*Official* West Indies In Australia

[Hit_Wicket]

I thought it was not out in real time. The only reason it was given was because Bowden thought it was out.

Agree completely with the above, but the current review system is rudimentary and unfortunately isn't designed to give conclusive evidence on such nebulous decisions. Bowden probably heard a noise, but even with technology it was inconclusive.

In my view, since the West Indies asked for the review, the umpire's call should stand instead of the batsmen getting the benefit of the doubt (in accordance with the function of the UDRS).

At any rate, credit must go to the West Indies for their resolve and persistence after the Gabba humiliation. Australia were the superior team for large periods of the series and deserved the victory, although the 2-0 scoreline does flatter them quite a bit.

 

[Streetwise]

To be honest.....the evidence was not sufficient to prove that this was an out...

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.

 

[age_master]

To be honest.....the evidence was not sufficient to prove that this was an out...

As it was a referral it required conclusive evidence that it was not out in order to reverse the decision. There was some noise as the ball passed that bat which snicko also showed, along with the ball spinning through to Haddin as if there had been an edge. Certainly not enough evidence to reverse the decision.

 

[Howsie]

As it was a referral it required conclusive evidence that it was not out in order to reverse the decision. There was some noise as the ball passed that bat which snicko also showed, along with the ball spinning through to Haddin as if there had been an edge. Certainly not enough evidence to reverse the decision.

That began after the ball bounced tbf, the ball never changed once it went past the bat.

 

[Faisal1985]

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.

For as long as i remember in such cases benefit of the doubt is supposed to go to the batsman.

If that is not the case then this is a garbage review system. The whole idea of close calls being a benefit for the batsman goes out the window.

If their is not conclusive evidence for either decision, then based on what, does the on field umpire's decision stand????????

To me its simply non-sense..............

 

[Faisal1985]

As it was a referral it required conclusive evidence that it was not out in order to reverse the decision. There was some noise as the ball passed that bat which snicko also showed, along with the ball spinning through to Haddin as if there had been an edge. Certainly not enough evidence to reverse the decision.

The point of argument is, whether their was sufficient evidence to prove that the batsman is out? the answer from everyong was NO. It is not conclusive and can't be considered conclusive.

Having said that, the benifit of the doubt did not go to the batsman and on field decision remained intact from the ump.............WIthout sufficient evidence!!!!!!!!!!!!

Review system is a load of crape imo

 

[Avada Kedavra]

The point of argument is, whether their was sufficient evidence to prove that the batsman is out? the answer from everyong was NO. It is not conclusive and can't be considered conclusive.

Having said that, the benifit of the doubt did not go to the batsman and on field decision remained intact from the ump.............WIthout sufficient evidence!!!!!!!!!!!!

Review system is a load of crape imo

As the batsman was given out by the on-field umpire, sufficient evidence was needed to prove that he wasn't out. The benefit of the doubt would have gone to the batsman if the on-field umpire had ruled it not out.

 

[Streetwise]

For as long as i remember in such cases benefit of the doubt is supposed to go to the batsman.

If that is not the case then this is a garbage review system. The whole idea of close calls being a benefit for the batsman goes out the window.

If their is not conclusive evidence for either decision, then based on what, does the on field umpire's decision stand????????

To me its simply non-sense..............

Its a pretty straightforward decision, the on field umpire heard a noise and deviation of the ball when it passed the bat and he made his decision according to the laws of the game.

The appeal for the referral is also straightforward, if the third umpire has conclusive evidence that the umpire got it wrong he can then overturn the decision.

In this case the the third umpire could not say with certain that the ball did not touch the bat.

The batsman only gets benifit of the doubt from the umpire, like in a LBW the umpire could say he was not 100% sure the ball would hit the stumps so he will give the benifit of doubt to the batsman and not give it out. The referral system is not structured to give anyone the benifit of the doubt and is designed to prevent howlers.

Technology will never be perfect and a lot of decisions will come down to interpretation of video or sounds bytes, you will never please everyone and to keep tinkering with the way decisions are made because everyone is not happy will only lead to constant changing of ways to make decisions.

Cricket used to be a sport where accepting the umpires decision was what defined it as a unique sport.

 

[archie mac]

Great Test, great effort from the WIs. I was hoping (for cricket) that they could pull it off. Lets hope this is the kick start to a rise of the red caps.

This is why we should have 5 Test series, 2-0 Aust and the Windies on the way up starting to believe in themselves. It would be great to watch them at the MCG with the captain in fine form

 

[Burgey]

I only ever appealed when I thought it was out.

The appeal at issue here was spontaneous though, and iirc everyone went up. Wasn't like it was one or two blokes - seemed they thought there was a feather there.

Dougeh.

 

[GotSpin]

Great Test, great effort from the WIs. I was hoping (for cricket) that they could pull it off. Lets hope this is the kick start to a rise of the red caps.

This is why we should have 5 Test series, 2-0 Aust and the Windies on the way up starting to believe in themselves. It would be great to watch them at the MCG with the captain in fine form

Yeah another two tests against the Windies would be amazing. Hopefully they can go from strength to strength in the next few years and when they come back there will be an even better series. I know a lot of people were unexpectedly entertained from this series including myself.

 

[shivfan]

Agree completely with the above, but the current review system is rudimentary and unfortunately isn't designed to give conclusive evidence on such nebulous decisions. Bowden probably heard a noise, but even with technology it was inconclusive.

In my view, since the West Indies asked for the review, the umpire's call should stand instead of the batsmen getting the benefit of the doubt (in accordance with the function of the UDRS).

At any rate, credit must go to the West Indies for their resolve and persistence after the Gabba humiliation. Australia were the superior team for large periods of the series and deserved the victory, although the 2-0 scoreline does flatter them quite a bit.

All this is semantics....

If the umpires are going to use the technology, it should be used to arrive at the CORRECT decision. If they're going to use Hotspot, it should be used to see if the batsman got an edge. Otherwise, don't use it at all!

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. A lot of WI fans and players feel that the way the technology was used by the umpires, they were hit with a bad decision. And it's perfectly understandable that they feel this way, if this is how the technology is going to be used....

You either use Hotspot COMPLETELY, or don't use it at all....

 

[Burgey]

I'm pretty sure I heard one of the Australian players say 'Just ask the batsman' while they were standing around waiting. So, technically, yes

It'll be interesting to hear what he says. He'll inevitably be asked at some stage I'd imagine.

Will be itstl. Yesterday I asked my son in his under 10s game if he nicked the ball and he said yes, so I had to give him out. And disown him

 

[Streetwise]

All this is semantics....

If the umpires are going to use the technology, it should be used to arrive at the CORRECT decision. If they're going to use Hotspot, it should be used to see if the batsman got an edge. Otherwise, don't use it at all!

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. A lot of WI fans and players feel that the way the technology was used by the umpires, they were hit with a bad decision. And it's perfectly understandable that they feel this way, if this is how the technology is going to be used....

You either use Hotspot COMPLETELY, or don't use it at all....

How do you come to the conclusion that morally it was a 1-1 draw, did you just erase the bad decisions that Australia got. WI were fully aware of the terms and conditions of the use of technonlogy by the third umpire and agreed to by them before the start of the series so I dont see how they could feel agrieved by what happened. If they do feel that way then the only persons to lay the blame on is themselves.

I'm sure if the roles were reversed and it was Australia that lost under these circumstances people would find it very easy to understand the simple process used.

Some people still dont get what the reason for referrals is, its not to argue every single decision tha umpire makes but a tool to be used to eliminate howlers rom the game. If people truely feel that the decision by Billy was a howler then you will never be able to satisfy supporters regardless of what decision or process you use.

 

[Matt79]

All this is semantics....

If the umpires are going to use the technology, it should be used to arrive at the CORRECT decision. If they're going to use Hotspot, it should be used to see if the batsman got an edge. Otherwise, don't use it at all!

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. A lot of WI fans and players feel that the way the technology was used by the umpires, they were hit with a bad decision. And it's perfectly understandable that they feel this way, if this is how the technology is going to be used....

You either use Hotspot COMPLETELY, or don't use it at all....

Mate, I agree that the referral system is a dog and Roach got stuck with a bad decision (although given there was a noise - which with the benefit of replays and snicko did not seem to be caused by bat but which occurred exactly as ball passesld bat - the decision was not a howler).

But to suggest that this equates to it being a moral win to the Windies is kidding yourself. If it had been the case that Sarwen or Bravo had been the victims of bad decisions rather than throwing away their wickets with rubbish shots at crucial junctures in the second innings, you'd have a point. As it is, the West Indies had been riding their luck for a long time last night and this morning before that luck finally ran out.

 

[Stapel]

I thought it was not out in real time.

The replays showed conclusively that it was not out.

The only reason it was given was because Bowden thought it was out.

The whole point of the referral system was to eliminate errors made by the on field umpire.

Bowden made an error that was not eliminated, despite the referral system being used.

Ergo there is a problem with the referral system as it currently stands.

There are two things not entirely correct in your assumptions:

-Replays were not conclusive. Their is no solid evidence either way!
-The point of the RS is not to eliminate errors made by the on field umpire, but to eliminate obvious errors made by the on field umpire.

 

[Top_Cat]

AWTA but I'm hard-pressed to go after Bravo too much. The ball was half rat-power and in the slot so the shot was on. If the ball had smashed into the backward point fence instead of being reeled in by Hussey speccy, Bravo would have been hailed a hero for playing his natural game in a tight situation. Fine line.

 

[Matt79]

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.

 

[andyc]

All this is semantics....

If the umpires are going to use the technology, it should be used to arrive at the CORRECT decision. If they're going to use Hotspot, it should be used to see if the batsman got an edge. Otherwise, don't use it at all!

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. A lot of WI fans and players feel that the way the technology was used by the umpires, they were hit with a bad decision. And it's perfectly understandable that they feel this way, if this is how the technology is going to be used....

You either use Hotspot COMPLETELY, or don't use it at all....

Think you're forgetting that the numbers 10 & 11 still had 35 runs to get...

 

[Matt79]

Well done to Gayle on being MOTS as well. Was immense for his team. I certainly have newfound increased respect for the guy for the way he played and led his team in this series.