• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Contentious decisions, UDRS, Wambulance Thread.

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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.
That's not how it works because hotspot is known to sometimes give false negatives. If there's a mark we can safely say he hit it but if there's no mark it doesn't mean we can be sure he didn't hit it. It's not hugely unusual for a batsman to admit nicking one that didn't show up on hotspot.

Also, the relevant evidence (i.e. side-on hotspot) wasn't even available here, so a false negative is even more likely.
 

TNT

Banned
I am fine over the Trott dismissal, no hot spot and no snicko says Trott may well have missed it. Still annoyed about the stumping not being given as it was clearly out.
I dont think some people understand the rule with this, the third umpire has to have a frame with one bail completely removed from the stumps and his foot not touching behind the line. I have watched the replay and did not see that frame.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
I dont think some people understand the rule with this, the third umpire has to have a frame with one bail completely removed from the stumps and his foot not touching behind the line. I have watched the replay and did not see that frame.
i think people here would say they'd seen the frame

That's not how it works because hotspot is known to sometimes give false negatives. If there's a mark we can safely say he hit it but if there's no mark it doesn't mean we can be sure he didn't hit it. It's not hugely unusual for a batsman to admit nicking one that didn't show up on hotspot.

Also, the relevant evidence (i.e. side-on hotspot) wasn't even available here, so a false negative is even more likely.
Again this only happened for very thin edges - and I was one of the first here to point it out IIRC - not ones where the ball has been deflected considerably which is what people are arguing. Those show up basically every time.
 
Last edited:

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
A really thick edge will show up on hotspot even square-on. I mean, it used to be the only way we could use hotspot to pick up edges not that long ago. You make a fair point re: relevance, but I'm just saying that I find this idea that "oh he definitely hit it"... mildly baffling.
Is anyone 100%? I just don't think the apparent deviation could be an illusion. The bat seems to be coming down in line with the ball, and the direction it spins off after hitting the pad, and he seems pretty certain he's hit it. Of course there's evidence against that too. IMO there could easily be an mark not in view of the camera but snicko should surely have picked up an edge. Sometimes noises show up on snicko slightly late so it could have just blurred into the ball hitting the pad. I don't know if that's plausible or not but I don't think the 'illusion' idea is all that plausible either. Bit of a mystery.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
For me the only possible evidence that he hit it is the apparent deflection between frames on the action replay, and for me that's the least convincing piece of evidence by its very nature. I mean we are literally talking one frame here.
 

Adders

Cricketer Of The Year
Just wondering if anyone can post a Youtube (or any other) link for the Trott review?? Just had a quick look and can't find one.

Wouldn't mind looking at it again.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
For me the only possible evidence that he hit it is the apparent deflection between frames on the action replay, and for me that's the least convincing piece of evidence by its very nature. I mean we are literally talking one frame here.
Also the fact that he clearly thinks he hit it.
 

Pothas

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I am fine over the Trott dismissal, no hot spot and no snicko says Trott may well have missed it. Still annoyed about the stumping not being given as it was clearly out.
Leaning towards this myself. The Trott one is certainly tricky, Erasmus probably should not have overruled, but he may well have got it correct.

Stumping is just so obviously out , normally it would not matter but Finn and Agar meant that it did.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Snicko is definitely relevant to the question of "whether he hit it" or not. If you want to posit the existence of completely silent edges then fine by me but otherwise you have to explain why it didn't show up on snicko or hotspot (and if it deflected at right angles it should be fairly bloody obvious on hotspot, front-on or no)
I said this in another thread...but when I was watching higlights and 'The Verdict' last night, snicko showed a noise at the point the ball was in line with the bat. Not sure why it was different when live, but.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Think Broad probaby got a little tickle on the Clarke catch, tbh. :ph34r:

Absolute Barry Crocker, but if you piss away your reviews...
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
You can't use a players reaction as evidence though.
Broad's Oscar worthy "what are they appealing for?" face today being a good example of why.

Incidentally, a good example of what I was talking about earlier. Imagine that the only reviews Australia had used in this game were the two in the opening overs for the Root LBW (which was very close, umpire's call) and the Trott LBW (which was, at the least, too close to call). Then you have the Broad catch here. By the logic used here that Trott should have been not out because there wasn't "enough evidence" to overturn the umpire's decision with technology, Australia wouldn't have had the review to catch the far more blatant error on the Broad decision. The way the DRS system works is that one side has to lose, and in this case it has to be the fielding team if you choose to ignore the evidence from the technology and not overturn the umpire's call because it's not conclusive enough. Having that review declined even though nothing suggests he actually hit it actually hurts Australia.
 
Last edited:

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I actually don't think Dar's decision should be discussed in here because there really wasn't anything contentious about the fact it was a howler.
 

gwo

U19 Debutant
Broad's Oscar worthy "what are they appealing for?" face today being a good example of why.

Incidentally, a good example of what I was talking about earlier. Imagine that the only reviews Australia had used in this game were the two in the opening overs for the Root LBW (which was very close, umpire's call) and the Trott LBW (which was, at the least, too close to call). Then you have the Broad catch here. By the logic used here that Trott should have been not out because there wasn't "enough evidence" to overturn the umpire's decision with technology, Australia wouldn't have had the review to catch the far more blatant error on the Broad decision. The way the DRS system works is that one side has to lose, and in this case it has to be the fielding team if you choose to ignore the evidence from the technology and not overturn the umpire's call because it's not conclusive enough. Having that review declined even though nothing suggests he actually hit it actually hurts Australia.
Ain't that the truth. Australia by no means have "pissed away their chances" as some here have suggested, but have no chance when Dar makes the worst decision of the series thus far. That's all.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Ain't that the truth. Australia by no means have "pissed away their chances" as some here have suggested, but have no chance when Dar makes the worst decision of the series thus far. That's all.
It could be argued that the Agar decision was worse given it didnt have to be made in real time :whistling
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Ain't that the truth. Australia by no means have "pissed away their chances" as some here have suggested, but have no chance when Dar makes the worst decision of the series thus far. That's all.
And the thread moves into stage three: wambulance.
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
Ain't that the truth. Australia by no means have "pissed away their chances" as some here have suggested, but have no chance when Dar makes the worst decision of the series thus far. That's all.
I must have hallucinated that Bairstow LBW review, then.
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Just heard Boycs and Vaughan saying Broad was fine and that he did no more than the Australians have always done - that may or may not be right but I still think Broad was well out of order - he should have walked.

Solution is to give the third umpire the right to review of his own volition
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Just heard Boycs and Vaughan saying Broad was fine and that he did no more than the Australians have always done - that may or may not be right but I still think Broad was well out of order - he should have walked.

Solution is to give the third umpire the right to review of his own volition
Have to say that's why I was initially against teams having the right of review; that it would be deployed unfairly based on the perceived strength of the batsman rather than the merits of the appeal/dismissal.

Still of the opinion that if the umpires could look upstairs when they weren't sure we'd end up with more correct calls than under UDRS too.
 

Top