NZ tour of India, Nov 17 - Dec 7

Eng in India, Afg vs Ire in UAE, SA & Oz in NZ, SL in Bang

Re: NZ tour of India, Nov 17 - Dec 7

Postby sussexpob » Sat Dec 04, 2021 12:47 pm

Not that this is anything but a side show..... India's chew New Zealand up and spit them out in 25 overs, and this match is dead as a dodo now.... why India have decided to bat again I do not know.

Guess the usual narrative when this happens is the Indians are providing Bunsen's unfit for play, but to be fair it was Siraj with the new ball who ripped out the top order, and while the spinner then pile in and complete the rout, the pitch isnt that tough to bat on.

Its spinning, and a few balls are keeping low off the pitch, but its not ragging at right angles.....
2010 French Open fantasy league guru 2010 Wimbledon fantasy league guru 2014 Masters golf fantasy guru 2015 Players Championship FL Guru 2016 Masters Golf Fantasy Guru

And a hat and bra to you too, my good sirs!
sussexpob
 
Posts: 35322
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:14 pm
Location: Asker, Norway
Team(s) Supported: Sussex and England Cricket, Vålerenga Fotball/FC Barcelona/Seagulls! ....
England and Norway at everything else

Re: NZ tour of India, Nov 17 - Dec 7

Postby yuppie » Sat Dec 04, 2021 1:16 pm

These scores just happen sometimes.

No Kane no NZ
2009 New Zealand Vs India Tests Prediction Guru
Prem final standings prediction guru
2010 AFL Footy Tipping Champion
User avatar
yuppie
 
Posts: 15613
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Lund, Sweden
Team(s) Supported: Australia, Nottingham Forest, Carlton.

Re: NZ tour of India, Nov 17 - Dec 7

Postby GarlicJam » Sat Dec 04, 2021 11:04 pm

sussexpob wrote:
GarlicJam wrote:Wow. Incredible achievement by Ajaz Patel last night. 10/119


Obviously its a very special achievement, but its slightly soured for me by the fact I thought Kohli was given out lbw with the clearest inside edge you will ever see, and if hawkeye thinks that Axar Patel ball is coming back to hit the stumps, then it can go jog on, because there is no way on earth that ball is hitting the stumps.

He's got a good stride in and he's hit above the knee roll, so its not only going over, but that ball has landed outside of the line of another set of stumps, id say its probably on a 7th or even 8th stump line, and holding its line consistent you can clearly see its missing.

Hawkeye had the ball shooting off past the pad like it has bounced off the deck then suddenly develops vicious inswing...... its a dud decision, obviously there was a technical glitch of some sort.

Well I disagree with both your views on these. In Kohli's dismissal, the ball very possibly hit pad, bat, then pad again. It possibly hit pad and bat at the same time. Either way, out. But, the 3rd umpire was faced with finding evidence that Kohli was not out. This evidence was not clear, so he remains out. Maybe bad luck, but this happens in cricket.

As for the LBW for no shot offered? No problem with that decision whatsoever. The ball tracking looked just fine to me, it followed what looked like a predictable path. I don't get your problem with it - and I have gone and re-watched both dismissals after reading your comments. As soon as I saw the delivery live, I thought it should be out.
Maybe
User avatar
GarlicJam
 
Posts: 11159
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 12:52 pm
Location: Launceston, Tasmania
Team(s) Supported: Australia, Tasmania, New South Wales, Carlton Blues, Sharkies, The Toon.

Re: NZ tour of India, Nov 17 - Dec 7

Postby Red Devil » Sat Dec 04, 2021 11:44 pm

What a crazy day of test cricket - not often you get 10 wickets in an innings, and not often that you get international sides rolled over for 60 (apart from pink ball tests). Must admit this is more like what I expected - NZ obviously missed Kane here but I think the pitch in the first test just didn't quite have enough bite for the spinners, it was all a bit slow and NZ did well to hang on for a draw
FL Titles
2008 Ban v NZ ODIs India v Aus Tests India v Eng ODIs
2009 NZ v WI Tests NZ v India ODIs SA v Aust ODIs Aus v WI Tests '08/09 Premier League Football
2010 SA v Eng Tests County Championship Div 1 County Championship Div 2 India v NZ Tests SL v WI Tests
2011 CMS Cricinfo World Cup County Championship Div 2
2012 Pak v Eng Tests SL v Ind ODIs County Championship Div 2 Champs League T20
2013 Ind v Aus Tests NZ v Eng T20/ODI NZ v Eng Tests County Fantasy Manager County Championship Div 1 NZ v WI Tests '13/14 Aus v Eng Tests
2014 NZ v Ind ODIs CMS Cricinfo T20 World Cup County Fantasy Manager County Championship Div 1 Aus MB One Day Cup SL v Eng ODIs
2015 CMS Cricinfo ODI World Cup Eng v NZ combined Natwest T20
2016 Big Bash T20 Sheffield Shield Kia Womens T20 Natwest T20 Blast County Fantasy Manager WI v Pak T20/ODI combined Rio Olympics
2017 Womens Big Bash T20 Womens ODI World Cup Eng v WI Tests County Championship Div 1 Eng v WI ODIs Aus JLT One Day Cup Ind v SL Tests NZ v WI Tests Ind v SL T20s
2018 Aus v Eng ODIs Womens Big Bash T20 Trans Tasman T20s Sheffield Shield Pak v WI T20s NZ v Eng Tests Eng v Aus ODIs Royal London County One Day WI v Ban Test/ODI Combined Women's Super League T20 Natwest T20 Blast Caribbean Premier League T20 County Championship Div 1 Women's T20 World Cup '17/18 Premier League Fantasy Football
2019 NZ v SL Test/ODI Combined WI v Eng Tests Big Bash T20 NZ v Ban Tests ICC World Cup Single Wicket Women's Big Bash T20 All Year Fant Comp
2020 Big Bash T20 (Joint) SL v WI T20/ODI Bob Willis Trophy Natwest T20 Blast Aus v Ind ODI/T20 Combined
2021 Ind v Eng ODIs
Red Junior's Titles
2016 Eng v Pak ODIs (aged 6)
2017 Eng v SA Tests Ind v NZ ODIs
2018 Aus JLT One Day Cup
2019 NZ v Eng T20s Aus Marsh One Day Cup
2020 (Joint) SL v WI T20/ODI IPL T20
Red Twins Titles
2021 Aus v Ind Tests (aged 7) Ind v Eng T20s
User avatar
Red Devil
 
Posts: 16505
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 7:04 pm
Location: London
Team(s) Supported: India, Manchester United

Re: NZ tour of India, Nov 17 - Dec 7

Postby mikesiva » Sun Dec 05, 2021 9:39 am

New Zealand target is 540.

More importantly, they have a day and a half to survive.
Nobody has a stance quite like the mighty Shivnarine....

Australia-New Zealand ODI's Prediction Guru
2009 spring chess league guru
Pakistan vs Australia ODI's Prediction Guru
World 20/20 Prediction Guru
2010-2011 final places Premiership footy prediction guru
2011 French Open tennis prediction guru
2011 Bang vs WI combined fantasy guru
2012 Caribbean T20 fantasy guru
2012 Euros prediction guru
2012-2013 final places Premiership footy prediction guru
2013 Champions League prediction guru
2013 chess mini-tournament guru
2014 Eng-SL combined fantasy guru
2014 chess mini-tournament guru
2017 Australian Open tennis guru
User avatar
mikesiva
 
Posts: 38752
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 7:41 pm
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Team(s) Supported: First - West Indies
Joint Second - England, Sri Lanka

Re: NZ tour of India, Nov 17 - Dec 7

Postby sussexpob » Sun Dec 05, 2021 1:46 pm

GarlicJam wrote:Well I disagree with both your views on these. In Kohli's dismissal, the ball very possibly hit pad, bat, then pad again. It possibly hit pad and bat at the same time. Either way, out. But, the 3rd umpire was faced with finding evidence that Kohli was not out. This evidence was not clear, so he remains out. Maybe bad luck, but this happens in cricket


The actual rule works totally in the opposite way to that suggested widely, and is a misunderstanding of the rules of the game.

Law 36 in the MCC laws requires the ball to clearly hit the pad first, or it is not out. The same law in the ICC regulations goes further by suggesting the umpire has to be "satisfied" that the ball hit pad first, or he must default the decision to not out. The dictionary definition of "satisfied" reads..." provide (someone) with adequate or convincing proof about something".... the batsman is therefore given the benefit of the doubt, and the umpire has the burden to prove the ball struck pad first. The rules are very clear - no proof, it has to be given not out. This is backed up by the DRS regulations. Simon Doull can rant on about inadequate proof to overturn all he wants, all he succeeded in doing was proving he has inadequate understanding of the rules.

Appendix D on DRS usage states, when a batsman refers an lbw to the DRS, the third umpire must do two things before going on to question the on field umpires decision - check the legality of the ball, then decide if the ball hit the bat. These are independent from the original decision and are the third umpires solely judgement. The rules refer to the third umpire having to decide on law 36.....

In this case, the third umpire said he thought it was simultaneous striking, and then for some unknown reasons erroneously decided he could not overturn the decision based on clear proof - he could, and actually, should have overturned it based on what he said. It was not clear, so the batsman had to be given not out under the rules, and he could not prove the counter. Additionally, the umpire on field should have also overturned his own decision as per the rules. The third umpire indicated it could not be proved the bat was second, so the rules state he must used the additional information and reset his decision - he was told he could not be sure to have given it, so he should not have given it.

The rules are written purposefully to make sure rules of law are superior to rules of fact, which is essential for any decision making procedure. I mean, the fact a jury finds someone guilty based on a bad understanding of the law doesnt make the juries decision right, and never should. This is the same here - a decision was made not following the law of the game, and despite the umpire being the decider of fact, his decision should be overturned on a point of law.

And thats before we get to snicko and the clear registering of a sound before it hits the pad.

Its 100 percent not out. Its not even debatable.
2010 French Open fantasy league guru 2010 Wimbledon fantasy league guru 2014 Masters golf fantasy guru 2015 Players Championship FL Guru 2016 Masters Golf Fantasy Guru

And a hat and bra to you too, my good sirs!
sussexpob
 
Posts: 35322
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:14 pm
Location: Asker, Norway
Team(s) Supported: Sussex and England Cricket, Vålerenga Fotball/FC Barcelona/Seagulls! ....
England and Norway at everything else

Re: NZ tour of India, Nov 17 - Dec 7

Postby sussexpob » Sun Dec 05, 2021 2:03 pm

GarlicJam wrote:As for the LBW for no shot offered? No problem with that decision whatsoever. The ball tracking looked just fine to me, it followed what looked like a predictable path. I don't get your problem with it - and I have gone and re-watched both dismissals after reading your comments. As soon as I saw the delivery live, I thought it should be out.


Image

Hawkeye has that ball drifting towards the stumps in the air significantly after it hits the pad, like the ball is swinging after pitching. While side spin drift is possible under the magnus effect, to get that drift requires stupid amounts of revolutions on the ball and force behind it, all of which are reduced as the ball hits the deck.

Hawkeye clearly went bandit on this. Balls do not swing in the after pitching, and certainly I have never seen such movement in the air after bouncing.
2010 French Open fantasy league guru 2010 Wimbledon fantasy league guru 2014 Masters golf fantasy guru 2015 Players Championship FL Guru 2016 Masters Golf Fantasy Guru

And a hat and bra to you too, my good sirs!
sussexpob
 
Posts: 35322
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:14 pm
Location: Asker, Norway
Team(s) Supported: Sussex and England Cricket, Vålerenga Fotball/FC Barcelona/Seagulls! ....
England and Norway at everything else

Re: NZ tour of India, Nov 17 - Dec 7

Postby alfie » Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:59 am

sussexpob wrote:
GarlicJam wrote:Well I disagree with both your views on these. In Kohli's dismissal, the ball very possibly hit pad, bat, then pad again. It possibly hit pad and bat at the same time. Either way, out. But, the 3rd umpire was faced with finding evidence that Kohli was not out. This evidence was not clear, so he remains out. Maybe bad luck, but this happens in cricket


The actual rule works totally in the opposite way to that suggested widely, and is a misunderstanding of the rules of the game.

Law 36 in the MCC laws requires the ball to clearly hit the pad first, or it is not out. The same law in the ICC regulations goes further by suggesting the umpire has to be "satisfied" that the ball hit pad first, or he must default the decision to not out. The dictionary definition of "satisfied" reads..." provide (someone) with adequate or convincing proof about something".... the batsman is therefore given the benefit of the doubt, and the umpire has the burden to prove the ball struck pad first. The rules are very clear - no proof, it has to be given not out. This is backed up by the DRS regulations. Simon Doull can rant on about inadequate proof to overturn all he wants, all he succeeded in doing was proving he has inadequate understanding of the rules.

Appendix D on DRS usage states, when a batsman refers an lbw to the DRS, the third umpire must do two things before going on to question the on field umpires decision - check the legality of the ball, then decide if the ball hit the bat. These are independent from the original decision and are the third umpires solely judgement. The rules refer to the third umpire having to decide on law 36.....

In this case, the third umpire said he thought it was simultaneous striking, and then for some unknown reasons erroneously decided he could not overturn the decision based on clear proof - he could, and actually, should have overturned it based on what he said. It was not clear, so the batsman had to be given not out under the rules, and he could not prove the counter. Additionally, the umpire on field should have also overturned his own decision as per the rules. The third umpire indicated it could not be proved the bat was second, so the rules state he must used the additional information and reset his decision - he was told he could not be sure to have given it, so he should not have given it.

The rules are written purposefully to make sure rules of law are superior to rules of fact, which is essential for any decision making procedure. I mean, the fact a jury finds someone guilty based on a bad understanding of the law doesnt make the juries decision right, and never should. This is the same here - a decision was made not following the law of the game, and despite the umpire being the decider of fact, his decision should be overturned on a point of law.

And thats before we get to snicko and the clear registering of a sound before it hits the pad.

Its 100 percent not out. Its not even debatable.


That's not quite right. Disclaimer : I didn't see it , and haven't been able to find a good replay so have no opinion one way or the other on the correctness or otherwise of the decision. But as to the rules :

Indeed simultaneous pad/bat impact means "not out" is the correct call. But the on field umpire doesn't actually have a "burden of proof" : he just has to satisfied in his own mind. If we start adding on "legal" standards that are not possible in any case no one will ever make an on field decision again : one of the reasons we have drs is to guard against clear errors. Perfection would be nice but it just ain't possible...

If the third umpire was sure the impact was simultaneous then yes , he should have called for a reversal (and would not even have needed to access the technology). But he has to have "a high degree of confidence" that the decision should be changed - otherwise he is required to state that the evidence is inconclusive and it stands. He is specifically prohibited from putting forward "likelihoods or probabilities". If he was truly undecided as to the impact - even after going on to consult available technology - then he was correct in not overturning.

So it all hinges on whether not not the third umpire had the "high degree of confidence". . You say he originally said he "thought it was simultaneous striking " so I guess it depends whether this was just him thinking aloud or giving a definite judgement. If he really wasn't sure - and presumably he wasn't if he went on to view the technology - then it still ends up as "inconclusive" and his choice not to overturn is right - even if it's wrong.

Of course the other possibility - as you might perhaps be implying ? - is that he actually was confident in his original thoughts but lacked the courage of his convictions : unfortunately we can't legislate for that !

Lot of Indian fans - and Kohli - obviously sure he got done but - probably fortunately - these things aren't decided by crowd voting :) If he was unlucky , he's not the first and won't be the last.
alfie
 
Posts: 7212
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:26 am

Re: NZ tour of India, Nov 17 - Dec 7

Postby alfie » Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:45 am

Thumping win for India in the Second Test - hardly unexpected after NZ first innings all out 62 :)

NZ will be a bit disappointed to have folded up like that after their hard fought draw in the first game. But India - as we have seen before - are currently rather exceptional at home. They'll be happy to have notched up another series win (even if the WTC title got away)

NZ will have to satisfied with the statistical oddity entry of an unprecedented bowler's ten-for amid a crushing defeat...
alfie
 
Posts: 7212
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:26 am

Re: NZ tour of India, Nov 17 - Dec 7

Postby sussexpob » Mon Dec 06, 2021 2:48 pm

If the third umpire was sure the impact was simultaneous then yes , he should have called for a reversal (and would not even have needed to access the technology). But he has to have "a high degree of confidence" that the decision should be changed - otherwise he is required to state that the evidence is inconclusive and it stands. He is specifically prohibited from putting forward "likelihoods or probabilities". If he was truly undecided as to the impact - even after going on to consult available technology - then he was correct in not overturning.


The specific clause in the relevant rule (Appendix D 3.4.1) states the third umpire must "judge" whether the ball hit the bat first in lbw decisions, as set out in the law 36.1.3. For three reasons this is pretty clear that this is an independent requirement that ignores the actual decision.

- Highlighting the umpire judges the ball as set out in 36.1.3 is a clear indication that the umpire is being asked to make a decision based on the law of the game, and is not being asked to refer to the findings of fact the umpire decided on the pitch.

- Using the term "judge" as a transitive verb with a direct/indirect object gives it a very specific meaning, one that conveys the subject will give a conclusive decision or opinion concerning the matter in hand.

- The rules state that "incidents are addressed in chronological order" - Law 3.4.1 is an exception which requires this issue to be dealt with along with a no ball before any other considerations are taken into account. This is further evidence that this issue is treated separately. Worth also noting that the issue it is paired with, the no-ball, is also indicated as being decided by the third umpire on available evidence without reference to the on field umpires decision.

So it all hinges on whether not not the third umpire had the "high degree of confidence". . You say he originally said he "thought it was simultaneous striking " so I guess it depends whether this was just him thinking aloud or giving a definite judgement. If he really wasn't sure - and presumably he wasn't if he went on to view the technology - then it still ends up as "inconclusive" and his choice not to overturn is right - even if it's wrong.


A different rule says that, but the one in relevance does not. It clearly states the third umpire makes a judgement on the rule in question, and that this judgement is made before any of the rest of the dismissal is analyzed. In this case, 36.1.3 (the rule) is further explained by rule 36.2.2- which clearly states the umpire must be satisfied (as already explained, this requires corroboration and proof) that the ball did not hit the bat first, and if such proof does not exist, he has to give the batter not out.

Well, the third umpire not only failed to find proof of pad first, he stated his belief the images showed simultaneous striking..... so law 36.2.2 rules it not out. The review should have ended there, and the umpires own judgement never brought to the table.

Worth noting Alfie that "the high degree of confidence" requirement is noted for general dismissals, but LBWs have their own section of the laws - inside which the inside edge and no ball are decided by the third umpire, and hawkeye does the rest. There is no mention of a requirement to overturning decisions specifically for lbws, which makes sense as the only applications are specifically null and voided by the stated process. It seems by design.
2010 French Open fantasy league guru 2010 Wimbledon fantasy league guru 2014 Masters golf fantasy guru 2015 Players Championship FL Guru 2016 Masters Golf Fantasy Guru

And a hat and bra to you too, my good sirs!
sussexpob
 
Posts: 35322
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:14 pm
Location: Asker, Norway
Team(s) Supported: Sussex and England Cricket, Vålerenga Fotball/FC Barcelona/Seagulls! ....
England and Norway at everything else

Re: NZ tour of India, Nov 17 - Dec 7

Postby sussexpob » Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:18 pm

I mean, to explain it another way......

Say you have a football match where one team launches it forward on the counter attack, the keeper gets caught in no man's land out the box and gets dribbled past, and as the striker is passing it into the empty net a defender comes out of nowhere and makes a save with his hand blocking the shot from going in. The referee then sends him off for "deliberately preventing a clear goal". Lets say that hypothetically VAR looks at that decision. It turns out that the guy in the booth thinks the ball might be missing the goal - one of those that might be hitting the post, might be creeping into the corner. He cannot be clear that the ball was missing or going in, not enough to overturn the decision.

What justification is there for sending him off? Well, absolutely none. The rule itself requires a clear goal being prevented, the element of doubt itself is enough to suggest that said rule is not satisfied. The decision of the referee is null and void..... the referee's job is to interpret how the action and the game follows the laws of said game, and so holding an opinion that invalidates a law itself is in direct opposition to that. To give the red card would be akin to changing the rule. The VAR referee would have to over turn it.

Its the same with the Kohli one. The rules are written to prevent such an occurance happening by forcing that element of the decision to be made by the rules before the referee/umpire's interpretation is added.

Kohli being given out because the umpire didnt think he had enough evidence to overturn it broke the rule of the game.
2010 French Open fantasy league guru 2010 Wimbledon fantasy league guru 2014 Masters golf fantasy guru 2015 Players Championship FL Guru 2016 Masters Golf Fantasy Guru

And a hat and bra to you too, my good sirs!
sussexpob
 
Posts: 35322
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:14 pm
Location: Asker, Norway
Team(s) Supported: Sussex and England Cricket, Vålerenga Fotball/FC Barcelona/Seagulls! ....
England and Norway at everything else

Re: NZ tour of India, Nov 17 - Dec 7

Postby alfie » Tue Dec 07, 2021 6:40 am

Well I would have been disappointed/astonished if you hadn't come back with a counter argument , SP :)

But to be honest I am not sure we will ever agree on this one since you are clearly interpreting some (admittedly not totally precise )wording in different parts of the laws/regulations rather differently from myself.

I do not accept your contention that the TV umpire is being asked to "take over" the original decision as to whether or not ball struck pad or bat first without reference to the on-field umpire's ruling. Yes he is asked to judge from the video if there was a prior edge (just as whether there was a no ball) before needing to make any reference to the technology. But is it not obvious that if he is not sure whether pad or bad was the first impact then he cannot just decide to rule in the batsman's favour ? That would be invoking the "benefit of doubt to the batsman" theory : more than ever a myth now in the days of drs.

In this case the very fact that the TV umpire apparently did go to the technology (correct me please , if he did not ?) shows that he was unsure ; and presumably remained so. Hence he was correct in refusing to overturn the decision.

I would also dispute your claim that the "high degree of confidence" stipulation does not apply to this part of the decision. It is nowhere stated that it only applies to use of technology : the difference in the case of possible "no ball" or "bat first" is surely that this may be readily apparent on sighting of a video replay ; but it does not preclude the TV umpire from consulting extreme close ups and slo mo if he isn't sure. I can see why you might suggest it can be ruled out in this case but I am pretty sure that is not what the rule makers intended.

And you are definitely adding your own words to 36.2.2 : it just says , "contact...with ... person and bat simultaneously...shall be considered as the ball having first touched the bat" - which is not in dispute. Nothing in there about corroboration and proof or having to give the batter not out.

Brave call making the VAR comparison : given what I have read on various football boards that one would end up in the High Court !

Anyway I am also pretty sure that nothing I say will convince you to change your view so will leave it for any others interested to make up their own minds. We can - as quite often :) - agree to disagree.
alfie
 
Posts: 7212
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:26 am

Re: NZ tour of India, Nov 17 - Dec 7

Postby sussexpob » Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:45 pm

alfie wrote:I would also dispute your claim that the "high degree of confidence" stipulation does not apply to this part of the decision. It is nowhere stated that it only applies to use of technology : the difference in the case of possible "no ball" or "bat first" is surely that this may be readily apparent on sighting of a video replay ; but it does not preclude the TV umpire from consulting extreme close ups and slo mo if he isn't sure. I can see why you might suggest it can be ruled out in this case but I am pretty sure that is not what the rule makers intended


You have to remember when two clauses of a rule play against each other, a high standard in one has the effect of lowering the standard of the other. To illustrate that, lets just say that "high degree of certainty" is to be considered about 80 percent sure - if the third umpire has to be 80 percent sure to overturn a wrong decision, then the net effect is the umpire only has to be 20.1 percent certain for a decision to stand. The rule in question specifically states the umpire must give the decision not out unless he has some level of certainty to be satisfied. Even if we were to give that level of certainty required the lowest possible figure required, 50.01 percent, it is a lower standard than the one needed to overturn it.

So the net effect is, the high degree of confidence required actually has the effect of re-writing the rule in question to require the umpire not to be satisfied - which is obviously inconsistent with the laws of the game. An umpire's job is to make sure the rules are followed, he cant interpret them and render them null and void.

The rules are clearly intended to reflect this reality. All points of interpretation of the rules are left to Hawkeye in this situation, those points of upholding the rules that cannot be judged by the technology are expressly left to the third umpire. And the rules say he judges their merit - which makes total sense, because if he was bound by the above, he cannot also uphold the laws of the game at the same time.

The "high degree of confidence" only has application when it concerns the interpretation of the rules by the umpire - in the case of LBWs, this is not relevant

alfie wrote:And you are definitely adding your own words to 36.2.2 : it just says , "contact...with ... person and bat simultaneously...shall be considered as the ball having first touched the bat" - which is not in dispute. Nothing in there about corroboration and proof or having to give the batter not out.


Confusing the MCC law with the ICC test playing regulations, Alfie.

The ICC one makes specific reference to a requirement to give it not out if the umpire is not satisfied it hit pad first.
https://icc-static-files.s3.amazonaws.c ... 051017.pdf

Well I would have been disappointed/astonished if you hadn't come back with a counter argument , SP :)


Covid has given me way too much time :lmao
2010 French Open fantasy league guru 2010 Wimbledon fantasy league guru 2014 Masters golf fantasy guru 2015 Players Championship FL Guru 2016 Masters Golf Fantasy Guru

And a hat and bra to you too, my good sirs!
sussexpob
 
Posts: 35322
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:14 pm
Location: Asker, Norway
Team(s) Supported: Sussex and England Cricket, Vålerenga Fotball/FC Barcelona/Seagulls! ....
England and Norway at everything else

Re: NZ tour of India, Nov 17 - Dec 7

Postby alfie » Tue Dec 07, 2021 1:43 pm

Oh dear me...I will probably regret prolonging this , but :

No confusion over 36.2 .2 : I am not disputing the requirement for the umpire (incidentally it says "the bowlers end umpire") to be satisfied the ball hit "person" before bat in order to give an lbw out. Obviously the bowlers end umpire was satisfied (whether rightly or wrongly is not what we are arguing about).


Stripping out talk of clauses of a rule playing against one another (I do not believe this is the case) and % of certainty , what you seem to be contending is that in the case of pad/bat first contact in relation to lbw decisions , the TV umpire is entitled - nay instructed - to simply ignore the decision of the on field official , and substitute his own best judgement - even if he is somewhat less than certain after viewing any aids he has to hand. This goes against one of the central pillars of drs : that on field decisions always stand unless there is conclusive evidence that said decision is wrong.

I ask you : why on earth would this one type of decision be an exception to that ? Line decisions are - for obvious reasons - left entirely to the off field judges ; but in every other case (even "soft signals" for umpire's referrals of contentious catches) the on field decision is presumed correct unless shown to be clearly wrong. It is just not logical for this one particular case to be flipped on its head and have the TV umpire simply decide his rating of the probabilities take precedence over the original call.

Of course you can say that the TV umpire should , in the Kohli case , have been convinced he had conclusive evidence to overturn the decision. That is an opinion , which is fine. But obviously not everyone agrees with you - and most importantly the official in question didn't.

I know you won't give up on this but I honestly think you are mistaken with regard to the requirements of the Laws and Playing Conditions in this matter. Perhaps we should seek a ruling from Lord's ?
alfie
 
Posts: 7212
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:26 am

Previous

Return to Live Cricket Matches

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests

cron