Jump to content

The Old Cricket Thread


vinitwins
 Share

WC T20  

44 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Can anyone fill me up what went wrong b/w BCCI and ex ICC president and now CSA president Haroon Lorgat ?

BCCI threatened they'll pull out the tour if he's the president...

 

Also seems BCCI wants to curtail India's tour to SA...

 

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=TOINEW&BaseHref=TOIM/2013/07/22&PageLabel=18&EntityId=Ar01800&ViewMode=HTML

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think third umpire should be allowed to call a super faint hotspot inconclusive and give the decision in favour of the batsman.

When it's deemed inconclusive, none of the teams should lose a review from their quota of two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding DRS, I think a better implementation would be if they did not deduct the referral from the referring team's kitty incase it results in an 'on-field umpire's call' as that means the doubt was justified since it was close enough to have gone either way. Also, if it is a no-ball, even then the referral should not be deducted from the kitty, as the fielding side reviewed the decision presuming it was a legal delivery as it was not called by the on-field umpire!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding DRS, I think a better implementation would be if they did not deduct the referral from the referring team's kitty incase it results in an 'on-field umpire's call' as that means the doubt was justified since it was close enough to have gone either way. Also, if it is a no-ball, even then the referral should not be deducted from the kitty, as the fielding side reviewed the decision presuming it was a legal delivery as it was not called by the on-field umpire!!

No.

Lets say if the batsman has been adjudged caught behind wrongly, it goes to third umpire, he finds the replay inconclusive. Now what you are suggesting is that 3rd umpire should go with on-field umpire and let the batting team keep that 1 referral but batsman should be still given out. That's wrong!

 

Read my earlier post, the inconclusive tech analysis should always give benefit of doubt to batsman. But referring team shouldn't be docked off one referral in any such cases.

 

About your point regarding no-ball, that is correct, as it is already being handled outside the DRS purview, as in batsman can check for no-ball when DRS isn't even in play, and it goes for both over-the-line above-waist-height deliveries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

Lets say if the batsman has been adjudged caught behind wrongly, it goes to third umpire, he finds the replay inconclusive. Now what you are suggesting is that 3rd umpire should go with on-field umpire and let the batting team keep that 1 referral but batsman should be still given out. That's wrong!

 

No, in that case the benefit of doubt should go to the batsman. I dont know what gave you this idea from my post but anyways, I never suggested that in such a case the 3rd umpire should go with the on-field umpire's call.

 

What my post referred to was the "On-Field Umpire's" calls that are made for the LBW decisions. In such cases, whatever the final decision maybe, the referring team should not be deducted a review, as the call was close enough for it to go either way and thus it makes it a genuine review for which they should not be penalized.

Edited by Angy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

India playing Zimbabwe today?! Wow.. Consecutive interesting tours :yawn:

 

Edit: Not bad, almost everyone from the senior team is playing.. I thought they'd field an A-team

Edited by dranjithk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is balls. Sorry but once third umpire has been activated it is foolish to give the decision back in on field umpires' hands.

No no no...it's more complicated

 

----

When a not-out LBW decision is evaluated, and if the replay demonstrates the ball has made impact more than 2.5m away from the wickets, various additional criteria apply to account for the uncertainty of the ball's potential direction after pitching. For example, if the ball pitches more than 2.5m from the wicket and travels less than 40 cm before hitting the batsman, then any not-out decision given by the on-field umpire stands. It has also been decided that if the batsman is more than 3.5m from the wicket, then again not-out decisions will stand. The only picture in which an LBW decision will be reversed in favor of the bowler is if the batsman is 2.5-3.5m away from the wicket and the ball travels more than 40 cm after pitching before hitting the batsman. In that case, some part of the ball must be hitting the middle stump, and the whole ball must be hitting the stumps below the bails; otherwise, the result is again inconclusive and the call stands. In cases where the original decision is out, the 2.5m or 40 cm distances do not apply, as in that state Hawk Eye must show the ball to be completely missing the stumps in order for the umpire to undo his decision.

---

 

But since players won't know about all this going for appeal, so in close calls its ok not to dock off the reviews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is balls. Sorry but once third umpire has been activated it is foolish to give the decision back in on field umpires' hands.

No no no...it's more complicated

----

When a not-out LBW decision is evaluated, and if the replay demonstrates the ball has made impact more than 2.5m away from the wickets, various additional criteria apply to account for the uncertainty of the ball's potential direction after pitching. For example, if the ball pitches more than 2.5m from the wicket and travels less than 40 cm before hitting the batsman, then any not-out decision given by the on-field umpire stands. It has also been decided that if the batsman is more than 3.5m from the wicket, then again not-out decisions will stand. The only picture in which an LBW decision will be reversed in favor of the bowler is if the batsman is 2.5-3.5m away from the wicket and the ball travels more than 40 cm after pitching before hitting the batsman. In that case, some part of the ball must be hitting the middle stump, and the whole ball must be hitting the stumps below the bails; otherwise, the result is again inconclusive and the call stands. In cases where the original decision is out, the 2.5m or 40 cm distances do not apply, as in that state Hawk Eye must show the ball to be completely missing the stumps in order for the umpire to undo his decision.

---

But since players won't know about all this going for appeal, so in close calls its ok not to dock off the reviews.

They've done away with the 2.5 m system and now it's just plain hawkeye predictions which apparently has now improved its own accuracy post WC 11

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They've done away with the 2.5 m system and now it's just plain hawkeye predictions which apparently has now improved its own accuracy post WC 11

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

So the hawk-eye projected trajectory is considered as it is?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They've done away with the 2.5 m system and now it's just plain hawkeye predictions which apparently has now improved its own accuracy post WC 11

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

So the hawk-eye projected trajectory is considered as it is?

Yep there are no special stats made available regarding pitching and hitting distance now. What we see on tv is what the third umpire sees.

Although an independent feed for these tools like hawkeye and hotspot will be made available to the third umpire soon, it will still be devoid of those impact distance stats

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

Edited by mshingore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • AtheK changed the title to The Old Cricket Thread
  • AtheK locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...