Hauritz and Strauss catches, Lord's Test

[Richard]

Originally Posted by four_or_six

Bumble on twitter:



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.

Batsmen these days mostly don't care about whether they're playing the game right, they only care about themselves and their team. Both should come second to it.

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by duffer

I put it in the match thread but:

Not a very helpful picture, though, for both of the reasons I gave in the match thread.

[zaremba]

I've seen this a number of times now. Each time I see it at full speed, it looks more and more like a clean catch. And even on the super slo-mo it looks more out each time I see it. However I accept that if it had been referred it would, and should, have been given not out because the replays on which the 3rd umpire is forced to rely are equivocal.

For all that people are disagreeing with Richard on this, the points he's making are sound. (1) the umpires shouldn't and mustn't refer unless they are both unsighted; and (2) viewing the catch live (and in 3D) may well allow for a more accurate appraisal than a long-lens 2D image.

TBH not sure I'd take quite the same view if this were an Australian catching a Pom...

In any event all this will be academic, because Australia will win this Test and it will go down as the greatest run chase in history, putting the bitching about the umpiring decisions into the shade.

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by zaremba

Not a very helpful picture, though, for both of the reasons I gave in the match thread.

ah, would like to read this post, might try and find it...

Originally Posted by zaremba

I've seen this a number of times now. Each time I see it at full speed, it looks more and more like a clean catch. And even on the super slo-mo it looks more out each time I see it. However I accept that if it had been referred it would, and should, have been given not out because the replays on which the 3rd umpire is forced to rely are equivocal.

For all that people are disagreeing with Richard on this, the points he's making are sound. (1) the umpires shouldn't and mustn't refer unless they are both unsighted; and (2) viewing the catch live (and in 3D) may well allow for a more accurate appraisal than a long-lens 2D image.

TBH not sure I'd take quite the same view if this were an Australian catching a Pom...

In any event all this will be academic, because Australia will win this Test and it will go down as the greatest run chase in history, putting the bitching about the umpiring decisions into the shade.

Yeah, for me, live it looks stone dead, and the 2d camera is unreliable. But I can understand why people think it shold have been n/o. He'd have got out next ball anyway tbh.

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

ah, would like to read this post, might try and find it...

Genuinely not worth the effort.

In brief:

(1) Such pictures very often (indeed almost invariably) give the illusion that a legitimate catch has been grounded;
(2) The lateral stretching of this particular picture only heightens that illusion.

[GIMH]

Yeah, remember a Vaughan catch that was given n/o V SA last year that was given n/o on the basis of such pictures.

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

Yeah, remember a Vaughan catch that was given n/o V SA last year that was given n/o on the basis of such pictures.

Same match in which ABdV played lawn bowls with the cricket ball before claiming the catch IIRC

[GIMH]

Indeed, some people even booed him when he got his ton because of that (I was there on that day)

[inbox24]

I tend to agree with Stuart MacGill on these types of things, which is that whatever happens, the process has to be consistent. In the case of Hauritz they went for the referrral upstairs to help make a decision and in the case of Strauss they didn't which is pretty puzzling. They need to change this.

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by inbox24

I tend to agree with Stuart MacGill on these types of things, which is that whatever happens, the process has to be consistent. In the case of Hauritz they went for the referrral upstairs to help make a decision and in the case of Strauss they didn't which is pretty puzzling. They need to change this.

But consistency doesn't mean that you treat dissimilar cases in the same way. If (and it's a big if) the umpires were both unsighted and/or unsure in the case of Hauritz, they should have referred it to the 3rd ump; if (another big if) one considered that he was sure that Strauss' catch was clean, then they shouldn't refer it to the 3rd ump. The cases were in that key sense dissimilar. The fact that both were close calls does not change that.

[howardj]

Thought both were out. The real time replays gave it away - when the ball bounces, the catcher generally brings the ball back up from down low in a scooping action. In neither case, did Strauss or Hauritz bring it back up in that way. Plus, I think both guys are very trustworthy, and were both adamant that the catches were clean. Finally, neither replay proved the ball bounced.

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by howardj

Thought both were out. The real time replays gave it away - when the ball bounces, the catcher generally brings the ball back up from down low in a scooping action. In neither case, did Strauss or Hauritz bring it back up in that way. Plus, I think both guys are very trustworthy, and were both adamant that the catches were clean. Finally, neither replay proved the ball bounced.

Quite possibly. Not sure why hauritz's forbears got transported in the first place, but that aside everything i've heard him say makes me think that he's a thoroughly trustworthy guy. I know more about Strauss and he too is the sort of player whose word I would tend to trust. Obviously the fielder himself can be mistaken occasionally, but still.

[Top_Cat]

FFS, why does every little happening need a separate fj0rking thread? Absolutely nothing has been said here which wasn't already said in the tour thread. If I was still a mod, I'd close this one at least.

[Ausage]

Originally Posted by four_or_six

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.

I don't agree with this. Firstly because at times, when the stakes are high enough, you can't trust some people to be honest in these matters. Secondly because these things happen over milliseconds. When things are happening that quickly, and the blood is pumping at the possibility of an important wicket, grabbing a ball a millisecond after it hits the ground could feel like getting to it a millisecond before hitting the ground. (think the latter happened in Strauss' case ftr)

I don't think it infringes on someone's integrity to refer a claimed catch to the video umpire either.

[Smudge]

Saw it live, and was a bit iffy about it. Put it this way, if I had been at square leg (and yes, I know, the camera shot we were subjected to live was front-on, so not his view at all), I would have suggested to Koertzen to go upstairs. But even so, based on the information available to me from that live shot, I couldn't have given it. And the replay confirmed my suspicions. There are catches that look 50:50 on replay, but that one didn't.