New Zealand v Australia, 1st Test, Wellington

[Fat Nyfe]

Shame that the talk will be about one umpiring decision again, when a fantastic cricket pitch has been served up

 

[La Dolce Vita]

well there was no call made, no question asked at all.
The ump as you said made a huge mistake and should be given a few tests off for his display.
Voges was bowled by a legal delivery and is not out. There is nothing fair or good that has come out of this.

nope under the laws it can't be reviewed. Rightly so

If Voges was given out he could rightly claim he was distracted. Regardless of opinions no one can prove he wasn't.

As I said under the rules and morally it was right call after the umpire made a shocker.
Voges was not bowled by a legal delivery

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Shame that the talk will be about one umpiring decision again, when a fantastic cricket pitch has been served up

I agree, not once did you hear the commentary team today what a great pitch, yet in Australia they never shut up about how good the pitches are yet they are all highways.
Perfect cricket pitch prepared for a test match and the curator should be given a bloody medal and a hell of a lot of credit.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Shame that the talk will be about one umpiring decision again, when a fantastic cricket pitch has been served up

It's only today's attitude that nobody is allowed to make a mistake ever that cause people to crap on about these things. Those of us who were taught to accept the umpires' decision just get on with it.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

nope under the laws it can't be reviewed. Rightly so

If Voges was given out he could rightly claim he was distracted. Regardless of opinions no one can prove he wasn't.

As I said under the rules and morally it was right call after the umpire made a shocker.
Voges was not bowled by a legal delivery

Well it is only an issue in this thread, NZ to this point have not said a word and no one other than the commentary team said a word.
Under the existing rules you are correct, morally it is a disgrace.
But I also hate when a no ball is checked after a wicket falls. If the ump does not call it then it should not even be allowed to be checked by the tv.

 

[La Dolce Vita]

Well it is only an issue in this thread, NZ to this point have not said a word and no one other than the commentary team said a word.
Under the existing rules you are correct, morally it is a disgrace.
But I also hate when a no ball is checked after a wicket falls. If the ump does not call it then it should not even be allowed to be checked by the tv.

It was harsh on the kiwi's but it was the correct call imo

 

[HBF]

Hard marker if you aren't sold on Usman yet

Just want him to add some consistency, but he hasn't put a foot wrong yet.

 

[Mancey]

But with tennis, you only have to deal with one player flirting with the line. With cricket, you have the bowler and the non-striking batsman. Would they have the mechanism split in 2, so it's only the bowlers half of the crease line that is "active" or just check to see which player is causing the detection?

You can understand how complex a no ball "cyclops" like device would be to design.

A tennis court is small, so you can place sensors very close to where the action is happening on side of the court. You can't just stick some sensors next to the pitch where they would have to stick out of the ground and interfere with play. Then you have the issue of the non striker tripping the beam as you say, or, given the sensors are probably going to have to be well away from the pitch, fielders could trip it too.

Then you have the issue that a tennis ball is a constant size object, so placement of the beam is easy. You just place the cyclops beam a set distance from the fault line and you know if it is tripped, the ball is long. Bowlers feet vary in size so how far ahead of the line do you place the beam? You can't put the beam behind the line as the foot could trip it as it passed over the crease.

Then to compound things, you have the extra complication that the foot doesn't even have to be grounded behind the line. The heal can be in the air but still be a fair delivery.

It reminds me of afl score review technology. Once you start thinking about it, there are so many variables at play its almost an impossible thing to automate

 

[DT_fanatic]

All this controversy is going to mean that no umpire will be game enough to call no-balls anymore. They'd rather take the safer option of going up to the third ump to double check after any dismissals. As if they dont go up to technology enough already.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

A human makes an error, it happens, that is cricket guys. The decsions will even themselves out anyway in the end.

 

[Mr Commissioner]

Swings and roundabouts - get on with it.

 

[Badesumofu]

Clearly it was a horrible decision. Not just because it was wrong (and clearly wrong) but because umpires seem to have largely given up on calling no balls live in Test matches but for some unknown reason on this occasion he thought he'd just call it. I think the inconsistency compounds the error.

But.

There is no way you can ever overturn a no ball call once it has been made. It may only be a matter of milliseconds, but if the batter is under the impression that the delivery is illegal while playing it, there is no way you can then turn around and give them out. That would be a far bigger injustice.

I'm not sure what the solution is. If there is some kind of technology that can adjudicate them in real time with close to 100% accuracy, then I'd be in favour of that. I prefer the umpire not to be watching the bowler's front foot if possible anyway. I'm not sure that is as simple to implement as some seem to think, though. 100% accuracy is something to strive for, not something that we have to lose our minds about every time there is one mistake. They happen, they go both ways, but you just have to get on with the game.

 

[Scorpus]

You can understand how complex a no ball "cyclops" like device would be to design.

A tennis court is small, so you can place sensors very close to where the action is happening on side of the court. You can't just stick some sensors next to the pitch where they would have to stick out of the ground and interfere with play. Then you have the issue of the non striker tripping the beam as you say, or, given the sensors are probably going to have to be well away from the pitch, fielders could trip it too.

Then you have the issue that a tennis ball is a constant size object, so placement of the beam is easy. You just place the cyclops beam a set distance from the fault line and you know if it is tripped, the ball is long. Bowlers feet vary in size so how far ahead of the line do you place the beam? You can't put the beam behind the line as the foot could trip it as it passed over the crease.

Then to compound things, you have the extra complication that the foot doesn't even have to be grounded behind the line. The heal can be in the air but still be a fair delivery.

It reminds me of afl score review technology. Once you start thinking about it, there are so many variables at play its almost an impossible thing to automate

Multiple 3D cameras with depth sensors could probably do it easily

 

[madmug]

Clearly it was a horrible decision. Not just because it was wrong (and clearly wrong) but because umpires seem to have largely given up on calling no balls live in Test matches but for some unknown reason on this occasion he thought he'd just call it. I think the inconsistency compounds the error.

But.

There is no way you can ever overturn a no ball call once it has been made. but you just have to get on with the game.[/QUOTE]

Yes it truly is a game of mistakes.

Bowlers make them & get scored off, Batsmen make them & get out, fieldsmen drop chances & misfield the ball, .

Umpires too are human. Its a pity some critics, especially commentators, are so bloody perfect. Maybe they should Umpire to show us how good they really are.

 

[Damon_3388]

I'm starting to think that Peter Siddle is one of the most underrated and disrespected fast bowlers we've ever produced.

 

[eddiesmith]

Australia cops the raw end of a decision and all hell breaks loose about bias umpiring

Australia gets a decision in their favour and they tell everyone to get over it, umpires are human and mistakes happen

Love Bigfooty!

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Australia cops the raw end of a decision and all hell breaks loose about bias umpiring

Australia gets a decision in their favour and they tell everyone to get over it, umpires are human and mistakes happen

Love Bigfooty!

Aleem Dar - Stuart Broad anyone???

Or more recently the bitching about Marsh being given out

 

[eddiesmith]

Aleem Dar - Stuart Broad anyone???

Or more recently the bitching about Marsh being given out

Or every Ashes series in England for the last 11 years...

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I'm starting to think that Peter Siddle is one of the most underrated and disrespected fast bowlers we've ever produced.

He's good when conditions suit. Still maintain he shouldn't be near a side in Australia though. However in NZ and England where the ball nips around his accuracy is a reason to play him anyway.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

We'll get there eventually. An admission of being wrong that is

 

[Damon_3388]

He's good when conditions suit. Still maintain he shouldn't be near a side in Australia though. However in NZ and England where the ball nips around his accuracy is a reason to play him anyway.

Siddle has clearly got a better record at home than he does away, though:

Home - 27.53 average, 56.8 strike rate, 2.90 economy rate
Away/Neutral - 32.69 average, 66.3 strike rate, 2.96 economy rate

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Siddle has clearly got a better record at home than he does away, though:

Home - 27.53 average, 56.8 strike rate, 2.90 economy rate
Away/Neutral - 32.69 average, 66.3 strike rate, 2.96 economy rate

Not recently though. Since his drop in pace he hasn't been as effective at home. Now is that him or the pitches? Probably a combination of both. However I wouldn't bother picking him at home personally. He should play most tests away though as there generally is a bit more in the pitches overseas. Don't get me wrong there is still a role for Siddle and at least I know he won't get some silly injury mid match and stuff the side up.

 

[Damon_3388]

Not recently though. Since his drop in pace he hasn't been as effective at home. Now is that him or the pitches? Probably a combination of both. However I wouldn't bother picking him at home personally. He should play most tests away though as there generally is a bit more in the pitches overseas. Don't get me wrong there is still a role for Siddle and at least I know he won't get some silly injury mid match and stuff the side up.

This "poor recent form" amounts to two Tests at the same venue - vs. India last summer, and vs. New Zealand this summer, both in Adelaide. He hasn't really been given a whole lot of opportunity to do much else in home Test series recently, having played just 4/10 home Tests over the past two summers. Even so, he bowled well when he actually got to bowl against the Windies (yeah, it's just the Windies, but still).

He's got a far larger sample size of Tests and series at home where he's performed well and held up his end:

vs. South Africa 2008/09
vs. England 2011/12
vs. New Zealand 2011/12
vs. India, 2011/12
vs. Sri Lanka 2012/13
Vs. England 2013/14
vs. West Indies 2015/16

 

[Mancey]

Multiple 3D cameras with depth sensors could probably do it easily

Unconvinced. They are accurate for analysing things like elbow bend in bowling actions, but the subject is tagged up with markers etc.

Plus it almost certainly wouldn't be real time, there'd be significant processing time which means you be better off just using a simple replay

 

[The Falcon Strike]

You feel the same about a mankad? Just stay in your bloody crease it infuriates me.

Absolutely - especially now with the new rule about the delivery stride

If you want to wander that far out of your crease in the bowlers run-up - keep wandering to the pavillion