The last Ashes without referrals – a running tally of umpiring errors

[oitoitoi]

I'm totally with warne, that was out lads, even bell knew it.

 

[Pigeon]

I'm totally with warne, that was out lads, even bell knew it.

A batsman can never know he is out. That's outright stupid mate. Also H.E suggested it was comfortably clearing the top of the stumps. Even with the 5% difference, the end result couldn't have been different.

 

[Richard]

I'm totally with warne, that was out lads, even bell knew it.

A batsman can never know he is out. That's outright stupid mate.

Well no, not lbw, but he can certainly know he's caught behind or caught cover, or bowled, or stumped.

Either way, apparently neither of those Bell "lbw"s were out, unlike the one on Friday which was dead as they come.

 

[Pigeon]

Well no, not lbw, but he can certainly know he's caught behind or caught cover, or bowled, or stumped.

Either way, apparently neither of those Bell "lbw"s were out, unlike the one on Friday which was dead as they come.

I meant LBW mate. Yes.

 

[oitoitoi]

I don't know, I've been given not out a few times LBW when I was pretty damn certain I was. As long as you know where it pitched, where it hit you and where your stumps are (as any self respecting batsmen should *cough* hussey) it's fairly straight forward. With experience you know with certain angles you cannot be out when it pitches in certain areas as it will be sliding down, similarly you know that when you miss certain deliveries you're as good as gone.

Mightily pissed off, had a match today, first of the last 4 that hasn't been washed out (glorious sunshine today) but I'm missing it because I have to go to bloody manchester.

 

[Pigeon]

I think you ought to be that brilliant a batsman to track your own body's position in relation to the stumps without looking behind, and that too on the move.

 

[oitoitoi]

I'm not bad but awareness of where your stumps are is a pretty basic fundamental to batting, I mean how else do you leave the ball? You'd just get bowled all the time? This is why your stance is so important.

 

[Uppercut]

Well no, not lbw, but he can certainly know he's caught behind or caught cover, or bowled, or stumped.

Either way, apparently neither of those Bell "lbw"s were out, unlike the one on Friday which was dead as they come.

Yeah, the full ball from Siddle that took off after pitching. There's no way in hell Koertzen gave it n/o because he thought it was going over the top, but the right decision was made so no need to complain.

 

[oitoitoi]

wrong thread

 

[91Jmay]

Swann had Ponting LBW 2 balls before he bowled him. Given not out.

 

[zaremba]

I understand that it's weighted towards the batsman, but the reverse of what you are saying implies the same thing I was saying. It's not enough in declining an LBW decision for the umpire to think that the batsman might have edged the ball, and he certainly can't be totally sure that he didn't edge it. Benefit of the doubt simply means that if there's some deviation or a noise or some other indication that the batsman probably did edge the ball, the batsman should be given not out. If it's 50/50, for instance. It's not really based off "doubt" simply because doubt can be inspired by just about anything, even the fielding side or the reaction of the batsman. If any doubt in the umpire's mind really led to not out decisions, you'd very rarely see LBWs given.

Benefit of the doubt means that if the umpire doesn't know what happened, he gives the batsman not out. If he's pretty sure that there was no edge, but it's a possibility that there was, as there would be in many LBW appeals, it's still out.

The umpire can't "know" what happened. It's always a judgment call. And it's a question of him being sure in is own mind that the batsman was out. But even using your language of "not knowing what happened", if the umpire is merely "pretty sure" that there was no edge, and he acknowledges the possibility that the ball hit the edge, then by definition he "doesn't know what happened". Therefore, it's not out.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Swann had Ponting LBW 2 balls before he bowled him. Given not out.

Yeah, reckon that was out as well.

 

[JimmyGS]

Swann had Ponting LBW 2 balls before he bowled him. Given not out.

No way. No way in hell an umpire can be sure that it hit him in line. Hawkeye had it 50/50 in line. Definitely the right call to give it not out, no question.

 

[PhoenixFire]

No way. No way in hell an umpire can be sure that it hit him in line. Hawkeye had it 50/50 in line. Definitely the right call to give it not out, no question.

Comes under the heading of understandable umpiring errors that were errors nonetheless.

 

[zaremba]

Ponting looked out, Hawkeye said out, but nonetheless it was a perfectly understandable decision (and obviously made zero difference anyhow)

 

[Top_Cat]

Comes under the heading of understandable umpiring errors that were errors nonetheless.

Iffy. With JimmyGS on this one.

 

[Pigeon]

Ponting LBW not given looked more convincingly out than Bell LBW not given (of yesterday)

 

[GIMH]

Not sure about that personally

 

[Uppercut]

The Bell lbw looked absolutely plumb. Hawkeye showed that it bounced more than usual off a full length, but there's no way the umpire saw that. I suspect he gave it n/o because of the bat-onto-pad sound (in real time I was sure he'd hit it).

 

[Jamee999]

Bell was plumb, Ponting was just outside the line.