Forums
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
DarkDagger
20 Dec 09 01:49
Joined:
Date Joined: 18 Apr 06
| Topic/replies: 598 | Blogger: DarkDagger's blog
When decisions go for referral and there is no conclusive evidence (i.e. Hotspot - as we have just seen at the WACA), does there have to be conclusive evidence that the umpire was wrong, and if there is not conclusive evidence proving or disproving the decision, does the umpire's original decision have to be stuck to or does the umpire's decision thus get overturned?
Pause Switch to Standard View The Referral System.
Show More
Loading...
Report Deadly Earnest December 20, 2009 1:55 AM GMT
The former DD. The protocol is that where there is no conclusive proof that the original decision is wrong it stands. That is the correct protocol imo becuase with the original review system where the 3rd ump was expected to make the decision it led to some crazy outcomes.
Report bigpoppapump December 20, 2009 1:56 AM GMT
the correct protocol is the one that sees Aus win.
Report Deadly Earnest December 20, 2009 1:58 AM GMT
You just sound sour Bigpop, why can't you be gracious like the rest of us and congratulate this great team on another heroic victory. ;)
Report bigpoppapump December 20, 2009 2:01 AM GMT
lol

:^0

I hate to see the boorish and graceless yw4ts like Ponting/Watson succeed undeservedly. WI easily the more watchable team. Aus a horrible outfit at the moment and then Bowden **s one in for them.
Report Green Beard December 20, 2009 2:05 AM GMT
concerning a nick

im not sure what more evidence you require to overturn the decision, no deviation, no noise, nothing on hot spot

what more do you need?
Report Deadly Earnest December 20, 2009 2:09 AM GMT
bigpoppapump 20 Dec 03:01


lol



I hate to see the boorish and graceless yw4ts like Ponting/Watson succeed undeservedly. WI easily the more watchable team. Aus a horrible outfit at the moment and then Bowden **s one in for them.



Aus not very watchable then? Probably been invovled in around 6-8 of the most watchable tests in the last 12 months. Imo of course.

Your vitriole just makes you sound bitter.
Report Lies, DamnLies, and Statistics December 20, 2009 2:14 AM GMT
good point in amongst all this GB

i think it is going to be extremely hard (in fact probably impossible) for a batsman to overturn a caught behind under this referral system....if they are not the last man out, they shouldn't waste the referral
Report bigpoppapump December 20, 2009 2:15 AM GMT
Aus are involved in a run of close games because they're average.

beating a secind string WI in a close game because your pet umpire gets you home in a tight one doesnt make you a dynamic or exciting team. Aus were miles more watchable when they used to put eng to the sword and had exciting batsmen and a well balanced bowling attack. what have you got now? military plodders and johnson spraying it around cos he cant keep his brekky down under pressure. with bat you've two converted mifddle order bats opening up. Ponting is not doing it any more. Hussey grinds for his own stats. Clarke always gives it away. an average team and a graceless team. nope, not watchable at all for me.
Report VardonVoo. December 20, 2009 2:20 AM GMT
As Green Beard says:-

concerning a nick

im not sure what more evidence you require to overturn the decision, no deviation, no noise, nothing on hot spot.

What more do you need?


How about a replay showing the ball flying past the bat with clear fresh air
in between......er..um...like we had, in fact.
Report Deadly Earnest December 20, 2009 2:24 AM GMT
Looks like the faint nick situations might be a bit of a mess. Perhaps they should just say if no evidence of a nick then not out and carry on, making this the exception to the general rule of umpires decison stands.

There is a situation where the inability to detect faint nicks works against batsmen and that is with LBWs, so the same rule has to apply to all faint edge referals, ie in an LBW referal by the bowling team where the onfield ump thought the batsman nicked it onto his pads then if technology can't support the edge it is assumed not to have been edged.
Report Deadly Earnest December 20, 2009 2:28 AM GMT
bigpoppapump 20 Dec 03:15


Aus are involved in a run of close games because they're average.

beating a secind string WI in a close game because your pet umpire gets you home in a tight one doesnt make you a dynamic or exciting team. Aus were miles more watchable when they used to put eng to the sword and had exciting batsmen and a well balanced bowling attack. what have you got now? military plodders and johnson spraying it around cos he cant keep his brekky down under pressure. with bat you've two converted mifddle order bats opening up. Ponting is not doing it any more. Hussey grinds for his own stats. Clarke always gives it away. an average team and a graceless team. nope, not watchable at all for me.



The general consensus was the 6 tests against South Africa were the best test cricket for ages and not many of those were really close. In fact, Australia have not been involved in too many close matches at all so your point is wrong. They have been involved in many dramatic matches though, mostly invovling very good cricket.

Who else has been more watchable in test cricket during the last 12-18 months then?
Report Deadly Earnest December 20, 2009 2:30 AM GMT
johnson spraying it around cos he cant keep his brekky down under pressure

You missed the finale of the Sydney test earlier this year I take it?
Report TopTier December 20, 2009 2:52 AM GMT
Can anyone give a reason why hotspots can't be conclusive?
Report TopTier December 20, 2009 2:56 AM GMT
If Hotspot can't pick up the ball brushing the hair of the bat, then surely we can live with that.
Report Lies, DamnLies, and Statistics December 20, 2009 3:07 AM GMT
the reason given is that there are only 2 cameras - the mark from a faint edge can disappear quickly, before the bat is turned towards the camera, if indeed it turns at all
Report TopTier December 20, 2009 3:24 AM GMT
That is another matter if the camera is obviously not in a position to make a decision.
Report VardonVoo. December 20, 2009 5:25 AM GMT
We're not talking criminal prosecution "beyond a reasonable doubt"
standards here. Surely all we should require is a "balance of probabilities"
level of evidence to suggest an umpire decision was wrong.
Report Deadly Earnest December 20, 2009 6:59 AM GMT
If you go to 3rd ump making decisions on balance of probabilities Vardon, then the initial decision becomes irrelevant doesn't it?

The basis of the new system, and this part of it at least I do agree with, is the standing umpire makes the decision and it is only overturned if obviously or clearly wrong. I think the term they put to it is 'conclusive proof' ie the 3rd ump requires conclusive proof that the decision was wrong in order to overturn a decision. I would have thought this 'conclusive proof' stipulation would be on a par at least with 'beyond reasonable doubt.'

In this case my reading of it was that you couldn't conclude with certainty one way or the other whether the decision was correct based on hotspot or replays. It is a shame they didn't use snicko or even show it later. Had snicko not registered any sound as the ball passed the edge of the bat, it would have to have been overturned, as Bowden obviously gave the decision based on sound alone(we hope,) and if you have no sound and no deflection or hotspot mark, then you have conclusive proof the decision was wrong I would have thought. This relies upon a good deal of faith in the sensitivity of the technology of course.
Report Joel December 20, 2009 7:07 AM GMT
They showed snicko at the end - I am not sure if the third ump is allowed to use it when making his decision. Snicko showed some sound as the ball went past the bat, not the long long it usually shows, but about half.
Report Deadly Earnest December 20, 2009 7:38 AM GMT
Likely he has just feathered the seam then, which would make sense in relation to Bowden's decision and the Australian spontaneous appeal. Would also probably explain why Roach asked for a review.
Report RockMonkey December 20, 2009 8:52 AM GMT
'the Australian spontaneous appeal'

Excuse me while I choke on my cornflakes!
Report dougydougy. December 20, 2009 8:53 AM GMT
or he didn't hit it
Report Deadly Earnest December 20, 2009 9:09 AM GMT
You can read what Joel says about snicko. It seems there was a faint noise.
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.

Wonder

Instance ID: 13539
www.betfair.com