1st Test: England v Australia at Nottingham Jul 10-14, 2013

[superfreddie]

Yeah, the onfield umpire must have thought there was an edge, because it was plum if there wasn't. So to overule him without side-on hotspot is ridiculous.

 

[zeustrojanstark]

Aussies should somehow restrict the English's lead to less than 250 or so if they have to chase it and gain a 1-0 lead.They have a very weak batting so Siddle,Starc,Agar,James must do something and send back the England cricketers back as soon as possible.Legends might have retired but the Aussie's killer spirit is always there,c'mon Ausssssie Ausssie Ausssie Aussssssssssssiiiiiiiiieeeeeeee!Love you Ausssies

 

[midgetwars]

Benefit of the doubt isn't a rule but if it was it isn't part of DRS is it?

I've always said, that DRS should be with the umpire. As in, the decisions he made should be checked and have a higher decision.

e.g. If the ball was going "Umpires Decision" on leg stump, that doesn't mean the umpire gave it not out. He probably gave it not out because he thought it was hit, not because of the movement.

 

[Griffo]

In the first innings for England I am not sure who it was (Anderson?) had an LBW where it was giving not out based on it returning to an umpires call even though the umpire gave it not out because of two noises which was the ball hitting both pads not if it was hitting.

The best way to fix this problem is have the umpire tell the official upstairs why he is giving it not out. So if a situation like these two arises he can use that information.

For example, I believe it was hitting in line but I think he may have hit the ball with the Trott decision. Then they have the umpires call in two different areas and a problem like this wouldn't exist and nobody could argue the point.

 

[barmyarmy]

The Root one is strange. I wondered if he had hit it and Hotspot had missed it but it seems that he didn't touch it. So why on earth didn't he review it?

 

[sifter132]

The best way to fix this problem is have the umpire tell the official upstairs why he is giving it not out. So if a situation like these two arises he can use that information.

For example, I believe it was hitting in line but I think he may have hit the ball with the Trott decision. Then they have the umpires call in two different areas and a problem like this wouldn't exist and nobody could argue the point.

I think this is right, and perhaps this is even what happened last night. Maybe while looking at the decision, Dar told Erasmus that he thought Trott had missed the ball and he was worried about the line. In that case, the umpires call was clearly wrong and the decision then deserved to be overturned. Watching the Lions-Wallabies rugby the other week I enjoyed how you could hear the communication between the on field umpire and the video umpire. If that happened in cricket, maybe we see less confusion around the DRS decisions ie. they could be properly explained by the 3rd umpire. Simon Taufel would be perfect for this. He got some commentary experience in IPL,and knows the rules backwards. Get him in the 3rd umpires chair as much as possible, and have him talk through the decision. Because the TV commentators are largely clueless.

England did get a bit of bad luck last night, but I thought that both the Agar stumping and the Trott LBW were not OBVIOUSLY wrong. Probably wrong, I'd say, but I certainly wouldn't have bet my house on either of Erasmus' decisions being incorrect. I can understand that he didn't have enough evidence to give Agar out.

For Trott, that front on angle can be deceptive. It looked like there might have been a small deviation, but you have to weigh that up that fairly shaky conclusion against a very strong case for the Aussies: ball smashing middle, no hotspot from front on and the sound didn't suggest an inside edge either (probably because if Trott hit the ball it would have been so late that the sound of nick and the sound of ball hitting pad would have been instantaneous - Snicko later showed this). England can also claim at least some good luck during the match eg. Dharmasena gave Rogers out LBW for one that was just clipping, while Starc has had 2 LBWs struck down that were hitting more of the stump than Rogers' ball - just not enough of the stump...


But on to cricket...Agar was fantastic. Has to be at #8 next innings. Then we'll all get to complain how Pattinson doesn't deserve to be at #11

Aussies were very accurate with the ball, most sustained bowling I've seen from them for a while. When I looked at the scorecard this morning and saw 2/80 I groaned a bit, not expecting much. But watching the tape it was really disciplined stuff from Australia. Not many 4 balls like in the first innings.

On the other side of the coin, KP and Cook played well too, nothing stupid. Cook you expect it, but Pietersen was pretty smart, playing straight instead of through midwicket. It was a slow moving stalemate that both sides could be proud of.

Getting that ball moving again this morning will be key. Glad Watson's calf tickle wasn't serious, because he's good with reverse and I'd like to see him bowl 5-10 overs before that new ball comes.

 

[barmyarmy]

The Agar thing feels different because the umpire was asked to make a decision not overturn one. With Trott he over-ruled the original decision based on incomplete evidence.

 

[sifter132]

Yes different rules, and different guidelines. But for Trott, you can imagine Australia's reaction if they'd been told 'no that's not out because 1 of the hotspot cameras isn't working'. Their first question would be: what about the other 4 things you can use? is that not enough?

Which is fairer? Needing ALL the possible evidence to overturn a call, or just the greater balance of the evidence? Hard questions to answer, but I can't blame Erasmus for making that call. Equally, I'd have accepted it if it were given not out - eventually

 

[superfreddie]

Looking forward to todays play, lets hope the third umpire is actually on this planet today, hope he doesn't ruin a great test match with his incompetence.

 

[cricket_icon]

KP and Cook gone within an over of each other. Only a lead of 60 odd, Englnd need at least 200, plenty of time left and this is really Bairstow's chance to show himself as a world class batsman.

 

[Griffo]

Can someone tell me about James Taylor?! His stats look ridiculously impressive why isn't he in the team

 

[barmyarmy]

Yes different rules, and different guidelines. But for Trott, you can imagine Australia's reaction if they'd been told 'no that's not out because 1 of the hotspot cameras isn't working'. Their first question would be: what about the other 4 things you can use? is that not enough?

Which is fairer? Needing ALL the possible evidence to overturn a call, or just the greater balance of the evidence? Hard questions to answer, but I can't blame Erasmus for making that call. Equally, I'd have accepted it if it were given not out - eventually

What's fairer is getting the right decision. Trott hit it.
Using DRS to overturn correct umpiring calls is farcical.

 

[MUFC1987]

I've seen it a few times and I've still got no idea whether he hit it or not. Which proves the point really, there was plenty of doubt there, so why it was given out, i.e. apparently being enough evidence to overturn it, is beyond me.

It's also time the ICC changed it though, so reviews can be returned to a side, even if they're not successful. Losing a review where there isn't enough evidence, or the ball is hitting the stumps, just not enough of them, is just wrong for me.

 

[superfreddie]

Suprised third umpire didn't give belly out there

 

[MattW]

It's also time the ICC changed it though, so reviews can be returned to a side, even if they're not successful. Losing a review where there isn't enough evidence, or the ball is hitting the stumps, just not enough of them, is just wrong for me.

Agreed - especially anything that hawkeye gives as 'umpires call' - the third umpire has done nothing in that case, so there's no reason to have used up a review.