India tour of Australia (Nov 22, 2024 - Jan 03, 2025)

[bigfluffylemon]

It was a very, very marginal overturn, based on the faintest trace on snicko. Third umpire could have gone either way - if they gave the benefit of the doubt to the on field umpire like they used to, hard to say there was clear and convincing evidence of an error. Not saying it was wrong to overturn, but I think he probably genuinely believed he hadn't hit it.

[Gingerfinch]

Smiths finger looked to be clearly under the ball to me

It looked like the ball grazed the turf for me. Difficult to tell though!

[mikesiva]

India 185 all out

Pant 40

Boland 4-31
Starc 3-49

Boland seems to do well every time he comes into the team.

[mikesiva]

Would've been indias session

But that brain fade by Gill gives Australia the edge.

Kind of sums up his tests career that. Did the hard work but threw it away.

Rohit was correctly rested, but why go back to Gill?

Sarfaraz should have been given a chance, surely?

[GarlicJam]

It was a very, very marginal overturn, based on the faintest trace on snicko. Third umpire could have gone either way - if they gave the benefit of the doubt to the on field umpire like they used to, hard to say there was clear and convincing evidence of an error. Not saying it was wrong to overturn, but I think he probably genuinely believed he hadn't hit it.

Whilst I think he hit it, I don't think that Washington Sundar should have been given out.That evidence was not convincing.

2 contentious decisions for the day, they went one to each side.

[GarlicJam]

Pant has copped plenty of flak for the means of his dismissal in Melbourne, and earlier I think.

Whilst he got out to a moderately rash shot today, it was one of very few rash shotshe deserves plenty of praise for his innings. I just heard that he was struck 12 times during his hard-fought 40 run innings. There's the two I mentioned above and I think at least 4 in the groin area.

He will probably be stiff behind the stumps tomorrow.

[alfie]

Interesting day again. Very slow scoring as batting was anything but easy all day : though might India have done better if someone had tried to take on the bowlers a bit more ? We can never know...

The last ball wicket gave India some encouragement to finish the day ; but you'd think they will need to make serious inroads early tomorrow as the pitch is likely to get a good deal easier to bat on over the next day or two. Certainly likely to be sunnier - and quite warm as the day goes on. Bumrah will need good support from Siraj and Krishna.

Long way to go. If India could knock Australia over cheaply they'd be well placed because that third innings would surely be a lot easier for batting. But that is a big if.

Couple more slightly controversial decisions . But I'm getting bored of fussing over those. For the record I am not up in arms over any of them , though I might have chosen differently on some had I been charged with adjudication. Thankfully I'm not - and neither is anyone else on here. On with the game...

[sussexpob]

I remember years ago Channel 4 did a lunchtime experiment which showed how the camera essentially always heavily favours the batsman in these grounded slip catches, because the distance/angles of the camera always make the foreground appear closer than it is in reality. They did tests where a slip fielder had the ball on top of his hands and slightly raised from the ground, and from various angles showed the ball appeared to be 100% resting on the floor. The general conclusion was, if the decision looks close on the camera, in reality its almost certainty been caught, because the illusion of the image is giving the batsman double the chance.

Obviously you cannot legislate for optical illusions though - this Smith incident is one of those classic "I'd bet my life that didn't touch the floor, but you can't give it out".

Imo, the umpire made the right decision.

[bigfluffylemon]

FWIW I think the call on Smith's catch v Kohli was the right one, but it was another very, very marginal call. Like alfie, I wouldn't like to be the one making those decisions.

[sussexpob]

FWIW I think the call on Smith's catch v Kohli was the right one, but it was another very, very marginal call. Like alfie, I wouldn't like to be the one making those decisions.

We might be stumbling on the main difference in how we are looking at this decisions, because even though I think that its out, I also do not consider it a marginal call. It has to be given not out, and always has to be given not out. I would, therefore, be pretty miffed if it had been given out because the available evidence, irrespective of what we know about angles and likelihoods, tells us clearly that we cannot be certain to the approved standard.

Key to remember here that the review for all bump balls or clean catches is not a player review, so neither side has the benefit of the decision - clean catches can only be reviewed by umpire reviews, which requires him not to make a decision but to refer the bump catch to the third umpire.

[sussexpob]

Whilst I think he hit it, I don't think that Washington Sundar should have been given out. That evidence was not convincing

Dare I say, I couldn't have hoped for a better example to demonstrate my points raised in the last test.

Let's just think about this for a moment - you are saying that you are not convinced that Snicko is right, but what exactly are you not convinced about? Are you saying you are not convinced that the sound is real? Are you saying, in the total absence of bat hitting anything else and a snick registered at the moment it passed the glove, that the sound is something else? Or are you saying that you don't trust snicko at all anyway, and just don't accept it generally? Let me also remind you that you communicated a belief that no sound on snicko tells us nothing - you are now saying that the presence of sound means nothing.

Now put yourself in the third umpires shoes. You are required by the protocol only to present facts given, and any consideration has to be the same for every single decision. None of the above beliefs are conclusions of the technology. You can believe the tech is rubbish, you can believe its not accurate, you can believe sound interference can play a part and might be the noise in question, and you can believe that the sound or absence of sound tells us nothing......but you cannot be certain!!! And the protocol specifically says you cannot mention any conclusion that is not certain.

The only relevant fact in this case is a sound was detected as the ball was level with the glove - that is the only thing you can tell the umpire. Everything else is conjecture and totally irrelevant. The only decision here, and with zero contention I may add, is to give the batsman out.

And that is just common sense as well. Its not the position of the umpires to assess the technology process, thats the ICCs job. Once the ICC decide snicko is accurate as a tool, then you use it, and you believe what it says.

[sussexpob]

I think this is where my previous point might be misunderstood. I never said that I believed Jaiswal did not hit the ball. I never said that the umpire should not have given him out - what I did say was, a fact presented by the technology was not mentioned by the third umpire, which was his duty to report under the rules- a fact that, in that case, could have changed the decision in the mind of the on field umpire. Whether that decision is right or wrong is by the wayside - following the protocol and not indulging in decision making that falls outside of the scope of the protocol will, in the long/medium and short term ALWAYS produce a higher frequency of fair and consistent decisions than accepting umpires going bandit in their pursuit of the truth.

I mean, considering the above, how exactly do you suggest encapsulating all of your views about snicko into a cohesive, consistent rule?, because that is the important thing here? Snicko is right when the third umpire decides its right, and tells me nothing when I decide it tells me nothing? Ok, with Jaiswal there was other evidence to add to the equation, but not so here. I get from your opinion that third umpire just gets to decide the technology is not telling us anything even when it does, and we ignore it.

Again its common sense. The operation of the technology is binary - the results we get have to be treated as either a firm, conclusive affirmative or a negative - you can't say no sound is not always taken as no edge, because you are then basically saying we can NEVER be certain, which gives us what at the end? A rule that is completely subjective and applied arbitrarily. If, in the case of Jaiswal, there are "two" conflicting facts - then the umpire is the judge of the final truth. But he still needs to be given both truths.

In the end, we use one precedent from one decision, to reach a bad conclusion for another - which was the exact point of my post yesterday. I cannot see how anyone could justify giving this not out. Its quite literally, in the practical and normal application of the tech, as clear a case as you can get.

The final point I will raise on this matter.... you will literally not find a person more critical of Snicko than me, and in this series its been concerning how many quite frankly bizarre results its presenting for reasons I could get scientific on, but no one wants to hear again. I would not use it in any cricket, and I would double down on that with what is happening in this series - there are big problems, they need to sort these out. I mean, honestly - the amplitude of the sound of that Sundar contact was the same as the background interference in the Deep dismissal, and we can see the feedback loop from the microphone increases as the ball gets closer (for various potential reasons I wont mention) - I cannot state with any certainty that this is the sound of something else or the bat. The umpire doesnt get to make that assessment, nor should he, but just for my two pennies worth....

[sussexpob]

It was once automatic in Sydney you would bat first because the spinners would take over in the second half of the game. I miss the now exotic seeming variety back when the Aussies played two spinners at the ground, even if it meant leaving out a world class pace bowler. Still at least India have spin options, just in case the ground staff have been feeling nostalgic.

Back in 06-07 Ashes, there was a threat that Sydney would be unable to host a game, because the soil used to create the pitch throughout history had become almost impossible to find and they had run out. I can't remember the details of what it is or where exactly it comes from, but its a type of soil that dries out freakishly quickly, hence being great for spin - it came from somewhere in Sydney that used to be open space, but someone threw a suburb over, so they could no longer find deposits to build the pitch.

They claimed in 2007 to have found more of it, but the pitch has undeniably changed since this new stock is being used - definitely from the Pakistan test in 09/10, which like this pitch looked like something you'd find in Derby on a cold April morning in the CC, its become more green at the start of games.

Boland has an amazing record at home. Hard to believe he's still first reserve.

Makes England's "we need 4 bowlers who bowl 97mph in Australia" nonsense even worse. He is just insanely accurate, and with that bounce he generates from these pitches and that bit of seam movement, he becomes unplayable at times.

50 odd wickets at 13 tells me a 80mph accurate bowler who just hints it will do very well on these pitches.

[sussexpob]

I guess one thing about decisions we can agree on..... Ravi Jadeja reviewing his LBW decision might be the worst review in the history of the game. Middle stump, half way up, no bat...

Even Shane Watson is turning round and walking at that point.

[backfootpunch]

It was a very, very marginal overturn, based on the faintest trace on snicko. Third umpire could have gone either way - if they gave the benefit of the doubt to the on field umpire like they used to, hard to say there was clear and convincing evidence of an error. Not saying it was wrong to overturn, but I think he probably genuinely believed he hadn't hit it.

Whilst I think he hit it, I don't think that Washington Sundar should have been given out.That evidence was not convincing.

2 contentious decisions for the day, they went one to each side.

I agree there was not enough evidence to overturn the decision

Suppose it evened out the kohli "catch"