***Official*** England in New Zealand series 2013

[grecian]

Because UDRS just doesn't make ****ing sense. We use hotspot as the UDRS method to check edges, we see no edge and we still can't overturn it.

Why use hotspot at all if we aren't trusting it to detect edges?

There was some hotspot, on the edge of the bat. Sorry why are you swearing at me, this is all very odd.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Meanwhile, NZ doing a great job of "gritting it out" here.

As long as they bat their full 50 overs, they are giving themselves a chance.

[/smitheh]

 

[Zinzan]

If Taylor thought he didn't hit it, then how come he took about 10 seconds and a conversation with McCullum before reviewing it?

Eggactly & as I said, had he reviewed immediately, I think it might have played into the 3rd Umps mind.

 

[hendrix]

Exactly. We couldn't tell precisely what the noise was, but we also couldn't tell that it obviously wasn't the bat. The umpire, however, thought that it was, and that's still the most important factor.

yeah, this.

Okay, so if that's the precedence, I've got no major issue provided the ICC categorically say so. To be consistent, they need to make it official that hot-spot evidence is not enough to override an umpires out decision.

No, that doesn't make sense at all.

Hotspot showing a spot is conclusive evidence that the ball has hit the bat.

However, hotspot not showing a spot is not conclusive evidence that the ball hasn't hit the bat.

 

[SilentOne]

There was some hotspot, on the edge of the bat. Sorry why are you swearing at me, this is all very odd.

That white mark or hotspot was from him striking the bat when taking guard and last time I checked a cricket ball is round. An edge would leave a smaller mark than what was shown on hotspot.

 

[Athlai]

There was some hotspot, on the edge of the bat. Sorry why are you swearing at me, this is all very odd.

I'm not swearing at you, I'm swearing at the situation and the decision. I think you'll find nothing has been directed at you, nowhere have I personally insulted you I have instead shown frustration with the situation that we are discussing.

Wickets should never be given when there is that much doubt and lack of proof that the batsman is out.

 

[grecian]

Eggactly & as I said, had he reviewed immediately, I think it might have played into the 3rd Umps mind.

Yeah, I mean by what Athlai says it would have been immediate, but it wasn't, he knew he was out, he was out, no proof he wasn't out, can we move on without swearing at each other ****s.

 

[Cabinet96]

Wickets should never be given when there is that much doubt and lack of proof that the batsman is out.

But in this instance, the benefit of the doubt goes to the umpire, not to the batsman.

 

[NZTailender]

I blame Ed for this disaster.

 

[grecian]

But in this instance, the benefit of the doubt goes to the umpire, not to the batsman.

What a weird concept.....

 

[Bahnz]

I'm not swearing at you, I'm swearing at the situation and the decision. I think you'll find nothing has been directed at you, nowhere have I personally insulted you I have instead shown frustration with the situation that we are discussing.

Wickets should never be given when there is that much doubt and lack of proof that the batsman is out.

You're missing the whole point of the DRS.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Nah, Taylor didn't call for immediately, but he did immediately act befuzzled.

It's hardly damning evidence that he knew he hit it.

His captain was at the other end, he went down to make sure.

In fact, Taylor's behaviour made it pretty obvious that he believed he didn't hit it, not the other way around.

 

[Zinzan]

yeah, this.



No, that doesn't make sense at all.

Hotspot showing a spot is conclusive evidence that the ball has hit the bat.

However, hotspot not showing a spot is not conclusive evidence that the ball hasn't hit the bat.

I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just saying based on the message they just conveyed to the commentators, that must be the precedence.

 

[hendrix]

Wickets should never be given when there is that much doubt and lack of proof that the batsman is out.

that's not the system we have in place though (IMO, for good reason). It's a situation in which had it originally been given "not-out", the decision would have been upheld.

Better to err on the side of the umpire than leave it up to the third umpire to make a controversial decision.

 

[Cabinet96]

It's taken 31 overs, but Brendon McCullum reminds everyone that the boundary is 40 meters.

What a weird concept.....

And it's not as if benefit to the batsman is a written law or official system. Unlike benefit to the umpire.

 

[Athlai]

But in this instance, the benefit of the doubt goes to the umpire, not to the batsman.

So when the 3rd umpire whispers back in his air that "We got nothing to show he hit that, but there is still that noise and we don't know where it came from." we get stupid situations like this.

The benefit of the doubt for the umpire and not the batsman is something that has always ground my gears.

 

[grecian]

I'm not swearing at you, I'm swearing at the situation and the decision. I think you'll find nothing has been directed at you, nowhere have I personally insulted you I have instead shown frustration with the situation that we are discussing.

Wickets should never be given when there is that much doubt and lack of proof that the batsman is out.

If you think the decision was wrong fair enough, but honestly once the decision was given there is no reason to change it.

 

[Bahnz]

Anyway, 10 per over from here and we should be close to a defendable score.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

But in this instance, the benefit of the doubt goes to the umpire, not to the batsman.

Which is very strange.

LBW's - yeah sure, I'd give them that.

Catches? Nope.

Sorry, there is no evidence either way, benefit of the doubt goes to MEEEEEEEEE!

 

[Cabinet96]

that's not the system we have in place though (IMO, for good reason). It's a situation in which had it originally been given "not-out", the decision would have been upheld.

Better to err on the side of the umpire than leave it up to the third umpire to make a controversial decision.

Yeah, this. People can slag off the DRS, but at least most of the mistakes people think it makes, is when it fails to overturn something, meaning that if the DRS wasn't there, the same decision would be made.