England v South Africa, 3rd Test, Lords, 16-20 Aug, 2012

from cricinfo:

"Now the South-Africans can relax," exhales Johan. "England are out of reviews!"

4 balls later ...

Almost JGKesque!

Oh.

It would be very 'England' if Tucker and his men winkled SAf out for 170 and got skittled for 110 themselves.

Sorry, STRAUSS. Did I say Tucker?

lardbucket wrote:

Henry wrote:Kallis was very unlucky. The way I read it, Dharmasena gave it not out because he didn't think it touched Kallis's glove, and that when third umpire Tucker told him it HAD touched his glove, Dharmasena wanted it reversed.

In other words, it seems that the third umpire is only reviewing the REASON the on field umpire gave it not out, rather than the decision as a whole, and if Dharmasena had given it not out because Kallis gloved it but his glove was off the bat, then Tucker would have upheld that decision.

Trev makes a good point here.

Tucker may well only have been asked by the on-field umpire IF the ball hit the glove.

If so, there are still holes in the system.

Not sure if he is allowed to ask that question, but even if he is Tucker must be a colossal dickhead not to tell him the hand was off the bat. Surely the raison d'être for DRS is to get the correct decision.

Anderson goes ahead of Bob Willis in aggregate wickets taken in Lord's Tests. Still some way behind Fiery and Beefy:

Aggregate Wicket-Takers in Lord's Tests

That may be the reason we hope for, taips, and hopefully it might get there one day, but to date I think there are only specific questions that can be answered by the 3rd umpire ... eg did the ball carry, was the catch taken cleanly, did the ball hit the glove.

embee would know how things stand

Lardy

It varies between formats and series

The ICC website will have the current tv umpire conditions

From the ICC website ....

3.3. The process of consultation
a) On receipt of an eligible and timely request for a Player Review, the on-field umpire will make the sign
of a television with his hands in the normal way.
b) He will initiate communication with the third umpire by confirming the decision that has been made
and that the player has requested a Player Review.
c) The third umpire must then work alone, independent of outside help or comment, other than when
consulting the on-field umpire.
d) A two-way consultation process should begin to investigate whether there is anything that the third
umpire can see or hear which would indicate that the on-field umpire should change his decision.
e) This consultation should be on points of fact, where possible phrased in a manner leading to yes or no
answers. Questions requiring a single answer based on a series of judgements, such as “do you think
that was LBW?” are to be avoided.
f) The third umpire shall not withhold any factual information which may help in the decision making
process, even if the information is not directly prompted by the on-field umpire’s questions. In
particular, in reviewing a dismissal, if the third umpire believes that the batsman may instead be out by
any other mode of dismissal, he shall advise the on-field umpire accordingly. The process of consultation described in this paragraph in respect of such other mode of dismissal shall then be conducted as if the
batsman has been given not out.
g) The third umpire should initially check whether the delivery is fair under Law 24.5 (‘’fair delivery – the
feet’’) and under Clause 42.4.2(a) (‘’full toss passing above waist height’’), where appropriate advising
the on-field umpire accordingly.
h) If despite the available technology, the third umpire is unable to answer with a high degree of
confidence a particular question posed by the on-field umpire, then he should report that the replays
are ‘’inconclusive’’. The third umpire should not give answers conveying likelihoods or probabilities.

Link

DRS conditions about half way down the page

lardbucket wrote:That may be the reason we hope for, taips, and hopefully it might get there one day, but to date I think there are only specific questions that can be answered by the 3rd umpire ... eg did the ball carry, was the catch taken cleanly, did the ball hit the glove.

embee would know how things stand

And the question would be "did he glove it"

If the hand was off the bat the answer should still be no. Either way Tucker has screwed the pooch.

'did it touch the glove' would be a question that could be answered by a yes or no

it is possible that the system has caused some of the confusion here and IMO it would be hasty to condemn the umpire before we know exactly what he was asked and how he responded

see the bolded bit

S African team is brilliant, a player of the class of JP Duminy batting at 7

Very talented player but mentally a little weak

I did

lardbucket wrote:'did it touch the glove' would be a question that could be answered by a yes or no

it is possible that the system has caused some of the confusion here and IMO it would be hasty to condemn the umpire before we know exactly what he was asked and how he responded

Anyway MB's post has rendered this debate null and void. It is clear Tucker farked it up.

I don't think you have considered all the permutations

at this stage we still have umpires on the field

Asad Rauf's girlfriend would have done a better job than these umps

Session to SA on points, but still behind the eight ball.

Saffies about to bring the 200 up ... 7 of the 8 batsmen on display into double figures, but no 50 yet. Difficult deck?

Unlucky Kallis, definitely.

But, I think it's one of the shittest rules going.

Oh, and Stuart Broad is a load of floaty, powder puff shit. Dobbing f*ckface.

This is shit from England. Philander's a wank batsman. Yeah, yeah.. I know his FC record. But I've seen enough of him. He's shit.

This is all very 'Tino Best'.

Cocks.

Terrible shot from Duminy. Another shite ball gets a wicket!

Broad has never changed from floaty, powder puffness. Just so happens he got away with it for a while.

Haven't watched any bar the first hour so will have a look at the highlights before I comment on the rest.

Well other than Jimmy who bowled very well, and Finn in patches, that was a poor day in my opinion for England.

Didn't take their chance as they should have.

Broad was rubbish! Swann inneffective.