Contentious decisions, UDRS, Wambulance Thread.

[GIMH]

Except Swann came out PUBLICLY against his opponents and called them a cheater. In a ****ing tour match.

This happened in an Ashes test match. By being such a dickwad about it and acting like not walking is one of the biggest crimes in cricket, once again, publicly, he is obligated to come out and say he finds what Broad did bad for the game.

I thought his issue was the batsman questioning the catch. Cbf to read it again though just that's what I remember from when it happened.

 

[Jono]

I thought his issue was the batsman questioning the catch. Cbf to read it again though just that's what I remember from when it happened.

Yeah that was the incident but then Swann decided to talk about the general "cheating" culture in cricket.

'It was just cheating but we live in an age where cheating is accepted in our game. If you don't walk and get away with it no-one seems to say anything. I don't agree with that.'

In any case what is the difference? The umpire has to decide if he edged it. The umpire has to also decide if the fielder caught it.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah that was the incident but then Swann decided to talk about the general "cheating" culture in cricket.

'It was just cheating but we live in an age where cheating is accepted in our game. If you don't walk and get away with it no-one seems to say anything. I don't agree with that.'

In any case what is the difference? The umpire has to decide if he edged it. The umpire has to also decide if the fielder caught it.

Fair enough, I missed that quote. Can't say I've ever noticed Swann walking though I'm sure he reviewed a clean bowled once in case there had been a no ball (before they did the checks automatically). I could be imagining it.

Nonetheless, I do see a difference in terms of questioning a catch as that can be perceived of accusing the other side of being cheats which is a whole other ball game.

 

[Spikey]

Swann did a sky interview after the game and they shared a joke about how Aussies don't walk either, so I would say Swann had the opportunity to condemn it and he didn't, as you would expect. But the problem isn't that he hasn't condemned it, it's that he made a stupid ill-thoughtout comment in the first place that was always gonna bite him on the arse. It's a bit like Chris Broad really....

 

[uvelocity]

gimp thinks swann is a **** and is cheating in this thread by not admitting to it

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I'm not going to berate Swann for having an opinion and voicing it. So few players have any semblance of personality these days that I think we have appreciate those that do. You might think he's a bit of a dick, but at least he's saying something which doesn't just involve "character" and "standing up".

 

[uvelocity]

Maybe if he had character and stood up he'd berate broad

 

[91Jmay]

Virtually every single wicket is reviewed already as they check for no-balls

Quickly checking for no balls is totally different to firing up hotspot/hawkeye and the projection stuff.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Maybe if he had character and stood up he'd berate broad

Wait till his next book.

 

[Expressway76]

They should have asked Haddin about his not walking at the end of the game when he hit it. Would've been interesting to hear..

 

[grecian]

The other thing about the status quo that ****s me is that it could incentivise the umpires to be stingier on lbw decisions in general. Whichever way you slice it, having a decision overturned by the DRS isn't a great look for the umpire that made the initial decision. If an umpire knows that, for close lbw shouts, he's more likely to have his decision overturned if he gives a batsman out, then he may subconsciously be more predisposed to giving the batsman not out.

Of course there's no evidence to suggest that this is actually happening, though I would be interested to see some research on whether the DRS has affected umpire decision making in the last few years.

I get the impression it's made umpire's more willing to give them if anything, because they've seen that all sorts of calls that would've been benefit of the doubt years ago are actually smashing leg stump out and so on.

Yep, think they're given a lot more than before really. You look much more an idjit if you don't give one hitting middle-and-off.

Think the umps are kind of used to over-rules now, it happens, they can't beat themselves up over it.

 

[vic_orthdox]

They should have asked Haddin about his not walking at the end of the game when he hit it. Would've been interesting to hear..

Not really, none of the Australian players have said that he should have walked, have they?

Obviously would have told Broad that he should have out on the field, and called him a few other things besides that, but that's part and parcel of cricket.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Anyone suggesting DRS reviews are put in the umpire's hands need repeatedly slapping across the face with wet fish. Haddin the latest with this supremely ****witted idea.

 

[grecian]

Well here's the interview Scaly rather warmly alludes too.

I think it includes a lot of what we've been discussing. I didn't know that the Umps originally wanted what I've suggested, a full-time third umpire analyst.

"In the third umpire's chair, a full time television umpiring analyst would act swiftly and without fear or favour. That is what the umpires wanted in the first place, five years ago. Once Australia frittered its reviews away with poor judgment, then the door was opened for a howler and Stuart Broad's non-dismissal was a howler."

I'm not sure about Umpires review, but I do think that their should be specialists who haven't really got any umpiring prejudices.

 

[3703]

Billy has a crack at Stuart Fraud:

Billy Bakes Stuart Broad | The Rush Hour | Triple M Melbourne

 

[Scaly piscine]

Well here's the interview Scaly rather warmly alludes too.

I think it includes a lot of what we've been discussing. I didn't know that the Umps originally wanted what I've suggested, a full-time third umpire analyst.



I'm not sure about Umpires review, but I do think that their should be specialists who haven't really got any umpiring prejudices.

Then you're constantly waiting for the analyst, or you're not waiting long enough for the analyst to make the correct decision.

 

[grecian]

Then you're constantly waiting for the analyst, or you're not waiting long enough for the analyst to make the correct decision.

TBH, I'm happy with the system as is, with two reviews, just think that they should have a proper analyst to do it. Oh and people should keep their reviews for lbws if it's Umpires Call that saves or kills.

 

[GIMH]

Spikey posted this in the tour thread:

ICC reveals umpire assessment from Trent Bridge Test - News

Interestingly the ICC agree that there was no optical illusion and Trott ****ing smashed it.

No mention of the stumping though, presumably as it wasn't a DRS decision.

Funny though that the Aussies got 2/9 right and according to the powers that be it should have been just 1

 

[Furball]

Funnily enough, the more I watch Trott's dismissal the less convinced I am that he hit it.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Funnily enough, the more I watch Trott's dismissal the less convinced I am that he hit it.

The best angle is side-on actually, the ball visibly inclines after the edge (beyond the path the ball was on).