'There was no appeal' - Australia denied run out in bizarre scenes

[FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer]

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/aus-vs-wi-2nd-t20i-australia-denied-run-out-in-bizarre-scenes-1420752

'There was no appeal' - Australia denied run out in bizarre scenes

Briefly there were heated scenes when replays showed Joseph well short
of his ground with the home side insisting they had appealed

Australia were denied a run out in bizarre circumstances during the
closing stages of the second T20I against West Indies in Adelaide when
umpire Gerard Abood ruled they had not appealed.

In the 19th over, Alzarri Joseph drove to cover and ran. Mitchell Marsh
collected the ball and threw it to Spencer Johnson who broke the stumps.
There was very little excitement from the fielders, with Johnson
immediately making his way back to his mark and Marsh looking frustrated
he had not made a direct hit.

On the TV coverage, Abood can be heard saying, seemingly to the TV
umpire over his radio: "No appeal."

The replay was then shown on the big screen with Joseph clearly out of
his ground and the Australians started to celebrate, but Abood stood by
his view there was no appeal and it could not now be made.

The players started to gather around Abood, who said: "Stop, stop,
stop…there was no appeal."

Tim David could be heard insisting he had appealed. Tempers started to
fray, with one voice heard saying "this is ridiculous." David Warner
could be heard saying, "it's an umpire error."

With the players remonstrating, Abood says: "Can we get on with the
game, guys…guys we are getting into real poor territory."

Eventually, Johnson sent down the next delivery and the game drew to its
conclusion.

Law 31.3, timing of appeals, states: "For an appeal to be valid, it must
be made before the bowler begins his/her run-up or, if there is no
run-up, his/her bowling action to deliver the next ball, and before Time
has been called."

There is no specific reference to an appeal coming after a replay has
been shown on the big screen, although there are protocols around
replays not going onto the screen for appeals that may involve the DRS
until the 15 seconds have elapsed.

There was an occurrence in the recent Australia-South Africa women's ODI
series where Australia were denied the chance to review an lbw against
Chloe Tryon because the replay had already been put on the screen.

The incident in Adelaide did not impact the result of the game which
Australia won by 34 runs.

[max.it]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 06:02:02 -0800, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
<FBInCIAnNSATe...@america.com> wrote:

>Gerard Abood


https://www.cricket.com.au/videos/3890872/incredible-scenes-as-no-appeal-deems-run-out-void

max.it

[FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer]

Bowler and wicket keeper DIDN'T appeal.

Donno IF other players appealed and the umpire is required to give it
out IF they did.

[John Hall]

In message <07647d2c-c4a0-4a77...@america.com>,
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer <FBInCIAnNSATe...@america.com>
writes

>On 2/11/2024 10:47 AM, max.it wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 06:02:02 -0800, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
>> <FBInCIAnNSATe...@america.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Gerard Abood
>>
>>https://www.cricket.com.au/videos/3890872/incredible-scenes-as-no-appea
>>l-deems-run-out-void
>> max.it
>

I've never heard before of nobody appealing for a potential run-out.
It's happened very occasionally when a subsequent replay showed the
batsman would have been plumb lbw, though.

>
>
>Bowler and wicket keeper DIDN'T appeal.
>
>Donno IF other players appealed and the umpire is required to give it
>out IF they did.

AIUI, the umpire is required to respond to an appeal be any member of
the fielding side. I suppose if the only fielder who appealed was at
third man, say, then it's possible that the umpire might not hear the
appeal.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

[jack fredricks]

On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 8:08:46 PM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
> AIUI, the umpire is required to respond to an appeal be any member of
> the fielding side. I suppose if the only fielder who appealed was at
> third man, say, then it's possible that the umpire might not hear the
> appeal.

It looks to me like this umpire thought he'd be fancy and show off his knowledge of the Laws or something like that.
I find it hard to believe NO ONE appealed with such a close run out attempt.

OTOH... if you were a fielder and appealed, surely you'd look for a response eg Not Out, Out. There seemed to be a big nothing until replays showed it was Out (or would've been).

[max.it]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 09:58:38 +0000, John Hall
<john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <07647d2c-c4a0-4a77...@america.com>,
>FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer <FBInCIAnNSATe...@america.com>
>writes
>>On 2/11/2024 10:47 AM, max.it wrote:
>>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 06:02:02 -0800, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
>>> <FBInCIAnNSATe...@america.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gerard Abood
>>>
>>>https://www.cricket.com.au/videos/3890872/incredible-scenes-as-no-appea
>>>l-deems-run-out-void
>>> max.it
>>
>
>I've never heard before of nobody appealing for a potential run-out.
>It's happened very occasionally when a subsequent replay showed the
>batsman would have been plumb lbw, though.
>
>>
>>
>>Bowler and wicket keeper DIDN'T appeal.
>>
>>Donno IF other players appealed and the umpire is required to give it
>>out IF they did.
>
>AIUI, the umpire is required to respond to an appeal be any member of
>the fielding side. I suppose if the only fielder who appealed was at
>third man, say, then it's possible that the umpire might not hear the
>appeal.
>
>

If an appeal is made the umpire has to answer if it falls within his
jurisdiction. An appeal can be almost anything from 'howsthat' to
jumping around in front of the umpire arm waving and spluttering.

If you are umpire and you think that there has been no appeal the
first thing you do is call dead ball and have a chat with your
colleague. Maybe he heard an appeal or maybe a player appealed
directly to him. Such an appeal would still be valid and would still
have to be answered.

Warner said it was an 'umpire error'. He didn't appeal either.

max.it

[miked]

AIUI the next ball hadnt been delivered etc, and i thought until the
bowler or umpire has the ball, its not yet 'dead' so they could appeal
still. But as Abood is oz himself if he didnt hear an appeal, then he
didnt hear but there are 2 umpires, cant either give a batter out?

I remember playing in a match where the umpire wore
hearing aids, everytime anyone said anything, he would say
"what? what?, what what?" It was like that woman in Farty towels.

ofcors its a bit dodgy to appeal after a replay has been shown but is
there a reg that specifically bans this? I think there was 1 test
in the 2019 ashes, where the oz players/staff off the field were
caught signalling to the batters they should review a decision.
Is that specifically banned too?

Opposite case happened i think in the bombay test where beefy took 13,
Boycott was given out but ignored the umpire and went on batting.

mike

[Mad Hamish]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 17:45:57 +0000, dmik...@yahoo.co.uk (miked)
wrote:

There's not
The playing conditions reproduce the "when can you appeal" without any
modifications

[David North]

On 14/02/2024 10:41, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 8:08:46 PM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
>> AIUI, the umpire is required to respond to an appeal be any member of
>> the fielding side. I suppose if the only fielder who appealed was at
>> third man, say, then it's possible that the umpire might not hear the
>> appeal.
>
> It looks to me like this umpire thought he'd be fancy and show off his knowledge of the Laws or something like that.
> I find it hard to believe NO ONE appealed with such a close run out attempt.
>
> OTOH... if you were a fielder and appealed, surely you'd look for a response eg Not Out, Out.

... or in a match with a 3rd umpire, the almost inevitable signal for a
review unless it's very clearly out or not out. It should be obvious
that the signal hadn't been given if the fielder was looking for it.

> There seemed to be a big nothing until replays showed it was Out (or would've been).

He was out, but not dismissed.

The replay shows Abood looking around the field, presumably for an
appeal because he hadn't heard one.

--
David North

[jack fredricks]

On Friday, February 16, 2024 at 6:20:13 AM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> The replay shows Abood looking around the field, presumably for an
> appeal because he hadn't heard one.

If a fielder Bob did appeal, and then subsequently the umpire was looking around at other fielders, I'm not too sure if it's fair to expect Bob to know;

1. the umpire didn't hear Bob's own appeal
2. the umpire is looking around to see if anyone was going to appeal

I'm not sure what the best natural justice here is.
If the umpire doesn't hear an appeal, so be it. Umpiring is never perfect. The hope with umpiring is any mistakes even out over time. Sometimes things go your way, some times they don't.

This issue was complicated by the TV replay.
ICC playing conditions should be updated to say;

1. an appeal, or drs referral, can't happen after at ground replays are shown
2. at ground replays can't be shown until the 15 seconds for DRS have passed, or it has been referred to DRS.
3. at ground replays can't be shown until the option to appeal is over, eg next ball delivered or session ended. Unless a wicket has fallen, obviously.

#1 and #2 might seem redundant, but it's there to stop home ground advantage by showing replays too early.

[Mad Hamish]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 15:29:11 -0800 (PST), jack fredricks
<jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, February 16, 2024 at 6:20:13?AM UTC+10, David North wrote:
>> The replay shows Abood looking around the field, presumably for an
>> appeal because he hadn't heard one.
>
>If a fielder Bob did appeal, and then subsequently the umpire was looking around at other fielders, I'm not too sure if it's fair to expect Bob to know;
>
>1. the umpire didn't hear Bob's own appeal
>2. the umpire is looking around to see if anyone was going to appeal
>
>I'm not sure what the best natural justice here is.
>If the umpire doesn't hear an appeal, so be it. Umpiring is never perfect. The hope with umpiring is any mistakes even out over time. Sometimes things go your way, some times they don't.
>
>This issue was complicated by the TV replay.
>ICC playing conditions should be updated to say;
>
>1. an appeal, or drs referral, can't happen after at ground replays are shown
>2. at ground replays can't be shown until the 15 seconds for DRS have passed, or it has been referred to DRS.

2) is already in the playing conditions

DRS time starts after the umpire makes a decision, so only after the
appeal happens
The players can't do a DRS appeal for runout, iirc, so there's no
effective restriction on runout replays (except under the "an appeal
covers all modes of dismissal" I guess, but in a standard runout
appeal you'd be struggling to argue that it's really looking at
anything else, normally people will appeal for lbw before there's the
runout chance for instance)

[jack fredricks]

On Friday, February 16, 2024 at 11:15:35 AM UTC+10, Mad Hamish wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 15:29:11 -0800 (PST), jack fredricks
> <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Friday, February 16, 2024 at 6:20:13?AM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> >> The replay shows Abood looking around the field, presumably for an
> >> appeal because he hadn't heard one.
> >
> >If a fielder Bob did appeal, and then subsequently the umpire was looking around at other fielders, I'm not too sure if it's fair to expect Bob to know;
> >
> >1. the umpire didn't hear Bob's own appeal
> >2. the umpire is looking around to see if anyone was going to appeal
> >
> >I'm not sure what the best natural justice here is.
> >If the umpire doesn't hear an appeal, so be it. Umpiring is never perfect. The hope with umpiring is any mistakes even out over time. Sometimes things go your way, some times they don't.
> >
> >This issue was complicated by the TV replay.
> >ICC playing conditions should be updated to say;
> >
> >1. an appeal, or drs referral, can't happen after at ground replays are shown
> >2. at ground replays can't be shown until the 15 seconds for DRS have passed, or it has been referred to DRS.
> 2) is already in the playing conditions

Yeah. I really meant they should actually FOLLOW that regulation;

https://crickettimes.com/2020/12/heres-why-virat-kohlis-drs-appeal-was-denied-by-umpire-in-3rd-t20i-against-australia/

Also happened in a recent women's match, although as I don't really follow women's cricket I'm not too sure of the players involved.

Replay operators at the ground must have trigger fingers if they can organise and start a replay before the DRS timer has finished!

> DRS time starts after the umpire makes a decision, so only after the
> appeal happens
> The players can't do a DRS appeal for runout, iirc, so there's no
> effective restriction on runout replays (except under the "an appeal
> covers all modes of dismissal" I guess, but in a standard runout
> appeal you'd be struggling to argue that it's really looking at
> anything else, normally people will appeal for lbw before there's the
> runout chance for instance)

Ok, so for this there's no DRS timer. Goto rule #3.

[David North]

On 16/02/2024 01:15, Mad Hamish wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 15:29:11 -0800 (PST), jack fredricks
> <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, February 16, 2024 at 6:20:13?AM UTC+10, David North wrote:
>>> The replay shows Abood looking around the field, presumably for an
>>> appeal because he hadn't heard one.
>>
>> If a fielder Bob did appeal, and then subsequently the umpire was looking around at other fielders, I'm not too sure if it's fair to expect Bob to know;
>>
>> 1. the umpire didn't hear Bob's own appeal
>> 2. the umpire is looking around to see if anyone was going to appeal
>>
>> I'm not sure what the best natural justice here is.
>> If the umpire doesn't hear an appeal, so be it. Umpiring is never perfect. The hope with umpiring is any mistakes even out over time. Sometimes things go your way, some times they don't.
>>
>> This issue was complicated by the TV replay.
>> ICC playing conditions should be updated to say;
>>
>> 1. an appeal, or drs referral, can't happen after at ground replays are shown
>> 2. at ground replays can't be shown until the 15 seconds for DRS have passed, or it has been referred to DRS.
>
> 2) is already in the playing conditions
>
> DRS time starts after the umpire makes a decision, so only after the
> appeal happens

... in practice, although the playing conditions say that it starts when
the ball becomes dead.

> The players can't do a DRS appeal for runout, iirc,

They can review any appeal decision by the on-field umpires except Timed
Out. Of course the on-field umpires rarely make a run out decision if
it's at all close.

> so there's no
> effective restriction on runout replays (except under the "an appeal
> covers all modes of dismissal" I guess, but in a standard runout
> appeal you'd be struggling to argue that it's really looking at
> anything else, normally people will appeal for lbw before there's the
> runout chance for instance)
>
>> 3. at ground replays can't be shown until the option to appeal is over, eg next ball delivered or session ended. Unless a wicket has fallen, obviously.

So spectators at the ground can never see a replay of the last ball
bowled unless a wicket falls or it's the end of a session (or they
stream it on their phones)? I can't see that ever being introduced.

--
David North

[jack fredricks]

On Saturday, February 17, 2024 at 4:47:47 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> >> 3. at ground replays can't be shown until the option to appeal is over, eg next ball delivered or session ended. Unless a wicket has fallen, obviously.
> So spectators at the ground can never see a replay of the last ball
> bowled unless a wicket falls or it's the end of a session (or they
> stream it on their phones)? I can't see that ever being introduced.

what do you mean by "last ball"? Last ball of the match? Or previous delivery?

If the latter, it can be shown after the next ball delivered. Eg TV replays for the 1st ball of an over can be shown once the 2nd ball has been bowled (as by then the chance to appeal is well and truly over).

Replays for the 1st ball can be shown prior to the 2nd ball;
1. once it is referred to DRS
2. If it's been given out AND the 15 seconds for DRS have passed

Did you miss the "next ball delivered" part of my post?

[max.it]

Only the 2nd last ball bowled unless it's one of those times when you
can see the last ball bowled.

max.it

[David North]

On 17/02/2024 07:55, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Saturday, February 17, 2024 at 4:47:47 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
>>>> 3. at ground replays can't be shown until the option to appeal is over, eg next ball delivered or session ended. Unless a wicket has fallen, obviously.
>> So spectators at the ground can never see a replay of the last ball
>> bowled unless a wicket falls or it's the end of a session (or they
>> stream it on their phones)? I can't see that ever being introduced.
>
> what do you mean by "last ball"? Last ball of the match? Or previous delivery?

I meant the ball that has been bowled most recently.

> If the latter, it can be shown after the next ball delivered. Eg TV replays for the 1st ball of an over can be shown once the 2nd ball has been bowled (as by then the chance to appeal is well and truly over).

Yes, I know, but I doubt that spectators (and TV viewers*) would find it
acceptable if they look at the screen to see a replay of what just
happened, and instead they are being shown a replay of the ball before,
just in case the fielding side wants to make a very late appeal (by
normal standards), which hardly ever happens anyway.

*unless the broadcaster is going to show different replays at the ground
to what is being shown to TV viewers at the same time, which would be
challenging.

Imagine if a batter hits 6 sixes in an over, and after each one the
screen shows a replay of the six before last, except after the first
six, when it may be showing a replay of something that happened at the
end of the previous over. I think most spectators would find that rather
confusing. It would be a bit like the Two Ronnies' Mastermind sketch,
where the specialist subject was 'Answering the question before last'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0C59pI_ypQ

Judging by what happened in the case that started this thread, it seems
that umpires may have already been instructed not to allow an appeal
after a replay has been shown (as per your proposed update 1), despite
that not appearing in the playing conditions (I don't know whether any
of the Australians tried appealing after the umpire told them that there
was no appeal). That seems like a much better option than not allowing
replays until after the next ball, as it still allows plenty of time for
an appeal.

--
David North