The last Ashes without referrals – a running tally of umpiring errors

[Richard]

The thought did indeed cross my mind but I have to say on balance I doubt it.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Well, Rudi did indeed make a mistake there by giving Ponting caught, but the only relevant mistake would have been to give him n\o. He was out if he hit it, out if he didn't hit it. No alteration to the tally here.

Just goes to show how pointless it is arguing about umpiring errors really. It was a poor umpiring decision because he clearly didn't hit it and he was given out caught, but it's justified because Hawkeye says it was out LBW anyway? It's a totally different matter, and personally I'd say there's a fair chance it would have been given not out LBW since it wasn't too far off missing leg, and those sorts of decisions are always pretty tough to give. I did think it was gone live though.

Assuming it was given not out on the LBW appeal, is it a bad umpiring decision just because Hawkeye says it would have hit leg? The umpire is meant to be certain it won't miss after all, and it's entirely possible that something that would have hit leg could appear unclear to the umpire.

 

[Richard]

As far as the lbw decision was concerned, giving it n\o, let's say the ball didn't carry to Strauss, would've been to an extent fair enough, but still wrong. The ball was, HawkEye or no HawkEye, for my mind pretty clearly going on to hit the stumps. Giving Ponting out lbw would've been the right decision; giving him caught was a better alternative than giving him n\o.

As long as it was out, there was no error that has counted in favour of one side and against the other.

 

[Pigeon]

Just goes to show how pointless it is arguing about umpiring errors really. It was a poor umpiring decision because he clearly didn't hit it and he was given out caught, but it's justified because Hawkeye says it was out LBW anyway? It's a totally different matter, and personally I'd say there's a fair chance it would have been given not out LBW since it wasn't too far off missing leg, and those sorts of decisions are always pretty tough to give. I did think it was gone live though.

Assuming it was given not out on the LBW appeal, is it a bad umpiring decision just because Hawkeye says it would have hit leg? The umpire is meant to be certain it won't miss after all, and it's entirely possible that something that would have hit leg could appear unclear to the umpire.

Funny incident. Had there been TV review for this series, undoubtedly Ponting would have gone for a referral, to be given not out as it was missing his bat, only to be followed by Strauss going for the referral for the LBW to be upheld.

 

[Redbacks]

This should be a good lesson for those in control of introducing referrals again. Previously we would probably be put in the stupid situation where if Ponting challenged the caught decision Rudi can only ask if he hit it, therefore given not out. This scenario would do the game no justice and I think most cricket fans would like it if the LBW could be checked also. Otherwise we say, the umpire made an error of judgement but we will throw away the gained information, thus not make a correct decision given the known facts.

 

[Richard]

Funny incident. Had there been TV review for this series, undoubtedly Ponting would have gone for a referral, to be given not out as it was missing his bat, only to be followed by Strauss going for the referral for the LBW to be upheld.

There's no way that would've been overturned from being given out for lbw to n\o for lbw. Ditto, if it'd been given out there's no way it would've been overturned to n\o. The referral system is pretty hopeless for lbws, and not great for other things.

 

[Redbacks]

Amazingly on this forum we can get a general consensus of how we would like it to be system to be implemented, simple things that could improve it. The thoughts aren't particularly all that much past common sense either.

 

[Richard]

Well, there's an error that's cost Australia a wicket, without being a bad out decision as such - obvious no-ball, not called, from Flintoff that dismisses Katich.

The referral system would obviously not have changed that, just needs some sort of proper no-ball-calling mechanism.

So that's 1-1 on the "wickets lost due to errors" score.

 

[NUFAN]

P Hughes given out caught by Strauss.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, again while you can't actually call that an "Umpiring error" as such, there's certainly doubt as to whether the ball carried.

Mind, that was the one sort of inclarity where for once the Umpires have a better view than the camera, so it may or may not have been right.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

What i think will make Ponting more angry isnt the fact it didnt carry so much as they chose not to goto the 3rd Umpire when they did for Bopara yesterday.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Well, there's an error that's cost Australia a wicket, without being a bad out decision as such - obvious no-ball, not called, from Flintoff that dismisses Katich.

The referral system would obviously not have changed that, just needs some sort of proper no-ball-calling mechanism.

So that's 1-1 on the "wickets lost due to errors" score.

Isn't the first thing that is checked for all referrals is whether or not it was a legal ball?

 

[superkingdave]

Isn't the first thing that is checked for all referrals is whether or not it was a legal ball?

Yah, but the point is you wouldn't refer a clearly caught catch in case it was a no ball. If referrals had been in place, that wicket wouldn't have been referred, so the no ball would not have been spotted

 

[andyc]

Isn't the first thing that is checked for all referrals is whether or not it was a legal ball?

I think he means that it wouldn't have been referred by either of the batsmen. Edit: As above.

I'm just thinking out loud here, but because of incidents like this, would it be plausible to simply check each dismissal for no-balls? Referrals clearly aren't going to have much of an impact on them, and it only takes a second or two for it to be checked by the third umpire.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Ah yeah, my bad.

 

[zaremba]

Hussey very lucky to survive Andersons' lbw shout with Australia 79-3 - pad first - looked stone dead, Hawkeye had it hitting the top of off stump

 

[vic_orthdox]

Yeah, lucky to get away with it. Can understand that there would have been a fair bit of doubt to deal with, but in the end it was pretty out.

 

[superkingdave]

I'm just thinking out loud here, but because of incidents like this, would it be plausible to simply check each dismissal for no-balls? Referrals clearly aren't going to have much of an impact on them, and it only takes a second or two for it to be checked by the third umpire.

Yeah was thinking they could have some kind of system similar to cyclops in tennis..could really do it for every ball without too much delay...would be decided by the time the bowler got to the end of his mark

 

[Richard]

Hussey very lucky to survive Andersons' lbw shout with Australia 79-3 - pad first - looked stone dead, Hawkeye had it hitting the top of off stump

Had it clipping the outside of the top of off TBH - n\o fair enough there for mine.

 

[Richard]

Yeah was thinking they could have some kind of system similar to cyclops in tennis..could really do it for every ball without too much delay...would be decided by the time the bowler got to the end of his mark

Have thought they should have a machine for no-balls that does the same job as the Cyclops does in tennis for donkey's years... at risk of broken-record.jpg's, it should've been the very first technological Umpiring aid brought in.