***Official Australia in India***

[archie mac]

Complete bollocks. Any post which starts with "let's be honest" can be taken with a massive grain of salt. I saw it live, and while it was tight as to whether it hit him in line (and ultimately the umpire was vindicated with the replay) it was NOT "very doubtful".

Lets be honest, you just said it was doubtful live, that tells me there is doubt

 

[Top_Cat]

Good point, though I don't think reverse is undoing Australia all that much in terms of knocking them over, though it may be with their minds.

That's more to the point, really. Warnie's last 5 years were built on what everyone thought he was capable of bowling, mystery balls, etc. when in reality his bowling was pretty much top-spinners with the occasional hard-spun leggie.

 

[Ikki]

You guys think Warne would come if called?

 

[Top_Cat]

You guys think Warne would come if called?

No way. Aside from all the other reasons, there's no way he'd do that only to be part of a losing side, which is what would happen even with him in the side.

 

[Burgey]

You guys think Warne would come if called?

The ego will land if called upon, but they won't call him.

They've been stubborn over the Symonds thing and have decided to move on. Back in the mid-late 80s DK offered to come back and help AB out with a young and developing attack, and the kybosh was put on that as well.

 

[howardj]

In the end, that we’re losing in India shouldn’t be too surprising, nor the subject of too much alarm. Our team in 2001 was far better in my view than our current Xi, and yet they too were beaten. Even the 1998 outfit was decent, and yet they were roundly thrashed in the two ‘live’ Tests of that series. I guess it’s the manner of our defeat in this Test, and the failure of our batsmen to adjust their mindset in this second dig (from bully boy to watchful) that has been disappointing.

And, also, let’s not be too harsh on Lee. I really don’t think he’s ever been that good on benign tracks. His record in Australia is outstanding because the pitches offer him more bounce and movement. The exception to that was in 2003/2004 when curators produced a series of lifeless roads against India. And, what do you know… Lee had a shocker in that series. Kind of proves the point that, and he’s hardly the lone ranger here, he struggles on benign, relatively docile tracks.

 

[Precambrian]

You guys think Warne would come if called?

I don't think that there will be a significant change in Australia's fortunes even if he comes.

 

[SJS]

Lets be honest, you just said it was doubtful live, that tells me there is doubt

I am not so sure Archie. The ball was shown to be hitting bang on the centre of off stump, not just edging past it. Secondly the ball had pitched outside the off stumop and moved further in towards the batsman's pads hitting it in line.

The umpire tends to , subconsciously 'track' the ball, from the time it first appears in his vision, very much like the batsman and the keeper do. This does give him an idea of where the ball is heading. It also, sometimes, leads to faulty decisions, if the ball does something completely unexpected at the very last minute. If he had been tracking that ball and had noticed that movement (against the normal turn of the off break) making it a doosra (or at least a straighter one going in with the lie of delivery, eh would have formed a mental image of it hitting the off stump.

I hope you get my point.

Suppose it had been an off break instead and had landed on the off stump (instead of outside as it actually did) and then turned just enough to straighten to go on towards the off stump, the umpire would be in a bigger doubt since he may have noticed the away movement. In this case he was more likely to give the batsman the benefit although the tracker may have shown even that delivery hitting in exactly the same spot as this one actually was.

I hope I am clearer than I think I am

 

[Uppercut]

I am not so sure Archie. The ball was shown to be hitting bang on the centre of off stump, not just edging past it. Secondly the ball had pitched outside the off stumop and moved further in towards the batsman's pads hitting it in line.

The umpire tends to , subconsciously 'track' the ball, from the time it first appears in his vision, very much like the batsman and the keeper do. This does give him an idea of where the ball is heading. It also, sometimes, leads to faulty decisions, if the ball does something completely unexpected at the very last minute. If he had been tracking that ball and had noticed that movement (against the normal turn of the off break) making it a doosra (or at least a straighter one going in with the lie of delivery, eh would have formed a mental image of it hitting the off stump.

I hope you get my point.

Suppose it had been an off break instead and had landed on the off stump (instead of outside as it actually did) and then turned just enough to straighten to go on towards the off stump, the umpire would be in a bigger doubt since he may have noticed the away movement. In this case he was more likely to give the batsman the benefit although the tracker may have shown even that delivery hitting in exactly the same spot as this one actually was.

I hope I am clearer than I think I am

On replays, it was shown to be technically out i believe. But the fact is that Hayden had a huge stride out in front of the stumps, was playing a cross-batted shot and was hit very close to the line of off stump. The majority of the time, the umpire won't give those, so it's fair to say it was a bit unlucky for old Haydos.

Bollocks shot though.

 

[SJS]

On replays, it was shown to be technically out i believe. But the fact is that Hayden had a huge stride out in front of the stumps, was playing a cross-batted shot and was hit very close to the line of off stump. The majority of the time, the umpire won't give those, so it's fair to say it was a bit unlucky for old Haydos.

Bollocks shot though.

Hmmm. I would say. if he was given not out people would have said Harbhajan was very unlucky though they may not have abused the umpire. Thats about it. One can take it either way from there. One always has a problem differentiating between "benefit of the doubt and "doubtful benefits"

 

[Top_Cat]

Hayden was playing like a tool, though. Would have been out sooner after he was anyway.

 

[Ikki]

I don't see where the argument is. The player (Hayden) was out. Whether they usually give that out is not a concern. If they are out, then they usually should be given out. Maybe it goes against their methods, but if it is the right decision you cannot argue, really.

 

[Furball]

With what shall he captain?

If your bowlers are bowling dross, you can have the captaincy skills of Jardine, Taylor, Fleming, Ian Chappell, Richie Benaud, Vaughan and Bradman rolled into one and you won't win tests.

The fields set in the morning were pathetic.

India scored quickly because Ponting allowed them to. Usually in Tests a team scoring at 5 an over is scoring plenty of boundaries - Sehwag and Gambhir could milk singles and twos at will, and scored quickly without taking any risks. The least Ponting could have done was make them at least work for their runs.

If you set decent fields and the bowlers bowl a pile of crap, there's not a lot you can do. Ponting didn't even give his bowlers a chance.

 

[duffer]

I don't see where the argument is. The player (Hayden) was out. Whether they usually give that out is not a concern. If they are out, then they usually should be given out. Maybe it goes against their methods, but if it is the right decision you cannot argue, really.

Yeah, this. I think Hawkeye has exposed a lot of myths about the big stride in and when referrals become the norm we'll see it become even less of a get out clause for batsmen. Will probably end up bringing batting averages right back down which can only be a good thing for mine.

 

[Precambrian]

On replays, it was shown to be technically out i believe. But the fact is that Hayden had a huge stride out in front of the stumps, was playing a cross-batted shot and was hit very close to the line of off stump. The majority of the time, the umpire won't give those, so it's fair to say it was a bit unlucky for old Haydos.

Bollocks shot though.

That huge stride might have saved him had he been batting in bouncy pitches like in Australia. But in India, having a huge stride doensnt help you a lot, since the bounce is generally not more than 3/4th of the stumps. So, considering the conditions, there should be no doubt as to the decision. Hawkeye showed it as plumb also.

I don't see where the argument is. The player (Hayden) was out. Whether they usually give that out is not a concern. If they are out, then they usually should be given out. Maybe it goes against their methods, but if it is the right decision you cannot argue, really.

AWTA.

 

[SJS]

Yeah, this. I think Hawkeye has exposed a lot of myths about the big stride in and when referrals become the norm we'll see it become even less of a get out clause for batsmen. Will probably end up bringing batting averages right back down which can only be a good thing for mine.

I agree. Umpires are much more easily giving front foot leg before decisions today than they did earlier. The Indians have a bigger issue with that as shown by the referral system that they hated in Sri Lanka.

Actually, it can do a lot of good for the game since it will finally force many players to play more with the bat and less to try and offer the pad while keeping the bat in close vicinity to make it look as if they are offering a stroke. (Doesn't apply to the Hayden decision I know) Indians have got more used to being given not out off front foot long strides and this was badly exposed in Sri Lanka. If the referral system continues, they will have to change the way they bat and that can only be good for the game and for Indian batsmen.

 

[archie mac]

On replays, it was shown to be technically out i believe. But the fact is that Hayden had a huge stride out in front of the stumps, was playing a cross-batted shot and was hit very close to the line of off stump. The majority of the time, the umpire won't give those, so it's fair to say it was a bit unlucky for old Haydos.

Bollocks shot though.

I think on replay it was out, but I tend to go with what I think live, and lets face it that is what the umpire has to do, and I thought there was no way they would give that as out.

Not that I am saying it will cost the Aussies the match, but it did lead to a collapse

 

[Precambrian]

I agree. Umpires are much more easily giving front foot leg before decisions today than they did earlier. The Indians have a bigger issue with that as shown by the referral system that they hated in Sri Lanka.

Actually, it can do a lot of good for the game since it will finally force many players to play more with the bat and less to try and offer the pad while keeping the bat in close vicinity to make it look as if they are offering a stroke. (Doesn't apply to the Hayden decision I know) Indians have got more used to being given not out off front foot long strides and this was badly exposed in Sri Lanka. If the referral system continues, they will have to change the way they bat and that can only be good for the game and for Indian batsmen.

Yeah, that Tendulkar's dismissal in India's second innings in the Third Test off Mendis was a good example of that. He kept on offering pad, and survived two close referrals by the Lankans, before he was done in by another one, which he referred to, but was upheld and rightly so.

 

[Burgey]

I agree. Umpires are much more easily giving front foot leg before decisions today than they did earlier. The Indians have a bigger issue with that as shown by the referral system that they hated in Sri Lanka.

Actually, it can do a lot of good for the game since it will finally force many players to play more with the bat and less to try and offer the pad while keeping the bat in close vicinity to make it look as if they are offering a stroke. (Doesn't apply to the Hayden decision I know) Indians have got more used to being given not out off front foot long strides and this was badly exposed in Sri Lanka. If the referral system continues, they will have to change the way they bat and that can only be good for the game and for Indian batsmen.

How exactly does the decision work though?

Say you're given not out on a close lbw - umpire thinks benefit of the doubt. Fielding team refers it to the 3rd umpire, who looks where it pitched and where it hit - are they able to say, for example, it's too high, or if it pitched and hit in line, do they then reverse it despite the on field umpire having the doubt about what it's going to do?

I didn't see the SL series, so I'm wondering what riding instructions the 3rd umpire gets on lbws. Do they presume that unless there's an obvious error the decision stands on something like that, or do they presume benefit of the doubt and reassess the whole thing themselves?

The Hayden dismissal might be an example to use in this instance - say he'd been given not out. Firstly, where at 1st glance it looked like it may or may not have hit him in line, would the fielding team go for a referral anyway? I mean, it's not an obvious thing like say Ganguly's stumping in the 1st innings or say Symonds at the SCG. Then if it's referred, is the umpire's starting point that the decision stands unless an obvious error so even if they think it hit in line they say "it's borderline so not out", or do they say "No, looks good enough for me, he's out?"

They need to set these parameters (if they haven't already) so everyone knows how it works. Like in the NRL over here, we have the video ref, but everyone knows the video ref is not allowed to look at whether a pass has gone forward, because of camera angles, so the decision making is taken frm them to that extent. Do they have anything like that set up?

I think referrals are great, but the ground rules on things like this need to be sorted out IMO. Anyone know if they've been set out?

 

[archie mac]

How exactly does the decision work though?

Say you're given not out on a close lbw - umpire thinks benefit of the doubt. Fielding team refers it to the 3rd umpire, who looks where it pitched and where it hit - are they able to say, for example, it's too high, or if it pitched and hit in line, do they then reverse it despite the on field umpire having the doubt about what it's going to do?

I didn't see the SL series, so I'm wondering what riding instructions the 3rd umpire gets on lbws. Do they presume that unless there's an obvious error the decision stands on something like that, or do they presume benefit of the doubt and reassess the whole thing themselves?

The Hayden dismissal might be an example to use in this instance - say he'd been given not out. Firstly, where at 1st glance it looked like it may or may not have hit him in line, would the fielding team go for a referral anyway? I mean, it's not an obvious thing like say Ganguly's stumping in the 1st innings or say Symonds at the SCG. Then if it's referred, is the umpire's starting point that the decision stands unless an obvious error so even if they think it hit in line they say "it's borderline so not out", or do they say "No, looks good enough for me, he's out?"

They need to set these parameters (if they haven't already) so everyone knows how it works. Like in the NRL over here, we have the video ref, but everyone knows the video ref is not allowed to look at whether a pass has gone forward, because of camera angles, so the decision making is taken frm them to that extent. Do they have anything like that set up?

I think referrals are great, but the ground rules on things like this need to be sorted out IMO. Anyone know if they've been set out?

A lot of the time HE as it hitting the very outside edge of the leg stump, all the commentators agreed 'the umpire could not give that out'

Will all that change?