• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

**Official Comm Bank Series - Aus, Ind & SL ODI's***

Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
Hurricane said:
Is worth jetsetting them around IMHO just to remove the perception of possible bias. The elite umpires have been complaining about the amount of travel however.
Click to expand...
If I had a family and had to fly all over the world for the majority of the year, I would too.
 
Spikey

Spikey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
i'm surprise by the lack of talk about Wade. That's the exact reason why the law was changed. To cut **** like that out. I'm shocked there wasn't an appeal
 
Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Hurricane said:
They (the commentators) said it was the 3rd umpire but you could see Taufel giving his opinion and shaking his head and talking to Bowden so it was unclear how the decision was finally reached.

I don't agree with non neutral umpires anyway so I have a pre-existing bias to my posts.
Click to expand...
Ah I see, I have the radio commentary on, not the tv. They only just now made reference to Taufel appearing uninterested in the appeal. I gather it went upstairs then, and they had a chat among the three?
 
Spikey

Spikey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
pup11 said:
The Dussey thing was surely out according to the new rules but the rule is pretty stupid in the first place and just opens up a grey area in the game, this incident was a case of Duss blocking a ball that was going to hit him on the chops had he just run through.
Click to expand...
Grey area? It's ****ing simple. DON'T MAKE CONTACT WITH THE BALL ON PURPOSE.
 
Viscount Tom

Viscount Tom

International Debutant
pup11 said:
The Dussey thing was surely out according to the new rules but the rule is pretty stupid in the first place and just opens up a grey area in the game, this incident was a case of Duss blocking a ball that was going to hit him on the chops had he just run through.
Click to expand...
The only way that ball was going to hit him in the chops was if he lost his legs at the knees in that instant

@DingDong: Ah right just seemed to be more directed at me than in general mah bad.

@Hurricane: Then we need to have a bigger pool of elite umpires to lighten the load not all neutral umpires for every match. Perception of bias shouldn't matter.
 
G

greg

International Debutant
Taufel seems to have changed his interpretation of the laws...

Inzamam Obstructing the field - YouTube

Commentators are muddying the issue talking about the "new law". What Hussey did has always been out under the laws. Nothing to do with the "changing direction" addition.
 
Last edited:
Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
HeathDavisSpeed said:
Yep - not out handled the ball. However, the Obstructing the Field Law doesn't have an 'avoiding injury' exclusion and is equally, if not more so given the substance of the appeal, relevant.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I haven't looked at the rules, just going by what they said on the radio, so I may be mistaken. As I understand it, handling the ball excludes if the batsman is trying to protect himself, and obstruction excludes a hand which is off the bat?

All seems pretty murky ruling for what seemed a clear cut incident.
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
Burgey said:
Yeah, I haven't looked at the rules, just going by what they said on the radio, so I may be mistaken. As I understand it, handling the ball excludes if the batsman is trying to protect himself, and obstruction excludes a hand which is off the bat?

All seems pretty murky ruling for what seemed a clear cut incident.
Click to expand...
That's crazy if so.
 
Spikey

Spikey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Law 33 (Handled the ball)

Out Handled the ball
(a) Either batsman is out Handled the ball if he wilfully touches the ball while in play with a hand or hands not holding the bat unless he does so with the consent of a fielder.
(b) Either batsman is out under this Law if, while the ball is in play, and without the consent of a fielder, he uses his hand or hands not holding the bat to return the ball to any fielder

2. Not out Handled the ball
Notwithstanding 1(a) above, a batsman will not be out under this Law if he handles the ball to avoid injury.


There's no way that was injuring him imo. It might have isn't good enough. That's there for that absurd "what if he gets hit in the head" scenario someone threw up
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top