England v Australia, 3rd Test, Old Trafford, 1-5 August, 2013

Bon Voyage

Aus definitely the new India. Now whinging to ICC about umpires and DRS!

   

tricycle wrote:Wasn't thinking about these posts, just the two boards. Shit decisions have been made in the past too, but it's been exception till the boards start weighing in.

And I can also tell when I'm hungover in the morning Whatever did it mean in context...

skully wrote:

tricycle wrote:Why not take the South African approach to the DRS controversies and not comment? One side saying decisions doing rimjobs and the other shooting off letters to the ICC. Don't think it's a coincidence that in the two series where DRS and the umpires have been under most scrutiny has it come up with the most controversial decisions, when India toured and now.

Was talking to my cricket loving little bro this morning, and after chatting about the ongoing "misuse" of the DRS i.e. it's there to eradicate the howler (not to give an unwarranted reprieve), we thought the best approach might be to flick DRS altogether.

Retain 3rd umpires for run outs, stumpings, no balls and contentious catches etc, but do away with the referral system. The 3rd Umpire then has it within his powers to overrule on any howlers. His time limit is until the "dismissed" batsmen leaves the field. He still has all the existing technology available to him. If he calls the on-ground ump before the out player leaves the field of player with a reversal, he survives. I reckon 99% of batsmen know when they are not out, or close to not out. AS he straggles off dejectedly and obviously in disagreement, the 3rd ump has the 2 minutes or so to review. It could eradicate howlers AND stop the misuse of the referral by dicks like Twatson, who do it in hope rather than gut feel of not being out.

Fair enough, if there's a means to do it without slowing the game and the Ryobi cup example's a problem.

What was ironic yesterday was that snicko was available just as the decisions were being made.

embee wrote:It would take Watto 6 months to leave the field in the hope he would get a reprieve

That sounds like the system they used last year in the Ryobi (and/or Big Bash) ...not perfect but OK

I think Sam Whiteman (or another debutant Wozzie batsman) got a howler and was so disappointed he was off the field before they could call him back so the "out" couldnt be overturned ...it led to some very slow walks off the field    

Fair enough, but Dharme-no-seen-a was taking ages last night to come up with his idiot decisions. Shirley a funeral march (2 mins max) is a very small price to pay for eradication of a howler?

embee wrote:

skully wrote:

baggygreen wrote:Boof favouriting his converted Banjo

 

UKoaja

Ah yes. Shows what sort of season UK had for the Banjos - I'd forgotten he'd moved north.

The statement was made in the context of Warner v Hughes.

Cheers A.

WideWally wrote:Sorry. Three minutes.

Which still leaves ample time for the incoming bat to on the field before the howler check. As I said, say 2 minutes to review. The outgoing and incoming bats can be at the gate together for that matter. If the howler is correctly overturned, then reprieved bat scoots back to th wicket - if not, he steps off field of play and passes his mate.

tricycle wrote:What was ironic yesterday was that snicko was available just as the decisions were being made.

Aye, the snicko has been coming up pretty quickly after a contentious decision.

On the subject of bad calls

http://www.sportal.com.au/cricket/news/international/dirty-dozenworst-decisions-in-cricket-hist-246352

skully wrote:

WideWally wrote:Sorry. Three minutes.

Which still leaves ample time for the incoming bat to on the field before the howler check. As I said, say 2 minutes to review. The outgoing and incoming bats can be at the gate together for that matter. If the howler is correctly overturned, then reprieved bat scoots back to th wicket - if not, he steps off field of play and passes his mate.
.

Agreed. This is what I was thinking a couple of weeks ago (regarding Point 2) when we discussed the DRS.

WideWally wrote:
1. No reviews should be allowed by the players.

2. The third umpire should review every dismissal. (That is checking for the howler)

3. If the third umpire thinks the on-field umpire may have erred (howler) when giving a "not-out" decision, he lets the on-field umpire know that he wants to take one look at it & if he believes it is required, further review. The speed of technology might need to be improved to prevent this costing too much time but if it was only used for howlers then that might not be the case. Players are to maintain their normal positions while this is happening & are not allowed to form a huddle..

Blackadder wrote:On the subject of bad calls

http://www.sportal.com.au/cricket/news/international/dirty-dozenworst-decisions-in-cricket-hist-246352

Ah, memories.

WideWally wrote:

skully wrote:

WideWally wrote:Sorry. Three minutes.

Which still leaves ample time for the incoming bat to on the field before the howler check. As I said, say 2 minutes to review. The outgoing and incoming bats can be at the gate together for that matter. If the howler is correctly overturned, then reprieved bat scoots back to the wicket - if not, he steps off field of play and passes his mate.

Agreed. This is similar to what I was suggesting a couple of weeks ago when we discussed the DRS.

WideWally wrote:
1. No reviews should be allowed by the players.

2. The third umpire should review every dismissal. (That is checking for the howler)

3. If the third umpire thinks the on-field umpire may have erred (howler) when giving a "not-out" decision, he lets the on-field umpire know that he wants to take one look at it & if he believes it is required, further review. The speed of technology might need to be improved to prevent this costing too much time but if it was only used for howlers then that might not be the case. Players are to maintain their normal positions while this is happening & are not allowed to form a huddle..

Cool.

The problem at the moment is that the third umpire seems to be incompetent so the correct decision won't necessarily be reached using any method.

Indeed. It really blows your mind when you watch the 12 dismissals in the link BA put up.

WideWally wrote:The problem at the moment is that the third umpire seems to be incompetent so the correct decision won't necessarily be reached using any method.

Aye, sadly not sure even having specialist video umpires will eliminate the shockers.
As long as their are decisions to be made, their will be the shockers.

skully wrote:Indeed. It really blows your mind when you watch the 12 dismissals in the link BA put up.

I still vividly remember watching the Flintoff dismissal v NZ, and is still the worst decision I've ever seen. He missed it by 6 inches and the bowler didn't even appeal.

Neil D wrote:

skully wrote:Indeed. It really blows your mind when you watch the 12 dismissals in the link BA put up.

I still vividly remember watching the Flintoff dismissal v NZ, and is still the worst decision I've ever seen.  He missed it by 6 inches and the bowler didn't even appeal.

Decisions like that and that Gilchrist one make you wonder at times given the recent revelations of [umpires and players being involved in fixing] if they were on the take? The India-WI series in WI in 2002 was a highly dubious one and worst over a whole series with Ashocker refusing to give out Hooper and Chanderpaul test after test allowing them to score huge 100s costing us a series win after being 1-0 up. I always used to wonder if he was working for Mr. John back then! I am surprised some of those blatantly clear decisions not given are not among the worst 12 list.

Current test, Aus is sitting pretty but this side is really just one man batting side. They do well only when Clarke scores a huge one. He is the Aus version of SRT of 90s in a team full of average bats or FTBs. Its really just one wicket away [Clarke's preferably].

True enough, V, but we knew that going into the Ashes. A rusty Ponting and a still-young-at-heart Hussey would've made a big difference to this top 7. It's why I'd like to see a technically correct bloke like Koaja given a bit of a go to develop into a Test player. Flat track bullies like Hughes and Warner do not belong in the Aus top 7.

Has anyone mentioned how SHIT Tony Hill is???? The man has no idea. For all the justified stick that Dharmasena is receiving, remember it was Hill that gave him out on the field in the first place. And then there was the Smith LBW. Stone. F*cking. Dead.

I agree with that crazy Gus man- Every time there's an appeal, you can see on Hill's face that the coin is flipping over in his head- Heads you're out, tails your safe. The man has no clue.

Anyway, England's chance of victory has gone. Congrats to Aus on preventing your 7th consecutive test loss. Draw is the only realistic option. Expect Aus to declare on 570-5 and us to be in a swishy, loose-shot-heap at 53-4 at stumps.

skully wrote:

tricycle wrote:Why not take the South African approach to the DRS controversies and not comment? One side saying decisions doing rimjobs and the other shooting off letters to the ICC. Don't think it's a coincidence that in the two series where DRS and the umpires have been under most scrutiny has it come up with the most controversial decisions, when India toured and now.

Was talking to my cricket loving little bro this morning, and after chatting about the ongoing "misuse" of the DRS i.e. it's there to eradicate the howler (not to give an unwarranted reprieve), we thought the best approach might be to flick DRS altogether.

Retain 3rd umpires for run outs, stumpings, no balls and contentious catches etc, but do away with the referral system. The 3rd Umpire then has it within his powers to overrule on any howlers. His time limit is until the "dismissed" batsmen leaves the field. He still has all the existing technology available to him. If he calls the on-ground ump before the out player leaves the field of player with a reversal, he survives. I reckon 99% of batsmen know when they are not out, or close to not out. AS he straggles off dejectedly and obviously in disagreement, the 3rd ump has the 2 minutes or so to review. It could eradicate howlers AND stop the misuse of the referral by dicks like Twatson, who do it in hope rather than gut feel of not being out.

No, they should retain DRS, what they need to do is make it better.

The Khawaja decision was wrongly given out by the ump, so without DRS it would still have been a mistake. IMO (unlike most of the media in England) the Smith decision they were right not to overturn it, unless the sound was out of sync, because the noise seemed to come after the ball had passed the edge.

I think though the umpires are confused either by the technology (e.g. Harper in SA) or their remit. The ICC should train up half a dozen specialist 3rd umpires. Younger, more tech savvy umpires - perhaps it would be a step towards becoming a full umpire. The current umpires seem confused and are making too many mistakes.

It is worth remembering though, despite the issues, DRS has still led to more correct decisions in this series. Haddin's snick at Trent Bridge could have become the equivalent of Kasprowicz glove at Edgbaston or the Flintoff LBW appeal in the ICC Trophy Final in 2004 otherwise.

Agree 100% Gary. There is nothing basically wrong with DRS. The fault is in the application. To become a test umpire you have have to spend 100s of hours on the field of play. Then these same guys are stuck behind a computer application, I suspect without adequate training, and then expected to know how to use it. And lets face it, I am not sure that umpires are the most intelligent species on the planet.it is like blaming the car for driver error.

Ironically one the major arguments against DRS is that it took away the human factor and the capacity to make errors.

Honestly, I can KIND OF understand why Dharmasena upheld the decision. After the f*ck ups earlier in the series with the likes of Erasmus overruling based on minimal to no evidence (Trott at Trent Bridge as an example), and the subsequent fall out, Dharmasena was always going to be ultra conservative. The was two noises- Firstly Khawaja hit his pad with the bat, and then there was another noise roughly at the same time the ball passed the edge.

Now, looking at the replays, it looked highly unlikely that the second noise was the ball hitting the edge, but seeing as Hill had given it out already, in the context of what's already happened in this series, I could see where Dharmasena was coming from, kind of. He couldn't be 100% sure that Hill was wrong in the first place. 99%, but not 100%.

No one has any faith in hotspot anymore. Some edges show up, others don't. Smith may well have feathered one yesterday but nothing came up on hotspot. It really is a lottery with the fine nicks as to whether they will show up or not. The ridiculous thing with that decision was that immediately after it was given not out, Sky showed snicko which showed some sort of noise as ball passed bat. Surely they could have used snicko in that case.

Henry wrote:Honestly, I can KIND OF understand why Dharmasena upheld the decision. After the f*ck ups earlier in the series with the likes of Erasmus overruling based on minimal to no evidence (Trott at Trent Bridge as an example), and the subsequent fall out, Dharmasena was always going to be ultra conservative. The was two noises- Firstly Khawaja hit his pad with the bat, and then there was another noise roughly at the same time the ball passed the edge.

Now, looking at the replays, it looked highly unlikely that the second noise was the ball hitting the edge, but seeing as Hill had given it out already, in the context of what's already happened in this series, I could see where Dharmasena was coming from, kind of. He couldn't be 100% sure that Hill was wrong in the first place. 99%, but not 100%.

No one has any faith in hotspot anymore. Some edges show up, others don't. Smith may well have feathered one yesterday but nothing came up on hotspot. It really is a lottery with the fine nicks as to whether they will show up or not. The ridiculous thing with that decision was that immediately after it was given not out, Sky showed snicko which showed some sort of noise as ball passed bat. Surely they could have used snicko in that case.

Crap. The decision sucked arse. End of story.

Big Dog wrote:

Henry wrote:Honestly, I can KIND OF understand why Dharmasena upheld the decision. After the f*ck ups earlier in the series with the likes of Erasmus overruling based on minimal to no evidence (Trott at Trent Bridge as an example), and the subsequent fall out, Dharmasena was always going to be ultra conservative. The was two noises- Firstly Khawaja hit his pad with the bat, and then there was another noise roughly at the same time the ball passed the edge.

Now, looking at the replays, it looked highly unlikely that the second noise was the ball hitting the edge, but seeing as Hill had given it out already, in the context of what's already happened in this series, I could see where Dharmasena was coming from, kind of. He couldn't be 100% sure that Hill was wrong in the first place. 99%, but not 100%.

No one has any faith in hotspot anymore. Some edges show up, others don't. Smith may well have feathered one yesterday but nothing came up on hotspot. It really is a lottery with the fine nicks as to whether they will show up or not. The ridiculous thing with that decision was that immediately after it was given not out, Sky showed snicko which showed some sort of noise as ball passed bat. Surely they could have used snicko in that case.

Crap. The decision sucked arse. End of story.

Still, on the bright side, it might hasten the end of Khawaja's test career, eh?

Henry wrote:

Big Dog wrote:

Henry wrote:Honestly, I can KIND OF understand why Dharmasena upheld the decision. After the f*ck ups earlier in the series with the likes of Erasmus overruling based on minimal to no evidence (Trott at Trent Bridge as an example), and the subsequent fall out, Dharmasena was always going to be ultra conservative. The was two noises- Firstly Khawaja hit his pad with the bat, and then there was another noise roughly at the same time the ball passed the edge.

Now, looking at the replays, it looked highly unlikely that the second noise was the ball hitting the edge, but seeing as Hill had given it out already, in the context of what's already happened in this series, I could see where Dharmasena was coming from, kind of. He couldn't be 100% sure that Hill was wrong in the first place. 99%, but not 100%.

No one has any faith in hotspot anymore. Some edges show up, others don't. Smith may well have feathered one yesterday but nothing came up on hotspot. It really is a lottery with the fine nicks as to whether they will show up or not. The ridiculous thing with that decision was that immediately after it was given not out, Sky showed snicko which showed some sort of noise as ball passed bat. Surely they could have used snicko in that case.

Crap. The decision sucked arse. End of story.

Still, on the bright side, it might hasten the end of Khawaja's test career, eh?

Tut tut...very catty. I still don't rate him as a test player but he was undoubtedly hard done by.

The worst part of it all is that India are laughing their arses off.

As you know, Trev, I generally don't have issue with most of what you post, as it generally makes sense, even if much of it is taking a dig at Australia. However, in this case, I can't agree. No hot spot, no corresponding noise (clear evidence to the contrary) and daylight between bat and ball. I cannot KIND OF or any other way understand how Dharmasena got it so wrong. There are no redeeming features of or excuses for his bizarre decision, IMHO.

Hill, on the other hand, is just a shit umpire.

skully wrote:As you know, Trev, I generally don't have issue with most of what you post, as it generally makes sense, even if much of it is taking a dig at Australia. However, in this case, I can't agree. No hot spot, no corresponding noise (clear evidence to the contrary) and daylight between bat and ball. I cannot KIND OF or any other way understand how Dharmasena got it so wrong. There are no redeeming features of or excuses for his bizarre decision, IMHO.

Hill, on the other hand, is just a shit umpire.

No doubt it was an awful decision skully. I'm just trying to get inside Dharmasena's head to try and figure out why he gave it not out. I reckon what's gone on with the DRS so far in this series played a big part.

I can't remember a series that's had as consistently awful umpiring as this one.

Henry wrote:

skully wrote:As you know, Trev, I generally don't have issue with most of what you post, as it generally makes sense, even if much of it is taking a dig at Australia. However, in this case, I can't agree. No hot spot, no corresponding noise (clear evidence to the contrary) and daylight between bat and ball. I cannot KIND OF or any other way understand how Dharmasena got it so wrong. There are no redeeming features of or excuses for his bizarre decision, IMHO.

Hill, on the other hand, is just a shit umpire.

No doubt it was an awful decision skully. I'm just trying to get inside Dharmasena's head to try and figure out why he gave it not out. I reckon what's gone on with the DRS so far in this series played a big part.

I can't remember a series that's had as consistently awful umpiring as this one.

The point still remains that DRS did not make an error.