Contentious decisions, UDRS, Wambulance Thread.

[greg]

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.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

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?

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

TNT's signature sums up this situation nicely for Trott.

"If you nick it walk"

 

[Spark]

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.

 

[greg]

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.

 

[TNT]

I think that Dar showing dissent at the decision is some evidence that the decision was bad - .

Thats an assumption.

 

[Mike5181]

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.

Apparently he "smashed" it. I'm yet to even see a deflection and I've watched it countless times.

 

[greg]

Precisely. I'm still not seeing this incredibly convincing case that he hit it.

DRS doesn't require a convincing case. That is the point. If Dar had given him out then it would, but he didn't. That is the whole point of the way DRS is supposed to work.

I am not saying that Trott being given out was an absolute howler. Under DRS an absolute howler should see him given not out regardless of the umpire's initial decision. However it was a bad decision because the technology probably did not show enough either way to overturn (although i can make more of a case for "out" being over-turned on appeal, than "not-out", especially as the latter would be triggered by the one player who knew ie. Trott).

 

[GIMH]

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 personally amazed that anyone could not see that he hits it. The ball practically moves at a right angle ffs.

And Trott himself is certain he hit it, which helps.

 

[greg]

Thats an assumption.

An assumption that he was showing dissent? Fair enough.

 

[Burgey]

Get over it Corrin. Trott would have gone on to make 3.

 

[greg]

I'm personally amazed that anyone could not see that he hits it. The ball practically moves at a right angle ffs.

And Trott himself is certain he hit it, which helps.

Indeed. Whether people think that the criticism of the decision is fair is one debate. Regardless of that I'm surprised that many people are actually disputing that he hit it. I'm sure if sides were reversed the opinions would be the other way around. Ponting was given out LBW at Trent Bridge in 2005 and for all the world it looked out until a faint edge was detected about half an hour later. That fact didn't really undermine that the umpire made a fair enough decision in the circumstances.

 

[GIMH]

Get over it Corrin. Trott would have gone on to make 3.

I'll get over it in my own time mate. I'll be using your recovery from the Murray mints saga as a template...so expect me to be good an happy by about 2025

 

[greg]

Get over it Corrin. Trott would have gone on to make 3.

That would have probably been a match winning contribution

The problem with all these debates is that, unless they are arguing against their own side, it is impossible to say who is being genuinely objective in their opinions. Although in this case there seem to be more Australians on Trott's side (and against Agar, as it happens) than English against.

Perhaps we should ask the Saffers for a definitive view? Assuming no misplaced loyalty to Erasmus!

 

[Burgey]

Insert tired English/SA reference here.

 

[TNT]

An assumption that he was showing dissent? Fair enough.

I watched a match where Dar gave a decision and Australia reviewed it and it was dismissed, Ponting approached Dar and spoke with him and the commentators remarked that Ponting was disappointed with the decision and had words with Dar. Later when Dar was interviewed he said that Ponting came up and said that he had made a good decision. In this instance Dar could have been shrugging his shoulders to say oh well I got that wrong.

 

[Cruxdude]

Reckon with the missing angle benefit of doubt should have gone to the batsman/on-field umpire. Australia should have had their review reinstated though. Anyone got a link for the Agar stumping?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I wonder: is there a provision in the rules to "reinstate" a review? I don't think there is. So keep in mind all the claims that the slightest shred of doubt even if the technology shows no evidence to support it should side with the on-field umpire's call is effectively punishing the reviewing team. Dar said not out because of an edge (presumably), Australia reviewed because they didn't think there was an edge, hotspot showed no edge but some camera angles suggested a possible deviation so we side with the on-field umpire and Australia loses a review even though the technology suggested their review was justified and the umpire was most likely wrong.

 

[Adders]

I'm with greg here (if I'm understanding this debate correctly....2 nights of **** all sleep so I'm probably not)

Forget snicko as it's not part of the process. Shouldn't there be conclusive evidence that there was no bat on it to overturn Dars on field decision??

I really don't think any of the footage we saw was conclusive either way, so I'm certainly not in the "he hit the cover off it" camp. My gut feeling is he did nick it but I'm basing that on both Trott and Dars reactions on the verdict more than anything else.

If the evidence isn't conclusive, which I'm convinced it wasn't.......how was Dars Not Out decision reversed??

If Dar had of given it out and Trott reviewed and the decision was upheld I don't think anyone would be complaining (Apart from possibly Trott)

 

[GIMH]

Nah come on, punishing a batsman when there's not conclusive evidence is worse. (@ Faaip)