2013 Ashes Series

[Albert]

Umpire used in a plural form doesn't need the apostrophe.. An apostrophe is used when using possession like your other examples..

 

Learn English you whinging Aussie

 

The first was an error, the other 3 are as intended. I'm not sure why you are proof reading my posts though. I assure you they are riddled with spelling errors and grammatical catastrophes.

Speaking in a sense of where the error in the first line came from, it appears I mangled together two sentences:

1. The umpire's also not using the "snicko meter",

2. The umpire isn't using the "snicko meter"

Ending up as a hybrid:

- The umpire's also aren't using the "snicko meter"

Where without the contraction it would be:

- The umpire is also aren't using the "snicko meter"

Which without the mistaken plural form would read:

- The umpire is also isn't using the "snicko meter"

Which is quite the grammatical catastrophe whichever way you slice it.

Most likely I started writing the sentence, got distracted by something else, and just completed it without checking what I actually wrote (in the first sentence the sentence makes sense as a contraction of umpire and is). What actually came out with "umpire's" wouldn't even make sense as "umpires" in any case, and whilst I clearly mistook what I was writing and applied a plural form to negative plural form of "is" here, that isn't the main issue. The umpire here should have been singular.

Speaking of the other 3 cases you seem to have ignore that all of them needed to be the possessive form, and that "umpires" would have been a mistake in and of themselves, even if the plural form was used (which it intentionally wasn't). The phrase "umpires original call" makes as much sense as "umpire original call", which doesn't make any sense. Instead it should have been "umpires' original call" if anything should it have been a plural form. To repeat, your corrections were incorrect bar one, although the original was also incorrect in the context as there was only one umpire being discussed in that situation. To summarise:

1. "The umpire's also aren't using the "snicko meter","

- The original was grammatically incorrect, and your suggested correction would have made it incorrect due to the context

2. If there is even the slightest doubt it should in general be left up to the umpire's original call (see the Trott decision as well).

- The original was correct, your correction would have made the sentence grammatically incorrect

3. ", and so like anything else with the reviews should have been left to the umpire's call."

- The original was correct, your correction would have made the sentence grammatically incorrect

4. "At this point they may as well just take LBW right of the umpire's hands if they are going this way,"

- The original was correct, your correction would have made the sentence grammatically incorrect

I again assure you that I have made far worse errors in posts on here (and potentially this post) than that original mistake. I would however ask that in the future if you wish to correct my posts that you do it properly, and actually suggest changes that make the sentences correct.

[ladyram]

This behaviour isn't helping England at all.

What happened?

And stop bring grammar nazis you two, stick to cricket.

[sage]

Whinging convict. He hit it. He was out. We win. End of.

[Albert]

What happened?

And stop bring grammar nazis you two, stick to cricket.

They were time wasting, hoping lunch was called without another over rather than getting their heads down and getting rid of a hit and giggle wicket keeper and a tail ender. If England lost that game, it would be that kind of negative nonsense that would have lost it for them. The fact it got so close is something England should be very worried about.

They did end up playing another over by the way, the umpires weren't having any of it.

Whinging convict. He hit it. He was out. We win. End of.

That is just poor sportsmanship. When Broad stood his ground I was more than happy to say that he did what he should have done. But you guys win with the 3rd umpire being a bit big for his boots and we're "whinging convicts". England got a deserved win, I just wanted to make the point that over the whole damn game the third umpire was being a bit too liberal with his decisions, and that includes the Trott decision (where there was reasonable enough doubt to leave it to the umpire's original call).

[Guest]

That is just poor sportsmanship. When Broad stood his ground I was more than happy to say that he did what he should have done. But you guys win with the 3rd umpire being a bit big for his boots and we're "whinging convicts". England got a deserved win, I just wanted to make the point that over the whole damn game the third umpire was being a bit too liberal with his decisions, and that includes the Trott decision (where there was reasonable enough doubt to leave it to the umpire's original call).

 

10 wickets down, match on a knife point, umpires already made a terrible call, they know england have 2 reviews left, and he is probably thinking, if I give this out, and I am wrong, think about what happens next, dont give it and England review, then they can make sure 100% that he hit it.

 

It was conclusive that he hit it, end off, the umpire wasnt being to big for his boots, he made the correct call.

[froggg]

One thing for sure is the games better off with the technology, it's already creeping into football and will continue to do so.

[sage]

They were time wasting, hoping lunch was called without another over rather than getting their heads down and getting rid of a hit and giggle wicket keeper and a tail ender. If England lost that game, it would be that kind of negative nonsense that would have lost it for them. The fact it got so close is something England should be very worried about.

They did end up playing another over by the way, the umpires weren't having any of it.

That is just poor sportsmanship. When Broad stood his ground I was more than happy to say that he did what he should have done. But you guys win with the 3rd umpire being a bit big for his boots and we're "whinging convicts". England got a deserved win, I just wanted to make the point that over the whole damn game the third umpire was being a bit too liberal with his decisions, and that includes the Trott decision (where there was reasonable enough doubt to leave it to the umpire's original call).

He hit it. There was visual and audio evidence. Stop whining.

 

He got Agar wrong. He got Trott wrong. He got Clarke right (You know, your captain, who reviewed one he hit) and he got Haddin right.

[Boycie]

I thought Albert was an ex pat? Not an Aussie ?

[eddie]

I thought Albert was an ex pat? Not an Aussie ?

 

Given the amount of whingeing, he must be a proper Aussie all right.

 

Probably explains his unhealthy attraction to sheep.

 

Oh, wait....

[ladyram]

Come on England. Get em hammered

[inter politics]

So no Finn...was a tough call, he has a good record on his home ground but was out of sorts at Trent Bridge. Wonder if they were thinking about Aussies lower order batting too and hoping Bresnan can help more in that department.

 

Aussies bring in Kwawaja for Cowan and Harris for Starc, which are both pretty good calls. Cowan is very average at this level and Starc a little wayward. Harris is a top bowler but his fitness seems to let him down a lot.

 

Least we won the toss, let's hope this first innings goes better!

 

And play starts at 11.15 today, as the Queen is there - how does that make sense?! Tell her to get there earlier, lazy sod!

[eddie]

Wall to wall currant bun today - no cloud.

[EastKentRam]

Wow, I hate the queen, had to turn that whole charade off.

 

Poor from Cook, Watson is military, reckon I could see his overs off. 

[Guest]

England in trouble 3 gone

[inter politics]

Lovely summers day and we're three down already!

[eddie]

Wow, I hate the queen, had to turn that whole charade off.

 

Poor from Cook, Watson is military, reckon I could see his overs off. 

 

'Military' is probably as fast as anything I ever faced in 30 years of village cricket. I played against Colin Tunnicliffe a few times before he played for Derbyshire, and it's a different game altogether - he was considered to be 'medium pace', and I could hardly lay bat on ball. It's not just the pace - it's the movement in the air and off the pitch.

 

Watson is still firing it down at 83-85 miles per hour, and the wicket keeper's standing a good 20 yards behind the stumps.

 

I think it's safe to say that you could not see off a bloke with 60 test match wickets and a test match bowling average of 30 - if you could, you would be playing at the St Lawrence Ground today against Hampshire.

[EastKentRam]

'Military' is probably as fast as anything I ever faced in 30 years of village cricket. I played against Colin Tunnicliffe a few times before he played for Derbyshire, and it's a different game altogether - he was considered to be 'medium pace', and I could hardly lay bat on ball. It's not just the pace - it's the movement in the air and off the pitch.

 

Watson is still firing it down at 83-85 miles per hour, and the wicket keeper's standing a good 20 yards behind the stumps.

 

I think it's safe to say that you could not see off a bloke with 60 test match wickets and a test match bowling average of 30 - if you could, you would be playing at the St Lawrence Ground today against Hampshire.

 

It was tongue in cheek, calm down.

 

My point was, Watson is barely a first change bowler, tight but doesnt do much with it so Cook shouldnt be getting out to him that early in the game. 

 

I'll have you know, I had a trial for East Kent a few years back, won us the game as well I did and never got a call back. Based on how **** Kent have been this season, getting in this side would be nothing to brag about. 

[eddie]

It was tongue in cheek, calm down.

 

My point was, Watson is barely a first change bowler, tight but doesnt do much with it so Cook shouldnt be getting out to him that early in the game. 

 

I'll have you know, I had a trial for East Kent a few years back, won us the game as well I did and never got a call back. Based on how **** Kent have been this season, getting in this side would be nothing to brag about. 

 

I'll have you know, I represented England. 

[inter politics]

Looked good until a silly shot in the first innings and a bad decision in the second at Trent Bridge but Trott is looking in good nick early on this series, which is good news...especially with Bell starting well too. We'll see what happens with Root and Bairstow.

[EastKentRam]

I'll have you know, I represented England. 

 

Under 12's or over 60's?