Cricket Player Manager
Page 3 of 27 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 394
Like Tree22Likes

Thread: Contentious decisions, UDRS, Wambulance Thread.

  1. #31
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    25,555
    Also, I'm on the Trott hit it bandwagon, the fact that two different angles from front on indicated a deflection takes out the possibility if camera tricks.

    On Agar, I think people overestimate how often the foot is up, it can still be touching the ground but people perceive it to only be doing so when they press it hard against it and you can see downward pressure on the ground. I have heard people say its irrelevant to the case (I kept on watching his foot for a lift in the few replays I watched, not the timing of the stumping) but thought it was a point worth making anyway.

  2. #32
    International Coach howardj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    13,007
    Trott hit it in my view

    At the very least, with Snicko showing some activity and also the appearance of a deflection on the front on camera angle, there was not enough evidence to overturn the on-field umpire's decision

    Once again, don't blame the technology, blame the use of it by the 3rd umpire
    Last edited by howardj; 11-07-2013 at 06:38 PM.
    - Winner of the 2011 and 2012 CricketWeb AFL tipping competition

    - Winner of the 2011, 2012 and 2013 CricketWeb NRL tipping competition

  3. #33
    International Coach morgieb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    63*
    Posts
    11,727
    Agar seems line-ball personally. Was very hard to tell whether he got back on time. If pushed, I'd say he was out, but BOTD probably made the most sense. It'd have taken a brave umpire to give it.

    As for Trott, I didn't watch it, so it's hard to say. Apparently Snicko suggests there was no nick, but it was lacking certain angles of HotSpot. Given how adamant Trott seemed that he hit it, and that Snicko doesn't count, it was probably best to stick with the on-field call, but it did seem like that was out.

    But England have had some luck too. Although those were consistent with UDRS.
    5-0

    RIP Craig Walsh (Craig) 1985-2012
    RIP Hughesy

    Proudly supporting the #2 cricketer of all time.

  4. #34
    International Captain straw man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    l
    Posts
    6,389
    Thought Agar was probably out on the stumping and from watching this replay I'm firmly in the camp that Trott hit that lbw. Woeful that side-on hotspot was unavailable and the front-on is useless as Trott turns his bat the wrong way for us to see the relevant edge.


  5. #35
    International Coach HeathDavisSpeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Rummaging through Iain O'Brien's dustbins.
    Posts
    14,631
    I thought Agar was clearly out. I thought the crease line was clear enough from the stump angle and that none of his boot was behind it when the stumps were disturbed. The side on angle showing the stumps could only be disturbed by Prior taking off the bails. I was very surprised that it wasn't given out.
    >>>>>>WHHOOOOOOOOOSHHHHHHH>>>>>>
    Fascist Dictator of the Heath Davis Appreciation Society
    Supporting Petone's Finest since the very start - Iain O'Brien
    Adam Wheater - Another batsman off the Essex production line
    Also Supporting the All Time #1 Batsman of All Time Ever - Jacques Kallis and the much maligned Peter Siddle.


    Vimes tells it how it is:
    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel_Vimes View Post
    Heath worryingly quick.

  6. #36
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    33,573
    Quote Originally Posted by howardj View Post
    Trott hit it in my view

    At the very least, with Snicko showing some activity and also the appearance of a deflection on the front on camera angle, there was not enough evidence to overturn the on-field umpire's decision

    Once again, don't blame the technology, blame the use of it by the 3rd umpire
    Snicko showed absolutely no evidence of an edge, though that's irrelevant to the UDRS question.

    Amazed that anyone can be sure that he hit it. I mean, doubt is fair but I'm really quite amazed at the level of conviction that he definitely hit it.
    + time's fickle card game ~ with you and i +


    forever 63*

  7. #37
    State Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,751
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    Snicko showed absolutely no evidence of an edge, though that's irrelevant to the UDRS question.

    Amazed that anyone can be sure that he hit it. I mean, doubt is fair but I'm really quite amazed at the level of conviction that he definitely hit it.
    I'm not quite sure why nobody appears to have picked up on Dar's reaction to the decision. Frankly it's the closest i can remember coming to seeing an onfield umpire showing dissent at a DRS decision (after having to give it out he shrugged his shoulders and effectively gave a look of "what can i do?").

    I wonder if a different outcome would have occurred if DRS decisions (as far as i can tell) weren't taken in total isolation, as opposed to in conference with the onfield umpire? Especially as these days all the players and the umpire can see the replays on the big screen. I can imagine a conversation going:

    Erasmus: "I'm going to give him out"
    Dar: "But I'm positive he hit it, can you take a closer look"
    Erasmus: "Can't see anything on Hotspot"
    Dar: "What about non hotspot replays"
    ...

    Erasmus: "Well there might be a deflection..."
    Dar: "Not out then!"

  8. #38
    Cricket Web Staff Member Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    42,376
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    Snicko showed absolutely no evidence of an edge, though that's irrelevant to the UDRS question.

    Amazed that anyone can be sure that he hit it. I mean, doubt is fair but I'm really quite amazed at the level of conviction that he definitely hit it.
    Everyone's guilty of projection at times
    WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie
    "People make me happy.. not places.. people"
    "When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life." - Samuel Johnson

    "Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself" - Tony Benn

    #408. Sixty three not out forever.

  9. #39
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    33,573
    Quote Originally Posted by greg View Post
    I'm not quite sure why nobody appears to have picked up on Dar's reaction to the decision. Frankly it's the closest i can remember coming to seeing an onfield umpire showing dissent at a DRS decision (after having to give it out he shrugged his shoulders and effectively gave a look of "what can i do?").

    I wonder if a different outcome would have occurred if DRS decisions (as far as i can tell) weren't taken in total isolation, as opposed to in conference with the onfield umpire? Especially as these days all the players and the umpire can see the replays on the big screen. I can imagine a conversation going:

    Erasmus: "I'm going to give him out"
    Dar: "But I'm positive he hit it, can you take a closer look"
    Erasmus: "Can't see anything on Hotspot"
    Dar: "What about non hotspot replays"
    ...

    Erasmus: "Well there might be a deflection..."
    Dar: "Not out then!"
    How is that evidence of anything at all, though?

  10. #40
    TNT
    TNT is offline
    U19 Cricketer
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    451
    What if the third umpire is only allowed to deal in yes or no. Did he hit it yes or no, is there a result on hot spot, does the non hot spot show a deflection.
    If you nick it walk

  11. #41
    State Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,751
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    How is that evidence of anything at all, though?
    How is what evidence of anything?

    I'm mainly saying that Erasmus made a bad decision without properly considering the evidence, and had the DRS been more of a conversation he might have made a better decision. After all he possibly didn't even know the reason why Dar didn't give it out and may have thought he just misjudged the line of the ball and had made a howler.

    I think that Dar showing dissent at the decision is some evidence that the decision was bad - after all, as was often pointed out in the past (when the debate over the merits of technology was more finely balanced than it is now) the onfield umpire does have a view unavailable to television - ie. a three dimensional view (albeit obviously with the limitations of seeing it once, and at pace). It is the reason why DRS works best as it does (needing clear evidence to overturn a decision), rather than decision making being completely subcontracted to the technology.
    Last edited by greg; 12-07-2013 at 12:05 AM.

  12. #42
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,104
    Again I don't understand how Erasmus made a bad decision. The technology in use - hotspot - shows no evidence of an edge so he made the call that there was no edge. DRS exists so one team can effectively overrule the umpire with the use of technology. If you refer, and the tech says no edge, but you overrule the tech to go with the umpire's call, what is the point of DRS?
    I know a place where a royal flush
    Can never beat a pair

  13. #43
    International Coach HeathDavisSpeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Rummaging through Iain O'Brien's dustbins.
    Posts
    14,631
    TNT's signature sums up this situation nicely for Trott.

    "If you nick it walk"

  14. #44
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    33,573
    Quote Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad View Post
    Again I don't understand how Erasmus made a bad decision. The technology in use - hotspot - shows no evidence of an edge so he made the call that there was no edge. DRS exists so one team can effectively overrule the umpire with the use of technology. If you refer, and the tech says no edge, but you overrule the tech to go with the umpire's call, what is the point of DRS?
    Precisely. I'm still not seeing this incredibly convincing case that he hit it.

  15. #45
    State Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,751
    Quote Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad View Post
    Again I don't understand how Erasmus made a bad decision. The technology in use - hotspot - shows no evidence of an edge so he made the call that there was no edge. DRS exists so one team can effectively overrule the umpire with the use of technology. If you refer, and the tech says no edge, but you overrule the tech to go with the umpire's call, what is the point of DRS?
    Hotspot isn't the only technology available (and in this case it wasn't properly available, as has been documented). Whereas the traditional 2D televisions pictures strongly suggested a deviation resulting from an edge. If Erasmus seriously considered the latter, and dismissed it, then (just about) fair enough but i don't think he did.

Page 3 of 27 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. No runners ever and yes to UDRS
    By silentstriker in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 148
    Last Post: 30-11-2011, 12:37 PM
  2. UDRS : The 2.5 Meter rule
    By gvenkat in forum World Cup 2011
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 08-03-2011, 01:36 AM
  3. UDRS in ODIs
    By Craig in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 28-01-2010, 05:54 PM

Posting Permissions

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