*Official* England in West Indies

[Manee]

If it was that clear, why did it take the 3rd umpire that long to make the call. It seems that you're the only person that saw this as well, and you're the only person claiming it to be conclusive evidence. From what I saw (and what 99% of people saw), there was no conclusive evidence to reverse the decision, it's all guess work, so therefore the original decision should have stood.

It was a close call, so a lot of time was taken. Do you understand the scrutiny that umpires are under these days? A referral decision which turned out wrong would have been catastrophic to the system and to the reputation of the umpires, especially with Bob and his enabler Coville in the analyst box.

It is Harper's call. He presumably did not see a deviation of the ball, nor did the third umpire. The sound is after the ball passsed the bat and so there is no evidence of an edge. That is conclusive to me. Moreover, Adarsh on PC clearly agrees with my assessment of the side on view, as did Jigga988 and roseboy64.

 

[sammy2]

Good century by chanderpaul - Been the best batsman in the world over the last three years. Better than all these lil players who only have present day hype.

Hinds not ready for test cricket.

 

[Manee]

West Indies appeared to have reached the point of no return here, 64 runs behind, three/four wickets left and 138 (48+90) overs remaining.

 

[pskov]

I didnt' see the side on angle, and from the angles I saw there was definitely no conclusive evidence. It appears the entire Sky Commentary team missed this conclusive evidence as well. I don't think there was enough to definitely say the decision was wrong. The Hinds lbw shout was definitely out though, just awful umpiring all round.

Conclusive evidence is not the barometer, the third umpire is asked whether he has 'a high degree of confidence' that the decision was incorrect. Obviously Aleem Dar had a high degree of confidence that Chanderpaul did not edge it.

 

[ozone]

Conclusive evidence is not the barometer, the third umpire is asked whether he has 'a high degree of confidence' that the decision was incorrect. Obviously Aleem Dar had a high degree of confidence that Chanderpaul did not edge it.

I thought the third umpire was asked if there was conclusive evidence?

 

[pskov]

Nope, it is a high degree of confidence. Dave Richardson said so himself on the TMS lunchbreak yesterday when being interviewed by Aggers on this very issue. Conclusive evidence is something that he Sky commentary team seem to have made up themselves.

 

[roseboy64]

I thought the third umpire was asked if there was conclusive evidence?

Third umpire is told by the on field umpire what he's seen and asks if there's evidence he's right.

 

[Richard]

I thought the third umpire was asked if there was conclusive evidence?

Apparently not.

This whole referrals thing is utter crap. Sooner it's scrapped the better.

 

[Manee]

Nope, it is a high degree of confidence. Dave Richardson said so himself on the TMS lunchbreak yesterday when being interviewed by Aggers on this very issue. Conclusive evidence is something that he Sky commentary team seem to have made up themselves.

This is true and apologies if my posts gloss over this, the laws were brought up by the SkySports in England after a day's play and 'high degree of confidence' was certainly the term used.

 

[Langeveldt]

Apparently not.

This whole referrals thing is utter crap. Sooner it's scrapped the better.

It's not, it's just run by a bunch of eejits of note

 

[ozone]

Nope, it is a high degree of confidence. Dave Richardson said so himself on the TMS lunchbreak yesterday when being interviewed by Aggers on this very issue. Conclusive evidence is something that he Sky commentary team seem to have made up themselves.

They didn't make it up, its what the Match Referee said to Nasser the evening he layed into him after all the ****e decisions against the WI.

I don't think scrapping the referrals is the way to go, they just need to be changed. For example, letting the umpires check with the third umpire rather than the players referring it themselves. However, I would rather they were scrapped than watch them continue in there current state.

 

[Manee]

Is anyone else fascinated with the 'battle' going on between Swann and Monty, each working hard to keep their place and bowling out of their respective shoes in the process, especially Monty who has improved massively since the last time we saw him.

 

[Richard]

It's not, it's just run by a bunch of eejits of note

How on Earth is it not utter crap? There's precisely no good reason for the whole stupid thing, other than some bizarre-minded people who are more interested in stripping authority from Umpires than in getting right decisions.

The system cannot possibly ever do anything other than baffle audiences. AND THAT IS COMPLETELY REGARDLESS OF WHO IS RUNNING IT!!!!!!!

 

[Richard]

I don't think scrapping the referrals is the way to go, they just need to be changed. For example, letting the umpires check with the third umpire rather than the players referring it themselves. However, I would rather they were scrapped than watch them continue in there current state.

Once they're run by Umpires, they're not referrals - they're just communication\consultation between Umpires on-field and in front of TV screen on the matter of decisions.

They're only referrals once the players are responsible for them. And there's just so many reasons why this part of the thing should be scrapped.

I think we need a little while of going back to the game how everyone is used to it before we try again with a system that actually makes sense.

 

[ozone]

How on Earth is it not utter crap? There's precisely no good reason for the whole stupid thing, other than some bizarre-minded people who are more interested in stripping authority from Umpires than in getting right decisions.

The system cannot possibly ever do anything other than baffle audiences. AND THAT IS COMPLETELY REGARDLESS OF WHO IS RUNNING IT!!!!!!!

System does both TBH.

 

[sammy2]

whats beefy doing here ?

 

[Richard]

System does both TBH.

There's not much evidence that it has improved the accuracy of decision-making. However, the fiercest advocates of a system where the players are responsible for referrals seem to me to be more interested in authority than the accuracy of decisions. As I said.

And I hope the whole thing is scrapped so such people get the disappointment they deserve.

 

[Manee]

Brilliance from cricinfo:

"Very interesting to see that the fourth-highest run-getter (other than three centuries) for the WI are extras," notes Narinder. "I wonder how Prior takes that ..." He probably doesn't ... that's really the problem.

 

[Richard]

The really pressing question now is can Broad and Anderson join Amjad Khan, MSP and Swann on centuries?

 

[Uppercut]

Brilliance from cricinfo:

"Very interesting to see that the fourth-highest run-getter (other than three centuries) for the WI are extras," notes Narinder. "I wonder how Prior takes that ..." He probably doesn't ... that's really the problem.

Love it.