leave Ohio (like the last two generations of Ohio's college educated productive citizens have done en masse). And it doesn't really matter how fast you drive away. loioshJun 3, 2010 I feel if you cant beat em, Join em. So I suggest that if you happen to have a few hours, and a camcorder,and maybe some velcro, you could maybe park by an intersection with a traffic light, and video tape which cop cars that pull up to a red light, pop on there emergency lights till they get through the intersection, then turn them off, only to pull into the local resturaunt and get some food, or drink, surely that has to be illegal. then post a bunch on facebook and call your local t.v. news. delcaboJun 3, 2010 My kids riding in the back seat understand the need for speed limits on roads. Strange that some grown-ups fail to appreciate the rationale for speed limits and enforcement thereof. I'm not a perfect driver, and I know if I am speeding, I am fair game for a citation. It's not complicated. Drive in a reasonable manner-- even with "the flow of traffic" a few ticks above the llimit-- and you won't be ticketed. Try it, you'll be amazed. REALLY, Benny? How many folks reading this have been driving along stone cold sober yet arrested for DUI on the officer's hunch? How about ticketed for speeding when you were merely traveling at exactly the speed limit or below? Long before this ruling, officers have had the option to charge with "speed unreasonable for conditions". Also, give more credit to Judges, who still have the ability to find reasonable doubt. Remember, Judges in large part used to be criminal defense attorneys. Appropriately, they bring to the bench with them a healthy dose of skepticism. boneybennyJun 3, 2010 Delcabo, The constitution was written to prevent government abuses of authority. Today you find no problem with police "making the roads safer" in the absence of evidence. Tomorrow they can claim to be getting tougher on "the war on drugs" or "gun crime" and search anyone's house without a search warrant. I doubt your attitude would be so casual if SWAT decided your house was next on the list for random search and seizure. boneybennyJun 3, 2010 Cop having a bad day? Here's your "pick a number" ticket. School levy fails? Here's your ticket for 50 in a school zone. Tax increase fails and mayor threatens to lay off police? EVERYONE is speeding."We the people hold the potential for abuses to be self-evident. That a government by the police, of the police and for the police shall not perish from Ohio". 4GodJun 3, 2010 THE BEST WAY TO BEAT IT IS TO HAVE A BACKSEAT CAMCORDER IN YOUR VEHICLE RECORDING THE SPEED OF THE CAR! WHERE THERE IS A WILL THERE IS A WAY TO BEAT THIS CORRUPTIVE SYSTEM WE CALL GOVERNMENT! boneybennyJun 3, 2010 4GOD, Under the constitution, we are presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty. The burden of PROOF is on the prosecution, not the accused. delcaboJun 3, 2010 My kids riding in the back seat understand the need for speed limits on roads. Strange that some grown-ups fail to appreciate the rationale for speed limits and enforcement thereof. I'm not a perfect driver, and I know if I am speeding, I am fair game for a citation. It's not complicated. Drive in a reasonable manner-- even with "the flow of traffic" a few ticks above the llimit-- and you won't be ticketed. Try it, you'll be amazed. REALLY, Benny? How many folks reading this have been driving along stone cold sober yet arrested for DUI on the officer's hunch? How about ticketed for speeding when you were merely traveling at exactly the speed limit or below? Long before this ruling, officers have had the option to charge with "speed unreasonable for conditions". Also, give more credit to Judges, who still have the ability to find reasonable doubt. Remember, Judges in large part used to be criminal defense attorneys. Appropriately, they bring to the bench with them a healthy dose of skepticism. trescocoJun 3, 2010 Delcabo.. "Also, give more credit to Judges, who still have the ability to find reasonable doubt. Remember, Judges in large part used to be criminal defense attorneys. Appropriately, they bring to the bench with them a healthy dose of skepticism." Judges in the state of Ohio are elected. They don't have to have a criminal defense background... they can honestly look good in a suit and get elected. Prime example Annette Butler was a Federal Attorney working in the civil division working mostly on the business side of civil law, and was running for Bill Mason's job. Granted not a judge position... and she lost by a landslide, but still, there aren't very many requirements to run for a judges seat... clequestionsJun 3, 2010 Why no mention (the commenters or the aeticle) that this is an almost all-Republican Ohio Supreme Court that made this ruling? The party that claims protection of individual rights, limited government intrusion, etc. Hmm... Just sayin. trescocoJun 3, 2010 This won't last long. There is too much faith put on the testimony of officers, and too many errors of judgement. The ruling will be repealed. If it were to happen to me, I'd put the officer on trial, and make him prove that he could estimate the speed accurately, I'd also use the amount of time he had actually radar enforcing traffic, and prove that a 5 hr certification course in the academy just isn't good enough. I'd have a jury of my peers who all drive, and looking at the evidence I'd get acquitted, or a hung jury. Either way worth my money. PS. the kid (22 yrs) who got the ticket was supposedly doing 70 (officer's estimate) in a 60, now given that the course requires you to estimate within 5 mph of the actual speed... your looking at the kid was driving 65-75 mph.... How was he gaging his speed? Was he using the flow of traffic? I would have to estimate that most drivers have a driving fluctuation between 0-7 mphs above the speed limit at any given time. If the flow was going 65 that is between the estimate.... Did he just finish passing someone, and was trying to get over? I mean, the cop saw him, what was the cop doing? sitting there without a radar gun? He had to have followed him in order to pull him over, right? So the cop had his speedometer in his car to see how fast the car was going... and don't most to all police cruisers have a radar gun installed on the dashboard? I mean I got pulled over by cops in the opposite direction that knew how fast I was going... Plus, this is going to throw out any chance to fight radar guns. If the gun was inaccurate, not on a steady "tripod" to accurately gage speed. Now the cop can just say... well I knew he was speeding. spunky721Jun 3, 2010 Actually, according to the previous article, the cop estimated 72mph. He had radar & that gave 82 or 83mph but the radar result was thrown out in court. But it means his estimate was 10+mph off. Stupid ruling. I mean, really stupid. I can't fathom how the ohio supreme court let this one fly. Well, yes I can. Just like most other things in Ohio. And they wonder why there is a so-called brain drain. I certainly couldn't get away fast enough. trescocoJun 3, 2010 My bad. I think WEWS reported 70... but the question would have to be why was the radar thrown out? And why, would the Supreme Court of Ohio allow an officer's testimony, who is supposed to be trained to detect speeds within +- 5, when he speed was so off? Where was the dashboard camera? Doesn't that have an officer's speed on it as well? tom19511Jun 3, 2010 OK, Let me get this straight. Police can guess if you are speeding and issue a citation. HMMMM So, can I now guess that the judge that ruled on this is not doing his job by just looking at him? This sounds like a big moneymaker to me. Watch out on the last week of the month. Don't forget this scheme when you vote. I certainly won't negativequityJun 3, 2010 maybe the state can capitalize on our great new 'psychic police'- just think, get a speeding ticket and for an additional $20 the officer can tell you if your spouse is cheating on you or if you should ask for a raise. and i guess they won't need consent to search your vehicle any longer since they obviously already know what's in your trunk or glovebox boneybennyJun 3, 2010 Today the police can pick a number out of thin air and write a speeding ticket, and you have no recourse. Tomorrow you'll get a DUI based off a cops "hunch". Next week Ohio uses eraser fluid on the fourth amendment and your car can be searched at will. We've just started sliding down the slippery slope. Game over, we lose. Enjoy the ride. Ministry Of TruthJun 3, 2010 That "eraser fluid on the fourth amendment" happened a long time ago. I forget the case, but a dissent in the US Supreme Court actually referred to the unwritten "drug exception" to the 4th Amendment. I've got to add that deporting all illegal immigrants would require multiple unconstitutional searches of each and every person in America, including citizens and legal immigrants. rmb3005Jun 3, 2010 This rulling opens up a whole new avenue of revenue generation for cities. So now we'll see police everywhere with drivers pulled over for "speeding", when in reality, they were just driving with the flow of traffic. This ruling gives new meaning to the phrase "police state". Scott EmickJun 3, 2010 Too bad much of the state is more focused on revenue generation over safety. Now the supreme court is endorsing it too. The government is rotten to the core. jimmy141Jun 3, 2010 I agree, instead of writing tickets they should be stopping these people and giving them advice on how to control their speed. METRO COLUMNISTS Michael McIntyre's Tipoff Mark Naymik Phillip Morris The daily front page The Plain Dealer's front page for October 12, 2017 Updates posted daily Rock & Roll Hall of Fame 2.0 The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is undergoing a massive transformation, with a fresh look and new exhibits and attractions. Here's the lowdown. EXPLORE Rock Hall captivates the senses with new Connor Theater Jonathan Demme's 'The Power of Rock Experience' is spellbinding Video tour of renovations, cafe, store, and more Everything to know about the Rock Hall's new All Access Cafe Rock Hall under CEO Greg Harris learns to live in the house Pei built 12 new things you'll see at the Rock Hall in 2017 • More dining guides & reviews » ACTIVE DISCUSSIONS 1Trump signs order for new ways to get insurance and undercut Obamacare(723 comments) 2Why the Browns passed on Deshaun Watson and why they could live to regret it(1511 comments) 3Cleveland Indians, ousted from postseason, now must decide who goes and who stays for 2018(35 comments) 4What happened to Francisco Lindor, Jose Ramirez and the Cleveland Indians' offense in the ALDS?(479 comments) 5Jabrill Peppers was used more aggressively on Sunday, but his role is still a work in progress(28 comments) See more comments » NEWS UPDATES IN YOUR INBOX Get the latest news delivered to your inbox plus breaking news when it happens optionalCheck here if you do not want to receive additional email offers and information.See our privacy policy About Us About Cleveland.com About Advance Ohio Advertise with us Audience FAQ Contact Us Career Opportunities Community FAQ Subscribe The Plain Dealer Sun News eNewsletters Subscriber Service Media Insider Rewards View My Profile Pick up The Plain Dealer Report a Delivery Issue Place a Vacation Hold Make a Payment Cleveland.com Sections News Sports High School Sports Entertainment Living Politics Opinion Obituaries Jobs Autos Real Estate Rentals Classifieds Shopping Deals and Coupons Local Businesses Deals in Your Area Your Regional News Pages Beachwood Brunswick Lakewood Parma & Parma Heights Strongsville More Communities Mobile Mobile Apps More on Cleveland.com Videos Photos Interact with us Weather Post a job Post a classified ad Sell your car Sell/rent your home Sitemap & search Sponsor Content Follow Us Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Instagram | Pinterest Registration on or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy © 2017 Advance Ohio All rights reserved (About Us). The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Advance Ohio Community Rules apply to all content you upload or otherwise submit to this site. Ad Choices express bowling and Rightarmfast 1 1 Link to comment
Trichromatic Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 If batsmen were shown speeds after each delivery, then they will definitely tell better than viewers which bowlers are bowling 90mph and which one 95 mph Muloghonto 1 Link to comment
MCcricket Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Education menas nothing if one lacks common sense or logic, n you r not the only one here, if u do have. PHD or Masters in Physics, sports is about visual response more then anything else, a goalie responding to a kick n estimating the speed, swerve, angle, flight, everything in a split second. A trained eye as article above states can estimate speed pretty well, now what is a trained eye, n athlete, a goalie, a batsmen, a keeper, an avid sports watcher can also be an expert coz of his memory n experience, referencing the pace n comparing visually when observing a medium, medium fast n fast bowler becomes an inbuilt thing, many factors come into play to estimate the speed, but human body n mind is far intelligent n complex to interpret these from clues. Now a camera showing a bowler bowling from behind the runup to the keeper from. Above does give a good view n idea of the ball path, if u r saying that one cannot fathom what is quick or slow that's an oxymoron, why would one notice how quick Dhoni ran between the wkts, or stumped then? Sports itself mostly is about speed, accuracy or strength, we have been observing and applauding speed in most sports, yes naked eye cannot tell exact speed on a grand prize race but one can estimate the speed of the ball, also the modern camera n frame rates exceed what we are capable of noticing so that is ruled out. What ur talking is nonsense n illogical almost laughable that one cannot discern or compare speeds with the naked eye n that is the most basic requirements n inbuilt ability of the human body n allows us to play, Basketball, football, soccer, cricket, n most sports, it's responding to visual signal physically , a batter doesn't listen to the ball or smells the ball, but looks at the ball, he gauges the speed ,trajectory, angle,line n sesponds to it in a physical way n that is the basic essence of sports. Now from the viewers angle, the reason we watch n enjoy sports is ability to notice the same on TV , the swing, bounce, pace, the timing, the batsmens interpretation of pace can be affected by making y things , the height from which the ball is released, the wicket, the dynamics of the action, bowlers natural length, n psychology. Rightarmfast and express bowling 2 Link to comment
Muloghonto Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 6 minutes ago, MCcricket said: Education menas nothing if one lacks common sense or logic, n you r not the only one here, if u do have. PHD or Masters in Physics, sports is about visual response more then anything else, a goalie responding to a kick n estimating the speed, swerve, angle, flight, everything in a split second. A trained eye as article above states can estimate speed pretty well, now what is a trained eye, n athlete, a goalie, a batsmen, a keeper, an avid sports watcher can also be an expert coz of his memory n experience, referencing the pace n comparing visually when observing a medium, medium fast n fast bowler becomes an inbuilt thing, many factors come into play to estimate the speed, but human body n mind is far intelligent n complex to interpret these from clues. Now a camera showing a bowler bowling from behind the runup to the keeper from. Above does give a good view n idea of the ball path, if u r saying that one cannot fathom what is quick or slow that's an oxymoron, why would one notice how quick Dhoni ran between the wkts, or stumped then? Sports itself mostly is about speed, accuracy or strength, we have been observing and applauding speed in most sports, yes naked eye cannot tell exact speed on a grand prize race but one can estimate the speed of the ball, also the modern camera n frame rates exceed what we are capable of noticing so that is ruled out. What ur talking is nonsense n illogical almost laughable that one cannot discern or compare speeds with the naked eye n that is the most basic requirements n inbuilt ability of the human body n allows us to play, Basketball, football, soccer, cricket, n most sports, it's responding to visual signal physically , a batter doesn't listen to the ball or smells the ball, but looks at the ball, he gauges the speed ,trajectory, angle,line n sesponds to it in a physical way n that is the basic essence of sports. Now from the viewers angle, the reason we watch n enjoy sports is ability to notice the same on TV , the swing, bounce, pace, the timing, the batsmens interpretation of pace can be affected by making y things , the height from which the ball is released, the wicket, the dynamics of the action, bowlers natural length, n psychology. Bolded part, is 100% wrong. Because you cannot tell depth from that angle. Point is easily proven, when you look where the wicketkeeper is standing,in relation to the batsman from that angle, versus side-on view. In a side-on view, the true length of the pitch is preserved in the 2d, hence side-on views are ok to tell who is faster/who is slower. head-on view, the image is approximating length AND depth, that is how you can tell whether a person is standing on another's head or directly behind them. But you CANNOT tell, from that angle, how much behind them, the wicketkeeper is standing. What i am saying, is when you are seeing a ball bowled AT YOU or side-on, with a trained eye, you can tell if ball A is faster or slower than ball B. For skilled pros, they can tell them apart with great accuracy. For amateurs like us, we are not as accurate, but we still can tell them apart. But from head-on view, nobody can tell how fast the ball is, or which ball is faster than the other, with something like +/- 50kph range. You can't for e.g., tell from the head-on view, how far the ball is bouncing, if you have no reference point (wickets, batsmen etc) to compare. This should tell you, how all you are doing, is repeating an optical illusion as a fact. Link to comment
Vilander Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 On 09/10/2017 at 1:56 AM, Muloghonto said: Yes, indeed. 95mph = 152kph. Ie, early 150s. Finally we seem to be converging on the fact that Waqar was blazing quick before his stress fractures sidelined him in the early-mid 90s. IIRC he suffered them near the mid-late 94 and was never the same again. Though he did grow a lot in terms of setting up batsmen and still was touching high 80s/90mph till like 97/98. Show documentary or video evidence pls. Rightarmfast 1 Link to comment
MCcricket Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: Bolded part, is 100% wrong. Because you cannot tell depth from that angle. Point is easily proven, when you look where the wicketkeeper is standing,in relation to the batsman from that angle, versus side-on view. In a side-on view, the true length of the pitch is preserved in the 2d, hence side-on views are ok to tell who is faster/who is slower. head-on view, the image is approximating length AND depth, that is how you can tell whether a person is standing on another's head or directly behind them. But you CANNOT tell, from that angle, how much behind them, the wicketkeeper is standing. What i am saying, is when you are seeing a ball bowled AT YOU or side-on, with a trained eye, you can tell if ball A is faster or slower than ball B. For skilled pros, they can tell them apart with great accuracy. For amateurs like us, we are not as accurate, but we still can tell them apart. But from head-on view, nobody can tell how fast the ball is, or which ball is faster than the other, with something like +/- 50kph range. You can't for e.g., tell from the head-on view, how far the ball is bouncing, if you have no reference point (wickets, batsmen etc) to compare. This should tell you, how all you are doing, is repeating an optical illusion as a fact. See the very point is visual memory n cues, we r comparing most of the time, n referencing based on things, when we have the same angle to view from then that becomes a good reference point, when for example we have the camera at normal angle when a bowler starts his runup, n delivers the ball, we have that view always as reference , that angle and it is not acute but pretty good, now when one is constantly watching different bowlers bowling and noticing thier speeds n taking those clues one becomes a decent judge of pace from that angle , n that is based on those factors, the pitch length is standard and the length ball delivered has an average distance to cover, one can certainly judge the pace, n that for me can have a accuracy to a degree based on abi!ity, RKT or someone involved with the sports n bowling in general certainly makes him a better judge, yes one cannot tell excatly if one is bowling 143 or 146 k but can tell if one is fast, fast medium or medium.Anyone can tell that Kumble was a fast leggie, Kuldeep a slower one. PK a medium pacer n Aaron a fast bowler, one can certainly observe Thommo was quick n if someone is bowling in 140s or 130, n that's a huge difference, now u gotta be kidding if u r telling me when u watch a game on telly you cannot visually see the difference when PK or Akhtar or evenZak was bowling, n that is exactly what RKT is saying that you can observe if someone is fast , express or fast medium or medium, n that's why the speeds are categorized as such, those r not arbitary numbers but can be visually interpreted, by most viewers a medium pacer, a fast medium, a fast n express bowler. Link to comment
Vilander Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 On 09/10/2017 at 6:01 AM, rkt.india said: agree. in fact when cricket started in days of WG Grace, bowlers could easily hit 125mph and he averaged 32 in test cricket facing such extreme pace where likes of George Lohmann averaged 10 in test cricket. Yeah and while all other athletic divisions improved cricketers regressed in their skills and physical ability, eventually in 30 years every one will be able to bowl only underarm and bat with an oar Rightarmfast and express bowling 2 Link to comment
Muloghonto Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 12 minutes ago, MCcricket said: See the very point is visual memory n cues, we r comparing most of the time, n referencing based on things, when we have the same angle to view from then that becomes a good reference point, when for example we have the camera at normal angle when a bowler starts his runup, n delivers the ball, we have that view always as reference , that angle and it is not acute but pretty good, now when one is constantly watching different bowlers bowling and noticing thier speeds n taking those clues one becomes a decent judge of pace from that angle , n that is based on those factors, the pitch length is standard and the length ball delivered has an average distance to cover, one can certainly judge the pace, n that for me can have a accuracy to a degree based on abi!ity, RKT or someone involved with the sports n bowling in general certainly makes him a better judge, yes one cannot tell excatly if one is bowling 143 or 146 k but can tell if one is fast, fast medium or medium.Anyone can tell that Kumble was a fast leggie, Kuldeep a slower one. PK a medium pacer n Aaron a fast bowler, one can certainly observe Thommo was quick n if someone is bowling in 140s or 130, n that's a huge difference, now u gotta be kidding if u r telling me when u watch a game on telly you cannot visually see the difference when PK or Akhtar or evenZak was bowling, n that is exactly what RKT is saying that you can observe if someone is fast , express or fast medium or medium, n that's why the speeds are categorized as such, those r not arbitary numbers but can be visually interpreted, by most viewers a medium pacer, a fast medium, a fast n express bowler. ^^ The point you are missing, is that only reason you can tell height of the ball,is because you have a reference (wickets & batsmen). There is no reference for the depth perception, so you cannot tell from head-on how fast the ball is going. Sure, you can tell apart a Kumble from a Kuldeep, but thats like saying you can tell apart two bowlers who are nearly 15-20 mph speed difference. Which, in effective cricketing terms, means nothing. And no, you actually cannot tell apart 80mph from 95mph from head-on view. This is why people ask, 'how fast is this new guy bowling' when bowling speeds are not shown. Because not having a reference point to how fast they are, means you actually can't tell. RKT is saying he can tell if a bowler is 135kph or 145 kph from a head-on view. That is categoric, 100%, false. Link to comment
Muloghonto Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 17 minutes ago, Vilander said: Show documentary or video evidence pls. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/95065.html Waqar, circa 1996 has one at 150kph+. 153kph vs RSA in 1993. Link to comment
Vilander Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 1 hour ago, Muloghonto said: If it is against Physics, i will 100% tell you what you CANNOT do. What you CANNOT do, is tell speeds of a bowler from a 'batsman-facing bowler' angle. Period. All the cricketing knowledge and analytical skills won't compensate for your eyes being unable to tell depth in a front-on view of TV. And whats rich, is you think YOU, an arm-chair critic, sitting in front of a TV, which doesn't show depth accurately in front on-view, with cameras set 100m from the action (i.e., by the boundary), can tell if a bowler is bowling 140kph or not, but people who have FACED the said bowlers, day in, day out, cannot. That is 100% BS. So take your nonsense about telling speeds from TV somewhere else, where fools with zero knowledge of physics and optical illusions reside. OK so you are proving someone wrong by claiming something obviously wrong as something done by them. But the point is it is not being done by them, all that I see is objective argument between two sides which is based on factual evidence but some flaming and counter on anecdotals. There is no evidence to prove waqar was a steady 150 + in a whole spell express bowler like Bret Lee.. waqar was probably much slower but skilled and could hit 150 on an occasion but was bettered by Srinath during that time, our Srinath who was classed as a trundler otherwise. Hitting 150 is not express stock balls of 150 is and I have only see Bret Lee do it in tests and Jason GILLESPIE. Rightarmfast 1 Link to comment
Vilander Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 15 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/95065.html Waqar, circa 1996 has one at 150kph+. 153kph vs RSA in 1993. So he hit 152 - 153 twice..how does this make him 150 stock bowler. Even our current crop did this on numerous occasions. Rightarmfast and express bowling 2 Link to comment
Vilander Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 8 hours ago, putrevus said: Safety gear does that eliminate fear, even today those 1980s WI bowlers would be the nastiest bowlers to face, every one was express and Holding was super express.When ball is bouncing chest high from short of length all the time no batsman is safe. Pommies inspite of all protective gear were scared like hell facing MJ in last ashes. MJ even at his fastest was at best equal to one of those four WI bowlers. Talking about just speed is just juvenile . Akram is like Steyn who if needed could operate at higher speeds but generally operated about 140 which is plenty because the amount of movement they generated. If you find a chance listen to Imran Khan talk about Holding's speed .He knows thing or two about fast bowling, listen to Dickie bird talk about them. Show documentary or video evidence of aram ever hitting anything above 145. This is a low bar even vinay Kumar has hit 151. Rightarmfast and express bowling 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now