***Official*** Australia in South Africa + South Africa in Australia 2016/17

[longtom]

I am a lurker reading along only mostly. But here I am today ...

Let us be honest. If that would have happened to SA everybody would have told us to stop whinging and get on with it. And we would have.

In balance I reckon drs makes more correct decisions than a human umpire as far as lbw is concerned. I am saying that being an umpire myself and would be happy sometimes if I would have a third umpire available. As it is, we are sometimes, and only sometimes and on very special occasions, spoiled with a 2 way radio. .

The test - well, probably one of the best I have seen since I have been converted to cricket in 1992 when India first toured SA. Awesome game with a very special young bowler who is very exciting. Most of us villagers here in Cape Town feel like that .... .

As far as the Morkel or Abbott discussion is concerned I come down on the side of Abbott. I like Morkel but I reckon he is not "in the groove" as much as Abbott is. When he is good he is really good, but when he is shyt he is really shyt. Bit of a gamble for me.

And last a big shout out to all saffer posters. Good to see you - it was lonely here in the past ...

 

[Marius]

I

Most of us villagers here in Cape Town feel like that .... .

Cape Town is a village compared to Jozi.

 

[anil1405]

I am a lurker reading along only mostly. But here I am today ...

And last a big shout out to all saffer posters. Good to see you - it was lonely here in the past ...

Can the other South African lurkers here please stand up.

 

[longtom]

Fair enough Marius. However, where would you rather be ....

 

[CapeTown Guy]

I also used to lurk predominantly.

 

[StephenZA]

Cape Town is a village compared to Jozi.

Try PE....

 

[SeamUp]

We certainly all coming out the wood works aren't we.

 

[Burgey]

Fair enough.. But I am sure Dar would say he was certain it was hitting the stumps.

Nah look, I've got zero problem with that being given on review, but Dar's had a guess there, without any doubt. The bloke has been umpiring a decade and if he'd been solidly giving them out all long, you'd say he was sure. He's had a guess. Simple as that. He probably watched Dharmaseena and thought if he could still be picked to umpire test matches, it won't matter what decision I give.

Seriously, if he'd given those out all along I'd think more of the decision.

 

[SeamUp]

Temba is hanging around with the bowlers now, in the bowlers circle.

 

[StephenZA]

Nah look, I've got zero problem with that being given on review, but Dar's had a guess there, without any doubt. The bloke has been umpiring a decade and if he'd been solidly giving them out all long, you'd say he was sure. He's had a guess. Simple as that. He probably watched Dharmaseena and thought if he could still be picked to umpire test matches, it won't matter what decision I give.

Seriously, if he'd given those out all along I'd think more of the decision.

I don't think he guessed, but I do think that umpires have become less "benefit of doubt to batsmen". DRS has shown that many balls that may have not been previously given LBW are actually hitting wickets, and umpires are willing to give the out decision with the belief that DRS will back them up now. Without DRS his decision would have been ridiculed (even more than now!) and umpires would have been more cautious... I like that umpires have decided that benefit of doubt is not a rule and if they think it out more than not out they are willing to give it.

The secondary question is how much is DRS trusted at this moment, by the public and players, without any proper scientific information having put out there to know the accuracy.

 

[Marius]

Temba is hanging around with the bowlers now, in the bowlers circle.

Flip, he's short.

I wonder if he grew that beard so people would stop asking him if he was Kagiso Rabada's son.

 

[StephenZA]

Just realized that the Hobart test starts 1:30am, god I`m going to be useless next week at work....

 

[kykweer.proteas]

Nah look, I've got zero problem with that being given on review, but Dar's had a guess there, without any doubt. The bloke has been umpiring a decade and if he'd been solidly giving them out all long, you'd say he was sure. He's had a guess. Simple as that. He probably watched Dharmaseena and thought if he could still be picked to umpire test matches, it won't matter what decision I give.

Seriously, if he'd given those out all along I'd think more of the decision.

But Dar is also experienced enough to have umpired on those type of pitches, and he has probably seen a few of those type of balls going on to hit the stumps, Umpires don't have to count on the same experience they started with to make decisions today.

 

[Top_Cat]

I don't think he guessed, but I do think that umpires have become less "benefit of doubt to batsmen". DRS has shown that many balls that may have not been previously given LBW are actually hitting wickets, and umpires are willing to give the out decision with the belief that DRS will back them up now. Without DRS his decision would have been ridiculed (even more than now!) and umpires would have been more cautious... I like that umpires have decided that benefit of doubt is not a rule and if they think it out more than not out they are willing to give it.

The secondary question is how much is DRS trusted at this moment, by the public and players, without any proper scientific information having put out there to know the accuracy.

This is a really good question for several reasons.

I think the players and public don't trust it but that's because they're using their eyes and experience over and above what the tracking tells them. Perhaps they have a preconceived idea of what a ball's track should look like so if it doesn't look right, they don't believe it and it's wrong.

That said, in some ways I can't blame them. Hawkeye, the company, have a nasty habit of both not releasing their data to the public and changing their modelling without telling anyone. I want to believe them when they say their modelling is accurate but we're never sure. It's hard enough to know who to believe when the same ball last summer had it maybe missing the stumps but now Hawkeye V2.45 has it clipping leg.

Me, I lean more toward trusting the track than Warne/Taylor's eyes but geez ya ain't making it easy, Hawkeye.

 

[NUFAN]

Can someone pass the update on Pattinson and Cummins?

Not sure if anyone has given you more of an update or not Harsh, but Cummins is currently playing in a Futures XI game (1 level below Sheffield Shield, if unsure). He took 1/25 from 15 overs, everyone else went for close to 3 runs per over or more.

 

[marc71178]

wouldn't say he looked dead on impact.. he was struck in line of the stumps sure but everything else is hard to comment on considering he's 3 metres down the crease. has 100+ years of precedent been ignored all of a sudden for any particular reason by this forum

But when the precedent can be proven to be wrong, why should it remain the status quo and not be overturned?

If you want to go by precedents I'll give you the one about the scoreboard being right and that says he was out.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Thats because we're slowly realizing that the 100 years of precedent might actually have been wrong. Seriously, think about it, why should a batsman be totally immune to an lbw just because he's come down the pitch? Disregard for a moment here that the ball was maybe clipping leg stump... If it had been showing hitting middle of middle on replay, would you still say he shouldn't have been given out just because he jumped down the track and because of the precedent we've set? We need to establish what it is that's actually iffy about the decision here : a) the fact that he was down the pitch b) the fact that the ball was clipping leg.

If it's a), I don't think "precedent" is a solid argument.
Of its b) you have a problem with, it's just a standard umpires call which we see every test. A marginal 50-50 call which could go either way.

A+ post

Always wondered why batsmen should get away with hitting pads if they are coming down the pitch. Basically for one reason that the ball has to travel a long way and umpires get doubt in mind that where the heck its going to go after the impact. That's why we haven't seen many decisions like this in past without technology. Now with DRS, umpires can feel comfortable raising their finger if they dont die wondering because if they are proved wrong eventually then thats fine and kudos to the batsman that they used their pads successfully. Considering giving batsmen out coming down the pitch to spinners is an absolute necessity because you cant just come down knowingly you are safe padding up or playing a poor shot. Coming down the pitch itself is an advantage to batsmen as they can easily damp the turn and is a successful ploy. If you **** it up, be prepared to head towards the dressing room.

 

[harsh.ag]

Nah look, I've got zero problem with that being given on review, but Dar's had a guess there, without any doubt. The bloke has been umpiring a decade and if he'd been solidly giving them out all long, you'd say he was sure. He's had a guess. Simple as that. He probably watched Dharmaseena and thought if he could still be picked to umpire test matches, it won't matter what decision I give.

Seriously, if he'd given those out all along I'd think more of the decision.

This is a fair point, and I think it also brings up the issue about the starting point. As Burgey says, he would think more of the decision if Dar had been doing that all along. But every all along has to start somewhere for it to be a thing. And that starting point is always going to be the most controversial point. Maybe this is the beginning of that all along.

 

[andruid]

Just realized that the Hobart test starts 1:30am, god I`m going to be useless next week at work....

Go to bed straight after closing time. Sleep from. 6 to 12:30 am give yourself time for shower and breakfast before the game starts.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Lbw law 36

travelling distance

this vital piece of information is probably the most significant when deciding an lbw decision. From where the ball pitched, in front of the batsman, to where it actually makes contact with him is known as travelling distance (indicated by arrow in the diagram). This can vary from delivery to delivery. The reason it is important is that during this distance the umpire should be able to see something of the balls path after pitching and before interception. Was this path that the ball was taking straight? Did it spin? - if so, to what degree? Did it deviate off the seam? - again, to what degree?. Any such movement or deviation helps the umpire decide on the ball’s future path. After any spin, swing or movement that was detected the ball would have carried on along that same path, but for the interception. So all the umpire has to do is envisage where that path would have taken the ball in relation to the wicket.

As can be seen from the diagram this distance can vary and the closer the ball pitches to the batsman - in other words the shorter the travelling distance the umpire sees - the harder it is for him to make a judgement as to the ball’s future path. The speed of the ball is also important. The faster the ball is travelling the quicker it will cover this distance. Put these 2 factors together and we come up with the fact that the faster the delivery the more travelling distance the umpire needs. It is the time taken to cover this distance that makes the difference. A fast delivery will take less time to cover a distance of 8 feet than a slow off break. The amount of time that the umpire has to watch the ball will dictate how accurately he can estimate its future path. The more time he has, and therefore the greater the travelling distance, the easier this prediction becomes.


playing forward

by playing forward the batsman above has her front foot some 6 - 7 feet (2 - 2.25 metres) in front of the wicket. The umpire has to monitor the path of the ball as it makes its way towards the wicket and has to try and ignore the fact that it has been interrupted on its journey. He has to try and predict whether the path it was taking would, but for the interception, have taken it onto the stumps. The fact that the ball would still have 6 - 7 feet to travel after this interruption in its journey makes it very difficult for the umpire to judge whether or not it would have hit them. This would be especially so if there had been any spin or movement off the seam for that particular delivery. Trying to envisage the path of a swinging or spinning ball over a distance of 7 feet is difficult. Add to that the fact that the umpire has to decide if it would have hit a target of 28.5” x 9” and we can see that the judgement is difficult - note that we say it is difficult but not impossible. Many a batsman has been given out playing forward or ‘on the front foot’ as it is termed and that is perfectly correct if the umpire is quite happy that, from what he has seen, the ball would have gone on to hit the wicket.

https://www.google.com.bd/url?sa=t&...1].pdf&usg=AFQjCNGAsLrfMDjGcNScsa6_1Z8u5f_7QA