Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
DRS - Roger's Caught/LBW
203 views
Skip to first unread message
jzfredricks
Aug 10, 2013, 7:23:06 AM8/10/13
to
CI says this;
"That's drinks and a chance to clarify that slightly confusing review from Rogers. He was given out caught behind, so Rogers reviewed that, replays showed he didn't hit it so he was not out on that count. Having not hit it, they then checked for lbw. Tony Hill didn't give Rogers out lbw so England needed three reds on Hawk Eye to get an overturn, umpire's call meant the decision stayed with Hill so Rogers was not out lbw too."
Could someone PLEASE tell me CI are 100% wrong here.
Surely once the Caught was ruled Out, Hill would have been asked (or considered himself) the question "if there was no edge, did I think it was LBW?".
For all we bloody know Hill could have originally thought "man, that was plumb if he hadn't edged it"...
"That's drinks and a chance to clarify that slightly confusing review from Rogers. He was given out caught behind, so Rogers reviewed that, replays showed he didn't hit it so he was not out on that count. Having not hit it, they then checked for lbw. Tony Hill didn't give Rogers out lbw so England needed three reds on Hawk Eye to get an overturn, umpire's call meant the decision stayed with Hill so Rogers was not out lbw too."
Could someone PLEASE tell me CI are 100% wrong here.
Surely once the Caught was ruled Out, Hill would have been asked (or considered himself) the question "if there was no edge, did I think it was LBW?".
For all we bloody know Hill could have originally thought "man, that was plumb if he hadn't edged it"...
Mo...@unimail.com.au
Aug 10, 2013, 7:40:07 AM8/10/13
to
Once you get that second eye....
If the umpire thought there was a nick then the original LBW decision was not out.
Umpire makes a call.. You can't then go and pick and coose which bit of it to accept.
Go on, surprise me, change your mind.
If the umpire thought there was a nick then the original LBW decision was not out.
Umpire makes a call.. You can't then go and pick and coose which bit of it to accept.
Go on, surprise me, change your mind.
jzfredricks
Aug 10, 2013, 8:03:29 AM8/10/13
to
From the ICC DRS regulations;
"f) The third umpire shall not withhold any factual information which may help in the
decision making process, even if the information is not directly prompted by the
on-field umpire’s questions. In particular, in reviewing a dismissal, if the third
umpire believes that the batsman may instead be out by any other mode of
dismissal, he shall advise the on-field umpire accordingly. The process of
consultation described in this paragraph in respect of such other mode of dismissal
shall then be conducted as if the batsman has been given not out"
Hmmm.. there's the answer.
Even if the on-field umpire thought it was "plumb if there was no edge", it's treated as if Roger's was given Not Out to the LBW appeal.
Not sure if this is the best way to do it.
"f) The third umpire shall not withhold any factual information which may help in the
decision making process, even if the information is not directly prompted by the
on-field umpire’s questions. In particular, in reviewing a dismissal, if the third
umpire believes that the batsman may instead be out by any other mode of
dismissal, he shall advise the on-field umpire accordingly. The process of
consultation described in this paragraph in respect of such other mode of dismissal
shall then be conducted as if the batsman has been given not out"
Hmmm.. there's the answer.
Even if the on-field umpire thought it was "plumb if there was no edge", it's treated as if Roger's was given Not Out to the LBW appeal.
Not sure if this is the best way to do it.
Andrew Dunford
Aug 10, 2013, 8:19:02 AM8/10/13
to
"jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:065bcde2-ce6b-47ae...@googlegroups.com...
> From the ICC DRS regulations;
>
> "f) The third umpire shall not withhold any factual information which may
> help in the
> decision making process, even if the information is not directly prompted
> by the
> on-field umpire�s questions. In particular, in reviewing a dismissal, if
>
> "f) The third umpire shall not withhold any factual information which may
> help in the
> decision making process, even if the information is not directly prompted
> by the
> the third
> umpire believes that the batsman may instead be out by any other mode of
> dismissal, he shall advise the on-field umpire accordingly. The process of
> consultation described in this paragraph in respect of such other mode of
> dismissal
> shall then be conducted as if the batsman has been given not out"
>
> Hmmm.. there's the answer.
> Even if the on-field umpire thought it was "plumb if there was no edge",
> it's treated as if Roger's was given Not Out to the LBW appeal.
>
> Not sure if this is the best way to do it.
So the protocol was followed correctly (and clearly the England players did
> umpire believes that the batsman may instead be out by any other mode of
> dismissal, he shall advise the on-field umpire accordingly. The process of
> consultation described in this paragraph in respect of such other mode of
> dismissal
> shall then be conducted as if the batsman has been given not out"
>
> Hmmm.. there's the answer.
> Even if the on-field umpire thought it was "plumb if there was no edge",
> it's treated as if Roger's was given Not Out to the LBW appeal.
>
> Not sure if this is the best way to do it.
not know the rule) but I'm slightly uneasy about that one. Caught takes
precedence over lbw as per Law 32, thus the umpire made no ruling on the lbw
rather than giving the batsman not out by that method of dismissal.
I think the not out decision can be justified, but the television graphic
displaying 'Umpire's Call' for whether the ball was hitting the wickets was
not ideal as it rather gave the impression the original decision of out
would be upheld.
Andrew
jzfredricks
Aug 10, 2013, 9:20:53 AM8/10/13
to
On Saturday, August 10, 2013 10:19:02 PM UTC+10, Andrew Dunford wrote:
> So the protocol was followed correctly (and clearly the England players did
> not know the rule) but I'm slightly uneasy about that one. Caught takes
> precedence over lbw as per Law 32, thus the umpire made no ruling on the lbw
> rather than giving the batsman not out by that method of dismissal.
Indeed. Precedence seems to have been forgotten somewhat.
> So the protocol was followed correctly (and clearly the England players did
> not know the rule) but I'm slightly uneasy about that one. Caught takes
> precedence over lbw as per Law 32, thus the umpire made no ruling on the lbw
> rather than giving the batsman not out by that method of dismissal.
> I think the not out decision can be justified, but the television graphic
> displaying 'Umpire's Call' for whether the ball was hitting the wickets was
> not ideal as it rather gave the impression the original decision of out
> would be upheld.
I don't think it's "fair" to assume that the umpire thought all 3 LBW criteria were 'not out', ie;
1) it didn't pitch in line
2) it didn't strike in line
3) it was missing the stumps
That's what seems to have been assumed. I say assumed, as I don't have a clue what was said by the umpires.
Bharat Rao
Aug 10, 2013, 12:50:59 PM8/10/13
to
On Saturday, August 10, 2013 8:19:02 AM UTC-4, Andrew Dunford wrote:
> "jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> "jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> I think the not out decision can be justified, but the television graphic
>
> displaying 'Umpire's Call' for whether the ball was hitting the wickets was
>
> not ideal as it rather gave the impression the original decision of out
>
> would be upheld.
>
I think not-out is clear cut. I would have been upset had he been given out.
>
> displaying 'Umpire's Call' for whether the ball was hitting the wickets was
>
> not ideal as it rather gave the impression the original decision of out
>
> would be upheld.
>
It isn't "Umpires call, Out" that is upheld, but "Umpires call, Out lbw" that is upheld.
A: The correct discussion would be, "No edge. Would you have given him out lbw?"
Umpire "He woulda been plumb" -- then DRS decision = OUT
Umpire "Looked like it may have missed; I wouldn't have given it." then DRS decision = "Not OUT".
What would be egregious would be EITHER
B: "No edge. Clipping. Umpire's original call of OUT upheld"
C: "No edge. Clipping. Umpires' original call of "Not OUT lbw, upheld."
I don;t know if the clarifying discussion happened, but if it did, in what seems to be for the FIRST time this series, the umpires worked though an ambiguous situation in the DRS guidelines / methodology, correctly."
But based on track record, I'd guess it was "C" -- the ambiguous guidelines resulting in a fluky correct interpretation.
Bharat
Tweedle Dee
Aug 10, 2013, 2:20:32 PM8/10/13
to
Or it may be that no one is really clear about DRS and we are learning more about how DRS works one controversial incident at a time.
-TD
CaraMia
Aug 10, 2013, 2:30:23 PM8/10/13
to
On 8/10/2013 11:50 PM, Tweedle Dee wrote:
> I listened to two conversations about this incident, one between Gower, Warne and Botham and one between Gower, Hussain and Holding, and I am still not completely clear about what is going to happen when "the rules change in October", which everyone mentioned in both the discussions. Seems to me that DRS actually worked for once in Rogers' case. If the rules indeed change so that when the fielders appeal, the third umpire has to assume that the appeal is meant to cover *all* possible decisions, which is what I kind of gathered from the explanations that Hussain and others provided, then it seems that the rules would be changing for the worse in October, giving an unfair advantage to the fielding side.
>
> Or it may be that no one is really clear about DRS and we are learning more about how DRS works one controversial incident at a time.
I may be wrong, but I always assumed that even pre-DRS appeals covered
> I listened to two conversations about this incident, one between Gower, Warne and Botham and one between Gower, Hussain and Holding, and I am still not completely clear about what is going to happen when "the rules change in October", which everyone mentioned in both the discussions. Seems to me that DRS actually worked for once in Rogers' case. If the rules indeed change so that when the fielders appeal, the third umpire has to assume that the appeal is meant to cover *all* possible decisions, which is what I kind of gathered from the explanations that Hussain and others provided, then it seems that the rules would be changing for the worse in October, giving an unfair advantage to the fielding side.
>
> Or it may be that no one is really clear about DRS and we are learning more about how DRS works one controversial incident at a time.
all forms of dismissal.
Tweedle Dee
Aug 10, 2013, 2:41:57 PM8/10/13
to
As far as I understand, under the new rules that will come into effect in October, the third umpire will not ask the on-field umpire what the decision is. Upon a referral, he will check whether the technological decision fits any of the possible ways of getting out.
So, under the new rules, Rogers would be given out.
-TD
Tweedle Dee
Aug 10, 2013, 2:43:02 PM8/10/13
to
-TD
jzfredricks
Aug 10, 2013, 4:14:32 PM8/10/13
to
On Sunday, August 11, 2013 4:41:57 AM UTC+10, Tweedle Dee wrote:
> I think the current system is that the third umpire asks the on-field umpire what the decision is: is it caught or LBW? On-field umpire says: Caught, Yes; LBW, No.
Buddy, I've posted the DRS regulations above. Why don't you read them?
> I think the current system is that the third umpire asks the on-field umpire what the decision is: is it caught or LBW? On-field umpire says: Caught, Yes; LBW, No.
All OTHER modes of dismissal are treated as if the on-field umpire gave them Not Out (for those modes).
At the moment there seems to be no option of saying "if he didn't edge it I thought it was plumb".
I'm sure this will change.
> As far as I understand, under the new rules that will come into effect in October, the third umpire will not ask the on-field umpire what the decision is. Upon a referral, he will check whether the technological decision fits any of the possible ways of getting out.
In theory he will report facts back to the main umpire who will then make a new decision.
In Roger's case, it should go like this;
3rd ump: I've taken a look. Not a no-ball. There was no evidence of an edge, but it did clip the pad. xEye says Pitching In Line, Striking In Line, and Umpire's Call on 'Was it hitting'. Over to you.
Then all the main ump has to do is as decide/remember if he thought it was hitting the stumps.
> So, under the new rules, Rogers would be given out.
Mo...@unimail.com.au
Aug 10, 2013, 5:52:49 PM8/10/13
to
Player: "is he out LBW"?
Umpire: "no, he hit it"
Seems clear cut to me. But no surprises you were looking for confirmation rather than conversation.
Umpire: "no, he hit it"
Seems clear cut to me. But no surprises you were looking for confirmation rather than conversation.
jzfredricks
Aug 10, 2013, 6:05:37 PM8/10/13
to
On Sunday, August 11, 2013 7:52:49 AM UTC+10, Mo...@unimail.com.au wrote:
> Player: "is he out LBW"?
>
> Umpire: "no, he hit it"
Player: "Hozzat kind sir?"
> Player: "is he out LBW"?
>
> Umpire: "no, he hit it"
Umpire: "not LBW, as he hit it first, otherwise he'd have been plumb"
3rd umpire: "he didn't actually hit it"
Laws of Cricket: "an appeal covers all forms of dismissal"
But no surprises you were looking for weird arse logic that makes zero sense and could be dismissed by a drunk, 4 year old parrot.
Andrew Dunford
Aug 10, 2013, 6:11:20 PM8/10/13
to
<Mo...@unimail.com.au> wrote in message
news:5f1ade3e-df99-4203...@googlegroups.com...
given out caught and is walking off?
Andrew
jzfredricks
Aug 10, 2013, 6:13:13 PM8/10/13
to
On Sunday, August 11, 2013 8:11:20 AM UTC+10, Andrew Dunford wrote:
> Why would a player ask "is he out LBW" when the batsman has already been
> given out caught and is walking off?
[for the record]
> Why would a player ask "is he out LBW" when the batsman has already been
> given out caught and is walking off?
AD, I don't think you're a drunk, 4 year old parrot.
Mo...@unimail.com.au
Aug 10, 2013, 6:16:11 PM8/10/13
to
I just saw the replay for the first time.
Aren't you the twit who insists that the ball has to hit with more than 50% or some garbage due to "margins of error"?
That's a question. What isn't in question though is the fact that you've no interest in having a conversation and can't even come up with your own insults.
@Andrew. Don't be facetious. Clearly the question and answer are implied. Why be a cock about it?
Aren't you the twit who insists that the ball has to hit with more than 50% or some garbage due to "margins of error"?
That's a question. What isn't in question though is the fact that you've no interest in having a conversation and can't even come up with your own insults.
@Andrew. Don't be facetious. Clearly the question and answer are implied. Why be a cock about it?
Mo...@unimail.com.au
Aug 10, 2013, 6:22:00 PM8/10/13
to
@parrot
Let's take the catch away.. So now we have any other LBW decision where there is an alleged edge.
The umpire does not say "if he hadn't hit it, he'd have been plum", he simply says "not out".
The DRS then rules on the decision. Note that... Not 'The DRS rules on the decision and commentary after the fact'.
In any case, hawkeye shows the ball hitting the stumps with the same cross-section as your intelligence.. It beggars belief that you would be having a whinge about this.
Let's take the catch away.. So now we have any other LBW decision where there is an alleged edge.
The umpire does not say "if he hadn't hit it, he'd have been plum", he simply says "not out".
The DRS then rules on the decision. Note that... Not 'The DRS rules on the decision and commentary after the fact'.
In any case, hawkeye shows the ball hitting the stumps with the same cross-section as your intelligence.. It beggars belief that you would be having a whinge about this.
jzfredricks
Aug 10, 2013, 6:28:08 PM8/10/13
to
On Sunday, August 11, 2013 8:16:11 AM UTC+10, Mo...@unimail.com.au wrote:
> I just saw the replay for the first time.
I've not seen it.
> I just saw the replay for the first time.
> Aren't you the twit who insists that the ball has to hit with more than 50% or some garbage due to "margins of error"?
This discussion is about improving the DRS regulations, and not about inventing a time machine so that we can go back in time and give Rogers Out.
I'm saying that if an umpire thinks that it would be Out LBW but for an edge, and DRS shows there was no edge, then DRS should take the position that the ump gave it Out LBW with respect to overturning it.
Then xEye comes in... if it's given Out on-field, and xEye says "Out, Out, Ump's call", then the final call will be Out.
This has nothing to do with my general position on xEye (ie that it's MoEs should be confirmed, and the predicition MoE should be variable based on readings).
> That's a question. What isn't in question though is the fact that you've no interest in having a conversation and can't even come up with your own insults.
It's not fault you've been called an idiot before.
jzfredricks
Aug 10, 2013, 6:37:36 PM8/10/13
to
On Sunday, August 11, 2013 8:22:00 AM UTC+10, Mo...@unimail.com.au wrote:
> Let's take the catch away.. So now we have any other LBW decision where there is an alleged edge.
> The umpire does not say "if he hadn't hit it, he'd have been plum", he simply says "not out".
You're as dumb as dechucka.
> Let's take the catch away.. So now we have any other LBW decision where there is an alleged edge.
> The umpire does not say "if he hadn't hit it, he'd have been plum", he simply says "not out".
I'm saying;
"If the main ump thinks it met all the requirements for LBW (pitching, striking, hitting stumps etc), but is Not Out as the batsman hit it... and DRS shows no edge AND xEye wouldn't overturn an Out decision, then it should be Out".
> The DRS then rules on the decision. Note that... Not 'The DRS rules on the decision and commentary after the fact'.
> In any case, hawkeye shows the ball hitting the stumps with the same cross-section as your intelligence.. It beggars belief that you would be having a whinge about this.
Tell me what YOU think should happen in these two scenarios.
Scenario 1;
1. bowler appeals
2. given out caught
3. IMPORTANTLY: umpire says to the bowler (only) "out! caught! if he didn't edge it, he was plumb, too!"
4. batsman knows it hit his pad, refers
5. DRS evidence (Tv, sound, HotSpot) show no edge
6. DRS evidence shows Pitching In Line, Striking In Line, Umpire's call
Scenario 2;
1. bowler appeals
2. given out LBW
3. batsman thinks he edged it, refers
4. DRS evidence (Tv, sound, HotSpot) show no edge
5. DRS evidence shows Pitching In Line, Striking In Line, Umpire's call
Sir Leslie Bottocks
Aug 10, 2013, 6:48:15 PM8/10/13
to
"Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifax.net> wrote in message
news:b6mpdt...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> "jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:065bcde2-ce6b-47ae...@googlegroups.com...
>> From the ICC DRS regulations;
>>
>> "f) The third umpire shall not withhold any factual information which may
>> help in the
>> decision making process, even if the information is not directly prompted
>> by the
>> on-field umpire�s questions. In particular, in reviewing a dismissal, if
>
> "jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:065bcde2-ce6b-47ae...@googlegroups.com...
>> From the ICC DRS regulations;
>>
>> "f) The third umpire shall not withhold any factual information which may
>> help in the
>> decision making process, even if the information is not directly prompted
>> by the
>> the third
>> umpire believes that the batsman may instead be out by any other mode of
>> dismissal, he shall advise the on-field umpire accordingly. The process
>> of
>> consultation described in this paragraph in respect of such other mode of
>> dismissal
>> shall then be conducted as if the batsman has been given not out"
>>
>> Hmmm.. there's the answer.
>> Even if the on-field umpire thought it was "plumb if there was no edge",
>> it's treated as if Roger's was given Not Out to the LBW appeal.
>>
>> Not sure if this is the best way to do it.
>
> So the protocol was followed correctly (and clearly the England players
> did not know the rule) but I'm slightly uneasy about that one. Caught
> takes precedence over lbw as per Law 32, thus the umpire made no ruling on
> the lbw rather than giving the batsman not out by that method of
> dismissal.
>
> I think the not out decision can be justified, but the television graphic
> displaying 'Umpire's Call' for whether the ball was hitting the wickets
> was not ideal as it rather gave the impression the original decision of
> out would be upheld.
easy fix: lbw to take precedence over caught
>> umpire believes that the batsman may instead be out by any other mode of
>> dismissal, he shall advise the on-field umpire accordingly. The process
>> of
>> consultation described in this paragraph in respect of such other mode of
>> dismissal
>> shall then be conducted as if the batsman has been given not out"
>>
>> Hmmm.. there's the answer.
>> Even if the on-field umpire thought it was "plumb if there was no edge",
>> it's treated as if Roger's was given Not Out to the LBW appeal.
>>
>> Not sure if this is the best way to do it.
>
> So the protocol was followed correctly (and clearly the England players
> did not know the rule) but I'm slightly uneasy about that one. Caught
> takes precedence over lbw as per Law 32, thus the umpire made no ruling on
> the lbw rather than giving the batsman not out by that method of
> dismissal.
>
> I think the not out decision can be justified, but the television graphic
> displaying 'Umpire's Call' for whether the ball was hitting the wickets
> was not ideal as it rather gave the impression the original decision of
> out would be upheld.
jzfredricks
Aug 10, 2013, 6:49:36 PM8/10/13
to
On Sunday, August 11, 2013 8:48:15 AM UTC+10, Sir Leslie Bottocks wrote:
> easy fix: lbw to take precedence over caught
Goooooooooooood. Please save me.
> easy fix: lbw to take precedence over caught
Dechucka
Aug 10, 2013, 10:51:44 PM8/10/13
to
news:0195d9ab-9d9e-426c...@googlegroups.com...
============================================================
wonder what he'll say given it was
wonder what he'll say given it was
Dechucka
Aug 10, 2013, 10:53:25 PM8/10/13
to
news:6eb88158-634a-43e1...@googlegroups.com...
> On Sunday, August 11, 2013 8:22:00 AM UTC+10, Mo...@unimail.com.au wrote:
>> Let's take the catch away.. So now we have any other LBW decision where
>> there is an alleged edge.
>> The umpire does not say "if he hadn't hit it, he'd have been plum", he
>> simply says "not out".
>
> You're as dumb as dechucka.
fucking brilliant
>> Let's take the catch away.. So now we have any other LBW decision where
>> there is an alleged edge.
>> The umpire does not say "if he hadn't hit it, he'd have been plum", he
>> simply says "not out".
>
> You're as dumb as dechucka.
Dechucka
Aug 10, 2013, 10:59:45 PM8/10/13
to
news:fb26d925-2158-4f1a...@googlegroups.com...
It was obvious everybody was appealing for caught. Yes a nice change would
be to allow the umpire to say out caught but if not, out LBW. However you
are once again trying to second guess the umpire about what he was thinking.
Same as when you were trying to guess what the umpire was thinking when no
hotspot, clear gap between bat and ball and not change in path/rotation of
the ball led the 3rd umpire to confirm a howler.
I assume you are just trying to be argumentative for the sake of it
> On Sunday, August 11, 2013 8:48:15 AM UTC+10, Sir Leslie Bottocks wrote:
>> easy fix: lbw to take precedence over caught
>
> Goooooooooooood. Please save me.
why would anything good want to save you.
>> easy fix: lbw to take precedence over caught
>
> Goooooooooooood. Please save me.
It was obvious everybody was appealing for caught. Yes a nice change would
be to allow the umpire to say out caught but if not, out LBW. However you
are once again trying to second guess the umpire about what he was thinking.
Same as when you were trying to guess what the umpire was thinking when no
hotspot, clear gap between bat and ball and not change in path/rotation of
the ball led the 3rd umpire to confirm a howler.
I assume you are just trying to be argumentative for the sake of it
jzfredricks
Aug 11, 2013, 3:34:37 AM8/11/13
to
On Sunday, August 11, 2013 12:59:45 PM UTC+10, Dechucka wrote:
> It was obvious everybody was appealing for caught.
There's no such thing as 'appealing for caught'. There's only appealing. All modes of dismissal MUST be considered by the umpire.
> It was obvious everybody was appealing for caught.
> Yes a nice change would
> be to allow the umpire to say out caught but if not, out LBW. However you
> are once again trying to second guess the umpire about what he was thinking.
> Same as when you were trying to guess what the umpire was thinking when no
> hotspot, clear gap between bat and ball and not change in path/rotation of
> the ball led the 3rd umpire to confirm a howler.
Dechucka
Aug 11, 2013, 4:14:50 AM8/11/13
to
news:d46896f9-47a8-466a...@googlegroups.com...
So he must of thought it not out LBW as he didn't refer that :-)
> Yes a nice change would
> be to allow the umpire to say out caught but if not, out LBW. However you
> are once again trying to second guess the umpire about what he was
> thinking.
No I'm not. How dumb can you be? I'm saying that IF (see the IF here? Do you
understand what IF means?) the ump thinks 'it would have been LBW but for an
edge', then that's how DRS should treat it. At the moment it treats it as if
the ump thought it wouldn't have been Out LBW (ie the opposite of what the
umpire thinks)(IF - there's the IF again).
=====================================================================
try and untie your knickers I have suggested already a solution to this
> Same as when you were trying to guess what the umpire was thinking when no
> hotspot, clear gap between bat and ball and not change in path/rotation of
> the ball led the 3rd umpire to confirm a howler.
There was no clear gap, and there was a noise as the ball hit the bat.
Clearly out, no matter how much you twist it.
==================================================================
LOL you seem to be an army of one not seeing the 3rd umpire howler
On Sunday, August 11, 2013 12:59:45 PM UTC+10, Dechucka wrote:
> It was obvious everybody was appealing for caught.
There's no such thing as 'appealing for caught'. There's only appealing. All
modes of dismissal MUST be considered by the umpire.
==============================================================================
> It was obvious everybody was appealing for caught.
There's no such thing as 'appealing for caught'. There's only appealing. All
modes of dismissal MUST be considered by the umpire.
So he must of thought it not out LBW as he didn't refer that :-)
> Yes a nice change would
> be to allow the umpire to say out caught but if not, out LBW. However you
> are once again trying to second guess the umpire about what he was
> thinking.
No I'm not. How dumb can you be? I'm saying that IF (see the IF here? Do you
understand what IF means?) the ump thinks 'it would have been LBW but for an
edge', then that's how DRS should treat it. At the moment it treats it as if
the ump thought it wouldn't have been Out LBW (ie the opposite of what the
umpire thinks)(IF - there's the IF again).
try and untie your knickers I have suggested already a solution to this
> Same as when you were trying to guess what the umpire was thinking when no
> hotspot, clear gap between bat and ball and not change in path/rotation of
> the ball led the 3rd umpire to confirm a howler.
There was no clear gap, and there was a noise as the ball hit the bat.
Clearly out, no matter how much you twist it.
LOL you seem to be an army of one not seeing the 3rd umpire howler
jzfredricks
Aug 11, 2013, 4:36:48 AM8/11/13
to
On Sunday, August 11, 2013 6:14:50 PM UTC+10, Dechucka wrote:
> There's no such thing as 'appealing for caught'. There's only appealing. All
> modes of dismissal MUST be considered by the umpire.
>
> ==============================================================================
>
> So he must of thought it not out LBW as he didn't refer that :-)
Who the fuck is 'he'? What on earth are you talking about?
> There's no such thing as 'appealing for caught'. There's only appealing. All
> modes of dismissal MUST be considered by the umpire.
>
> ==============================================================================
>
> So he must of thought it not out LBW as he didn't refer that :-)
Dechucka
Aug 11, 2013, 6:24:38 AM8/11/13
to
news:c1b18cd3-6e66-40b7...@googlegroups.com...
Could it be the umpire on request of the Capt.?
jzfredricks
Aug 11, 2013, 6:52:14 AM8/11/13
to
On Sunday, August 11, 2013 8:24:38 PM UTC+10, Dechucka wrote:
> >> So he must of thought it not out LBW as he didn't refer that :-)
> > Who the fuck is 'he'? What on earth are you talking about?
> Could it be the umpire on request of the Capt.?
The umpire???
> >> So he must of thought it not out LBW as he didn't refer that :-)
> > Who the fuck is 'he'? What on earth are you talking about?
> Could it be the umpire on request of the Capt.?
When the main umpire refers it the 3rd umpire looks at ALL modes of dismissal, including LBW.
Both you are the DRS assume the umpire "thought it not out". Why are you assuming this?
My question is "what if the umpire though it was Out LBW if it wasn't for the edge (that was subsequently caught)?".
Dechucka
Aug 11, 2013, 4:00:42 PM8/11/13
to
news:5218dcd1-92ef-4b04...@googlegroups.com...
decision covers all forms of dismissal
>
> Both you are the DRS assume the umpire "thought it not out". Why are you
> assuming this?
>
> My question is "what if the umpire though it was Out LBW if it wasn't for
> the edge (that was subsequently caught)?".
What if he didn't?
as I said previously problem could easily be solve with communication
between the umpires
> On Sunday, August 11, 2013 8:24:38 PM UTC+10, Dechucka wrote:
>> >> So he must of thought it not out LBW as he didn't refer that :-)
>> > Who the fuck is 'he'? What on earth are you talking about?
>> Could it be the umpire on request of the Capt.?
>
> The umpire???
>
> When the main umpire refers it the 3rd umpire looks at ALL modes of
> dismissal, including LBW.
he makes a decision on ajj in one foul swoop? Are you suggesting the Umpires
>> >> So he must of thought it not out LBW as he didn't refer that :-)
>> > Who the fuck is 'he'? What on earth are you talking about?
>> Could it be the umpire on request of the Capt.?
>
> The umpire???
>
> When the main umpire refers it the 3rd umpire looks at ALL modes of
> dismissal, including LBW.
decision covers all forms of dismissal
>
> Both you are the DRS assume the umpire "thought it not out". Why are you
> assuming this?
>
> My question is "what if the umpire though it was Out LBW if it wasn't for
> the edge (that was subsequently caught)?".
as I said previously problem could easily be solve with communication
between the umpires
Geoff Muldoon
Aug 11, 2013, 7:17:59 PM8/11/13
to
jzfre...@gmail.com says...
>
> CI says this;
>
> "That's drinks and a chance to clarify that slightly confusing review from Rogers. He was given out caught behind, so Rogers reviewed that, replays showed he didn't hit it so he was not out on that count. Having not hit it, they then checked for lbw. Tony Hill didn't give Rogers out lbw so England needed three reds on Hawk Eye to get an overturn, umpire's call meant the decision stayed with Hill so Rogers was not out lbw too."
>
> Could someone PLEASE tell me CI are 100% wrong here.
>
> Surely once the Caught was ruled Out, Hill would have been asked (or considered himself) the question "if there was no edge, did I think it was LBW?".
>
> For all we bloody know Hill could have originally thought "man, that was plumb if he hadn't edged it"...
If it WAS plumb, then the DRS would have geiven him out. It wasn't.
It is equally as valid to believe that Hill thought "I believe too high
for LBW, but I believe he nicked it", and what's to say that he didn't
convey that to the TVMO? That is a conversation we are not privy to.
GM
>
> CI says this;
>
> "That's drinks and a chance to clarify that slightly confusing review from Rogers. He was given out caught behind, so Rogers reviewed that, replays showed he didn't hit it so he was not out on that count. Having not hit it, they then checked for lbw. Tony Hill didn't give Rogers out lbw so England needed three reds on Hawk Eye to get an overturn, umpire's call meant the decision stayed with Hill so Rogers was not out lbw too."
>
> Could someone PLEASE tell me CI are 100% wrong here.
>
> Surely once the Caught was ruled Out, Hill would have been asked (or considered himself) the question "if there was no edge, did I think it was LBW?".
>
> For all we bloody know Hill could have originally thought "man, that was plumb if he hadn't edged it"...
If it WAS plumb, then the DRS would have geiven him out. It wasn't.
It is equally as valid to believe that Hill thought "I believe too high
for LBW, but I believe he nicked it", and what's to say that he didn't
convey that to the TVMO? That is a conversation we are not privy to.
GM
Geoff Muldoon
Aug 11, 2013, 7:18:30 PM8/11/13
to
In article <ku60s6$upu$1...@news.datemas.de>, ca...@mia.com says...
> I may be wrong, but I always assumed that even pre-DRS appeals covered
> all forms of dismissal.
Appeals do. Decisions don't.
GM
> I may be wrong, but I always assumed that even pre-DRS appeals covered
> all forms of dismissal.
GM
jzfredricks
Aug 11, 2013, 7:32:51 PM8/11/13
to
On Monday, August 12, 2013 9:17:59 AM UTC+10, Geoff Muldoon wrote:
> It is equally as valid to believe that Hill thought "I believe too high
> for LBW, but I believe he nicked it"
Dechucka, is that you?
> It is equally as valid to believe that Hill thought "I believe too high
> for LBW, but I believe he nicked it"
I will address your 'equally valid' scenario if you do me the courtesy of addressing MY 'equally valid' scenario. Which you haven't. You've dismissed it by talking about YOUR scenario.
My scenario;
"Main ump says Out caught. I think it would be Out LBW if he didn't edge it. DRS shows no edge".
Your scenario:
"Main ump says Out caught. I think it would be Not Out LBW if he didn't edge it. DRS shows no edge".
Here DRS (xEye specifically) should treat it as if the main ump had given it Not Out, with respect to the burden of proof to overturn.
Over to you...
Unknown
Aug 11, 2013, 7:48:45 PM8/11/13
to
boxes as quickly as he can. He puts all the letters in his great big
sack, and whistles as he marches with his load upon his back.
max.it
Geoff Muldoon
Aug 11, 2013, 8:17:36 PM8/11/13
to
jzfre...@gmail.com says...
> I will address your 'equally valid' scenario if you do me the courtesy
> of addressing MY 'equally valid' scenario. Which you haven't. You've
> dismissed it by talking about YOUR scenario.
I haven't dismissed it, I've just postulated that it isn't the only
valid scenario. The point that I made is that we are not privy as to
whether Hill believed that an LBW appeal should be upheld.
Reading the details of the DRS protocol ...
3.3 (b):
"He will initiate communication with the third umpire by confirming the
decision that has been made ..."
.. does NOT appear to mandate that ONLY ONE method of dismissal can be
communicated by the on-field official.
But in this particular case ...
3.3 (f):
"... if the third umpire believes that the batsman may instead be out
... so the only inference that can be made is that Hill said "out
caught". And he MAY have explicitly said "out caught ONLY".
But I see nothing in the existing regulation to PREVENT him saying "out
caught on precedence, if not then LBW", except of course that in this
case the result of such a communication would have resulted in a raised
finger.
GM
> I will address your 'equally valid' scenario if you do me the courtesy
> of addressing MY 'equally valid' scenario. Which you haven't. You've
> dismissed it by talking about YOUR scenario.
valid scenario. The point that I made is that we are not privy as to
whether Hill believed that an LBW appeal should be upheld.
Reading the details of the DRS protocol ...
3.3 (b):
"He will initiate communication with the third umpire by confirming the
decision that has been made ..."
.. does NOT appear to mandate that ONLY ONE method of dismissal can be
communicated by the on-field official.
But in this particular case ...
3.3 (f):
"... if the third umpire believes that the batsman may instead be out
by any other mode of dismissal, he shall advise the on-field umpire
accordingly. The process of consultation described in this paragraph in
respect of such other mode of dismissal shall then be conducted as if
the batsman has been given not out."
accordingly. The process of consultation described in this paragraph in
respect of such other mode of dismissal shall then be conducted as if
... so the only inference that can be made is that Hill said "out
caught". And he MAY have explicitly said "out caught ONLY".
But I see nothing in the existing regulation to PREVENT him saying "out
caught on precedence, if not then LBW", except of course that in this
case the result of such a communication would have resulted in a raised
finger.
GM
Dechucka
Aug 11, 2013, 8:17:51 PM8/11/13
to
news:c0939319-cc81-44aa...@googlegroups.com...
>
> Your scenario:
> "Main ump says Out caught. I think it would be Not Out LBW if he didn't
> edge it. DRS shows no edge".
> Here DRS (xEye specifically) should treat it as if the main ump had given
> it Not Out, with respect to the burden of proof to overturn.
and he should have been not out in that scenario
>
> Over to you...
my scenario is:- Main ump " Did he get a nick" "Confirm he didn't, Thanks.
Bugger they'll be talking about me on RSC now" Changes decision
> On Monday, August 12, 2013 9:17:59 AM UTC+10, Geoff Muldoon wrote:
>> It is equally as valid to believe that Hill thought "I believe too high
>> for LBW, but I believe he nicked it"
>
> Dechucka, is that you?
>
> I will address your 'equally valid' scenario if you do me the courtesy of
> addressing MY 'equally valid' scenario. Which you haven't. You've
> dismissed it by talking about YOUR scenario.
>
> My scenario;
> "Main ump says Out caught. I think it would be Out LBW if he didn't edge
> it. DRS shows no edge".
and he should have been out in that scenario
>> It is equally as valid to believe that Hill thought "I believe too high
>> for LBW, but I believe he nicked it"
>
> Dechucka, is that you?
>
> I will address your 'equally valid' scenario if you do me the courtesy of
> addressing MY 'equally valid' scenario. Which you haven't. You've
> dismissed it by talking about YOUR scenario.
>
> My scenario;
> "Main ump says Out caught. I think it would be Out LBW if he didn't edge
> it. DRS shows no edge".
>
> Your scenario:
> "Main ump says Out caught. I think it would be Not Out LBW if he didn't
> edge it. DRS shows no edge".
> Here DRS (xEye specifically) should treat it as if the main ump had given
> it Not Out, with respect to the burden of proof to overturn.
>
> Over to you...
my scenario is:- Main ump " Did he get a nick" "Confirm he didn't, Thanks.
Bugger they'll be talking about me on RSC now" Changes decision
Dechucka
Aug 11, 2013, 8:19:22 PM8/11/13
to
"Geoff Muldoon" <geoff....@trap.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2c72d4a...@news.albasani.net...
jzfredricks
Aug 11, 2013, 8:46:00 PM8/11/13
to
On Monday, August 12, 2013 10:17:51 AM UTC+10, Dechucka wrote:
> > My scenario;
> > "Main ump says Out caught. I think it would be Out LBW if he didn't edge
> > it. DRS shows no edge".
>
> and he should have been out in that scenario
Finally. After asking 12 times, you answer.
> > My scenario;
> > "Main ump says Out caught. I think it would be Out LBW if he didn't edge
> > it. DRS shows no edge".
>
> and he should have been out in that scenario
With the current DRS this isn't the case, as it's taken as if he was given Not Out LBW *regardless* of what the umpire might have though w.r.t the LBW criteria.
I think those regulation should change. Or be clarified, as it's open to interpretation what "Not Out" means. But fuck me if I feel confident in being able to explain such esoteric issues with the likes of yourself.
jzfredricks
Aug 11, 2013, 8:56:06 PM8/11/13
to
On Monday, August 12, 2013 10:17:36 AM UTC+10, Geoff Muldoon wrote:
> I haven't dismissed it, I've just postulated that it isn't the only
> valid scenario.
ie dismissed it
> I haven't dismissed it, I've just postulated that it isn't the only
> valid scenario.
>The point that I made is that we are not privy as to
> whether Hill believed that an LBW appeal should be upheld.
> Reading the details of the DRS protocol ...
> .. does NOT appear to mandate that ONLY ONE method of dismissal can be
> communicated by the on-field official.
I think it would be unlikely for an umpire to say "he's Out LBW and Out Caught", mainly as per the Laws of Cricket precedence means you can only be Out one way.
> communicated by the on-field official.
But even ignoring the finer details of the Law...
my entire point is that the main ump SHOULD be able to communicate, or take into account, other methods of dismissal. ie "if he edged it, he's caught. If he didn't edge it he's LBW". The seems entirely fair to me and has been my main point through this entire thread.
> But in this particular case ...
> accordingly. The process of consultation described in this paragraph in
> respect of such other mode of dismissal shall then be conducted as if
> the batsman has been given not out."
> ... so the only inference that can be made is that Hill said "out
> caught". And he MAY have explicitly said "out caught ONLY".
Surely even you can understand that I'm no longer talking about the Roger's decision. I've said as much 3 or 4 times. I'm talking about how best to improve the DRS regulations so that the scenario I've described can't happen in the *future*.
> respect of such other mode of dismissal shall then be conducted as if
> the batsman has been given not out."
> ... so the only inference that can be made is that Hill said "out
> caught". And he MAY have explicitly said "out caught ONLY".
I am NOT talking about the Roger's decision, so there's no need to mention Hill anymore.
> But I see nothing in the existing regulation to PREVENT him saying "out
> caught on precedence, if not then LBW", except of course that in this
> case the result of such a communication would have resulted in a raised
> finger.
I'm sure this section will be re-written soon.
Unknown
Aug 11, 2013, 9:00:18 PM8/11/13
to
Dechucka
Aug 11, 2013, 9:39:54 PM8/11/13
to
news:9ce31587-1152-4da8...@googlegroups.com...
>
> With the current DRS this isn't the case, as it's taken as if he was given
> Not Out LBW *regardless* of what the umpire might have though w.r.t the
> LBW criteria.
yes those are the rules on DRS, if the Umpire thought he was out out LBW if
not for the nick then he should of said so
>
> I think those regulation should change. Or be clarified, as it's open to
> interpretation what "Not Out" means.
seem pretty well defined to me
>But fuck me if I feel confident in being able to explain such esoteric
>issues with the likes of yourself.
give it a try,
> On Monday, August 12, 2013 10:17:51 AM UTC+10, Dechucka wrote:
>> > My scenario;
>> > "Main ump says Out caught. I think it would be Out LBW if he didn't
>> > edge
>> > it. DRS shows no edge".
>>
>> and he should have been out in that scenario
>
> Finally. After asking 12 times, you answer.
answered numerous times
>> > My scenario;
>> > "Main ump says Out caught. I think it would be Out LBW if he didn't
>> > edge
>> > it. DRS shows no edge".
>>
>> and he should have been out in that scenario
>
> Finally. After asking 12 times, you answer.
>
> With the current DRS this isn't the case, as it's taken as if he was given
> Not Out LBW *regardless* of what the umpire might have though w.r.t the
> LBW criteria.
not for the nick then he should of said so
>
> I think those regulation should change. Or be clarified, as it's open to
> interpretation what "Not Out" means.
>But fuck me if I feel confident in being able to explain such esoteric
>issues with the likes of yourself.
Dechucka
Aug 11, 2013, 9:42:48 PM8/11/13
to
news:17bc9dd2-e198-4431...@googlegroups.com...
Exactly so stop trying to guess what HE was thinking
> Reading the details of the DRS protocol ...
> .. does NOT appear to mandate that ONLY ONE method of dismissal can be
> communicated by the on-field official.
I think it would be unlikely for an umpire to say "he's Out LBW and Out
Caught", mainly as per the Laws of Cricket precedence means you can only be
Out one way.
But even ignoring the finer details of the Law...
my entire point is that the main ump SHOULD be able to communicate, or take
into account, other methods of dismissal. ie "if he edged it, he's caught.
If he didn't edge it he's LBW". The seems entirely fair to me and has been
my main point through this entire thread.
===============================================
nothing says he can't
> But in this particular case ...
> accordingly. The process of consultation described in this paragraph in
> respect of such other mode of dismissal shall then be conducted as if
> the batsman has been given not out."
> ... so the only inference that can be made is that Hill said "out
> caught". And he MAY have explicitly said "out caught ONLY".
Surely even you can understand that I'm no longer talking about the Roger's
decision. I've said as much 3 or 4 times. I'm talking about how best to
improve the DRS regulations so that the scenario I've described can't happen
in the *future*.
I am NOT talking about the Roger's decision, so there's no need to mention
Hill anymore.
===============================================
moved on because you were wrong, good idea
On Monday, August 12, 2013 10:17:36 AM UTC+10, Geoff Muldoon wrote:
> I haven't dismissed it, I've just postulated that it isn't the only
> valid scenario.
ie dismissed it
>The point that I made is that we are not privy as to
> whether Hill believed that an LBW appeal should be upheld.
Only 1 person on the planet has to know what the main umpire is thinking -
the main umpire. The 3rd umpire reports back facts, and the main ump
re-makes the decision.
=========================================
> I haven't dismissed it, I've just postulated that it isn't the only
> valid scenario.
ie dismissed it
>The point that I made is that we are not privy as to
> whether Hill believed that an LBW appeal should be upheld.
Only 1 person on the planet has to know what the main umpire is thinking -
the main umpire. The 3rd umpire reports back facts, and the main ump
re-makes the decision.
Exactly so stop trying to guess what HE was thinking
> Reading the details of the DRS protocol ...
> .. does NOT appear to mandate that ONLY ONE method of dismissal can be
> communicated by the on-field official.
I think it would be unlikely for an umpire to say "he's Out LBW and Out
Caught", mainly as per the Laws of Cricket precedence means you can only be
Out one way.
But even ignoring the finer details of the Law...
my entire point is that the main ump SHOULD be able to communicate, or take
into account, other methods of dismissal. ie "if he edged it, he's caught.
If he didn't edge it he's LBW". The seems entirely fair to me and has been
my main point through this entire thread.
nothing says he can't
> But in this particular case ...
> accordingly. The process of consultation described in this paragraph in
> respect of such other mode of dismissal shall then be conducted as if
> the batsman has been given not out."
> ... so the only inference that can be made is that Hill said "out
> caught". And he MAY have explicitly said "out caught ONLY".
Surely even you can understand that I'm no longer talking about the Roger's
decision. I've said as much 3 or 4 times. I'm talking about how best to
improve the DRS regulations so that the scenario I've described can't happen
in the *future*.
I am NOT talking about the Roger's decision, so there's no need to mention
Hill anymore.
moved on because you were wrong, good idea
Andrew Dunford
Aug 11, 2013, 9:49:09 PM8/11/13
to
"Dechucka" <Dechu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:T5mdnX9WgLhloZXP...@westnet.com.au...
>
> "jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9ce31587-1152-4da8...@googlegroups.com...
>> On Monday, August 12, 2013 10:17:51 AM UTC+10, Dechucka wrote:
>>> > My scenario;
>>> > "Main ump says Out caught. I think it would be Out LBW if he didn't
>>> > edge
>>> > it. DRS shows no edge".
>>>
>>> and he should have been out in that scenario
>>
>> Finally. After asking 12 times, you answer.
>
> answered numerous times
>
>>
>> With the current DRS this isn't the case, as it's taken as if he was
>> given Not Out LBW *regardless* of what the umpire might have though w.r.t
>> the LBW criteria.
>
> yes those are the rules on DRS, if the Umpire thought he was out out LBW
> if not for the nick then he should of said so
Not especially realistic. If - as in the Rogers case - the umpire doesn't
> "jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9ce31587-1152-4da8...@googlegroups.com...
>> On Monday, August 12, 2013 10:17:51 AM UTC+10, Dechucka wrote:
>>> > My scenario;
>>> > "Main ump says Out caught. I think it would be Out LBW if he didn't
>>> > edge
>>> > it. DRS shows no edge".
>>>
>>> and he should have been out in that scenario
>>
>> Finally. After asking 12 times, you answer.
>
> answered numerous times
>
>>
>> With the current DRS this isn't the case, as it's taken as if he was
>> given Not Out LBW *regardless* of what the umpire might have though w.r.t
>> the LBW criteria.
>
> yes those are the rules on DRS, if the Umpire thought he was out out LBW
> if not for the nick then he should of said so
think the ball hit the pad, how is he going to judge whether the batsman was
hit in line with the stumps?
<snip>
Andrew
jzfredricks
Aug 11, 2013, 9:52:08 PM8/11/13
to
On Monday, August 12, 2013 11:39:54 AM UTC+10, Dechucka wrote:
> > Finally. After asking 12 times, you answer.
> answered numerous times
Not answered once.
> > Finally. After asking 12 times, you answer.
> answered numerous times
> > With the current DRS this isn't the case, as it's taken as if he was given
> > Not Out LBW *regardless* of what the umpire might have though w.r.t the
> > LBW criteria.
>
> yes those are the rules on DRS, if the Umpire thought he was out out LBW if
> not for the nick then he should of said so
The regulations say "The process of consultation described in this paragraph in respect of such other mode of dismissal shall then be conducted as if the batsman has been given not out".
> > I think those regulation should change. Or be clarified, as it's open to
> > interpretation what "Not Out" means.
>
> seem pretty well defined to me
1) The MoE at stumps changes based on the original call. For this treat it as Not Out. The umpire's thoughts on Where It Pitched, Where it Struck, and Did it Hit the Stumps remain unchanged.
2) The MoE at stumps changes based on the original call. For this treat it as Not Out. The umpire's thoughts on Where It Pitched, Where it Struck, and Did it Hit the Stumps shall also treated as if Not Out.
With the former, we can have the situation where xEye would show THREE "umpire's call decisions" and the result would be Out.
With the latter, a SINGLE "umpire's call" means that it will ALWAYS result in a Not Out.
jzfredricks
Aug 11, 2013, 9:52:57 PM8/11/13
to
On Monday, August 12, 2013 11:42:48 AM UTC+10, Dechucka wrote:
> Only 1 person on the planet has to know what the main umpire is thinking -
> the main umpire. The 3rd umpire reports back facts, and the main ump
> re-makes the decision.
>
> =========================================
>
> Exactly so stop trying to guess what HE was thinking
You truly are an idiot. Of the highest order.
> Only 1 person on the planet has to know what the main umpire is thinking -
> the main umpire. The 3rd umpire reports back facts, and the main ump
> re-makes the decision.
>
> =========================================
>
> Exactly so stop trying to guess what HE was thinking
Dechucka
Aug 11, 2013, 9:56:30 PM8/11/13
to
"Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifax.net> wrote in message
news:b6qt8r...@mid.individual.net...
which the umpire obviously thought was the case so didn't consider LBW. I've
in fact had an umpire say to me when he was asked how the batsman was out
'Caught if he reckons he hit it LB if he reckons he didn't. Let him decide'
Dechucka
Aug 11, 2013, 10:03:21 PM8/11/13
to
news:d7b3fd04-5f47-46d4...@googlegroups.com...
why the ad hom?
jzfredricks
Aug 11, 2013, 10:04:19 PM8/11/13
to
On Monday, August 12, 2013 11:56:30 AM UTC+10, Dechucka wrote:
> > Not especially realistic. If - as in the Rogers case - the umpire doesn't
> > think the ball hit the pad, how is he going to judge whether the batsman
> > was hit in line with the stumps?
>
> the ball obviously did hit the pad
It's almost as if you lose vast quantities of brain cells with each keystroke...
> > Not especially realistic. If - as in the Rogers case - the umpire doesn't
> > think the ball hit the pad, how is he going to judge whether the batsman
> > was hit in line with the stumps?
>
> the ball obviously did hit the pad
In the Roger's case (which I'm reluctant to mention) it wasn't obvious to HILL that the ball hit the pad. It was obvious to HILL that it hit the bat. He just happened to be wrong.
jzfredricks
Aug 11, 2013, 10:04:58 PM8/11/13
to
On Monday, August 12, 2013 12:03:21 PM UTC+10, Dechucka wrote:
> > You truly are an idiot. Of the highest order.
> why the ad hom?
Because you're a fucking idiot and it's all you deserve.
> > You truly are an idiot. Of the highest order.
> why the ad hom?
Geoff Muldoon
Aug 11, 2013, 10:15:11 PM8/11/13
to
jzfre...@gmail.com says...
> Only 1 person on the planet has to know what the main umpire is
> thinking - the main umpire. The 3rd umpire reports back facts, and the
> main ump re-makes the decision.
And there's nothing in the regulations to stop the on-field umpire from
conveying ALL his thoughts to the TVMO.
> > Reading the details of the DRS protocol ...
> > .. does NOT appear to mandate that ONLY ONE method of dismissal can be
> > communicated by the on-field official.
> I think it would be unlikely for an umpire to say "he's Out LBW and
> Out Caught", mainly as per the Laws of Cricket precedence means you
> can only be Out one way.
You can only be "given" out one way. That doesn't mean that
communications on the reasoning for the decision cannot be multifaceted.
> my entire point is that the main ump SHOULD be able to communicate, or
> take into account, other methods of dismissal. ie "if he edged it,
> he's caught. If he didn't edge it he's LBW". The seems entirely fair
> to me and has been my main point through this entire thread.
Agreed. And I see no impediment to this happening under the regulations
as they currently stand.
> You see nothing? Not even the bit you posted re 3.3(f)?
No. "any other mode of dismissal" can relate to modes not covered by the
on-field umpire's communication to the TVMO. Note the plural "modes",
because I do NOT believe 3.3(b) explicitly restricts it to just one.
> A batsman CANNOT be given Out two ways. 3.3f means that all OTHER
> modes of dismissal should be treated as if given Not Out for those
> modes.
Because of your interpretation of the wording of 3.3(b), not mine.
> I'm sure this section will be re-written soon.
I'm not so sure it needs it. But I Am Not A Lawyer. If you (or a lawyer)
insist 3.3(b) must state one and one only dismissal method, then
certainly, yes fix it.
GM
> Only 1 person on the planet has to know what the main umpire is
> thinking - the main umpire. The 3rd umpire reports back facts, and the
> main ump re-makes the decision.
conveying ALL his thoughts to the TVMO.
> > Reading the details of the DRS protocol ...
> > .. does NOT appear to mandate that ONLY ONE method of dismissal can be
> > communicated by the on-field official.
> I think it would be unlikely for an umpire to say "he's Out LBW and
> Out Caught", mainly as per the Laws of Cricket precedence means you
> can only be Out one way.
communications on the reasoning for the decision cannot be multifaceted.
> my entire point is that the main ump SHOULD be able to communicate, or
> take into account, other methods of dismissal. ie "if he edged it,
> he's caught. If he didn't edge it he's LBW". The seems entirely fair
> to me and has been my main point through this entire thread.
as they currently stand.
> You see nothing? Not even the bit you posted re 3.3(f)?
on-field umpire's communication to the TVMO. Note the plural "modes",
because I do NOT believe 3.3(b) explicitly restricts it to just one.
> A batsman CANNOT be given Out two ways. 3.3f means that all OTHER
> modes of dismissal should be treated as if given Not Out for those
> modes.
> I'm sure this section will be re-written soon.
insist 3.3(b) must state one and one only dismissal method, then
certainly, yes fix it.
GM
Dechucka
Aug 11, 2013, 10:17:46 PM8/11/13
to
news:0beec2b7-ad4e-4e2a...@googlegroups.com...
the
decision that has been made" No reason I can see that his decision could not
be "Out caught if he nicked, LBW if he didn't" How the umpire is told to
interpret the sub section who knows but clarification should be made to
allow that type of comment
> On Monday, August 12, 2013 11:39:54 AM UTC+10, Dechucka wrote:
>> > Finally. After asking 12 times, you answer.
>> answered numerous times
>
> Not answered once.
>
>> > With the current DRS this isn't the case, as it's taken as if he was
>> > given
>> > Not Out LBW *regardless* of what the umpire might have though w.r.t the
>> > LBW criteria.
>>
>> yes those are the rules on DRS, if the Umpire thought he was out out LBW
>> if
>> not for the nick then he should of said so
>
> I don't think he's ALLOWED to say so. Or if he is/does, it's contrary to
> the regulations.
"3.3 b He will initiate communication with the third umpire by confirming
>> > Finally. After asking 12 times, you answer.
>> answered numerous times
>
> Not answered once.
>
>> > With the current DRS this isn't the case, as it's taken as if he was
>> > given
>> > Not Out LBW *regardless* of what the umpire might have though w.r.t the
>> > LBW criteria.
>>
>> yes those are the rules on DRS, if the Umpire thought he was out out LBW
>> if
>> not for the nick then he should of said so
>
> I don't think he's ALLOWED to say so. Or if he is/does, it's contrary to
> the regulations.
the
decision that has been made" No reason I can see that his decision could not
be "Out caught if he nicked, LBW if he didn't" How the umpire is told to
interpret the sub section who knows but clarification should be made to
allow that type of comment
Dechucka
Aug 11, 2013, 10:19:52 PM8/11/13
to
news:02e3b7e2-8a22-4cbf...@googlegroups.com...
and I thought we were having a ng discussion to enlighten each other of our
pov, you seem to resort to ad hom attacks if everyone doesn't agree with
you.
pov, you seem to resort to ad hom attacks if everyone doesn't agree with
you.
Dechucka
Aug 11, 2013, 10:25:02 PM8/11/13
to
news:d4e8c4b0-fa92-4105...@googlegroups.com...
OK if that is the case no wonder he didn't consider LBW and the whole matter
goes to the protocol which was followed
goes to the protocol which was followed
jzfredricks
Aug 11, 2013, 10:37:26 PM8/11/13
to
On Monday, August 12, 2013 12:15:11 PM UTC+10, Geoff Muldoon wrote:
> And there's nothing in the regulations to stop the on-field umpire from
> conveying ALL his thoughts to the TVMO.
<snipped and read the rest, this is my reply>
> And there's nothing in the regulations to stop the on-field umpire from
> conveying ALL his thoughts to the TVMO.
I think there is, though. It's another poorly written section of the regulations. Surprise surprise.
"2.2 Caught Decisions
In the event of an appeal for a caught decision:
a) Clean Catches
i Should the bowler’s end umpire be unable to decide whether or not a catch was
taken cleanly, he shall first consult with the square leg umpire.
... snipped...
iv. When reviewing the TV replay(s), if the third umpire believes that the batsman
may instead be out by any other mode of dismissal, beyond that initially
consulted upon, he shall initiate the process described in paragraph 3.3 below
as if the batsman has been given not out. This will not count as a Player
Review for the purposes of paragraph 3.5."
Two important sections;
1) "In the event of an appeal for a caught decision"
2) "any other mode of dismissal, beyond that initially consulted upon"
Of course any of these possible flaws could be negated by the "common sense" clause in the pre-face. Does anyone think that's happening? I don't.
Re "In the event of an appeal for a caught decision". That's also in serious need of a re-write.
jzfredricks
Aug 11, 2013, 10:41:50 PM8/11/13
to
On Monday, August 12, 2013 12:19:52 PM UTC+10, Dechucka wrote:
> > Because you're a fucking idiot and it's all you deserve.
> and I thought we were having a ng discussion to enlighten each other
No. I'm talking with an idiot, who is incapable of rational thought.
> > Because you're a fucking idiot and it's all you deserve.
> and I thought we were having a ng discussion to enlighten each other
How on earth you take "if the umpire thinks ABC, he should do XYZ" as an attempt by me to read someone's mind is totally beyond me. I can't even begin to imagine how you came to the conclusion that I'm trying to read his mind.
The mental gymnastics are beyond me. You must be favourite for gold at the Paralympics.
Dechucka
Aug 11, 2013, 11:08:27 PM8/11/13
to
news:5f910677-65d7-4ed1...@googlegroups.com...
agreement that the umpire should be able to refer as ' if x is not out than
I consider the batsman out y' (IF this is not already the sase) this should
be communicated to the batsman and fielding Capt. at the time of the
referral
>I can't even begin to imagine how you came to the conclusion that I'm
>trying to read his mind.
>
> The mental gymnastics are beyond me.
obviously
> On Monday, August 12, 2013 12:19:52 PM UTC+10, Dechucka wrote:
>> > Because you're a fucking idiot and it's all you deserve.
>> and I thought we were having a ng discussion to enlighten each other
>
> No. I'm talking with an idiot, who is incapable of rational thought.
>
> How on earth you take "if the umpire thinks ABC, he should do XYZ" as an
> attempt by me to read someone's mind is totally beyond me.
because you're guessing what the umpire was thinking. Anyhow we are in broad
>> > Because you're a fucking idiot and it's all you deserve.
>> and I thought we were having a ng discussion to enlighten each other
>
> No. I'm talking with an idiot, who is incapable of rational thought.
>
> How on earth you take "if the umpire thinks ABC, he should do XYZ" as an
> attempt by me to read someone's mind is totally beyond me.
agreement that the umpire should be able to refer as ' if x is not out than
I consider the batsman out y' (IF this is not already the sase) this should
be communicated to the batsman and fielding Capt. at the time of the
referral
>I can't even begin to imagine how you came to the conclusion that I'm
>trying to read his mind.
>
> The mental gymnastics are beyond me.
jzfredricks
Aug 12, 2013, 2:22:19 AM8/12/13
to
On Monday, August 12, 2013 1:08:27 PM UTC+10, Dechucka wrote:
> > How on earth you take "if the umpire thinks ABC, he should do XYZ" as an
> > attempt by me to read someone's mind is totally beyond me.
>
> because you're guessing what the umpire was thinking.
No I'm not. You are again display an impressive lack of intelligence.
> > How on earth you take "if the umpire thinks ABC, he should do XYZ" as an
> > attempt by me to read someone's mind is totally beyond me.
>
> because you're guessing what the umpire was thinking.
I am saying IF THE UMPIRE THINKS ABC...
The umpire will know if he, the umpire, thinks ABC...
For you to again say that I'm trying to read minds openly displays how fucking stupid you are.
Dechucka
Aug 12, 2013, 3:52:02 AM8/12/13
to
news:36ebba4a-6b64-45dc...@googlegroups.com...
> On Monday, August 12, 2013 1:08:27 PM UTC+10, Dechucka wrote:
>> > How on earth you take "if the umpire thinks ABC, he should do XYZ" as
>> > an
>> > attempt by me to read someone's mind is totally beyond me.
>>
>> because you're guessing what the umpire was thinking.
>
> No I'm not. You are again display an impressive lack of intelligence.
>
> I am saying IF THE UMPIRE THINKS ABC...
fine but remember IF my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle
>> > How on earth you take "if the umpire thinks ABC, he should do XYZ" as
>> > an
>> > attempt by me to read someone's mind is totally beyond me.
>>
>> because you're guessing what the umpire was thinking.
>
> No I'm not. You are again display an impressive lack of intelligence.
>
> I am saying IF THE UMPIRE THINKS ABC...
jzfredricks
Aug 12, 2013, 3:57:26 AM8/12/13
to
On Monday, August 12, 2013 5:52:02 PM UTC+10, Dechucka wrote:
> > I am saying IF THE UMPIRE THINKS ABC...
> fine
Awesome. It took you 100 posts to finally understand what 'if' means.
> > I am saying IF THE UMPIRE THINKS ABC...
> fine
Can you try to do it in 50 next time?
Dechucka
Aug 12, 2013, 4:35:20 AM8/12/13
to
news:cd04c517-f43a-44a0...@googlegroups.com...
LOL you are funny
The umpire was correct in law. As you claimed he thought it hit the bat not
the pad so all your carry on that he may of thought it was out LB if it
wasn't caught is crap
The umpire was correct in law. As you claimed he thought it hit the bat not
the pad so all your carry on that he may of thought it was out LB if it
wasn't caught is crap
jzfredricks
Aug 12, 2013, 4:58:05 AM8/12/13
to
On Monday, August 12, 2013 6:35:20 PM UTC+10, Dechucka wrote:
> The umpire was correct in law. As you claimed he thought it hit the bat not
> the pad so all your carry on that he may of thought it was out LB if it
> wasn't caught is crap
How dumb can you be? Quite, it seems.
> The umpire was correct in law. As you claimed he thought it hit the bat not
> the pad so all your carry on that he may of thought it was out LB if it
> wasn't caught is crap
I'm not talking about the Roger decision. I'm talking about future decisions.
Dechucka
Aug 12, 2013, 5:41:27 AM8/12/13
to
news:90d869e7-7763-4499...@googlegroups.com...
I've solved that problem.
Of course this thread started with
"Surely once the Caught was ruled Out, Hill would have been asked (or
considered himself) the question "if there was no edge, did I think it was
LBW?".
For all we bloody know Hill could have originally thought "man, that was
plumb if he hadn't edged it"..."
Of course this thread started with
"Surely once the Caught was ruled Out, Hill would have been asked (or
considered himself) the question "if there was no edge, did I think it was
LBW?".
For all we bloody know Hill could have originally thought "man, that was
plumb if he hadn't edged it"..."
jzfredricks
Aug 12, 2013, 5:59:13 AM8/12/13
to
On Monday, August 12, 2013 7:41:27 PM UTC+10, Dechucka wrote:
> Of course this thread started with
Of course I've said many times after that that this is not about the Roger's decision, but rather future ones.
> Of course this thread started with
I think you might be drooling on your keyboard.
Dechucka
Aug 12, 2013, 4:24:50 PM8/12/13
to
news:suKdnQ4oPKRKMJXP...@westnet.com.au...
Well as you claimed he felt it hit his bat
.......................................
anyhow how it isn't currently a problem but maybe clarification is needed
.......................................
anyhow how it isn't currently a problem but maybe clarification is needed
0 new messages