Jump to content

Cricket XIX - Australian Hundreds and Other Myths


Stubby

Recommended Posts

I missed the first session so don't know much about the Khawaja decision, but it looks like we're getting the rough side of the stick on DRS again. Oh well.

Batting first gives us a chance, at least. If we had to bat last on this turner with Swann bowling, we would have no chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hah, yeah I don't think anyone batting with Clarke is going to get the green light for a review.

Hopefully this gives Rogers some confidence and as LJK says, keeps him safe from selection worries. I still think he might have a good score in him in one of these last five innings of the series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw an interesting article the other day about DRS and the way it operates; apparently it's widely misunderstood even by commentators. From what I recall, the third umpire doesn't have the power to overrule the onfield umpire, only to tell them what the technology says, on the basis of a series of questions asked by the onfield umpire. Even if the third umpire gives the onfield umpire clear evidence that the decision was wrong, they can still, iirc, choose not to change their minds (although it wouldn't be sensible).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that one had been given out, match officials would have been investigated for bribery...I don't think there was enough evidence to overturn on-field umpire's decision. No hotspot, no deviation on the ball. The sound was a bit confusing but it could have been anything...sometimes it's even the bat creaking as you swing.

The draw is already looking like a possibility now, although I think the spin will eventually work its magic and Swann will run through our lineup. What's the weather looking like up there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, plumb lbw but England have used up their reviews. I don't really think you can blame Cook for using either of those reviews though.

ETA: It was pouring down yesterday but the weather's pretty good today and apparently it's supposed to be ok for the rest of the test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: The officiating in this series has been diabolical. The standard of umpires really should be looked into. There has to be a way to get better umpires than Dharmasena. Teams should not lose reviews for umpire's call. The way DRS currently works is a mess and needs to be scrapped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah that was a plumb LBW. I still think England's two reviews were correctly turned down though, close as they were.

I think reviews should still be lost for umpire's call, otherwise there are going to be more reviews to be used and teams will be encouraged to review more often. As we've seen, the system is controversial enough without introducing even more pressure on it with more reviews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw an interesting article the other day about DRS and the way it operates; apparently it's widely misunderstood even by commentators. From what I recall, the third umpire doesn't have the power to overrule the onfield umpire, only to tell them what the technology says, on the basis of a series of questions asked by the onfield umpire. Even if the third umpire gives the onfield umpire clear evidence that the decision was wrong, they can still, iirc, choose not to change their minds (although it wouldn't be sensible).

It's the same in other sports, I was watching the Scotland-South Africa rugby match last month and the referee asked the TV referee to judge whether Scotland had scored a try (I can understand why it's difficult to accept such a thing could have happened), he got a response that there was no try and there should be a penalty for obstruction, but the referee awarded the try anyway - he said he'd seen the alleged obstruction and didn't think it was a penalty so was only interested in other things that he might not have seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the same in other sports, I was watching the Scotland-South Africa rugby match last month and the referee asked the TV referee to judge whether Scotland had scored a try (I can understand why it's difficult to accept such a thing could have happened), he got a response that there was no try and there should be a penalty for obstruction, but the referee awarded the try anyway - he said he'd seen the alleged obstruction and didn't think it was a penalty so was only interested in other things that he might not have seen.

In fairness that is explicitly the rule in rugby, the video ref is only supposed to address the specific issues they're asked about by the ref. The video ref totally went beyond his authority to worry about the obstruction a couple of phases earlier. It's just that the on field refs usually ask pretty general questions like 'any reason why I shouldn't award a try? etc'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...