3rd Test: England v Australia at Old Trafford Aug 1-5, 2013

[barmyarmy]

Umm...

Haddin and Agar.

They were both out as shown by Snicko...

 

[whiteninness]

Take DRS out and the decision is still wrong. What's your solution?

Easy. Umpires give decisions and the play carries on, but the third umpire looks at them automatically and overturns them if necessary. Maybe a couple of balls have been bowled after that have to be nullified or the batsman has walked off the ground, who cares? The decision is correct. And none of this "umpire's call" rubbish. This is the best possible system. If people complain about having to nullify a ball or two, watch ice hockey. If a ball rebounds off the post they'll often check on the video to see if it actually just went in the goals, but only after the play stops. That could be 5-8 minutes later, all of which is nullified if it actually was a goal. A bit annoying perhaps but you get the right decision.

Even with the current system, by abolishing the power of the initial umpire's call that decision would have been correctly not out. If the third umpire was given a choice of out or not out he'd have chosen out every day of the week. In the current system though, he is biased towards one way and for what? There is no logical reason why he should be biased purely based on what the on field umpire saw in a split second.

Although at the end of the day idiot third umpires will still be idiot third umpires and neither of the above suggestions will change that.

 

[barmyarmy]

Okay, problem. If this was inconclusive then so was Agar's last game and Haddin the one before. If we were to say this wasn't clear and was inconclusive then so then would the others as well.

NO DECISION went with the on field umpire. NONE.

There's inconsistency but the bottom line there is that Haddin and Agar were out. The decisions were correct.

 

[Owzat]

No great surprise in either set of line-ups, England look unchanged unless I'm missing something although I did say I'm not convinced by Broad (or Bresnan) opening the bowling. aussies going back to the thug Warner isn't a surprise, nor dropping the kid Agar. Probably the right move(s), and not too many changes.

I wonder if they shouldn't have moved Watson away from opening, so he wasn't out LBW today but maybe a spell away from the new ball and down the order would suit him. Three LBWs in five innings so far for Watson, while he does/did boast an average opening of 41.75, I don't know for sure he has been opening for the whole time since his 88 against South Africa, but two scores of 80-90 in a period of 17 Tests isn't really good enough with no other 50s.

Watson (Since last Ashes/Tests 28-44)
733 runs @ 24.43 (only two scores above 50 of 83 and 88)

Don't see the sense him opening in this kind of form.

 

[barmyarmy]

Easy. Umpires give decisions and the play carries on, but the third umpire looks at them automatically and overturns them if necessary. Maybe a couple of balls have been bowled after that have to be nullified or the batsman has walked off the ground, who cares? The decision is correct. And none of this "umpire's call" rubbish. This is the best possible system. If people complain about having to nullify a ball or two, watch ice hockey. If a ball rebounds off the post they'll often check on the video to see if it actually just went in the goals, but only after the play stops. That could be 5-8 minutes later, all of which is nullified if it actually was a goal. A bit annoying perhaps but you get the right decision.

Even with the current system, by abolishing the power of the initial umpire's call that decision would have been correctly not out. If the third umpire was given a choice of out or not out he'd have chosen out every day of the week. In the current system though, he is biased towards one way and for what? There is no logical reason why he should be biased purely based on what the on field umpire saw in a split second.

Although at the end of the day idiot third umpires will still be idiot third umpires and neither of the above suggestions will change that.

What a nightmare. You want players to keep playing and then be told at a later date that they're out and all runs scored since don't count?

 

[LiveLoveABD]

No DRS = umpire's call = out. Simple enough?

Even with the mistakes the % of correct decisions is far higher than by just relying on umpires.

Yes, but you're spending so much money on the technology to get the decision right? What good is it to spend the money and also get the wrong decision?

The second thing is, you respect the on field call a lot more without DRS.

The third thing is, you don't take away the drama from the game.

If I'm a part of the ECB and I'm spending money on technology to get decisions right and umpires are still over ruling technology to on field calls and upholding howlers, then I don't understand the use of DRS.

 

[angryangy]

In other words you can't tell therefore you can't overturn.

In that instance, the only real problem was that no one piece of evidence was on its own conclusive. But how would any one piece of evidence ever be so conclusive in proving that there is no edge? Looking at the front and back replays it seemed that there was only an illusion of the bat being near the ball, when from the other angle the ball had passed the bat already. Hotspot showed nothing of course, and the only noise was from the bat hitting pad. So it was inconclusive in the sense that there may have been an edge without leaving a heat signature, an audible noise or even touching the bat in any captured footage. If that's the standard, then they should simply not allow batsmen to review such decisions.

 

[midgetwars]

There's inconsistency but the bottom line there is that Haddin and Agar were out. The decisions were correct.

They don't have Snicko for DRS. If we're going by that, then it's not-out. If we're going by SNICKO, then Agar is in the middle so it should go with onfield umpire.

 

[whiteninness]

What a nightmare. You want players to keep playing and then be told at a later date that they're out and all runs scored since don't count?

Don't make out like they've just had a century nullified, we're talking a couple of balls max. It's worth it to get the right decision. I'd say you could give a time limit to the third umpire but that'd a) perhaps add to much pressure and b) introduce slowing down/speeding up tactics by the players.

 

[barmyarmy]

They don't have Snicko for DRS. If we're going by that, then it's not-out. If we're going by SNICKO, then Agar is in the middle so it should go with onfield umpire.

The main priority has to be getting the decision right. In those cases the umpires did.

 

[MattW]

Yes, but you're spending so much money on the technology to get the decision right? What good is it to spend the money and also get the wrong decision?

The technology is all there regardless because the broadcasters want it in their coverage.

 

[whiteninness]

The main priority has to be getting the decision right. In those cases the umpires did.

I agree we want the correct decision but we also want a consistently implemented system, which in the case of Agar was not followed. The fact that the decision was ultimately correct does not change the fact that the proper procedure was not followed.

This highlights two problems

1) The system in place is flawed because the "correct" usage of it would have led to Agar being in
2) The system is not being consistently followed

I suppose in the case of Agar it was two wrongs make a right...

 

[LiveLoveABD]

The technology is all there regardless because the broadcasters want it in their coverage.

Really mate? I believe the boards pay for the technology and not the broadcasters.

 

[MattW]

Really mate? I believe the boards pay for the technology and not the broadcasters.

The boards probably pay for it now because they are requiring it - but when's the last major international match you saw without Hawkeye - DRS or not?

 

[LiveLoveABD]

The boards probably pay for it now because they are requiring it - but when's the last major international match you saw without Hawkeye - DRS or not?

Well, BCCI matches (home tests & ODI's for INDIA) do not have them. By that I mean, we don't have the luxury of hot spot, snicko etc. etc. Our hawk-eye is also a limited one.