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

taipan wrote:

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.

I tend to agree. DRS is only as good as the people administering it.

Big Dog wrote:

taipan wrote:

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.

I tend to agree. DRS is only as good as the people administering it.

So instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water lets get better people to use it.

taipan wrote:

Big Dog wrote:

taipan wrote:

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.

I tend to agree. DRS is only as good as the people administering it.

So instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water lets get better people to use it.

 
Exactly. Clearly the umpire panel for this series are not up to the task.

I remember when Dharmasena came on the scene, he was pretty ordinary. Then he seemed to improve, now this.

taipan wrote:

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.

But even if it did make the error, would anyone except the telly companies themselves be able to point the blame at the technology? If the sound-picture synchronisation is a bit off, even snicko would be off.

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.

Is there a case of the players crying wolf here too? In the last Test Hughes, Clarke and Broad all reviewed regulation snicks behind. If the players only reviewed when they were sure they hadn't hit it then the 3rd ump would be more likely to overturn it.

E.g. if Gilchrist reviewed one you would be more likely to believe him.

The ironic thing is that if there was no DRS being used, the decision would have still been a bad decision, but there wouldn't be as much controversy surrounding it. Just one of those bad decisions that can happen.

Henry wrote:The ironic thing is that if there was no DRS being used, the decision would have still been a bad decision, but there wouldn't be as much controversy surrounding it. Just one of those bad decisions that can happen.

Yep, this idea of onfield umpires is not working. Let's chuck them out and go back to the old system.

Gary, the third ump is above all that crap, literally and metaphorically. The players can carry on like McEnroe all they like but they aren't in the third ump's face being pains in the arse, by the time it gets up there it's all stone cold, just consider the evidence and thumbs up or thumbs down.

I like the idea of specialist third umpires. I might apply for that job.

Neil D wrote:I like the idea of specialist third umpires.  I might apply for that job.

you will be able to handle the sooking?

Gary 111 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.

Is there a case of the players crying wolf here too? In the last Test Hughes, Clarke and Broad all reviewed regulation snicks behind. If the players only reviewed when they were sure they hadn't hit it then the 3rd ump would be more likely to overturn it.

E.g. if Gilchrist reviewed one you would be more likely to believe him.

From my earlier post quoted by you, Gaz...

skully wrote: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.

So the whole system must be changed to compensate for the twattishness of Watson?

skully wrote:

Gary 111 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.

Is there a case of the players crying wolf here too? In the last Test Hughes, Clarke and Broad all reviewed regulation snicks behind. If the players only reviewed when they were sure they hadn't hit it then the 3rd ump would be more likely to overturn it.

E.g. if Gilchrist reviewed one you would be more likely to believe him.

From my earlier post quoted by you, Gaz...

skully wrote: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, I prefer the review system. It puts the onus on the players - we've seen less ridiculous appealing since it was introduced. You can't scream blue murder for a catch and then when the umpire says no go back to your mark and refuse to review it. Well, you can, but it pretty soon shows up that the fielding team are trying to pull a fast one.

If we go back to just leaving it to the players certain players (e.g. Watson and Broad) will take an age to leave the field, and there will be a big rise in dissent and, dare I say it, sooking. Plus, essentially what is a howler and what isn't? That Khawaja decision wouldn't have been considered a howler 20 years ago before all the high def replays, snicko and hot spot.

Nice straight, probing start by Jimmeh. He's looking to slip through Smith's flourish.

Hello, Sutherland is slumming it at Old Trafford.

Couple of leg side half volleys not pounced on by Smith.

Clarke away with a flirty one through the slips.

That's better. Beautiful steer through point.

Best ever Test 4th wicket stand at OT.

With little movement in the air and off the pitch, the English bats must be salivating.

No swing, no seam, nothing.....

You'd think they'd be able to get some reverse swing happening. It all looks pretty dry. But it hasn't been the case. Starting to look like the Oval 2012 all over again.

Fat Brezzy given an early chance to unleash the bionic elbow.

Henry wrote:No swing, no seam, nothing.....

You'd think they'd be able to get some reverse swing happening. It all looks pretty dry. But it hasn't been the case. Starting to look like the Oval 2012 all over again.

Jimmy creeping back up to 30

A Finn no ball from Jimmeh.