HE when over 2.5m?

[jzfredricks]

I thought the regulations said if struck more than 2.5m from the
stumps HE was not to be used in referrals?

Is it something like that?

I'm obviously asking as Smith was more than 2.5m, and HE saved him.

[tendulkar.com]

Actually HE is used, just the projected trajectory is not shown and
discounted in those decisions. Where the ball pitched & where the
point of impact was are given to the 3rd umpire on which he has to
decide. Since it involves a significant amount of doubt, it is
extremely unlikely that the 3rd umpire will over-rule the on field
decision

[jzfredricks]

> Actually HE is used, just the projected trajectory is not shown and
> discounted in those decisions.

We've obviously no idea what was said, but it was one of two things;

1) impact was more than 2.5m, so there's plenty of doubt (which isn't
clear proof the ump was wrong) or
2) HE shows it going over the stumps (which IS clear "proof", although
the impact was >2.5m away)

[HVS]

On 05 Jan 2010, jzfredricks wrote

(It was tendulkar.com that wrote the following, not jzfredricks)

And since the decision was overturned, it must have been (2) --
regardless of the alleged 2.5m "rule" stated above.

--
Cheers,
Harvey

[Andrew Dunford]

"tendulkar.com" <tendul...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0595f1dc-2f20-4a84...@s3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...

Except that in the Smith case the third umpire did overrule the on-field
decision, on the grounds that Hawkeye showed the ball was going over the
top.

Here's a radical thought: how about we look up the actual rules instead of
relying on a series of made-up definitions which are all wrong:

"However, in instances where the evidence shows that the ball would have hit
the
stumps within the demarcated area as set out above but that the point of
impact is
greater than 250 cm from the stumps, the third umpire shall notify the
on-field
umpire of:
a) The distance from the wickets to the point of impact with the batsman
b) The approximate distance from point of pitching to point of impact
c) Where the ball is predicted to hit the stumps."

So, there is no mention of discounting Hawkeye, or ignoring the projected
trajectory in cases where the batsman was hit at least 2.5 metres from the
stumps.

Incidentally, the above definition applies only when a not out decision is
being reviewed. There is no clause regarding distance of impact from stumps
in the case of an out decision being reviewed as per Smith yesterday.

Andrew