***Official*** India in South Africa

[Pratters]

I would want 3.5 runs per over in this session.

 

[Pratters]

Yeah, fair enough, I guess I just don't make that much of a distinction between the two. In scoring quick runs, Sehwag tends to play extravagant shots. He did screw up, no question, I just felt bad if he was under instructions to really go after the bowling (and got berated for playing a stupid shot), but you're essentially right, he should have at least had a bit of a look for the first few overs at least.

I was guessing you do not make that much of a distinction. Also, I give you that we cannot really decipher if he was playing naturally or was asked to pinch hit by the team management because of his brief innings where he played aggressively. It would make no sense to have asked Sehwag to pinch hit though given so many overs were left, specifically because of which I feel it was highly unlikely.

Whatever.

 

[silentstriker]

Umpire Harper said at the lunch break, "South African boys did discuss the possibility of a time-out, but this is real cricket ... This is Test cricket. I explained the situation to them and said I wouldn't give them out. You have to consider the circumstances and these were exceptional ones."

 

[silentstriker]

300 should be plenty......you're wasting bowling time for those extra 50 runs....

I just can't see Safrica making more than 250 in the final dig......only 1 team has chased over 180 successfuly at Newlands and that was a very strong Aussie team in 2001/2002.

But this isn't the normal pitch here, we have no idea how it will play on day five.

 

[Slow Love™]

Umpire Harper said at the lunch break, "South African boys did discuss the possibility of a time-out, but this is real cricket ... This is Test cricket. I explained the situation to them and said I wouldn't give them out. You have to consider the circumstances and these were exceptional ones."

Yes, I saw that, and to be honest, didn't like it. It should surely be up to South Africa whether they seek to appeal for the timeout (whether it's sporting or not), and to my understanding, Harper has no right whatsoever to turn the appeal down if the rulebook is clear about the times concerned. This really implies the South Africans were interested in appealing, and he shut them down. We'll see what the South Africans say, I suppose.

 

[Salamuddin]

But this isn't the normal pitch here, we have no idea how it will play on day five.

From what I gather, this pitch is not as easy to bat on as typical Newlands wickets.

I reiterate, 300 should be enough IMO.

 

[adharcric]

Yes, I saw that, and to be honest, didn't like it. It should surely be up to South Africa whether they seek to appeal for the timeout (whether it's sporting or not), and to my understanding, Harper has no right whatsoever to turn the appeal down if the rulebook is clear about the times concerned. This really implies the South Africans were interested in appealing, and he shut them down. We'll see what the South Africans say, I suppose.

Surely if the umpires admittedly haven't fulfilled their responsibility as mandated by the laws of cricket, they shouldn't be in a position to give the batsman out. The rules are to be interpreted in light of the situation and this situation was a bizarre one in which the rules were not adhered to in the first place by the umpires; in that case, they should be entitled to interpret the rules according to their own judgment. IMO the umpires were spot on apart from the initial screw-up.

 

[silentstriker]

Yes, I saw that, and to be honest, didn't like it. It should surely be up to South Africa whether they seek to appeal for the timeout (whether it's sporting or not), and to my understanding, Harper has no right whatsoever to turn the appeal down if the rulebook is clear about the times concerned. This really implies the South Africans were interested in appealing, and he shut them down. We'll see what the South Africans say, I suppose.

Yea, I'd have to agree. Unless it was blatantly the umpires fault.

 

[adharcric]

Unless it was blatantly the umpires fault.

It was. Both umpires even admitted it. There really is nothing left to debate here.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yes, I saw that, and to be honest, didn't like it. It should surely be up to South Africa whether they seek to appeal for the timeout (whether it's sporting or not), and to my understanding, Harper has no right whatsoever to turn the appeal down if the rulebook is clear about the times concerned. This really implies the South Africans were interested in appealing, and he shut them down. We'll see what the South Africans say, I suppose.

I particularly don't like his statement about the "circumstances". Makes me feel like he was afraid to make the decision, if the appeal came. The circumstances shouldn't really have anything to do with it, especially because it's test cricket.

 

[silentstriker]

I particularly don't like his statement about the "circumstances". Makes me feel like he was afraid to make the decision, if the appeal came. The circumstances shouldn't really have anything to do with it, especially because it's test cricket.

But should the batting side be punished if the umpires failed to do their duty in informing them? I would be sure the batting side would have something to say about that....

 

[Slow Love™]

Surely if the umpires admittedly haven't fulfilled their responsibility as mandated by the laws of cricket, they shouldn't be in a position to give the batsman out. The rules are to be interpreted in light of the situation and this situation was a bizarre one in which the rules were not adhered to in the first place by the umpires; in that case, they should be entitled to interpret the rules according to their own judgment. IMO the umpires were spot on apart from the initial screw-up.

I would be far more comfortable with a polite request on the part of the umpire that the South Africans contemplate the situation, but I don't really know that it's appropriate for the umpire to tell them that he won't give it out if they do appeal. I tend to think it should still be South Africa's prerogative under the rules, as I understand them - it is an extraordinary situation though, and I'm not really aware of all the contingent actions allowable.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

But should the batting side be punished if the umpires failed to do their duty in informing them? I would be sure the batting side would have something to say about that....

That doesn't really have anything to do with it IMO. If a batsman isn't out there in three minutes and there's an appeal, it should be out, unless there's genuine extenuating circumstances like the batsman has been flattened by the drinks cart or crowd violence something. Obviously the umpires seem to have stuffed up with the info regarding Tendulkar, but I don't like them being unwilling to enforce the rules because it will make them look bad at all.

 

[silentstriker]

I would be far more comfortable with a polite request on the part of the umpire that the South Africans contemplate the situation, but I don't really know that it's appropriate for the umpire to tell them that he won't give it out if they do appeal. I tend to think it should still be South Africa's prerogative under the rules, as I understand them - it is an extraordinary situation though, and I'm not really aware of all the contingent actions allowable.

Lets assume SA appeals, should umpires give them out if the only reason the batsman is not out there is the umpires' fault?

 

[silentstriker]

That doesn't really have anything to do with it IMO. If a batsman isn't out there in three minutes and there's an appeal, it should be out, unless there's genuine extenuating circumstances like the batsman has been flattened by the drinks cart or crowd violence something. Obviously the umpires seem to have stuffed up with the info regarding Tendulkar, but I don't like them being unwilling to enforce the rules because it will make them look bad at all.

If Tendulkar had been given out, the batting side would have been forced to complain, no? They did nothing wrong.

 

[adharcric]

If a batsman isn't out there in three minutes and there's an appeal, it should be out, unless there's genuine extenuating circumstances like the batsman has been flattened by the drinks cart or crowd violence something.

These were genuinely extenuating circumstances tbh.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

If Tendulkar had been given out, the batting side would have been forced to complain, no? They did nothing wrong.

They can complain, and the umpires can cop whatever it is umpires get when they stuff up technical things like that. Ganguly is still out if the appeal is made, and it's totally inappropriate for the fielding side to be told not to appeal.

If Smith made the decision not to appeal out of sportsmanship, that's fine. If he didn't appeal because he was informed it would be given not out despite the fact that it was out according to the rules, that's not.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

These were genuine extenuating circumstances tbh.

I probably phrased that badly. What I mean is, I think it's reasonable that a batsman not be given out on the time rule if there's been an actual interruption to play that has stopped the batsman from being ready. The three minutes obviously refers to three minutes of active time in the match, and if the game is held up by something you can't be out timed out. Just not knowing that you were meant to be out there isn't anybody's fault but India's and the umpires' for not informing them that Tendulkar couldn't bat. So if there's an appeal, it's out, and Harper shouldn't have been telling them not to appeal so he didn't have to make the decision.

Obviously India would have every right to be upset with the umpires, but that's not the issue.

 

[silentstriker]

That bounce is deadly.

 

[silentstriker]

I think Kumble is going to feast on this wicket. The bounce is going to be a huge help. I hope we get a lead of 300, and I think we're in great position, even though I still want 350.