| Third test 12:58 - Aug 1 with 7923 views | downunder |
What is the point of having cameras, hot spot, and snicko if the third umpire is stupid?
Unless he wants to hear whingeing Aussies. |  | | |  |
| Third test on 13:05 - Aug 1 with 7911 views | dilligas |
Poor decision, no snick nothing! |  | | |
| Third test on 13:10 - Aug 1 with 7899 views | gresh1 |
Yep poor decision for sure. |  | | |
| Third test on 13:51 - Aug 1 with 7855 views | D_Alien |
Snicko isn't able to be used yet due to it taking too long to produce evidence - although apparently its recently been improved to work much faster and may well be usable in the future.
Unfortunately for the Aussies (who seem to be getting the rough end of most DRS calls - although they're partly to blame for wasting some), the use of technology is agreed before the series starts and can't then be changed mid-series.
On this occasion, the third umpire could hear the same noise as the on-field umpire, therefore had to support the original decision. It's fair to point out that without DRS, Khawaja would have been out from the on-field decision anyway. It was only in retrospect when the snicko came through that the decision looked flawed. [Post edited 1 Aug 2013 13:54]
|  |
| |
| Third test on 20:12 - Aug 1 with 7688 views | ColDale |
I must say that I thought that the Aussie batsman (not gonna attempt to spell it) was very slow to appeal. Despite what the replays showed, the feeling at the ground was that he wasn't convinced that he hadn't hit it and thats why he didn't immediately appeal. Maybe this was down to the way that the Aussies have wasted their appeals so far, but he himself looked to have doubt.
The Smith LBW decision to me was even worse. I thought I fully understood the "umpires call" rule but if the majority of the ball is hitting one of the stumps as it looked to be in this case, then in my eyes that should be out. |  | | |
| Third test on 20:20 - Aug 1 with 7676 views | ChaffRAFC |
| Third test on 20:12 - Aug 1 by ColDale |
I must say that I thought that the Aussie batsman (not gonna attempt to spell it) was very slow to appeal. Despite what the replays showed, the feeling at the ground was that he wasn't convinced that he hadn't hit it and thats why he didn't immediately appeal. Maybe this was down to the way that the Aussies have wasted their appeals so far, but he himself looked to have doubt.
The Smith LBW decision to me was even worse. I thought I fully understood the "umpires call" rule but if the majority of the ball is hitting one of the stumps as it looked to be in this case, then in my eyes that should be out. |
In my opinion, the whole umpires call thing is a load of twaddle (Marc Twaddle?). If a review finds that a ball is going to hit the stumps in any shape or form, it should be out, not depending on how much of the ball is hitting. If a batsmen is caught in front of the stumps then tough. I also disagree with the whole "pitching outside the line" rule. Regardless of where the ball pitches, if the ball is going to hit the stumps, it should be out. |  |
| If I hadn't seen such riches, I could live with being poor |
| |
| Third test on 21:38 - Aug 1 with 7640 views | downunder |
| Third test on 13:51 - Aug 1 by D_Alien |
Snicko isn't able to be used yet due to it taking too long to produce evidence - although apparently its recently been improved to work much faster and may well be usable in the future.
Unfortunately for the Aussies (who seem to be getting the rough end of most DRS calls - although they're partly to blame for wasting some), the use of technology is agreed before the series starts and can't then be changed mid-series.
On this occasion, the third umpire could hear the same noise as the on-field umpire, therefore had to support the original decision. It's fair to point out that without DRS, Khawaja would have been out from the on-field decision anyway. It was only in retrospect when the snicko came through that the decision looked flawed. [Post edited 1 Aug 2013 13:54]
|
You are correct, as usual re snicko, but he ignored hotspot evidence. The hot spot was where bat hit pad, not bat hitting ball. So he (third umpire) is still stupid.IMO | | | |
| Third test on 22:29 - Aug 1 with 7602 views | TalkingSutty |
| Third test on 20:20 - Aug 1 by ChaffRAFC |
In my opinion, the whole umpires call thing is a load of twaddle (Marc Twaddle?). If a review finds that a ball is going to hit the stumps in any shape or form, it should be out, not depending on how much of the ball is hitting. If a batsmen is caught in front of the stumps then tough. I also disagree with the whole "pitching outside the line" rule. Regardless of where the ball pitches, if the ball is going to hit the stumps, it should be out. |
A lot of bowlers (mainly spin bowlers) adopt the tactic of bowling down leg side or wide of the wicket in an attempt to stop the batsman from scoring runs, its a negative tactic and bowled with the sole intention of making run scoring almost impossible for the batsman unless he starts to make unnatural shots to force runs. Its the sort of tactic that makes you go to the bar or switch channels on the telly.
The bowlers should be trying to pitch the ball in line and attempting to try to gain the wicket by out foxing the batsman.
If they changed the rule , it becomes a uneven contest and remember 99% of cricket played around the world (village/school/club cricket) doesnt have the benefit of the review system. It would make the LBW law guess work !! |  | | |
| Third test on 11:47 - Aug 2 with 7535 views | Daley_Lama |
There is nothing wrong with the LBW rule as is and to change it to allow LBW for balls pitching outside leg would lead to the ruination of test cricket and the end of the world.
There is nothing wrong with DRS but it does need tweaking slightly for me.
1. LBW decsions.
Bowling team. If a review shows that the ball was striking the wickets on an original not out decision, but the benefit of the doubt is given to the batsman as less than 50% of the ball is hitting the wicket, then the bowling team should not lose the review.
Equally, a batsman given out on the field LBW with a less than 50% review should not lose the review, even though his loss of wicket still stands.
2. Appoint me as the third umpire in all upcoming tests. I would have given Agar out stumped, given Trott not out and given Khawaja not out, the three shocking 3rd umpire decisions that have caused the controversy.
Those three decisions beggar belief, especially the Trott/Khawaja ones.
Australia's shocking use of it in the first 2 tests leading to the unsavourly Broad not walking incident and likewise the ironic pay back yesterday where Smith was Plummer than Damson Jam to Broad yet couldn't be reviewed as both had been already used are all part and parcel of the teams usage of the system, again not a flaw in the system itself.
THE ICC needs to give 3rd umpires a noddy guide spreadsheet for each potential scenario that DRS can be used and what to do dependant on the evidence given e.g.
On field wick out LBW - Batter reviews
Was it a no ball - YES - Overturn, NO - Proceed to next step
Pitch outside Leg? - YES - Overturn, NO - Proceed to next step
Hit outside off stump was a shot played? YES - Overturn - NO Proceed to next step
Hit bat before hitting pad - YES - Overturn - NO - Proceed to next step
Hitting stumps - NO - Overtun - YES - Uphold the on field umpires decision
For each possible DRP scenario (LBW or Caught - Batsman/Bowling Team) the above step by step process for every single review situation would be relatively quick and standard.
Equally, 3rd umpires could be audited in this way. If in the Trott incident the umpire said at step 4 he didn't hit it, then he could be sent for spectacles or investigatd for bribary. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Third test on 11:57 - Aug 2 with 7521 views | D_Alien |
| Third test on 11:47 - Aug 2 by Daley_Lama |
There is nothing wrong with the LBW rule as is and to change it to allow LBW for balls pitching outside leg would lead to the ruination of test cricket and the end of the world.
There is nothing wrong with DRS but it does need tweaking slightly for me.
1. LBW decsions.
Bowling team. If a review shows that the ball was striking the wickets on an original not out decision, but the benefit of the doubt is given to the batsman as less than 50% of the ball is hitting the wicket, then the bowling team should not lose the review.
Equally, a batsman given out on the field LBW with a less than 50% review should not lose the review, even though his loss of wicket still stands.
2. Appoint me as the third umpire in all upcoming tests. I would have given Agar out stumped, given Trott not out and given Khawaja not out, the three shocking 3rd umpire decisions that have caused the controversy.
Those three decisions beggar belief, especially the Trott/Khawaja ones.
Australia's shocking use of it in the first 2 tests leading to the unsavourly Broad not walking incident and likewise the ironic pay back yesterday where Smith was Plummer than Damson Jam to Broad yet couldn't be reviewed as both had been already used are all part and parcel of the teams usage of the system, again not a flaw in the system itself.
THE ICC needs to give 3rd umpires a noddy guide spreadsheet for each potential scenario that DRS can be used and what to do dependant on the evidence given e.g.
On field wick out LBW - Batter reviews
Was it a no ball - YES - Overturn, NO - Proceed to next step
Pitch outside Leg? - YES - Overturn, NO - Proceed to next step
Hit outside off stump was a shot played? YES - Overturn - NO Proceed to next step
Hit bat before hitting pad - YES - Overturn - NO - Proceed to next step
Hitting stumps - NO - Overtun - YES - Uphold the on field umpires decision
For each possible DRP scenario (LBW or Caught - Batsman/Bowling Team) the above step by step process for every single review situation would be relatively quick and standard.
Equally, 3rd umpires could be audited in this way. If in the Trott incident the umpire said at step 4 he didn't hit it, then he could be sent for spectacles or investigatd for bribary. |
Superb analysis!
In particular, the issue around teams losing a review when the ball is shown to be less than 50% hitting the stumps would be very simple and should be implemented immediately. | |
| |
| Third test on 11:59 - Aug 2 with 7512 views | ChaffRAFC |
| Third test on 22:29 - Aug 1 by TalkingSutty |
A lot of bowlers (mainly spin bowlers) adopt the tactic of bowling down leg side or wide of the wicket in an attempt to stop the batsman from scoring runs, its a negative tactic and bowled with the sole intention of making run scoring almost impossible for the batsman unless he starts to make unnatural shots to force runs. Its the sort of tactic that makes you go to the bar or switch channels on the telly.
The bowlers should be trying to pitch the ball in line and attempting to try to gain the wicket by out foxing the batsman.
If they changed the rule , it becomes a uneven contest and remember 99% of cricket played around the world (village/school/club cricket) doesnt have the benefit of the review system. It would make the LBW law guess work !! |
Your last point is a fair one but if you've got a spin bowler, someone like Shane Warne or Muttiah Muralitharan who can turn the ball a long way then why should they be punished by being able to pitch the ball outside the stumps to turn in and be dead on target? You look back to the wicket that saw Warne burst onto the scene where he got Mike Gatting out or the ball that got Strauss out a in 2005, they pitched a foot outside leg (outside off for Strauss) and clean bowled them. If it had hit the pad it would have been given not out which seems very harsh for a delivery that has been so brilliantly bowled.
I'm not saying the law should be changed, just that I'm not sure I agree with it fully and it all depends whether you want to see runs or wickets. It seems much harsher a rule for spinners than seamers where it's not an issue.
Maybe I'm just bitter that I could have taken more wickets as a young leg spinner! | |
| If I hadn't seen such riches, I could live with being poor |
| |
| Third test on 12:02 - Aug 2 with 7508 views | ChaffRAFC |
| Third test on 11:47 - Aug 2 by Daley_Lama |
There is nothing wrong with the LBW rule as is and to change it to allow LBW for balls pitching outside leg would lead to the ruination of test cricket and the end of the world.
There is nothing wrong with DRS but it does need tweaking slightly for me.
1. LBW decsions.
Bowling team. If a review shows that the ball was striking the wickets on an original not out decision, but the benefit of the doubt is given to the batsman as less than 50% of the ball is hitting the wicket, then the bowling team should not lose the review.
Equally, a batsman given out on the field LBW with a less than 50% review should not lose the review, even though his loss of wicket still stands.
2. Appoint me as the third umpire in all upcoming tests. I would have given Agar out stumped, given Trott not out and given Khawaja not out, the three shocking 3rd umpire decisions that have caused the controversy.
Those three decisions beggar belief, especially the Trott/Khawaja ones.
Australia's shocking use of it in the first 2 tests leading to the unsavourly Broad not walking incident and likewise the ironic pay back yesterday where Smith was Plummer than Damson Jam to Broad yet couldn't be reviewed as both had been already used are all part and parcel of the teams usage of the system, again not a flaw in the system itself.
THE ICC needs to give 3rd umpires a noddy guide spreadsheet for each potential scenario that DRS can be used and what to do dependant on the evidence given e.g.
On field wick out LBW - Batter reviews
Was it a no ball - YES - Overturn, NO - Proceed to next step
Pitch outside Leg? - YES - Overturn, NO - Proceed to next step
Hit outside off stump was a shot played? YES - Overturn - NO Proceed to next step
Hit bat before hitting pad - YES - Overturn - NO - Proceed to next step
Hitting stumps - NO - Overtun - YES - Uphold the on field umpires decision
For each possible DRP scenario (LBW or Caught - Batsman/Bowling Team) the above step by step process for every single review situation would be relatively quick and standard.
Equally, 3rd umpires could be audited in this way. If in the Trott incident the umpire said at step 4 he didn't hit it, then he could be sent for spectacles or investigatd for bribary. |
Agree with that, would improve the system no end. | |
| If I hadn't seen such riches, I could live with being poor |
| |
| Third test on 12:16 - Aug 2 with 7489 views | TVOS1907 |
Boycott on Smith's dismissal:
"Smith's an absolute muppet for getting out like that. There are more brains in a chocolate mouse." |  |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| Third test on 12:19 - Aug 2 with 7488 views | Daley_Lama |
| Third test on 11:59 - Aug 2 by ChaffRAFC |
Your last point is a fair one but if you've got a spin bowler, someone like Shane Warne or Muttiah Muralitharan who can turn the ball a long way then why should they be punished by being able to pitch the ball outside the stumps to turn in and be dead on target? You look back to the wicket that saw Warne burst onto the scene where he got Mike Gatting out or the ball that got Strauss out a in 2005, they pitched a foot outside leg (outside off for Strauss) and clean bowled them. If it had hit the pad it would have been given not out which seems very harsh for a delivery that has been so brilliantly bowled.
I'm not saying the law should be changed, just that I'm not sure I agree with it fully and it all depends whether you want to see runs or wickets. It seems much harsher a rule for spinners than seamers where it's not an issue.
Maybe I'm just bitter that I could have taken more wickets as a young leg spinner! |
For me it's a case of swinging the favour between bat and ball firmly to that of the bowler.
Quickies as well as spinners would target the leg side if this rule was changed with 7 fielders on the leg side and your average batsman would become becalmed with no realistic way of counter-attacking a bowler.
I can feel your pain however as a leggie, I reckon you would have got more if your club employed DRS too. | |
| |
| Third test on 12:27 - Aug 2 with 7476 views | ColDale |
best review ever | | | |
| Third test on 12:28 - Aug 2 with 7474 views | ChaffRAFC |
| Third test on 12:27 - Aug 2 by ColDale |
best review ever |
Unreal! He's practically middled it!!
On your bike Warner! | |
| If I hadn't seen such riches, I could live with being poor |
| |
| Third test on 12:30 - Aug 2 with 7470 views | Daley_Lama |
| Third test on 12:28 - Aug 2 by ChaffRAFC |
Unreal! He's practically middled it!!
On your bike Warner! |
Can I change my previous comment from 2 to 3? Ridiculoua referral!
"Australia's shocking use of it in the first 2 tests" | |
| |
| Third test on 12:31 - Aug 2 with 7470 views | TVOS1907 |
| Third test on 12:27 - Aug 2 by ColDale |
best review ever |
I think that's known as "doing a Broad". | |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| Third test on 12:41 - Aug 2 with 7457 views | ColDale |
not sure its right that Lehmann listens to the Sky commentary throughout the game. I know it gives him access to further expert advice but I'd be concerned that he has too much advice. Would make much more sense to have someone in his backroom staff listening to it and bring him any relevant snippets, but listening to it all as it goes on seems rather strange. | | | |
| Third test on 12:52 - Aug 2 with 7442 views | Daley_Lama |
You can get 7/1 on an England win at the mo.
The case for taking this.
1. Clarke is an adventurous captain and an early declaration in both innings is possible
2. Australia needing to win this game makes this doubley likely
3. The forecast for rain is there but getting less day by day for the next 3 days
4. As seen in Lancs games this season, the wicket holds up pretty well until day 4
5. England scored 551-6 in Adelaide in 2005 having lost the first test and lost by 6 wickets having declared and collapsed second innings D4/D5 to the best spinner in the world. This aussie team likes a collapse and Swann aint bad. [Post edited 2 Aug 2013 12:54]
| |
| |
| Third test on 12:55 - Aug 2 with 7438 views | lurker |
| Third test on 12:41 - Aug 2 by ColDale |
not sure its right that Lehmann listens to the Sky commentary throughout the game. I know it gives him access to further expert advice but I'd be concerned that he has too much advice. Would make much more sense to have someone in his backroom staff listening to it and bring him any relevant snippets, but listening to it all as it goes on seems rather strange. |
I'd be more concerned if I was an Aussie to be honest.
He is taking advice from 6 former England captains, who I am sure will be lacing their comments with the odd doughnut that they know he will hear! |  | | |
| Third test on 18:19 - Aug 2 with 7362 views | TVOS1907 |
Worst non-review ever! | |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| Third test on 18:21 - Aug 2 with 7360 views | ColDale |
| Third test on 18:19 - Aug 2 by TVOS1907 |
Worst non-review ever! |
I suspect Bresnan didn't want to waste an appeal on non batsman given he wasn't 100% certain | | | |
| Third test on 18:23 - Aug 2 with 7359 views | TVOS1907 |
| Third test on 18:21 - Aug 2 by ColDale |
I suspect Bresnan didn't want to waste an appeal on non batsman given he wasn't 100% certain |
He should never have been sent in with half-hour to play. | |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
