*Official* England in West Indies

[Stapel]

Do we know what happened exactly? What did Dar ask Harper? What did Harper answer? What did he tell him, without being asked something? Which reviews did he have?

I would like to know the precise path that was used to come to the C'paul decision.

 

[shivfan]

Do we know what happened exactly? What did Dar ask Harper? What did Harper answer? What did he tell him, without being asked something? Which reviews did he have?

I would like to know the precise path that was used to come to the C'paul decision.

Clearly, Harper is incompetent when it comes to using TV replays....

Either that, or he needs new glasses.

Okay, I can live with the decisions to give out Smith and Gayle. Those were close decisions, and maybe the ball was going on to hit the stumps. Obviously, the benefit of the doubt doesn't go to the batsman any more....

But the decision to uphold the lbw against Chanderpaul was criminal!

And then the decision to give Nash out was also wrong....

It makes you wonder how many more wickets Harper is going to take today. COuld he get a five-fer?

If so, Harper has to be in the contention for the man-of-the-match award....

 

[Uppercut]

Just heard today, Harper didn't make the decision on Nash. He didn't "overrule" Dar. He informed Dar on what the replays showed and Dar decided to change his decision. Looks like Harper did tell him it pitched in line and he decided to give him out based on that.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Just heard today, Harper didn't make the decision on Nash. He didn't "overrule" Dar. He informed Dar on what the replays showed and Dar decided to change his decision. Looks like Harper did tell him it pitched in line and he decided to give him out based on that.

The third umpire never over rules anything, because he can't. He gives advice and the final decision is down to the on-field umpire.

 

[Uppercut]

Yep, that's what I meant. The thoughts on here were that Harper had overruled Dar.

 

[Neil Pickup]

In short: Chanderpaul originally given out. No points of fact that ball will undeniably be going over the stumps. Harper says "inconclusive" so Tiffin does not alter the decision.

Nash given not out. England refer it. Dar asks "did it hit the bat?" and "was it missing leg?. Harper answers no. Dar does not ask about height... so his two concerns were alleviated and the decision was reversed to out. Harper did not and could not mention height.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It's not entirely dissimilar to the old rule on sending catches to the Third Umpire. On the Sri Lanka tour in the early 2000's Russell Arnold was given out caught by Nassar Hussein by the Third Umpire even though the replays clearly showed he hadn't hit it. The Third Umpire was prevented from giving the correct Not Out decision because he was only allowed to judge whether or not the ball had carried.

 

[G.I.Joe]

In short: Chanderpaul originally given out. No points of fact that ball will undeniably be going over the stumps. Harper says "inconclusive" so Tiffin does not alter the decision.

Nash given not out. England refer it. Dar asks "did it hit the bat?" and "was it missing leg?. Harper answers no. Dar does not ask about height... so his two concerns were alleviated and the decision was reversed to not out. Harper did not and could not mention height.

Seems like the ICC want the system to fail.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Well they still check for the no-ball each time don't they?

Anyway it should be pretty simple. You need 3 separate angle replays in most situations, two from side-on for height and the no-ball and one from front-on to judge whether he hit it, whether it hit in line, whether it pitched outside leg and where the ball was going onto in its horizontal component. If it's close you might need slow-mos or whatever for the front-on.

It seems to me they use about 20 replays and they skip the square leg shot.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Nash given not out. England refer it. Dar asks "did it hit the bat?" and "was it missing leg?. Harper answers no. Dar does not ask about height... so his two concerns were alleviated and the decision was reversed to out. Harper did not and could not mention height.

I think Hurst mentioned that Harper did tell Dar about the height actually.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I think Hurst mentioned that Harper did tell Dar about the height actually.

Or, "Harper said height was inconclusive on replays but Dar was happy in real time it would have hit".

I don't think anyone would have been too aghast with either an out or a not-out in real time, pre-referral, but the manner of the decision is what grates.

 

[Richard]

Well anyway, let's hope England can knock-over these last 5 wickets sharpish.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Well anyway, let's hope England can knock-over these last 5 wickets sharpish.

What was Anderson doing there?

 

[Richard]

You know, that run reminds me unbelievably of one in a ODI between these teams at The Riverside in 2000. Lara and Gayle batting, Gayle running for a second toward the bowler's end and being far too late to respond to Lara's call, Stewart took the throw from third-man (which is the same position as fine-leg to a RHB), could conceivably have run Lara out but went for the end where the man who'd taken-off way too late was running to, and in the end Gayle got in despite the late take-off. In both cases, the first and second throw could've been better.

Either way, there should've been a run-out there.

 

[TT Boy]

All this game needs is a century from Ramdin and it will be as bad and arguably even worse then that game where Gayle got 300.

At least that game had the laugh of seeing Bouch get a wicket and AB bowl ‘sharp’ inswingers. This has been rank ****e.

 

[Richard]

Let's hope, therefore, that the last couple of days might enliven.

Don't hold your breath too much though.

 

[Richard]

My first thought there was that that was hitting. WTF didn't they appeal properly?

 

[TT Boy]

Let's hope, therefore, that the last couple of days might enliven.

Don't hold your breath too much though.

Good job the South African game is still on for another two hours then...

 

[Neil Pickup]

My first thought there was that that was hitting. WTF didn't they appeal properly?

With respect to this and Gower/Botham's dismissal of the ball AND Hawkeye...

Gower, watch the ball. Hawkeye is showing EXACTLY what the ball is doing off the pitch. It has straightened appreciably off the seam, which is why Ramdin missed it. His head has taken him way out of line and you can see leg stump behind him when ball strikes him on the front of the bad. It is straightening to hit the base of leg stump, and these fractional degrees of movement over a tiny distance make a huge impact. Getting your bearing wrong by 5 degrees will get you lost by kilometres in the mountains.

 

[Richard]

Good job the South African game is still on for another two hours then...

I'd probably be watching that (not that I've massive hope for anything terribly interesting there either), except our "red button" is currently inactive. So thus it's why Sky Sports deem more front-line, or nothing.