• 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.

The Battlers Prince

The Battlers Prince

International Vice-Captain
biased indian said:
Just read the news and had a look at the video highlights and i am happy with what broad did....but thought it was funny in the highlight section that they tell in advance for a lbw appeal which no one actually bothered about that Australia had already used up their all reviews :).....still don't get why they showed and told like that.... is the highlights from ECB ?

Ashes highlights from Trent Bridge, England v Australia, 1st Investec Ashes Test Day 3 evening - YouTube
Click to expand...
Because they did a review during play from the commentary team and it showed it was going to hit the stumps. Definitely wasn't a big part of play. No umpire should or would give that out.
 
Riggins

Riggins

International Captain
schearzie said:
Because they did a review during play from the commentary team and it showed it was going to hit the stumps. Definitely wasn't a big part of play. No umpire should or would give that out.
Click to expand...
nah that's bull ****, it wasn't like it was just clipping the stumps, it was going to smash them. I was up in arms that the aussies all didn't shout the house down, in that situation you have to have a massive shout even if just to put some emotion into the game, try and build some pressure.

if that was when warnie was bowling he would have been up heaps loud, pressure on the batsman and the umpire, not just for that decision but for the future too.
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
greg said:
Whilst i have strong sympathy with the view that in an ideal world there could be a mechanism for allowing reviews to be reinstated in certain circumstances, it has to be remembered in context that test teams are told over and over again that the fundamental purpose of DRS is to avert 'howlers'. That is why a central feature of DRS is to favour the onfield decision in such a way that any marginal decision should be decided by the onfield umpire with a review standing by any decision which is made in either direction.

Put simply (and especially with 2 reviews) it is very rare that any howler will stand unless the reviews have been wasted on trying to gain marginal decisions in defiance of the above stated purpose. Which is why ultimately the "blame" lies with Clarke and Australia. Yes one can try to blame Dar for making the howler but everyone knows that even the best umpires will succomb to mistakes on occasion. Of course the test teams will see it as a trade off - in this case they gained arguably gained the wicket of Trott as a price for missing the wicket of Broad. Probably a fair swap.

The suggestions that Broad should have walked, especially in the world of DRS, seem to me to be somewhat over the top. Effectively people are arguing that because Australia had wasted their reviews, Broad should oblige and be his own third umpire. And i don't understand the argument that standing for a big nick is cheating, but a thin feather is not. Either not walking when you know you have hit it is "cheating" or it isn't. There isn't a grey area.

Finally, England probably had enough runs at the time anyway...
Click to expand...
Lol'ing at this piece of weasel wording. He edged it to first ****ing slip.
 
The Battlers Prince

The Battlers Prince

International Vice-Captain
Riggins said:
nah that's bull ****, it wasn't like it was just clipping the stumps, it was going to smash them. I was up in arms that the aussies all didn't shout the house down, in that situation you have to have a massive shout even if just to put some emotion into the game, try and build some pressure.

if that was when warnie was bowling he would have been up heaps loud, pressure on the batsman and the umpire, not just for that decision but for the future too.
Click to expand...
And you would have been given not out still. From an Australian point of view though I completely agree with you, but the way it seemed to play out to me at least was very low key compared with other, possibly less likely shouts they gave. I should probably retract that it wasn't a big part of play, because in the circumstances it very much could and should have been a big part, however not to be.
 
G

greg

International Debutant
Spark said:
Lol'ing at this piece of weasel wording. He edged it to first ****ing slip.
Click to expand...
He edged it to the keeper, actually, but i'm not disputing that it was an awful decision and he should have been out. But they happen. If umpires never made howlers then DRS wouldn't exist.

In the 2009 Ashes Hussey was given out at Lords when he edged the ball directly to first slip off Swann. Everyone was derisive that he stood his ground...

...he missed it by a country mile!
 
biased indian

biased indian

International Coach
schearzie said:
Because they did a review during play from the commentary team and it showed it was going to hit the stumps. Definitely wasn't a big part of play. No umpire should or would give that out.
Click to expand...
the thing was, they are saying Australia had already used up the review, .don't think they would have reviewed that even with one available
 
Daemon

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
In the post-match news conference, however, Australia fast bowler Peter Siddle played the incident down.
"It just happened. It's the umpire's decision, you take it and you just keep going on," he said.
"You just finish the over and go through to the next over. There wasn't a big deal made out of it, we just went about our business.
"How many people have ever walked? At the end of the day it's the umpire's decision and players stick with it."

Siddle WAG
 
G

greg

International Debutant
Daemon said:
In the post-match news conference, however, Australia fast bowler Peter Siddle played the incident down.
"It just happened. It's the umpire's decision, you take it and you just keep going on," he said.
"You just finish the over and go through to the next over. There wasn't a big deal made out of it, we just went about our business.
"How many people have ever walked? At the end of the day it's the umpire's decision and players stick with it."

Siddle WAG
Click to expand...
Yeah, i think all the headlines about "Aussie fume over umpire error" are very misleading. They naturally reacted badly in the immediate aftermath, but there has been very little "fuming" from that point. Frankly i think the media are assuming they are fuming because everyone knows with roles reversed the English, true to hypocritical form, would have been going on about it for months.
 
G

greg

International Debutant
biased indian said:
if ball had not hit haddin it would have been a tough chance for clarke
Click to expand...
Of course Dar should have asked himself how it was possible that Haddin was so far away from taking the ball cleanly, but maybe he just rates his ability with the gloves that lowly ;)
 
GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
greg said:
Yeah, i think all the headlines about "Aussie fume over umpire error" are very misleading. They naturally reacted badly in the immediate aftermath, but there has been very little "fuming" from that point. Frankly i think the media are assuming they are fuming because everyone knows with roles reversed the English, true to hypocritical form, would have been going on about it for months.
Click to expand...
Nah we should ban Clarke for dissent. With immediate effect.
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
greg said:
Yeah, i think all the headlines about "Aussie fume over umpire error" are very misleading. They naturally reacted badly in the immediate aftermath, but there has been very little "fuming" from that point. Frankly i think the media are assuming they are fuming because everyone knows with roles reversed the English, true to hypocritical form, would have been going on about it for months.
Click to expand...
Well they did complain to the ICC just yesterday...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top