| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Omega
Semi-Pro
Ireland
669 Posts |
 Posted - 29/12/2010 : 08:03:39
|
"From the start we've always had a very open mind about the referral system and we are always open to changes that can make the system better," Lorgat told AAP. "I can't say what those changes might be, but we are open-minded."
but will allow the BCCI to still dictate to us (ICC) how world cricket should be run ! |
 |
|
|
Omega
Semi-Pro
Ireland
669 Posts |
Posted - 29/12/2010 : 08:11:14
|
I see Kallis has just been given out caught but the umpire has asked the 3rd umpire whether Sreesanth "over-stepped".
Verdict is Out.
Begs the question , what are umpires looking for as the ball is delivered ?
Should the umpires now not review all deliveries as a "No Ball" will allow the batting side an extra plus an extra delivery ?
|
|
|
|
Nick_Admin
Admin
United Kingdom
26424 Posts |
Posted - 29/12/2010 : 08:47:19
|
| The 3rd umpire should check for a no ball every time a wicket goes down. Then we need not worry at this level. |
|
|
|
Omega
Semi-Pro
Ireland
669 Posts |
Posted - 29/12/2010 : 08:50:29
|
| 2 more shocking decisions in Durban by umpires. |
|
|
|
Omega
Semi-Pro
Ireland
669 Posts |
Posted - 29/12/2010 : 08:54:19
|
| If the technology is available then all bowlers deliveries should be checked for over stepping in the interest of the batting side. |
|
|
|
Bob Martin
Professional
United Kingdom
2178 Posts |
Posted - 29/12/2010 : 09:24:41
|
Omega ....The technology is available at all test matches whether or not the UDRS is in use.
Nick ....The ICC's Test Match Playing Conditions at Appendix 2B states:
6. No Ball
Following any mode of dismissal that is not permitted off a no-ball (whether the subject of a referral /consultation under this system or not), if the on-field umpire is uncertain as the fairness of the delivery (foot-fault only), he shall be entitled to request the batsman to delay leaving the field and to check the fairness of the delivery (foot-fault only) with the third umpire. Consultation with the third umpire shall be by way of two way radio. If the delivery was not a fair delivery the on-field umpire shall indicate that the batsman is not-out and signal no-ball. |
Edited by - Bob Martin on 29/12/2010 09:36:57 |
|
|
|
Nick_Admin
Admin
United Kingdom
26424 Posts |
Posted - 29/12/2010 : 12:15:45
|
| Bob , does this say the on field umpire MUST check with the 3rd umpire though? The delivery should be checked anyway by default then there is no concern over whether he checked or not. |
|
|
|
Bob Martin
Professional
United Kingdom
2178 Posts |
Posted - 29/12/2010 : 16:29:11
|
| Nick... The statement in the Match Playing Conditions is exactly as it's written above. From that I deduce that if the umpire is quite clear in his own mind as to the legitimacy of the feet in the delivery stride, then there is no need to consult the third umpire. My guess therefore is that it's only in those marginal "foot fault" cases that are difficult to pick up that he would refer it. On the other hand, there is nothing to stop him consulting for every dismissal that is not permitted off a no-ball, but it wouldn't do much for one's reputation if you were seen to be referring blatant and obvious no-balls. Perhaps as more umpires use this the result will be that 'out' decisions from marginal no-balls will decrease, not that I believe there are that many in test cricket, but if the objective is to minimise the number of incorrect decisions, then that has to be a good thing. |
|
|
|
Omega
Semi-Pro
Ireland
669 Posts |
Posted - 29/12/2010 : 17:50:20
|
| Every ball should be referred to the 3rd umpire so as to give the side batting the 50/50 on calls. |
|
|
|
Bob Martin
Professional
United Kingdom
2178 Posts |
Posted - 29/12/2010 : 18:21:44
|
Omega... quote:
Every ball should be referred to the 3rd umpire so as to give the side batting the 50/50 on calls.
This would surely make the over rate even slower than it is at present.
Anyway, as I said in the previous post, I don't think umpires at test level miss too many no-balls so it wouldn't seem to me to be a major problem area. The one place where it could be, ie a player being dismissed from a no-ball is quite adequately covered in the Playing Conditions. |
|
|
|
The Man Hatter
Amateur
Mexico
122 Posts |
Posted - 29/12/2010 : 20:01:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by KIWI
India would need more then 2 referals an innings , When they bat everything is not out and when they bowl everything is
I'm pretty that wouldn't be the case if they where facing the pop gun Kiwis all the time |
|
|
|
Bob Martin
Professional
United Kingdom
2178 Posts |
Posted - 29/12/2010 : 21:31:16
|
| The question is... why are the BCCI so anti the UDRS when most other countries are for it as are most of the ICC Test Umpires Panel. The BCCI argument that it is not 100% is fatuous as no system is ever likely to be infallible. But the UDRS has proved time and again that it is far less often wrong than relying on the human eye. Maybe some mathematical genius in the BCCI has worked out that they benefit more than they lose from human errors and that's why they won't have it. |
|
|
|
Skipper
Amateur
Australia
107 Posts |
Posted - 30/12/2010 : 01:30:10
|
| Anything to do with the pressure thay are able to mount on the on field umpires with their agressive over appealing and hostile home crowds? It seems pretty clear they would be the biggest losers from the udrs. |
|
|
|
Omega
Semi-Pro
Ireland
669 Posts |
Posted - 30/12/2010 : 09:06:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Martin
The question is... why are the BCCI so anti the UDRS when most other countries are for it as are most of the ICC Test Umpires Panel. The BCCI argument that it is not 100% is fatuous as no system is ever likely to be infallible. But the UDRS has proved time and again that it is far less often wrong than relying on the human eye. Maybe some mathematical genius in the BCCI has worked out that they benefit more than they lose from human errors and that's why they won't have it.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/south-africa-v-india-2010/content/current/story/494655.html
|
|
|
|
Bob Martin
Professional
United Kingdom
2178 Posts |
Posted - 30/12/2010 : 09:25:43
|
| Omega... what is your point ? That article states quite clearly that the BCCI have only once agreed to the UDRS's use and it was they that refused it in SA when the host nation wanted it. I had already stated this and linked to another similar article in a previous post. Hence the question I posed.. Why do the BCCI consistently refuse to its use when other nations want it? More pertinently, why don't the ICC make its use mandatory so that all tests are played under the same playing conditions? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
RIP RIcky Ponting
