*Official* West Indies In Australia

[silentstriker]

3. Why would anyone risk looking extremely foolish by referring a catch if they knew they'd hit the ball?

3.

England did that too, if you're the last wicket, and have a review available, you might as well make a bet on the off-chance the bowler over stepped and the umpire missed it.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Ego?. Chris Gayle reviewing his Brisbane first innings LBW dismissal was pretty dumb since he was plumb as ever...

Nah, in this case he referred it because he was last man in (and he might've believed he didn't hit it, and given the evidence he may have only just nicked it if at all). If it gets overturned then the Windies are still in with a chance in the match.

It's not like he referred it when he's edged to second slip. I'm pretty sure we'll see a batsman refer one that shows up as a fairly obvious nick at some stage.

 

[Furball]

Ego?. Chris Gayle reviewing his Brisbane first innings LBW dismissal was pretty dumb since he was plumb as ever...

There's a difference between reviewing an lbw in desperation, where there's plenty of factors that the batsman won't be 100% certain on. In a desperate situation any lbw is worth referring on the off chance that it's pitched outside leg/hit you outside the line/might be too high.

There's a clear difference between that and referring a catch when you know you've hit it. It's the same as refusing to walk when you know you've edged it.

 

[Top_Cat]

No way anyone can be sure he didn't hit it. The bat was all by itself (no pad, etc.), the ball went past, there was a noise (as shown on Snicko). Could have been his feet shuffling around the crease, could have been the finest of edges. The 3rd umpire has to have clear evidence it was not-out so was absolutely right to refer it back to Billy.

Want the WICB to make a big deal about this? Imagine if it had been over-turned on the hot-spot evidence and OZ lost. CA would be (rightly) apoplectic when everyone around the bat heard a noise and Snicko confirmed there was one. On the balance of probabilities, he probably hit it (just).

Was just hoping Watto didn't get the last wicket, tbh.

 

[Top_Cat]

England did that too, if you're the last wicket, and have a review available, you might as well make a bet on the off-chance the bowler over stepped and the umpire missed it.

Yes, absolutely. Even with a massive edge, you'd refer it for this reason alone.

 

[NasserFan207]

If the snicko does show a small smudge there is no way you can reverse the umpire's decision. But this should have been used to make the decision. Is snicko not being used because it takes too long to get the snicko??

Snicko is inconclusive. All it proves is that there was a noise in the vicinity, which may or may not have been bat on ball. Hotspot is the only definitive evidence, and it showed nothing.

 

[Top_Cat]

Snicko is inconclusive. All it proves is that there was a noise in the vicinity, which may or may not have been bat on ball. Hotspot is the only definitive evidence, and it showed nothing.

Dunno where you get this idea that Hotspot is definitive.

 

[aussie]

Giving a batsman out caught when he hasn't hit the ball with bat or glove is a shocker.

Yes, but as snicko showed at the end a noise was heard to an extent TBF. You remember Chanderpaul's incidents in Adelaide here?

34.5
Bollinger to Chanderpaul, no run, edged and taken! Yes? No? A loose flirt from Chanderpaul, who doesn't hop across as much this time as he feels for one just pitching back of a length outside off stump, there's a wee bit of deviation through to Haddin who takes it and sets off in celebration towards Bollinger, but there's no reaction from the umpire and so the Australians ask for the review ... and after several replays the verdict is that Chanders misses the ball. How close was that? There wasn't a noise but there was some deviation. Hotspot shows a sticker on the bat. Did the ball hit that? The decision is not out and Bollinger and Ponting are clearly not impressed. Ponting shakes his head, puts up his arms, Bollinger spits. Chanders gets back to his mark and readies himself for the next ball. Inconclusive evidence, says the third umpire.

62.3
Watson to Chanderpaul, OUT, another loose forward prod from Chanders to one pitching closer to off stump, there's a noise before Haddin collects, no reaction from the umpire and we have a review. For the second time involving Chanderpaul, several replays are reviewed and again Hotspot is inconclusive. Is it bat flipping pad? Australia don't look pleased. Second time Chanders has been involved in a caught-behind review. Ponting, who asked for the review, leads the celebrations when the outcome is OUT. Hotspot didn't show anything but the review works for the Australians this time. Chanders is gone for a fighting 62. The bowling change works and a dangerous stand is snapped. This one was far less convincing that the first appeal last session. Chanders shakes his head and walks off. Crucial breakthrough from Watson.

S Chanderpaul c †Haddin b Watson 62 (239m 151b 5x4 0x6) SR: 41.05

The first time it was just like the Roach dismissal. Given out first seemingly a noise, but hotspot showed a smudge. Reversed & given not out.

Second time same thing, this time AUS gets him out. So this maybe hotspot isn't that perfect. This is a bloody headache yo...i going & sleep rass

 

[Oscillatingmind]

Would have thought Watson would be man of the series. 8 wickets at 26, just 80 runs behind Gayle. Probably the lack of conversion cost him.

 

[Furball]

England did that too, if you're the last wicket, and have a review available, you might as well make a bet on the off-chance the bowler over stepped and the umpire missed it.

Didn't think of that. However, a batsman referring an obvious edge looks much stupider than a batsman referring an lbw.

 

[aussie]

No way anyone can be sure he didn't hit it. The bat was all by itself (no pad, etc.), the ball went past, there was a noise (as shown on Snicko). Could have been his feet shuffling around the crease, could have been the finest of edges. The 3rd umpire has to have clear evidence it was not-out so was absolutely right to refer it back to Billy.

Want the WICB to make a big deal about this? Imagine if it had been over-turned on the hot-spot evidence and OZ lost. CA would be (rightly) apoplectic when everyone around the bat heard a noise and Snicko confirmed there was one.

This is sort of my position ATM as well..

 

[NasserFan207]

Dunno where you get this idea that Hotspot is definitive.

Where do you get the idea that its not? It clearly tells you whether there's a nick. All snicko does is register a sound.

 

[Furball]

No way anyone can be sure he didn't hit it. The bat was all by itself (no pad, etc.), the ball went past, there was a noise (as shown on Snicko). Could have been his feet shuffling around the crease, could have been the finest of edges. The 3rd umpire has to have clear evidence it was not-out so was absolutely right to refer it back to Billy.

Want the WICB to make a big deal about this? Imagine if it had been over-turned on the hot-spot evidence and OZ lost. CA would be (rightly) apoplectic when everyone around the bat heard a noise and Snicko confirmed there was one.

No hotspot mark on the edge of the bat & no deviation of the seam on the slow motion replays IMO is more conclusive than snicko.

Besides, with the benefit of the doubt supposedly going in the batsmans favour, you need a lot more evidence than snicko picking up a noise in the vicinity which might have been the ball hitting the bat.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Where do you get the idea that its not? It clearly tells you whether there's a nick. All snicko does is register a sound.

Is there a margin of error with hotspot though or is it truly definitive? Does it pick up the tiniest of nicks?

 

[Top_Cat]

Where do you get the idea that its not? It clearly tells you whether there's a nick. All snicko does is register a sound.

You don't think there's any error in measuring heat from a distance on a game played in summer? Dunno what super-charged scientific equipment you've been using but in my experience, there's plenty.

 

[Nate]

We can seek out eliminating obvious errors however. Which this one was.

Pffffffffttttttttttttttttttttttttt

The Australians thought it was out, Bowden thought it was out. The replays were inconclusive either way, although leaning towards Roach being not-out.

The point is, the referrals are there so that absolute shockers can be overturned. For mine, the third ump would've said "Billy, we're not sure either way mate, what do you think?" to which it was clear Bowden thought it was out.

If there was daylight between bat and ball, or an obvious detection of bat onto pad, then fair enough. But Roach could've edged that and so the original decision stands.

 

[Burgey]

I blame Chris Broad for this decision. Obvious bias involved.

 

[NasserFan207]

You don't think there's any error in measuring heat from a distance on a game played in summer? Dunno what super-charged scientific equipment you've been using but in my experience, there's plenty.

I don't know. I havent heard any expert's criticism of hotspot yet, so I'm not certain yet I assume it picks up any nick. You can't hide heatspots. If you can provide evidence to suggest its not definitive, then fine.

 

[aussie]

Nah, in this case he referred it because he was last man in (and he might've believed he didn't hit it, and given the evidence he may have only just nicked it if at all). If it gets overturned then the Windies are still in with a chance in the match.

It's not like he referred it when he's edged to second slip. I'm pretty sure we'll see a batsman refer one that shows up as a fairly obvious nick at some stage.

There's a difference between reviewing an lbw in desperation, where there's plenty of factors that the batsman won't be 100% certain on. In a desperate situation any lbw is worth referring on the off chance that it's pitched outside leg/hit you outside the line/might be too high.

There's a clear difference between that and referring a catch when you know you've hit it. It's the same as refusing to walk when you know you've edged it.

Somebody from the dressing room should have told him to let it go. Since he clearly wasted that review - there was no evidence it was missing at all. Another player later down in the innings could have used the review for a real shocker...

 

[Cruxdude]

I blame Chris Broad for this decision. Obvious bias involved.

Do you practice being funny or is it inborn?