Sri Lanka v England, 1st Test, Galle, 26-30 March, 2012

Henry wrote:

The One wrote:

skully wrote:I'm with Beefy. Belf was hit on the front pad 8 feet down the wicket. The DRS prediction looked dodgy to me.

Anywho, the scorebook says he's out, and that's a big wicket.

surely if the DRS is not reliable the original decision stands

thats what happened to one of the english batsmen in the world cup, to their advantage at the time

In the World Cup, wasn't Bell given not out, India reviewed it, and hawkeye showed the ball crashing into middle stump halfway up, but because the 2.5 metre rule was in place, hawkeye was disregarded and the original (not out) decision stood?

err yes. the original decision stood

So they had a rule in place that acknowledged that the technology wasn't 100% accurate. Here, they don't have the 2.5 metre rule, or hotspot. Completely different scenario.

Not surprisingly enough, the 2.5 metre rule was scrapped after that Indian whinge over the Bell not out.

Not the worst session for England ever. 2-66. Prior looks OK, and Trott is still solid as a rock.

Sri Lanka still ahead. Our tail might be able to slog a quick 20 here and there, but 163 runs is still a long way off.

Henry wrote:So they had a rule in place that acknowledged that the technology wasn't 100% accurate. Here, they don't have the 2.5 metre rule, or hotspot. Completely different scenario.

Not surprisingly enough, the 2.5 metre rule was scrapped after that Indian whinge over the Bell not out.

I agree, Trev. I'd accept a permanent rule that said if the side-on shot shows you were struck 2.5 m down then you can't be gunned, unless the prediction shows it hitting middle, well below the bails.

skully wrote:The original decision was out. But in my day as a player and spectator, anything that hit you on the front pad playing well forward was just about always not out. We all know the ball can swing after it has pitched, so how can an umpire be sure that in 7 or 8 feet, it won't move in the air?

Because the law was changed to say he has to ignore that possibility

G.Wood wrote:

skully wrote:The original decision was out. But in my day as a player and spectator, anything that hit you on the front pad playing well forward was just about always not out. We all know the ball can swing after it has pitched, so how can an umpire be sure that in 7 or 8 feet, it won't move in the air?

Because the law was changed to say he has to ignore that possibility

Wasn't that only for full tosses?

Indeed taips. Woody toking a bit too hard this arvo.

skully wrote:

Henry wrote:So they had a rule in place that acknowledged that the technology wasn't 100% accurate. Here, they don't have the 2.5 metre rule, or hotspot. Completely different scenario.

Not surprisingly enough, the 2.5 metre rule was scrapped after that Indian whinge over the Bell not out.

I agree, Trev. I'd accept a permanent rule that said if the side-on shot shows you were struck 2.5 m down then you can't be gunned, unless the prediction shows it hitting middle, well below the bails.

Not even that. If the original decision is not out, the batsman is more than 2.5 metres down the pitch, and hawkeye still shows the ball crashing into middle halfway up, then hawkeye still becomes irrelevant.

Imo there has to be a definitive point where hawkeye becomes too unpredictable to be relied upon. A decent rule was once again nipped in the bud by the toothless ICC giving into Indian pressure.

Yeah, I'd never allow an overrule of a "not out" when >2.5m. However if a batsmen "T"s the "out" decision, and he is hit >2.5m down then it must hit middle to remove "most of the" doubt.

Henry wrote:

skully wrote:

Henry wrote:So they had a rule in place that acknowledged that the technology wasn't 100% accurate. Here, they don't have the 2.5 metre rule, or hotspot. Completely different scenario.

Not surprisingly enough, the 2.5 metre rule was scrapped after that Indian whinge over the Bell not out.

I agree, Trev. I'd accept a permanent rule that said if the side-on shot shows you were struck 2.5 m down then you can't be gunned, unless the prediction shows it hitting middle, well below the bails.

Not even that. If the original decision is not out, the batsman if more than 2.5 metres down the pitch, and hawkeye still shows the ball crashing into middle halfway up, then hawkeye still becomes irrelevant.

Imo there has to be a definitive point where hawkeye becomes too unpredictable to be relied upon. A decent rule was once again nipped in the bud by the toothless ICC giving into Indian pressure.

Why would the Indians need the rule changed. They refuse to use hawkeye anyway.

taipan wrote:

G.Wood wrote:

skully wrote:The original decision was out. But in my day as a player and spectator, anything that hit you on the front pad playing well forward was just about always not out. We all know the ball can swing after it has pitched, so how can an umpire be sure that in 7 or 8 feet, it won't move in the air?

Because the law was changed to say he has to ignore that possibility

Wasn't that only for full tosses?

Interception of the ball
(a) In assessing points (c), (d) and (e) in 1 above, only the first interception is to be considered.
(b) In assessing point (e) in 1 above, it is to be assumed that the path of the ball before interception would have continued after interception, irrespective of whether the ball might have pitched subsequently or not

I stand corrected.

skully wrote:Indeed taips. Woody toking a bit too hard this arvo.

pats skully on the head

India's opposition to the 2.5 metre rule is even harder to swallow seeing as those c*nts at the BCCI don't even want to use technology in the first place. India tried it for just one tournament and still found a reason to whinge and press the ICC for a rule change.

p.s. having to assume a magoo full toss would travel straight on must be one of the silliest law changes ever

I'm interested to know whether our resident umpire, the Assassinating One, would ever gun a batsman like Tucker did to Belf i.e. hit on the front pad 8 feet down?

G.Wood wrote:

taipan wrote:

G.Wood wrote:

skully wrote:The original decision was out. But in my day as a player and spectator, anything that hit you on the front pad playing well forward was just about always not out. We all know the ball can swing after it has pitched, so how can an umpire be sure that in 7 or 8 feet, it won't move in the air?

Because the law was changed to say he has to ignore that possibility

Wasn't that only for full tosses?

Interception of the ball
(a) In assessing points (c), (d) and (e) in 1 above, only the first interception is to be considered.
(b) In assessing point (e) in 1 above, it is to be assumed that the path of the ball before interception would have continued after interception, irrespective of whether the ball might have pitched subsequently or not

And the implication is that it is a full, toss unless you are expecting the ball to pitch twice.

Nicely spotted, taips. I could have sworn that law only applies to full tosses. MB?

G.Wood wrote:

skully wrote:Indeed taips. Woody toking a bit too hard this arvo.

pats skully on the head

No, I think taips has got you.

taipan wrote:

G.Wood wrote:

taipan wrote:

G.Wood wrote:

skully wrote:The original decision was out. But in my day as a player and spectator, anything that hit you on the front pad playing well forward was just about always not out. We all know the ball can swing after it has pitched, so how can an umpire be sure that in 7 or 8 feet, it won't move in the air?

Because the law was changed to say he has to ignore that possibility

Wasn't that only for full tosses?

Interception of the ball
(a) In assessing points (c), (d) and (e) in 1 above, only the first interception is to be considered.
(b) In assessing point (e) in 1 above, it is to be assumed that the path of the ball before interception would have continued after interception, irrespective of whether the ball might have pitched subsequently or not

And the implication is that it is a full, toss unless you are expecting the ball to pitch twice.

FFS

G.Wood wrote:

taipan wrote:

G.Wood wrote:

taipan wrote:

G.Wood wrote:

skully wrote:The original decision was out. But in my day as a player and spectator, anything that hit you on the front pad playing well forward was just about always not out. We all know the ball can swing after it has pitched, so how can an umpire be sure that in 7 or 8 feet, it won't move in the air?

Because the law was changed to say he has to ignore that possibility

Wasn't that only for full tosses?

Interception of the ball
(a) In assessing points (c), (d) and (e) in 1 above, only the first interception is to be considered.
(b) In assessing point (e) in 1 above, it is to be assumed that the path of the ball before interception would have continued after interception, irrespective of whether the ball might have pitched subsequently or not

And the implication is that it is a full, toss unless you are expecting the ball to pitch twice.

FFS

FFS Woody you pissed or somethink?

They are saying the full toss might or might not pitch before hitting the stumps. A full toss is judged when it reaches the batsman not the stumps.

Here's the full rule.

1. Out LBW
The striker is out LBW in the circumstances set out below.
(a) The bowler delivers a ball, not being a No ball
and (b) the ball, if it is not intercepted full pitch, pitches in line between wicket and wicket or on the off side of the striker’s wicket
and (c) the ball not having previously touched his bat, the striker intercepts the ball, either full pitch or after pitching, with any part of his person
and (d) the point of impact, even if above the level of the bails,
either (i) is between wicket and wicket
or (ii) if the striker has made no genuine attempt to play the ball with his bat, is either between wicket and wicket or outside the line of the off stump.
and (e) but for the interception, the ball would have hit the wicket.

2. Interception of the ball
(a) In assessing points (c), (d) and (e) in 1 above, only the first interception is to be considered.
(b) In assessing point (e) in 1 above, it is to be assumed that the path of the ball before interception would have continued after interception, irrespective of whether the ball might have pitched subsequently or not.

This one could go down to the wire. I hope Fox are showing it tonight.

Pats Woody on the head.