• 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.

*Official* West Indies In Australia

Uppercut

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Matt79 said:
Loved this comment as to whether Watson's antics had surprised him as well:

"Not really, he's that sort of person," Gayle said. "I didn't expect anything better, so that's typically Shane Watson"

lol. Sorry Shane, but if the cap fits...
Click to expand...
That's a bit of an out-of-context quote :p.

The full statement read: "I didn't expect anything better, so that's typically Shane Watson, he's a passionate person. That's how he expresses himself but maybe he just overdid it a bit, but that's Shane Watson."
 
Furball

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Streetwise said:
Thats not the core of the problem, the third umpire can only overturn the onfield umpire if he has evidence to indicate that it was the wrong decision. If the evidence is unclear then the original decision stands. The referral was introduced to eliminate howlers and not for nitpicking the 50/50 calls.
Click to expand...
Surely giving a batsman caught when he hasn't hit the ball is a howler?

There was nothing conclusive in the replays I saw which suggested Roach hit the ball - no deviation after ball passed bat, no twisting or wobbling of the bat as the ball passed, no hotspot on the edge. The only thing in favour was some sort of noise, which could have been anything.

There was no conclusive evidence that Roach hit the ball, there was simply a noise, which is not enough to conclusively say Roach hit it. Therefore, Roach shouldn't have been given out.

When it comes to caught behinds, saying Roach "might" have hit it isn't good enough, you have to be fairly certain he did hit it. Otherwise, the correct decision on review has to be not out.
 
Matt79

Matt79

Global Moderator
GingerFurball said:
Surely giving a batsman caught when he hasn't hit the ball is a howler?
Click to expand...
Not if there are reasons a reasonable judge might have made the wrong call. Bowden was wrong, but given he saw it once, at full speed, and there was a sound at exactly the wrong (for Roach) time, it wasn't a howler in my book. "Howler" fast becoming one of the most overused terms in cricket tbh.

There was nothing conclusive in the replays I saw which suggested Roach hit the ball - no deviation after ball passed bat, no twisting or wobbling of the bat as the ball passed, no hotspot on the edge. The only thing in favour was some sort of noise, which could have been anything.

There was no conclusive evidence that Roach hit the ball, there was simply a noise, which is not enough to conclusively say Roach hit it. Therefore, Roach shouldn't have been given out.

When it comes to caught behinds, saying Roach "might" have hit it isn't good enough, you have to be fairly certain he did hit it. Otherwise, the correct decision on review has to be not out.
Click to expand...
Well, there was a noise at the moment the ball either hit the bat, or else more likely passed within a couple of millimetres of it. At 140kph. Which the umpire saw once.

Whether the 3rd umpire review system should empower the 3rd umpire to overturn on balance of likelihood, rather than conclusive proof of a wrong call is a different topic. If egregiously wrong calls are the focus, there's nothing wrong with the conclusive proof standard - the system is not designed to address reasonable errors on which one side has been a little stiff.
 
Last edited:
Top_Cat

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
GingerFurball said:
Surely giving a batsman caught when he hasn't hit the ball is a howler?

There was nothing conclusive in the replays I saw which suggested Roach hit the ball - no deviation after ball passed bat, no twisting or wobbling of the bat as the ball passed, no hotspot on the edge. The only thing in favour was some sort of noise, which could have been anything.

There was no conclusive evidence that Roach hit the ball, there was simply a noise, which is not enough to conclusively say Roach hit it. Therefore, Roach shouldn't have been given out.

When it comes to caught behinds, saying Roach "might" have hit it isn't good enough, you have to be fairly certain he did hit it. Otherwise, the correct decision on review has to be not out.
Click to expand...
Yes but the umpire on the ground, acknowledged as being in the best position to decide, had no doubt so 'benefit of the doubt' arguments don't apply. Hotspot showing no result should not mean the decision gets overturned because there was still a noise as picked up by the umpire, the players and Snicko. No registration on Hotspot could mean a lot of things and one of them, considering the relatively low resolution of the camera, remains the possibility that it simply didn't pick up the edge. It is not precision equipment and a lot of peoples' arguments here are predicated on the assumption it is. Also, reckon people would be very surprised at the precision, directionality and resolution of the human ear, especially from only 22 yards away to not only hear the sound but characterise it accurately.

All the tech available to the 3rd umpire raises some doubt but doesn't definitively explain or even suggest strongly exactly what happened so the decision had to go back to the on-field umpire. Going with Bowden's decision seems unfair but going the other way and giving it not out would have been a disgrace based on the protocols currently in place.

For mine, on the balance of probabilities, I reckon he feathered it.
 
Last edited:
Son Of Coco

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
shivfan said:
Now, when the Windies board the flight to go home, they will go home feeling that morally they secured a 1-1 draw, because the use of Hotspot showed that Roach did not get an edge.
Click to expand...
:laugh:

Yes, because that was a foregone conclusion if Roach would have been given not out.
 
D

DingDong

State Captain
shivfan said:
All this is semantics....

Now, when the Windies board the flight to go home, they will go home feeling that morally they secured a 1-1 draw, because the use of Hotspot showed that Roach did not get an edge.
Click to expand...
yeah i feel the same way.this series will go down as 1-1 in my books as well ok.
 
S

Streetwise

Banned
Cruxdude said:
Nothing to do with the case here.
Click to expand...
I think it clearly shows Haddin trying to kick Benn. It shows that Haddin is quite capable of initiating contact. If you also watch the replays of Johnson deliberatley running into Benn you will see Johnson thrust his knee infront of Benn and then grab his shoulder to try and knock him over. Benn has been targeted by the Australians and he is the one punished.
 
roseboy64

roseboy64

Cricket Web Content Updater
Matt79 said:
Yeah, Sarwen's was worse than Bravo's, but Dwayne's effort remained a shot in the air, close to a fieldsman placed for the catch, to a ball he didn't have to play at, having just arrived at the crease, with your team in a decent position, but knowing that there's little in the way of batting after you and that another wicket would be a disaster.
Click to expand...
Agree here.
 
Cruxdude

Cruxdude

International Debutant
Streetwise said:
I think it clearly shows Haddin trying to kick Benn. It shows that Haddin is quite capable of initiating contact. If you also watch the replays of Johnson deliberatley running into Benn you will see Johnson thrust his knee infront of Benn and then grab his shoulder to try and knock him over. Benn has been targeted by the Australians and he is the one punished.
Click to expand...
You are a genius. Are you a lawyer by any chance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top