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

krikri wrote:
There's not even a chucky doosra excuse to hide behind. Completely pathetic!

That's probably the best thing about it.

taipan wrote:

Dello wrote:Some thoughts:

Ian Bell was never out. That was some appalling Hawkeye-ing. How could it possibly predict that a ball which pitched on off stump, hit Bell marginally in line with off stump ("Umpire's call"), having turned to off, was also going to hit off stump after travelling a further eight feet?

Woody will explain it to you. Apparently the rule states that if you are hit wicket to wicket the umpire has to rule that the ball will hit the stumps.

embee wrote:LBW interpretation

The path of the ball at the moment of interception is what the umpire considers not what the ball may have or would have done ...this if it is first intercepted on the full or the first or second bounce

...

I would be so emberrassed if I was taipan or his boyfriend

congrats to Herath, Jaya and the Lankans on what was a pretty convincing victory at the end...Commis' to jammy, Trott and chinhead who put up some decent efforts for the Poms...

aside from the daffy saffies who look a class ahead (despite the effects of the quota that sees the likes of snorkel selected), the great thing about this result is it shows an evenness in international cricket.

....hopefully the bangles and the windies are on the rise and it seems the snoozies and even the Oz have improved ...the bannies and the pomgolians have been brought back to earth with a sickening thud for their players and fans so the challenge is there for both those countries to rebuild

taipan wrote:Belf. Premeditated. Was probably a good decision.

Bollocks was it a good decision. The replays clearly showed the ball turning to off upon pitching.

Hawkeye said it hit Bell marginally on off stump and went straight on - and would've just clipped the stump.

No way in a million years was that hitting. Hawkeye's graphics bore no relation to the live action.

Doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things - Bell would've premeditated his wicket away in good time in any case - but it was a feather in the cap for the Indians who think the Hawkeye "predictive" technology is absolute horseshit.

G.Wood wrote:

embee wrote:LBW interpretation

The path of the ball at the moment of interception is what the umpire considers not what the ball may have or would have done ...this if it is first intercepted on the full or the first or second bounce

...

I would be so emberrassed if I was taipan or his boyfriend

If the Assassin says it's so, then apologies.

So according to this, all the hawk eye decisions I have seen where the batsmen is hit wicket to wicket , and the batsman is given not out because the ball is missing leg are incorrect.

path of the ball continues straight on....not straightens

This is where I think we are talking at cross purposes. Woody's contention is that the umpire cannot consider the track of the ball after interception.

he shouldnt consider any possible changes of track after interception

Okay, that makes sense.

any swing , seam , spin or even (for the benefit of Red) late seam movement that would or may have occurred after interception is ignored for the purpose of determining LBW

Well I would suggest that has always been the case. If the ball has already started swinging away from the stumps before the interception the decision is not out.

The difference is in the interpretation of the full toss. An umpire has to assume the ball is hitting the stumps if the batsman is hit wicket to wicket, regardless of the swing before interception.

Extreme scenario

if a right arm bowler bowls wide of the crease and an inswinging full toss hits a rh batsman in front of leg stump (Ie he is hit in line but the ball wouldnt hit the stumps) ....what do think the umps interpretation is?

embee wrote:Extreme scenario

if a right arm bowler bowls wide of the crease and an inswinging full toss hits a rh batsman in front of leg stump (Ie he is hit in line but the ball wouldnt hit the stumps) ....what do think the umps interpretation is?

Under the present intrepretation as I understand it, he stould be given out. That is why I have reservations about it

embee wrote:Extreme scenario

if a right arm bowler bowls wide of the crease and an inswinging full toss hits a rh batsman in front of leg stump (Ie he is hit in line but the ball wouldnt hit the stumps) ....what do think the umps interpretation is?

not out

Glad to see taipan is finally grasping the lbw law.

I'm surprised it took this long



But then again, he is South African

its not out. the path of the ball continues straight, i.e. its present trajectory. it doesnt suddenly straighten down the line of the pitch if hit wicket to wicket

taipan wrote:

embee wrote:Extreme scenario

if a right arm bowler bowls wide of the crease and an inswinging full toss hits a rh batsman in front of leg stump (Ie he is hit in line but the ball wouldnt hit the stumps) ....what do think the umps interpretation is?

Under the present intrepretation as I understand it, he stould be given out. That is why I have reservations about it

No wonder you were confused if you think that is how the lbw law is applied

I don't know whether to laugh or feel sorry for you

G.Wood wrote:

taipan wrote:

embee wrote:Extreme scenario

if a right arm bowler bowls wide of the crease and an inswinging full toss hits a rh batsman in front of leg stump (Ie he is hit in line but the ball wouldnt hit the stumps) ....what do think the umps interpretation is?

Under the present intrepretation as I understand it, he stould be given out. That is why I have reservations about it

No wonder you were confused if you think that is how the lbw law is applied

I don't know whether to laugh or feel sorry for you

lets see what embee says.

you must feel really stupid after all your smug vitriol yesterday

No, I'm still happy I was correct.

PMSL

Even Horace knows the law

taipan wrote:

embee wrote:Extreme scenario

if a right arm bowler bowls wide of the crease and an inswinging full toss hits a rh batsman in front of leg stump (Ie he is hit in line but the ball wouldnt hit the stumps) ....what do think the umps interpretation is?

Under the present intrepretation as I understand it, he stould be given out. That is why I have reservations about it

No ...it's not out ...the path of the ball at interception was missing the stumps

Next scenario

Prodigious turner of the ball on a raging bunsen bowls from in front of middle and off a full toss that is whirring with sidespin that hits the batsman on the full on the foot in front of middle and off with a half step forward ...what is the umpires interpretation?

Is that the scenario in the Ashes 2005 where Fat Julio had an Anglo out and the umps didn't give it and Julio went on about it for about 3 mins?