Gutless wonders

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Originally posted by JUBJUB
Will the third umpire ever put it back to the umpire on the field ? Isn't that what the white light is for ?
Click to expand...
In rugby league the video ump has "refs call", don't they? In theory this can't work for cricket though. Once the field umpire calls for the third umpire they have apparently expressed doubt. If the decision is handed back to them they can hardly give the batsman out after expressing such doubt.

Although I tend to agree we should have the decisions handed back to the field umpire. I think third umpire referals are often a matter of process, and not an expression of doubt. Particularly with these ground catches and often with a lot of run outs too... they refer decisions that they would otherwise give out straight away with no video in place.

The number of run outs I've seen and just said, "Yep, clearly out", only to see the decision referred to the televison and sure enough showing the batsman metres short of his crease...
 
Originally posted by NICK THE PIE MAN
Um. didn't see the day's play today.

Could someone please elaborate?

cheers...
Click to expand...

Similar tale to a few we've had in the last few seasons...

Late in the day, Hussain struck the ball down in front of Gillespie at deepish mid on who took a diving catch. It appeared he was out but Hussain stood his ground. South African umpire Dave Orchard, who saw it all happen in front of him, took the easy option of referring to the decision to the third umpire. Darrell Hair mulled over the replays for minutes - the replays showing the Gillespie probably took it but not conclusively so - and eventually delivered a not out verdict.
 
-- and then in the next over the ump gave two incorrect lb's to gillespie!! - butcher wasnt out [he nicked it 1st] and dawson was! = 3 wrong decisions in two overs!

maybe he felt sorry for gillespie so gaver butcher out to make up for it and then realised he made a mistake so decided to give dawson not out! - what's the smilie for tongue-in-cheek comment??

dzm
 
i actually think these umpires are a better pair than bucknor and Venkat. DaveW, a precedent has been set. those decisions have to go to the 3rd ump, every umpire would have done so.

dzm, i didnt see those lbw's but i'm of the opinion that if there is doubt, i like to see players given not out, and sure we'll see a few that should have been given. this is much better than umps that give themselves a licence to rule on probability like bucknor and venkat and we see scores of dismissals given out when they were not out.
 
Originally posted by nicko18


dzm, i didnt see those lbw's but i'm of the opinion that if there is doubt, i like to see players given not out,
Click to expand...

That's a common perception with lbws, supposedly that any benefit of the doubt should go to the batsman.

But there's no such mentioning of it in the laws, it's just a common assumption that has become so commonplace that it's virtually treated as law.

A much better way of looking at lbw decisions is: if the umpire thinks it's out, then it's out
 
Originally posted by nicko18
i actually think these umpires are a better pair than bucknor and Venkat. DaveW, a precedent has been set. those decisions have to go to the 3rd ump, every umpire would have done so.
Click to expand...
There is no precedent. There have been some situations like this that have involved the two field umpires conferring. And sometimes given out! The common sense approach.
 
Originally posted by wagstaff
That's a common perception with lbws, supposedly that any benefit of the doubt should go to the batsman.

But there's no such mentioning of it in the laws, it's just a common assumption that has become so commonplace that it's virtually treated as law.

A much better way of looking at lbw decisions is: if the umpire thinks it's out, then it's out
Click to expand...

LAW 27. APPEALS

6. Consultation by umpires
Each umpire shall answer appeals on matters within his own jurisdiction. If an umpire is doubtful about any point that the other umpire may have been in a better position to see, he shall consult the latter on this point of fact and shall then give his decision. If, after consultation, there is still doubt remaining the decision shall be Not out.

http://www.lords.org/cricket/lw_0000000053.asp

I believe that is the benefit of the doubt rule.
 
Originally posted by wagstaff
That's a common perception with lbws, supposedly that any benefit of the doubt should go to the batsman.

But there's no such mentioning of it in the laws, it's just a common assumption that has become so commonplace that it's virtually treated as law.

A much better way of looking at lbw decisions is: if the umpire thinks it's out, then it's out
Click to expand...

:confused: :confused: :rolleyes: no way

thanks for clearing that up Dave
 
The age limit for umpires might not be such a bad idea after all.

I can't believe the umpire didn't give White out caught behind to Gillespie :confused: Add to that the two similiar dodgy decisions that went our way in the last one dayer against Sri Lanka and the old umpires are embarrassing themselves.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Originally posted by Unwritten_Law
The age limit for umpires might not be such a bad idea after all.

I can't believe the umpire didn't give White out caught behind to Gillespie :confused: Add to that the two similiar dodgy decisions that went our way in the last one dayer against Sri Lanka and the old umpires are embarrassing themselves.
Click to expand...
Wasn't the batsman Foster? That was a shocker from Tiffin.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Gutless wonders

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top