The Ashes: (England tour of Australia)

[Master Khan]

Wow who would have thought that Dawid Malan would be the first England player to get a century in this Ashes Series lol.

 

[CerealKiller]

It probably did flick the glove that was on the bat

Then there was nothing wrong in his decision

 

[blockerdave]

Then there was nothing wrong in his decision

You are wrong. His role is to decide if there was conclusive evidence to overturn the on-field decision. That is all. At the time he made the decision (i.e. even before seeing all angles) there was almost no evidence at all.

 

[LiveLoveABD]

Having watched the Stoneman dismissal, i think it is one of the most incompetent or corrupt pieces of officiating I have ever seen.

usually think Aleem Dar is a good umpire but that was disgraceful.

Bottom line is, you don't overturn a decision without conclusive evidence that the on-field decision was wrong. there was no conclusive evidence, AND he made the decision before he had seen all the angles.

It probably did flick the glove that was on the bat, (though there was a longer delay than usual between passing the glove and the snicko spike) but absolutely no way there was enough evidence to overturn.

Definitely hasty with his decision making. I for one couldn't say out or not out till the end. But, I don't know what you mean by it was 'corrupt.'

I think that's a big claim to make without any evidence mate.

 

[blockerdave]

Definitely hasty with his decision making. I for one couldn't say out or not out till the end. But, I don't know what you mean by it was 'corrupt.'

I think that's a big claim to make without any evidence mate.

incompetent or corrupt. his decision is the evidence. it's black or white in my view - he either doesn't know what his role entails (weighing all the evidence and finding conclusive evidence to overturn the on-field decision, and in the absence of conclusive evidence, upholding it); knows his role but couldn't implement it; or knows his role and can implement but disregarded this for other reasons. The first two are examples of incompetence, the third is corruption.

 

[CerealKiller]

You are wrong. His role is to decide if there was conclusive evidence to overturn the on-field decision. That is all. At the time he made the decision (i.e. even before seeing all angles) there was almost no evidence at all.

Not according to you, but maybe he thought there was. And in the end, his decision proved correct.
By the way, there was a spike as the ball passed the gloves.

 

[blockerdave]

Not according to you, but maybe he thought there was. And in the end, his decision proved correct.
By the way, there was a spike as the ball passed the gloves.

I am sorry, but you are so wrong it's embarrassing.

his role is not to adjudicate if the batsman is out or not. it is entirely framed by the on-field decision. his role is find conclusive evidence to overturn, and otherwise uphold. the default in a review is to uphold the decision.

i have acknowledged the spike - but actually it happens on a slight delay, without any supporting hotspot. and there was no conclusive visual evidence to support it flicking the glove either. so he overturned the decision based on a delayed spike, and no other supporting evidence.

i would say the same if it was an aussie batsman (with the caveat that especially if it was Warner I'd find it hilarious). there is no way that decision should have been overturned.

and i am not alone in saying that. vaughan tweeted the same thing, and Michael Clarke said the same on commentary, that it probably did flick the glove, but there was not enough evidence to overturn the decision.

 

[CerealKiller]

corrupt pieces of officiating

Why?

 

[CerealKiller]

i have acknowledged the spike - but actually it happens on a slight delay, without any supporting hotspot. and there was no conclusive visual evidence to support it flicking the glove either. so he overturned the decision based on a delayed spike, and no other supporting evidence.

He considered the delayed spike as conclusive evidence. So he technically had conclusive evidence. It's up to him to decide whether a piece of evidence is conclusive or not, and he decided that it is.

 

[LiveLoveABD]

I am sorry, but you are so wrong it's embarrassing.

his role is not to adjudicate if the batsman is out or not. it is entirely framed by the on-field decision. his role is find conclusive evidence to overturn, and otherwise uphold. the default in a review is to uphold the decision.

i have acknowledged the spike - but actually it happens on a slight delay, without any supporting hotspot. and there was no conclusive visual evidence to support it flicking the glove either. so he overturned the decision based on a delayed spike, and no other supporting evidence.

i would say the same if it was an aussie batsman (with the caveat that especially if it was Warner I'd find it hilarious). there is no way that decision should have been overturned.

and i am not alone in saying that. vaughan tweeted the same thing, and Michael Clarke said the same on commentary, that it probably did flick the glove, but there was not enough evidence to overturn the decision.

I agree with this. Dar's decision of out would have been correct if this decision had been made on field. IMO.

 

[blockerdave]

Why?

again, the sentence was "incompetent or corrupt".

in my view, the flimsiness of the evidence for overturning, and the fact he did it before seeing all the evidence (and actually before the most compelling visual angle) doesn't leave wiggle room for an honest mistake. not up to it or bent.

 

[CerealKiller]

again, the sentence was "incompetent or corrupt".

in my view, the flimsiness of the evidence for overturning, and the fact he did it before seeing all the evidence (and actually before the most compelling visual angle) doesn't leave wiggle room for an honest mistake. not up to it or bent.

I have a very strong opinion about why you are accusing Dar specifically of being corrupt (there's no way to sugarcoat it, you are), but i'll keep it to myself

 

[blockerdave]

I have a very strong opinion about why you are accusing Dar specifically of being corrupt (there's no way to sugarcoat it, you are), but i'll keep it to myself

Ah the race card. Bore off.

 

[CerealKiller]

Ah the race card. Bore off.

Not the race card. I think you might be connecting it to The Sun's report

 

[blockerdave]

Not the race card. I think you might be connecting it to The Sun's report

Not at all.

As I have explained, twice, the magnitude of the error doesn't leave room, in my opinion, for the honest mistake. So there are two remaining explanations.