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

[sussexpob]

Right decision was made that's all that matters. Can't have protocol preventing an obvious dismissal.

The protocols are put in place to ensure fair and consistent decision making, ignoring them sets a bad precedent for the game moving forward whenever the third umpire feels he can operate outside of his mandate from the rules. Its not hard to see that across sport, consistency in video technology use is non-existent, and that has very huge impacts every week - just see football, where the odd rogue idiot in the box thinking he can reinvent the rules has destroyed everyone's understanding of what constitutes handballs.

Breaking one rule to satisfy another doesn't say to me that the "right" decision was made. The law relating to edges being out is of equal value in the law of the game to the requirements in the Appendix D. One does not have superiority over another - so no, the right decision was not made because the methodology of doing it was not right.

Lets put this in everyday terms - would it be ok for a police officer to withhold information in a criminal trial that could create a level of doubt for the jury, based on the fact that person believed beyond doubt the suspect was guilty? Well no, its illegal, and such an action would render any subsequent decision null based on the notions of fairness, irrespective of its merit or likelihood to affect the outcome. The police officer does not decide guilt - much as the third umpire does not decide who is given out.

The process is just as important as the result. It operates that way in all forms of rules and laws.

[backfootpunch]

As Simon taufel pointed out the protocol was followed

There was no doubt, he smashed it

People are making an issue out of nothing

The correct decision was made

[sussexpob]

As for Deep it was also fairly clear he touched the ball. Quite apart from the spike on ultra edge there is a clear red mark on his bat just after the ball passes which wasn't there before so I have no doubt that on this occasion the sound technology worked

The smoking gun moment of the red mark being left was not shown to the third umpire, the replay was only shown a while after, so we can separate it from our judgement of the decision making process. For me, there is an obvious contradiction in approach between both dismissals - why, when snicko says nothing has been hit can the umpire use the visual evidence, yet when a sound registers on Snicko, its conclusive evidence of a bat hit despite the frozen picture being shown of the ball well away from the edge and no registering of any edge the exact moment it passes the bat???

You either use all this technology or you don't. But as we all know nothing man made is perfect we also have a trained human charged with looking at all of it and making a considered decision ... which itself is not guaranteed to be 100% correct every time ; but is probably more likely to get things right than the old way of relying on the real time eyes and ears of an umpire standing 20 odd yards away.

Where Snicko is concerned, umpires just look for sounds without having the ability to decipher what they are seeing. I remember Ian Bell years ago being given out in South Africa for a top edge registering on Snicko - it was not an edge. The sound produced was in no way consistent with what you would get with something hitting something, but the umpire seen a murmur on snicko, and that was it. Sound = bat.

I already gave the long boring explanation, but beyond absolute doubt the soundwave shown in the replay of Akash's wicket shows that the whole system being used is picking up all kinds of interference. We already know the technology is faulting after Jaiswal's wicket - why, therefore, are we using it? There is clearly something very wrong going on.

In fact I see the chap who actually founded the firm which operates it says that it won't always pick up anything on "glance type shots"

He is talking b*llocks. They use condenser mics with extremely high sensitives, they can pick up the sound of a mouse farting from 10 miles away when cranked out at the max. This itself causes issues because the microphone is picking up all kinds of ambient noise (which is why usually in live circumstances you use dynamic mics, but they are not as sensitive), and his actual quote was to say that all they had with the Jaiswal edge was ambient noise from the crowd on the audio. Put simply, this is a setup/operator issue, not the microphone not working. The sound will be somewhere in the recording, you just need to bring it out and isolate it from all the noise.

Worth noting that TV Audio Engineers, especially in live events like sport, do not tend to be audio specialists but also work back up on cameras and other stuff, and as a result are nowhere near as skilled as their music/film industry equivalents (quite famously so, in general they are pretty rubbish). The fact he is saying he can't actually use his own equipment is pretty embarrassing - but he did used to be an accountant for most his life, so he's probably faking it. Or maybe, as he does own hot spot too, it was just a sales pitch for selling extra gear to the Aussie Cricket Board.

Either way, its unacceptable. Your job is to assess the sound, saying in certain cases you dont have the capability to do it is... well, pretty shocking. Nothing new. He did say in the Aussie/England game last time in Melbourne that the distinct sound of the pitch at the MCG interfered with the tech. But I guess that underlines my point, doesnt it? The owner of the tech is saying the scrapping sound of a batsmans boot on the pitch is being picked up like edge sounds, and we are supposed to trust this?

Surely once the Jaiswal dismissal passed, the match referee implements the protocol that removes snicko for use in the match

[sussexpob]

As Simon taufel pointed out the protocol was followed

And as I said above, nothing Taufel mentions is in the actual protocol, while two separate references totally invalidating his point are present.... so he is talking rubbish. He retired 11 years before these rules were created, so his "expert" opinion is null and void - he has no experience of working under the DRS protocol.

Maybe you can highlight which part of the protocol I am missing, with reference to a particular subsection?

[bigfluffylemon]

Shubman should definitely come in for Rohit.

[GarlicJam]

Taufel asserted that when there is a clear deflection off the bat then there is no need to check it from other technology to prove it right

Taufel is wrong.

Appendix D, rule 3.3.6 makes reference to the decision being based on "available technology" . Rule 3.3.7 goes on to say that the third umpire must inform the onfield umpire if any element of the technology available has failed or is unavailable and cannot be used, and that he must "still provide any relevant factual information that may be ascertained from the available television replays and other technology". This quite clearly communicates a need to check all available technology to base the decision on, and where this is not done, the third umpire MUST tell the third umpire. There is absolutely nothing in the rules that states the third umpire can make a decision based on one type of available evidence, and as shown above, two rules that say clearly the opposite.

Either way, this is totally irrelevant in this case - the third umpire DID check the available technology, and DID have a clear duty once he did this to report any factual information available from those replays. It is a FACT that Snicko concluded their was no edge, and as per rule 3.3.6 he had a DUTY to report this to the umpire without qualifying it with his opinion or any uncertainty.

We have to remember that the third umpire's role in this is to provide the on-field umpire with the information to decide the matter of fact - much like a judge guides a jury in a court case but material fact is decided by the jury - and then the onfield umpire decides what is relevant and what is conclusive. The withholding of information in this regards certainly made one decision possible, and that was against the rules.

I doubt the third umpire withheld any info (if indeed this is what you have meant), as both the field umpires would have seen clearly on the big screen the lack of action on Snicko.
Snicko did not conclude there was no edge, Snicko concludes nothing. Snicko only provides information. All the information was in this instance was "there is no evidence of an edge" - not "there was no edge".

However, playing condition Appendix D Rule 3.3.3 says "A two-way consultation process shall begin to investigate whether there is anything that the third umpire can see or hear which would indicate that the on-field umpire should change his/her original decision."

Now, there never seems to be much of a two way consultation process between Umpires 1&2 and Umpire 3, and there never seems to be much "advisement" from the 3rd Ump to the Field Umps, more "direction" - but this is the same for every DRS that I have seen.

However, there most certainly WAS something the Third ump could see or hear to indicate the onfield decision should be overturned.

As I read it (and I do expect you might tell me how I have it wrong) umpires followed the protocols and came up with the correct decision, following the process correctly.

Yes, Taufel is long retired from umpiring, but he was one of the very best umpires during my lifetime, who had a reputation for knowing and understanding the laws of the game very well - and as he is now employed by Channel 7 to give his view on, and explain to the viewing public, decision-making, the laws of the game, protocols, etc, etc., I would expect him to still have a very good grasp of current laws and playing conditions.

[backfootpunch]

Possibly the best umpire of all time

Perhaps Michael Gough will take that crown though, he very rarely makes mistakes. An exceptional umpire.

Joel wilson on the other hand...

He seemed afraid to give an Indian out on day 5.

[alfie]

Taufel asserted that when there is a clear deflection off the bat then there is no need to check it from other technology to prove it right

Taufel is wrong.

Appendix D, rule 3.3.6 makes reference to the decision being based on "available technology" . Rule 3.3.7 goes on to say that the third umpire must inform the onfield umpire if any element of the technology available has failed or is unavailable and cannot be used, and that he must "still provide any relevant factual information that may be ascertained from the available television replays and other technology". This quite clearly communicates a need to check all available technology to base the decision on, and where this is not done, the third umpire MUST tell the third umpire. There is absolutely nothing in the rules that states the third umpire can make a decision based on one type of available evidence, and as shown above, two rules that say clearly the opposite.

Either way, this is totally irrelevant in this case - the third umpire DID check the available technology, and DID have a clear duty once he did this to report any factual information available from those replays. It is a FACT that Snicko concluded their was no edge, and as per rule 3.3.6 he had a DUTY to report this to the umpire without qualifying it with his opinion or any uncertainty.

We have to remember that the third umpire's role in this is to provide the on-field umpire with the information to decide the matter of fact - much like a judge guides a jury in a court case but material fact is decided by the jury - and then the onfield umpire decides what is relevant and what is conclusive. The withholding of information in this regards certainly made one decision possible, and that was against the rules.

I doubt the third umpire withheld any info (if indeed this is what you have meant), as both the field umpires would have seen clearly on the big screen the lack of action on Snicko.
Snicko did not conclude there was no edge, Snicko concludes nothing. Snicko only provides information. All the information was in this instance was "there is no evidence of an edge" - not "there was no edge".

However, playing condition Appendix D Rule 3.3.3 says "A two-way consultation process shall begin to investigate whether there is anything that the third umpire can see or hear which would indicate that the on-field umpire should change his/her original decision."

Now, there never seems to be much of a two way consultation process between Umpires 1&2 and Umpire 3, and there never seems to be much "advisement" from the 3rd Ump to the Field Umps, more "direction" - but this is the same for every DRS that I have seen.

However, there most certainly WAS something the Third ump could see or hear to indicate the onfield decision should be overturned.

As I read it (and I do expect you might tell me how I have it wrong) umpires followed the protocols and came up with the correct decision, following the process correctly.

Yes, Taufel is long retired from umpiring, but he was one of the very best umpires during my lifetime, who had a reputation for knowing and understanding the laws of the game very well - and as he is now employed by Channel 7 to give his view on, and explain to the viewing public, decision-making, the laws of the game, protocols, etc, etc., I would expect him to still have a very good grasp of current laws and playing conditions.

+1

[sussexpob]

Snicko did not conclude there was no edge, Snicko concludes nothing. Snicko only provides information. All the information was in this instance was "there is no evidence of an edge" - not "there was no edge"

I let the first reference to this point pass on the grounds my new years resolution is to stop being an a*se, but this makes no logical sense whatsoever. We can sum up the role of Snicko by saying that "if the batsman has hit the ball, then there will be a noise registered on snicko as it passes the bat" - the contrapositive of any conditional statement has the same logical equivalence to the original statement, so negatively inversed form of the same sentence has to be of equal truth in order to be logical - or in other words.... it is of equal truth that "if there is no noise on snicko, the batsman has not hit the ball".

Saying Snicko concludes "nothing" in the context of its role in the game is wrong. If we take the presence of sound as an edge, we have to consider the absence of sound as not an edge - concluding otherwise would be a logical fallacy.

[sussexpob]

However, playing condition Appendix D Rule 3.3.3 says "A two-way consultation process shall begin to investigate whether there is anything that the third umpire can see or hear which would indicate that the on-field umpire should change his/her original decision." Now, there never seems to be much of a two way consultation process between Umpires 1&2 and Umpire 3, and there never seems to be much "advisement" from the 3rd Ump to the Field Umps, more "direction" - but this is the same for every DRS that I have seen.

However, there most certainly WAS something the Third ump could see or hear to indicate the onfield decision should be overturned.

Nothing I have said invalidates this this point, GJ. Yes, the umpire can use anything he observes to advise the on-field umpire in changing a decision BUT Taufel's point was quite specifically that once the TV umpire notices this "conclusive evidence" he has "no need to go any further", and can give his decision. This is in direct contradiction to the protocol, especially 3.3.7 which states the third umpire must give all relevant information provided by both television replays AND available technology, AND places a requirement on the third umpire to advise when a form of technology is not available to use. So no, the umpire has to assess all forms of technology available and say to the umpire what they say - this is clear. The idea he checks one and decides its conclusive is against the protocol.

The "hierarchy of redundancy" as Taufel refers to it as, does not exist in the protocol, it is an invention of his own mind. Taufel seems to be making the point that the technology is of secondary importance to what the umpire observes on the replays (he calls the technology a secondary resource). That is at total odds with reality - have you ever seen a mark appear on hotspot and not given? Have you ever seen hawkeye over-ruled? Have you ever seen a sound past the bat on snicko given not out? Of course not.... the technology is, pretty much all of the time taken as superior to the objective observation of the umpire - the idea it is secondary is ridiculous - as is the suggestion the protocol mentions it.

So yes, he is wrong. I don't even think its a debate - its absolutely clear what he said is untrue. The third umpire HAD an obligation under the rules to inform the on field umpire that snicko said it was not out. He failed to do that, so the protocol failed.

[sussexpob]

Yes, Taufel is long retired from umpiring, but he was one of the very best umpires during my lifetime, who had a reputation for knowing and understanding the laws of the game very well - and as he is now employed by Channel 7 to give his view on, and explain to the viewing public, decision-making, the laws of the game, protocols, etc, etc., I would expect him to still have a very good grasp of current laws and playing conditions.

You are aware that Sharfuddoula and Taufel are ex-colleagues who have stood in international matches together, and that Sharfuddoula was one of Taufel's protégés under the ICC developmental umpires panel when Taufel was in charge of it? Nothing says impartial like being asked to critique the competence and work of your own academy graduates.

I take these referee/turned pundits with several kilos of salt. None of them ever disagree with the referees, they are there to explain why they are always right, a fact very much publicized with Sky's Mike Dean appointment. As Jeff Winter said in an interview, referees dont slag off other referees - because it makes them all look bad.

[sussexpob]

I guess at the end of the day people will stick the fact they say the decision is right, without thinking about what precedent it sets. If we have influential voices re-writing the rules in the commentary box to justify their own views, then the protocol is shot to hell. We will have the VAR situation in football where the interpretation of the rules is adapted to fit whatever mistakes the VAR booth make, because no one literally ever comes out and says the rules were not followed, a mistake was made. Even in this series, we can take the example of snicko and ask, after 4 tests what is the rule? Because I literally do not know anymore. If tomorrow, the ball screams past the edge and it goes upstairs, what are we looking at? What is the deciding factor? What is the basis of the decision?

Compare for instance the Jaiswal decision in Mlebourne, with Rahul's in Perth. The umpire checked one side on angle that registered a noise as the ball passes, but also as the bat hits the pad. He then checked the reverse angle from behind the stumps and we got a huge gap between ball and bat when the noise registers - he then did not check anything else, and overturned the decision to give it out. The front on camera shows no edge or deviation. The 45 degree camera appeared to show the ball going over the bat - both also show clearly the bat hitting the pad as it comes down just after the ball is passed.

Conclusion? The umpire decided visual evidence was not required to the point he did not check all available angles, only two. He decided, even though both angles showing snicko were inconclusive as to when the bat hit the pad, accounting potentially for the noise, that it was irrelevant..... Why? Because Snicko registered a sound. So if there is a hierarchy of redundancy, and snicko is secondary to what we can see, can you explain why it is seemingly completely the opposite 3 tests before? It seems very much like in one game this series, the third umpire decided Snicko was sacrosanct to the point no further evidence was required if it says you are out- and one test which decided to completely ignore what it said and do the opposite.

Neither of these decisions followed the protocol... this is what you get when the umpire decides he is right and ignores what he supposed to do. And we will get more mistakes in the future because of this.

[meninblue]

Reports suggesting that Rohit will be dropped from playing 11 for Sydney test .

[backfootpunch]

Thank God the cricket is back tonight

No more essays on snicko and protocol

I'm assuming India have to win to have any chance of getting to the WTC final and would require Sri lanka to beat the aussies 2-0 which i don't think is impossible myself

[GarlicJam]

Snicko did not conclude there was no edge, Snicko concludes nothing. Snicko only provides information. All the information was in this instance was "there is no evidence of an edge" - not "there was no edge"

I let the first reference to this point pass on the grounds my new years resolution is to stop being an a*se, but this makes no logical sense whatsoever. We can sum up the role of Snicko by saying that "if the batsman has hit the ball, then there will be a noise registered on snicko as it passes the bat" - the contrapositive of any conditional statement has the same logical equivalence to the original statement, so negatively inversed form of the same sentence has to be of equal truth in order to be logical - or in other words.... it is of equal truth that "if there is no noise on snicko, the batsman has not hit the ball".

Saying Snicko concludes "nothing" in the context of its role in the game is wrong. If we take the presence of sound as an edge, we have to consider the absence of sound as not an edge - concluding otherwise would be a logical fallacy.

Once again, I disagree.

Snicko is just a tool. The presence of sound does not necessarily mean there is an edge - other factors need to be considered, the strongest one being visual observations. Was the ball near the bat at the instant of the noise, and were there any other possibilities of what caused the noise? Along the same lines, an absence of sound certainly does not mean there was no edge - the fact that Jaiswal DID* edge the ball and Snicko failed to pick it up is evidence (nay, proof) of this. I maintain that line of mine that you quoted above is correct. Snicko is not a decision maker, Snicko did not say "not out". For someone who can argue matters of logic that are far beyond my understanding, I find it strange you view this bit differently.

*apparently Jaiswal told his IPL teammate Head that he did hit it. Also, for Rohit to say at the presser that Jaiswal hit it suggests strongly that Jaiswal had already confirmed this to the team/Rohit.

With the apparent straying from protocols, I see two possible areas: 1. The 3rd not clearly relaying back to Wilson that there was nothing on Snicko (it is not a matter of it not being available or not working - it did, just it revealed nothing), but as mentioned, we know the on-field umps were watching the big screen so the lack of a spike on Snicko would have been known. Maybe a breech in protocol here, but not a diabolical one; and 2. 3rd TOLD the umpire to change his verdict, not advised him to do so. As this seems to be a breech in every single DRS referral, to isolate this instance would be silly.