*Official* West Indies In Australia

[straw man]

Just more mixed thinking from the third umpire and evidence of poor guidelines put in place for him to use.

 

[silentstriker]

Glad this system will stop unfair decisions. .

That would have retardedly stayed out even if it was the umpire who referred it....

Apparently, they are extending hawkeye margin of error to the ball not leaving heat, making a sound, or deviating when it touches the bat?

Who is the umpire in charge of reviews today, and how much is he going to be fined for this one? Is there an incompetence clause in his contract?

 

[NasserFan207]

Lol, brad haddin: 'We know we havent got a warne to take wickets on the last day, so we have to find ways you know-' Well a biast review system certainly helps.

 

[aussie]

HAAAA..could we argue now that maybe these technology is not as perfect as we thought?. Since this dismissal plus the Chanderpaul one in Adelaide where a sound was clearly heard passing the bat, but the replays shows nothing is really not good for the game.

 

[Hurricane]

Even though I wanted WI to win. The shots that the two tail enders were playing were flukey and it would have been unfair if they had won.

 

[Furball]

Admittedly I've not read the ins and outs of how the review system is supposed to work, but I have no idea how you can look at the evidence on show there and uphold the umpire's decision.

Benefit of the doubt going to the batsman + no conclusive evidence that he's hit it should = not out IMO.

 

[roseboy64]

No way did he hit that.

 

[thierry henry]

That's absolutely ridiculous. So ****** off right now.

The problem is the assumption that "everyone went up, so there must have been something".

The reality is (and I've never been 100% sure why) it is actually fairly common to see the fielding side all go up for a caught behind even though there's no noise, deflection, or anything at all. I think it's situational- e.g. in this case you've got a tight test, one wicket to get, and a bit of desperation creeping in. Also, umpires tend to get rid of tailenders at the first sign of a decent appeal.

It's also awful umpiring by Bowden imo, as there was simply nothing there, so clearly he gave the decision on the basis of a good appeal. Really poor stuff all round.

 

[NasserFan207]

HAAAA..could we argue now that maybe these technology is not as perfect as we thought?. Since this dismissal plus the Chanderpaul one in Adelaide where a sound was clearly heard passing the bat, but the replays shows nothing is really not good for the game.

The only sound was the australian appeal.

 

[Cruxdude]

I feel sad for the Windies. Well played and hope you win some soon. Regarding the review system, I believe it is fine but needs all the technology to work properly. Snicko + hot spot + hawk eye should be able to give correct decisions most of the time. Not using one or the other will result in cases where the evidence is inconclusive.

 

[Cruxdude]

Admittedly I've not read the ins and outs of how the review system is supposed to work, but I have no idea how you can look at the evidence on show there and uphold the umpire's decision.

Benefit of the doubt going to the batsman + no conclusive evidence that he's hit it should = not out IMO.

In the review system benefit of the doubt goes to the umpire. Snicko + hot spot should be pretty conclusive.

 

[Son Of Coco]

A good result for Australia, well played the Windies too it was a pleasure to watch the cricket played over the series.

Haddin annoyed me a little in his post-match interview though when Healy asked him about another batting collapse and he said "We probably took it a bit easy...but we got the result we wanted in the end".

Not the point, batting collapses cost us the result we wanted in The Ashes. They've been a problem for a little while and need to be addressed. Although I guess he can't really say, "Yeah it's a massive concern and I'm not sure how we're going to solve the problem".

 

[silentstriker]

If I was Gayle, I'd storm into the third umpire's booth and tell him exactly what I think of his competence.

 

[silentstriker]

In the review system benefit of the doubt goes to the umpire. Snicko + hot spot should be pretty conclusive.

How can you be more conclusive than no sound and no heat? I mean, hot spot can't show anything else besides a lack of a hot spot.

 

[Hurricane]

I feel sad for the Windies. Well played and hope you win some soon. Regarding the review system, I believe it is fine but needs all the technology to work properly. Snicko + hot spot + hawk eye should be able to give correct decisions most of the time. Not using one or the other will result in cases where the evidence is inconclusive.

Why is Snicko not used. I guess it is deemed unreliable.

 

[NasserFan207]

That's absolutely ridiculous. So ****** off right now.

The problem is the assumption that "everyone went up, so there must have been something".

The reality is (and I've never been 100% sure why) it is actually fairly common to see the fielding side all go up for a caught behind even though there's no noise, deflection, or anything at all. I think it's situational- e.g. in this case you've got a tight test, one wicket to get, and a bit of desperation creeping in. Also, umpires tend to get rid of tailenders at the first sign of a decent appeal.

It's also awful umpiring by Bowden imo, as there was simply nothing there, so clearly he gave the decision on the basis of a good appeal. Really poor stuff all round.

Agreed 100%,

It seems like the rules for the review system get changed every other day.

 

[Furball]

I feel sad for the Windies. Well played and hope you win some soon. Regarding the review system, I believe it is fine but needs all the technology to work properly. Snicko + hot spot + hawk eye should be able to give correct decisions most of the time. Not using one or the other will result in cases where the evidence is inconclusive.

You can use all the technology you want, as long as you get piss poor umpires implementing the system wrongly then you're still going to get bad decisions.

There was absolutely no indication from the slow motion replays, or hot spot, to say that Roach had hit that. Isn't benefit of the doubt supposed to go to the batsman?

 

[Cruxdude]

How can you be more conclusive than no sound and no heat? I mean, hot spot can't show anything else besides a lack of a hot spot.

Yeah. What you say is right. The system will evolve with time. For LBW's they have the rule that 50% of ball should hit for it to be conclusive. Maybe they should define what is conclusive for Caught behinds also.

 

[Athlai]

Surely if the decision is anything other than an LBW inconclusive evidence should always be in benefit of the batsman e.g. runouts, nicks, and catches.

 

[aussie]

The only sound was the australian appeal.

I need to see it again one more time TBF. 50% i think as poster Thierry Henry the Australian playes just went up. But 50% i think intially i did hear a noise.