Ashes I - 2013 - In England

I know Prior has great eyes and is brilliant at spotting nicks and LBWs.

However at the end of the day it is Clarke or Cook who make the call when it comes to using DRS, it's up to the captains to be calculating beyond their players enthusiasm for the wicket.
 
No11 said:
Its not all down to the captains though is it?

Surely for LBWs the bowler and wicket keeper would have a big say, for snicks the people nearest the bat would be best placed to make the call.
The captains will depend on others, bit harsh on Clarke I think.
Click to expand...


Well yeah, but Haddin hasn't said to Clarke 'that's out, that's hitting middle of middle' for the two he wasted has he? He's obviously told Clarke what he saw and Clarke's deemed a gamble on a chance worthwhile.
 
All goes to prove that this kind of technocrap would be a disaster in football.
 
Compton in for Bairstow and Bresnan/Onions in for Finn for the 2nd test please.
 
Compton? No chance: 0 and 7 for Somerset on a flat pitch last time up. You've seen what picking out-of-form players like Finn leads to.
 
akash02 said:
Frankly I am not sure how accurate Hawkeye is which is why if it's just clipping it should always be not out. In real time, there's no way I would have given Rogers out in the first innings.
Click to expand...


This is the case already. Unless Hawkeye shows over 50% of the ball hitting within the bails (not the stumps) then it isnt given as out.
 
"It was very difficult to take because it was so blatantly out. I'm just glad I live in an age where DRS is in place. The thing that annoyed the players on the field, and annoyed me, was that the umpire was unsighted but the batsman stood there knowing 100 per cent that he was out and chose to cheat, in my view.​
I think he then opened himself up to the level of abuse that was coming to him. To be honest, I'm glad Straussy was there because I'm sure it would have gone further than that had we not had someone with a bit of intelligence and nous to calm things down.​
It was just cheating in my view, but we live in an age where cheating is accepted in Test cricket. If people don't walk and think they can get away with it, nobody seems to say anything. But I don't agree with that."​
Click to expand...

Greame Swann said this few years ago when a Sri Lankan didn't walked in a tour match. I'm keen to hear his thoughts after the Broad situation.

It's actually pretty funny that how English cricket team and media manage turn into Moral Guardians of Cricket whenever it suits them.
 
EvilChuck said:
This is the case already. Unless Hawkeye shows over 50% of the ball hitting within the bails (not the stumps) then it isnt given as out.
Click to expand...

Whether it's given out or not out depends on the umpires original decision
 
Archie Leach said:
Not much Swann can do if that's how he feels, he's not going to release a public statement calling Broad a cheat.
Click to expand...

Exactly. He's entitled to an opinion. He's not going to come out and slate a team mate as that would be a ridiculously stupid thing to do.

Who knows what's been said behind the scenes. Anyway, really not sure of the big deal in fairness.
 
Archie Leach said:
Not much Swann can do if that's how he feels, he's not going to release a public statement calling Broad a cheat.
Click to expand...


Yup that's true. But my point was that why take the moral high ground over something then.

Gerrard did the same thing with Ronaldo when he commented on his diving in his book and he was then widely slated for his hypocrisy on this forum.
 
TheReligion said:
Exactly. He's entitled to an opinion. He's not going to come out and slate a team mate as that would be a ridiculously stupid thing to do.

Who knows what's been said behind the scenes. Anyway, really not sure of the big deal in fairness.
Click to expand...
It should be more of a big deal, but as has been pointed out, so many other cricketers including Australians would act the same as Broad. Doesn't make Broad behavior any less dishonest, it's just the nature of professional cricket/sport.
 
I don't have any issues with what Broad did, but Swann shouldn't be putting statements out like that. Save such staff for your post retirement autobiography
 
Swann also publicly said he wanted to kill the guy who stood his ground.

As I said you can't make extravagant statements like this and take the moral high ground when an opponent does it and then not be called a hypocrite when you're dead silent about a team mate who did the same thing. If I'm not wrong he was interviewed just after the match by Sky aswell.

Hopefully the English cricketers stop taking the moral high ground next time. I suspect they won't though.
 
For all we know Swann may have scolded Broad in private. During any team sport, dressing room unity in public is paramount so can understand if he is silent. Expected United players to do the same when Young was diving all over the place.
 
United players don't come out with statements that they wanted to kill an opponent who dived...
 
I don't see what the big deal is. We all know the outcome would have been the same if the roles were reversed. Except for possibly one or two players. Its generally team orders that you stand until given out no?
 
Personally, I have no respect for Broad as cricketer. Atherton was rightly shocked when he was made captain of the T20 team. DRS is to help out umpires, and batsman on close calls. Broad knowingly cheated, and it's not in the spirit of the game. I hope he has a word with himself during the winning celebrations.

Great spectacle for test cricket.
 
StuCol said:
I don't see what the big deal is. We all know the outcome would have been the same if the roles were reversed. Except for possibly one or two players. Its generally team orders that you stand until given out no?
Click to expand...

...and they should be called out for cheating.
 
StuCol said:
Its generally team orders that you stand until given out no?
Click to expand...

Where there is doubt, it's understandable to wait for a decision. Umpires don't raise a finger when someone is bowled or caught without any significant doubt - they have walked since cricket was invented.
 
FWIW, Swann was asked about the Broad decision in his interview with Sky.

I think his response was to say Broad was within his right to stand his ground, say that an Aussie wouldn't walk and laugh nervously.

Iirc I don't think he came across as having been that impressed by the whole thing.
 
All this talk of waiting for the umpire to give you out is a play on words, and an insult to people's intelligence.
 
Sultan said:
All this talk of waiting for the umpire to give you out is a play on words, and an insult to people's intelligence.
Click to expand...


I agree that in the spirit of the game you should walk. But they are not going to do it in games of this magnitude until they are confident the opposition would do the same.
 
I don't have an issue with Broad staying btw. It's a highly competitive game and I think 99.9% of players would've done the same.

I have an issue with players taking the high ground when it suits them.
 
KM said:
I don't have an issue with Broad staying btw. It's a highly competitive game and I think 99.9% of players would've done the same.

I have an issue with players taking the high ground when it suits them.
Click to expand...
Do you not think that the fact Broad walked 2nd time round might not show that the team had words with him?

There's no point airing their dirty laundry in public, and Pietersen is the only player that has really publically defended him from the England set up.
 
I'm not sure how this has all been turned into a slight on the whole England team by the way. Seems a bit excessive.
 
peterstorey said:
Compton? No chance: 0 and 7 for Somerset on a flat pitch last time up. You've seen what picking out-of-form players like Finn leads to.
Click to expand...


I trust Compton more than Bairstow, plus he scored half-centuries against the Aussies in tour matches.
 


On the whole judgement of DRS, came across this on youtube which shows how bad Haddin is at calling nicks. I like the bloke as a batsman but if I was his captain, would take the judgement of others as well as his own.

Also the video is a reminder of what a prat Ponting can be at times.
 
akash02 said:
You're right, sounds stupid when you put it like that but I guess I am not comfortable with batsmen being given out when it just clips the stumps. But I am getting a bit muddled here so I'll leave it alone
Click to expand...

It's not the fact that the technology shows the fine margin that for me is not right, it's the fact that you can be given out on that evidence and you can also be given not out. Depending on how the umpire saw it in real time.

If we're going to treat it that way then give 100% conviction to the umpire and make the game about 'getting the rub of the green on decisions'. After all like I said umpiring is a skill. There are also grey areas in the technology such as umpires head in a strike zone, (Some show the head to be outside the line of stump to stump sometimes while the camera gives a true indication of stump to stump etc etc) also hitting zones and capture points for the ball tracking system. Sometimes it just looks plain wrong in the technology (not all the time).

It's the way the human error can play on both sides of a decision for me that isn't right. Given out 'just clipping' means it's out. Given not out 'just clipping' means it's not out.

I honestly don't know how you sort that out. Unless with goPro these days you get can get an 'ump cam' with tracking technology to see what they saw etc.

Also if you 'waste' your reviews on close calls or things that you think are out then you have no reviews left to ask for subsequent howlers I think there is a problem in that. People are to impatient these days and taking 30 seconds for an Ump to review his own performance in referring a decisions for me isn't a problem than if you give power to the players to ask for a referral. It's then the responsibility of the Umpire himself to monitor his performance in the moment and say 'look maybe I might have got that wrong' or maybe the 3rdy to chip in as the batsman is walking off and say 'mate that was not out, call him back'. A walk toward the pavillion and a 3rdy decision approved for every dismissal? Something like that maybe?

Dunno - but imo it's being poorly implemented at the moment with this whole review system.
 
The problem with the Umpire owning the referral system is that like with stumpings and run outs, he will refer almost every LBW or nick behind unless it is plumb. I mean why wouldn't he? It would save his own arse. We would then struggle to get as many overs as we currently do which is often less than the required amount.

Honestly the system we have currently is quite good. The problems are there is still a bit of human error, with the "clipping" argument but then it is a lot better than the Umpire dealing with it on his own. Rogers might feel aggrieved that if it was 2 cm up, he would have stayed in the first innings. Likewise if it was a couple of cm down he would have been plumb.

Also the other problem is, when captains go searching for a wicket. You'd think with 2 referrals it would be enough to last you the innings particularly as the system is there to prevent howlers. Fair play to Clarke for saying he hasn't used the system properly. He has to learn to tell Haddin to shut up once in a while.
 
There is a big difference between a silly review and one where you generally think it's out. But the outcome can be completely the same. Depending on the call of the umpire. I just don't think that is right. I agree with Akash that you need to make a general rule that of the benefit of the doubt decisions there can't be two positives that make a result then a negative and a positive that also make the same result.

To be fair though the general umpiring decision correction hass gone up since DRS came into play. I think 90% of decisions right up to 96%. (Off the top of my head, can't remember).
 
It would be silly to give it to the Umpires solely because you'd see more incidents like Ponting above with players putting pressure on Umpires to use DRS. Umpires get it right so often in comparison to other sports, one bad test shouldn't prompt such debate. DRS is fine as it is, broadcasters should have no influence on it's usage however. I think there should just be more common sense, the Umpire should be allowed to chat the 3rd Umpire more often, it wouldn't have taken too long for the 3rd Ump to say 'Hey you've copped a bad'un there mate.' What else is the 3rd Umpire doing?
 
Why not just have the 3rd Umpire check the front foot no ball and let the umpire concentrate solely on the action at the Strikers end? I've never understood that.
 
NinjaFletch said:
Why not just have the 3rd Umpire check the front foot no ball and let the umpire concentrate solely on the action at the Strikers end? I've never understood that.
Click to expand...

So you want the third umpire communicating to the match officials after every ball on whether it was a legal delivery or not?
 
akash02 said:
So you want the third umpire communicating to the match officials after every ball on whether it was a legal delivery or not?
Click to expand...

No, why would you need to do that?

99% of delivery's aren't front foot no balls.

It's hardly an issue for a 3rd Umpire who is watching a live feed to just say 'that was a no ball' and then you don't have the expectation on umpires to look at their feet and at the batsmen less than a second later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.