How can........

[Dipper]

.............an umpire not be able to see a blatant edge behind from Steve Waugh but the very next ball his eyesight is good enough to call the most marginal of no-balls.

These umpires want shooting, the Trescothick dismissal in hindsight was crucial, if he'd stayed in a bit the way he was scoring him & Vaugh could really have done some damage & with another 50 or maybe even 100 runs England could have pulled a surprise victory out of the hat.

I'm the first to admit though that the 1st innings declaration gave us the chance, if they'd batted on we would have been destroyed.It reminded me of Headingly last year, people over here go on about a great victory & you saw all the players running around like they'd won the Ashes but they conveniently forget that the Aussies only dangled the carrot because they were so keen to do the whitewash, if it had been the 1st Test of a series (or if there'd been no rain) then England would never have won that game.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by DIPPER
if it had been the 1st Test of a series (or if there'd been no rain) then England would never have won that game.

The no rain bit is true, but the first test?

Last summer, Steve Waugh gave New Zealand an extremely generous last innings target of 284 runs in the rain marred 1st Test with about two sessions to play. New Zealand fell just ten runs short of victory and probably would've got there had Cairns not got out in the third last over. With the series finishing nil-all it proved to be a most cavalier decision!

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by DIPPER
.............an umpire not be able to see a blatant edge behind from Steve Waugh but the very next ball his eyesight is good enough to call the most marginal of no-balls.

Well for one thing the no-ball is a lot closer. Interestingly the ABC commentators blamed England's lack of appeal. Jonathan Agnew said something along the lines of "no umpire in the world would give a dismissal to a half-hearted appeal like that". Which struck me as odd since I thought any sort of appeal would suffice.

 

[larrikin]

Re: Re: How can........

Originally posted by DaveW
Well for one thing the no-ball is a lot closer. Interestingly the ABC commentators blamed England's lack of appeal. Jonathan Agnew said something along the lines of "no umpire in the world would give a dismissal to a half-hearted appeal like that". Which struck me as odd since I thought any sort of appeal would suffice.

I wouldn't have called what the English did an appeal. It was the most amazing circumstance I've seen in cricket in the last 5 years or so.

 

[Bob_vic]

The nine commentators summed it up nicely. If the wicketkeeper and slips had doubt, surely that would put doubt in the umpire's mind, even if he thought Steve Waugh did hit it in the first place.

Bob

 

[larrikin]

Doesn't matter what doubt the umpire had, someone had to appeal.

 

[campbell]

Since when is an appeal neccessary. Out is out. The no ball decision was laughable. The guys foot slid on the pitch, his foot was not over the line.

 

[Desredandwhite]

Actually technically I think you HAVE to appeal for everything.

from: http://www.lords.org/cricket/lw_0000000053.asp (apologies for the overlong cut n paste job)

Law 27: Appeals
1. Umpire not to give batsman out without an appeal
Neither umpire shall give a batsman out, even though he may be out under the Laws, unless appealed to by the fielding side. This shall not debar a batsman who is out under any of the Laws from leaving his wicket without an appeal having been made. Note, however, the provisions of 7 below.

2. Batsman dismissed
A batsman is dismissed if
either (a) he is given out by an umpire, on appeal
or (b) he is out under any of the Laws and leaves his wicket as in 1 above.

3. Timing of appeals
For an appeal to be valid it must be made before the bowler begins his run up or, if he has no run up, his bowling action to deliver the next ball, and before Time has been called.
The call of Over does not invalidate an appeal made prior to the start of the following over provided Time has not been called. See Law 16.2 (Call of Time) and Law 22.2 (Start of an over).

4. Appeal "How's That?"
An appeal "How's That?" covers all ways of being out.

5. Answering appeals
The umpire at the bowler's end shall answer all appeals except those arising out of any of Law 35 (Hit wicket), Law 39 (Stumped) or Law 38 (Run out) when this occurs at the striker's wicket. A decision Not out by one umpire shall not prevent the other umpire from giving a decision, provided that each is considering only matters within his jurisdiction.
When a batsman has been given Not out, either umpire may, within his jurisdiction, answer a further appeal provided that it is made in accordance with 3 above.

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.

7. Batsman leaving his wicket under a misapprehension
An umpire shall intervene if satisfied that a batsman, not having been given out, has left his wicket under a misapprehension that he is out. The umpire intervening shall call and signal Dead ball to prevent any further action by the fielding side and shall recall the batsman.

8. Withdrawal of an appeal
The captain of the fielding side may withdraw an appeal only with the consent of the umpire within whose jurisdiction the appeal falls and before the outgoing batsman has left the field of play. If such consent is given the umpire concerned shall, if applicable, revoke his decision and recall the batsman.

9. Umpire's decision
An umpire may alter his decision provided that such alteration is made promptly. This apart, an umpire's decision, once made, is final.

and

5. Fair delivery – the feet
For a delivery to be fair in respect of the feet, in the delivery stride
(i) the bowler's back foot must land within and not touching the return crease.
(ii) the bowler's front foot must land with some part of the foot, whether grounded or raised, behind the popping crease.
If the umpire at the bowler's end is not satisfied that both these conditions have been met, he shall call and signal No ball

ie: some part of the foot has to be BEHIND the line, it's not that it has to be over the line before a no-ball is called. IIRC the bowler's foot was ON the line

 

[Becker]

Originally posted by Desredandwhite
Actually technically I think you HAVE to appeal for everything.

Not quite true. If a bowler knocks back the middle stump, no appeal is required, nor is it when a batsman skies a ball into the outfield. I think the reason the umpire gave it not out was because he was of the same opinion as the English fieldsmen ... he wasn't 100% certain he got bat on it.

 

[Desredandwhite]

Well, by the laws, you have to appeal to remove the batsman, unless he walks. The way I saw it, the umpire didn't make any sort of decision at all in this particular case as he was not asked the question by any fielders.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Originally posted by DIPPER
.............an umpire not be able to see a blatant edge behind from Steve Waugh but the very next ball his eyesight is good enough to call the most marginal of no-balls.

apparently niether did the fellows behind the stumps who are a lot closer


cheers!

 

[JUBJUB]

Originally posted by DIPPER
.............an umpire not be able to see a blatant edge behind from Steve Waugh but the very next ball his eyesight is good enough to call the most marginal of no-balls.

Its the dopey Poms behind the stumps fault he wasn't out.you can't blame the ump when Foster & the slips don't appeal.

 

[JUBJUB]

Originally posted by DIPPER


These umpires want shooting, the Trescothick dismissal in hindsight was crucial, if he'd stayed in a bit the way he was scoring him & Vaugh could really have done some damage & with another 50 or maybe even 100 runs England could have pulled a surprise victory out of the hat.

If Vaughan could catch that would've saved England about 70 runs on the 1st innings.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Becker
Not quite true. If a bowler knocks back the middle stump, no appeal is required, nor is it when a batsman skies a ball into the outfield. I think the reason the umpire gave it not out was because he was of the same opinion as the English fieldsmen ... he wasn't 100% certain he got bat on it.

Originally posted by Desredandwhite
Well, by the laws, you have to appeal to remove the batsman, unless he walks. The way I saw it, the umpire didn't make any sort of decision at all in this particular case as he was not asked the question by any fielders.

Exactly. A batsman walks when he is bowled or skies a catch. There's no point waiting around, he'd just be wasting everyone's time. The umpire doesn't raise his finger in these situations either.

 

[knuckles]

Interesting:

"4. Appeal "How's That?"
An appeal "How's That?" covers all ways of being out.
"

Watched Marshall in the 80s....basically "aaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii"


Then Donald..." aaaaaaaaaarrrrrggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"


and Waqar "ayayayayayayayayayayayayayayeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee"

Technically should have all been given not out

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by campbell
Since when is an appeal neccessary. Out is out. The no ball decision was laughable. The guys foot slid on the pitch, his foot was not over the line.

that is so untrue on both counts. as several people have correctly pointed out, you must appeal for the umpire to raise the finger. a clean bowled is an instance where the umpire never raises the finger (or head nods in bucknors case) unless the batsman stands his ground for some unknown reason the fielders must appeal for the umpire to send him packing.

about the no-ball, the foot did not slide from behind the line, but ive seen a lot bigger oversteps not called.

 

[dr nick]

Re: Re: How can........

Originally posted by DaveW
The no rain bit is true, but the first test?

Last summer, Steve Waugh gave New Zealand an extremely generous last innings target of 284 runs in the rain marred 1st Test with about two sessions to play. New Zealand fell just ten runs short of victory and probably would've got there had Cairns not got out in the third last over. With the series finishing nil-all it proved to be a most cavalier decision!

very true, the kiwi's seem to feel robbed in regards to that test. they seem to forget the competetive/generous declaration.

as for the declaration in the 4th ashes test, if all australia wanted to do was not lose, they could have batted onto make around 700 and take 3 days to do so.

 

[Dipper]

Re: Re: How can........

Originally posted by tiger of old

Originally posted by DIPPER
.............an umpire not be able to see a blatant edge behind from Steve Waugh but the very next ball his eyesight is good enough to call the most marginal of no-balls.

apparently niether did the fellows behind the stumps who are a lot closer


cheers!

Yeah but they didn't call a no-ball next delivery did they?