*Official* Second Test at Lords

[Richard]

So does Ponting, yet he dropped Bopara. Most fielders wouldn't of caught that one that Flintoff dropped. Poor excuse.

And Bopara was out not long after - big deal.

 

[Prince EWS]

I wonder how much the ECB are giving the umpires for this?

I don't mind people ripping into the umpires for making wrong decisions/doing things wrongly - I actually agree with those doing so in this instance, but it really grinds my gears when people say that^ sort of absolute crap. Pull your head in.

 

[Athlai]

And Bopara was out not long after - big deal.

Not the point.

 

[pasag]

Yeah fine him for standing his ground but if hes risking that surely you can refer it. ****ing ridiculous.

Spoils any English victory these poor decisions. All the lucks going to them, the rain in the first Test and now some uneven umpiring.

Yeah, I don't mind umpires making mistakes, it happens. What really ****s me is the fact he didn't refer it. Would have taken two seconds and shown that Strauss clearly didn't catch it.

Agree that we haven't been lucky all tour from Lee to rain in Cardiff to getting the raw end of conditions and umpiring here, though we should be good enough to overcome it, especially against this ****ty England side.

 

[Adamc]

Interesting ****ing stupid point I raised on MSN talking to .matt.

Jake says (9:03 PM):
*I wonder how much the ECB are giving the umpires for this?

Fixed.

If you're being remotely serious about that you're an idiot.

 

[alternative]

@ ponting ..its nice to see him at the reciving end

hmm came online just to type this

Definitely agree with this. Sick and tired of seeing opposing teams coping the raw end of the deal.

Get ponting, run out would be the best thing ever now imo.

 

[Richard]

Doesn't wash with me. If either umpire is unsure it should go upstairs, or there should be no referring for catches at all. There needs to be consistency in the use of the technology - if one umpire isn't sure, then it should go upstairs regardless of the other umpires opinion.

I don't see how Doctrove would have had a better view than Rudi either. Infact, from square leg I'd be suprised if he had a great view of first slip diving forward at all.

There needs to be consistency in the decision making, it cannot be pick and choose when to look at something.

Would be absolutely happy with no catch ever being referred upstairs, and have felt that way for years. It makes an incorrect decision more likely, not less.

 

[duffer]

Interesting point I raised on MSN talking to .matt.

Jake says (9:03 PM):
*I wonder how much the ECB are giving the umpires for this?

Deadset, Hughes and Ponting both not out but given out in the first innings, but given out, then Hauritz catches (but may have dropped) Bopara and it's not out, now Strauss clearly drops Hughes and it's out. Katich was out from a no ball. What next?

Uh-oh.

But really comparing this to Sydney is wrong. This has a long way to go before it reaches that level of incompetence.

 

[Redbacks]

And Bopara was out not long after - big deal.

just because a coin has come up heads five times in a row doesn't mean the next spin is anymore likely to be tails....you can fill in the rest

 

[JBH001]

Back to the cricket. Jeez, Fred is bowling well.

Onions to come on from the other end.

 

[Matt79]

Internet hardman, no.

He's got a point about how you're normally wrong on your calls however.

 

[Andre]

Interesting point I raised on MSN talking to .matt.

Jake says (9:03 PM):
*I wonder how much the ECB are giving the umpires for this?

Deadset, Hughes and Ponting both not out but given out in the first innings, but given out, then Hauritz catches (but may have dropped) Bopara and it's not out, now Strauss clearly drops Hughes and it's out. Katich was out from a no ball. What next?

Accusing the umpires of bias is completely incorrect.

That's cricket - umpires make mistakes, they don't discriminate which side they do this for. Poor form to accuse them of doing so.

 

[Athlai]

Would be absolutely happy with no catch ever being referred upstairs, and have felt that way for years. It makes an incorrect decision more likely, not less.

Yeah how dare they change the result by checking it!

 

[Craig]

Nah, I don't - and I certainly didn't there. You find me one instance of a referred catch being given out and I'll retract that.

There was a case in the Boxing Day Test last year where Steyn got Hauritz caught in the slips by Smith and Smith asked the square leg umpire to see if it carried, and it was refered and given out.

 

[sparkey]

Two bad decisions cost us badly for god sake Rudi go upstairs like you did yesterday

 

[Redbacks]

Interesting point I raised on MSN talking to .matt.

Jake says (9:03 PM):
*I wonder how much the ECB are giving the umpires for this?

Deadset, Hughes and Ponting both not out but given out in the first innings, but given out, then Hauritz catches (but may have dropped) Bopara and it's not out, now Strauss clearly drops Hughes and it's out. Katich was out from a no ball. What next?

side note: Hughes clearly gloved it in the first innings....?

 

[Richard]

Not the point.

It's exactly the point I was making. Ponting's drop didn't matter much; nor did Flintoff's.

That's it.

 

[zaremba]

Ponting tells Hughes to stay.

Yeah, having expected Freddie to take his word for a claimed catch at Cardiff (which Freddie did). Hughes began to walk until Ricky sent him back. Although tbf to Ponting I suppose he had a decent view of the Strauss catch.

 

[Andre]

Would be absolutely happy with no catch ever being referred upstairs, and have felt that way for years. It makes an incorrect decision more likely, not less.

Agreed. They should either all go upstairs for anything with doubt or not at all. You can't tell me both umpires were convinced it was out, otherwise Rudi would have given it originally.

 

[Craig]

There was a case in the Boxing Day Test last year where Steyn got Hauritz caught in the slips by Smith and Smith asked the square leg umpire to see if it carried, and it was refered and given out.

101.5


Steyn to Hauritz, OUT, edged and it doesn't carry, or does it? Steyn draws a regulation thick outside edge off the bat as Hauritz plays off the back foot, which starts dipping on Smith at first slip as Boucher doesn't go for it ... the ball hits the fingers on the full, sort of jamming them, Smith is not sure and so the two umpires get together and after some communication with the television umpire it is decided that Smith took it cleanly ... still some confusion but Hauritz has to go, I saw replays a couple times and it looked a very tough call to make .. it looked like Smith jammed his fingers under the ball in time, though he was quick to say he wasn't sure


NM Hauritz c Smith b Steyn 12 (29m 21b 2x4 0x6) SR: 57.14

link