Contentious decisions, UDRS, Wambulance Thread.

[Dan]

Agar seems line-ball personally. Was very hard to tell whether he got back on time. If pushed, I'd say he was out, but BOTD probably made the most sense. It'd have taken a brave umpire to give it.

As for Trott, I didn't watch it, so it's hard to say. Apparently Snicko suggests there was no nick, but it was lacking certain angles of HotSpot. Given how adamant Trott seemed that he hit it, and that Snicko doesn't count, it was probably best to stick with the on-field call, but it did seem like that was out.

But England have had some luck too. Although those were consistent with UDRS.

Not a crack at you in particular morgieb, but this is a completely **** reason to give someone not out. It's cricket, not who's the most convincing actor FFS.



Anyway, we've got a roughly 50/50 split of those who saw and edge and those who didn't. Given that's a decent enough sample size, it's not exactly damning that Erasmus went one way or another; no matter what decision he made he's wrong with half of us. Both sides, roughly, are seeing what they want to see.

Its a marginal decision that could have gone either way, and tbh there is nothing overly conclusive either way. Move the **** on; in extremely marginal calls there is **** all an umpire can do but make the call he feels is right. Calling Erasmus' character into question is absolutely woeful.

A 50/50 decision shouldn't matter if a side plays well. If England didn't bowl trash Agar would never have got to 98 despite the marginal stumping (haven't seen video so not passing judgement). Similarly, KP and Cook batting well should render the Trott decision relatively moot. Given there was another decision earlier on that went against Starc when it was cannoning into leg stump, I think we can pretty safely say that these things tend to even out.

I personally don't think Trott hit it, and Erasmus saw the video evidence as showing nothing. He made the call to the best of his ability in a very marginal, high-pressure situation. It isn't like Erasmus is the only one to have come to that conclusion for the footage. Its a close call that could have gone either way. Move on.

Lack of side-on hotspot is shocking though.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Justice served for those LBWs Bell should have been given out for in 2009 Ashes from Mitchell Johnson when he get 50. #neverforget

 

[Adders]

Agree with nearly everything you said there Dan, and I certainly think 99% of us are making what we want to make out of it......including me.

But since we're split 50/50 on what the evidence showed doesn't that in itself indicate the evidence was inconclusive?? If it was inconclusive should Dars on field decision have stuck??

For me it matters not whether Trott hit it or not, I'm debating whether the DRS was correctly implemented (side on hot spot aside)

 

[GIMH]

Justice served for those LBWs Bell should have been given out for in 2009 Ashes from Mitchell Johnson when he get 50. #neverforget

Haha true. We could have wound up with a sticky little chase in that one,

 

[Spark]

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)

 

[Adders]

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)

Snicko isn't part of the DRS system. It may be enough for you to make up your mind he didn't hit it, and that's fair enough.........but it's irrelevant to whether the DRS was correctly implemented in this instance.

Front on Hot Spot camera was showing the wrong side of the bat to show a mark if there was one.

 

[TNT]

Snicko isn't part of the DRS system. It may be enough for you to make up your mind he didn't hit it, and that's fair enough.........but it's irrelevant to whether the DRS was correctly implemented in this instance.

Front on Hot Spot camera was showing the wrong side of the bat to show a mark if there was one.

Again it just a difference of opinion, snicko shows that DRS was correctly implemented in this instance.

 

[greg]

Agree with nearly everything you said there Dan, and I certainly think 99% of us are making what we want to make out of it......including me.

But since we're split 50/50 on what the evidence showed doesn't that in itself indicate the evidence was inconclusive?? If it was inconclusive should Dars on field decision have stuck??

For me it matters not whether Trott hit it or not, I'm debating whether the DRS was correctly implemented (side on hot spot aside)

Actually i think you are confusing two different things here - was it reasonable to overturn the decision, and did he actually hit it? To be fair to Erasmus, he can hardly conduct a poll of the cricketweb forum to discover if they are split 50/50 or unanimous! If he is convinced that he didn't hit it, then he can't do anything else. However if his conviction was based almost entirely on hotspot (such as was available) then imo it must be a flawed decision. If however he has recognised that the Hotspot evidence was insufficient, and has come to a conclusive opinion on the normal camera evidence alone then fair enough. I can't see how he can have come to that conclusion but there we are. Maybe he didn't decide on the normal camera alone, but used hotspot to swing the balance (which to my mind would be a faulty approach) but we won't know.

I don't think England would have made an issue of it (and been public in saying that Trott hit it) if he hadn't hit it.

Agree this should be a DRS debate alone. I doubt it has fundamentally changed the match, or at least if England don't win the match they will have far more to blame themselves for than any umpiring decisions. Including let Australia's last wicket pair put on 160.

 

[greg]

Just one final thing to throw in the mix though. I think there is a mark which appears on the front on hotspot if you freeze the frame at the right moment...

Not one that can in any ways be conclusively said to be the ball, other that it is not there before the ball arrives. You only get it for about a moment before the bat twists, so can't really tell from moving pictures. Do they do ultra slow mo on hotspot cameras?

 

[Dan]

Agree with nearly everything you said there Dan, and I certainly think 99% of us are making what we want to make out of it......including me.

But since we're split 50/50 on what the evidence showed doesn't that in itself indicate the evidence was inconclusive?? If it was inconclusive should Dars on field decision have stuck??

For me it matters not whether Trott hit it or not, I'm debating whether the DRS was correctly implemented (side on hot spot aside)

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but the line between 'inconclusive' and 'conclusive' is pretty arbitrary at the best of times, and blurred/tainted by biased at the worst. We've got a good chunk of people on here who do feel it was conclusive either way, and by no means do I think their opinions are illegitimate. Erasmus did not believe he saw an edge, hence he ruled against it. In his mind the evidence was conclusive, and what we as a collective see as inconclusive is completely irrelevant to the decision making process.

Given we have this split 50/50 on whether it was out or not, with varying degrees of conclusiveness, I don't think we can write off any decision Erasmus made as "wrong". Should Dar's on-field decision have stuck? Perhaps. But Erasmus has the better view to look at the decision and make it. I've been in that situation in park cricket (bat, pad, ground and ball all very close together) and you pretty much end up making an educated guess because you have no evidence - you're reliant on experience and gut feel.

And ultimately, without DRS we wouldn't have had this unequivocal study of what went on before the decision was made. Whether it corrected the decision or not, being able to do that is far better than telling Aleem Dar to have an educated guess and hope the footage backs him up.

tl;dr - Erasmus made the best decision he could with the evidence he had. He felt it was conclusive, and we should move on and accept that these things can go either way - it's nothing to get completely hung up on.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Just one final thing to throw in the mix though. I think there is a mark which appears on the front on hotspot if you freeze the frame at the right moment...

Not one that can in any ways be conclusively said to be the ball, other that it is not there before the ball arrives. You only get it for about a moment before the bat twists, so can't really tell from moving pictures. Do they do ultra slow mo on hotspot cameras?

Thought I saw one (this is going by 1am memory) but it was right down the bottom of the bar, as though he had hit his boot. Although you would also expect this to come on snicko.

 

[Dan]

Maybe he didn't decide on the normal camera alone, but used hotspot to swing the balance (which to my mind would be a faulty approach) but we won't know.

Correct me if I'm understanding this wrong, but isn't that the entire way hotspot is supposed to work? Camera sends Erasmus leaning towards the view he didn't hit it, then hotspot shows nothing which backs his view up.

 

[Spark]

Snicko isn't part of the DRS system. It may be enough for you to make up your mind he didn't hit it, and that's fair enough.........but it's irrelevant to whether the DRS was correctly implemented in this instance.

Front on Hot Spot camera was showing the wrong side of the bat to show a mark if there was one.

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.

 

[greg]

Thought I saw one (this is going by 1am memory) but it was right down the bottom of the bar, as though he had hit his boot. Although you would also expect this to come on snicko.

My one was half way up the bat, but as i say need a slomo and something better than Sky pause technology.

 

[Spark]

My one was half way up the bat, but as i say need a slomo and something better than Sky pause technology.

That wasn't on the bat, that was the ball hitting the pad.

 

[TNT]

My one was half way up the bat, but as i say need a slomo and something better than Sky pause technology.

I saw that but it was the spot on the pad as the bat moved past the pad. I initially thought it was on the bat but watching replays it was the mark on the pad looking like it was on the edge of the bat.

 

[Spark]

I do know the difference between a bat and a pad! If my mark was the pad then it wouldn't disappear as the bat twists! But as i say it's not remotely conclusive because it is only visible for a moment and could be something else/trick of light etc.

I'm sure Sky will have had people pouring over it all night, so we'll have it analysed properly soon enough!

Watch it again. It's pretty obviously just the ball hitting the pad.

 

[greg]

Watch it again. It's pretty obviously just the ball hitting the pad.

Fair enough.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

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.

 

[Adders]

I'm just saying that I find this idea that "oh he definitely hit it"... mildly baffling.

Agree with you. I "think" he did hit it, but there was nothing shown in any replay that could possibly lead me to say he "definitely" hit it.......hence for me the evidence is inconclusive.

If Erasmus can put his hand on his heart and say what he was watching led him to believe that Trott 100% didn't hit it, then he and DRS did their job.......if there is even the slightest degree of conjecture (such as my "think" or "gut feel") then he stuffed up and DRS failed, Dars decision should have stood.

Also agree with Greg, for me this discussion is about my growing frustrations with the DRS system and it's shortcomings. In no way do I think this decision was a match changer, if England lose it is not because of any of the 2 debatable decisions.