Official, confirmed, verified "You are the umpire" thread

[qpeedore]

Oh, by the way, this might be one of the only times I've ever had to say this...even though I know India has had it hours before. Shubh Divali to everyone. You don't have to be Hindu to celebrate a ceremony of light over dark, good over evil, and Maha Lakshmi on her day.

We in Trinidad still light the little clay deyas every year.

And literally everyone, from black lives matter to the smallest child, is allowed to light a deya.

Thats what matters.

 

[Yash.]

Thanks for the Diwali wish mate!
As for the question, I missed that earlier. Will give my answer by tomorrow..

 

[qpeedore]

John Holder, the umpire who actually inspired this thread, has just spoken out about certain things. I generally don't like to talk about controversial topics, but since the idea of the thread came from him and his book (although my emails went unanswered), I figured it's only fair that I mention it.

Read more here: ECB accused by John Holder and Ismail Dawood of 'institutionalised racism' - BBC Sport

Still not officially a week since the scenarios have been posted, so giving it another day.

 

[Yash.]

A batsman usually wears spectacles with prescription lenses in order to see clearly. (This is not in doubt and his regular doctor can attest to it if needed.) As he is into his innings, he gets a bouncer which he tries to avoid. While he is ducking, his eyeglasses fall off and lands on the ground, whereupon he trods on them, smashing the lenses to smithereens with his spikes. He has no replacement readily available and faces out the over, but by the end of it he comes up to you (at least he thinks it might be you) and says that he cannot see properly and will like to go off until a suitable replacement can be obtained. The opposing captain, overhearing the conversation, says that he will allow the batsman to leave the field but it has to be as retired out and not retired hurt, as the batsman was never actually hit by a ball or physically hurt. Both players look at you, one glaring, one squinting. What is your call?

I think he is retired hurt. We’ve seen batsmen going off the field for nature’s call (Matt Renshaw I’m looking at you) only to come back afterwards, then this is a far legitimate cause.

In a tight finish of a final limited overs match, there are 4 runs needed to tie, 5 to win. Essentially a boundary goes to a Super Over, and a maximum wins. The batsman cuts hard and the ball bounces once on the field. The outfielder dives right at the rope and stops the ball, throwing it back to limit the batsmen to three. There is a massive mid-pitch celebration. You are still unsure, and go upstairs, where it is revealed that the fielder was in contact with the rope and the ball at the same time. It is a boundary, and as such, a Super Over. But due to the celebrations, the pitch is all but ruined. You do not think it will be safe to continue with further play on the match pitch. What now

If there is a provision of a reserve day, then we move to that. Otherwise, game ends with no result

 

[qpeedore]

1. He's allowed to go off retired hurt and can resume his innings at the fall of any subsequent wicket.

2. Honestly, this is the "you are the umpire" thread so I'm the umpire. I'll call the heavy roller on for 20 minutes and both teams will play on the same pitch. One over of bowling won't make a difference.

Also, I still maintain that the Laws allow an appeal up until the bowler starts his runup for another delivery. If teams would just be quiet for a while and watch the replays on the big screen, they are allowed to appeal after that. Now, there is an unofficial rule with broadcasters that they don't show replays until the ball is dead...they also won't replay close decisions unless an appeal has been made and DRS is in play. But if zero excitement happens and no appeals occur, technically they do have to replay the delivery on the big screen. No rule against not appealing and then seeing the replay and then appealing.

As to that big HotSpot issue against some random Aussie batsman the other day...look twice. There was a definite light area on the bat. Not a spot, but an area. I'd have given him out. No talks of speed of light and sound and none of that bullsh*t. Out is out and deal with it.

 

[qpeedore]

This would tie into a previous scenario in this thread, but I will bring it up simply because, Covid or not, it's a significant point in the history of the game. Claire Polosak has become the first woman to be an umpire for a men's Test, and kudos to her on that. Now, she's the fourth umpire, which is essentially the 12th man of umpires, but I'm asking...what would it take to bring her onto the field as a standing umpire? Assume the standard ICC Test rules for umpires here.

In this current Aus/Ind series as well, we've seen a lot of half-dismissals. I would enjoy your take on the "umpire's call" for LBWs.

I'm not inviting HotSpot or RealTimeSnick into this discussion. That's an entirely different kettle of fish, and I'm doing my research into it, I am not done yet so I can't in all fairness discuss it for the time being.

But speaking of Snick. You are the umpire. Was Dean Elgar out? My opinion to follow. It may seem like I'm contradicting myself, especially with my above comment, but RTS and UltraEdge are actually two different technologies. Think Coke and Pepsi here.

South Africa v England: UltraEdge technology under the spotlight over Dean Elgar dismissal

South Africa v England: UltraEdge technology under the spotlight over Dean Elgar dismissal | The Cricketer, cricket news 2020

www.thecricketer.com

Also, it's actually never been done, but there are provisions for a batsman to review a call even after a review gave him/her out. How is that possible?

Now for an actual scenario.

- This is a major T20 tournament, broadcast worldwide. There are a few technical glitches with the television crew, and there is an emergency meeting involving the umpires, the match referee, both captains, and the broadcast producer. Everyone agrees to delay the start by an hour so as to resolve the issues. But after the hour, things still have not been fixed. There are only 30 minutes left before overs have to be reduced. The captains come to your team (4 umpires and the referee) and state that they would prefer to play a full 40 overs rather than a shortened match. The TV producer, on the other hand, is begging you to delay the start for as long as possible, even if it means reducing the amount of overs. What is your call? Assume that this tournament is sanctioned by the ICC.

 

[NILAYSHAH60]

- This is a major T20 tournament, broadcast worldwide. There are a few technical glitches with the television crew, and there is an emergency meeting involving the umpires, the match referee, both captains, and the broadcast producer. Everyone agrees to delay the start by an hour so as to resolve the issues. But after the hour, things still have not been fixed. There are only 30 minutes left before overs have to be reduced. The captains come to your team (4 umpires and the referee) and state that they would prefer to play a full 40 overs rather than a shortened match. The TV producer, on the other hand, is begging you to delay the start for as long as possible, even if it means reducing the amount of overs. What is your call? Assume that this tournament is sanctioned by the ICC.

Let the match go on. India v/s Zimbabwe game of the 1983 World Cup wasn't even broadcasted, a match that scripted one of the greatest comeback in ODI Cricket wasn't aired. So I see no issues in going forward with the match. It is the mistake of the broadcasters due to which the technical glitch had occured. So we can't reduce a match because of that.

There was a similar situation in Florida in a T20I game between India and West Indies back in 2016. There was some problem with the broadcasting and the match wasn't started before the issue was resolved. The match started late with no reduction in the overs. Later on a rain interruption in the 2nd innings ended the match as abandoned. Dhoni as Indian Captain raised a similar question and said if the match took place as per schedule the match would've got a result.

 

[qpeedore]

Let the match go on. India v/s Zimbabwe game of the 1983 World Cup wasn't even broadcasted, a match that scripted one of the greatest comeback in ODI Cricket wasn't aired. So I see no issues in going forward with the match. It is the mistake of the broadcasters due to which the technical glitch had occured. So we can't reduce a match because of that.

There was a similar situation in Florida in a T20I game between India and West Indies back in 2016. There was some problem with the broadcasting and the match wasn't started before the issue was resolved. The match started late with no reduction in the overs. Later on a rain interruption in the 2nd innings ended the match as abandoned. Dhoni as Indian Captain raised a similar question and said if the match took place as per schedule the match would've got a result.

This is absolutely correct. While some leeway can be given for minor technical difficulties, the fact is that a match has to be played. And especially if this is an ICC-sanctioned match and not a game "just for funsies", it should go on. Both captains already agree to play. There is nothing wrong with TV viewing fans suddenly startled to seeing a match already in progress, instead of a match reduced to 15 overs per side. The ICC overrules the broadcasters in this scenario. Sponsors and TV revenue be damned.

As far as the batsman reviewing after being given out...like I said, it's never happened before, but it is possible. The on-field umpires can call for an umpire review to see if a catch was taken cleanly. Now, if this was off of an edge, generally what happens is that they review everything from the moment the ball is delivered up until the ball is in the fielder's hand/s. Now technically they don't have to do that. The umpires just want to make sure the catch was clean. If the standing umpire is sure the batsman edged it, then it really should just be focused on the catch and not anything else. In that situation, just focusing on the moment of the catch, and it's given out, the batsman can actually review that call saying he didn't hit it. But, like I said, it never happens. It's just one of those wonderful redundancies built into DRS that prevent the shit from hitting the fan too much too often.

Totally unrelated, but a question to anyone who can remember...there was a recent (I mean since 2000) umpire who started off his officiating Test career by counting coins for the balls of the over. Everything in my head is telling me it was Nigel Llong, but for the life of me I really don't remember who it was. I mean, it was just so old-school I loved it. It was just so much cooler than the clickers that most umpires use.

 

[qpeedore]

Nobody can tell me who counted coins?!

I'm really sad because I don't remember. Everything in me says Llong. And no, the whole "he's lost his marbles" thing didn't come from cricket, although if an umpire did use marbles to count the balls, it would be true. I keep marbles in a pocket in my car just in case...never used them but if needed, that's how I'll count.

No scenarios today. Give me a while to think.

 

[qpeedore]

Umpires do actually hear everything that the TV umpire is going through. That's one reason why the referral system has been so transparent. We've all heard some variation of what the TV umpire says during referral decisions.

"It's a fair delivery, front-on spin-vision please? That's close to the bat, can I have an UltraEdge? Yeah, take that one frame back...roll it through...yeah mate, just replay the full thing again for me please? Freeze it right there...rock and roll it back and forth, one back, play it through to the pads...yeah I'm satisfied no bat involved, repeat, no bat involved. Ball tracking when available please. On-field, just awaiting the ball tracker, should be available soon. Ball tracking coming up...pitching in line, hitting in line, going on to hit the stumps. That's three reds, stick with your on-field decision, repeat, the decision is out...you're on-screen...now...you can signal."

So, not an actual scenario exactly, but there are two separate types of reviews - player reviews and umpire reviews. Who does what and when?

 

[zimrahil]

This is absolutely correct. While some leeway can be given for minor technical difficulties, the fact is that a match has to be played. And especially if this is an ICC-sanctioned match and not a game "just for funsies", it should go on. Both captains already agree to play. There is nothing wrong with TV viewing fans suddenly startled to seeing a match already in progress, instead of a match reduced to 15 overs per side. The ICC overrules the broadcasters in this scenario. Sponsors and TV revenue be damned.

As far as the batsman reviewing after being given out...like I said, it's never happened before, but it is possible. The on-field umpires can call for an umpire review to see if a catch was taken cleanly. Now, if this was off of an edge, generally what happens is that they review everything from the moment the ball is delivered up until the ball is in the fielder's hand/s. Now technically they don't have to do that. The umpires just want to make sure the catch was clean. If the standing umpire is sure the batsman edged it, then it really should just be focused on the catch and not anything else. In that situation, just focusing on the moment of the catch, and it's given out, the batsman can actually review that call saying he didn't hit it. But, like I said, it never happens. It's just one of those wonderful redundancies built into DRS that prevent the shit from hitting the fan too much too often.

Totally unrelated, but a question to anyone who can remember...there was a recent (I mean since 2000) umpire who started off his officiating Test career by counting coins for the balls of the over. Everything in my head is telling me it was Nigel Llong, but for the life of me I really don't remember who it was. I mean, it was just so old-school I loved it. It was just so much cooler than the clickers that most umpires use.

I either guess at Billy Bowden?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Umpires do actually hear everything that the TV umpire is going through. That's one reason why the referral system has been so transparent. We've all heard some variation of what the TV umpire says during referral decisions.

"It's a fair delivery, front-on spin-vision please? That's close to the bat, can I have an UltraEdge? Yeah, take that one frame back...roll it through...yeah mate, just replay the full thing again for me please? Freeze it right there...rock and roll it back and forth, one back, play it through to the pads...yeah I'm satisfied no bat involved, repeat, no bat involved. Ball tracking when available please. On-field, just awaiting the ball tracker, should be available soon. Ball tracking coming up...pitching in line, hitting in line, going on to hit the stumps. That's three reds, stick with your on-field decision, repeat, the decision is out...you're on-screen...now...you can signal."

So, not an actual scenario exactly, but there are two separate types of reviews - player reviews and umpire reviews. Who does what and when?

player review is a sort of alleged one where a team thinks that on field umpire made an error while making a decision. in such case, an umpire has given a firm decision. however, the team thinks that the decision isn't a right one, hence challenge it. there has to be conclusive proof to overturn the decision made by the on field umpire for the team who went for a review, to successfully redeem it.

whereas an umpire review is the one where, the on field umpire themselves are unclear about the a decision, hence, they voluntarily go upstairs for a tv umpire to take the call. the on-field umpire, can however, if required, or if deem necessary, can issue a soft signal, based on which third umpired can rely on, in case no strong conclusive proof is available via the technology, to make a fulfilled decision.

 

[qpeedore]

I either guess at Billy Bowden?

Nah it wasn't Billy "crumb sweeper" Bowden. Although his time at the ICC Elite level was pretty heartwarming. Rheumatoid arthritis took his playing career away from him. That crooked finger when he gave batsmen out? He actually could not straighten it, that was just what he had to do.

My favourite memory of Bowden is in one of his early Tests. The West Indies had run out a batsman and were appealing loudly. He was like "Calm down guys, I'm calling for the TV replay. But let me do it my way." The guy was smiling when he made the square to call for the replay.

 

[qpeedore]

So player reviews. A player can while batting, if he or she believes that they have incorrectly been given out, they can challenge the decision. The process begins with a determination of whether it's a fair delivery, then moves onto the specifics of the decision. As Parth mentioned (Dumblydore), it's up to the TV umpire to find a reason to overturn the original decision. Anything marginal stays with the standing umpire, as it should.

Who can refer? It's only the batsman receiving the decision or in the case of the fielding team, only the fielding captain. Nobody else. Also note that the 15-second timer belongs to the TV umpire and not the director. There was a bit of an issue over that during the Aus/Ind series. The timer only begins when the standing umpire has made a decision. An umpire like Aleem Dar, who would normally nod his head one direction or the other to indicate which way he thought the ball was headed for LBW shouts, can't quite do that anymore, lest he be thought of as aiding a team.

Umpire referrals are quite few. Stumpings, run outs, and low catches really. But...and here's the thing...umpires can actually refer any decision. They just don't do that very much.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The bowler is starting his run up. He reaches towards the popping crease of the non striker's end and is about to release the bowl but stops mid way and tries to mankad the non-striker.

The catch is, the non-striker was well in his crease at the time the bowler was about to release the bowl. The bowler however waited for a brief amount of time before knocking the stumps. Non-striker, unknowingly, subconsciously, moves out of his crease and is mankad hence.

The bowler purposely waited for the non-striker to get out of the crease. What will you do as the umpire?