Hilfestellungen » the same position would not have made the

Dundee booked a lucrative Scottish Cup quarter-final tie against Rangers with a convincing 5-0 win over Dumbarton at Dens Park.The Premiership side had drawn a blank in the goalless first game but it took them 16 minutes of the fifth-round replay to open the scoring with defender Paul McGinns first of the season. Greg Stewart (second from left) scored a double as Dundee progressed Just before the half-hour striker Kane Hemmings took his tally for all competitions to 19, with captain Gary Harkins again the provider, before Greg Stewart made it three (51) to end any hopes of the Championship part-timers coming back. Kevin Holt and Stewart added the final two goals in a clinical performance from the Taysiders to set up a trip to Ibrox on March 5 for what will arguably be the tie of the round, live on Sky Sports. Dundees Paul McGinn (centre) celebrates with Kane Hemmings (left) having opened the scoring In a low-key start to proceedings, Dumbarton set up camp at the edge of their own box, inviting Dundee to break them down, with little to trouble keeper Mark Brown in the early stages.However, the breakthrough came when Harkins unlocked the Sons defence with a clever pass to McGinn and the full-back beat the Dumbarton goalkeeper at his near post with a powerful drive. Hemmings doubles the lead for Dundee Moments later, the visitors had the chance to level but Jordan Kirkpatricks scuffed shot was easily saved by Scott Bain.In the 29th minute, after he was booked for simulation by referee Stephen Finnie, Harkins set up Hemmings with a fine pass from the edge of the box and the former Rangers and Barnsley player squeezed the ball past Brown. Dundees Kevin Holt (right) celebrates Dumbarton tried valiantly to get a foothold in the game and in the 39th minute, to his disbelief, former Dundee striker Christian Nade was shown a yellow card for simulation in the Dundee box after turning inside defender Darren ODea, with the small band of Sons fans looking for a penalty.Stevie Aitkens side had it all to do after the break to rescue their cup hopes but when Stewart weaved his way along the edge of the Dumbarton box early in the second half before rifling a left-footed drive low into the corner, the tie was effectively over.In the 78th minute Holt made it 4-0 from 10 yards before Stewarts 90th minute free-kick from 25 yards rounded off the scoring. Stewart scored twice against Dumbarton Fake Vans From China . -- Anaheim Ducks defenceman Luca Sbisa will be out at least six weeks with a torn tendon in his right hand. Fake Vans Website . The catch: It needs a lot of money, and it needs it fast. https://www.vansfake.com/ .J. -- New York Giants wide receiver Victor Cruz will miss the rest of the season after having surgery on his left knee. Fake Vans . Coach Tom Thibodeau says the former MVP will probably start travelling with the team in the next few weeks. Rose tore the meniscus in his right knee at Portland in November and was ruled out for the remainder of the season by the Bulls. Fake Vans For Sale . You can watch the game live on TSN at 7:30pm et/4:30pm pt. The Flyers had won seven of eight before dropping their last two outings on consecutive days over the weekend. Philadelphia was handed a 6-3 loss by the visiting Tampa Bay Lightning on Saturday afternoon before dropping a 4-1 decision to the Rangers the following night in New York City.How the bloody hell was that? went one of the more memorable yet printable appeals to which I have borne witness. Weve all been there - the intractable umpire, the dead-in-the-water appeal, the shake of the head, the muttering. Then there was the one that resulted in a long silence from the umpire, followed by the words I was waiting for you to walk. It may be a friendly game, but when the batsman is caught flat-footed and back in the crease as the ball raps the pad, plumb as plumb can be, and is yet again given not out, tempers can begin to fray.But then again, any lbw decision is always a travesty so far as one side is concerned: for the bowler, its always out; for the batsman, never. In between these two certainties is the grey area of discretion in which the poor and increasingly beleaguered umpire must wallow, knowing full well that while one side will congratulate them on an excellent decision, the other will scowl and mutter vague imprecations. Not only this but their decision will continue to be questioned during tea, over a pint, the breakfast table, even the end-of-season dinner.At school, maybe (oh lordy) 40-odd years ago, I was told, The umpire is right whether hes right or wrong, but the times they are a-changin. Not only has master Zimmerman become a Nobel Laureate, players now challenge decisions as a matter of course, there are plans afoot for a red-card system, and apparently they even let women umpire now.There has been much criticism of the spurious appeals made during the most recent Test match between England and India. Some armchair commentators have gone so far as to call such behaviour cheating, which it plainly isnt - gamesmanship, yes - but the umpires are pretty much on top of things (Bruce Oxenfords reaction to Jonny Bairstows ultimately successful review in the fourth Test notwithstanding).According to Charles Davis, some 77% of appeals in Tests over the past 16 years have been for the humble lbw, of which 19% have been successful. As he suggests, the low success of lbw appeals can be put down to optimistic bowlers and the complexity of the law: even when bowling teams are confident enough to review under the DRS system, only 20% of not out lbws were overturned.Of course, it is only in internationals that the DRS is available - or so youd think. We have it in club cricket too, it just isnt binding. This second opinion is sought to provide a sort of moral arbitration, a justification after the fact to countermand perceived injustice. And its sought after practically every decision: its a rare batsman who returns to the pavilion mouthing the words I was plumb. Whether or not the batsman is given out, the question How did that look to you? is invariably put to those two players on whose advice, at the highest level, the review is either invoked or forsaken: the non-striker and the keeper. And both involve great dollops of confirmation bias; that is, only seeing that which accords with the outcome we desire.Now I know this will stick in the craw, but other than in the case of travesties of judgement that occasionally manifest themselves, neither keeper nor non-striker reeally has a clue.dddddddddddd. The umpire really does have the best view in the house.First lets take the honest stumper. The only thing you can be sure of from behind the stumps following an lbw appeal is that the ball hit something. You can have a reasonable idea that it wasnt the bat from the noise, but this isnt infallible. When it comes to the line, keepers mostly take their stance outside the line of the off stump, only moving in line if the ball looks to be going down the leg side. Think about it. To be lbw, the ball has to hit your pads in line with the stumps and be going on to hit them (and not have pitched outside leg). As a stumper, you can only ever make an intelligent guess at either of these because - wait for it - when youre in line, you cant see exactly where the ball collided with the pads because theres one of them there batsmen in the way. So much for the keeper. And yes, they may know when its pitched way outside leg, but theyre hardly likely to let on. As for the non-striker, most of the time (and Joe Root at the Mohali Test was a conspicuous exception to this) they are to be found standing outside the return crease as the bowler delivers the ball. Thats about four feet to the right of middle stump. The ball is 20 yards away from them when it hits the pad. The non-striker is therefore at least four degrees off from the line of the ball. Those four degrees equate to approximately four inches: the non-strikers line of sight to the point of impact is at an angle of about four inches to the right of the strikers middle stump. Or, put another way, a ball appearing to strike the pad in front of middle stump is actually shaving the leg stump. If its gun-barrel straight. The non-striker must therefore adjust what they see to take account of their margin of error if theyre to have a hope. And thats before considering angle of delivery or movement, whether its seam, swing or spin, the probability that they werent really paying attention... Oh, it appears that the non-striker doesnt have a clue either.I managed to squeeze a few words from the excellent Fiona Richards, a Sussex Premier League panel umpire (I know shes excellent because shes never given me out lbw). This was what she had to say on the subject: The umpire can only make a decision based on the information at hand. While a DRS retrospective might find that not all decisions were accurate, you cant say that 100 umpires in the same position would not have made the same decision, and that is both the failing and beauty of a human game. Be supportive of your umpires, many of whom are unpaid volunteers. They have been thoroughly trained in how to apply the laws and usually have a lot of experience. Just as you, the players, are out there playing the best cricket you can, they are making the best decisions available.We owe it to the game to respect the umpires role, and their decisions, whether were batting, bowling, in the field or standing. Its not only what crickets about, it actually makes sense. ' ' '