Aus vs NZ

[Quick Hands]

Sawn off by the (otherwise really good) umpires.

Shows the massive issue with DRS at present. Everyone knows its not out with 1 replay, but can't do anything about it. Exactly the reason for having a drs

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

I agree to an extent, but the review system was brought in (supposedly) to stop the howler - big inside edge given LBW, batsman given out/not out when batsmen clearly didn't/did hit the ball. So if teams only use it for this purpose, then they have nothing to worry about because they can have 100 reviews as long as they get it right every time. What teams/players have done is to review every 50/50 call (or worse) - S. Watson being the most egregious example. So if teams do this and then have used up 2 incorrect challenges before the howler, then tough luck as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Quick Hands]

A great breakthrough in Oz cricket:

Well done S. Smith. I hope this continues.

Let's not forget that Starc was also the culprit in the disgraceful Ben Stokes dismissal - when Starc pelted the ball at him and Stokes was given out obstructing the field in the process of taking evasive action. Smith was the captain on that occasion - who should have withdrawn the appeal IMO. I hope that he has had time to reflect on that incident and this shot over the bows never sees Australia benefit from a similar situation again.

 

[Pfitzy]

Excellent work skipper - walk the talk.

This bloke was spot on:

Just for once, I'd like us to fucking crush someone at cricket without saying boo.


Then the pricks don't have a thing to whine about, and just have to carry on like the vocal minority of Wallaby fans who blame the ref.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Yep, I'm good with Smith laying down the marker and impressing upon the boys what the standard is.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I agree to an extent, but the review system was brought in (supposedly) to stop the howler - big inside edge given LBW, batsman given out/not out when batsmen clearly didn't/did hit the ball. So if teams only use it for this purpose, then they have nothing to worry about because they can have 100 reviews as long as they get it right every time. What teams/players have done is to review every 50/50 call (or worse) - S. Watson being the most egregious example. So if teams do this and then have used up 2 incorrect challenges before the howler, then tough luck as far as I'm concerned.

Agree with all of that. Reviewing LBWs when you've been given out is really a fools game.

But its a systematic issue. We still have a "howler" that can't be corrected. So the DRS has failed.

The other interesting one was a couple of dismissals later. Big edge, big noise, shows up on snicko but nothing on hotspot. It just doesn't handle thin edges well at all. Which is also a problem as that's how it's used.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

I still think DRS should be a tool for the umpires.

Make their decision and then review it and the existing safeguards of umpire's call give the umpire some leeway.

If the goal is to increase the percentage of correct decisions then that is the only way to go.

The current DRS method makes umpiring a relevant skill for players which has never been the case.

 

[Braveheart81]

Well done S. Smith. I hope this continues.

Let's not forget that Starc was also the culprit in the disgraceful Ben Stokes dismissal - when Starc pelted the ball at him and Stokes was given out obstructing the field in the process of taking evasive action. Smith was the captain on that occasion - who should have withdrawn the appeal IMO. I hope that he has had time to reflect on that incident and this shot over the bows never sees Australia benefit from a similar situation again.

The only similarities are that Starc was involved.

One was a frustrated shy towards the batsman and the other was a genuine run out attempt.

I still think Stokes was correctly given out. The fact that he thought he needed to take protect himself was incorrect and shouldn't save him. He obstructed the field whilst he was out of his ground and the other team was attempting a run out.

I don't think there is any need to withdraw an appeal at international level in the professional game. The umpires make the decision and the players need to abide by it.

 

[Quick Hands]

The only similarities are that Starc was involved.

One was a frustrated shy towards the batsman and the other was a genuine run out attempt.

I still think Stokes was correctly given out. The fact that he thought he needed to take protect himself was incorrect and shouldn't save him. He obstructed the field whilst he was out of his ground and the other team was attempting a run out.

I don't think there is any need to withdraw an appeal at international level in the professional game. The umpires make the decision and the players need to abide by it.

Let's agree to disagree on the Stokes dismissal.

Fortunately England and India don't agree with your position about withdrawing appeals at the international level. Cricket has always been a game in which captains are able to do so if the spirit of sportsmanship dictates.

Rahul Dravid said the Indian team was in unanimous agreement that the decision had to be reversed. "In the laws of the game, if you follow them strictly, that was out, but it didn't feel right in the spirit of the game," he said. "There was a team discussion during the tea interval, Dhoni and Fletcher convened the meeting, and Dhoni led it. There was a feeling of unanimity that we should reinstate Bell because the spirit of the game was important, and that getting him out in that way would contravened the spirit ... If this had happened to our guys we would not have been happy about it. So all of that was discussed."

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england-v-india-2011/content/story/525477.html

 

[Braveheart81]

That decision would have never been overturned if there wasn't a tea break immediately afterwards meaning that play hadn't continued.

 

[Quick Hands]

The captain withdrew the appeal and the batsman was reinstated. Wasn't your point that this shouldn't occur at the elite professional level? Wasn't your position that the umpires should make a decision and the players need to abide by it?

I've provided a specific and recent example where a captain withdrew an appeal at the elite professional level, for the exact reason that I believe that Smith should have done so.

The spirit of the game was deemed more important that the letter of the law in the Bell case - it still can and does happen at the elite professional level if the participants choose to do so. That is the point.

 

[Scotty]

Agree with all of that. Reviewing LBWs when you've been given out is really a fools game.

But its a systematic issue. We still have a "howler" that can't be corrected. So the DRS has failed.

The other interesting one was a couple of dismissals later. Big edge, big noise, shows up on snicko but nothing on hotspot. It just doesn't handle thin edges well at all. Which is also a problem as that's how it's used.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

I think the answer is to not use the tracker part (hawkeye if they still call it that). Let the umpire decide if it is going to hit the stumps or not.

That way it is available for:

- edges or not so edges
- bouncing outside leg
- hitting not in line

This is where the 'howlers' come in. Not so much in the case whether it is going to hit the stumps or not ( normally those decisions are only a ball width either way).

 

[Scotty]

The captain withdrew the appeal and the batsman was reinstated. Wasn't your point that this shouldn't occur at the elite professional level? Wasn't your position that the umpires should make a decision and the players need to abide by it?

I've provided a specific and recent example where a captain withdrew an appeal at the elite professional level, for the exact reason that I believe that Smith should have done so.

The spirit of the game was deemed more important that the letter of the law in the Bell case - it still can and does happen at the elite professional level if the participants choose to do so. That is the point.

So if Stokes wasn't given out but then later thought 'well to be honest I did stop that ball from getting me run out', should he go up to the umpire and ask to be given out?

Does it go both ways?

 

[Braveheart81]

I think the answer is to not use the tracker part (hawkeye if they still call it that). Let the umpire decide if it is going to hit the stumps or not.

That way it is available for:

- edges or not so edges
- bouncing outside leg
- hitting not in line

This is where the 'howlers' come in. Not so much in the case whether it is going to hit the stumps or not ( normally those decisions are only a ball width either way).

This is where India's chief objection to DRS comes from.

They're generally happy with the non-predictive parts of DRS but don't like ball tracking because it isn't a review of fact.

 

[papabear]

Agree with all of that. Reviewing LBWs when you've been given out is really a fools game.

But its a systematic issue. We still have a "howler" that can't be corrected. So the DRS has failed.

The other interesting one was a couple of dismissals later. Big edge, big noise, shows up on snicko but nothing on hotspot. It just doesn't handle thin edges well at all. Which is also a problem as that's how it's used.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

isnt that because the bats have different edges to lessen hotspot.

in my opinion hotspot is the least effective of seeing a nick, look at the vision, put the vision up against the snicko, if there is a big noise and the ball appears to hit the bat on the vision, hotspot shouldnt matter.

 

[papabear]

The captain withdrew the appeal and the batsman was reinstated. Wasn't your point that this shouldn't occur at the elite professional level? Wasn't your position that the umpires should make a decision and the players need to abide by it?

I've provided a specific and recent example where a captain withdrew an appeal at the elite professional level, for the exact reason that I believe that Smith should have done so.

The spirit of the game was deemed more important that the letter of the law in the Bell case - it still can and does happen at the elite professional level if the participants choose to do so. That is the point.

Come on...

Everyone who has ever played cricket knows you get decisions that go your way and ones that go against you.

The only way to make sure you dont get out is to hit the ball into the ground.

To suggest that players should withdraw there appeal if they believe they were not out afterwards would be the same as suggesting a batsmen should just walk if the ump doesn't give him, which is fine in theory if everyone does it.

But where it happens rarely, you just would be shooting your own team in the foot.

 

[No4918]

Come on.

Everyone who has ever played cricket knows you get decisions that go your way and ones that go against you.

The only way to make sure you dont get out is to hit the ball into the ground.

To suggest that players should withdraw there appeal if they believe they were not out afterwards would be the same as suggesting a batsmen should just walk if the ump doesn't give him, which is fine in theory if everyone does it.

But where it happens rarely, you just would be shooting your own team in the foot.

Absolutely.
Yet we have McCullum praised for a superb act of sportsmanship for not criticising the umpires who gave him out. It's pretty standard stuff.

Then we are somehow back onto the Poms lecturing us about playing in the spirit of cricket. Meanwhile Stuart Broad hits the skin off the ball and isn't given out costing us a test. Not the first time it has happened and it definitely won't be the last. Would McCullum have walked if the same thing happened? I'd say that is extremely unlikely and it's not fair to think less of them.

Forget endless tinkering of rules around DRS. If teams don't waste there decisions it will work as it is meant to.

 

[Jellic87]

Absolutely.
Yet we have McCullum praised for a superb act of sportsmanship for not criticising the umpires who gave him out. It's pretty standard stuff.

Then we are somehow back onto the Poms lecturing us about playing in the spirit of cricket. Meanwhile Stuart Broad hits the skin off the ball and isn't given out costing us a test. Not the first time it has happened and it definitely won't be the last. Would McCullum have walked if the same thing happened? I'd say that is extremely unlikely and it's not fair to think less of them.

Forget endless tinkering of rules around DRS. If teams don't waste there decisions it will work as it is meant to.

I've been struggling to understand why everyone is losing their minds over McCullum being such a good sportsman over that poor decision. Granted, he took it well and I absolutely think that he is a good sportsman in general but in this instance he just had to cop a decision that 1000's of players have to cop every weekend in park cricket and that every professional batsman did before the introduction of DRS. He took it as they did/have to and i would have thought it would have been left at that.

 

[Scotty]

McCullum is a bit of a high horse guy really. Loves to throw a few barbs about other teams not being sportsmanlike even in games he doesn't participate in.

That loses him a fair bit of respect in my eyes (otherwise his on field acts would have him right up there with the best/most respected).

 

[Inside Shoulder]

That loses him a fair bit of respect in my eyes?

Why?
Anything that tends to lift the standard of sportsmanship in cricket is to be applauded.

 

[Scotty]

Why?
Anything that tends to lift the standard of sportsmanship in cricket is to be applauded.

He commented negatively against the Australian team or Australian players in games he wasn't even involved in and I assume didn't watch live. So he relied on a TV to throw some barbs at another side.

You don't see anything wrong with that?