Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Morkel No Ball when Cowan gloved the ball

66 views
Skip to first unread message

skp

unread,
Nov 11, 2012, 5:07:15 PM11/11/12
to
I didn't see day 3 but I did read the CI report today. I gather that the ball took Cowan's glove, Rauf didn't see it and Smith reviewed it.

The review showed that the ball did hit the glove but that Morkel had overstepped.

We have a no-ball and Cowan stays on.

All well and good so far.

But did RSA lose one of its reviews? The CI report was silent on that point.

If they did get dinged one of their available reviews, we have an odd situation: The umpire makes two gaffes on one play (and the gaffe for which the review is taken is in fact shown to be a gaffe) and yet the reviewing team loses a review.

Any views on this?

skp

alvey

unread,
Nov 11, 2012, 5:22:58 PM11/11/12
to
Yes.

As the batsman can't be out in any of the fashionable ways off a no ball then it makes no sense for a team to lose a review for what is effectively a dead ball. As this is perfectly logical and simple I'm entirely confident that the ICC will fuck it up.


alvey

Andrew Dunford

unread,
Nov 11, 2012, 6:19:56 PM11/11/12
to


"skp" <vika...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fd19e9fe-8894-49f9...@googlegroups.com...
Test Match Playing Conditions, as revised on 29 October:

Appendix 2, 3.5:

c) If following a Player Review, an umpire upholds a decision of 'Not Out'
on
account of the delivery being a no ball for any reason, thereby not
requiring
any review of the ball's subsequent trajectory, then this will not be
counted
as an unsuccessful request and not count towards the innings limit.

Although as far as I can see from the CI scorecard, they are currently
displaying the Morkel incident as a failed review for South Africa.

Andrew

alvey

unread,
Nov 11, 2012, 6:54:17 PM11/11/12
to
My inner lawyer point out that that Playing Condition explicitly states that the Review doesn't count if the umpire "...upholds a decision of 'Not Out'".



alvey

Andrew Dunford

unread,
Nov 11, 2012, 7:26:14 PM11/11/12
to


"alvey" <qccc.m...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:af3c3dad-3e19-4e40...@googlegroups.com...
No, I think that was just your outer Alvey.

Your inner Lawyer would have done more than just repeating what I quoted
i.e. given his reason for so doing.

Andrew


alvey

unread,
Nov 11, 2012, 7:30:00 PM11/11/12
to
Thought it was obvious.
What happens if the original decision was 'Out'?




alvey

Andrew Dunford

unread,
Nov 11, 2012, 7:51:02 PM11/11/12
to


"alvey" <qccc.m...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ab5a5984-5113-44e7...@googlegroups.com...
Think about it.

If the original decision was 'out' the only side calling for a review will
be the batting side. If the replay shows the delivery to be a no ball then
the original decision will be overturned in the batting side's favour, in
which case the issue of a team losing a review does not arise.

Despite the separate thread Chucky started, every out decision now has an
automatic no ball review by the third umpire.

Andrew

alvey

unread,
Nov 11, 2012, 8:30:55 PM11/11/12
to
On Monday, November 12, 2012 10:51:29 AM UTC+10, Andrew Dunford wrote:
> "alvey" <qccc.m...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>

>
> > Thought it was obvious.
>
> > What happens if the original decision was 'Out'?
>
> Think about it.


Understand now.
I think that toing and froing with Maxxie is accelerating my condition...



alvey

dechucka

unread,
Nov 11, 2012, 11:59:45 PM11/11/12
to

"Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifax.net> wrote in message
news:agavgf...@mid.individual.net...
Did the Umpire ask for a review before giving Smith out in the SA 1st
innings or had he made no decision?

John Hall

unread,
Nov 12, 2012, 5:34:07 AM11/12/12
to
In article <agaq5k...@mid.individual.net>,
Andrew Dunford <adun...@artifax.net> writes:
>Test Match Playing Conditions, as revised on 29 October:
>
>Appendix 2, 3.5:
>
>c) If following a Player Review, an umpire upholds a decision of
>'Not Out' on
>account of the delivery being a no ball for any reason, thereby not
>requiring
>any review of the ball's subsequent trajectory, then this will not be
>counted
>as an unsuccessful request and not count towards the innings limit.

Wow, that's unexpectedly sensible.
--
John Hall

"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Attributed to the Commander of Japan's Submarine Forces in WW2

Andrew Dunford

unread,
Nov 12, 2012, 5:47:05 AM11/12/12
to


"John Hall" <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
news:JZrIQpBf...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid...
> In article <agaq5k...@mid.individual.net>,
> Andrew Dunford <adun...@artifax.net> writes:
>>Test Match Playing Conditions, as revised on 29 October:
>>
>>Appendix 2, 3.5:
>>
>>c) If following a Player Review, an umpire upholds a decision of
>>'Not Out' on
>>account of the delivery being a no ball for any reason, thereby not
>>requiring
>>any review of the ball's subsequent trajectory, then this will not be
>>counted
>>as an unsuccessful request and not count towards the innings limit.
>
> Wow, that's unexpectedly sensible.

Bear in mind it has taken four years to reach this point.

Andrew

jzfredricks

unread,
Nov 12, 2012, 5:57:43 AM11/12/12
to
On Monday, November 12, 2012 8:47:41 PM UTC+10, Andrew Dunford wrote:
> > Wow, that's unexpectedly sensible.
> Bear in mind it has taken four years to reach this point.

Yep. I remember citing this very flaw about 100 times in years gone by. It took them way too long to fix it.
0 new messages