Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 66

Thread: Hauritz and Strauss catches, Lord's Test

  1. #1
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401

    Hauritz and Strauss catches, Lord's Test

    To try to restore some sanity to proceedings here, which neccessitates a separate thread from the match thread...

    I realise Aussies feel hard-done-by, and in fairness they might well have been given that Strauss may quite possibly not have caught that Hughes edge. HOWEVER, there is actually no grounds on which to blame Umpiring. The Umpires acted in accordance with the rules. The rules state that the on-field Umpires are to consult in the view of the bowler's-end Umpire being unable sight whether a catch carried. If the square-leg Umpire was also unsighted, they should then ask the third-Umpire if he can tell them whether it did.

    In the event of Bopara's catch to Hauritz, neither Umpire was able to see the ball. So it was right to refer it. In the case of Strauss' catch off Hughes, square-leg Umpire Doctrove had a clear view. So there was no case under the laws to refer the catch to the third-Umpire.

    The Hauritz catch and the Strauss catch were not, contrary to most assumptions, the same thing. That is why they were treated differently.

    Now, whether Doctrove was right to believe the ball carried to Strauss is another matter. But personally I've seen enough evidence that a pair of eyes (or a camera) a few yards away from the relevant ball and pair of hands is actually a better judge of whether it's hit the ground or not than a camera hundreds of yards away.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  2. #2
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,561
    dwta
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    The Filth have comfortably the better bowling. But the Gash have the batting. Might be quite good to watch.

  3. #3
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    25,112
    Thought that the Sky commentators (might have been Bumble) said at the time that Rudi didn't think that Hauritz caught it, but asked for the third umpire's opinion to make sure.

  4. #4
    Hall of Fame Member superkingdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    DRS Box
    Posts
    18,973
    IMO both should have been referred and given not out..

    However, yesterday's incident, Rudi thought it hadn't carried but wanted to check, today Doctrove thought it had carried and was confident enough not to call for a replay.

    Assuming the above, would the rule be that if the replays are inconclusive the decision would be referred back to the umpire on the field, or would it just be no?
    Dave Mohammed >>>> You


  5. #5
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    Thought that the Sky commentators (might have been Bumble) said at the time that Rudi didn't think that Hauritz caught it, but asked for the third umpire's opinion to make sure.
    That's the key thing - he thought. If he'd had a full view of it then he would not have been allowed to refer, and would have been breaking the Umpiring code if he had done so.

  6. #6
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    25,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    That's the key thing - he thought. If he'd had a full view of it then he would not have been allowed to refer, and would have been breaking the Umpiring code if he had done so.
    Thinking that he didn't catch it doesn't mean that he didn't have a full view.

  7. #7
    Cricketer Of The Year zaremba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Burgess Hill
    Posts
    8,966
    Quote Originally Posted by superkingdave View Post
    IMO both should have been referred and given not out..

    However, yesterday's incident, Rudi thought it hadn't carried but wanted to check, today Doctrove thought it had carried and was confident enough not to call for a replay.

    Assuming the above, would the rule be that if the replays are inconclusive the decision would be referred back to the umpire on the field, or would it just be no?
    No for two reasons: first because the on-field umpire admitted to uncertainty because he referred it; and second because the replays were inconclusive.

    I'm tempted by the idea that 3rd Umpires should make their decisions on the balance of probabilities (eg "is it likelier than not that the ball carried?") rather than beyond reasonable doubt (eg "am I sure that the ball carried?"). Don't think it will happen though.

  8. #8
    BARNES OUT dontcloseyoureyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    WILDCARD, BITCHES
    Posts
    28,304
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    To try to restore some sanity to proceedings here, which neccessitates a separate thread from the match thread...

    I realise Aussies feel hard-done-by, and in fairness they might well have been given that Strauss may quite possibly not have caught that Hughes edge. HOWEVER, there is actually no grounds on which to blame Umpiring. The Umpires acted in accordance with the rules. The rules state that the on-field Umpires are to consult in the view of the bowler's-end Umpire being unable sight whether a catch carried. If the square-leg Umpire was also unsighted, they should then ask the third-Umpire if he can tell them whether it did.

    In the event of Bopara's catch to Hauritz, neither Umpire was able to see the ball. So it was right to refer it. In the case of Strauss' catch off Hughes, square-leg Umpire Doctrove had a clear view. So there was no case under the laws to refer the catch to the third-Umpire.

    The Hauritz catch and the Strauss catch were not, contrary to most assumptions, the same thing. That is why they were treated differently.

    Now, whether Doctrove was right to believe the ball carried to Strauss is another matter. But personally I've seen enough evidence that a pair of eyes (or a camera) a few yards away from the relevant ball and pair of hands is actually a better judge of whether it's hit the ground or not than a camera hundreds of yards away.
    I disagree.
    The one, the only CW Black
    Code:
    47.3 W Coppinger to Heads 
        Smacked the ball straight into the groin of Iwuajoku who has fallen over, 
        miraculously with the ball still caught in his scrotal area! Out!

  9. #9
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    Thinking that he didn't catch it doesn't mean that he didn't have a full view.
    If he had a full view, he had no case to refer upstairs. I imagine he had a partial view, and felt he did not have enough of one to be fully sure either way.

    However much Australians may hate on Rudi, I doubt even they'd accuse him of not knowing the rulebook.

  10. #10
    International Vice-Captain Redbacks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    NT
    Posts
    4,156
    whatever floats your boat

  11. #11
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401

  12. #12
    International Coach duffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    So appalled...
    Posts
    11,492
    I put it in the match thread but:


  13. #13
    Cricketer Of The Year four_or_six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,189
    Bumble on twitter:

    BumbleCricket: the catch....hughes [middlesex] to Straiss [middlesex], "did you catch that?" Strauss, "yes"...should be end of story.
    It's such a shame that this isn't the way they can go with all these catches, since technology wise that's the best we've got.

  14. #14
    Cricketer Of The Year four_or_six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,189
    Quote Originally Posted by duffer View Post
    I put it in the match thread but:
    The cricket ball looks a very weird shape though, I don't think the camera angles are that helpful.

  15. #15
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,104
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    Thought that the Sky commentators (might have been Bumble) said at the time that Rudi didn't think that Hauritz caught it, but asked for the third umpire's opinion to make sure.
    Yeah, this. I can't really buy that Rudi "wasn't sure", but thought Hauritz didn't catch it, while Doctrove was totally certain that Strauss did. There's just no way you could be totally sure about something like that, and there was already precedent in the match to refer a close catch upstairs for clarification, so the correct call was to do it again.

    Alternatively, never do it in the first place, and just go off your initial feeling. If Rudi gave Bopara not out without referring it and then Hughes was given out the next day without a referral, that would be fine, albeit incorrect in at least Hughes' case.

    One or the other.
    I know a place where a royal flush
    Can never beat a pair

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •