4th Test: England v Australia at Chester-le-Street Aug 9-13, 2013

[midgetwars]

Confusing DRS things there.

Umpire gave it out for what? LBW or Nick? If Nick and checking LBW umpire's call was it OUT or NOT OUT for LBW?

 

[aussie1st]

Seems he gave it out caught, not out for LBW and hence umpire call on LBW was not out. Weird situation but going back to the base of what DRS is for - getting rid of the howler, the howler was clearly no edge on ball, the LBW was marginal.

 

[Owzat]

Seems he gave it out caught, not out for LBW and hence umpire call on LBW was not out. Weird situation but going back to the base of what DRS is for - getting rid of the howler, the howler was clearly no edge on ball, the LBW was marginal.

While the intention of DRS may have been for the howler, just imagine you're in their boots and a decision should have been given out - marginal or not. Wouldn't you be annoyed?

Why bother if you're only going to eliminate "howlers" ?!?!? Why not just improve the quality of umpire? The system is there, it is being applied in such a way it was always going to be controversial. You don't just switch your TV on and watch the one channel, you use the remote and watch several.



Anyway, while the BBC may be suggesting England are fighting back, the aussies should know that England need to either skittle them or at least keep picking up regular wickets. Every 20-30 runs without a wicket puts the pressure on the fielding side, England really won't want to concede anything much more than a 60 run lead.

So the aussies just need to focus on batting, not panic, and get through hour by hour, session by session. If they can bat two more sessions they'll be somewhere near what England posted, obviously they'll want a 60+ run lead and so should aim to be somewhere around 200/5.

England will need to be picking up wickets regularly, 100/4 would put them in box seat, not early wickets or two leaving plenty of wickets and runs still to be got.

----------

Confusing DRS things there.

Umpire gave it out for what? LBW or Nick? If Nick and checking LBW umpire's call was it OUT or NOT OUT for LBW?

From what BBC said it hit the pad so not caught, for the LBW it was "umpire's call" which is one of the aspects of DRS that makes it infuriating. And apparently because it was given caught they couldn't then give it out LBW on "umpire's call" or some such BS, this DRS has been in play for long enough you'd think they'd have sorted out the aspects that cause so much controversy.

Keep it simple, either the ball is hitting or it isn't, either the batsman is out or isn't. If he was hit in line, pitched in line and hitting the stumps (no "umpire's call" BS) then he should have been given LBW. Why then say because the umpire gave it out caught that the decisions shouldn't be reversed?!?!?



Anyway, I sent an e-mail to TMS and said that since I was saying Broad really is lucky he is in the "exclusive club" and having said otherwise he'd be dropped that he'd probably take a 5wi! Three wickets in barely half an innings to follow only twice that in three whole Tests. But then who knows what Onions et al could have done

 

[midgetwars]

Opinion on Clarke's shot? I say, WTF is he thinking.

 

[aussie1st]

While the intention of DRS may have been for the howler, just imagine you're in their boots and a decision should have been given out - marginal or not. Wouldn't you be annoyed?

Why bother if you're only going to eliminate "howlers" ?!?!? Why not just improve the quality of umpire? The system is there, it is being applied in such a way it was always going to be controversial. You don't just switch your TV on and watch the one channel, you use the remote and watch several.

If it should have been given out then you can call it a howler. <49% of the ball hitting the stumps according to hawkeye, I won't be losing any sleep over. I have no issues with them looking at the LBW in that situation, if that was plumb LBW instead of umpires call then he deserves to be out. The controversy is not with how the system has been defined i.e. getting rid of the howler, it is to do with umpires call where one call can be out and the exact same one not out.

----------

Opinion on Clarke's shot? I say, WTF is he thinking.

Winding back the clock to Clarke of 05. Same old story, one opener and number 5 plus lower order having to rescue the ship.

 

[barmyarmy]

Right, hope you're all following this.
If the umpire gives a player out for caught behind he has therefore given him not out for lbw. But that decision was based on incorrect information i.e. the player hit the ball.
Once the 3rd umpire has ascertained that the player didn't hit the ball he can't then take the original not out for lbw when using umpires call. Ideally the umpire needs to be asked to make a second decision for lbw but that is unrealistic considering the time that would have elapsed.
Secondly because umpires call applies to lbw and not catches bowlers should always make clear that they are appealing for the lbw not the catch.
What a mess.

 

[Umair7]

ATM Siddle and Harris can do a better job than Warner and Khawaja seriously we need Bailey and Voges but the Selectors are drunk Watson at 6 hmm

 

[MasterBlaster76]

With Clarke gone, we can roll the Aussies out for a score that'll make 240 extremely respectable.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

Right, hope you're all following this.
If the umpire gives a player out for caught behind he has therefore given him not out for lbw. But that decision was based on incorrect information i.e. the player hit the ball.
Once the 3rd umpire has ascertained that the player didn't hit the ball he can't then take the original not out for lbw when using umpires call. Ideally the umpire needs to be asked to make a second decision for lbw but that is unrealistic considering the time that would have elapsed.
Secondly because umpires call applies to lbw and not catches bowlers should always make clear that they are appealing for the lbw not the catch.
What a mess.

yeah, another hole in the DRS, the laws of the game state specifically that an appeal will cover any sort of dismissal. ergo a fielder is allowed to appeal for what looks like an LBW but the umpire must still give him out if he believes it's a caught ball.

so asking for a second decision or specifying what you are review for runs directly contrary to current laws on appealling.

is a review a review of the decision or the information on which a decision was based?

 

[midgetwars]

Rogers and Watson again. But this time, nobody else to follow...

 

[Owzat]

If it should have been given out then you can call it a howler. <49% of the ball hitting the stumps according to hawkeye, I won't be losing any sleep over. I have no issues with them looking at the LBW in that situation, if that was plumb LBW instead of umpires call then he deserves to be out. The controversy is not with how the system has been defined i.e. getting rid of the howler, it is to do with umpires call where one call can be out and the exact same one not out.

It's the application of the system, using technology to decide if it is hitting the stumps or not and deciding to ignore what it says in favour of the umpires on an arbitrary "half hitting" (halfa rsed) policty

If there is doubt after using dorkeye that the ball is hitting the stumps then why the f are we using technology we aren't going to trust?!?!?!?!?

I've said before, if the system relies on "umpire's call" and the decision is given out then reviewed stays out on said call, but if it were given not out and stays not out on review via said "umpire's call" then it is a joke. It is either decreed out or not out, either the ball is hitting or it isn't. You can't say it is only 25% hitting therefore it isn't hitting, that's just farcical.

As for defining a "howler" by the same daft percentage approach DRS is employing is a joke, a "howler" is a clear and blatant mistake like where the whole of the ball has crossed the line in football, or the keeper bends down to field the ball and it goes under him, or a fielder has the ball in his hands and drops a soft, slow dolly.



England are pfaffing around with Trott's dobbers, that isn't a solution. The aussies are getting bailed out, the aussies are building a platform to get to that 200/5 I mentioned earlier and from there they could build a winning lead.

Rogers is already building the kind of innings none of the England batsmen went on to build, he's getting the support innings from Watson and if Haddin or Siddle can play a support role too, England could be a few in arrears.

 

[angryangy]

either the ball is hitting or it isn't.

Simply put, it is never hitting. The delivery in an lbw will never ever ever hit the stumps. What ensues is an opinion, a guess, an approximation. It is a matter of probability. The only certainty is that the trajectory will never actually happen.

 

[MUFC1987]

I see no problem with Umpire's call. I mean, if it's that close, then then Umpire's decision should be taken into account, as he's in the best position to judge. Giving everything that's scraping a stump is a bit silly for me.

As said before, the only thing that needs to change is that 'Umpire's Call' should not use up a review. It should be returned if that comes up and the decision doesn't go the reviewers way.

----------

Rogers showing that he's a class act too. Not afraid to grind it out when he misses the odd ball or two, rather than panicking and trying to thump the next ball for four.

 

[cricket_icon]

I see no problem with Umpire's call. I mean, if it's that close, then then Umpire's decision should be taken into account, as he's in the best position to judge. Giving everything that's scraping a stump is a bit silly for me.

As said before, the only thing that needs to change is that 'Umpire's Call' should not use up a review. It should be returned if that comes up and the decision doesn't go the reviewers way.

----------

Rogers showing that he's a class act too. Not afraid to grind it out when he misses the odd ball or two, rather than panicking and trying to thump the next ball for four.

Agreed with both your points. Glad Rogers got that century, he deserved it, this is a pitch of people willing to spend time out in the middle and grind out runs.

It'd been a very good couple of days, something for the bowlers and if you apply yourself, a little bit for the batsmen too. Disappointed in the way some of the Aussie boys got out, they're making a mean of a sub par score. I really think this could be the best test of the series thus far.

Also what do you guys think of the Onions question? Should he play? Horses for courses? Or your best 11 all the time?

 

[aussie1st]

Great stuff from Rogers, more than justified his selection and I hope he can go on a few years as we need him. Was hoping Smith would make a good score to really cement his spot. Watson 50s aren't so bad down at 6, more of them will be very useful.