The Cricket Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Pete Handscomb 98 and 60 odd for the vics this weekend
 
Maybe someone can confirm this for me...

To my knowledge, iF an umpire gives an LBW appeal and the decision is reviewed, the umpire does not inform the third umpire of the part of the decision which caused him to dismiss the appeal i.e. he doesn't say 'height a problem', 'I think he hit it', or 'I don't think it pitched in line'. Do I have that right?

It just strikes me as Odd that an umpire might doubt only one of the criteria for LBW but the review considers all criteria and where any of those criteria are 'Umpire's call' the decision is 'not out' based on the original decision of 'not out'. However, if the umpire doubts the height only and the review shows height is ok, the call will still be not out if any of the other criteria are 'umpires call'. To me this is a granularity issue. We are taking a decision level outcome to guide a criteria level assessment. Seems wrong.
 
Brishawk said:
Maybe someone can confirm this for me...

To my knowledge, iF an umpire gives an LBW appeal and the decision is reviewed, the umpire does not inform the third umpire of the part of the decision which caused him to dismiss the appeal i.e. he doesn't say 'height a problem', 'I think he hit it', or 'I don't think it pitched in line'. Do I have that right?

It just strikes me as Odd that an umpire might doubt only one of the criteria for LBW but the review considers all criteria and where any of those criteria are 'Umpire's call' the decision is 'not out' based on the original decision of 'not out'. However, if the umpire doubts the height only and the review shows height is ok, the call will still be not out if any of the other criteria are 'umpires call'. To me this is a granularity issue. We are taking a decision level outcome to guide a criteria level assessment. Seems wrong.
Click to expand...
Completely agree. Except it isn't the umpire who asks for the review it's the player.

On another note:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/...s/news-story/0ba28d3158c006a5dfdf3bb7bb715d0b
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

So would Voges 160-odd be worth about a 40 against another Test attack ?
 
Garf said:
So would Voges 160-odd be worth about a 40 against another Test attack ?
Click to expand...
I've always had a bit of a soft spot for Voges, so I'm pleased to see him succeed, but the current WI team is barely the faintest shadow of any previous touring West Indies side.
 
I blinked and missed another Test Match. Maybe Australia should declare 1st Innings at 250 to lengthen the match and boost the coffers.
 
Not convinced about Smith's captaincy. Extremely poor decision to declare without giving Voges a run at his triple C. It was not as if we were running out of time. He was scoring pretty quickly and only 4 sessions into the match. And now it finished so quickly, the decision to declare seems all the more ridiculous.

And yes, maybe I would think differently if it had gone down to the wire, but it didn't, and there was never anything to suggest they would have made a match of it.
 
arupist said:
Not convinced about Smith's captaincy. Extremely poor decision to declare without giving Voges a run at his triple C. It was not as if we were running out of time. He was scoring pretty quickly and only 4 sessions into the match. And now it finished so quickly, the decision to declare seems all the more ridiculous.

And yes, maybe I would think differently if it had gone down to the wire, but it didn't, and there was never anything to suggest they would have made a match of it.
Click to expand...

It is a team game. What if it rained for the next three days?
 
BullyWee said:
It is a team game. What if it rained for the next three days?
Click to expand...
Yep, team game. And the captain plays for the team. Most captains would have given him a crack. Good for the team morale when someone scores 300.

As for the rain, the fact remains, it didn't. And we won in 3 days. And Voges may never get another chance.
 
arupist said:
Yep, team game. And the captain plays for the team. Most captains would have given him a crack. Good for the team morale when someone scores 300.

As for the rain, the fact remains, it didn't. And we won in 3 days. And Voges may never get another chance.
Click to expand...
No, he may never get another chance. Bill Lawrie declared when Marsh was 99. I could name many others. the team must always come first. As for team morale, wouldn't a personal highest score of 269 not be enough?
 
BullyWee said:
No, he may never get another chance. Bill Lawrie declared when Marsh was 99. I could name many others. the team must always come first. As for team morale, wouldn't a personal highest score of 269 not be enough?
Click to expand...
The Bill Lawry declaration was in an entirely different situation, but even then, many argued a case for delaying.

In the context of this match, it was only 4 sessions old and we had scored at more than a run a minute. A first innings score of over 600 is usually the target for a declaration to give a better chance of affecting the opposition psyche and enforcing a follow-on. At an average team score of 300, there is a fair chance that a the team would have to bat again. There was plenty of time left and a score of 650 midway through the second day would have been a better option.

In hindsight, we didn't even need 400. But we could have. Either way, it was not necessary to kill off Voges innings when he did. Certainly no-one really expected him to do it. It was not the time for a tough call.
 
arupist said:
The Bill Lawry declaration was in an entirely different situation, but even then, many argued a case for delaying.

In the context of this match, it was only 4 sessions old and we had scored at more than a run a minute. A first innings score of over 600 is usually the target for a declaration to give a better chance of affecting the opposition psyche and enforcing a follow-on. At an average team score of 300, there is a fair chance that a the team would have to bat again. There was plenty of time left and a score of 650 midway through the second day would have been a better option.

In hindsight, we didn't even need 400. But we could have. Either way, it was not necessary to kill off Voges innings when he did. Certainly no-one really expected him to do it. It was not the time for a tough call.
Click to expand...
I have just been at a cricketers' lunch. Not one person I talked to agreed with your position, which you are perfectly entitled to have. I think we should just agree to disagree.
 
BullyWee said:
I have just been at a cricketers' lunch. Not one person I talked to agreed with your position, which you are perfectly entitled to have. I think we should just agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with that, mate. We could argue over this for weeks without either changing the other's mind.
 
If World Series Cricket Supertest statistics were included in a player's overall career figures, Greg Chappell would have equalled Don Bradman's record for the most centuries by an Australian batsman, Dennis Lillee would have joined the 400-wicket club and Bruce Laird, denied a Test century because of a poor umpiring decision, would have three hundreds to his name.

Cricket Australia announced this month the statistical records of players from World Series Cricket would be recognised in an official category, something both Ian and Greg Chappell said they were pleased to see.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/spo...st-numbers-20151209-glj2rm.html#ixzz3v5g4gWoQ
Follow us: @brisbanetimes on Twitter | brisbanetimes on Facebook
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top