Hauritz and Strauss catches, Lord's Test

[Richard]

To try to restore some sanity to proceedings here, which neccessitates a separate thread from the match thread...

I realise Aussies feel hard-done-by, and in fairness they might well have been given that Strauss may quite possibly not have caught that Hughes edge. HOWEVER, there is actually no grounds on which to blame Umpiring. The Umpires acted in accordance with the rules. The rules state that the on-field Umpires are to consult in the view of the bowler's-end Umpire being unable sight whether a catch carried. If the square-leg Umpire was also unsighted, they should then ask the third-Umpire if he can tell them whether it did.

In the event of Bopara's catch to Hauritz, neither Umpire was able to see the ball. So it was right to refer it. In the case of Strauss' catch off Hughes, square-leg Umpire Doctrove had a clear view. So there was no case under the laws to refer the catch to the third-Umpire.

The Hauritz catch and the Strauss catch were not, contrary to most assumptions, the same thing. That is why they were treated differently.

Now, whether Doctrove was right to believe the ball carried to Strauss is another matter. But personally I've seen enough evidence that a pair of eyes (or a camera) a few yards away from the relevant ball and pair of hands is actually a better judge of whether it's hit the ground or not than a camera hundreds of yards away.

 

[Uppercut]

dwta

 

[vic_orthdox]

Thought that the Sky commentators (might have been Bumble) said at the time that Rudi didn't think that Hauritz caught it, but asked for the third umpire's opinion to make sure.

 

[superkingdave]

IMO both should have been referred and given not out..

However, yesterday's incident, Rudi thought it hadn't carried but wanted to check, today Doctrove thought it had carried and was confident enough not to call for a replay.

Assuming the above, would the rule be that if the replays are inconclusive the decision would be referred back to the umpire on the field, or would it just be no?

 

[Richard]

Thought that the Sky commentators (might have been Bumble) said at the time that Rudi didn't think that Hauritz caught it, but asked for the third umpire's opinion to make sure.

That's the key thing - he thought. If he'd had a full view of it then he would not have been allowed to refer, and would have been breaking the Umpiring code if he had done so.

 

[vic_orthdox]

That's the key thing - he thought. If he'd had a full view of it then he would not have been allowed to refer, and would have been breaking the Umpiring code if he had done so.

Thinking that he didn't catch it doesn't mean that he didn't have a full view.

 

[zaremba]

IMO both should have been referred and given not out..

However, yesterday's incident, Rudi thought it hadn't carried but wanted to check, today Doctrove thought it had carried and was confident enough not to call for a replay.

Assuming the above, would the rule be that if the replays are inconclusive the decision would be referred back to the umpire on the field, or would it just be no?

No for two reasons: first because the on-field umpire admitted to uncertainty because he referred it; and second because the replays were inconclusive.

I'm tempted by the idea that 3rd Umpires should make their decisions on the balance of probabilities (eg "is it likelier than not that the ball carried?") rather than beyond reasonable doubt (eg "am I sure that the ball carried?"). Don't think it will happen though.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

To try to restore some sanity to proceedings here, which neccessitates a separate thread from the match thread...

I realise Aussies feel hard-done-by, and in fairness they might well have been given that Strauss may quite possibly not have caught that Hughes edge. HOWEVER, there is actually no grounds on which to blame Umpiring. The Umpires acted in accordance with the rules. The rules state that the on-field Umpires are to consult in the view of the bowler's-end Umpire being unable sight whether a catch carried. If the square-leg Umpire was also unsighted, they should then ask the third-Umpire if he can tell them whether it did.

In the event of Bopara's catch to Hauritz, neither Umpire was able to see the ball. So it was right to refer it. In the case of Strauss' catch off Hughes, square-leg Umpire Doctrove had a clear view. So there was no case under the laws to refer the catch to the third-Umpire.

The Hauritz catch and the Strauss catch were not, contrary to most assumptions, the same thing. That is why they were treated differently.

Now, whether Doctrove was right to believe the ball carried to Strauss is another matter. But personally I've seen enough evidence that a pair of eyes (or a camera) a few yards away from the relevant ball and pair of hands is actually a better judge of whether it's hit the ground or not than a camera hundreds of yards away.

I disagree.

 

[Richard]

Thinking that he didn't catch it doesn't mean that he didn't have a full view.

If he had a full view, he had no case to refer upstairs. I imagine he had a partial view, and felt he did not have enough of one to be fully sure either way.

However much Australians may hate on Rudi, I doubt even they'd accuse him of not knowing the rulebook.

 

[Redbacks]

whatever floats your boat

 

[Richard]

 

[duffer]

I put it in the match thread but:

 

[four_or_six]

Bumble on twitter:

BumbleCricket: the catch....hughes [middlesex] to Straiss [middlesex], "did you catch that?" Strauss, "yes"...should be end of story.

It's such a shame that this isn't the way they can go with all these catches, since technology wise that's the best we've got.

 

[four_or_six]

I put it in the match thread but:

The cricket ball looks a very weird shape though, I don't think the camera angles are that helpful.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Thought that the Sky commentators (might have been Bumble) said at the time that Rudi didn't think that Hauritz caught it, but asked for the third umpire's opinion to make sure.

Yeah, this. I can't really buy that Rudi "wasn't sure", but thought Hauritz didn't catch it, while Doctrove was totally certain that Strauss did. There's just no way you could be totally sure about something like that, and there was already precedent in the match to refer a close catch upstairs for clarification, so the correct call was to do it again.

Alternatively, never do it in the first place, and just go off your initial feeling. If Rudi gave Bopara not out without referring it and then Hughes was given out the next day without a referral, that would be fine, albeit incorrect in at least Hughes' case.

One or the other.

 

[Richard]

Bumble on twitter:



It's such a shame that this isn't the way they can go with all these catches, since technology wise that's the best we've got.

Batsmen these days mostly don't care about whether they're playing the game right, they only care about themselves and their team. Both should come second to it.

 

[zaremba]

I put it in the match thread but:

Not a very helpful picture, though, for both of the reasons I gave in the match thread.

 

[zaremba]

I've seen this a number of times now. Each time I see it at full speed, it looks more and more like a clean catch. And even on the super slo-mo it looks more out each time I see it. However I accept that if it had been referred it would, and should, have been given not out because the replays on which the 3rd umpire is forced to rely are equivocal.

For all that people are disagreeing with Richard on this, the points he's making are sound. (1) the umpires shouldn't and mustn't refer unless they are both unsighted; and (2) viewing the catch live (and in 3D) may well allow for a more accurate appraisal than a long-lens 2D image.

TBH not sure I'd take quite the same view if this were an Australian catching a Pom...

In any event all this will be academic, because Australia will win this Test and it will go down as the greatest run chase in history, putting the bitching about the umpiring decisions into the shade.

 

[GIMH]

Not a very helpful picture, though, for both of the reasons I gave in the match thread.

ah, would like to read this post, might try and find it...

I've seen this a number of times now. Each time I see it at full speed, it looks more and more like a clean catch. And even on the super slo-mo it looks more out each time I see it. However I accept that if it had been referred it would, and should, have been given not out because the replays on which the 3rd umpire is forced to rely are equivocal.

For all that people are disagreeing with Richard on this, the points he's making are sound. (1) the umpires shouldn't and mustn't refer unless they are both unsighted; and (2) viewing the catch live (and in 3D) may well allow for a more accurate appraisal than a long-lens 2D image.

TBH not sure I'd take quite the same view if this were an Australian catching a Pom...

In any event all this will be academic, because Australia will win this Test and it will go down as the greatest run chase in history, putting the bitching about the umpiring decisions into the shade.

Yeah, for me, live it looks stone dead, and the 2d camera is unreliable. But I can understand why people think it shold have been n/o. He'd have got out next ball anyway tbh.

 

[zaremba]

ah, would like to read this post, might try and find it...

Genuinely not worth the effort.

In brief:

(1) Such pictures very often (indeed almost invariably) give the illusion that a legitimate catch has been grounded;
(2) The lateral stretching of this particular picture only heightens that illusion.