Aus vs NZ

[Quick Hands]

Brilliant test match, which was practically ruined by the DRS controversy yesterday. I'm increasingly leaning to the Indian view that we shouldn't use it. If it's not improving decisions then why do we have it, or maybe we take the Ian Chappell view and have it taken away from the captains and put in the hands of the umpires. None of that is the Aussie team's fault though. They had no influence over the 3rd umpire. I have to say that the umpiring overall in this series has been of a very high standard. Nearly every review has vindicated them and that's great.

I think the score line has flattered us in the end and I think a 1-1 result would have been pretty fair.

Agree with this. When you go to the youtube clip and listen and watch the 6 minutes of it, it's reasonably obvious that the TV official completely confused himself and seemed unwilling or unable to accept the clear evidence presented by the hot spot.

Having said that, I don't think that either side used the DRS particularly well either - both teams reviewed too many marginal lbw decisions - all of which stayed with the on-field umpire's call.

The on-field umpiring was excellent throughout the series, pity one really poor decision will be remembered.

 

[Brumby Runner]

While it's true that both sides reviewed iffy lbw decisions and that all of them confirmed the original decision, I thought both captains were more restrained in this aspect than any have been in previous tests. And I think it's wrong to say that reviews were wasted and that they could have been saved for more questionable decisions later on. Every incident that involved an appeal, and some that didn't, was dissected on screen by the commentary team, and I don't recall one that would have been overturned had a review been made. Which just means that the umpires had a pretty special game I suppose.

Crowds were fantastic on all three days. Night time tests look to be a safe bet in future.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Yeah I think the experiment worked and it was nice to see a tight low scoring tussle for a change. Both teams played some excellent cricket.

 

[Lindommer]

Agree with earlier comments about poor LBW referrals. The purpose of DRS was to allow players to reverse howlers or batsmen to point out to umpires they snicked an LBW. Now, it's as if Watson's ghost has convinced teams every marginal LBW decision must be reviewed.

I watched that contentious DRS review live and must say I was surprised Llong didn't try to tie in the obvious hot spot with the ball passing that spot by using all the technology available to him, he seemed to put an enormous amount of faith in Snicko. For those who decry the use of DRS I say it should be persevered with; it's going to take a few shockers like this as it's fine-tuned to come up with better results.

 

[Quick Hands]

^^^And as can be seen from the youtube clip at 2.08 in post #321, snicko didn't even react to the ball obviously hitting Lyon's shoulder either. As another poster has pointed out, hot spot is produced by the friction of two objects colliding and is more accurate that the sound of snicko; many more variables in how sound is produced and even heard.

 

[Strewthcobber]

3.2 million peak audience for the late session last night. That is absolutely massive and on top of 120k crowd for the match.

And against NZ who supposedly don't draw a crowd!

We're going to be seeing plenty more day/night tests.

 

[No4918]

So it seems a lot of people want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, it is very unfortunate that the DRS issue occcurred. Hopefully the rules around it's use can be tweaked but the technology on the whole is very good. How many times has DRS made the incorrect decision? Seems that it would be 1-2%. Unfortunate but it is hardly catastrophic.

The umpires are professional and do what they can, shame it went Australia's way but to suggest Aus had the rub of the DRS decisions this series is suggesting the umpires are favouring Aus and I 100% do not believe that is the case. Officiating in the series was extremely good on the whole. McCullum got a tough call in Brisbane but it is one of those calls that are tough on the umpires who have to make a decision based on what happens in half a second.

I can see merit in removing tracking/predictive technologies from the equation in LBW decisions. To suggest not using it at all seems a touch overdone. Many more batsmen have been saved since the technology came in and I like the human element in teams needing to be extremely careful in what to review. The other scenario umpires review everything bar a bowled and the most obvious catches which will get more correct decisions but create a sterile environment. All teams play under the same rules here and Aus has missed there chances by wasting reviews as well.

 

[No4918]

It was a great series played in good spirit. The day/night test was a success and is hopefully scheduled in yearly and moved around. Hopefully the Windies will present a similar challenge and show the fight and resolve NZ have.

 

[barbarian]

The DRS becomes a bit contentious when you have good umpiring, as we have had this series. Without howlers to overturn, you end up debating 50-50, or 40-60 decisions that 10 years ago you'd just ignore.

But if the umpires have a shocker, then everyone ends up saying 'thank Christ for the DRS', including the umpires themselves.
.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Fair point Barbs. The umpiring has been excellent and we got to the stage that the DRS was being gamed or punted on by the captains. I'm not sure that's in the spirit of the process, but anyway.

 

[Quick Hands]

So it seems a lot of people want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, it is very unfortunate that the DRS issue occcurred. Hopefully the rules around it's use can be tweaked but the technology on the whole is very good. How many times has DRS made the incorrect decision? Seems that it would be 1-2%. Unfortunate but it is hardly catastrophic.

DRS doesn't make errors, the human beings operating it do. Sadly in this particular case, the evidence was there to make the correct decision , but for reasons best known to Nigel Llong he just couldn't accept what the technology was telling him.

 

[zer0]

To keep the drama going...

"In a decision New Zealand have lodged a formal protest against, the third umpire Nigel Llong ruled that Lyon was not out despite Hot Spot showing a mark where the ball had passed the back of the bat, before ballooning off Lyon's shoulder and into the hands of Kane Williamson at slip.

Llong's deliberations were broadcast live on the Nine Network's television coverage and, while viewing the Hot Spot vision, he stated three times that he could see a mark. He then told the on-field umpire S Ravi: "There's a mark on the bat but it could come from anywhere."

ESPNcricinfo has confirmed that umpires make their deliberations under instructions that Real-time Snicko (RTS (Roger Tuivasa-Sheck)) is only to be used if Hot Spot does not show a mark."

http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v-new-zealand-2015-16/content/story/945583.html

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I don't blame them really.

 

[Quick Hands]

To keep the drama going.

"In a decision New Zealand have lodged a formal protest against, the third umpire Nigel Llong ruled that Lyon was not out despite Hot Spot showing a mark where the ball had passed the back of the bat, before ballooning off Lyon's shoulder and into the hands of Kane Williamson at slip.

Llong's deliberations were broadcast live on the Nine Network's television coverage and, while viewing the Hot Spot vision, he stated three times that he could see a mark. He then told the on-field umpire S Ravi: "There's a mark on the bat but it could come from anywhere."

ESPNcricinfo has confirmed that umpires make their deliberations under instructions that Real-time Snicko (RTS (Roger Tuivasa-Sheck)) is only to be used if Hot Spot does not show a mark."

http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v-new-zealand-2015-16/content/story/945583.html

Quite possibly the most ludicrous comment by an official in professional sport.

 

[blindsider]

To keep the drama going.

"In a decision New Zealand have lodged a formal protest against, the third umpire Nigel Llong ruled that Lyon was not out despite Hot Spot showing a mark where the ball had passed the back of the bat, before ballooning off Lyon's shoulder and into the hands of Kane Williamson at slip.

Llong's deliberations were broadcast live on the Nine Network's television coverage and, while viewing the Hot Spot vision, he stated three times that he could see a mark. He then told the on-field umpire S Ravi: "There's a mark on the bat but it could come from anywhere."

ESPNcricinfo has confirmed that umpires make their deliberations under instructions that Real-time Snicko (RTS (Roger Tuivasa-Sheck)) is only to be used if Hot Spot does not show a mark."

http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v-new-zealand-2015-16/content/story/945583.html

3 day test? That didn't go Llong.






Boom boom


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

The ICC have confirmed that Llong followed the right process but got the decision wrong.

 

[Quick Hands]

The ICC have confirmed that Llong followed the right process but got the decision wrong.

Watching and listening to him, it became quite obvious that he couldn't accept what the technology was saying. As soon as snicko wasn't able to provide double evidence he constructed a process of reasoning in which he convinced himself that he couldn't accept hot spot.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

^^^^ Yep, watching it live it certainly appeared that way. With that said, I couldn't reconcile it either at the time. Why would there be a hot spot on the bat but no disturbance in the waveform on snicko? Hopefully we don't see anything like that again.

 

[Quick Hands]

Fox reporting that ICC have acknowledged that Llong was wrong in his decision.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket...-out-in-adelaide/story-e6frf3g3-1227630245474

 

[cyclopath]

Are they gonna get Paddy O'Brien to deliver the formal apology to NZ?