Rudi strikes back!

"The first one, with Hauritz, you stand there in the middle and you see the batsman play the shot and for a few seconds you lose the ball
because you don't always know where the ball goes," he said. "The next moment, when I looked around me, all I saw were his hands going down. I
just thought, 'I'm not sure whether he caught it.' That's when I had to go to my colleague. I spoke to him and he said to me, 'Rudi, I'm not
sure either. I missed the flight of the ball as well.' Then we have to go upstairs because we're not sure. That's a protocol. I had to go
upstairs. As the third umpire indicated, it was inconclusive. The biggest problem is because it's not three-dimensional, it was
inconclusive to him as to whether the catch was taken or not. We had to give the benefit to the batsman. It's a simple as that.


"The one the day before yesterday, I couldn't see where the catch was taken because I had the bowler running down the
wicket. I didn't have a clue. I didn't even know who was catching the ball at that stage. I went straight to my partner and asked, 'Was it a
fair catch?' and he said, 'Yes, it went straight in.' That's it. So long as one of the on-field umpires is sure that the ball has carried,
the decision will stay on the field. That's a protocol from the ICC. It's been in our conditions all the time.

Zat wrote:So he's admitting he's incompetent then? Because any umpire saying he was 'certain' about the second one is full of shit.

JKLever wrote:

Zat wrote:So he's admitting he's incompetent then? Because any umpire saying he was 'certain' about the second one is full of shit.

How do you know that? It was Doctroves call and he'd be in a decent position to see it. 'Straight in' he days....

You can't go on the TV evidence for slip catches imo due to foreshortening of TV pics

Jontyh wrote:Ffs, Red - put them away. I'm trying to work here.

skully wrote:

Jontyh wrote:Ffs, Red - put them away. I'm trying to work here.

Have a look at the How to Sook about Anything - Chapter 1 thread.

taipan wrote:

skully wrote:

Jontyh wrote:Ffs, Red - put them away. I'm trying to work here.

Have a look at the How to Sook about Anything - Chapter 1 thread.

That will finish him off.

skully wrote:"Revenge of the Sh!t"

Jontyh wrote:

taipan wrote:

skully wrote:

Jontyh wrote:Ffs, Red - put them away. I'm trying to work here.

Have a look at the How to Sook about Anything - Chapter 1 thread.

That will finish him off.

Yup. That Zim's a proper qunt

taipan wrote:

Jontyh wrote:

taipan wrote:

skully wrote:

Jontyh wrote:Ffs, Red - put them away. I'm trying to work here.

Have a look at the How to Sook about Anything - Chapter 1 thread.

That will finish him off.

Yup. That Zim's a proper qunt

Was that good?

Jontyh wrote:

taipan wrote:

Jontyh wrote:

taipan wrote:

skully wrote:

Jontyh wrote:Ffs, Red - put them away. I'm trying to work here.

Have a look at the How to Sook about Anything - Chapter 1 thread.

That will finish him off.

Yup. That Zim's a proper qunt

Was that good?

Made a pleasant change from ogling the young girls in the office.

JKLever wrote:

Zat wrote:So he's admitting he's incompetent then? Because any umpire saying he was 'certain' about the second one is full of shit.

How do you know that? It was Doctroves call and he'd be in a decent position to see it. 'Straight in' he days....

You can't go on the TV evidence for slip catches imo due to foreshortening of TV pics

Zat wrote:Inded JR. And what about Flintoff's 'the pavilion's that way' point after he got Katich? No action on that either.

Dello wrote:
Yes indeedy.

Always said don't bother with replays for disputed catches as they're almost always inconclusive due to the limitations of the technology. Inconclusive equals not out, which then makes a mockery of referring the decision for "clarity".

This is what we'll see when referrals come into place full-time after this series: every batsman will refer a catch that is tight to the ground, full of confidence that they'll be given not out, not due to the "evidence" but due to the inadequacies of the "evidence".

Hass wrote:

Dello wrote:
Yes indeedy.

Always said don't bother with replays for disputed catches as they're almost always inconclusive due to the limitations of the technology. Inconclusive equals not out, which then makes a mockery of referring the decision for "clarity".

This is what we'll see when referrals come into place full-time after this series: every batsman will refer a catch that is tight to the ground, full of confidence that they'll be given not out, not due to the "evidence" but due to the inadequacies of the "evidence".

But the question is, would the Hughes dismissal have been overturned on referral? In that situation the umpire's original decision is given the benefit of the doubt, not the batsman. On the balance of probabilities I'd say Strauss didn't catch that ball, but the third umpire needs to be certain Doctrove got it wrong. On that evidence he couldn't be certain so Hughes would be sent packing.

Assuming third umpires stick to this guideline, batting sides will quickly realise that referring close catches is just an easy way to waste a referral.

Shoeshine wrote:

Zat wrote:Inded JR. And what about Flintoff's 'the pavilion's that way' point after he got Katich? No action on that either.

Er. I don't remember him doing that at all.

England bowler Andrew Flintoff points Simon Katich back to the pavilion